*

Stephen D. Chamberlain *
In the
Appellant, *
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
v. *
No. 2594
Judith C. Chamberlain *
September Term, 2014
Appellee. *

*
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF AUGUST 24, 2016 OPINION

#2594 SEPTEMBER TERM 2014

I, Stephen D. Chamberlain, pro se litigant, respectfully request reconsideration of

4 decisions made by this Court in its opinion filed on August 24, 2016 pursuant to Md.

Rule 8-605(a). The opinion is in material conflict with previous reported opinions by this

Court and superior courts, has overlooked material facts which led to incorrect legal

conclusions, and appears to have relied upon the misapprehension of numerous facts to

justify findings that are contrary to law.

The specific issues for reconsideration are as follows: (1) whether a Maryland

court has the authority to use constructive civil contempt as a tool to enforce a consent

agreement that could not have been ordered by the court absent an agreement by the

1
parties; (2) whether the lower court had jurisdiction to proceed with enforcement action

when the legality of the consent order was under appeal; (3) whether a person found in

contempt has the right to provide evidence of a present inability to meet the purge set by

the court; and (4) whether the evidence and the facts of this case mandated recusal by the

trial judge. Undisputed evidence, legal argument and case law citations supporting each

argument have previously been provided in briefs filed with this Court, and additional

clarity is provided in the Memorandum of Fact and Law attached as Exhibit A below.

Reconsideration is required for the following reasons:

1. The August 24, 2016 opinion of this Court includes misstatements of fact

that cannot be reconciled with the evidence and the record.

2. The opinion relies upon false premises derived from mischaracterized facts

to justify its findings and arrive at erroneous conclusions.

3. The opinion does not counter, or even mention, the substantial amount of

evidence and legal argument presented in the appellants briefs. Rather it refutes the only

sliver of legal argument it can find which may be debatable, cherry-picks facts from the

record below and spins them to support a false narrative, citing general case law authority

that has no relevance to the circumstances of this case.

4. This court provided a clear line of demarcation between consent orders over

which a court can use its contempt powers and those over which it cannot. The unrefuted

and incontrovertible evidence demonstrates this consent order falls within the scope of

consent orders which cannot be enforced by the courts contempt powers. As such, the

2
doctrine of stare decisis requires reversal of this Courts affirmation of the lower courts

use of its contempt powers in this case.

5. Notwithstanding the reasoning above, exclusive jurisdiction over the

validity and lawfulness of the consent order in question rested with this Court. The lower

court had been divested of jurisdiction once an appeal was taken and had no authority to

take enforcement action against the appellant while the legality of the consent order was

pending appeal. The lower courts contempt action was taken without jurisdiction and

void by law. Issues of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. This Court has neglected to

address this fact.

6. Mr. Chamberlain had a right to present evidence demonstrating his present

inability to meet the purge amount set by the circuit court. Evidence in the record,

highlighted in appellants opening and reply briefs, prove this right was denied.

Affirmation of the lower courts failure to review available financial documents to ensure

a present ability to meet a purge cannot be reconciled with law, due process, nor any

semblance of justice. That the lower court, and this Court, got it wrong is a gross

understatement. Because the lower court failed to ensure the appellant had the present

ability to pay and then denied the requested stay of judgment pending appeal, and this

Courts subsequent denial of a motion to stay the lower court judgment as well as a

motion to reconsider that denial, Mr. Chamberlain was forced into bankruptcy. On July 8,

2016, a federal bankruptcy court determined the appellants financial resources were

insufficient to pay the judgment handed down by the circuit court and confirmed a

3
Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan spreading the payment over 5 years.1 The circuit courts

failure to ensure the appellant had the present financial resources to meet the purge

amount it set is an incontrovertible fact. It is one thing to be forced into bankruptcy

because judicial error. It is quite another to be wrongly labeled a contemnor for

challenging the dignity of the court and be marked with a scarlet C throughout life.

7. Lastly, it appears the opinion completely ignored the substantial evidence proving

the circumstances of this case required recusal. This Courts opinion that Judge

Harriss impartiality could not be questioned reasonably by an objective observer is not

only refuted by the evidence in this case, it directly calls into question this Courts ability

to itself be impartial. The lengthy record in this case of inexplicable judicial rulings and

decisions by Judge Harris, his statements that have been proven to be dishonest in the

record, and his conduct which intentionally and directly affected Mr. Chamberlains right

to due process cannot be denied. The fact is any reasonable or objective person would

have arrived at the opposite conclusion of this Court. According to law, and common

sense, recusal under these circumstances was required.

8. This motion for reconsideration complies with the word limitation as set

forth in Md. Rule 8-605(d). The appellant respectfully requests this Court take judicial

notice of the attached Exhibit which corrects serious misstatement of facts in the opinion,

and proves beyond any doubt the previous legal determinations in this appeal are

erroneous.

1 United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Colorado, Case # 15-22234-TBM

4
 The appellant respectfully requests this Court:

a) Reconsider its opinion of August 24, 2016 and conduct a de novo review of the
evidence, legal arguments and relevant legal authority;

b) Find the lower courts use of its contempt powers under the circumstances of this case
to be an error and exonerate Mr. Chamberlain from being found guilty of contempt.

c) Find the lower court erred when it set a purge amount without ensuring the appellant
had the present ability to comply;

d) Find the record and circumstances of this case required the trial judge to recuse
himself.

In the alternative:

e) Provide an opinion based on facts in the record and citations to relevant legal authority
that counters the evidence and legal authority the appellant has cited;

f) Publish the opinion to reverse the numerous prior holdings of this Court and explain
how its affirmation of the lower courts actions are not inconsistent with the cited
authority as set out by the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court;

g) Correct the false statements in the opinion identified in Exhibit A that are not
supported by the record or fact.

__________________________

Stephen D. Chamberlain
Pro Se Litigant

schamberlaindocs@gmail.com

5
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20th day of September, 2016, a copy of the
foregoing Motion for Reconsideration with Exhibit was mailed, FEDEX postage prepaid,
to Samuel J. Brown, Esquire, Marrietta B. Warren, Esquire, and Evelyn Spurgin, Esquire,
221 Duke of Gloucester Street, Annapolis MD, 21401, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
___________________________

Stephen D. Chamberlain