Tweet
Still Alive: Motion For Reconsideration Filed In Maryland Obama Eligibility Case
Birther Report
5/8/2014
Excerpt:
Motion For Reconsideration Filed In Maryland Obama Eligibility Case
Hat Tip CDR Kerchner
IN THE MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
TRACY A. FAIR and MARY C. MILTENBERGER, on behalf of themselves.
Plaintif s-Appellants,
v.
ROBERT WALKER, Chairman of The Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.
Defendants-Appellees,
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed in conjunction with REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE On Appeal from the Maryland Circuit Court for Carroll County
The Honorable Judge Thomas F. Stansfield
Case No. 06-C-12-060692
Now come the complainants, registered Maryland voters, Tracy Fair and Mary Miltenberger (hereinafter collectively the “plaintiffs or appellants”), representing themselves in their individual capacities, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-605 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and respectfully submit this motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order of April 7, 2014, dismissing their complaint as being barred by laches.
MARYLAND RULES
TITLE 8. APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
CHAPTER 600. DISPOSITION
Rule 8-605. Reconsideration
(a) Motion; response; no oral argument. Except as otherwise provided in Rule 8-602 (c), a party may file pursuant to this Rule a motion for reconsideration of a decision by the Court that disposes of the appeal. The motion shall be filed (1) before issuance of the mandate or (2) within 30 days after the filing of the opinion of the Court, whichever is earlier. A response to a motion for reconsideration may not be filed unless requested on behalf of the Court by at least one judge who concurred in the opinion or order. Except to make changes in the opinion that do not change the decision in the case, the Court ordinarily will not grant a motion for reconsideration unless it has requested a response. There shall be no oral argument on the motion.
Appellants respectfully ask the court to reverse their decision and set aside their previous dismissal for laches and grant appellants their 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law by hearing this case on the merits as other challenges on candidate eligibility were heard on the merits, even though they were untimely. We urge the court to act now to revise its past decision while it still has the opportunity to correctly apply the law or facts and ask that the court restore the appeal to the calendar for a de novo appeal on the merits or in the alternative to have it remanded back down to the Circuit Court for a hearing on the merits. Plaintiff believe they can prevail on the merits once the evidence is brought to trial.
REASON FOR RECONSIDERATION
A new trial may be granted where the trial was not fair; the verdict or finding was against the weight of the evidence; there exists newly discovered evidence that would probably have changed the result at trial; the amount of the verdict is either excessive or inadequate; irregularity in the proceedings precluded a fair trial; or the jury's consideration or deliberation was improper. Appellants believe that several of the reasons that follow should grant them a reconsideration and a trial on the merits which is explained more in depth below. (...)
Appellants believe that the court, on the one hand, misapprehended their position on several key issues and, on the other hand, misapplied the law regarding the laches defense. Appellants also believe they are being unfairly treated, as compared to other Maryland citizens in the same situation and are not getting their equal treatment under the law. Reasons for requesting a motion to reconsider are listed below and starts with reason #8 in order to deal with the laches issue first.
Ground (1) ERROR IN LAW
[...] Continued here: http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-con...Reconsider.pdf
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/05...ideration.html
Birther Report
5/8/2014
Excerpt:
Motion For Reconsideration Filed In Maryland Obama Eligibility Case
Hat Tip CDR Kerchner
IN THE MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
TRACY A. FAIR and MARY C. MILTENBERGER, on behalf of themselves.
Plaintif s-Appellants,
v.
ROBERT WALKER, Chairman of The Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.
Defendants-Appellees,
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed in conjunction with REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE On Appeal from the Maryland Circuit Court for Carroll County
The Honorable Judge Thomas F. Stansfield
Case No. 06-C-12-060692
Now come the complainants, registered Maryland voters, Tracy Fair and Mary Miltenberger (hereinafter collectively the “plaintiffs or appellants”), representing themselves in their individual capacities, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-605 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and respectfully submit this motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order of April 7, 2014, dismissing their complaint as being barred by laches.
MARYLAND RULES
TITLE 8. APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
CHAPTER 600. DISPOSITION
Rule 8-605. Reconsideration
(a) Motion; response; no oral argument. Except as otherwise provided in Rule 8-602 (c), a party may file pursuant to this Rule a motion for reconsideration of a decision by the Court that disposes of the appeal. The motion shall be filed (1) before issuance of the mandate or (2) within 30 days after the filing of the opinion of the Court, whichever is earlier. A response to a motion for reconsideration may not be filed unless requested on behalf of the Court by at least one judge who concurred in the opinion or order. Except to make changes in the opinion that do not change the decision in the case, the Court ordinarily will not grant a motion for reconsideration unless it has requested a response. There shall be no oral argument on the motion.
Appellants respectfully ask the court to reverse their decision and set aside their previous dismissal for laches and grant appellants their 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law by hearing this case on the merits as other challenges on candidate eligibility were heard on the merits, even though they were untimely. We urge the court to act now to revise its past decision while it still has the opportunity to correctly apply the law or facts and ask that the court restore the appeal to the calendar for a de novo appeal on the merits or in the alternative to have it remanded back down to the Circuit Court for a hearing on the merits. Plaintiff believe they can prevail on the merits once the evidence is brought to trial.
REASON FOR RECONSIDERATION
A new trial may be granted where the trial was not fair; the verdict or finding was against the weight of the evidence; there exists newly discovered evidence that would probably have changed the result at trial; the amount of the verdict is either excessive or inadequate; irregularity in the proceedings precluded a fair trial; or the jury's consideration or deliberation was improper. Appellants believe that several of the reasons that follow should grant them a reconsideration and a trial on the merits which is explained more in depth below. (...)
1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which such party was prevented from having a fair trial;
(2) Misconduct of prevailing party or jury;
(3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;
(4) Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial;
(5) Damages so excessive or inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the verdict must have been the result of passion or prejudice;
(6) Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract, or for the injury or detention of property;
(7) That there is no evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to justify the verdict or the decision, or that it is contrary to law;
(8) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to at the time by the party making the application; or
(9) That substantial justice has not been done.
(2) Misconduct of prevailing party or jury;
(3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;
(4) Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial;
(5) Damages so excessive or inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the verdict must have been the result of passion or prejudice;
(6) Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract, or for the injury or detention of property;
(7) That there is no evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to justify the verdict or the decision, or that it is contrary to law;
(8) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to at the time by the party making the application; or
(9) That substantial justice has not been done.
Appellants believe that the court, on the one hand, misapprehended their position on several key issues and, on the other hand, misapplied the law regarding the laches defense. Appellants also believe they are being unfairly treated, as compared to other Maryland citizens in the same situation and are not getting their equal treatment under the law. Reasons for requesting a motion to reconsider are listed below and starts with reason #8 in order to deal with the laches issue first.
Ground (1) ERROR IN LAW
[...] Continued here: http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-con...Reconsider.pdf
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/05...ideration.html