Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Stephen D. Chamberlain *
In the
Appellant, *
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
v. *
No. 2594
Judith C. Chamberlain *
September Term, 2014
Appellee. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
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
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.
1. The August 24, 2016 opinion of this Court includes misstatements of fact
2. The opinion relies upon false premises derived from mischaracterized facts
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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