Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 171
 
Filed
IN THE
NOV
1 2
2010
COURT
OF
APPEALS
OF
MARYLAND
Bessie
M.
Decker, Clerk
Court
of
Appeals
of
Maryland
Ariel Rosita King
Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Michael Herbert Pfeiffer
Respondent-Dejendant-Appellee.
Petition for Writ
of
Certiorari Seeking Review
of
Case
No.
---
Court
o/Special
Appeals, Case No. 1007, Sept. Term, 2009, Opinion,
Aug.
13,2010
("Opinion")Order Denying Reconsideration o/Opinion,
October
28,2010,
Mandate,
October 28, 2010
Lower Circuit Court Action: King
v.
Pfeiffer,
Case
No. 70620FL,
Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
1'PO Order Setting FPO Hearing/or June
9,
2008 (Judge Boynton),
June
2,
2008;
Order Quashing 1'PO (Judge Craven),
June
5,
2008 (mailed June
9,
2(08);
Order Denying Motion to Vacate June
5,
2008 Order (Judge Craven),
(June],
2009)(Copics
of
All Opinions and Orders found in Petition Attachments ("Pet.Att.-6 through33")]
This case presents to this Court an opportunity to correct serious damage tothe integrity
of
the statutorily established Temporary Protective Order (TPO) re-gime
of
Maryland's Domestic Violence Statutes caused by the erroneous decisionsbelow.
MD FL
§4-501,
et.
seq.
The lower court decisions legitimize the actions
of
one party --prior to theFull Protective Order (FPO) hearing date to cause a Duty Judge to prematurelyvacate on an
ex
parte
basis a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) issued by
another
Circuit Court a) without adequate notice. b) without any notice from the Court, c)
 
 
2
without opportunity for the
 pro se
litigant to obtain counsel (in this case fromHouse of Ruth), d) without completion of the investigation initiated by the TPO, e) before the court-set FPO hearing date of June 9, 2008, and f) based on the proffersof opposing counsel for which said counsel clearly had no evidence or first handknowledge and which later were established to be false. If allowed to stand, thelower court decisions establish that parties cannot rely upon the courts to fully en-force a TPO during the “sensitive period” between the TPO hearing and the court-set FPO hearing, as established by the Maryland domestic violence statutes. Nor can parties be assured that a fair FPO hearing will be held on the date-certain setforth in the TPO for which
both
parties may adequately prepare, obtain counsel,and present evidence – as clearly stated by the TPO.As with
Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 674 A.2d 951 (1996)
, and
 Katsenelenbogen,365 Md. 122, 775 A.2d 1249 (2001)
, the line of lower court decisions seriouslyweakens “the State's effort to respond aggressively to incidents of violence in thehome and frustrat[es] the important objectives of the State's domestic violencelaw.”
 Id.
The fact that the Court of Special Appeals decision is unreported doesnot diminish its effects, because – whether published or unpublished – the DutyCircuit Court’s actions below will remain standing absent corrective action by thisCourt of Appeals, and the lower courts, including the ones involved here, will viewthe outcome as legitimate and proper for guiding future cases. Unfortunately, re-
 
 
3
view is not practical for most lower court TPO and FPO actions, and thus, clear guidance from this Court in these rare instances is critical to avoid future problems.
PARTIES
Petitioner is Dr. Ariel Rosita King (“Petitioner,” “Appellant,” “Plaintiff,”“Wife,” and “Mother”) who, with the advice and aid of the Montgomery CountyAbused Persons Program (“APP”), sought and received TPO protection for 
both
 herself and her child on June 2, 2008. [
See, TPO, Pet.Att- 6, and -69
] At the time,Wife/Mother lived in Montgomery County where her daughter. ALM attended theGerman School in Potomac Maryland, and ALM stayed with her Mother in Mary-land three out of four weekends and, typically four out of seven days per week.Wife/Mother specializes in International Health Policy, and, at the time of theTPO, ran the Ariel Foundation International, a small foundation that helps childrenthroughout the world. Wife/Mother is an American citizen who currently lives inGermany.Respondent is Dr. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer (“Respondent,” “Appellee,” and“Defendant,” ”Husband,” and “Father”) against whom the TPO protection wassought for his wife, Dr. Ariel Rosita King, and their then five-year-old daughter,ALM. Dr. Pfeiffer is a German citizen living in the US on a residency visa (expir-ing in 2012).. At the time of the issuance of the TPO, ALM stayed with her Father,Dr. Pfeiffer, in his one bedroom walkup apartment in Washington DC, for days

Вознаградите свое любопытство

Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505