Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment-1st-Counterclaim-Rev3

Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment-1st-Counterclaim-Rev3

Ratings: (0)|Views: 165|Likes:
Published by Todd Wetzelberger
Pltf Motion to Vacate Dismissal of Counterclaim-Value of Doc is in Sec V where the Deed of Trust is directly attacked via trust law. The rest is same ole attack on the commercial "at-law" side that the courts always ignore since the legal fiction is stuck at law and beneficiary can only be heard in inherent equity
Pltf Motion to Vacate Dismissal of Counterclaim-Value of Doc is in Sec V where the Deed of Trust is directly attacked via trust law. The rest is same ole attack on the commercial "at-law" side that the courts always ignore since the legal fiction is stuck at law and beneficiary can only be heard in inherent equity

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Todd Wetzelberger on Jul 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
1
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
 Todd Wetzelberger Counter-Plaintiff vs.Thomas P. Dore, et al.,Counter-DefendantsMichael T. Cantrell, Renee Olivia Dyson,M&T Bank, R. Jay Fisher, Baltimore CountySheriff Does 1-10 inclusiveThird Party Defendant(s))))))))))CASE NO. 03-C-10-000465COUNTER-
PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED VERIFIED MOTION TOVACATE JUDGMENT
 _____________________________________________________________________________ 
COUNTER-
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
 Comes now, Counter-plaintiff Todd Wetzelber 
ger (“Wetzelberger”),
for purposes of making acomplete record for further proceedings, per Md. Rule 2-535 and moves to court to vacate the
erroneous judgment dismissing Wetzelberger’s initial counterclaim that was entered by
mistake.
FACTS AND LAWI. Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Enter Order Dismissing Counterclaim For Any ReasonOther than Lack of Jurisdiction
1.
 
Michael Pate (recently appointed judge in District Court of Maryland) correctly stated inthe motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Dore et al. (Dkt. No 61) that the Circuit Court, per Md.Rule 2-322(b), did not have jurisdiction to hear the initial counterclaim on 16 August 2011, theday of filing the complaint as the Court of Special Appeals had jurisdiction over the case.2.
 
Judge Cahill, being competent to rule on this matter, agreed, as evidenced by the Order signed by Judge Cahill on 1 December 2011, and filed on 2 December 2011, dismissing thecomplaint for lack of jurisdiction.
 
 
Page 2of 12
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3.
 
Despite the preceding fact, subsequent orders, entered by a court lacking jurisdiction, wereallegedly entered dismissing the very same complaint with prejudice.4.
 
Repeated requests seeking to correct the obvious mistake went unanswered.5.
 
Wetzelberger filed a Motion for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law (Dkt. No 72)-IGNORED.6.
 
Wetzelberger filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Court of Appeals to compel theCircuit Court to Clarify the obvious mistake- SUMMARYILY DENIED WITH NOEXPLANATION.7.
 
Wetzelberger filed a Motion for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the Court of Appeals seeking facts and law for the summary denial- SUMMARILY DENIED-NOEXPLANATION.8.
 
Seeking an answer as to the obvious mistake, at the 30 April 2013 hearing Wetzelberger  presented to Judge Norman the valid correct Order signed by Judge Cahill on 1 December 2011,and entered by the clerk on 2 December 2011, dismissing the prior counterclaim filed byWetzelberger for 
lack of jurisdiction,
NOT with prejudice.9.
 
Wetzelberger clearly stated on the record to Judge Norman that there obviously was amistake since there are two conflicting orders.10.
 
Wetzelberger clearly stated that Wetzelberger sought clarification for the past 16 months,including a Motion for Finding of Fact as well as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus.11.
 
Judge Norman summarily ignored the correct Order signed by Judge Cahill dismissing the prior counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.12.
 
Judge Norman didn’t bother to make any statement, or to address the obvious mistake by
the Circuit Court, other than to accuse Wetzelberger of waiving rights.13.
 
Wetzelberger, believing Judge Norman would do what is fair, just, and right, was shockedthat the two conflicting orders that have serious implications, and could possibly result in theextinguishment of right, title and interest to real and personal property, were summarily ignoredwith no explanation.
 
 
Page 3of 12
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
14.
 
Despite the Circuit Court willfully failing to address the obvious mistake, Wetzelberger served letter requests on Judge Cahill directly, for an explanation of the conflicting orders.15.
 
A letter request dated 2 May 2013 (only 2 days after the 30 April 2013 hearing) wasserved on Judge Cahill. Said letter request was IGNORED.16.
 
As of the date of filing this motion, a second letter request dated 11 June 2013 was servedon Judge Cahill. Said letter request was IGNORED.17.
 
To date,
after 6 different good faith attempts over the last 16 months
, no publicservant, including Judge Cahill, will state on the record, that the court erred and that the prior casewas dismissed for 
lack of jurisdiction
.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty tospeak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading”
U.S. v. Tweel 
, 550 F.2d 297, 29918.
 
Judge Cahill has a duty to state on the record a valid explanation of two conflicting ordersallegedly signed and entered on the exact same day.19.
 
A judgment which is void due to lack of jurisdiction may be
collaterally attacked at anytime
.
Tucker v. Tucker 
, 35 Md. App. 710, 373 A.2d 16 (1977).20.
 
When appellate jurisdiction attaches, the Circuit Court loses jurisdiction.
Unnamed Att’y v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n
, 303 Md. 473, 494 A.2d 940 (1985).21.
 
In light of the admissible evidence entered in the instant case, Judge Norman abused hisdiscretion, thereby prejudicing Wetzelberger, by not continuing the hearing until such time as thediscrepancy could be resolved by Judge Cahill.
 
22.
 
Wetzelberger, left no other choice, has a clear 
right
(not privilege) to have a determinationmade on the record per Md. Rule 2-535, that the initial counterclaim was correctly dismissed for 
lack of jurisdiction
, as the evidence and case citations clearly show.
 
23.
 
Due to Judge Norman’s “order” claiming that no attachments are to be filed with motions
filed per Md Rule(s) 2-534, 2-535, Wetzelberger has been obstructed from attaching the 2 letter requests served on Judge Cahill.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->