Petition — Avedisian v. Ramsey

Supreme Court brief1983

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ies lie

No. Cleesnni clone

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATzS

October Term, 1982

SARANELLE AVEDISIAN

Petitioner

NANCY RAMSEY, ET AL

Respondents.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

{TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Saranelle Avedisian

14613 Melinda Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20853

Pro Se 460-5573

QUESTIONS PRS=INTS

I. Did the Court Below err and

abuse its discretion when, counter to

its role of supervisor and overseer of

justice, it refused to grant certiorari

after the petitioner had pointed out

(a) her legal right by manda-

tory state statutory law to judgment in

her favor with the possibdle alternative

of partial judgment as it pertains to

respondent Ramsey; and

(bo) the legal and procedural

errors committed in the circuit court

and compounded in the intermediate ap-

peals court both of which had direct

knowledge for years of violations of

petitioner's rights from the 1978-79

case reporting physical and electronic

Surveillance by secret police action

which violate the laws of the land? .

II. Did the Court Below deny due

process in violation of constitutional

law by refusing to review the record when

petitioner contends it was not in conforn-

ity with regular court proceedings as is

shown by the irregular service, and the

following 8 irregular actions taken by

the circuit court which

, (a) executed an Order in favor

of the defendant on the day he submitted

it with his plea in bar which foreclosed

petitioner from (1) notice, (2) hearing,

and (3) time to answer provided by Md Rule

319 and depriving her of a valuable prop-

erty right;

(>) refused to allow amended

process to cure jurisdictional "defect"

and declined to issue its own motion to

declare it cured by defendant's answer to

the merits;

ing without notice;

(d) failed to enter judgment by

default when moved by petitioner against

respondent Ramsey who did .not object to

jurisdiction by defaulting throughout;

(e) granted respondent Straug-

han's motion to strike 7 of petitioner's

filings, including interrogatories, there-

by suppressing evidence that would have

proved her allegations;

(f) denied all petitioner's mo-

tions by apparent pre-determined policy;

(g) denied hearing (per docket

entry), set almost 9 months after filing,

on motion for summary judgment filed when

respondent Ramsey defaulted at traffic

court trial;

(n) dismissed petitioner's

case with prejudice to which petitioner

voiced objection;

(i) the sheriff made only one

attempt to deliver the executed Order

iii

and that on the l2th day after issuance

and on a night when petitioner regularly

attended cless, as though purposeful.

LIST OF PARTIES

Petitioner: Saranelle Avedisian

Respondents: Nancy Ramsey

John Straughan

PAGE

QUESTIONS FRESENTED ceeecces i

LIST OF PARTIES. cee eee eae oa ee

TABLES OF CONTENTS Coote seees eecee Vv

Bee OR BUR Ee oc ces encvcvecves Vill

OPINIONS AND JUDGMENTS BELOW........ xii

GROUNDS ON WHICH THE JURISDICTION

Ge gue COURT IS INVOKED.........xiit

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION,

TREATIZES, STATUTES, ORDINANCES,

AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED.........xilii

RARE OR TH CESS. ccc ue wcecencu 1

I ed Cs ces incccceccencs ET

PFENDIX A

Order denying petition for

writ of certiorari by the

Court of Appeals of Maryland..... dA-l

APPENDIX B

Order denying motion for

POCOMSLICOTE CIO. cc ccccccccccccece Awe

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX C

Order dismissing appeal by

the Court of Special Appeals

of Maryland. ccscccceccccccssess

APPENDIX D

Memorandum and Order of the

United States District Court

for the District of Maryland

entered July 11, 1978....cecoee

APPENDIX &

Memorandum and Order

Montgomery County Circuit

Court, August 29, 1979...ceeeee

APPENDIX F

Memorandum and Order of the

United States District Court

for the District of Maryland

entered December 20, 1979 .cceces

Aell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FPENDIX G

Order, Montgomery County circuit

Court, Feorvery 25, 1961;

Respondent Jonn Straughan.......

APPENDIX H

Tape, Docket Entry in Montgomery

County Circuit Court,

MOY 255. LIS ew ccnccrecsecvecececse

APPZNDIX I

U. S. Constitution

BM Riverccecccoceceeseccesece

BM Deccceseccecsscceceseccese

BM EG sc cckcecccserceccecesoce

U. S. Statutes

Uscetuke 44, SOC. LOGS .cccece

Sec. 1985.cccces

Montomgery County Code..cccccccces

vii

P&G

A-21

A-22

A=22

A=23

A-24

A=25

A-29

TABLS OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION, U. S.

Re ooo ob we bee hese ci cece

AMOMEGHERE Seccewcccccececsceseces

Amendment l4d--cccccccccccsccvecces

CCNSTITUTION, MARYLAND

APCICLE She vccccecccccceccccseos

STATUTES

We POG A, © AFF. csc necceses

oe ER ae

MONTGOMERY COUNTY CODE

Me eed © PORIOO aes ccncewuecs

TABLE GF CASES

Barker v. Young, 1922, 119 A 330

Boeing Air Transport v. Farley,

72 Fe2e 7165, TET, 64 App.

D.C. Bw bwc ca waneee

Brady v. Meryland, 226 Md. 422 11, 26

Buchalter v. People of State of

B, Yep L965, GF S.CR 1225, 3519

Vio 427, 87 lis Bie 2 Go aaa

Wits

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Breithaupt v. Abram, 1957, 77S.

oe Soe, gee Uno. 432, 1 L.Bd.

hk nk inncwecccces

Buchalter v. Peovle of State of

Be Tey 1963, 63 S.Ct 1129,

vas Usas Sat, 87 L.Bd. 1492....

Clay Ve CSC, 1916, 98 A i 2 EG

Covina-Azusa Fire Fighting Union

Local 2415, 1 AFF, AFL-CIO v.

City of Azusa, 146 Cal Reptr

ee RF Occ icccecctce

Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108

* S.Ct. 665, Iii U.S. 708,

28 L.Ed ao wa ob hh oe vicn

Jackson v. City of Newark, 1895

ee i a he wkecccccece

Lowe v. State of Kansas, 1896

16 S.Ct 1036, 163 U.S. Sl,

41 L.Ed Tac ct cces

PAGS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIE

Magnetic Arts Corp. v. State Dept.

of Industrial Relations, 164

Cal Reptr 400, 105 C.A. 3 417...

Marbury v. Madison, U.S.D. Col,

1803, 5& U. S. i357, i Cranch

he PF 2 tise bBGs ce wa wes

Oliver, In Re, 1948, 68 S.Ct 499,

333 U. Se aots 92 Lend. Oe taekes

Public Service Ry. Co. v. City of

Camden, 1920, 112 4 421

Rochin v. People of Cal., 72 S.Ct

205, 342 U. S. 165, 96 L.Ed

183, 25 Ribets ed POG ca caeeceas

Scales v. U. S., 1961, 81 S.Ct 1469

367 U. S. 203, 6 LbeBd.2d. 782.0.

Spencer v. Bloom, 1892, 24 A 185 Pa

Swann v. Mayor, etc. Town of Cumber-

land, 1849, & Gill 150. .ccccccoce

Whe Alicia, 74 U. S. 571, 7 Wall.

STks 19 L.2£da a

TABLE OF AUTHORITISS

Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 1940

GO o.Ct 726, 310 U.S. 86, 84

L.id So 6 a 0h oes ec wee

Watkins, Ex Parte, U.S.D. Col, 1833

me Gen. JOG, F FOC. 566. .ccrcecs

OPINIONS AND JUDGMENTS IN COURTS BELOW

The Court of Appeais of Maryland

denied petitioners petition for writ of

certiorari by Order of February 5, 1983,

marked Appendix A. Petitioner's motion

for reconsideration was denied March 4,

1985. The Maryland Court of Special

Appeals denied petitioner's appeal by

Order of October 20, 1982, attached as

Appendix C. Motion for reconsideration

denied by letter notice of Order Novem-

ber 4, 1982. The Montgomery County

Circuit Court's order as submitted by

defendant on and executed February 25,

1981 attached as Appendix G, all incor-

porated herein by reference and made a

part hereof,

JURISDICTICN

The Court of Appeals, the state

court of last resort, denied petitioner's

petition for writ of certiorari by Order

of Feoruary 3, 1983 end petition for re-

consideration March 4, 1983. The juris-

diction of this court is invoked under

98 U.8.C.A. 125713).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, ORDNANCES

STATUTSS, RULES & REGULATIONS

Case was filed under the provisions

of the United States Code Annotated,

42 U.S.C.A. 88 1983 and 1985, and the

Montgomery County Code 8 35-21 - Police

and based on Constitutional guarantees

of due ‘cides and equal protection and

rights of privacy.

Applicable Constitutional Amendments

are IV, V, and XIV.

Maryland Declaration of Rights, Art. 24

eLiz “a

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This petition arises from the

denial of a writ of certiorari by the

Maryland Court of Appeals entered on #eb-

ruary 5, 1985, which held that petition-

er's plea did not make a showing that it

was desirable or in the public interest,

Although hearings were held in the

circuit court for Montgomery County, mary-

land, the facts never came to issue due

to Respondent Straughan's plea in bar--

lack of jurisdiction over the party due

to insufficiency of service of process,

Identical service of process, Omitting

"restricted delivery" on Resvondent

Ramsey was never contested and thereby

waived oy her dy defaulting throughout,

After one year and three months of delay,

the circuit court dismissed it with pre-

jJudice May 25, 1982,

The Court of Special sppeals of

Marylend held that no final judgment was

entered for Respondent Ramsey; and that

service had been quashed on Respondent

Straughan, so no jurisdiction (Appendix C}

The various courts! orders are at-

tached as Appendices A through H, pages

A-1l through A-21. Tney include the ones

cited by Respondent Straughan in petition-

er's 1978-79 cases xntered by the U. S.

District Court in M-78-1227, Appendix D;

the Montgomery County Circuit Court in

52353, Appendix E; and the U.-Se Districs

Court in b-79-1567, Appendix F. The

causes of action are Similar, tne parties

different.

On February 13, 1981, the petitioner

filed a declaration for dameges in Montgom-

ery County Circuit Court for the Sixth Cir-

cuit against the respondents who are county

employees, a meter maid and a policeman

respectively. The petitioner alleged viola-

tion of her rights "as a citizen as guar-

anteed by state and U. S. constitutions

as implemented by...42 U.S.C.4. Sections

1983 and 1985..." which are respectively

Depriving persons of rights or privileges;

and Obstructing justice; intimidating par-

ty, witness or juror. The local law vio-

lation was the Montzomery County Code, III

35-21-Police. Appendix I. Her.statement

of facts, introductory peragraph stated

the police actions were "under color of

law," "in bad faith," and denied..Yrights

to 'liberty' and ‘equal protection’ wita-

out ‘due process.'"

Liability is due te citations is-

Sued to petitioner and to her son under

circumstances that fit a pattern of po-

lice harassment which violates the codes

cited. Such police actions come within

the meaning of invidiously discriminatory

acticn as it was secretly instituted,

tor background, see #1560, and #1269 and

its petition for rehearing in this court

filed 4-12-79, 12-30-81, and 3-17-82, den.

On February 25, 1981, Respondent

Straughan through his counsel, an assist-

ant county attorney, filed a movion rais-

ing preliminary objection over jurisdic-

tion and 1978-79 dismissals, among other

things, and requested an Order of dismis-

sal. Appendix G, as executed, same day.

The petitioner averred the jurisdiction-

al defect was cured by a plea to the

merits in her second successive pleading.*’

Although service of the order’ was not com-

pleted to petitioner as sougnt, a copy of

it was taped to the clerk's coumter to re-

fuse service to her.

The unly attempt to serve it was a

night petitioner regularly attended class

at UM's Adult Education Department, Monday

3-9-81, Tne former petitions filed in

this court, above, reported surveillance

by electronic eavesdropping (f¢e p, 4).

the sheriff would not leave the order

with petitioner's husband who forgot,

uncharecteristically (attributed to hyp-

notic interference) until the end of the

15th day--too late--to tell her to call

back with times. it could be re-served,

Petitioner did call, stayed home 2 days,

but no one came. The order was returned

to the clerk's office 3-30-81 with one

non est rather than 2 as required by

Maryiand Rule 112,

In a Motion to Appoint Counsel,

2-23-81, petitioner pointed out recogni-

tion by constitutional Amendment VI the

importance of preserving individual

rights by having experienced legal help,

and was willing to pay for it. It could

not be done the judge said in the single

personal meeting, |

The first assigned hearing 5-5-81

was cancelled on 5-4 without notice for

lack of jurisdiction which cetitioner

found out when she appeared for t. sy

was for the purpose of correcting the con-

tested jurisdictional defect, That was

the day, the 70th since execution, she

received the 2-25 order. Since she had

not been served with a signed copy, the

petitioner continued to file papers and

hearings continued to be set, but the de-

lay made it impossible to answer, to ap-

peal, or to withdraw and re-file.

At a 7-10-81 hearing, petitioner's

motion for reconsideration alleging denial

of due process, quoting 2 caseson taking

property witnout notice or hearing, was

denied, Paragraph 4 of the motion of 5-8:

"Supporting plaintiff's metion are

two other cases of appropriate sub-

ject matter which state 'A vested

cause of action for damages is

"property" which cannot be taken

or destroyed without "due process

of law," being a chose in action."

(Citation omitted--appears in ar-

gument) and "due proc

O (b

‘inhibits the tzkin

property and giving it to

eeewithout notice or an opportun-

ity for a hearing' which is con-

Sidered to be its essence." (di-

tation as above),

At a 7-24 hearing on respondent's

motion to strike (7 of petitioner's inter-

vening filings) and his motion to assess

costs, the court granted the first, de-

nied the second, Petitioner asserted

She had paid the filing fee, asked what

costs, to which she got no answer, For a

full listing of the filings pro and con,

a chart is inserted at the end of the

Statement of facts, p. 15, -

Not satisfied with the results of

her extemporaneous presentations, the pe-

titioner prepared a written statement en-

compassing the sequence of facts bringing

about the slander which she denied there-

in and read it under oath, She presented

objects at the same time which she told

the court were chip-based micro-processors

the modern wireless "bugs" it took her

years to find. One item of proof of mind

reading was shown. Most proof of tnat

kind is contained in junk mail or pubdli-

cations. The opponents, who have the ad-

vantage of a superior on-site organiza-

tion, have tested my averrments of inno-

cence over and over since 6-82, The test

sites appear to have included the City

Hall housing Rockville Police, and as of

last Saturday 4-23 the Montgomery County

Courthouse, if she interprets correctly.

Such illegal ections violate the 4th, 5th

and 14th amendments. The petitioner's in-

formation is that necessary instruments

are a hypnotizer, a videotape machine,

and lately, the last 6 months, a liedetec-

tor.

Six days after the 10-1 hearing, her

motion again denied, the respondent Ram-

sey defaulted and the petitioner thinks

the news of her sworn statement of inno-

¢mce the material factor. The traffic

court judge found petitioner net guilty

due to non-apsearance of citatcr. The

petitioner's affirmative defense of not

guilty thereby was not pursued, A non-

opposing uniformed woman was noticed by

petitioner and a motion for photographs of

the respondent were requested for a 5-25

hearing on summary judgment basec on the

traffic court default. It was ignored,

Petitioner sketched the woman from memory

and tried to have it and a photogranph of

aman she thought at the time was the

author of her 1978 dismissal identified..

The request to go under oath was evaded,

the respondent's counsel odjected to the

judge with "Is that appropriate?" So,

justice was again averted. The court Nad

assigned another judge by the same name

as in 1978 to hear. The traffic court

judge had the same name as a neighbor;

and in fact there was a neighdor with the

same name, German spelling, as the 1978

judge. She understand's the author of

the 1978 order has a twin who perhaps was

the man for whom she worked as a temporary

at a firm in D.C. who represented himself

as an employee.

The case was dismissed with preju-

dice as per the docket entry Appendix He

To sum up, her meritorious case was

successfully kept from being heard by the

non-defaulting respondent's presentation

of void judgments as res judicata when

the parties were different. The execution

of the order on the same day of filing,

motions and facts ignored were arbitrary.

The case was appealed to the Court

of Special Appeals of Maryland and the

statement of facts alleged in paragraph 3

"....The police broke the law by

going outside the scope of their

authority, acting secretly and

without a formal charge’ ‘upon

oath or affirmation' as required,

resulting in denial of ‘due process,’

p. 12 of the brief for the C.S.A. Md, the

petitioner advanced tne holding of a Mary-

land court which stated that

"the suppression of evidence

constitutionally protected,"

(Citation omitted here--will

appear in argument. )

Petitioner assigned numerous errors

in "Questions Presented" p. 4 of brief:

(1) order granted lst day, (2) amendment

not allowed, (3) service not completed,

(4) merits addressed, (5) struck pleadings

(6) hearings continued (7) denial of sun-

mary judgment, and (8) dismissal with

prejudice,

The court found service cuashed on

—

one, final judgment not entered on the

a |

other, and case dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction,

The respondent filed a motion to

dismiss, unsigned, uncertified, date

omitted in paragraph 3, made voint case

dismissed 2-25-81, appeal not taken until

6-22-82. Petitioner untimely filed oppo-

Sition to respondent's untimely motion to

dismiss. The appeal was dismissed after

citing Rule 605.a., (Appendix I) - Multi-

ple Claims--Judgment upon...Gen'l,

On November 3, 1982, petitioner

filed a motion for reconsideration list-

ing two major topics I. Denial of Due

Process and II. Abuse of Discretion, cit-

ing case law in support. She attacked

delay in service of the order of dismissal

making a "timely appeal...impossible;" the

dismissal void if without jurisdiction;

‘unconstitutionality of refusing: service of

process without leave of court in any

action; suppression of evidence "gives

rise to a presumption against the defend-

ant;" and property rights denied by dis-

missal, The court abused discretion by

disallowing amendment of service; feilures

to enter judgments -as prayed for.

On November 4, 1982, an Order denied same.

On December 4, 1982, petitioner

filed her petition for writ of certiorari

in the Court of Appeals of Maryland,

She agsin claimed denial of due process

and abuse of discretion on the same facts

and sought answer to whether or not the

Court of Special Appeals erred oy omitt-

ing to find the court below adopted irreg-

ular procedures, and to direct judgment

on the basis of the facts, law, and evi-

dence as presented by petitioner,

On February 3, 1983, it was denied

as review not found desirable or in the

public interest,

A motion for reconsideration was

Tiled 2-18-85 contending the public has

an abiding interest in regulating police

action; suppressed answers to interroga-

tories would provide verification; that

citing the 1978 dismissal as good faith

res judicata was in bad faith as it wes

13 |

dismissed in 13 days without answers that

would verify allegations. She cited one

of its own 1966 holdings that condemns un-

just police conduct. She cited the pro-

vision of the Montgomery County Code they

acted against, and the same U. S. Consti-

tutional amendment provisions for "due

process," and "equal protection." It was

denied March 4, 1983, by Order, without

comment,

Chart

(Plaintiff's)

Date

Declaration 2-15-81

Motion to Appt. Counsel 2-25-81

Interrogatories--Ramsey 3=- 5-81

Motion to Amend 3-11-81

Motion for Witness Summons 4-23-81

Defendant's Order Received 5- 5-81

Motion for Reconsideration 5- 8-81

Motion for Judgment by Def. 5- 8-81

Interrogatories--Straughen 5-17-81

Answer to Motion to Strike 6- 2-81

(Exhibit re micro-"bugs")

Odjection to Costs 6- 2-81

Motion for Judgment by Def. 6-18-81

Motion for Witness Sum. Ord. 7- 1-81

Motion to Vacate Order 7- 1-81

Motion Ne Recipiatur 7- 1-81

Motion for Relief fm. Judg,

or Fille Indep. Suit Set As. 7-15-81]

Executed Order to Strike rec, 7-24-81

Motion for Leave to Amend 7-28-81

Statement Under Oath/=ivid. 10-1-81

(Hearing)

Motion to Vacate Denials or

Motion for Final Judg. 10-5-81

Answ. to Def's Opp. and Motion

for Summary Judg. 10-15-81

Motion to Produce Fhotos 5- 7-82

Chart

(Defendant's)

Date

Motion Raising Preliminary Odj's. 2-25-81

Order attached to quash; re-

fuse process to ptf, w/o leave

Order above executed 2-25-81

Order above received by pif. 5- 5-81

Motion to Strike & Motion to 5-20-81

Assess Costs

Opposition to Judg. dy Default 6-26-81

Opposition to Motion to Vacate 10-9-81

Line Requesting Hearing of Motion 10-22-81

4 Hearings

On jurisdiction - Cancelled 5- 4-81

Plaintiff's Motion for Recon. 7-10-81

Denied

Defendant's Motion to Strike 7024-81

Granted

" Motion to Assess Costs ss

Denied

Plaintiff's Motion to Set-Aside

or For Leave to File Independ-

ent Suit to Set Aside and

Statement & Evidence Under Oath 10-1-81

Denied :

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary 5-25-82

Judgment

‘Denied

(and case dismissed with prejudice)

Traffic Court Trial

Plaintiff not guilty due to dflt. 10-7-81

Appeal Taken to MD C.S.A- : 6-20-82

ARGUMENT

The requirements of this Court's

Part V. - Jurisdiction on Writ of Certi-

orari as it applies to this case are

present in Rule 17 1.(c) in that the state

‘court "has decided a federal question in a

way in conflict with applicable decisions

of this Court."

Although 17 1.(a), the last condition

‘which is departure from usual course ap=

plies to federal courts, and this case

concerns C. A. of Md, it applies by exten-

Sion if not under strict construction.

Petitioner thinks her case merited

review in the state C. A. and herein alse

by the standards set forth in the Atlantic

area courts which include the following

excerpts: |

Zertiorari applies only when action —

Sought to be reviewed while it stands af-

fects some right of the party applying

e's | Pea Oana

for it... Gilevy vy. CSC, i846,. 96 A 3i2.

The petitioner is a virtual prisoner with-

out reason and without rights.

In an act without jurisdiction, cer-

tiorari properly lies to attack and review

illegal action, Public Service Ry. Co. Ve

City of Camden, 1920, 112 A 421.

Certiorari will lie to review ac-

tion where it is in excess of authority.

Jackson v. City of Newark, 1895, 31 A 233.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland does not

have authority to ignore a case abetting

injury equal to ruination of lives, not

only petitionerS but her childrens' and

other family members, There is direct

knowledge of truth of her averrments if

her information is correct that she was

hy pnotized on the ramp leading to the back

entrance of the building housing both

appeals courts in Annapolis on 2-18 when

she took her motion for reconsideration at

the encouragement of the clerk...

In certiorari, petitioner must show

not merely error of law committed, but in-

justice done. Barker v. Young, 1922, 119

A 330. Not only is injustice inherent in

the facts reported, but she has pointed to

injustice numerous times in all courts.

In her C, A. Md Petition for writ of cer-

tiorari it appears in point 4 of the argu-

ment, page 8,

To review judgment of the Court of

Common Pleas quashing writ of attachment

for want of jurisdiction by reason of in-

sufficiency of affidavit, writ of certio-

rari is proper remedy. Spencer v, Bloon,

1892, 24 A185 Pa.

Certiorari is the proper mode by

which superior courts examine into author-

ity of an inferior tribunal to.see if it

has transcended the special powers to which .

it is limited by law. Swann v. Mayor, etc.

Town of Cumberland, 1849, 8 Gill 150. If

the court hearing the case did not have

jurisdiction, its judgments are void

and should be reversed. Reviewing

court may presume validity of judgment

below but must reverse where there is no

reasonable basis in legal principle for

trial court's action. Magnetic Arts Corp.

v. State Dept. of Industrial Relations,

164 Cal Reptr 400, 105 C. A.-3 417.

Where an order is unsupported by

findings, and findings are required, prope:

er procedure is to reverse rather than —

dismiss appeal. Covina-Azusa Fire Fight-

ing Union * Local 2415, 1 AFF, AFL-CIO v.

City of Azusa, 146 Cal Reptr 155, 81 C.A.

3 48, |

The petitioner contends the Court

of Appeals transcended jurisdictional au-

thority by failing to exercise the power

to correct irregular procedures as against

course of common law in the lower courts

which: is its duty to do. It was a case

demanding corrective legal and procedural

Surgery. The Supreme Court in Marbury v.

Beatson, 0.5.0. Col, 1605, S$ U.S. 157,

1 Cranch 157, 2 L.Ed 60, and in Ex Parte

WatKking, U.S.D. Gol, 1833, 52 U.S. 568, 7

Pet. 568, & L.24 786, said that it ise an

essential criterion of appellate jurisdic-

tion that it revises and corrects the pro-

ceedings in a cause already instituted

and does not create that cause. The inter-

mediate appeals court initiated the Md .

Rule 605.a provision by not finding final

judgment and quashed service. The proper

judgment directed ‘or. entered on its own

motion was called for,

Appellate jurisdiction necessarily

implies some judicial determination, some

judgment about a decree or order of infer-

ior tribunal from which appeal is taken.

The Alicia, 74 U.S. 571, 7 Wall. 571, 19

L.Ed 84. The petitioner complained of

the entire handling of the case in her

C.S.A. brief, and here seeks review of

‘all rulings as deliberately prejudicially

made against her with the purpose of pro-

tecting these police in their illegality

for the same reason the police involved

themselves--because they accepted without

" question spiteful promotion of falsehood,

As to the applicability of the C.A.

Md denial of cert to the 17 1(c) provis-

ion, this Court has held on the federal

question of due process over the last cen-

tury or so the 4 cases below which would

be in conflict thereto:

In 1884, the Supreme Court found

that what due process of law meant to it

was the process

"following the general rules es-

tablished in our system of ju-

risprudence for the security of

private rights, is appropriate

to the case, and just to the

parties affected. Hagar Vv.

Reclamation Dist. No. , 4

* * ? owe g 28

L.Ed 569.

In Buchalter v. People of State of N.Yo,

19435, 63 S.Ct. 1129, 3519 U.S. 427, 87 L.

Bd. 1492

»eedue process of law...requires

that action by state through any

of its agencies must be consist-

ent with fundamental principles

of liberty and justice which lie

at the base of our civil and po-

litical institutions....

In Breithaunt v. Abram, 1957, 77 S.Ct 408

352 U.S. 4352, 1 LeEd.2d 448

Due process is not measured by

the yardstick of the personal

reaction...of the most sensitive

person, but by that whole commue

nity sense of decency and fair-

ness that has been woven by com-

mon experience into the fabric

of acceptable conduct,

One doesn't have to be the "most sensi-

tive" person to be incensed to be the focus

of illegal police action when she hasn't

done anything.

eeedue process of law requires

evaluation based on a disinter-

ested inquiry pursued in spirit

of sciénce, on a balanced order

of facts exactly and fairly

stated, on the detached consid-

eration of conflicting claims,

on a judgment not ad hoc and

episodic but duly mindful of

reconciling the needs both of

‘continuity and of change in

a progressive society. Rochin

v. People of Cal., 72 S.Ut™

r = = a» 96 Lena :

183, 25 ALR. 2d 5.” ie at

Petitioner avers that no progress-

ive U. S. society will ever accept illegal

police actimity, especially where there is

the additional elements of entrappment

as in this case, perhaps hypnosis on the

part of her son, implied insult by "meter

maid" and their combined initials pro-

anced phonetically as a put-down of a

citizen they don't know but judged guilty

on the basis of hostile, defensive oppon-

ents in the first case.

Analogous to secret police action

is this Supreme Court case from Kansas,

Lowe v. State of Kansas, 1896, 16 S.Ct.

1036, 163 U.S. 6l, 41 L.Bd 76 holding:

.eewhen a prosecution has been

instituted without probable cause

and maliciously, the name of the

prosecutor shall be stated in the

finding, and he shall be ad judged

to pay the costs, and committed

to the county jail until they -_-

are paid, is not invalid as de-

priving prosecutor of his prop-

erty without due process of law,

And the Supreme Court in a Michigan case

No man's life, liberty, or

property may be forfeited as

punishment until there has

been a charge fairly made and

fairly tried...In re Oliver,

1948, 68 S.Ct 499, 335 U.s.

257, 32 L.Ba 622

In a North Carolina case, the Supreme

Court held

Legal concepts of conspiracy and

complicity manifest general prin-

Ciple that society, having power

to punish dangerous behavior

cannot be powerless against those

who work to bring about that

behavior. Scales v. U.S., 1961,

Gi. 3.0% 1469, 30/7 Uen. 205, 6 Le

Ba.2d. 782.

The Supreme Court has held the

State has the power and is under

duty to take adequate steps to

preserve the peace and to pro-

tect the privacy, the lives, and

the property of its residents,

Thornhill v. state of Alabama,

’ Ct ’ ewe 8,

84 L.Ed 1093.

And these cases on the taking of property

without due process as is done when a

meritorious case is dismissed without hear-

“

ing are analogous and were. quoted in the

statement of the case: Williams v. Atlan-

tic Coast Line R. Co., 69 S.E. 403, 153

N.C. 360; and Boeing Air Transport v. Far«

ley, 75 F.2d 765, 767, 64 App. D.C. 163.

In #% different places and times, as a hint

and a reminder 3 lookalikes came to where

they knew I would be from the bugs for

the Postmaster General of New Deal days,

James Farley.

And appropriately enough, a Mary-

land case on the suppression of evidence

quoted p. 11, statement: Brady v. Mary=-

land, 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167, 373 U.S.

83.

It is important that the Court

take this petition under consideration

as it is no exaggeration that lives de-

pend on it. There is no other means or

authoritative forumithat will provide

petitioner a chance to clear her name

of the slander and save her children

: pe he

from the stigma now attached, The same

people who conceived the idea of follow-

ing and hounding petitioner until they

got their answer now don't like the ans-

wer and would rather find a non=traseable

way to cause her permanent removal, As

of this writing, it is up to about a doz-

en tries, mostly by hypnosis, veginning

with a fall down the Stairs, them side-

walk, 2 runs off the highway, 2 chokings

On liquid--one deferred 24 hours, ladder

tampering, high Speed acceleration of our

car 2 times 4-30 though the pedal did not

appear to be stuck until Sunday, Not one

family member has escaped, and petitioner

was cut off from funds for a filing fee

for the U.S.C.A. and for this filing un-

til she thought. of using a blank check

before her husband -is programmed to cut

off that source as well as take the check

book and credit cards,

Even without the life-threatening

this is a 100% meritorious case. It was

begun illegally, secretly, has expanded “op-

position by guerrilla action reported to

the Chief of Police for Montgomery County

which letters were appended as an exhibit

in M-78-1227in March. It is important to

petitioner, of course, but important to

the American people as well that this

illegal action be closed legally, and,

therefore, satisfactorily, pefittingly.

The petitioner has found: that we in

this country love our freedom, and we are

willing to fight for it and to pay for it.

There are limits, however, éven’ to free-

dom. . It does not mean organizing a gang

to force obeisance to it, nor does it ale

low secretly obtaining and copying keys

hiding them around a person's property to

permit illicit entry upon its will. The

petitioner seems to have found the cables

strung some 40' across our attics from

the S.E. dormer roof to the north wall

where all originally installed electrical

Wiring entered--from the pole on the curd.

Petitioner removed the baseboard on that

wall in the room below it and cut a hole

after measuring from the fuse box on the

first floor. Although the original 3

wires show, the cables, formed by 12 tele-

phone-type wires twisted together, do not.

The hints were suspenders, suspension

bridge, cables, it's twisted, etc., and

is strung in plain view in the larger

attic on trusses (many loads of pre-fab

type, repeatedly) and they look like a

suspension bridge. It reminds me of Poe

and his purloined letter, However, until

I find a key hanging on it, the apparatus

doesn't help. The search will continue.

There are indications the various

court personnel know, and hints seem to

be included in memorandums. For instance

case names, Breckenridge, and Haines v.

Kerner (Hanes, brand of hose, only mine

ape L'Eggs, corner of closet, just got

. that one), and Thermtron, apparently wire

strung behind the thermostat, many hints.

At the Supreme Court building corridor, a

large frieze once and a lookalike in uni-

form for my 1950's roommate; -apparently

a key down the wall behind the freezer;

. and an appearance. on the street by Jus-

tice Powell(?).perhaps for Jane, a ref-

erence .to a 1950's co-worker? knowledge-

able about activities leading to %83.suit..

Conclusion -:

The petitioner has presented a:fair

and accurate case and asks that the writ

_of certiorari be granted in the interest

of justice.

Chi peter a ~ dined <

14613 Melinda Lane

Rockville, MD 20853

460-5573.

Appendix A

Order, February 3, 1983

SARANZSLLS AVEDISIAN : IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

: OF MARYLAND

* Pet. Docket No, 480

‘September Term, 1982

NANCY RAMSEY, ET AL (No. 1016, September

Term, 1982

Court of Special

Appeals)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition

for a writ of certiorari to the Court of

Special Appeals in the above entitled

case, it is

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of

Maryland, that the petition be, and it is

hereby, denied as there has been no show-

ing that review by certiorari is desirable

and in the public interest.

o /s/ Robert C. Murphy

(SZ4L) Chief vudge

Date: February 3rd, 1983.

A-2

Appendix 5

Order, March 4, 1983

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

SARANSLLE AVSDISIAN

OF MARYLAND

Petition Docket

"No. 480

"September Term, 1982

NANCY RAMSEY et al. ‘*(No. 1016 - September

; Term, 1982 = Court

* of Special Appeals)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for

reconsideration filed in ve above entitled

case, it is this 4th day of March, 1983,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of

Maryland, that the Motion be, and it is

hereby, denied,

/s/ Robert C. Murphy

Chief Judage

(SEAL)

ak,

Appendix C

Order, October 20, 1982

SARANELLE AVEDISIAN : IN THE

Appellant : COURT OF SPECIAL

Ve APPZALS OF MARYLAND

NANCY RAMSEY, ET AL.: No. 1016

Appellees : September Term, 1982

ORDER

After consideration of appelle-

e's Motion to Dismiss and the Answer op-

posing, it is this 20th day of October,

' 1982, by the Court of Special Appeals,

ORDERED, that the Motion be, and it is

herebdy, denied as untimely filed; and,

It further appearing from the

record in this cause that on February 25,

1981, by the Order of the Circuit Court

for Montgomery County (MITCHELL, J.),

that service of process was quashed as to

defendant, John Straughan, and that the

proceedings were dismissed for lack of

A=4

jurisdiction and that there was no entry

of final judgment as to the defendant,

Nancy Ramsey; and,

It further appearing thet there was

no expressed determination by the trial

court that there was no just reason for

delay nor expressed direction for the en-

try of judgment as authorized by the pro-

visions of Maryland Rule 605 a.; and,

. It is further ORDERED, that the cap-

tioned appeal be, and it is hereby, dis-

missed pursuant to Maryland Rule 1035 b.1.

/s/ Richard P. Gilbert

CHls¥ JULGs:

/s/ James C. Morton, Jr.

JUUGs

Jai ad. J. Gann, Jr.

(SEAL) JUDGS

A= 5

Appendix D

Memorandum and Order, July 11, 1978

IN THs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FCR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SARANELLE AVEDISIAN ~ )

Fiaintife }

v. ) CIVIL ACTION

NO. M-78=-1227

HUBBARD, =T AL

Defendants )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, acting pro se, has paid

the appropriate filing fees and has filed

this suit against approximately 150 de-

fendants. No specific relief has been re-

quested. No jurisdictional allegations

have been cited in the complaint, and it

does not appear that this court has juris-

diction over the complaint.

The complaint consists of a mishmash

of paranoic assertions and is clearly le-

gally frivolous.

Even though plaintiff has paid her

A-6

filing costs, this court has an inherent

and broad power "over (its) own process,

to prevent abuses, oppression, and in-

justice." Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131

at 144 (1888); 1 Moore, Federal Practice,

P. 0.60(6) at 612-614 (2d ed. 1964); O'UVon-

nell v. Mason, 132 Fed. 245, 247 (lst Cir.

1904). See also Brinkley v. Louisville

and N.R. Co., 95 Fed. 345 at 348-349 (WwW.

D. Tenn. 1899), aff'd 100 Fed. 1006 96th

Cir. 1900). Such power may be invoked by

the court on its own motion and exists in-

dependent of statute, and is not impaired

or limited by Federal Rule 12(b), F.R.Civ.

P. 1 Moore, Federal Practice, supra. In

addition, the court has the power, on its

own motion, to dismiss a suit for lack of

jurisdiction.

The clerk will be ordered to with-:

hold the service of process in the above

case and to dismiss the case for lack of

jurisdiction as well as to prevent abuse

of process.

It is so ORDIR=D this llth day of

July 1978.

/s/_ James R. Miller, Jr.

ames KR. er, Jr.

United States District Judge

I hereby attest and certify on

7-12-78 that the foregoing docu-

ment is a full, true and correct

cosy of the original on file in

my office and in my legal

custody.

Paul R. Schlitz

Clerk, U. S. District Court

District of Maryland :

By /s/ C. A. Halecki Deputy

A-8

APPENDIX E.

Memorandum and Order, August 29, 1979

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

SARANELLE AVEDISIAN,

Plaintiff

Ve Law Number 52353

MR. AND MRS. GEORGE C.

HUBBARD, ET AL.,

Defendants

MeMORANDUM AND ORDER.

‘ Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has

filed a pleading alleging a violation of

rights insured to her by 42 U.S.C.,

$1983. In July 1978, plaintiff filed a

Complaint alleging the identical cause of

action in the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland. At

that time, the Federal Court dismissed

the case for lack of jurisdiction. This

Court now dismisses the present case for

lack of a proper basis of jurisdiction.

A-9

Jurisdiction is not available under

42 U.S.C., $1983. The purpose of this law

is to protect the rights of citizens from

State action. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S.

225 (1972). The Complaint states only

vague allegations of police involvement,

which are insufficient to constitute

State action,

Plaintiff also invokes 875 of the

Maryland Code as a basis for jurisdiction,

No such provision of the Code exists,

The Memorandum and Order dismissing

the case brought in Federal Court noted

that the Complaint is "clearly legally

frivolous." The statement is equally ap=

plicable to the present complaint. The

Court feels that dismissal at this juncture

is required to spare the numerous defend« -..

ants the time and expense involved in de-

fending a non-neriterious suit.

It is so Ordered this 27th day of

A-10

August, 1979.

/s/ John J. Mitchell

JOHN J. MiTCHsLL

JUDGS of the Circuit Court for

Montgomery County, Maryland

Aell

APPENDIX F

Memorendum and Order, Judgment December

20, 1979

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SARANELLZ AVSDISIAN

. CIVIL NO. B-79-

' 1567

MR. & MRS. GEORGES C. HUBBARD,

et al

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action in

the Circuit Court for Montgomery County

under 42 U.S.C. $8 1983 and 1985, provi-

sions of the United States Constitution

and state law, alleging that over eighty

defendants have conspired against her. On

August 24, 1979, Defendants, William F.

Balger, Postmaster General of the United

States Postal Service; Russell T. Baker,

Jr., the United States Attorney for the

District of Maryland; and Griffin Bell,

former United States Attorney General,

filed a petition for remcval from the state

4-12

court because, on August 27, 1979, the

state judge dismissed the suit as legally

frivolous.

Removal is effected when the peti-

tion is filed with the federal court, ad-

verse parties are notified and a copy of

the petition is filed with the clerk of

the state court. 28 U.S.C. 8 1446(e).

The record demonstrates that the federal

defendants completed these procedures on

August 24, 1979; however, the dismissal

order of the state judge was not issued

until August 27, 1979, three days later.

The order of the state judge is, there-

fore, void. At the time it was issued,

the state court no longer had jurisdic-

tion over the suit, for removal had been

Il The second basis for dismissal, cited

by the state judge, was lack of juris-

diction; however, the federal defendants

do not refer to this ground in their pe-

tition for remand,

A=-13

previously effected. See Madisonville

Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Min. Co., 196

U.S. 239, 244 (1905).

A federal district court must remand

a case when it appears that it was removed

"improvidently and without jurisdiction."

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The case may not be

remanded on grounds other than those found

in this statute. Thermtron Products, Inc.

v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 345 (1976)

Dismissal of the suit by the state court

as frivolous, defendants’ asserted ground

for remand, is not a basis permitted by

the controlling statute and hence, does

not justify remand. Defendants who have

been permitted to remove an action should

not then be heard to petition for remand

once they are assured the state court

will rule in their fevor. The removal

statute was instituted: to protect federal

officers from local prejudice, not to al-

allow defendants to control the results of

A-14

the action. See Wright, Miller & Cooper,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 3ict, as

681 (1976).

Lack of jurisdiction, the Statutory

prerequisite to remand, is not present in

this case. Under 28 U.S.c. gs 1442(a)(1),

a defendant may remove an action if he is

an officer of the United States Sued for

an act performed "under color of such of-

fice." Performance of the alleged act by

a federal officer in the course of execu-

ting his duties has been held a Sufficient

basis for removal under this Statute,

Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 408

(1969). In her. complaint, plaintiff al-

leged that employees of the defendant

Postmaster General,* acting in their

2 Removal is based on the alleged acts of

employees of the Postmaster Generali and

not Russell T. Baker and Griffin Bell, the

other federal defendants who also sought

removal. Although plaintiff did name the

latter as defendants, her complaint made

no reference to any alleged wrongdoings on

their part. This court cannot, therefore

AW15

official capacity as "Post Office Depart-

ment personnel," have carried on an "on-

going conspiracy ... in an attempt to

force /plaintiff7 to bend to /defendants/

will"? Since it appears that the acts

2 Cont'd. aetermine whether it gas remov-

al jurisdiction over these two cefendants.

Since all defendants need not join in the

petition for removal based on 28 U.S.C.

§ 1442(a)(1) or be eligible to secure re-

moval on their own, it is nct necessary

for these two federal defendants to dem-

onstrate that they may properly remove

this case nor for the other defendants

named in the suit to be joined in the re-

moval petition. A showing by the Post-

master General that he may properly in-

voke the federal officer removal statute

is sufficient to bring the entire case be-

fore. this court. See 14 Wright, Miller

and Cooper, Federal Fractice and Proce-

dure s 3727, at 692 (19/6).

3 A petition for removal under U.S.C.

8 1442(a)(1) has been held to require spe-

cific averments that the acts charged fall

under the statute. Maryland v. Soper, 270

U.S. 9, 35 (1926). Federal defendants,

here, could only generally assert that the

acts alleged were performed under "color

of office" because of ambdiguity of the

complaint itself. As the court noted in

Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 408

(1969), tne requirement for specific aver-

ments must "be tailored to fit the facts

of each case."

A=-16

complained of occurred during the perform-

ance of postal duties, the court finds

that it has removal jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Defendants have

failed to show that this court is without

jurisdiction, and the petition for remand

is, therefore, denied.

The complaint focuses on an alleg-

ed conspiracy of neignbors, school person-

nel, Post Office Department employees,

Montgomery County Police, "and literally

hundreds of other people in contiguous

neighborhoods, as well as every part of

town." Plaintiff claims that the defend-

ants have engaged in a conspiracy for the

purpose of depriving her of equal protec-

tion under the law. The complaint is a

convoluted and disjointed compendium of

perceived wrongs on the part of virtually

anyone with whom the plaintiff appears to

have had contact in recent years. It is

‘an amorphous allegation giving not the

oS See [eet :

Slightest indication that there is sup-

7 ee 3

or tae action brought.

port

aver mindful that pro

are held "to less strinzent standards thm

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,"

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)

this court nevertheless concludes that

plaintiff's primary claim of conspiracy

as well as other incidental allegations

are legally frivolous,* Invoking its in-

herent power over "process, to prevent a-

buse, oppression, and injustice," Gumbel

v. Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131, 144 (1888), the

court dismisses this action. See 1 Moores

0.60/67 at 634-36 (2d

raj

4¥)

i?)

ed. 1948). This "power to dismiss exists

Quite independently of express statutory

authority, and may be exercised in a prop-

4 Juage Miller of this court reached a

Similar conclusion in a similar action by

this plaintiff against more than 150 al-

leged conspirators. Avedisian v. Hubbard,

Civil No. M-78-1227, (D.Md., July 11,1978)

Summary affirmance, No. 78-1643(4th Cir.,

A-18

er case by the court upon its own motion"

O'Connell v. Mason, 132 Fed. 245, 247

(lst Cir. 1904).

Accordingly, it is this 18th day

of December, 1979, by the United States

District Court for the District of Mary-

dand, ORDSRED:

1) That defendants! petition for

remand be, and the same hereby is,

DENIZD: and

2) That all claims brought against

the defendants be, and the same hereby

are, DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall mail a copy of

this Memorandum and Order to the plain-

tiff and to each of the defendants.

pel v2 Stanley Blair

i anley air

United States District Judge

4 Cont. Nov. 15, 1978), cert. denied,

No. 78-1560 U8 June 4, 14919)

Executed Order of February 25, 1981

IN THE MONTGCMSRY COUNTY CIRGUIT COURT

FOR THs SIXTH: CIRCUIT

SARANE LI AVSDISIAN,

Slaintifr

. Civil Action #570

NaNCY RAMSEY and

JOKN STRAUGHA) :

Upon consideration of the Motion

Raising Preliminary Objections, it is this

25th day of February, 1981, by the Circuit

Court for Montgomery County, Maryland;

ORDERSD, that service of process on

John Straygnan be and the same is hereby

quashed; and it is further,

ORDSRED, that the above-captioned

case be and the same is hereby dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction; and it is

further,

ORDERSD, that the Clerk of the

A-20

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Mary-

land, be and the same is hereby ordered

to withhold service of process in the

above case and any other action filed by

Saranelle Avedisian without leave of

court for good cause shown; and it is

further,

ORDERED, that a copy of the fore-

going Order be personally served on

Saranelle Avedisian.

s/ John J. Mitchell

m, carcuit court for

Montgomery County, Maryland

Non-est 3/30/81

Not in when serve attempted

gel James A. Young

eriril Montgomery County, Maryland

A-21

Appendix &

+ amen | MONT fi Peis"

Court (Miller, J.) finds case has

been dismissed pursuent to Order of Judge

ant's attorney to submit order dismiss-

ing case with vrejudice subject to Judge

A-22

FSNDIX I

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

US Const, Am IV:

the right of the people to he se-

cure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and

no warrants shall issue, but upon prop-

able cause, supported by oath or affirn-

ation, and particularly describing the

place to be searched, and the person or

things to be seized,

US Const, Am V:

No person shall be held to answer

for a capital, or otherwise infamous

crime, unless on a presentment or in-

dictment of a grand jury, except in cases

arising in the land or naval forces, or

in the militia, when in actual service in

time of war or public danger; nor shall

any person be subject for the same off-

or limb; nor shall be compelled in any

criminal case to be @ witness against

himself nor be deprived of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for

public use without just compensation.

US Const, Am XIV

Section 1, All persons born or nate

uralized in the United States and sudject

to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens

of the United States and of the State where-

in they reside. No State shall maxe or en-

force any law which shall abridge the priv-

ileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State ceprive

any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor ceny to any

person within its jurisdiction the equal

protecticn of the laws,

A-24

UNITED STATS STATUTURY PROVISIONS

USCA 42 § 1983

Any person who, under color of any

Statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State or Territory, subjects,

or causes to be subjected, any citizen of

the United States or other person under

the jurisdiction thereot to the depriva-

tion of any rights, privileges, or immun-

ities secured by the Constitution and laws,

Shall be liable to the party injured in an

action at law, suit in equity, or other

proper proceeding for redress,

hay >> oO :

st . 2) 4? ba 4 : > Sa - !

a by “4 a o Oo Oo 68 ct

~ a c $4 4 . ® ord P ort

1 “A ® ia oO f » ” a | ba . oo - a x °o

42 ”n a = £3 - io >| = Vv . = bi,

as a; & &£ 3 «6 Bw 6 4 « ¢ & = & S n 3

ae oO 5 : st oO ae) £3 ’ oO + oO = a |

=I ba ed 4? XS oO ‘dS , re) 4 s 4 2 ad or 0) ® ” v

4 wv w 4" '?) 64 rd ” =: G4 ® oO ” i2) ® ha 4,

sO 4 fe G4 £4 27 s w oO ed o vs oO oO Sa a fm, et

4 § Oo wi C oO Oo “4 ; oO w ba cS $s 3 bo

ur 2 ee > ses 2 + 4 § a. 2 a @§f + & @

3 m wv CO hy oO Oo = wy b4 °) oO oO ~~» <= - = <3 nn

‘ 49 e) “ o) ont = oO 4 st Y ~~ >> Sa oO

M 3+ Ww Oo 4 Oo > $3 >> 5 > > ® 4 A ” ® ed Oo t

uN bn 3 ran | as +> ~ § Cds @ n >> =z 3 4

uo ++ G4 Sa cS oe a Oo S, fer Oo » ® > 3 = aw od Y

OV’ r4 «4 4 $4 “rf “ef 4 et $4 > ss <2 >> “A Ww ct ® 4 SS

m =~ *& + ” f4 a 4 s Sy 2) o +» Oo o 63 n $4 S4

i’ ma ON Ba ; 0 G wf ” oO 1) Oo 3) S ty w “4 re) oO

~ a VS CSC = >> - Cc s 3 + S G4

<t w#) f + 3 | 4 >> ® ho » se "? cS 4? -

7 oO An, + re) =z » 42 » z w 4 co re Oo aha oO “4 oO '@) $4

C) 4) Sy wo n ® r> $4 > G4 H 3) oO oS t oA

2 mw 4% So vf FPF & a 8 «A So FF «& Se « oo * «¢

A=26

dering, obstructing, or defeating in any

manner, the due course of justice in any

State or Territory, with intent to deny

to any citizen the equal protection of

the laws, or to injure him or his proper-

ty for lawfully enforcing or attempting

to enforce, the right of any person, or

class of persons, to the equal protection

of the laws;

USCA 42 § 1985 -- Depriving persons of

rights or privileges

(3) If two or more persons in any

State or Territory conspire or go in dis-

guise on the highway or on the premises of

another, for the purpose of depriving,

either directly or indirectly any person

or class of persons of the equal protec-

tion of the laws, or of equal privileges

and immunities under the laws; or for the

purpose of preventing or hindering the

constituted authorities of any State or

Territory from giving or securing to all

two or more persons conspire to prevent oy

force, intimidation, or threat, any citi-

zen wno is lawfully entitled to vote,

from giving his support or advocacy in a

legal manner, toward or in favor of the

election of any lawfully qualified person

as an elector for President or Vice Presi-

dent, or as @ Member of Congress of the

United States; or to injure any citizen

in person or property on account of such

support or advocacy; in any case of.

spiracy set forth in this section, if

one or more persons engaged therein do,

or cause to be done, any act in further-

ance of the object of such conspiracy,

whereby another is injured in his person

or property, or deprived of having and

exercising any right or privilege of a

citizen of the United States, the party so

injured or deprived may have an action for

A-28

the recovery of damages, occasiord by

such injury or deprivation, against any

one or more of the conspirators.

OATH OF MARYLAND STATE POLICE

I do solemnly swear that I will bear

true faith and allegiance to the United

States of America and to the State of

Maryland. That I will serve honestly and

faithfully to uphold and defend the Con-

stitution of the United States and the

Constitution of Maryland; that I will en-

force the laws of the state of Maryland;

and that I will obey the orders of the

Governor and of the officer appointed

over me according to the rules and regu-

lations of the Maryland state police.

4-29

—_"

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COD=

Til, $55-21-Fo0lice

(7) Responsibility of members gener-

ally. svery member of the police shall be

held responsible for the proper performance

of his duties and for strict adherence on

his part to the rules and regulations 4-

dopted from time to time for the government

of the police, and it shall not be deemed a

valid excuse or justification for anything

he may do contrary to such rules and regu-

lations, or for anything he may omit doing,

that he followed the suggestion or advice

of*any other person, whether connected

with the police or not; except, that an

officer of superior rank may take upon hin-

self the responsibility of issuing direct

and positive orders.

4-30

Maryland Rules of Frocedure

Rule 605. Mul tinie Clains--Judgnent Upon

Gen'l. a. When 2ntered-As to Part or All

Where more than one claim for re-

lief is presented in an action, whether

as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-

claim, or third-party claim, the court

may direct the entry of a final judgment

upon one or more but less than all of the

claims only upon an express determination

that there is no just reason for delay

and upon an express direction for the en-

try of judgment. In the absence of such

determination and direction, any order or

other form of decision, however desig-

nated, which sivudibates less than all

the claims shall not terminate the action

as to any of the claims, and the order or

other form of decision is subject to re-

vision at any time before the entry of

judgment adjudicating all the claims,

Maryland Declératvtion of Rights

art. 24. Due frocess.

That no man ought to be taken or

imprisoned or disseized of nis fresnoid,

liderties or privileges, or outlawed, or

exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or

but by the jucgment of nis peers, or dy

the Law of the lend.

CERTIFICATS OF SERVICE

7: SARANSLLE AVEDISIAN, hereby

certity that 6 copies of this petition

for a writ of certiorari were mailed by

regular mail to the attorney of record

in this case, Mr. Bruce P, Sherman, an

Assistant County Attorney for Montgomery

County Maryland, at 2350 Research Blvd.,

Rockville, Maryland 20850, on this yb

day of May » 1983, by certified

mail, return receipt requested,

e Avedisi

14613 Melinda Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20853

460-5573

» Letitioner

Pro Se

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.