It’s Friday! For some of us, it’s been an excruciating long week. For many hard working, tax-paying Americans, the next couple of days bring welcomed relief.

For others, however, it’s the last Friday with a whole buncha lingerin’ questions.. Continue reading →

It seems as though a certain individual has this idea that because something wasn’t explicitly said, doesn’t make it true.

Let’s say you’re in a court case and the court publishes a routine order that conforms to existing precedent – for example, say, hypothetically, a pro-se plaintiff is given a Roseboro Order. Continue reading →

In Schmalfeldt v. Grady et al, the court issued a “Roseboro Order” which essentially is an explanation to a pro-se plaintiff on what happens during the Motion To Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment phases.

Continue reading →

To set this up, imagine that you are a disabled person and you have an appointment with a judge along with a three day trial.  This has been set for many months and there is plenty of time to plan and prepare for comfortable travel and accommodations.

A reasonable, intelligent person would consult with the rules, attorneys or other legal specialists and understand what things need to happen to help you get through the trial.

Unless you’re Bill Schmalfeldt, who doesn’t seem to think ten seconds in front of him. During a hearing to compel Schmalfeldt to comply with a discovery order, Judge Hecker made it clear that Schmalfeldt needed to get a copy of and follow Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure. Continue reading →

In Schmalfeldt’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Make More Definite in Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al, he makes a rather interesting argument in defense of his complaint. Continue reading →