Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 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. Case No. - - -

Michael Herbert Pfeiffer


Respondent-Dejendant-Appellee.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Seeking Review of


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 through 33")]

This case presents to this Court an opportunity to correct serious damage to

the integrity of the statutorily established Temporary Protective Order (TPO) re-

gime of Maryland's Domestic Violence Statutes caused by the erroneous decisions

below. MD FL §4-501, et. seq.

The lower court decisions legitimize the actions of one party -- prior to the

Full Protective Order (FPO) hearing date to cause a Duty Judge to prematurely

vacate 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)
without opportunity for the pro se litigant to obtain counsel (in this case from

House 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 proffers

of opposing counsel for which said counsel clearly had no evidence or first hand

knowledge and which later were established to be false. If allowed to stand, the

lower 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 set

forth 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 seriously

weakens “the State's effort to respond aggressively to incidents of violence in the

home and frustrat[es] the important objectives of the State's domestic violence

law.” Id. The fact that the Court of Special Appeals decision is unreported does

not diminish its effects, because – whether published or unpublished – the Duty

Circuit Court’s actions below will remain standing absent corrective action by this

Court of Appeals, and the lower courts, including the ones involved here, will view

the outcome as legitimate and proper for guiding future cases. Unfortunately, re-

2
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 County

Abused 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 the

German 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 the

TPO, ran the Ariel Foundation International, a small foundation that helps children

throughout the world. Wife/Mother is an American citizen who currently lives in

Germany.

Respondent is Dr. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer (“Respondent,” “Appellee,” and

“Defendant,” ”Husband,” and “Father”) against whom the TPO protection was

sought 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

3
when she was not staying with Wife/Mother in Maryland. At the time of the issu-

ance of the TPO, Dr. Pfeiffer had been on staff at a number of major hospitals in

the Washington DC area, including Georgetown University Hospital. Dr. Pfeiffer

continues to live in that one bedroom walkup apartment in Washington, DC with

ALM.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

After consulting with the Montgomery County APP about the breakdown of

the child at school after a weekend visit with her Father, Petitioner Dr. Ariel King,

applied pro se for a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) on June 2, 2009. APP ad-

vised that Wife/Mother seek a TPO and it provided assistance in the application

process. [See, APP Notes, Pet.Att.- 69] A TPO for protection of both the pro se

Wife/Mother (stalking) and her daughter (“Statutory Abuse of a Child (physical,

sexual)”) was issued after a one-hour hearing before Judge Boynton of the Mont-

gomery County Circuit Court on June 2, 2008. In the hearing, Judge Boynton had

examined the Wife/Mother accompanied by her daughter. Judge Boynton’s TPO

also initiated an investigation by Montgomery County Child Protection Services

(DSS) into suspected abuse and neglect by ALM’s Husband/Father Dr. Pfeiffer.

Consistent with Maryland’s Domestic Violence statutory protection scheme, the

TPO temporarily shifted custody of the then-five-year-old child to pro se

Wife/Mother. The TPO contained the standard explicit directives, including that

4
all parties needed to a) obtain counsel, b) gather evidence and witnesses to present,

and c) fully prepare for a Full Protective Order (FPO) Hearing set for June 9, 2008.

[TPO “Notice to All Parties,” Pet.Att.- 6, 9] Montgomery County APP then re-

ferred pro se Wife to the House of Ruth (“HOR”) to obtain legal counsel for the

June 9 FPO hearing [Pet.Att.- 69].

During the critical time between the June 2, 2008 TPO hearing and its court-

scheduled June 9, 2008 FPO hearing, the Husband/Father’s counsel, -- without

providing adequate notice to, or consultation with, the pro se wife, or the House of

Ruth -- maneuvered the Duty Judge for June 5, 2008, Judge Craven, to hold an un-

scheduled ex parte hearing on Husband/Father’s Motion to Quash the TPO. Duty

Judge Craven’s court did not issue a notice of said hearing, nor place said hearing

on its schedule. During that June 5, 2008 ex parte hearing, Duty Judge Craven va-

cated Judge Boynton’s June 2, 2008 TPO based solely on false proffers of Hus-

band’s counsel concerning what he alleged was stated by the pro se wife at the

June 2, 2008 TPO hearing. However, said Husband’s Counsel was neither present

at the June 2, 2008 hearing, nor did he present a transcript or other evidence of

what was stated at that June 2, 2008 hearing. Petitioner’s later-filed Motion to Va-

cate the June 5, 2008 Order Quashing the TPO was denied, and then appealed.

The questions presented are:  

1. Was it an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process and equal


protection for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) issued by one Circuit

5
Court Judge on June 2, 2008, to be “quashed” by another “Duty” Circuit
Court Judge in an unscheduled, ex parte hearing on June 5, 2008,
,
a. without consultation with the original Judge (who had ordered the
TPO who had received testimony from and observed both the wife and
child at the original TPO hearing on June 2, 2008),
b. without adequate or accurate notice,
c. without notice from the Court,
d. without a scheduled hearing,
e. without opportunity for the pro se litigant to obtain counsel (in this
case from House of Ruth), to represent the Wife/Mother and child,
f. without the results of a completed child abuse investigation mandat-
ed by the TPO for suspected child physical and sexual abuse,
g. before the court-set FPO hearing date of June 9, 2008, and/or
h. based on hearsay proffers of husband’s counsel for which said
counsel had no evidence or first-hand knowledge.

2. Was it an abuse of discretion for the Second (Duty) Circuit Court Judge to
deny a Motion to Vacate his June 5, 2008 Order Quashing the June 5, 2008
TPO in light of the fraud, mistake and irregularities surrounding entry of that
June 5, 2008 Order.

3. Was it error for the Court of Special Appeals to summarily deny a Motion
for Reconsideration seeking to correct factual errors in its Opinion below
where documentation was presented that clearly demonstrated,

a. the Opinion set forth erroneous facts are not supported by any find-
ings by the Circuit Court below,
c. the Opinion set forth erroneous facts are clearly contradicted by the
record in the Circuit Court below.

6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTIES  ...........................................................................................................................  3  
QUESTIONS  PRESENTED  ............................................................................................  4  
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ..................................................................................................  7  
TABLE  OF  AUTHORITIES  ............................................................................................  7  
STATEMENT  OF  THE  FACTS  ......................................................................................  8  
ARGUMENT  IN  SUPPORT  OF  PETITION  ...............................................................  13  
The DV Protection Scheme Undermined By Allowing Such Cases to Stand  ...........................  14  
Irregularity, Mistake, and Fraud Require Vacating the Court’s Orders  ......................................  16  
The Motions to Vacate and Appeals Were Timely and Proper  ......................................................  20  
The Court of Special Appeals Opinion Was Erroneous In that It Relies On Numerous Errors
of Fact
That Have No Support In the Record  .............................................................................................  21  
These DV Matters Require Clarification By The Court of Appeals  ......................................  23  
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  OF  ATTACHMENT  (“Pet.Att.-­‐____“)  ...............................  25  
ATTACHMENTS    (“Pet.Att.-­‐  ___”)  
 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 674 A.2d 951 (1996) ...................................................... 2, 14, 23
In re. Katherine C., 890 A.2d 295, 390 Md. 554 (2006) ........................................................ 16, 17
Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122, 775 A.2d 1249 (2001) ..................... 2, 15, 23
Phillips v. Venker, 557 A.2d 1338 (1989) ............................................................................. 16, 17

STATUTES
MD FL §9.5-204 ..................................................................................................................... 17, 19
MD FL §4-501, et. seq .......................................................................................................... 1, 8, 16
MD FL §9-305 .............................................................................................................................. 10

RULES
MD Crt. Rule §16-102 ............................................................................................................ 16, 18

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Fifth and Fourteen Amendment .................................................................................................... 11

7
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
 
Petitioner, Dr. Ariel Rosita King, requests that this Court reverse the line of

decisions of Duty Judge Craven beginning with his June 5, 2008 Order Quashing

of the June 2, 2008 TPO. The TPO, issued by Judge Boynton on June 2, 2008, was

in all ways consistent with the Domestic Violence protection statutes of Maryland

and their purpose: 1) protect both pro se Wife/Mother from stalking and their child

until the FPO hearing set for June 9, 2008, 2) cause an investigation of Judge

Boynton’s concerns of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and domestic violence, and 3)

set a Full Protective Order (FPO) hearing for June 9, 2008 with the presentation of

evidence and witnesses, assisted by counsel. MD FL §4-501, et. seq., [TPO “No-

tice to All Parties,” Pet.Att.- 6]

The line of erroneous decisions occurred because Husband/Father, through

counsel, maneuvered Judge Craven to hold an unscheduled1 ex parte hearing on

June 5, 2008, without adequate notice, evidence to support the court’s conclusions,

without pro se Wife/Mother or her child present, without the results of a full child

protection agency abuse investigation, and without affording pro se Wife/Mother

and child adequate time to obtain counsel from the House of Ruth (“HOR”) and
                                                                                                               
Calls  to  the  Court  clerk  and  Judge  Craven’s  chambers  on  the  morning  of  June  5,  2008  revealed  that  
1  

neither  the  Court  clerk  or  Judge  Craven’s  chambers  was  aware  of  any  scheduled  hearing  in  the  TPO  
case  for  that  day.      This  lack  of  any  scheduled  hearing  is  evidenced  that  no  entry  was  placed  in  the  
docket  noticing  or  otherwise  noting  any  scheduled  hearing  for  June  5,  2008  [Pet.Att.-­‐1],  and  that  the  
“notice”  allegedly  provided  by  Husband  only  stated  the  hearing  was  “on  or  about  Thursday  at  11  am,”    
No  date  was  provided  in  the  Husband’s  “notice”  for  the  hearing,  nor  was  a  particular  time  set  for  
hearing  or  whether  evidence  would  be  taken.    [Pet.  Att.-­‐  117]  

8
otherwise prepare for a hearing. [See, APP “Notes”, Pet.Att-69] Because the un-

scheduled ex parte hearing of Duty Judge Craven occurred before the June 9, 2008

FPO hearing date set by the TPO, it necessarily did not benefit from the results of

Judge Boynton’s TPO-initiated investigation of sexual and physical abuse about

which Judge Boynton had concerns. It also did not benefit from the uncontrovert-

ed evidence considered by Judge Boynton in issuing his June 2, 2008 TPO, includ-

ing evidence the child was sleeping with Father (Montgomery County Treehouse

Forensic Interview of the Child [Pet.Att.- 86-87]), a breakdown of the child earlier

that day [Pet.Att.-86-87], physical abuse [Pet.Att.- 90-91], CPS having referred the

child to the Treehouse program for sexual abuse [Pet.Att.-91], and the child now

suffering from a potentially fatal rare Severe Chronic Neutropenia (low immunity

or “Low ANC”) of unknown cause. [Pet.Att.- 92-94]. Said condition arose after

the child began regularly sleeping at Husband’s one bedroom apartment “in the

big bed” in Washington DC. [Forensic Interview, Pet.Att.-77-78].

The day after achieving the premature quashing of the TPO order on June 5,

2008, the Husband used that result to maneuver a Virginia court to award full cus-

tody of the child in a “final order,” and place a prohibition on the child’s contact

with the Mother. This was achieved, again in an ex parte hearing in Virginia,

based solely on Husband’s counsel’ proffers of what occurred in the Maryland

9
TPO hearing the day before.2

The Husband then went back to the Maryland seeking to have Wife/Mother

arrested for “non-parental abduction of a child under 12.” [See, Arrest Warrant,

Pet.Att.-72 (alleging Father’s Counsel to be child’s “custodian”)] Wife/Mother

was arrested at the child’s bedside at the hematology/oncology ward at Montefiore

Children’s Hospital in New York, where Wife/Mother had taken the child to have

the rare life-threatening Severe Chronic Neutropenia thoroughly evaluated without

the historical interference by her Husband with local physicians Husband was a

member of the medical staff of numerous hospitals in the Washington DC area.

That arrest -- based on an improper charge of interstate non-parental abduction of

a child under 12 (carrying a 20 year sentence)3,-- caused the Wife/Mother to be

held without bond, for a month at Rikers Island prison, while awaiting extradition

to Maryland. During that period deadlines expired for appeal and routine recon-

sideration of Judge Craven’s June 5, 2008 Order.4

On April 6, 2009, after entry of her plea for taking her child to New York

                                                                                                               
This was not in the best interests of the child given that the Wife/Mother was the primary caregiver for
2  

the first five years of her child’s life without any incident or findings that she was an inadequate parent to
the child. In fact, the only court evaluation and recommendation that was ever issued by a court official
recommended that Wife/Mother receive physical custody of their daughter. [See, Nov.10, 2007 Recom-
mendation of the Virginia Court Evaluator, found at Supplemental Appendix For Reply Brief For Appel-
lant, at King-27, filed January 26, 2010.]  
3  Interstate parental abduction of a child for less then 30 days carries a maximum of only 30 days. MD FL

§9-305.
4  The arrest also had the effect of aborting the independent evaluation of ALM at Montefiore Children’s

Hospital, where her Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) had been measured as low was 120 (less than 5%
of normal immunity)  

10
without authority,5 and review of disclosures in that case of the State’s extensive

discovery, Wife/Mother immediately filed, pro se, a Motion to Vacate Judge Cra-

ven’s June 5, 2008 Order. See, Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Case 70620FL,

filed April 6, 2009. Through extensive documentation, Petitioner’s Motion to Va-

cate established that Judge Craven’s June 5, 2008 Order was the result of fraud,

mistake, and irregularity. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate further demonstrated that

the issues, even if moot, required vacating the June 5, 2008 decision to avoid bad

precedent for other domestic violence victims, mostly women and children, in the

future. The Petition also argued also that she and their child’s rights to due process

and equal protection were violated by the Court’s June 5, 2008 decision. [See, e.g.,

Fifth and Fourteen Amendment of US Constitution] While Judge Craven initially

reopened the case, he summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate

without holding a hearing in an Order, entered on June 1, 2009). [Pet.Att.- 18]

Appeal   to   the   Court   of   Special   Appeals: Wife/Mother, filing pro se,

sought timely appeal of the line of decisions leading to Judge Craven’s June 1,

2009 Order. [See, Appellant’s Brief, filed Dec. 10, 2009, and Reply Brief, filed

Jan. 26, 2010, Court of Special Appeals, Case No. 1007, September Term 2009].

In her Brief and Reply, Wife/Mother explained why Judge Craven’s Orders
                                                                                                               
5  On
April 6, 2009, after being denied her statutory defenses and denied to present her expert witnesses,
the Wife pled guilty to parental abduction admitting only “that she took her young daughter out of Mary-
land to another state, that state being New York, without the proper authority.” [April 6, 2008 Transcript
of Case 131333 at pp. 151-154, attached hereto as Pet.App.- 143-146] The plea arrangement provided
for no jail time and no probation.  

11
should, at a minimum, be vacated, and why her appeal was timely. Petitioner also

argued that even if moot, that the Court of Special Appeals should correct the un-

precedented error by Judge Craven’s Court so as to clearly establish that future

domestic violence victims who successfully obtain a TPO will be assured that all

of the court’s of Maryland will honor that original TPO Court’s findings, adhere to

its protection for the period leading to the FPO, follow through with a completed

investigations, hold a proper FPO hearing held at the time and place set by the

original Judge’s TPO, provide adequate notice and time to prepare and obtain

counsel, and assure proper and complete presentation of any investigation ordered.

Court of Special Appeals Denies the Appeal As Untimely and Ignores

the Policy Issues: On August 13, 2010, the Court of Special Appeals issued an

unreported eleven page Opinion. [Pet.Att.- 19]. The Opinion’s first nine pages

set forth an erroneous factual background that was mostly unsupported by, and

conflicted with, the record below. The Opinion’s last two pages contained sum-

mary “discussion.” In that summary discussion, the Court of Special Appeals

summarily denied the appeal because it argued that no “fraud, mistake or irregular-

ity” had occurred based on its erroneous facts. The Court of Appeals repeated

Judge Craven’s entire “reasoning” that, on its face, was clearly erroneous:

"I find she knows about this, has chosen not to be here and there is reason to
believe that the testimony given to Judge Boynton a few days ago is false."

12
The Court of Special Appeals ignored the defects in the notice, inconsisten-

cies with the TPO’s instructions, that Duty Judge Craven had not consulted Judge

Boynton, that he had not read the TPO hearing transcript, and that he had relied on-

ly on clearly uninformed false proffers regarding the June 2, 2008 hearing, and that

Duty Judges are not authorized to dispose of such matters.

On September 13, 2010, Wife/Mother filed a Motion for Reconsideration of

the Court of Special Appeals Opinion seeking: 1) correction of the Opinion’s many

factual errors, and 2) revision of the determination based on the corrected facts.

[See, Motion for Reconsideration, attached hereto at Pet.Att.- 34, et. Seq.

Court  of  Special  Appeals  Denies  Reconsideration  of  both  the  Erro-­‐

neous   Facts   and   the   Resulting   Erroneous   Determination: On October 28,

2010, the Court of Appeals issued a summary order denying, without any reason-

ing, Wife/Mother’s Motion for Reconsideration of both the erroneous facts in its

August 13, 2010 opinion and the determination based on those facts. [Pet.Att.- 31]

A mandate was issued October 28, 2010, and mailed October 29, 2010. [Pet.Att.-

32]

This Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeks review of the decisions below.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION


 
This case has created a major fault line in Maryland’s well-established

scheme for domestic violence protection.

13
"The purpose of the domestic abuse statute is to protect and aid victims of
domestic abuse by providing an immediate and effective' remedy. The stat-
ute provides for a wide variety and scope of available remedies designed to
separate the parties and avoid future abuse. Thus, the primary goals of the
statute are preventive, protective and remedial, not punitive. The legislature
did not design the statute as punishment for past conduct; it was instead in-
tended to prevent further harm to the victim."

- Coburn, 342 Md. at 250, 674 A.2d at 954-955 (1996)

“Statistics have shown that the most vulnerable time for domestic violence
victims is immediately following the issuance of a temporary protective or-
der,”
Chief Deputy Popkin of Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office
[Press Release, “Temporary Protective Orders to be Heard via
Video in Montgomery County” (Sept. 28, 2009), attached here-
to at Pet.Att.- 75-76]

The DV Protection Scheme Undermined By Allowing Such Cases to Stand


The Maryland Domestic Violence protection scheme is severely undermined

if a suspected abuser can easily manipulate the legal process by going before a Du-

ty Judge to have a TPO quashed -- at this “most vulnerable time” before the court-

scheduled FPO -- in an ex parte unscheduled hearing where: a) inadequate and de-

fective notice of said hearing is provided to the pro se victims, b) no court-

scheduled hearing or associated official notice to the pro se victims, c) no oppor-

tunity for the pro se victims to obtain counsel for the unscheduled hearing, d) no

opportunity for the pro se victims to prepare for said hearing, e) no attempt to

schedule said unscheduled hearing at a time convenient to the pro se victim, and f)

aborting the TPO-mandated child abuse investigation and the proper presentation

14
of its results at a court-scheduled FPO.

It was during that “most vulnerable time” that Judge Craven vacated the

TPO protections put in place for seven days by Judge Boynton for both Petitioner

and her child. Judge Craven’s June 5, 2008 Order is the very antithesis to the pur-

pose of the domestic violence protection statutes of Maryland. Judge Craven relied

solely upon clearly baseless proffers of Husband’s attorney concerning what that

attorney thought was said at a TPO hearing neither he nor his client attended, nor

one for which he could present a transcript to support his delusional claims.

The main focus of the Father’s main argument in his Motion to Quash the

June 2, 2008 TPO was a “red herring,” namely that a “custody proceeding” was

pending in Virginia at the time. However, said proceeding was disclosed in the

June 2, 2008 TPO hearing before Judge Boynton [Pet.Att.- 87-88], and does not

undermine Maryland’s jurisdiction to issue a TPO to protect victims within its bor-

ders – as was done here. A TPO is by its nature, a temporary relief to afford short-

term protection. As this court recognized in Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122, 775

A.2d 1249 (2001), the issue of whether a protective order should be issued cannot

be driven by any speculative long-term effect such TPO might have on a collateral

custody proceeding. The protective order’s main purpose is to provide temporary

protection of adult and child victims physically within Maryland, and it does not

resolve or interfere with the merits of any long-term custody proceeding.

15
It is well established that if DV victims are physically in Maryland, then

Maryland has jurisdiction to enter a TPO to protect said victims. [MD FL §4-501,

and §4-505, also, MD Code FL §9.5-204] In this case, both victims were in

Maryland, and the alleged violence against both victims took place, at least in part,

in Maryland. Neither victim here should have needed to go, nor could have gone

to Virginia (which lacked the necessary jurisdiction) for a TPO for actions that did

not take place in Virginia and where none of the party’s resided for over 8 months.

Irregularity, Mistake, and Fraud Require Vacating the Court’s Orders


 
As set forth in the Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration, when its Opinion’s

factual errors are corrected to accurately reflect the record, the Court of Special

Appeals should have concluded that Judge Craven was required to vacate his June

5, 2008 Order because it is incontrovertible:

1) that there was irregularity and mistake by holding an unscheduled ex

parte June 5, 2008 hearing before a Duty Judge -- in violation of constitutional due

process and the law of Maryland6 -- due to lack of adequate notice for the actions

taken, which exceeded a Duty Judge's primary responsibilities. See, MD Crt. Rule

§16-102. This Court Of Appeals found lack of adequate meaningful notice in-

volves more than simply knowing the proposed place and time of a hearing. Inad-

equate notice can still exist even where both party appear at the hearing:
                                                                                                               
6
In re. Katherine C., 890 A.2d 295 at 307, 390 Md. 554 (2006) (quoting Phillips v. Venker, 557 A.2d
1338 at 1343, 316 Md. 212 (1989))

16
It is axiomatic that they were entitled to adequate notice of the time, place,
and nature of that hearing, so that they could adequately prepare.

Assuming, as the parties here have agreed, that a telephone conference satis-
fied the requirement of an oral hearing in this case, notice of that hearing, if
indeed it can be said that any notice was given, was insufficient. Counsel for
the plaintiffs was not given any meaningful opportunity to review his file,
collect his thoughts, or otherwise prepare for oral argument. That he was
able to participate in some fashion in the argument the trial judge insisted
be held does not suggest that he was able to participate effectively. Effective
argument of a motion for [the dispositive] summary judgment in this type of
case requires not only that the attorney be conversant with the applicable
case law, but that he also have fresh in mind the critical areas of deposition
testimony previously given by each witness. The stakes were high, and the
need for adequate preparation was apparent. The absence of adequate notice
effectively deprived the plaintiffs of the hearing guaranteed them by the rule.
We shall vacate the judgment below and remand the case so that the parties
may be afforded a hearing after adequate notice.

- (emphasis added, citations omitted) Phillips v. Venker, at


1343 (1989) (quoted in In re. Katherine C., at 307)

2) that it was irregularity at the unscheduled ex parte June 5, 2008 hearing to

quash the entire TPO without regard to its multiple purposes, which were: 1) pro-

tection of the Wife/Mother from “stalking” by the Husband/Father, 2) the "statuto-

ry abuse of the child (Physical, Sexual)”, and 3) completion of a DSS (CPS) child

abuse investigation. The Maryland UCCJEA (MD Code FL §9.5-204) allows for

temporary jurisdiction to protect a child even if a custody proceeding is pending

elsewhere. With regard to the TPO protections for the Wife and her child, the ex-

istence of a custody proceeding in Virginia, thus, had no bearing on the jurisdiction

or merits of a TPO issued to protect the child in Maryland, and certainly could not

17
have affected jurisdiction with regard to protecting the Wife in Maryland. .

3) that it was irregularity for a Duty Judge Craven to attempt to prematurely

hold an unscheduled FPO hearing (which was scheduled by the court for June 9,

2008) at the ex parte June 5, 2008 hearing, where he heard, without notice, hearsay

testimonial evidence from two CPS workers who appeared without subpoena or

court order, and who conceded they received the case only one day before, and

testified that their investigation was far from complete (“not started”) including not

having interviewed the Husband/Father, the child’s teachers (who witnessed the

breakdown), nor were aware of the Forensic Interviews of the Treehouse and the

child’s disclosures therein, nor considered the role of the sudden onset of Severe

Chronic Neutropenia (which can be psychotropic drug induced). Judge Boynton’s

court set hearing date of June 9, 2008 is required by statute. Judge Craven’s action

were clearly not in conformance with MD Crt. Rule §16-102. On June 5, 2008,

Duty Judge Craven should have insisted that the Husband/Father raise his Motion

to Quash issues at the June 9, 2008 trial set by the TPO, or, if required sooner, be-

fore Judge Boynton, who had seen and interviewed both the wife and their child,

and then issued the TPO for their protection. Only Judge Boynton had first-hand

knowledge of the testimony and history of the TPO.

4) that it was irregularity for the Duty Judge's June 5, 2008 Order to quash

the TPO on the basis that "he had reason to believe that the testimony given [at

18
the June 2, 2008 hearing] to Judge Boynton a few days ago is false" or because

there was a custody proceeding in Virginia. As to the former, no party in that June

5, 2008 hearing room, including the Duty Judge Craven, had any knowledge of the

testimony that had been given on June 2, 2008, including any testimony with re-

gard to the custody proceeding in Virginia. As to the later, Judge Craven improp-

erly disregarded the UCCJEA’s provision that clearly enabled Judge Boynton’s

TPO for the child under the Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction of MD FL Code

§9.5-204. Upon entry of the emergency order, the UCCJEA calls for a conference

between the courts to "resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and

the child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order." MD FL

Code §9.5-204. Duty Judge Craven failed to do so.

5) that there was extrinsic fraud arising from a) the Husband/Father's attor-

ney's failure to provide adequate or accurate notice of a hearing he set, b) Hus-

band/Father’s counsel’s failure to provide notice that he intended to call witnesses,

c) Husband/Father’s counsel’s failure to provide notice of what witnesses he in-

tended to call, and d) Husband/Father’s counsel’s false proffers to the Judge Cra-

ven’s Court at the June 5, 2008 hearing. The hearing on June 5, 2008 was the re-

sult of a unilateral, defective and untimely "notice" by the Husband/Father's attor-

ney in his attempt to abort the TPO-ordered CPS investigation and preempt the

TPO ordered June 9, 2008 FPO trial. His June 4, 2008 "notice" to bring his motion

19
to quash the TPO before the Duty Judge only stated that he would "move to va-

cate" on or after "Thursday" at 11am (with no specified date). See, Motion for Re-

consideration, Appendix at APP-55 [Pet.Att.- 117]. No mention of an evidentiary

hearing was contained in said “notice.” There was no hearing set by the Court.

There was no coordination as to date and time with pro se Wife. The June 4, 2008

Husband/Father’s "notice" did not disclose his intent to call Ms. Wood, or the CPS

workers Ms. Catron, or Ms. Hoffman, or what evidence he intended to present or if

any would be taken. The "notice" of Husband/Father also lacked proper content

for a notice for an FPO trial, specifically that the pro se Wife/Mother should obtain

an attorney and be prepared for the presentation of evidence and present witnesses.

Said Husband/Father’s fraud was relied upon by Duty Judge Craven and, in

turn, caused him to quash a TPO’s protections for a mother and her child, preempt-

ed a scheduled evidentiary trial set for June 9, 2008, and aborted a child abuse in-

vestigation. Said Husband/Father's fraud also prevented any opportunity for pro

se Wife/Mother to adequately prepare and present her case at either the unsched-

uled hearing on June 5, or the scheduled June 9, 2008 FPO hearing it preempted.

The Motions to Vacate and Appeals Were Timely and Proper


 
Wife/Mother's Motion to Vacate the June 5, 2008 Order, and subsequent ap-

peal of its summary denial, were timely and proper because: 1) Wife/Mother, who

was pro se, was unable to timely appeal the original June 5, 2008 Duty Judge's Or-

20
der because of Husband’s causing her to be erroneously charged and held in New

York's Rikers prison without bond, and only released after the deadline for appeal

or reconsideration; and 2) that much of the "fraud, mistake, and irregularity" was

uncovered in the State’s disclosures in Petitioner's criminal case's during the time

leading up to her April 5, 2009 plea for taking "her young daughter out of Mary-

land to another state, that state being New York, without the proper authority."

The Court of Special Appeals Opinion Was Erroneous In that It Relies On


Numerous Errors of Fact That Have No Support In the Record  

On September 13, 2010, Wife/Mother filed a Motion for Reconsideration of

the Opinion, through counsel, seeking to have numerous factual errors corrected in

the extensive (and mostly irrelevant) statement of facts of the Opinion. That re-

consideration was summarily denied without explanation, even though the exten-

sive errors had been identified and extensively documented, including, but not lim-

ited to, the following material errors and omissions:

a) the Opinion mistakenly identified that a hearing was “set” June 5, 2008,
when, in fact, the only hearing set by the court was by Judge Boynton for
June 9, 2008 at 9:30,

b) the Opinion implied that Wife/Mother had counsel, when in fact she was
pro se, and not represented by counsel in either Maryland or Virginia on
June 5, 2008, and was in the process of securing counsel from House of
Ruth for June 9, 2008 upon referral by APP,

c) the Opinion misstated the TPO’s purpose as being “custody,” when in


fact its primary purpose was, by its own words, protection of the
Wife/Mother from stalking and the child from abuse (physical/sexual),

21
d) the Opinion failed to recognize the role of the Husband/Father’s attorney
false proffers at the June 5, 2008 hearing, their obvious inconsistencies
with the June 2, 2008 transcript, along with the TPO application, and
their role in quashing the TPO that prevented the Wife/Mother from pre-
senting her case at the FPO. Furthermore, that the TPO application and
testimony clearly showed that Judge Boynton was fully aware of the Vir-
ginia proceeding and prior Maryland court case history,

e) the Opinion inaccurately fails to recognize that the June 2, 2008 tran-
script showed that the Wife/Mother answered all of Judge Boynton’s
questions in the June 2, 2008 hearing, with her daughter present,

f) the Opinion failed to recognize that DutyJudge Craven did not have the
June 2, 2008 transcript before him when he stated he believed the
Wife/Mother has made false statements in that June 2, 2008 hearing,

g) The Opinion failed to recognize the obvious defects in the Hus-


band/Father notice. That “notice” was alleged to have been provided the
day before the June 5, 2008 hearing, and that “notice” was ambiguous in
that it did not state a date for the hearing, made no mention of an evi-
dence or witnesses being presented, and it did not mention that it would
take the place of the June 9, 2008 FPO set by the Court in the TPO.

h) the Opinion makes misstates the significance of any notice being given
by the CPS workers to the Wife/Mother, when the facts are clear that if
such notice was given it could not have occurred before the morning of
the June 5, 2008 hearing, which was clearly “inadequate notice” for such
a dispositive proceeding, under the law of this Court,

i) the Opinion inaccurately characterizes the admitted “hearsay” nature of


CPS’s Hoffman’s testimony before Judge Craven with regard to whether
abuse or neglect had occurred, that CPS’s Catron did not – in fact -- testi-
fy as to abuse or neglect, and that the CPS workers acknowledged that
their investigation was not complete, and that they had not interviewed
the Husband/Father – which they had intended to do that afternoon (when
the June 5, 2008 hearing was taking place),

j) the Opinion also incorrectly identifies “Mr. Morris” as Wife/Mother’s


Virginia counsel (which he is not), and also makes claims as fact the con-

22
tents of attorney-client communications between Mr. Morris with the
Wife/Mother after the June 5, 2008 hearing. Had such communications
actually occurred they would be attorney-client privileged and would not
have been disclosed to the Court. Furthermore, there is no evidence an-
ywhere in the record regarding said attorney-client communications re-
ferred to in the Opinion,

k) the Opinion assumes the Wife/Mother knew about the outcome of the
June 5, 2008 Order on that date, but provides no credible basis for such a
suggestion. In fact, the June 5, 2008 Order was not dispatched by mail
from the Court until June 9, 2008 – making any claims of notice to the
Wife/Mother of the Order’s contents before that date speculative, at best,

l) the Opinion misstates the facts supporting Wife/Mother’s guilty plea, as


she specifically rejected the State’s facts, and only pleaded to the facts
“that she took her young daughter out of Maryland to another state, that
state being New York, without the proper authority.”

The Court is directed to the Motion for Reconsideration for a detailed explanation

and document. See, attached hereto at Pet.Att. -34 through 72.

These DV Matters Require Clarification By The Court of Appeals


Petitioner respectfully urges this Court to grant this Petition Writ of Certio-

rari, and upon review reverse, or at a minimum vacate, the line of decisions below

that began with Duty Judge Craven’s June 5, 2008 Order prematurely quashing

Judge Boynton’s TPO. As with Coburn and Katsenellenbogen, such review court

– even if moot -- will help preserve the integrity of Maryland's statutory scheme to

provide meaningful protection from domestic violence during the period that they

are most vulnerable -- i.e., the time between the TPO's adoption and its court-set

FPO evidentiary hearing.

23
Respectfully submitted,

/Jj,jj.
Paul G. Griffin ' jI
1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Ste. 710
Washington, D.C. 20009
(301) 254-2745
p~griffin~)cOIncast,l]et

Roy Morris
PO Box 100212
Arlington, Virginia 22210
(202) 657 5793
R9yJyI QIri0@al!!!11Jlli L~d!!

Counsel for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 12th day of November, 2010, I caused to be sent a
copy of the forgoing Petition for Certiorari, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Sean O'Connell, 4113 Lee Highway, Arlington , VA 22207.

24
RULE 1-313 CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, counsel for Petitioner, hereby certifies, pursuant to Md. Rule 1-313,

that he is admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of Maryland.

Rr;IYiL
f.u~G. Griffin
1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Ste. 710
Washington, DC 20009
P: (301) 254-2745
F: (815) 301-5516
p-gri ffin@comcast.net
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ATTACHMENT (“PET.ATT.-____“)


 
Docket For Tpo Case ...................................................................................................... Pet.Att.-1
Orders From Courts Below: .......................................................................................... Pet.Att.-6
June 2, 2008 TPO Order Of Judge Boynton .................................................... Pet.Att.-6
June 5, 2008 Order Quashing TPO Order Of Judge Craven ....................... Pet.Att.-16
June 1, 2009 Order Denying Motion To Vacate Of Judge Craven .............. Pet.Att.-18
August 13, 2010 Opinion Of Court Of Special Appeals ................................ Pet.Att.-19
October 28, 2010 Order Denying Recondition Of Opinion Of Court Of Special
Appeals ............................................................................................................... Pet.Att.-31
October 28, 2010 Mandate ............................................................................... Pet.Att.-32

September 13, 2010 Motion For Reconsideration Of August 13, 2010 Opinion ..... Pet.Att.-34
Text ..................................................................................................................... Pet.Att.-34
Applicable Statutes ........................................................................................... Pet.Att.-50
Table Of Contents Of Exhibits To Motion For Reconsideration ................. Pet.Att.-53
Redlined Corrections Of Court Of Special Appeals Opinion ....................... Pet.Att.-54
Alm's Birth Certificate .................................................................................... Pet.Att.-60
August 1, 2007 DC Transcript (Omitted) ....................................................... Pet.Att.-62
September 1, 2007 Virginia Order .................................................................. Pet.Att.-63
October 1, 2007 Virginia GAL Order ............................................................. Pet.Att.-67
June 2, 2008 Montgomery County App Referral To Circuit Court Of TPO
(Montgomery County App Program Contact Records/Progress Notes) ..... Pet.Att.-69
June 11, 2008 Montgomery County Erroneous Arrest Warrant For Non-Parental
Kidnapping ........................................................................................................ Pet.Att.-71

November 12, 2009 Excerpts Of Exhibits To Brief Before Court Of Special Appeals
September 28, 2009 Sheriff's Statement On Protective Orders ................... Pet.Att.-75
February 28, 2008 Forensic Interview ............................................................ Pet.Att.-77
June 2, 2008 Tpo Hearing Before Judge Boynton ......................................... Pet.Att.-79
June 4-5, 2008 Weather Report Of Severe Storm Overnight .................... Pet.Att.-115
June 4, 2008 Defendant’s "Notice" Of "Thursday" Hearing (No Date) .. Pet.Att.-117
June 5, 2008 Hearing Transcript Of Unscheduled Hearing
Before Duty Judge Craven ................................................................. Pet.Att.-118

Excerpt Of Transcript Of April 6, 2009 Plea In "Kidnapping Case." ................. Pet.Att.-142


(From Exhibits To Brief For Appellee, Filed In Court Of Special Appeals January 6, 2010)
 
Case Information
King Petition for Certiorari
11/8/2010 3:35 PM
Pet.Att. - 1

Circuit Court of Maryland

Go Back

Case Information

Court System: Circuit Court for Montgomery County - Domestic System


Case Number: 70620FL Sub Type: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Date Filed: 06/02/2008
Case Status: CLOSED

Plaintiff Information

(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Plaintiff is displayed)


Name: KING, ARIEL

Defendant Information

(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Defendant is displayed)


Name: PFEIFFER, MICHAEL H
Address: 4836 RESERVOIR RD 3
WASHINGTON DC 20007

Attorney(s) for the Defendant

Name: O'CONNELL, SEAN W


Address: 4113 LEE HIGHWAY
ARLINGTON VA 22207
Phone: 703-558-0000

Issues Information

Issue: PROTECTION FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Document Tracking

Docket Date: 06/02/2008 Docket Number: 1


Docket
PETITION, PROTECTION FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Plaintiff
PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR PROTECTION FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
Docket Text:
ADDENDUM, FILED.

Docket
Date: 06/02/2008 Docket Number: 2
Docket
HEARING, PETITION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Description:
Docket

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=70620FL&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCI Page 1 of 5
Case Information
King Petition for Certiorari
11/8/2010 3:35 PM
Pet.Att. - 2
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling
BOYNTON, DAVID A
Judge:
HEARING ON PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR PROTECTION FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Docket
(#1) (BOYNTON, J.) GRANTED, ORDER SIGNED. PLAINTIFF APPEARED WITHOUT
Text:
COUNSEL. DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT.
Audio
Media: 08-060208 Start: 16:53:20 Stop: 17:38:30

Docket Date: 06/02/2008 Docket Number: 3


Docket
COURT SETS
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: BOYNTON, DAVID A
COURT (BOYNTON, J.) SETS CASE FOR A FURTHER HEARING ON JUNE 9, 2008 AT
Docket Text:
9:30 A.M.

Docket
Date: 06/02/2008 Docket Number: 4
Docket
ORDER, PROTECTION FROM ABUSE (EX-PARTE)
Description:
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling
BOYNTON, DAVID A
Judge:
Docket EX PARTE ORDER OF COURT (BOYNTON, J.) FOR PROTECTION FROM ABUSE AND A
Text: PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARING SHALL BE HELD ON JUNE 9, 2008 AT 9:30 A.M.

Docket
Date: 06/02/2008 Docket Number: 5
Docket
COPIES OF ORDER AND ATTACHMENT ISSUED
Description:
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket FOUR (4) COPIES OF THE ORDER AND ATTACHMENT ISSUED AND HANDED TO
Text: PLAINTIFF FOR SERVICE BY SHERIFF, MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

Docket Date: 06/02/2008 Docket Number: 6


Docket Description: FAX TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TO DSS
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: FAX TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TO DSS.

Docket Date: 06/04/2008 Docket Number: 7


Docket
LINE ENTERING APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
LINE ENTERING THE APPEARANCE OF SEAN W. O'CONNELL AS COUNSEL FOR THE
Docket Text:
RESPONDENT, FILED. (LP)

Docket Date: 06/04/2008 Docket Number: 8


Docket
MOTION, DISMISS
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
RESPONDENT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH AND DISMISS, AND ATTACHMENTS,
Docket Text:
FILED. (LP)

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=70620FL&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCI Page 2 of 5
Case Information
King Petition for Certiorari
11/8/2010 3:35 PM
Pet.Att. - 3

Docket Date: 06/05/2008 Docket Number: 9


Docket
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
RESPONDENT'S LINE TO NOTE THAT IS A CASE #J-31848-01 EXISTING ON
Docket Text:
ARLINGTON COUNTY, AND ATTACHMENT, FILED.

Docket Date: 06/05/2008 Docket Number: 10


Docket
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
RESPONDENT'S NOTICE OF HEARING ON EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH AND
Docket Text:
DISMISS, FILED.

Docket
Date: 06/05/2008 Docket Number: 11
Docket
HEARING
Description:
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling
CRAVEN, THOMAS L
Judge:
HEARING ON RESPONDENT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH AND DISMISS
Docket
PROTECTIVE ORDER (#8) (CRAVEN, J.) GRANTED. ORDER SIGNED. PETITIONER FAILED
Text:
TO APPEAR. RESPONDENT APPEARED WITH MR. O'CONNELL.
Audio
Media: 06-060508 Start: 13:33:14 Stop: 13:57:26

Docket
Date: 06/05/2008 Docket Number: 12
Docket
ORDER, DISMISS/PREJUDICE NOT SPECIFIED
Description:
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling
CRAVEN, THOMAS L
Judge:
ORDER OF COURT (CRAVEN, J.) THAT THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS
Docket
GRANTED AND THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS HEREBY
Text:
QUASHED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)

Docket Date: 06/05/2008 Docket Number: 13


Docket Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: CERTIFIED COPIES ISSUED AND HANDED.

Docket Date: 06/05/2008 Docket Number: 14


Docket
ORDER, RESCIND
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: CRAVEN, THOMAS L
ORDER OF COURT (CRAVEN, J.) THAT MOTION TO MODIFY/RESCIND THE
Docket Text:
PROTECTIVE ORDER IS RESCINDED, ENTERED.

Docket Date: 06/05/2008 Docket Number: 15

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=70620FL&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCI Page 3 of 5
Case Information
King Petition for Certiorari
11/8/2010 3:35 PM
Pet.Att. - 4
Docket Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: CERTIFIED COPIES ISSUED AND HANDED FOR SERVICE BY SHERIFF.

Docket Date: 06/06/2008 Docket Number: 16


Docket
SHERIFF'S RETURN DOM VIOL ORDER: SERVED
Description:
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
SHERIFF'S RETURN ON EX PARTE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER: SERVED AS TO
Docket Text:
RESPONDENT ON 06/03/2008, FILED.

Docket Date: 03/12/2009 Docket Number: 17


Docket Description: CERTIFIED COPIES ISSUED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: CERTIFIED COPIES ISSUED AND HANDED.

Docket
Date: 04/06/2009 Docket Number: 18
Docket
MOTION, MODIFY/RESCIND PROTECTIVE ORDER
Description:
Docket
Type: Motion Filed By: Plaintiff Status: Denied
Reference
Docket(s): Opposition: 19 Ruling: 21
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE JUNE 5, 2008 ORDER QUASHING TEMPORARY
Docket
PROTECTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 2, 2008 AND SET A FINAL PROTECTIVE HEARING,
Text:
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, AND ATTACHMENTS, FILED.

Docket Date: 04/24/2009 Docket Number: 19


Docket
OPPOSITION TO MOTION
Description:
Docket Type: Opposition Filed By: Defendant
Reference
Docket(s): Motion: 18 Ruling: 21
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Docket Text:
AND ATTACHMENTS, FILED. (LP)

Docket
Date: 04/27/2009 Docket Number: 20
Docket
LINE ENTERING APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Description:
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket LINE ENTERING THE APPEARANCE OF SEAN W. O'CONNELL AS COUNSEL FOR THE
Text: RESPONDENT, AND MARYLAND RULE 1-313 CERTIFICATION, FILED. (LP)

Docket Date: 06/01/2009 Docket Number: 21


Docket
ORDER, FINAL DISPOSITION
Description:
Docket Type: Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Denied
Ruling Judge: CRAVEN, THOMAS L
Reference
Docket(s): Motion: 18 Opposition: 19
ORDER OF COURT (CRAVEN, J.) THAT THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE IS
Docket Text:
DENIED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=70620FL&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCI Page 4 of 5
Case Information
King Petition for Certiorari
11/8/2010 3:35 PM
Pet.Att. - 5

Docket Date: 07/01/2009 Docket Number: 22


Docket Description: NOTICE OF APPEAL-COURT SPECIAL APPEALS
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF APPEAL, FILED. (LP)

Docket Date: 07/08/2009 Docket Number: 23


Docket Description: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON HEARING ON JUNE 2, 2008, FILED.

Docket Date: 07/08/2009 Docket Number: 24


Docket Description: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON HEARING ON JUNE 5, 2008, FILED.

Docket
Date: 08/10/2009 Docket Number: 25
Docket
ORDER OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS DIRECTING
Description:
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling
EYLER, JAMES R
Judge:
Docket ORDER OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS (EYLER, J.) DIRECTING THE APPEAL TO
Text: PROCEED WITHOUT A PREHEARING CONFERENCE, ENTERED.

Docket Date: 09/23/2009 Docket Number: 26


Docket Description: RECORD MAILED TO COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: RECORD MAILED TO COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS.

Docket Date: 09/29/2009 Docket Number: 27


Docket Description: RETURN RECEIPT
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: RETURN RECEIPT, FILED.

Docket
Date: 11/01/2010 Docket Number: 28
Docket
Description:
Docket
Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket ORDER OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS (KRAUSER, J.) THAT THE APPELLANT'S
Text: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED, ENTERED.

The complete case file can be obtained from the Circuit Courthouse.

Go Back

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=70620FL&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCI Page 5 of 5
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 6

Exhibit
I
CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
50 Maryland Avo, Rockville, MD 20350
Located at
Telephone No. 240-777-9402 case N o . r Y o m o ~ ~ 1
TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER
PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF
ARIEL KING ...
First Middle Last Data of Birth
and any minoris) or minor child(ren) on whose behalf the OTHERS TO BE PROTECTED:
petition was filed. (List names and date(s) nf birth.)
ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER 05/07/2003
Name DOE Name DOEX

Name DOB Name DO0

Name DOB vs. Name DO0

Relationshipto Petitioner
Spouse Former Spouse Vulnerable Adult
Cohabitant Children In Common n Parent
Other relationship
4836 RESERVOIR RD..3
Address DRIVER'S LICENSE if
I I
-WASHINGTON, DC 20007
Cily, Slailw, Zip
202-427-4009
~elephone -- - -
CAUTION: 0 Weapon Involved VEHICLE DESCRIPTION TAG NO.

DODGE GREEN 2007


Type- -
'Access To Firearm O R 300 RESERVOIR RD
THE COURT FINDS that under the laws of Maryland the issuing Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter.
THE COURT ORDERS:
that the above named Respondent SHALL NOT abuse, threaten to abuse, and/or harass the PetitionerIPlaintiff.
13 that the above named Respondent SHALL NOT contact Petitioner/Plaintiff by any means.
The terms of this Order shall be effective until 106/090{08/
Only the Court can change this Order. Monlh/Day/Year

Violation of this Order may result in criminal prosecution, imprisonment and/or fine, and contempt of court. Law
enforcement shall arrest a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe is in violation of this Order, as
required by Maryland Code. Family Law Article, 5 4-5n8. This'Protective Order shall be recognized and enforced
by the courts of any state, the District of Columbia, any U.S.Territory, tribal lands (18 U.S.C. $2265) or
Department of Defense installations. (10 U.S.C. 5 1561a) Crossing state, territorial or tribal boundaries to violate
this Order may result in federal imprisonment. (18 U.S.C. g 2262)
Federal law provides penalties of up to $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison for possessing, transporting, shipping or
receiving any firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order or after being convicted of a misdamaanor crime
of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 5 922(g)(8)) or knowingly transferring a firearm after a conviction of a misdemeanor
Crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 6 922faY91).
,-,. .'
Questions regarding this notice should be directed to your allomey, law
State Police Firearms Enforcement Section at 410-290-0050.
--
Page Iof a
JUN 02 2008
-
Clerk of the,Circuit Court
nh,.*----
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 7

Case No. 70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 5:34 p m

After the appearance of the PETITIONER, and in consideration of the Petition and evidence, the Court makes
the following findings:
A. That ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER , who is a Person(s) Eligible for Relief, is:
The current spouse of the Respondent.
An individual who has a chlld(ren) in common with the Respondent: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER .

B. That the Petitioner is:


The Person Eligible for Relief

C. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that Respondent committed the following abuse@):
Statutory abuse of a child (Physical, Sexual) (Forward to DSS for investigation)

Based on the foregoing findings, the Court hereby ORDERS:


1. That the Respondent SHALL NOT abuse, threaten to abuse, and/or harass ARIEL KING, ARIANA LEILANI
KING-PFEIFFER .
2. That the Respondent SHALL NOT contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means) or
attempt to contact ARIEL KING. ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER
3. That the Respondent SHALL NOT enter the residence of ARIEL KING at 11725 GREENLANE OR,
POTOMAC, MD, 20854.
(Residence includes yard, grounds, outbuildings, and common areas surrounding the dwelling.)

The following school(s):


GERMAN SCHOOL, 8515 CHATEAU DR., POTOMAG, MD

The following place($) of employment:


ARIEL INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING, 1875 I STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, DC

5. That custody of ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER is awarded to ARIEL KING until the hearing provided for
in Paragraph 6 below.

6. THAT A FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARING SHALL BE HELD ON June 9,2008 AT 09:30AM A1
CIRCUIT COURT AT 50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850.

7. This Order supersedes and overrides any previously entered Interim Protective Order issued by a
Commissioner.

Date: 06/02/2008

JUN 02 2008

Page 2 of 5
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 8

Case No. 70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 5:34 p.m.

New Hearing Date Date


, . , .... ..- .. -

ENTERED
JUN 02 2008
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Montgomery County, ~ r f

Page 3 of 5
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 9

Case NO.70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 534 p.m.

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

A Petition for Protection alleges that you have committed abuse. On the basis of the Petition this Temporary
Protective Order has been issued. Violation of this Order may be a state and/or federal crime or contempt of
court, or both, and result in imprisonment or fine or both. This Order may be enforced by another state or
jurisdiction, which may Impose additional or different penalties for the violation.

In order to respond to the allegation that abuse occurred, you must appear in court at the Final Protective
Order hearing provided for In thie Order. If at the heerlng the court finda by clear and convincing evidence that
abuse occurred, the court will issue a Final Protective Order against you, whether you appear or fail to appear,
and may order all or part of the relief requested by the Petitioner or granted in this Order. This relief may include
temporary use and possession of your home, use and possessionof jointly owned vehicles, Emergency Family
Maintenance, child visitation, surrender of firearm($) to a law enforcement agency, and counseling or
participation in a domestic violence program. A Final Protective Order may be effective for as long as twelve
(12) months, and the court for good cause may extend the term of the Final Protective Order for an additional six
(6) months after a further hearing.

If you fail to appear in court and a Final Protective Order is issued against you, you will be served by first-
class mall at your last known address with the Final Protective Order and all other notices concerning the
Protective Order. The Final Protective Order will be valid and enforceable upon mailing. It is your responsibility
to notify the court in writing of any change of address.

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES


Each party may be represented by an attorney. At the Final Protective Order hearing, the petitioner will be
required to prove the alleged facts by "clear and convincing evidence." This is difficult to do ifyou do not have
law training. Each party should ace a lawyer. If you arc the petitioner and cannot get a private lawyer, them
are support agencies that may be able to help you.

Although each party is not required to have a lawyer at the hearing, all of the Rules of Evidence will apply
to the case. If you choose not to have a lawyer with you on the hearing date the Petitioner will still have to
prove me case by "clear and convincing evidence" and eacn party will have to comply with me Rules of
Evidence. Due to the emergency nature of the hearing, the hearing may be held even If a party requests more
time to obtain an attorney.

At the Final Protective Order hearing the court may order the Respondent to pay Emergency family
Maintenanceand may pass an immediate and continuing withholding order for that purpose. If this Emergency
Family Maintenance is requested, both parties should complete a Financial Statement (CC-DClDV4) before the
Protective Order hearing and bring it to court. You should also bring documents (such as pay stubs, copy of
your lease, bills, etc.) to support the figures you supply.

ENTERED
JUN 02 2009
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Montg'orneryCounty, Md,
Page 4 of 5
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 10

Case No. 70620FL Date: 05/02/2008534 p.m.


TRUE COPY CERTIFICATION OF TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER

Attestation of Clerk
I, Loretta E. Knight, Clerk of this Court in MONTGOMERY COUNTY, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that I
have compared this Order with the original Order which is on file in my office, and that this Order is a true and
correct copy of the original, and the whole thereof.

In testimony whereof, I nave hereunto


set my hand and affixed the seal of
said Court at 50 Maryland Ave.
Rockville, MD 20850 this Second day
of June. 2008.

- .#
Loretta E. Knight, Clerk of Court

Attestation of Judge
I, David A. Boynton, Judge of this Court in MONTGOMFRY COUNTY, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that
Loretta E. Knight whose name is subscribed to the foregoing certificate of attestation, now is, andlor was at the
time of signing and sealing the same, a Clerk of this Court in MONTGOMERY COUNTY and that histher
attestation is in due form of law.

Date: 06/02/2008
Court: Circuit Court for MOntgOm0ry County, Maryland
Address: 50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240-777-9402

To request a foreign language interpreter or a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Immediately.

ENTERED
JUN 0 2 2008
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Montgomery County, Md.
Page 5 of 5
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 11

CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND


50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850 Case No. 70620FL
ARIEL KING olio Date: 06/02/20005-34 p.m.
ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFHFFER us MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER DR
4838 RESERVOIR RD 3
WASHINGTON, DC, 20007

RETURN OF SERVICE
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
I CERTIFY that:

I served a copy of the 0 Petition and Interim Protective Order Petition and Temporary Protective Order

Final Protective Order Petition for Contempt and Show Cause Order, filed in the above entitled case, on:

at
Name Address

on- at
Date Time

0 I could not serve a copy of the 0 Petition and Interim Protective Orderfl Petition and Temporary Protective Order

Final Protective Order 0 Petition for Contempt and Show Cause Order, filed in the above entitled case. on:

Date and Time of Attempt Place Remarks

-. -

Date Officer's Signature

Law EnforcementAgency Officer'sPrinted Name & I.D. Number

RETURN OF SERVICE MUST BE RETURNED TO THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SERVICE

PCIDVQ (Rev. 1212004)


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 12

-t-.
H - m M t C ~ c I RCOURT
~ ~ r r aisrRiCT COURT 0lf MAKYLANI* VUK ^c>~?f&c>/<-f 1/
~ , s , ~ o . '20
7 ~T
bk
JUMCIABV ClQ/C~~fY

Located at .
so hflk'yfçw
-..
thi.tdickii';//&
cowitAddG 8..-.

(NOTE:Fill in thefollowing, checking the appropriate boxes. Petitioners need not give an address ifdoing so risks
further abuse or reveals the confidential address of ashelter. If this is the case, check h e r e n Ifwu need additional
pa ,ask the clerk.)
f i c , f l x i s / w d i 9 $ 0 ' . / 1 W ~ - ~~ ~ i ' fle~e i~i ,&
f e~ ~ lm/If Aç
n'&Cutidiicr w
// ?£64eefl3ht~e J>& <4S 3 6 /(@&At/@ /$ ^d. 3
Horn 202 -'\ 30. r/(/
hb ?<w wak
Steel ddr Apt No.
&A&
"City, State, Zip Code TEI-r "City, State, Zip Code Telephone Nunikr(8)

m
.. ,,"" ^"" .;":I,< ,A PETITION FOR PROTECTION FROM
DOMESTIC
n,r31\: '
.-,,.
..,!.,
I-'-
-
z ?- c>
;?:;'¥¥""'.
- i- VIOLENCE/^ CHILD ABUSE
FJ ..ip$
, I .'m
I want relief f o r 0 7 myselfJS" minnr child

vulnerable
1 ;. 'i'^LsBe
-iÑa
Respondent committed (he following acts of abuse against
'2'"' ,.l-,~;,"
:-TJ .-.,+on or about, (chock all that apply.) kicking punching Q choking
'"-Â¥ &~;r Date
13=3
,.'r*i
IÑ'
, @ slapping shooting rape 01 other sexual offense (or attempt) hitting with object a
stabbing
04
shoving tbreaw of violence "0. mental injury of a child detaining against will ]S stalking
other

<.' u
At this time the victim can be found at
l am Stntcb Attorney I""] DSS &relative an adult living in the home.
3. The pa'flon(s) I want protected are (include yourselfifyou are a victim):

A/u/X
mcs(s)
A)6
I
Bi
^WbL. Relationshi to Respondent
mÇ
Â¥S/ 9 f0.3 1>~u6hf-&4

CC-DCIDV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 1 of 3


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 13

Petition" Rc~pondcnt
4 The pcrson(s) I want protected now
(he past year:
There ore
r
a are not additional persons living in the home.
I . 1h o w nf thn followine; ftorirt casw involving ma, or thei person 7 want protmted, nnd the Rmpondftiit./7?r/nnqdm
include:paternity, childsupport, divorce, custody, domestic violence,juvenile cases, criminal cases)

?-W^
-
2 ~ 1+0
- @aftUa~d
6. Describe all past in]
he. dused
es the Respondent has c
sf-ofped nc. 4ovtv.6
\\5£ li^Ccfced h& AA ^he b?loa< fifsdot^ctO
the victim, and give date, ifJinown

C& \($ &pl@


- A-9 & G bled=&&
7. The Respondent owns or has access to the following firearms: (L(a*q

8. I want the court to order the Respondent: (NOTE: Petitioner need not give an addressif doing so risks further abuse.)
to t e n to b e /tgAd h 'la 6 +LU d 4u i* ~ M - V~~ VU.
""Nainafs)

NOT to contact, attempt to contact, harass ft/?/ddA)6


ftnd ftfttfib4 Knod-ff&/ffev,
Nmc(ç

NOT to go to the child care provider@)


N i c of child care provider and addmi

@ NOT to go t the workplace($) at if9J sf. h* - &00


@i4s&,mha& G moot& M - Nblku: x WOQ-E
To lcavc the home at
Address
and give possession of the home to
The name(s) on the deed or lcasc arc:
8 To turn over firearm@)to a iaw mforcment ageny.
/BP TOgo to counscluig 0' domestic violence dniffalcohoi 13
To pay money as Emergency Family Maintenance (may be

CC-DCIDV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 2 of 3


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 14

Case;No.

Â¥/! el mi ~ $ 0titn'm.
: &tittom P ~ e i ~ f,eFCW
n t~ Respondent

9. I also want the Court to order:


d custody of ~ ~ R ~ Ã ˆ A^tm6
,4iitl&i
?
^MG
- ftfir/ftfe^
Cbildrerffl"me,
be granted to w.m.

0 Use and possession of the followingjointly-owned vehicle be granted to


Nnmm
Dflitcrlptlon dvdiiclc

10. (Fill in only ifyou are seekingEmergency Family Maintenance.) The Respondent has the following financial
resources:
Income from employment in the amount of $ every week 2 w e c k s 0 month
Otto -
Source of employment income
e tddrtss of sow" mdafflounwiilmc&Rc3"
~ a m said
Income from other source and amounl(s) received
~~oinS'atlBrcaB'ofaourcc
The Respondent also owns (he following property of value: Automobilc(s) $
aitiinatoil value
Home $
" " E s f l n i a t c d value
Bank Accountfs) SP
Other:
Estimated Value

I solemnly afflrm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing Petition are true to the best of my
knowledge, iirfbnnation and belief.

Fentirn"

/
q I have filled in the Addendum (Description of Respondent), CC-DCmV 1A

NOTE
If you believe that you have been a victim of abuse and that there is a danger of serious and immediate injury to
you, you may request the assistance of a police officer or local law enforcement agency.

The law enforcement offiicar must protect you from hami when responding to your request for assistance and
may, if you ask, accompany you to the family borne so that you may remove clothing and medicine, medical devices, and
other personal effects required for you and your children, regardless of who paid for them.

You are entitled to request that address and telephone number of a victim, a complainant, or a witness be considered for
shielding at the filing of this application.
NOTICE:Remote access td the name, address, telephone number, date of birth, e-mail address, and place of employment
of a victim or non-party witness is blocked, (Md Rule 16-1008(3)(3)(B))

CC-DCmV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 3 of 3


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 15

(Alleged Abuser)

cars Tattoos wh

Driver's License it:

1 Other locations or infomntion about Respondent:


I
PETITIONER
(Person Requesting Assistance)

INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER PERSONS PETITIONER WANTS PROTECTED

..
Petitioner's Signature Date
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 16

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY. MARYLAND


Family Division

ARIEL R. KING

Plaintiff,

vi. Case No. 70620-FL


MICHAEL H. PFEIPFER,

Defendant.

ORDER
The above captioned case having come before the Court on a Motion to Quash and

protective order and dismiss, and the Court finding that the Motion should be granted, it his

hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant's Mot

entered in the instant case is hereby q

Copies to:

Sean W. O'Connell, Esquire


Member of the MD Bar,MCBAR #I1561
41 13 Lee Highway
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Tel: (703) 558-0000
Fax: (703) 522-0765
Counsel for Respondent

Ariel King
at 11725 Greenlane Drive
Potomac, Maryland 20854.
Pro Se Petitioner
ENTERED
JUN 0'5 2008
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 17
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 18

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

^RIEL KING

Plaintiff

7. Case No: 70620- PL.

MICHAEL PFEIFFER

Defendant

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate, and this Court finding that
-- - -

his matter was dismissed on June 5y2008yit is this 22nd day of May, 2009 by the Circuit

2ourt for Montgomery County,

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate is hereby DENIED.

s L. CRAVEN, Judge
Copies to all parties

~ ^ u N 0 1 2009
C lerk of the C ircuit C ourt
M ontgomery County, Md.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 19

UNREPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 1007

September Term, 2009

ARIEL ROSITA KING

v.

MICHAEL HERBERT PFEIFFER

Wright,
Graeff,
Alpert, Paul E.
(Retired, Specially Assigned),

11.

Opinion by Wright, J.

Filed: August 13,2010


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 20

This appeal arises from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County's order granting

Michael Pfeiffer's ("Father" or "appellee") motion to dismiss, as well as the motion to

quash the protective order entered in the instant case. In her brief, Ariel King ("Mother"

or "appellant") presents two questions, for our review:

1. Was it an abuse of discretion for one Circuit Court to prematurely


vacate a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) issued by another Circuit
Court, without adequate notice, opportunity to obtain counsel, completion
of the investigation initiated by the TPO, and before the date for PO hearing
of June 9, 2008 set forth in the TPO[?]

2. Was it an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process and


equal protection for one Circuit Court to dismiss a party's Motion to Vacate
a prior decision where no party filed an opposition and before any hearing
was scheduled by the court?

We will affirm the trial court's dismissal of appellant's motion to vacate for the

reasons stated be low.

FACTUAL HISTORY

The multi-jurisdictional and "tortured" history of this domestic case are not

contested. As such, we shall adopt, in large part, the factual findings as recounted in the

"Factual and Procedural Background" section of this Court's 2008 unreported opinion,

King v. Pfeiffer, No. 245, Sept. Term, 2008, involving the same parties:

Father and Mother were allegedly married on September 16, 2000 in


Houston, Texas. Their only child, Ariana-Leilani Margarita Alexandra
King-Pfeiffer ("Ariana"), was born on May 7, 2003. At the time of
Ariana's birth, the parties lived together in Levitown, Pennsylvania where
Father was completing a medical internship. Following the internship,
Father began residency at Georgetown University Hospital in the District of
Columbia. Over the next three years, from December 2003 until September
2006, the parties and their child resided together in various rented quarters
in the District of Columbia. On or about October 24,2006, the family
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 21

rented a house in Bethesda, Maryland. Of the many disputes and assertions


surrounding the later whereabouts of Mother and Ariana, it is undisputed
that Father, Mother, and Ariana lived together at the Bethesda residence
continuously over the next eight month period.

On June 15,2007, Father moved into an apartment in D.C.; Mother


and Ariana left the residence on June 19, 2007, and stayed with various
friends in Virginia and Maryland until July 10,2007, when Mother and
Ariana moved into an apartment in Arlington, Virginia. Mother later
entered into a twenty-month rental lease agreement dated October 15, 2007
for a residence in Potomac, Maryland. According to the Maryland lease,
occupancy was to begin immediately.

District of Columbia Court Proceedings

On or about June 19,2007, Father filed for divorce, custody, and


support in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Family Division
("the D.C. court"). At the commencement of the August 1,2007 hearing,
Mother's counsel stated:

[Mother's Counsel]: ... I sent my motion yesterday, the motion to


dismiss because this court doesn't have jurisdiction of this case. The
child is not here. The mother is not here. They have not lived here
for more than six months. And I am not certain that Maryland has
jurisdiction, in fact I believe that Virginia has jurisdiction .

. . . Let's move it to Virginia, which does have jurisdiction,


which has a rocket docket. We can get on the docket, we can get
heard, we can get this thing done ....

. . . I don't know why we're even here except we need to


argue, first and foremost, my motion to dismiss because this court
doesn't have subject (indiscernible) jurisdiction over this case.

***
[Mother'S Counsel]: Now nobody lives in Maryland right now. The
parties aren't in Maryland, the child is not in Maryland. The child
and she are in Virginia.

-2-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 22

So, the Virginia court has jurisdiction over the child


because the child is physically present in Virginia.

***

[Mother's Counsel]: And we could say that's where it should be.


The case should be in Arlington, Virginia, in the Juvenile Domestic
Relations Court.

***

[Mother's Counse 1]: And the issue is the child is in Virginia - and all
contacts are in Virginia; the child's pediatrician - the child's dentist-
the child's various activities. Against, it's a four-year-old child.

***

[Mother's Counsel]: [Mother] can walk over to that jurisdiction - in


Arlington, file a petition for custody, whatever she wants in Virginia,
because the child is there. And a V irginia Juvenile Domestic
Relations Court in Arlington County is going to hear the case.

***

[Mother's Counsel]: So, and the Court doesn't have jurisdiction. So


we'd ask the Court to dismiss this case, and they can walk today,
they can walk over to Arlington and file in the Juvenile Domestic
Relations Court. And I am on record now. If I move to dismiss that
case, well, I've already gone on record. I'm judicially estopped from
saying, 'Oh no, you can't go Virginia. You've got to go to some' -
I'm judicially estopped because I've already put on the record today,
here, that Virginia is the place to be.

During this hearing, Mother testified as to where she and


Ariana resided, as well as to the temporary or permanent nature of
her residency:

[Mother'S counsel]: Okay. And could you please tell the Court your
current residence?

-3-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 23

[Mother]: I live at 400 19th Street North, Arlington, Virginia, 22203.

[Mother's Counsel]: And is that in Arlington County, Virginia?

[Mother]: Yes it is.

[Mother's Counsel]: Okay. And how long have you lived there?

[Mother]: I have signed [a] lease from July 10th but was given
approval on the lease five weeks before in June.

***

[Mother's Counsel]: Okay. And how long is the lease term?

[Mother]: It's for one year, until July 10th of 2008.

[Mother's Counsel]: Okay. And prior to living at the 4001 9th Street
North, Arlington, Virginia address, where did you and - I'm sorry.
Do you and the child live at that address?

[Mother]: Yes, we do.

***

[Mother's Counsel]: And where does the child live, currently?

[Mother]: Currently, Ariana[] lives with me at 4001 North 9th Street


in Arlington, Virginia, 22203.

[Mother's Counsel]: And how long has she lived at that address.

[Mother]: She has lived at the address as long as I have, which was
midnight on July 10th. On July 9th, excuse me.

***

[Mother's Counse 1]: Okay. It is your intention at this time - where is


the residence where you intend to be domiciled indefinitely?

-4-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 24

[Mother]: It's in Arlington, Virginia.

***
[Mother's Counsel]: ... Now are you willing to submit
yourself to the jurisdiction of the Virginia court,
specifically the Arlington Juvenile Domestic Relations
Court.

[Mother]: Yes, I am.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the D.C. court determined that it


did not have jurisdiction over the custody dispute ... [and the] divorce
proceedings because neither of the parties had been "a bona fide resident of
the District of Columbia for at least six months continuously and
immediately before the Complaint [was] filed."

Virginia Court Proceedings

Father filed a petition for custody in the Arlington Juvenile and


Domestic Relations District Court ("the Virginia court") on August 9th,
2007. The many pleadings filed by both parties in the Virginia court, and
equally referenced in their briefs, were not included in the record in this
case. However, from the limited information that is in the record, it appears
that an "Initial Order," dated September 5, 2007, provided for temporary
physical custody of the child to Mother subject to visitation with Father,
temporary child support, a custody evaluation, parenting classes, and
"mutual discovery." The Initial Order also stated that, subject to exceptions
that are not re levant here, "[ n]o party [was to] remove [Ariana] from the
State of Virginia without the written consent of the other party or order of
[the Virginia court] until [a later] hearing."

At some point thereafter, Mother filed a motion to dismiss,


apparently on jurisdictional grounds, the custody proceeding in the Virginia
court. That motion was denied on January 7, 2008, and, following a
hearing, the Virginia court, by an order dated February 21, 2008, awarded
Father temporary physical custody of Ariana. A "Final Order" dated June
6, 2008 awarded Father sole physical and legal custody. The Final Order
stated that "[Mother] shall not have any contact with the child until she
avails herself to the court and completes a psychological evaluation." There

-5-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 25

is nothing in the record before us regarding the current status of the


proceedings between the parties in the Virginia court, but, according to
Father, the Final Order has not been appealed.

King v. Pfeiffer, No. 245, Sept. Term., 2008, Slip Op. at 2-8 (Dec. 22,2008) (footnotes

omitted).

Pursuant to the September 5, 2007 order, a psychologist began evaluating the

parents and the child. The court-appointed investigator, probation officer Michelle

Woods, who conducted the home study, requested that a guardian ad litem ("GAL") be

appointed to represent the interests of the child. Deborah Olin was appointed as GAL on

or about September 26,2007.

MARYLAND COURT PROCEEDINGS PRESENTLY ON APPEAL

On or about October 16,2007, appellant unilaterally, and without notice, rented an

upscale horne in Potomac, Maryland. Appellant filed a pro se complaint for divorce in

Maryland on October 19,2007, claiming that she was a Maryland resident. On June 2,

2008, prior to the Virginia court's order on June 6, 2008, appellant appeared at the

Montgomery County Circuit Court in front of Judge Boynton alleging that her daughter

had been abused. She also asked for a protective order to keep appellee from having

custody. Appellant concealed from the Maryland court the extent of the Virginia case.

On June 2, 2008, Judge Boynton issued a temporary ex parte protective order

granting appellant custody of the child, Ariana. On June 4, 2008, appellee filed a motion

to vacate. A hearing was set for June 5, 2008, before Judge Craven. Appellant filed a

-6-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 26

response to the motion to vacate. Between June 2nd and June 5th, Ariana was

interviewed by Montgomery County Child Protective Services ("CPS"). CPS advised

appellant of the June 5, 2008 hearing date. Despite notice of the hearing, appellant failed

to appear.'

Judge Craven heard testimony from Elizabeth Ann Hoffman, supervisor of the

Child Sexual Abuse Investigation Unit. Ms. Hoffman testified that there had been no

indication of abuse. After hearing this testimony, and similar testimony from Janel

Canton, the social worker who interviewed the child, Judge Craven vacated the temporary

protective order and dismissed the case.

Appellant left the State of Maryland with the child and remained a fugitive with

the child until June 16,2008, when she was apprehended by the authorities in New York.

Appellant's attorney, Roy Morris, informed appellant of the Maryland court's June 5,

2008, decision by a telephone call. Appellant did not file any motions at that time.

Appellant states that she was confined to New York's Rikers Island Prison until July 12,

2008. On April 6,2009, appellant pleaded guilty to parental abduction under Maryland

Code (1984, 2006 Rep\. Vol.), § 9-305(a)(I) of the Family Law Article. The sentence

was suspended generally. The following is the factual basis given to the court to support

the plea:

IAppellant's Virginia attorney, Roy Morris, appeared and advised the court that
appellant was on her way.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 27

Your Honor, had the S tate proceeded to trial, you would have heard
evidence that on or about June 2nd of 2008, from 8617 Chateau Drive,
Rockville, Montgomery County, Maryland, that Ariana King-Pfeiffer,
whose date of birth is 5-7, 2003, was taken by the non-custodial parent, Dr.
Ariel King from the German School, which was located at that Chateau
Drive address.

Dr. King picked up her daughter from the school in violation of the
Arlington County custody agreement. The agreement did not give mom
visitation on Mondays or Tuesdays. She left the school, and about four
hours later applied for a circuit court temporary protective order against her
husband, the custodial parent, Dr. Michael Pfeiffer.

The child was removed in violation of the existing custody order. A


Virginia hearing was scheduled on June 6th of 2008 for that order. Dr.
King was aware of the June 6th hearing date based on her own e-mail
communications.

On June 4th, the father filed a motion to quash the temporary


protective order, and a demand was also made, on June 3rd of 2008, at Dr.
King's residence. On June 5th of 2008, Dr. King arrived at the
Montgomery County Child Welfare Office at 7300 Calhoun Drive,
Montgomery County, Maryland. She stated that she wanted her child
protected from abuse, and wanted another interview done of Ariana.

Ariana had been interviewed on the previous date, June 4th, by Ms.
Catron, and Ariana did not disclose any abuse at that time. Ms. Catron and
Ms. Hoffman were concerned about the defendant's mental status at that
time. They thought that her behavior was somewhat erratic. And when
they went to go discuss that with her, and to possibly remove the child from
her care, Dr. King had left Calhoun Place with Ariana.

On June 5th of 2008, a hearing was conducted before Judge Craven


in reference to the temporary protective order. Dr. King did not show up
for the hearing, but an attorney, who was not representing her at the time,
Roy Morris, indicated that Dr. King was aware of these proceedings, and
that there had been text messages back and forth between the two of them.

-8-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 28

She did not appear for that June 5th hearing, nor did she appear on
the following date, June 6th, 2008, in Arlington, Virginia for the hearing on
the custody order.

Officers obtained cell phone records of Dr. King, and conducted


GPS tracking of her movements. They also obtained call records which
indicated that the phone in Dr. King's possession was being used in New
York. They were able to trace a cell phone call made from Pacific Street in
New York City on June 9th, at approximately 5:01 p.m.

On June 17th of '08, the detective in the case was contacted by


Edward Appiah of the New York City Department of Child Welfare, who
advised that the victim of the incident, Ariana, was hospitalized in
Montefior Medical Center. He stated that he had been in contact with the
mother, Dr. King, and advised that she had given him information about her
international website. And when he Googled her name, a missing person's
flag came up online, and he contacted the officers.

Detectives notified officers from the 52nd Precinct in New York.


Detective Maye, upon receipt of the information responded to Montefior
Medical Center. When he and other investigators arrived, Dr. King was
taken into custody, processed, and detained in the New York city Detention
Center. The child, that day, was returned to the custodial parent.

All events occurred in Montgomery County.

The order of dismissal in this case was entered on June 5,2008. On April 5,2009,

appellant moved to vacate the order. Upon receipt of the motion to vacate, appellee filed

a response and a request for sanctions on April 11, 2009. On July 1, 2009, without a

hearing, Judge Craven dismissed appellant's motion to vacate.

DISCUSSION

Maryland Rule 2-535(a) states that, "[o]n motion of any party filed within 30 days

after entry of judgment, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the

-9-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 29

judgment." The grant or denial of a post-trial motion is within the sound discretion of

the trial court. J.B. Corp. v. Fowler, 258 Md. 432,434 (1970); Four Star Enters. Ltd.

P'shp v. Council of Unit Owners of Carousel Ctr. Condo., Inc., 132 Md. App. 551, 561

(2000) (citing Cromwell v. Ripley, 11 Md. App. 173, 176 (1971 ) (additional citations

omitted)). Maryland Rule 2-535(a) is applicable to all final judgments including default

judgments. J.e. Penney Co., Inc. v. Harker, 23 Md. App. 121, 124-26 (1974).

Maryland Rule 2-535(b) provides for limited exceptions. A court may revise a

judgment at any time if there is "fraud, mistake or irregularity.,,2 Extrinsic fraud arises

when the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud

or deception practiced by his opponent. Pellegrin a v. Maloof, 56 Md. App. 338, 347

(1983). It is well settled that an "irregularity" is "the doing or not doing that, in the

conduct of a suit at law, which, conformable to the practice of the court, ought or ought

not to be done." Autobahn Motors, Inc. v. Baltimore, 321 Md. 558, 562 (1991) (citations

and quotation marks omitted). In Tandra S. v. Tyrone w., 336 Md. 303, 317 (1994), the
Court of Appeals stated that, under Rule 2-535(b), "mistake" is defined as "a

jurisdictional error, i.e. where the court has no power to enter the judgment." (Citation

omitted).

2 Maryland Rule 2-535(b) states: "On motion of any party filed at any time, the
court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment in case of fraud,
mistake, or irregularity."

-10-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 30

In the instant case, the Montgomery County Circuit Court entered a final order on

June 5,2008. Judge Craven dismissed the temporary protective order stating:

"I find she knows about this, has chosen not to be here and there is reason
to believe that the testimony given to Judge Boynton a few days ago is
false."

Appellant did not file a motion to vacate the June 5,2008 order until April 5, 2009,

well after the thirty-day period prescribed by Maryland Rule 2-535(a). To vacate the

order, the court would have to find extrinsic fraud, mistake, or irregularity. We conclude

that there is nothing in the record to suggest extrinsic fraud, mistake, or irregularity. The

motion, filed ten months after the order of dismissal, was untimely.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the denial of appellant's motion to vacate the

June 5, 2008 order.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT


FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY
APPELLANT.

-11-
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 31

Ariel King * In the


*
Appellant * COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
*
vs. * No. 1007
*
Michael Pfeiffer * September Term, 2009
*
Appellee *
ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration of


the unreported opinion filed on August 13, 2010 in the captioned appeal,
it is this of October, 2010 by the Court of Special Appeals,
ORDERED that Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

For a Panel of the Court


(CHief JUOGE S SIGNATURE
,(\PPiARS ON CRIGINAl ORDER

Peter B. Krauser
Chief Judge
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 32
Maryland Relay Service

MANDATE 1-800-735-2258
TTNOICE

Court of Special Appeals

No. 01007, September Term, 2009

Ariel King
vs.
Michael Pfeiffer

JUDGMENT: August 13, 2010: Judgment of the Circuit Court


for Montgomery County affirmed.
Unreported opinion by Wright, J.
September 13, 2010: Motion for Reconsideration
filed by counsel for the appellant.
October 28, 2010: Motion for Reconsideration
denied.

October 28, 2010: Mandate issued.


From the Circuit Court: for MONTGOMERY COUNTY
000000070620
STATEMENT OF COSTS:

Appellant(s):
Lower Court Costs- ........................ . 60.00
Steno Costs of Appellant- ................. . 259.25
Brief of Appellant- ....................... . 118.80
Record Extract-IS COPIES .................. . 403.20
Reply of Appellant- ....................... . 104.40
Appendix of Appellant-REPLY APPENDIX (15) 219.60
Appellee(s):
Brief of Appellee- 514.80

STATE OF MARYLAND, Set:

I do hereby certify that the foregoing is truly taken from the records and proceedings of the said Court of Special Appeals. In testimony
whereof, I have hereunto set my hand as Clerk and affixed the seal of the Court of Special Appeals, this t wen y -• tt
9 h day
of October 2010 JlJl.: I)
of Special Appeals
COSTS SHOWN ON THIS MANDATE ARE TO BE SETTLED BETWEEN COUNSEL AND NOT THROUGH THIS OFFICE.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 33
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 34

IN THE
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
("')

f'.)
Ariel Rosita King

Plaintiff-Appellant, (/'l
rn :,.:.J
(/" '.'::) "'"Cl ' .. I

v. No.lOO7, -0
fT,0:2


_.i. ):" w

September Term, 2009 j>O Co


,Pl -;; r"-1
Michael Herbert Pfeiffer »;-1 1] -;1 c.:,
""DO
Defendant-Appellee. -or- t::> C")
rnP1 ITj
:x::.:::o
,A U'I
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION VI

Dr. Ariel King, Appellant, through counsel, hereby respectfully requests

reconsideration of the Court's August 13, 2010 Opinion (" Opinion" , or "Op. at_") to

correct errors of material fact contained in the Opinion, which upon correction call for

reconsideration of the merits. MD Rule Rule 8-605. The Opinion's upholding the lower

court's conduct severely undermines the integrity of the statutory scheme for Temporary

Protective Orders (TPOs) in Maryland. See, Appellant's Brief at 4-5, and Reply at 2-3.

Because this is one of the few cases that addresses the proper handling of domestic

violence TPOs for the seven days between its issuance and its scheduled Full Protective

Order (FPO) trial. and where the TPO was done on a referral from the Montgomery

County's Abused Persons Program (APP), Appellant requests the reconsideration opinion

be reported, per MD Rule 8-605.J . and be heard en bane.

The August 13, 20 10 Opinion reviewed the Duty Judge Craven's July L 2009

order. That July 1, 2009 Order failed to vacate the same Duty Judge's June 5. 200x

1
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 35

Order. APP-16, -17, and -63.1 That June 5, 2008 order pre-empted a scheduled FPO

trial that was set by Judge Boynton in his June 2, 2008 TPO for June 9, 2008 at 9:30 am.

See, TPO, June 2, 2008 Order and Hearing Transcript at APP-6, and -19. The June 2,

2008 domestic violence TPO, by its own words, sought temporary protection for the pro-

se Appellant, and for her child, pending the court-set scheduled June 9, 2009 FPO

evidentiary hearing. As explained herein, the June 5, 2008 Order was subject to "fraud,"

"mistake," and "irregularity." It had been entered at an unscheduled ex parte hearing on

June 5, 2008. See, Docket for Case 70620FL, at App.-1. The unscheduled June 5, 2008

hearing was brought by Appellee without adequate notice before the Honorable Judge

Craven who was the Family Chambers Judge (aka, "Duty Judge") that day. Contrary to

the Opinion, no court had set any hearing in that case for that day (June 5, 2008).

The Opinion was based on a "Factual Background" containing numerous facts that

are clearly erroneous and/or inconsistent with the record. Op. at 1-9 When corrected to

reflect the record, it is incontrovertible:

1) that there was irregularity and mistake by the holding of the unscheduled ex

parte June 5, 2008 hearing before a Duty Judge -- in violation of constitutional due

process and the law of Maryland2 -- due to lack of adequate notice for the actions taken,

which exceeded a Duty Judge's primary responsibilities. See, MD Crt. Rule §16-102,

2) that it was irregularity at the unscheduled ex parte June 5, 2008 hearing to


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
References to Appellant's Brief's Appendix shall be "App.-", Appellee’s Appendix "APX- ,"
and Appellant’s Reply Supplemental Appendix "APR- ". For the Reply Brief Appendix, whose
page numbers were inadvertently removed in the printing, page numbers shall refer to the
physical location of the pages in that appendix. Also, "Tx" shall refer to pages in transcripts.
2
In re. Katherine C., 890 A.2d 295 at 307, 390 Md. 554 (2006) (quoting Phillips v. Venker, 557
A.2d 1338 at 1343, 316 Md. 212 (1989))

! #!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 36

quash the entire TPO without regard to its multiple purposes, which were: 1) protection

of the mother for “stalking” by the father, 2) the "statutory abuse of the child (Physical,

Sexual)”, and 3) institution of a DSS (CPS) investigation.

3) that it was irregularity for a Duty Judge to attempt to prematurely hold an

unscheduled FPO hearing (which was scheduled by the court for June 9, 2008) at the ex

parte June 5, 2008 hearing, where he heard, without notice, hearsay testimonial evidence

from two CPS workers who appeared without subpoena or court order, and who

conceded their abuse study was not completed, including having not interviewed the

father,

4) that it was irregularity that the Duty Judge's June 5, 2008 Order quashed the

TPO on the bases that "he had reason to believe that the testimony given [at the June 2,

2008 hearing] to Judge Boynton a few days ago is false" or because there was a custody

proceeding in Virginia. No party in that June 5, 2008 hearing room, including the Duty

Judge Craven, had any knowledge of the testimony that had been given on June 2, 2008,

including that with regards to the custody proceeding in Virginia. Judge Craven

improperly failed to recognize that the UCCJEA of Maryland explicitly provides for

Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction for TPOs -- even where a custody case is pending in

another state. See, MD Code FL §9.5-204, Temporary emergency jurisdiction.

5) that there was extrinsic fraud arising from the Appellee's attorney's failure to

provide adequate notice of a hearing, failure to disclose that he intended to call witnesses,

failure to set forth what witnesses he intended to call, and making false proffers to the

Court at the June 5, 2008 hearing, all upon which the Duty Judge relied and, in turn,

! $!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 37

caused him to preempt the evidentiary trial set for June 9, 2009 Said Appellee's

attorneys' actions prevented any opportunity for pro se Appellant to adequately prepare

and present her case at either the hearing on June 5 or the one it preempted on June 9.

Appellant's Motion to Vacate the June 5, 2008 Order, and subsequent appeal of its

denial, were timely and proper because: 1) Appellant, who was pro se, was unable to

timely appeal the original June 5, 2008 Duty Judge's Order because she had been

erroneously charged and held in New York's Rikers prison without bond, and was only

released after the deadline for appeal; and 2) that much of the "fraud, mistake, and

irregularity" was uncovered in Appellant's criminal case's discovery in the time leading

up to her April 5, 2009 plea for taking "her young daughter out of Maryland to another

state, that state being New York, without the proper authority."

FACTUAL ERRORS REQUIRING CORRECTION:

At a minimum, the errors of fact must be corrected and the Opinion reissued.

Errors contained in the Opinion's Factual History will be addressed subsection by

subsection. A redlined version of the corrected "Factual History" is attached as Exhibit I.

As a threshold matter, the facts presented in the Opinion are not "uncontested," and it

will be shown many of the facts in that Opinion's history are clearly erroneous. Because

the Maryland Proceeding facts are most important, they are addressed first, followed by

the pre-Maryland facts, and then by a legal analysis in light of those corrected facts.

Maryland Proceedings:3 The Opinion erroneously omitted that: 1) Judge

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
In addition to the errors mentioned in the text, other "Maryland" fact errors include: 1) the
Court's reference at page 6 to the home that Appellant rented in Maryland on or about October

! %!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 38

Boynton had set an evidentiary trial for June 9, 2008 at 9:30 am, (TPO at 2, APP-7), 2)

the Mother appeared before Judge Boynton along with the child pro se on June 2, 2008

(giving him a chance to see the child) on a referral of the Montgomery County APP

program, (See, June 2, 2008 Tx. at 2-5, at APP-20 - 23; and APP Referral, Exh. VI,

attached hereto) and 3) the TPO's primary purposes were temporary protection of the

mother (stalking), protection of the 5 year old daughter ("Statutory abuse of a child

(Physical, Sexual) (Forward to DSS for investigation") and for therapy for the father and

the child. (TPO at 2, APP-7). The facts should make clear that TPO's temporary custody

shift was only incidental to the primary purpose of the TPO (protections), and then only

until the scheduled June 9, 2009 evidentiary FPO trial at 9:30 am. The Opinion fails to

reflect the June 2, 2008 transcript which clearly showed that: 1) Appellant did disclose to

Judge Boynton the custody proceeding in Virginia, 2) she did answer his questions

regarding it, and 3) Duty Judge Craven did not have that transcript before him at his June

5, 2008 ruling. See, June 2, 2008 Tx. at 9-13 (App-27 - 31)

The Opinion erroneously suggests that the June 5, 2008 hearing was "set." Op at

6. However, no hearing had been "set" by the Court for June 5, 2008 -- nor "set" by the

parties. See, Docket, at App-1. The June 4, 2008 unilateral "notice" by Appellee did not

give any notice that: 2) evidence would be taken at the hearing, 2) any witnesses were to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16, 2007 as "upscale," is without any basis in the record, and 2) the Opinion omitted that Dr.
King had brought the child to "play therapy" in Montgomery County's Tree House, to deal with
the trauma of the father sleeping in her bed (which remained ongoing), and that the child had a
forensic interview with Montgomery County Treehouse (Family Crime Division) in February
2008 where the child disclosed to the forensic interviewer that her father slept in her bed, kissed
on the mouth, and made other references. See, APP-102. The forensic interview was later
reviewed by Dr. Joy Silberg, an expert in abuse, who found it, together with other evidence,
consistent with sexual abuse. See, APP-90.

! &!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 39

be called, 3) the impromptu hearing was to preempt the FPO trial set by the court for June

9, 2008, and 4) the "Thursday" it would be held was to be June 5, 2008. See, "Notice" of

Hearing Filed by Appellee, APP-55. Appellee's counsel made no attempt to coordinate

the setting of any hearing with Appellant (who was representing herself pro se).

The Opinion erroneously states that the CPS worker had interviewed the child

between June 2 and June 5th. Op. at 7. That could not be true because Ms. Catron, the

CPS worker who was working the case, stated that "we just received the case yesterday"

(i.e., June 4, 2008) [See, June 5, 2008 Tx. at 9, APP-71] and CPS Supervisor Hoffman

testified that the Mother had appeared with the child at the CPS offices that morning (i.e.,

June 5, 2008), the day of the unscheduled impromptu ex parte hearing. [See. June 5,

2008 Tx. at 11, App.-73]. The Opinion states that Dr. King was advised of the hearing by

the CPS worker. Op. at 7. However, the Opinion fails to clarify when that critical

discussion occurred -- which the transcript makes clear was the morning of hearing of

June 5, 2008. That timing is critical. It illustrates the inadequacy of the notice and

preparation time provided, including the lack of time for allowing pro se litigants, like

Dr. King to obtain legal representation and gather her witnesses as specified in the TPO.

Op. at 7 erroneously omits that the Duty Judge found CPS Supervisor Hoffman's

testimony to be "hearsay," as she admitted not seeing or communicating directly with Dr.

King or her child on the morning of June 5, 2008. See, June 5, 2008 Tx. at 16-17, APP-

78 - 79. Op. at 7 erroneously states that Ms. Catron had "similar testimony" regarding

the abuse issue. The testimony actually shows that Ms. Catron had only been asked on

the witness stand whether she agreed that her direct supervisor's testimony "accurately

! '!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 40

represents the actions of Ms. King." (See, June 5, 2008 Tx. at 17-18, APP- 79-80). She

said "yes" to that limited question. Thus, contrary to Op. at 7, there was no first hand

testimony by Ms. Catron (or Ms. Hoffman) regarding any abuse findings.

There was no sworn testimony or taking of evidence on June 5, 2008 concerning

what Appellant testified on June 2, 2008. Appellee's attorney made false proffers

claiming that Appellant failed to inform Judge Boynton about the Virginia custody case;

but the June 2, 2008 transcript indicates otherwise. [6/2/08 Tx. at 9-12, APP-9 - 13]

The Opinion erroneously suggests that Mr. Roy Morris, Esq. represented the

Appellant in Maryland and at the hearing. Op. at 7. However, Mr. Morris clearly stated

that he was not Dr. King's Maryland attorney and that he was not representing her at the

June 5, 2008 hearing. See, June 5, 2008 Tx. at 6-7, APP-68-69. The Opinion's footnote

on page 7 also mistakenly identifies Mr. Morris as Dr. King's Virginia counsel. Mr.

Morris is only licensed to practice in Washington, DC where he represents Dr. King.

The Opinion's references to the non-witness Morris and any reference suggesting he was

Dr. King's Virginia and/or Maryland counsel at the time are clearly erroneous.4 The

Opinion should clearly state that Dr. King was represented below pro se. Dr. King was

representing herself pro se in Virginia, as well. Making clear Appellant's pro se status in

both Maryland and Virginia is critically important because it, along with other

circumstances, created a due process domino effect, namely, she could not file an appeal

or reconsideration on her own behalf nor effectively engage, communicate or assist a

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
When Appellee's attorney made these erroneous representations to the Judge Craven about Mr.
Morris' practice, he admitted he "might be wrong." (See, June 5, 2008 Tx. at 22, APP-84)

! (!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 41

Maryland or Virginia attorney while confined to Rikers prison in New York (see

Appellant's Brief at 12-14, and Reply at 11-12) -- causing her to miss the deadlines for

appeals in both Maryland and Virginia court orders. See, attached hereto, Exhibit VI.

The Opinion omits that the June 5, 2008 Opinion was not, in fact, served on

Appellant by the Court until June 9, 2008 -- as evidenced by the postmark on the

envelope. See, Court Envelope postmarked June 9, 2008, APP-17. The Opinion

erroneously stated that Mr. Morris had informed the Appellant of the Maryland Court's

June 5, 2008 Opinion. There is nothing in the record to support this statement by the

Opinion. Furthermore, it would have been a violation of attorney client privilege if Mr.

Morris had disclosed the contents of such conversation with his Washington, DC client.

The Opinion at 7 - 9 erroneously presents the wrong set of facts as "supporting the

plea" by Appellant Dr. King in Cases Criminal Nos. 111333 and 111512. The record in

those cases make clear that Appellant did not plea to the State's proposed version of the

facts (which are erroneously set forth in the Opinion). Instead, she plead only to the

factual elements necessary to support the plea, specifically that "she took her young

daughter out of Maryland to another state, that state being New York, without the proper

authority." See, MD v King, Case Nos. 111333 and 111512, April 6, 2009 Tx. at 144-

154, APX-88 -98 (especially APX-95-96). An arrest warrant was not issued until June

11, 2008 -- six days after the June 5, 2008 hearing and two days after the June 5, 2008

Order was served. See, Exh. VII, attached hereto. The arrest warrant erroneously

alleged Appellant to have engaged in non-parental kidnapping of her own daughter on

June 2, 2008 -- the day the TPO was issued.

! )!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 42

DC and Virginia Background Errors: The "facts" regarding the DC and

Virginia proceedings come mostly from selective quotation from the "factual findings" of

an unreported opinion in King v. Pfeiffer, No. 245, Sept. Term 2008, which itself

contained many fact errors that should be corrected, as well. Some of the Opinion's pre-

Maryland fact errors are (See, Exhibit I for Redlined Revisions):

1) Ariana-Leilani was born in Houston Texas, not Levittown Pennsylvania (See,


e.g., November 8, 2007 Custody Investigation of Michele Woods at 1, APR-14)
["P.O.B. Houston Texas"], (also see Copy of Birth Certificate, Exhibit II hereto.

2) The matter relating to the Washington DC August 1, 2007 hearing omits


material that makes it misleading, and erroneous:

a) During the period June 19, 2007 and July 10, 2007, the Mother primarily
stayed at the father's boss's house in Bethesda -- she did not claim in her
testimony that she stayed with "friends" in Virginia. [See Aug. 1, 2007 Tx.
at 20-21] Thus, the reference there to Virginia should be deleted.

b) The August 1, 2007 hearing was held primarily because Appellee (the
father) was a "no show" at an earlier hearing set by the DC Court to hear
Appellee's emergency motion ne exeat. Appellee had sought to take
immediate sole custody of the 4 year old child from Appellant. Appellee
falsely claimed that Appellant was planning to take the child to "Mumbai"
India. Upon cross-examination he admitted he based his false allegation
on a credit card entry for a ticket change made for an airline which lists on
the statement its call center in "Mumbai." Appellees motion was denied.
[DC Aug. 1, 2007 Tx. at 3-4 and 77-79, found at Exh. III, attached hereto]

c) The Opinion's excerpts of the DC August 1, 2007 transcript are so highly


edited that they mislead. [DC Aug. 1, 2007 Tx. at 8, found at Exhibit III,
attached hereto] A summary paragraph would be more appropriate. See,
Exhibit I. The excerpts omit important points made by Plaintiff's (here
Appellant) counsel. For example, he told the court that the couple could
not be divorced in Virginia, because "nobody has been there for six
months." DC Aug. 1, 2007 Tx. at 19 and 23. He also pointed out that six
months is also required for establishing Virginia as the "home state" for
subject matter custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Counsel for both
parties agreed that six months was required for Virginia to be the home
state, and that the child's home state was Maryland. DC Aug 1, 2007 Tx at

! *!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 43

18-19, -23. On August 1, 2007, the DC Superior Court did not find that
Virginia had jurisdiction. It simply dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction in DC and found no need for emergency relief for the father.
DC Aug. 1 2007 Tx. at 100-105 found at Exhibit III, attached hereto.

More errors include that the Opinion at 5 fails to reflect that the September 5, 2007

Arlington Initial Order clearly allowed the child to move about the DC metropolitan area

(including Maryland), and thus enabled Appellant to move back to Maryland without

being found in violation of the September 5, 2007 Initial Order. The provision also

allowed the child to visit relatives in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Atlanta Georgia.

See, ¶(g) of Sept. 5, 2007 Arlington Initial Order, Attached here as Exh. IV.

The Opinion also failed to state that the June 6, 2008 "Final" Virginia Order of the

Arlington Court JDR was entered ex parte, without the Mother, who was representing

herself pro se in Virginia at that time. The June 6, 2008 hearing was not noticed as a

final custody hearing, even though final custody was awarded to the father without an

evidentiary hearing on the merits as prescribed by the Virginia statutes. The Court made

its rulings based on Appellee's counsel's proffers. [See, June 6, 2008 Virginia Order,

APP-1; and Appellant's Brief at 12] The Opinion also omits that the 10 day time period

for direct appeal of the ex parte Virginia June 6, 2008 "Final Custody Order" had expired

(VA Code §16.1-296) while Appellant was held in New York. It also omits that the

Mother has satisfied the requirements of that order, as she has had the required

psychological exam and appeared before family courts in Washington DC, Maryland and

Bayreuth Germany. Reply at 12-14, and APR-38. The parties agree that Virginia now

has no custody jurisdiction, and thus no further proceedings to be had there.

! "+!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 44

There is no record support for the Opinion's claims that the Virginia court

appointed investigator, Michele Woods, had "requested" a GAL. A GAL was appointed

on Oct. 1, 2007. See, Exh. V. The Opinion omits that Michele Wood's home study found

the child had complained to her about the father sleeping in her bed; had praised the

mother for the stable and creative environment for her child; and recommended the

Mother be awarded physical custody. Nov, 8, 2010 Report of Michele Woods, APR-14.

Legal Analysis

A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a decision by the Court that

disposes of the appeal. MD Rule 8-605. Reconsideration.

The original appeal sought review of the lower court's failure to vacate is June 5,

2008 Order for fraud, mistake, and irregularity. As this Court's Opinion notes:

Extrinsic fraud arises when the unsuccessful party has been prevented from
exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced by his opponent.
..."[M]istake" is defined as "a jurisdictional error, i.e. where the court has no
power to enter the judgment." (Citation omitted). It is well settled that an
"irregularity" is "the doing or not doing that, in the conduct of a suit at law, which,
conformable to the practice of the court, ought or ought not to be done."
- (citations omitted, emphasis added) Op at 10

Irregularity and Mistake: Irregularity occurred with regard to the June 5, 2008

hearing and grant of the Motion to Quash by the Duty Judge. The Duty Judge's actions

were not in conformity with the proper handling of such motions that seek to dispose of a

TPO prior to the scheduled FPO hearing, particularly where there is inadequate notice.

The Court Of Appeals found lack of adequate meaningful notice involves more

than simply knowing the proposed place and time of a hearing. Inadequate notice can

still exist even where both party appear at the hearing:

! ""!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 45

It is axiomatic that they were entitled to adequate notice of the time, place, and
nature of that hearing, so that they could adequately prepare.

Assuming, as the parties here have agreed, that a telephone conference satisfied
the requirement of an oral hearing in this case, notice of that hearing, if indeed it
can be said that any notice was given, was insufficient. Counsel for the plaintiffs
was not given any meaningful opportunity to review his file, collect his thoughts,
or otherwise prepare for oral argument. That he was able to participate in some
fashion in the argument the trial judge insisted be held does not suggest that he
was able to participate effectively. Effective argument of a motion for summary
judgment in this type of case requires not only that the attorney be conversant with
the applicable case law, but that he also have fresh in mind the critical areas of
deposition testimony previously given by each witness. The stakes were high, and
the need for adequate preparation was apparent. The absence of adequate notice
effectively deprived the plaintiffs of the hearing guaranteed them by the rule. We
shall vacate the judgment below and remand the case so that the parties may be
afforded a hearing after adequate notice.

(emphasis added, citations omitted) Phillips v. Venker, at 1343


(1989) (quoted in In re. Katherine C., at 307)

On June 2, 2008, after the APP program had referred Appellant to the Court to

seek a TPO, and, then, after a one-hour hearing where Judge Boynton observed and

questioned both the mother with her child, Judge Boynton enter a TPO for temporary

protection of Appellant's child from statutory abuse (physical and sexual) by the

Appellee, and temporary protection of the Appellant for stalking by Appellee. As

reflected in the questions and answers in the June 2, 2008 transcript, the Appellant clearly

informed Judge Boynton of the ongoing Virginia and prior Maryland proceedings. The

TPO provision for temporary emergency custody to the mother was only incidental to the

primary protection purpose of the TPO. The TPO was due to expire upon presentation of

the outcome of a completed abuse and neglect investigation by CPS at the court-set

evidentiary trial on June 9, 2008 at 9:30 am.

! "#!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 46

MD FL Code §9.5-204 of the UCCJEA of Maryland clearly provides for entry of

an emergency protection order in Maryland even when a custody proceeding is pending

in another state. Upon entry of the emergency order, the UCCJEA calls for a conference

between the courts to "resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the

child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order." MD FL Code

§9.5-204, Temporary emergency jurisdiction.

In the instant case the hearing on June 5, 2008 was the result of a unilateral,

defective and untimely "notice" by Appellee's attorney in his attempt to abort the TPO-

ordered CPS investigation and preempt the TPO ordered June 9, 2008 FPO trial. His

June 4, 2008 "notice" to bring his motion to quash the TPO before the Duty Judge only

stated that he would "move to vacate" on or after "Thursday" at 11am (with no specified

date). See, APP-55. No mention of an evidentiary hearing was contained in the notice.

There was no hearing set by the Court. There was no coordination as to date and time

with Appellant (who was pro se). The June 4, 2008 Appellee's "notice" did not disclose

Appellee's intent to call witnesses (such as Ms. Wood, Ms. Catron, or Ms. Hoffman), or

that evidence would be taken. The "notice" of Appellee also lacked proper content for a

notice for an FPO trial, specifically that Appellant should obtain an attorney and be

prepared for the presentation of evidence and present witnesses.

Under Phillips, even assuming Appellant appeared at the unscheduled June 5 2008

hearing, it still would have been an irregularity for the Duty Judge to proceed in light of

the inadequate notice provided. There was no opportunity to obtain legal representation

and gather witnesses, and the notice clearly conflicted with the terms contained in the

! "$!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 47

June 2, 2008 TPO's notice setting the FPO trial for June 9, 2008.

The primary argument of Appellee's Motion to Quash was jurisdictional arising

from the Virginia custody proceeding. But, under UCCJEA §9.5-204, the appropriate

Maryland Court response should have been to conference with the Virginia court, not

quash the entire TPO.

It was also a mistake and/or an irregularity, for the Duty Judge to have ruled on a

motion disposing of the entire case ex parte, before the court set hearing date of June 9,

2008, which is required by statute. Such action is not in conformance with MD Court

Rule §16-102. On Jun 5, 2008, Duty Judge Craven should have insisted that Appellee

bring his Motion to Quash issues before the June 9, 2008 trial set by the TPO, or, if

required sooner, before Judge Boynton, who had seen and interviewed the mother and

child and issued the TPO for their protection. He had first hand knowledge of the history

of the TPO, as compared to the Duty Judge, who did not.

It was also irregularity for the Duty Judge on June 5, 2008 to arbitrarily conclude

that he had "reason to believe" that the testimony given on June 2, 2008 was "false." No

testimony was given by any person regarding what was stated at the June 2, 2008

hearing, and no attempt was made to obtain and review the June 2, 2008 transcript.

Instead, the Duty Judge relied solely on the false proffers of Appellee's attorney who had

no basis for saying anything about what was actually said at the June 2, 2008 hearing.

It was also highly irregular and/or a mistake that the Duty Judge quashed the entire

TPO, which was for protection of both the mother and the child. As noted above, the

UCCJEA §9.5-204 allows for entry of a TPO in Maryland even if a custody proceeding is

! "%!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 48

pending elsewhere. With regard to the TPO protections for the mother, the existence of

a custody proceeding in Virginia had no bearing on its status.

Extrinsic Fraud: Extrinsic fraud occurred by the Appellee's attorney intentional

failure to provide adequate notice of a hearing, failure to disclose that he intended to call

witnesses, and failure to set forth what witnesses he intended to call. Said fraudulent

actions prevented any opportunity for pro se Appellant to adequately prepare and present

at any hearing.

With the facts properly corrected, in conformance with the record, the presence of

fraud, mistake and irregularity warranted vacating the June 5, 2008 decision. Appellant

again urges, in light of the fact corrections, that this honorable court reconsider its August

13, 2010 Opinion, correct its factual errors, and reverse the lower court's July 1, 2009

decision, which would, in turn, properly vacate the June 5, 2008 decision. Such action

by this court will help preserve the integrity of Maryland's statutory scheme to provide

meaningful protection from domestic violence, during the period that they are most

vulnerable -- i.e., the time between the TPO's adoption and its court-set FPO evidentiary

hearing.

! "&!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 49

Respectfully submitted

1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Ste. 710


Washington, D.C. 20009
(301) 254-2745
p-griffin@comcast.net
Counsel for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on day of September, 2010, I caused to be sent two copies
of the forgoing Motion for Reconsideration , with its request for reporting and hearing en
banc by first class mail, postage prepaid, to: Sean O'Connell, 4 113 Lee Highway ,
Arlington, VA 22207.

1875 Connectlcut Ave., N.W. Ste. 710


Washington, D.C. 20009
(301) 254-2745
p-griffin@comcast.net
Counsel for Appellant
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 50

Applicable Statutes and Rules

MD Code FL § 9.5-204. Temporary emergency jurisdiction


(a) Grounds. -- A court of this State has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is
present in this State and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency
to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or
threatened with mistreatment or abuse.

(b) Effect of current custody determination if no previous determination has been made. -
-
(1) If there is no previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced
under this title and a child custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a
state having jurisdiction under § § 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle, a child
custody determination made under this section remains in effect until an order is obtained
from a court of a state having jurisdiction under § § 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this
subtitle.
(2) If a child custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state
having jurisdiction under § § 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle, a child custody
determination made under this section becomes a final determination if the determination
so provides and this State becomes the home state of the child.

(c) Effect of current custody determination if a previous determination has been made. --
(1) If there is a previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under
this title, or a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of a state having
jurisdiction under § § 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle, any order issued by a court
of this State under this section shall specify in the order a period that the court considers
adequate to allow the person seeking an order to obtain an order from the state having
jurisdiction under §§ 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle.
(2) The order issued in this State remains in effect until an order is obtained from the
other state within the period specified or the period expires.

(d) Communication with other state court. --


(1) A court of this State that has been asked to make a child custody determination under
this section, on being informed that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in,
or a child custody determination has been made by, a court of a state having jurisdiction
under § § 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle, shall immediately communicate with
the other court.
(2) A court of this State that is exercising jurisdiction in accordance with § § 9.5-201
through 9.5-203 of this subtitle, on being informed that a child custody proceeding has
been commenced in, or a child custody determination has been made by, a court of
another state under a statute similar to this section shall immediately communicate with
Applicable Statutes and Rules - Page 1
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 51

the court of that state to resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the
child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order.

MD Rule 8-605. Reconsideration.

(a) Motion; response; no oral argument.- Except as otherwise provided in Rule 8-602 (c), a
party may file pursuant to this Rule a motion for reconsideration of a decision by the Court that
disposes of the appeal. The motion shall be filed (1) before issuance of the mandate or (2) within
30 days after the filing of the opinion of the Court, whichever is earlier. A response to a motion
for reconsideration may not be filed unless requested on behalf of the Court by at least one judge
who concurred in the opinion or order. Except to make changes in the opinion that do not change
the decision in the case, the Court ordinarily will not grant a motion for reconsideration unless it
has requested a response. There shall be no oral argument on the motion.

(b) Length.- A motion or response filed pursuant to this Rule shall not exceed 15 pages.

(c) Copies - Filing.-

(1) In Court of Special Appeals.- In the Court of Special Appeals, the original of the motion and
any response shall be filed together with four copies if the opinion of the Court was unreported
or 13 copies if reported.

(2) In Court of Appeals.- In the Court of Appeals, the original and seven copies of the motion
and any response shall be filed.

(d) Mandate to be delayed.- A motion for reconsideration shall delay issuance of a mandate,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(e) Disposition of motion.- A motion for reconsideration shall be granted only with the consent
of at least half the judges who concurred in the opinion. If a motion for reconsideration is
granted, the Court may make a final disposition of the appeal without reargument, restore the
appeal to the calendar for argument, or make other orders, including modification or clarification
of its opinion, as the Court finds appropriate.

MD Court Rule 16-102. Chambers judge.


.....
b. Duties.- A chambers judge shall have primary responsibility for:
(i) Prompt disposition of motions and other preliminary matters which may be disposed
of without hearing, except for motions made or filed during the course of a trial or on the
day a case is set for trial, which motions shall be disposed of by the trial judge.
(ii) Consideration of and, when appropriate, signing show cause orders.
(iii) Conduct of pre-trial conferences and control of the pre-trial calendar, if one has been
established.

Applicable Statutes and Rules - Page 2


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 52

(iv) Unless a different procedure is prescribed by the County Administrative Judge,


consideration of and, when appropriate, signing orders and decrees in uncontested or ex
parte cases, and the disposition of motions for continuances or postponements, except
such motions made on the day of or during trial, which shall be disposed of by the trial
judge.

VA Code §16.1-296.
Jurisdiction of appeals; procedure. A. From any final order or judgment of the juvenile
court affecting the rights or interests of any person coming within its jurisdiction, an
appeal may be taken to the circuit court within 10 days from the entry of a final
judgment, order or conviction and shall be heard de novo.

Applicable Statutes and Rules - Page 3


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 53

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR EXHIBITS

Exhibit Pages

Exhibit I: Redlined Corrections of Opinion Facts 1-6

Exhibit II: Ariana-Leilani Birth Certificate


Showing Houston Texas as
Her Place of Birth 7-10

Exhibit III: August 1, 2007 Transcript


District of Columbia Hearing on
Appellee's Emergency Motion
and Appellant's Motion to Dismiss 11-126

Exhibit IV: September 1, 2007 Virginia Initial Order 127- 132

Exhibit V: October 1, 2007 Appointment of GAL 133-136

Exhibit VI: June 2, 2008 Referral of Appellant


by Montgomery County APP to
Montgomery County Circuit Court for TPO 137-140

Exhibit VII: June 11, 2008 Montgomery County


Warrant for the Arrest of Appellant
for Non-Parental Kidnapping Allegedly
Occurring On June 2, 2008 -- the Date Appellant
and Her Child Were Referred by APP to Circuit Court
to Seek and Obtain TPO, Before Judge Boynton 141-144

,-./0/12!34056!78!97:16:12!
!
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 54

King Reconsideration Motion


Exhibit I
Redlined Corrections of
Opinion Facts

Redlined Corrections Of Opinion Facts


KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS - PAGE 1
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 55

EXHIBIT I

Redlined Background Section of Opinion


(Underline meaning inserted text, with strikeout meaning removed text)

Opinion Page 1:
FACTUAL HISTORY

The multi-jurisdictional and "tortured" history of this domestic case are as follows. not
contested. As such, we shall adopt, in large part, a corrected version of the factual
findings as recounted in the "Factual and Procedural Background" section of this Court's
2008 unreported opinion, King v. Pfeiffer, No. 245, Sept. Term, 2008, involving the
same parties:

Father and Mother were allegedly married on September 16, 2000 in Houston,
Texas. Their only child, Ariana-Leilani Margarita Alexandra King-Pfeiffer
("Ariana"), was born on May 7, 2003, in Houston, Texas. At the time of After
Ariana's birth, the parties lived together in Levitown, Pennsylvania where Father
was completing a medical internship. Following the internship, Father began
residency at Georgetown University Hospital in the District of Columbia. Over the
next three years, from December 2003 until September 2006, the parties and their
child resided together in various rented quarters in the District of Columbia. On or
about October 24,2006, the family rented a house in Bethesda, Maryland. Of the
many disputes and assertions surrounding the later whereabouts of Mother and
Ariana, it is undisputed that Father, Mother, and Ariana lived together at the
Bethesda residence continuously over the next eight month period.

On June 15,2007, Father moved into an apartment in D.C.; Mother and Ariana left
the residence on June 19, 2007, and stayed primarily at the home of the Father's
former boss with various friends in Virginia and Maryland until July 10,2007,
when Mother and Ariana moved into an apartment in Arlington, Virginia. Mother
later entered into a twenty-month rental lease agreement dated October 15, 2007
for a residence in Potomac, Maryland. According to the Maryland lease,
occupancy was to begin immediately.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROCEEDINGS

;:!7<!407=1!>=:6!"*?#++(?!@41.6<!8/56A!87<!4:!B,C6<D6:EF!G71/7:!87<!9=217AF!
4:A!H</1!78!I6!,-641B!42J/:D!87<!2756!E=217AF!78!1.6!E./5A?!0426A!7:!4!E54/C!
1.41!1.6!C71.6<!K42!D7/:D!17!564L6!1.6!E7=:1<F!K/1.!1.6!E./5A!87<!G=C04/?!
M:A/4?!4:A!4527!8/56A!4!E7CN54/:1!87<!!A/L7<E6?!B56D45!4:A!N.F2/E45B!E=217AF?!4:A!
2=NN7<1!/:!1.6!O=N6</7<!97=<1!78!1.6!P/21</E1!78!975=C0/4?!@4C/5F!P/L/2/7:!
Redlined Corrections Of Opinion Facts
KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS - PAGE 2
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 56

QB1.6!PR9R!E7=<1BSR!!!T1!1.6!E7CC6:E6C6:1!78!1.6!T=D=21!"?#++(!.64</:D?!
K./E.!K42!.65A!4816<!1.6!@41.6<!4:A!./2!E7=:265!84/56A!17!4NN64<!41!1.6!N</7<!
E7=<1U261!.64</:D?!G71.6<V2!E7=:265!21416A!!177J!1.6!N72/1/7:!1.41!W/<D/:/4!K42!
1.6!06116<!L6:=6!17!.64<!1.6!E=217AF!C4116<?!0=1!4AC/116A!1.6F!A/A!:71!C661!
1.6!2/-!C7:1.!<=56!87<!6/1.6<!P/L7<E6!7<!9=217AF!/:!6/1.6<!W/<D/:/4!7<!
H42./:D17:!P9R!!3.6!@41.6<V2!E7=:265!4<D=6A!1.6!E=217AF!C4116<!2.7=5A!06!
.64<A!/:!H42./:D17:!P9?!7<?!/8!:71!1.6<6?!/:!G4<F54:AR!!!!97=:265!87<!071.!
N4<1/62!4D<66A!1.41!G4<F54:A!K42!1.6!E./5AV2!.7C6!21416R!
!
[Delete all transcript quotations in the Opinion between
"[Mother's Counsel]: ... I sent my motion yesterday.."
on page 6, until
["Mother's Counsel]: ... Now are you willing to submit yourself to
the jurisdiction of the Virginia court, specifically the Arlington
Juvenile Domestic Relations Court. [Mother]: Yes, I am. [Mother]
Yes, I am."
in the middle of page 5.]
!
T1!1.6!E7:E5=2/7:!78!1.6!.64</:D?!1.6!PR9R!E7=<1!A616<C/:6A!1.41!/1!A/A!:71!.4L6!
X=</2A/E1/7:!7L6<!1.6!E=217AF!A/2N=16!RRR!Y4:A!1.6Z!A/L7<E6!N<7E66A/:D2!06E4=26!
:6/1.6<!78!1.6!N4<1/62!.4A!066:!B4!07:4!8/A6!<62/A6:1!78!1.6!P/21</E1!78!
975=C0/4!87<!41!56421!2/-!C7:1.2!E7:1/:=7=25F!4:A!/CC6A/4165F!0687<6!1.6!
97CN54/:1!YK42Z!8/56ARB!!!!3.6!P9!97=<1!4527!87=:A!:7!D<7=:A2!17!D<4:1!1.6!
@41.6<V2!C71/7:!87<!6C6<D6:EF!<65/68R!!3.6!97=<1!2N6E/8/E455F!5681!/1!17!E7=:265!
78!071.!N4<1/62!17!A6E/A6!7:!.7K!17!N<7E66A!061K66:!W/<D/:/4!4:A!G4<F54:A

VIRGINIA COURT PROCEEDINGS

@41.6<!8/56A!4!N61/1/7:!87<!E=217AF!4:A!2=NN7<1!/:!1.6!T<5/:D17:!>=L6:/56!4:A!
P7C621/E![6541/7:2!P/21</E1!97=<1!QB1.6!W/<D/:/4!E7=<1BS!7:!T=D=21!*1.?!#++(R!
3.6!C4:F!N564A/:D2!8/56A!0F!071.!N4<1/62!/:!1.6!W/<D/:/4!E7=<1?!4:A!6\=455F!
<686<6:E6A!/:!1.6/<!0</682?!K6<6!:71!/:E5=A6A!/:!1.6!<6E7<A!/:!1./2!E426R!
]7K6L6<?!8<7C!1.6!5/C/16A!/:87<C41/7:!1.41!/2!/:!1.6!<6E7<A?!/1!4NN64<2!1.41!4:!
BM:/1/45!;<A6<?B!A416A!O6N16C06<!&?!#++(?!N<7L/A6A!87<!16CN7<4<F!N.F2/E45!
E=217AF!78!1.6!E./5A!17!G71.6<!2=0X6E1!17!L/2/141/7:!K/1.!@41.6<?!16CN7<4<F!
E./5A!2=NN7<1?!4!E=217AF!6L45=41/7:?!N4<6:1/:D!E542262?!4:A!BC=1=45!
A/2E7L6<FRB!!!3.6!M:/1/45!;<A6<!4527!21416A!1.41?!2=0X6E1!17!6-E6N1/7:2!1.41!4<6!
:71!<656L4:1!.6<6?!BY:Z7!N4<1F!YK42!17Z!<6C7L6!YT</4:4Z!8<7C!1.6!O1416!78!
W/<D/:/4!K/1.7=1!1.6!K</116:!E7:26:1!78!1.6!71.6<!N4<1F!7<!7<A6<!78!Y1.6!
W/<D/:/4!E7=<1Z!=:1/5!Y4!5416<Z!.64</:DR! Child is allowed to travel within
metropolitan area. Mother allowed to travel with child to visit with family in New
Jersey, Atlanta, and Pennsylvania to visit friends."!

Redlined Corrections Of Opinion Facts


KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS - PAGE 3
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 57

! !
At some point thereafter, Mother filed a motion to dismiss, apparently on subject
matter jurisdictional grounds, the custody proceeding in the Virginia court. That
motion was denied on January 17, 2008, and an appeal was noticed, but blocked
by the Virginia Family Court judge based on its being interlocutory, Following a
hearing, the Virginia court, by an order dated February 21, 2008, awarded Father
temporary physical custody of Ariana with the child returning to the mother's
home on three out of four weekends each month, and two days per week. While
the Mother was representing herself pro se in Virginia, a "Final Order," adopted ex
parte, dated June 6, 2008 awarded Father sole physical and legal custody. The ex
parte Final Order stated that "[Mother] shall not have any contact with the child
until she avails herself to the court and completes a psychological evaluation."
There is nothing in the record before us regarding the current status of the
proceedings between the parties in the Virginia court, but, according to Father, the
Final Order has not been appealed. The 10 day time period for direct appeal of
the Virginia June 6, 2008 Order expired while Appellant was being held in New
York (VA Code §16.1-296). The mother has since submitted a number of
psychological exams to and appeared before family courts in Washington DC,
Maryland, and Bayreuth Germany. Neither party claims that Virginia has custody
jurisdiction at this time.

King v. Pfeiffer, No. 245, Sept. Term., 2008, Slip Op. at 2-8 (Dec. 22,2008) (footnotes
omitted, and corrected).

Pursuant to the September 5, 2007 order, a psychologist began evaluating the parents and
the child. The court-appointed investigator, probation officer Michelle Woods, who
conducted the home study issued a report observing that the child complained to Ms.
Wood that her father was sleeping in her bed, and Ms. Woods, in turn, recommended
custody to the Mother on November 8, 2010. The Court requested appointed that a
guardian ad litem ("GAL") be appointed to represent the interests of the child before the
Virginia Court. Deborah Olin was appointed as GAL on or about September 26, 2007
October 1, 2007

!"#$%"&'()*+#,(-#*)..'/&01(-#.1.&,%$(*&("--."%
Page 6:

On or about October 16, 2007, appellant unilaterally, and without notice, rented an
upscale home in Potomac, Maryland, returning to Maryland three months after it in July
2007. From February 2008, Dr. King brought the child for play therapy and participated
in Montgomery County's Abused Persons Program (APP). The child was referred to the
Montgomery County Treehouse Program where she received a forensic interview in
February 2008 and disclosed again that the father was sleeping in the child's bed. On
June 2, 2008, on referral of the Montgomery County APP program and prior to the
Redlined Corrections Of Opinion Facts
KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS - PAGE 4
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 58

Virginia court's order on June 6, 2008, appellant appeared pro se with her daughter at the
Montgomery County Circuit Court in front of Judge Boynton alleging that her daughter
had been abused and that she had been stalked. She also asked for a protective order to
keep appellee away for her and her daughter, get counseling for Appellee and the
daughter, and shifting custody temporarily , from having custody. As revealed in the June
2, 2008 transcript, the Appellant concealed from disclosed to the Maryland court the
extent of the Virginia Custody case, and responded to the Court's questions concerning it.

On June 2, 2008, Judge Boynton issued a temporary ex parte protective order granting
appellant temporary custody of the child, Ariana, ordering an investigation by CPS and
scheduling an evidentiary Full Protective Order trial for June 9, 2009. On June 4, 2008,
appellee filed a motion to vacate. No hearing had been scheduled with or by the Court.
Instead, only a notice of the hearing was filed by Appellee's council set for June 5, 2008,
stating "on or about Thursday at 11:00 am or as soon thereafter Michael Pfeiffer will
move the Honorable Judge Craven, the Current Family Duty Judge of the Montgomery
County Circuit Court on the 8th Floor in Courtroom 6 at 50 Maryland Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland, to Vacate the Emergency Protective Order for Reasons Set Out in The
Previously Filed Motion and Attached Memorandum and Attachments." The certificate
of service said it was "sent via email, hand delivery and by first class mail" on June 4,
2008 -- without the specification of any time for such delivery. The case docket does not
have any entries for Appellant filinged a response to the motion to vacate. Between June
2nd 4th and June 5th, Ariana was interviewed by Montgomery County Child Protective
Services ("CPS"). Appellee had an interview scheduled with CPS for the afternoon of
June 5, 2008. CPS testified at the unscheduled hearing on June 5, 2008 that they advised
appellant of the June 5, 2008 hearing that morning date. Despite notice of the hearing,
Appellant failed to appear.

[Footnote 1: Appellant's Virginia attorney, Roy Morris, appeared and advised the court
that appellant was A "unidentified speaker" in the gallery of the court, who was identified
as a "Mr. Morris" by Appellee's counsel, who was not appearing as a witness or her
attorney in the case, stated he believed that Dr. King was on her way. He was identified
in this appeal by Appellant as Roy Morris, Dr. King's Washington DC counsel.]

At the invitation of Appellee's attorney and with no notice to Appellant nor subject
to any subpoena or court order, Judge Craven heard testimony from Elizabeth Ann
Hoffman, supervisor of the Child Sexual Abuse Investigation Unit. She was examined
on the stand by Appellee's counsel. Ms. Hoffman testified that she understood from her
subordinate, Ms. Catron, that Ms Catron had interviewed the child and the mother, but
had not yet had interviewed the father, and was preparing to provide a report to the Court
at the scheduled FPO trial on June 9, 2008. Even though present, Appellee was not
called as a witness at the June 5, 2008 hearing. Based on what Ms. Hoffman understood
of the child's interview by Ms. Catron, there had been no indication of abuse from that
interview. After hearing this testimony of Ms. Hoffman, the Judge conceded it was
Redlined Corrections Of Opinion Facts
KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS - PAGE 5
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 59

mostly "hearsay." Judge Craven called and similar testimony from Janel Canton, the
social worker who interviewed the child who worked for Ms. Hoffman. When asked, she
stated that she agreed that Ms. Hoffman's observations "accurately represent the actions
of Ms. King". No first hand testimony was presented about what the child said or did
not say, nor was there any testimony based on a completed study, including the Appellees
interview that had been scheduled for that afternoon. [Transcript at 17-18] Judge Craven
vacated the temporary protective order stating that he "has reason to believe" that the
testimony on June 2, 2008 was false and dismissed the case.

Appellant left the State of Maryland to another state, that state being New York,
with the child and remained a fugitive with the her child without proper authority until
June 16, 2008, when she was apprehended by the authorities in New York at Montefiore
Children's hospital. A warrant for her arrest had not been issued until June 11, 2008.
Appellant's attorney, Roy Morris, informed appellant of the Maryland court's June 5,
2008, decision by a telephone call. Appellant, who was pro se in Maryland, did argues
she could not file any motions at that time because Appellant states that she was confined
to New York's Rikers Island Prison until July 12, 2008 during which time period the
deadline for direct appeal and/or rehearing in both Maryland and Virginia had expired.
On April 6, 2009, appellant pleaded guilty to parental abduction under Maryland Code
(1984, 2006 Rep. Vol.), § 9-305(a)(I) of the Family Law Article. The sentence was
suspended generally. The following is the factual basis given to the court to support the
plea:

[Delete the current text regarding the State's Attorney unilateral version of the facts
starting with:
Your Honor, had the State proceeded to trial,...
until
...back and forth between the two of them.]

As reflected in the transcript of the criminal court hearing on April 5, 2009, through her
Criminal Attorney Alex Foster, Appellant, did not agree to the State's Attorney's
proposed version of the factual basis for the plea but only the necessary elements to
support the plea. Specifically, she admitted that "she took her young daughter out of
Maryland to another state, that state being New York, without the proper authority."

The order of dismissal in this case was entered on June 5, 2008, and its mailing by
the Court delayed until June 9, 2009. On April 5, 2009, after discovery was completed
and her plea entered, appellant moved to vacate the order. Upon receipt of the motion to
vacate, appellee filed a response and a request for sanctions on April 11, 2009. On July
1, 2009, without a hearing, Judge Craven dismissed appellant's motion to vacate.

Redlined Corrections Of Opinion Facts


KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS - PAGE 6
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 60

King Reconsideration Motion


Exhibit II
Ariana-Leilani Birth Certificate
Showing Houston Texas as
Her Place of Birth

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 7


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 61

criv Of ,
\ '", "
'" '" '.'
$... ..a.- ;'
,; . ; .?

..... '
.' I . '
.
"

,':
", .",'

"

/
'\ ' ;Ir
f ' "
"

:..

CSRr'IRWiolEcF
. ,;, "

"

( (,' .
,:, \

',\ '

... \

J":


i.,.
, ' ,

, ' ;,
, '
\
, "

.. I :

...

',' .... :
;
f
. . ,'


"

.'
I I, , '

",

'J
', .".- !;
. "
I

,.. .. "\


"


/ -

" , '.. ' '!


,: '- • v'

"-

" ..
.:'
'" ."

I
",.
, .......
"
!'! -A
'; , "j
",,"'1'" ./ ro'·
f f j

, "

\ " '-,
, / " .. '
\.

. ...:.

,.
100
262
7
"
. .;'
"
r
4.,;
.

King Reconsideration - Exhibit II


KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 9
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 62

King Reconsideration Motion


Exhibit III
August 1, 2007 Transcript District of Columbia
Hearing on Appellee's Emergency Motion
and
Appellant's Motion to Dismiss

(Omitted from Petition for Writ of Cert;


See actual filing in record for this item]

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 11


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 63

King Reconsideration Motion


Exhibit IV
September 1, 2007 Virginia Initial Order

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 127


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 64

King Reconsideration - Exhibit IV


KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 129
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 65

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 130


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 66

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 131


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 67

'.

King Reconsideration Motion


Exhibit V
October 1, 2007 Appointment of GAL

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 133


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 68

King Reconsideration - Exhibit V

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 135


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 69

'.

King Reconsideration Motion


Exhibit VI
June 2, 2008 Referral of Appellant
by Montgomery County APP to
Ciruit Court for TPO

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 137


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 70
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 71

'.

King Reconsideration Motion


Exhibit VII
June 11, 2008 Montgomery County
Warrant for the Arrest of Appellant
for Non-Parental Kidnapping Allegedly
On June 2, 2008 -- the Date Appellant
Sought TPO Before Judge Boynton

KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 141


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 72

DISTRICTCOURT OF MARYLAND FOR Montgomery County


h a t e d at 27 Courthouse Square, ~ockville,Maryland 20850 Case No. 4D0021318'
STATE OF MARYLAND VS. KING. ARIEL ROSITA
COMPLAINANT:
Officer: KENNEDY, DET VICTOR
Agency/Stibagency:~ C HQ
P 15 Cc#: sro:
Officer ID:0060 LID: DL#;K-520-07 1-744-497 MD
Race; 1 Sex: F Ht: 5' 5" Wt: 125 HairBRN Eyes: BKN
DOB: 06/23/1962 Phone(H): 202-730-511 1 Phone(W):

STATEMENT OF CHARGES
UPON THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION OF Officer:KENNEDY, DET VICTOR IT IS FORMALLY
CHARGED THAT KING, ARIEL ROSITA at the dates, times and locations specified below;
NUM CHGICJT STATUTE PENALTY DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARGE

'001 2.1006 FL9305 l Y &/or $1,000.00 ABDUCT CHILDICUST OUT ST


On or About 06/02/2008- 06/02/2008
861 7 CHATEAU DRIVE, ROCKVILLE,
4 '--
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,MARYLAND
..,did, as a relative, knowingly abduct, take, and cany away#-' A 1'1 ! h G -
PHEIFFER, a child under 16 years of age from SEAN O'CONNELL, tier lawful
custodian, to a place in another state.
Against the Peace, Government, and Dignity of the State,
ABDUCT CHILD UNDER 12
On or About 06/02/2008- 06/02/2008
86 17 CHATEAU DRIVE, ROCKVILLE,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,MARYLAND
...did, without the color of right and against the consent of5'-
the parent, forcibly
abduct, take and carry away, persuade, and ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # - ~ ~ ^ A ~ o N G - P H E ~a F F E R ,
child under the age of 12 from the custody and control of her parents, with the =,
intent to deprive the parent of the custody, care, and control of ,&&&ING-
PHEIFFER name of victim.
Against the Peace, Government, and Dignity of the State.

Date : 06/11/2008 Time : 10:37 PM


Tracking No. 081 fÈon9Sftl KING RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS PAGE 143
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 73

Excerpts of Exhibits to Petitioner’s Brief


In Court of Special Appeals
Filed December 7, 2009
King v Pfeiffer, Case 1007, September Term 2009
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 75

Maryland Judiciary Press Release 12/6/09 10:12 AM

HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US


| SEARCH

Office of Communications and Public Affairs Press Release homepage


Maryland Judiciary
2011D Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(410) 260-1488

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Angelita Plemmer


Darrell S.
Pressley
(410) 260-1488

Temporary Protective Orders to be Heard via Video in Montgomery County

(ROCKVILLE, Md. — Sept. 28, 2009) Victims of domestic violence who come to the
Montgomery County Family Justice Center now have safer, easier access to justice.
Thanks to a pilot program launched by the Maryland Judiciary, they can now file requests
for temporary protective orders directly from the Family Justice Center and have their
requests heard by judges at the Montgomery County Circuit or District Court by way of a
live video link.

Video conferencing will be provided for temporary protective orders in Montgomery


County courts that are ex parte -- without notice to or the presence of the other party.

“The Judiciary is offering video conferencing as a way to help protect victims of domestic
violence and improve access to and safety in our courthouses for all Marylanders,” said
Chief Judge Ben C. Clyburn of the District Court of Maryland. “Victims no longer will have
to leave the safety and security of the Family Justice Center to file petitions for
protection. This will benefit victims, families and the general public we serve.”

The Montgomery County Family Justice Center opened this past spring in Rockville. Staff
from the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, Office of State’s Attorney, Department of
Health and Human Services, Montgomery County Police, House of Ruth and other private
non-profits work together to provide services for domestic violence victims at the center,
including help filing temporary protective orders. Protective orders generally apply to
people in domestic relationships, and are issued by judges when petitioners have proved
one of the following has occurred: an act that caused serious bodily harm or has placed
the petitioner in fear of imminent bodily harm; an assault; rape or sexual offense; false
imprisonment; or criminal stalking.

Last year, Montgomery County courts granted more than 1,850 temporary protective
orders; statewide, more than 18,400 temporary protective orders were granted in
Maryland’s courts.

“In addition to easier access to our courts, video conferencing reduces the danger to the
victim of encountering the offender at or near the courthouse,” Judge Clyburn said. “This
plan also provides more flexibility in scheduling temporary protective order cases, which
is a more effective use of court time.” While they are waiting for their video hearing,
victims can also receive other critical services at the Family Justice Center.

Video conferencing, which is operating as a pilot program at the Montgomery County


courts, was developed in consultation with court officials, District and Circuit Court
judges, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, court staff, Montgomery County government,
members of the bar, other interested parties, vendors, and providers of video
conferencing systems. Private funding for the equipment for this program was provided
through a grant from the Verizon Wireless Hopeline Foundation.

http://www.courts.state.md.us/press/2009/pr20090928.html Page 1 of 2
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 76

Maryland Judiciary Press Release 12/6/09 10:12 AM

The Montgomery County Family Justice Center also has a special room where children
can play under the watch of trained volunteers. “Court buildings are not an ideal place for
children, and video conferencing has an added benefit of helping to ease the stress on
children, as well as reducing the disruption that is often caused by children in the
courthouse or courtroom,” said Pam Harris, court administrator for the Montgomery
County Circuit Court.

Family Justice Centers are fast becoming an accepted trend as they provide services for
domestic violence victims at one location, enhancing their personal safety by reducing
the number of places a victim has to go to receive services and minimizing barriers to
services victims may face. These barriers include lack of transportation, child care,
cultural issues, and language.

“Statistics have shown that the most vulnerable time for domestic violence victims is
immediately following the issuance of a temporary protective order,” said Chief Deputy
Darren Popkin of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office. “Nationwide, jurisdictions that
have opened Family Justice Centers have shown a dramatic reduction in domestic related
homicides among the victims that have sought services at the centers. By co-locating
services, critical safety services can be coordinated by partners at the center.”

About three-quarters of people coming to Family Justice Centers throughout the United
States ask for help with filing for a temporary protective order. The Judiciary has acted
to improve access to services by including attorneys and advocates for domestic violence
victims in courthouses across the state.

#####

(Editor’s Note: For more information, contact the Maryland Judiciary Office of
Communications and Public Affairs, (410) 260-1488.

http://www.courts.state.md.us/press/2009/pr20090928.html Page 2 of 2
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 77

Exhibit
III

DEPARTMENT OF POLir'F
I'siah Lcggett J. Thomas Manger
Counn Executive Chiefof Police

FORENSIC INTERVIEW
Adana-Leilani King-Pfeiffar
DOB: O5//07/2003
Interview Date: 02/28/08
Interview Time: 1428 - 1547 hours
Interviewer: Daryl B, Leach, LCSW-C
Allegation: Sexual ahuse

CONTENT:
Ariana talks about Mr. Piggy at her father's house. She identifies Mr. Piggy as a "toy" that
"wears a purple hat, shirt, and a tie". Mr. Piggy eats and has a voice. He says "oink, oink, oink".
She characterizes Mr. Piggy's voice as having a very high pitch. She tells the interviewer that
Mr. Piggy "has seen my underpants" with an action explanation showing that she covered herself
as Mr. Piggy looked over his shoulder at her. Mr. Piggy i s in the "big bed" at Papa's house. Mr.
Piggy says, "I'm so tired". There is no further information on Mr. Piggy in the big bed.

Ariana identifies herself as a girl. She gives the interviewer her names of body parts for both
male and fcariiale figures during the body inventory inquiry.

Ariana identifies kisses that are okay come from mommy, grandma, sister, and daddy. Hugs that
are okay with Ariana come from mommy and daddy, Ariana denies that her body has been
touched when it was not okay with her.

Ariana identifies the back, pop0 (derriere) gina (vagina) and feet as places on females that are
not to be touched. Ariana denies that anyone has touched these areas on her body. Ariana does
talk about the pop0 in terms that did not make sense and Ariana did not explain further. Ariana
says, "Popo just hurt and harderand hmdcr----it just gets harder".

R"h,en Ariana goes to Papa's house, she reports "he smiles...he kissed me on my head, eyes nose,
my mouth". This is okay with Ariana, She also talks about their activities together, "we
play.. .we eat...we sleep...we brush our teeth.. .we read stories". When Ariana cannot fall
asleep, Papa holds her like a baby and smiles at her.

Ariana reports she sleeps "in a big bed". Mr. Piggy is in the bed with no further information.
"Papa in the bed ant that's all.. .we read a story.. .Papa sleeps and then he went to his bed.. .that's
all I have."
Fttmily Crimes Division
7300 Callioun Place, Suite 300 .
Rockville, Maryland 20855 240-773-5400 TTY 240-773-5465
w\vw,nion~go~~~i:ryco~ui~~~~d.gov
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 78

Mother taught M a n a the name penis for the male genital. She further explained that she uses
only the girl's bathroom, not the boy's bathroom.

Ariana reports that she has seen her father's penis. She peeked into the bathroom when Papa had
closed the door and saw him urinating

Ariana says, "I don't touch penis.. .no touch gina.. .you don't touch them (pope). ..never touched
a popo.. .no, Mr. Piggy doesn't touch (my) body.. .anybody doesn't touch.. .1don't touch
anybody's things".

CONSISTENCY:
Ariaha is consistent in her denial that she has been touched and that she has not touched
anyone's body. Areas of the female body that arc not to be tuuuhcd were identified by Ariana as
the vagina, derriere, feet and back.

Ariana was consistent about Mr. Piggy being a toy that she gives human characteristics.
According to Ariana, Mr. Piggy has not touched her body.

CONTEXT:
Ariana describes her visits to her father's house with smiles and laughter. The activities Ariana
talks about at her father's house appear to be ordinary; eating, sleeping, reading stories at
bedtime.

ABILITY:
Ariana appeared to be developmentally appropriate in the interview. She is able to make the
representational shift from the female body inventory drawing to her own body when discussing
touch. She ably identified herself as female and was able to say that her body was like the
female picture.

Ariana was not able to tell about events in her life in an organized manner, with a beginning,
middle and end. This is another example of being developmentally appropriate. Ariana knew
and verbalized many details. Being able to organize facts will naturally come later in her
cogitative development. The result is that Adriana can appear to be confused or lack knowledge
about her life activities, which she is not.

AFFECT: -

Ariana engaged with the interviewer immediately. She was cooperative as she was working hard
to convey be; hiowl~dgcabuul the various subjects that were discussed. Adriana corrected the
interviewer on several occasions as well as giving details that were not asked about. An example
was in the beginning of the interview, when Adriana took the marker to properly draw her
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 79

Exhibit
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
I MARYLAND

------------------------------x
:
ARIEL KING, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Family Law No. 70620
:
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------x

HEARING

Rockville, Maryland June 2, 2008

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.


6245 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
(301) 881-3344
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 80

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------x
:
ARIEL KING, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Family Law No. 70620
:
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------x

Rockville, Maryland

June 2, 2008

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DAVID A. BOYNTON, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

ARIEL KING, Pro se


(No address provided.)

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

(No appearance.)

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 81

I N D E X

Page

WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Plaintiff:

Ariel King 5 -- -- --

For the Defendant:

(None) -- -- -- --

Judge's Ruling 27
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 82

jfr 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 THE COURT: Hello.

3 MS. KING: Hello, sir. Ariana Leilani, this is the

4 judge.

5 THE CLERK: Family Law 70620, King versus Pfeiffer.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Is Ariel King here?

7 MS. KING: Yes, sir. I'm Ariel King.

8 THE COURT: Okay. You can have a seat right here at

9 this table.

10 MS. KING: Yes, sir. I just wanted to ask if it's

11 appropriate for my daughter to be here or if she should go

12 out?

13 THE COURT: It's okay if she's here, I just need for

14 her to, just sort of stay still a little bit.

15 MS. KING: Yes, sir.

16 THE COURT: You know, if she can't then we can, she

17 can just, there's actually, she can stay here, that's fine. If

18 she gets a little too disturbing, there are some, right through

19 those double doors, there are some witness rooms on either side

20 and she can stay there.

21 MS. KING: Okay. Ariana Leilani, did you hear what

22 the Judge said? The Judge said you can stay here if you're

23 able to sit and, come sit next to auntie so you can listen.

24 But if you can't sit and listen nicely, then you need to go to

25 another one. Okay? Okay.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 83

jfr 5

1 THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, you filed this

2 petition for protection from domestic violence. Is that

3 right?

4 MS. KING: Yes. That's correct.

5 THE COURT: Okay. I need to ask you some questions

6 so, could you please stand, I'm going to have the clerk

7 administer an oath.

8 (The witness was sworn.)

9 THE COURT: All right. Please have a seat.

10 ARIEL KING

11 the plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, was examined and

12 testified as follows:

13 DIRECT EXAMINATION

14 BY THE COURT:

15 Q State your name for the record.

16 A Thank you. My name is Dr. Ariel Rosita King.

17 Q Okay. And how old are you?

18 A I am going to be 47 on June 25, 1962.

19 Q Okay. And, let's see, this petition has been filed

20 against Michael Pfeiffer. Is that right?

21 A Dr. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer, yes, my husband.

22 Q Okay. And how is he related to you?

23 A He's my husband.

24 Q Okay. And do you and he have children together?

25 A Yes, we have one child, Ariana Leilani Margarita


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 84

jfr 6

1 Alexandra King Pfeiffer.

2 Q All right. And what's her date of birth?

3 A 05/07/03.

4 Q Okay. And you filed this petition on behalf of your

5 daughter. Is that right?

6 A My daughter and myself.

7 Q Okay. Why don't you tell me what happened that

8 caused you to file this petition.

9 A Yes, Your Honor. My husband has been stalking and

10 tracking me since July of 2007 when he graduated from a

11 neurology program and left us with no home and nothing. The

12 first time that he actually stalked me to a point I had to get

13 a temporary restraining order was in July. He tracked me down,

14 literally tracked me down at the Zambian Embassy and at the

15 time, tried to snatch our daughter.

16 He's a German citizen, my daughter is an American

17 German citizen. There's always fear that everything we

18 have is back in Germany, that he would snatch her and take

19 her back. A temporary order was granted and when we went to

20 get the permanent order, they said that it was dismissed

21 because it happened on non-U.S. soil. It was at the Zambian

22 Embassy.

23 Q Okay.

24 A Since that time, especially, I would say, literally

25 the last six to eight weeks, my husband has been following me,
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 85

jfr 7

1 stalking me, calling people, asking them where I am, asking

2 them to e-mail me, calling me five, six times, making it clear

3 that I wasn't even allowed to go out of the Metro D.C. area

4 without giving him 48 hours notice.

5 Q And, ma'am, why is that? Is there some order or some

6 agreement that --

7 A No, I don't know. He's just become, I'm with the

8 Abused Persons Program, and he's just become a lot more

9 obsessive, I don't know why.

10 Q Okay. So the fact that he said you can't leave the

11 Metro area without 48 hours notice, that's just a fabrication?

12 A Yes. It's a fabrication.

13 Q There's no court order, there's no --

14 A No, sir.

15 Q How long has it been since the two of you have not

16 been living together?

17 A We have not been living together since June 19th or

18 18th, 18th or 19th, 2007.

19 Q All right. And so he has been stalking you for the

20 purpose of harassing you --

21 A And tracking.

22 Q -- or stalking you for the purpose of taking your

23 daughter or what?

24 A Honestly, sir, the head of the German kindergarten,

25 is actually from Germany, my daughter goes to the German


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 86

jfr 8

1 School, pulled me aside and also some social workers and told

2 me at one point, and told him at another point, that they were

3 afraid they were going to actually, he was going to take her

4 and flee with her to Germany.

5 And the last time that was said by someone else, I've

6 always known that and thought that, and he's basically said

7 that because everything he has is there, there's nothing here,

8 was in February.

9 Q So, okay. Well, let me ask you this. This is

10 a petition to protect against child abuse or domestic

11 violence.

12 A Yes.

13 Q So what is the child abuse that has happened to your

14 daughter? I mean, recently, because --

15 A Right. The Tree House, which is a program that looks

16 at abuse, she has told them and the crisis people and also her

17 teachers that she's been hit and screamed at. Also, the social

18 workers have found that he was going to her bed, and they put

19 it in reports. She talked about seeing Mr. Piggy's penis and

20 schlange. Schlange is a German word, which I didn't know,

21 which means snake.

22 Q What, and when did these things happen?

23 A These things, and there's --

24 Q Well, you haven't been living together for a year and

25 a half, so --
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 87

jfr 9

1 A No. Right. These things started to happen, I'd say,

2 I think they really started to happen very intensely in

3 February but also, my daughter, even today, sat in the middle

4 of her classroom on the rug and peed on the rug. And the

5 teacher said that the person from the Tree House said that

6 she's shutting down and the teacher said that she is regressing

7 and that they're seeing very, very disturbing behavior. And

8 she has told people, they're supposed to be meeting between

9 the Child Protective Services, the Tree House, and the APP

10 program on Monday to try to decide how to go forward for my

11 daughter.

12 Q Well, what is the --

13 A She says that she, I don't know --

14 Q Let me ask you this.

15 A You can ask her, she says that she's scared.

16 Q Since the two of you have been separated for a year

17 and a half --

18 A A year.

19 Q -- is there any pending suit to establish custody?

20 A Yes, there is.

21 Q And where is that?

22 A That's in Virginia. I live in Maryland, he lives in

23 D.C., but I had to, I told you that I was actually homeless

24 with no money. He graduated, I think, June 8th from Georgetown

25 neurology program and then decided that, for whatever reason,


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 88

jfr 10

1 which is fine, he didn't want to be with us, but we were left

2 with no housing and no money. And for three weeks, I lived in

3 various parts of Montgomery County, we lived on Lilystone

4 Drive, which is in Bethesda, Maryland. The house went into

5 foreclosure. The people that owned it did something strange,

6 took the money and went to Nigeria, and the house was in

7 foreclosure.

8 When that happened, he moved to Washington, D.C., in

9 an apartment. Even at that time, I said can we please stay

10 with him temporarily. He told me no. I said what am I

11 supposed to do about our daughter. He basically said to me,

12 “You decided to have her, you figure it out.”

13 Q Well, so, my question was, is there a pending

14 lawsuit --

15 A Yes.

16 Q -- to deal with the assignment of custody and

17 visitation and those issues regarding your daughter?

18 A That's correct. Yes. He put it in Virginia after 29

19 days and right now, it is being, I don't know what you call it,

20 disputed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, they call it,

21 and lack of continuing jurisdiction.

22 I've lived back in Montgomery County since October

23 15th.

24 Q All right.

25 A And I've lived here before that.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 89

jfr 11

1 Q So you live in Montgomery County, he lives in D.C.,

2 why is he filing in Virginia?

3 A We don't know, sir. Oh, I was there, I'm sorry.

4 I was there for 29 days, I needed temporary emergency

5 housing.

6 Q Right.

7 A I couldn't find any here so I found housing in

8 Arlington, Virginia. And at the time, before he filed, he

9 was working with a lawyer to do a parenting agreement or

10 something.

11 Q To do what?

12 A A parenting agreement.

13 Q Okay.

14 A He went out to do a parenting agreement and said that

15 he would have that, but while I was waiting for that, I mean,

16 literally, I mean, literally while I was waiting for that, he

17 filed in Virginia. I was there for 29 days.

18 Q Well, I guess my, I understand the whole, the history

19 of what's happened here.

20 A Yes, I'm just trying to tell you everything as

21 truthfully as I can.

22 Q And that's fine. But this is a particular

23 petition that has limited use. The purpose of this is to

24 protect against domestic violence and child abuse which is

25 ongoing.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 90

jfr 12

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q That's happening now.

3 A Yes, sir.

4 Q Not a year and a half --

5 A That's right, sir, that's right.

6 Q Okay. So tell me what is happening today, what's

7 happening now.

8 A I can tell you, would you like me to start with me or

9 my daughter, which is more important, whichever one --

10 Q Whatever is happening now.

11 A Okay.

12 Q Tell me what's happening now.

13 A What's happening now is that and I guess you can talk

14 to her even without me. She's very scared. She said she's

15 scared of her papa. She says that she's being hit, she's being

16 screamed at.

17 Q But she hasn't --

18 A There is suspected --

19 Q But she hasn't seen him.

20 A No, she does. She does.

21 Q Oh, I thought you, okay. Let me start again.

22 A No, I apologize. No, I'm so sorry. No, even

23 when we were homeless and I suspected that he was trying to

24 snatch her, and by the way, he did try to snatch her, she can

25 tell you about that, too. We still made visitation, because I


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 91

jfr 13

1 think it's very important for her to have her father and her

2 mother.

3 Q Okay. So, you're separated but he is seeing her.

4 A Right.

5 Q Well, if he wanted to snatch her, why wouldn't he do

6 that when he saw her?

7 A Because they actually took away her German passport

8 and I've gone to the German Embassy and the German School, I've

9 been working with them for two years, so he cannot actually try

10 to take her out, at least not without a lot of difficulty.

11 Q So why is that any different now? I'm trying to

12 figure out why you're here because you're telling me that all

13 this has happened in the past and I'm trying to find out what

14 specifically, what act --

15 A Yes.

16 Q -- did he, has he done.

17 A What's happening. Yes, sir, I apologize. I'm really

18 sorry.

19 Q That's okay.

20 A What's happening now is that she's been in the Tree

21 House program for suspected abuse, which I know most people

22 say, people say when they get separated but I said no matter

23 what, I'm going to speak up and tell the truth because I can't,

24 I can't --

25 Q But when did that happen, when --


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 92

jfr 14

1 A That started happening, yes, sir, when she went to

2 the Tree House program, she was referred there by Child

3 Protective Services.

4 Q Okay. And when was that?

5 A She was referred there by Child Protective Services

6 in December.

7 Q Of 2007.

8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q Okay.

10 A And she's been sick, I'm really sorry, I'm really

11 scattered.

12 Q Okay.

13 A She' been sick for about six months. My husband is a

14 doctor, a neurologist.

15 Q Right.

16 A She's been sick on and off for six months.

17 Q Right.

18 A I usually take her to the doctor, he doesn't like me

19 taking her to the doctor, even when she has 104 fever. This is

20 relevant because let me tell you what's happening now. She's

21 been sick with colds, flus, diarrhea, so on and so forth. He

22 says she's not sick, she's not sick, there's nothing wrong with

23 her.

24 Q Right.

25 A For her fifth birthday checkup, about three weeks


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 93

jfr 15

1 ago, I took her in and her white blood count --

2 Q Was 700, I saw that.

3 A 600, not 700, I wish it were 700.

4 Q Oh, it says 600 versus 1700.

5 A Yes, it's supposed to be 1700.

6 Q Right.

7 A And at the time, and I told him, he said, okay, fine

8 but, and we were told that, actually, I'll be taking her to the

9 hematologist tomorrow, because we suspect some kind of very

10 serious condition. Once it goes to 500, we'll have to

11 hospitalize her.

12 Q Okay. So what does that have to do with child abuse.

13 A I understand. He won't allow her, he won't allow me

14 to try to take her to the doctor. I know this doesn't sound

15 right, and also today. I gave the reports to the school,

16 showing them that he, he actually went in, as a doctor, filed a

17 false report saying that there is nothing wrong with her, took

18 her to another doctor, saying that there is nothing wrong with

19 her. She doesn't need to go to the doctor.

20 But as I said, I understand that maybe as a mother

21 and as the wife, my word is nothing, but Child Protective

22 Services have been involved, the Tree House has been involved,

23 and at least for the counseling, I was going to Montgomery

24 County Women's place and they referred me to the APP program.

25 Q Okay.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 94

jfr 16

1 A And they're going to get together on Monday and

2 they're going to figure out how to help my daughter. It

3 doesn't matter, I'm an adult, I chose my husband, I have to

4 live with those consequence. But she needs someone else beside

5 me or my husband looking after her best interest.

6 Q Okay. Well, let's go back to the thing I started

7 with, I need to understand what is he doing now, is he --

8 A He is hitting her, screaming at her, we believe.

9 Q Okay. Wait, stop right there. He is hitting her.

10 When did he hit her?

11 A I have reports of him hitting her and I documented it

12 at the time, I didn't bring, I'm sorry. I didn't bring the

13 specific, I don't know if you want to talk to her in your

14 chambers and she'll tell you, I don't have to say. I mean,

15 she's here. She's scared, ask her.

16 Q Okay. But --

17 A She's putting her head down because she's, she just

18 sad today

19 Q Okay. Hold on. All of that --

20 A I'm sorry, sir.

21 Q -- is really not relevant to what I'm trying to

22 figure out here. I need to decide, I need to hear, what is

23 occurring to her by him. You say, he's hitting her. And I ask

24 you, okay, when that happen, and you say I don't know.

25 A I didn't say I don't know, sir. I put down the


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 95

jfr 17

1 various dates and she's four or five years old. So she's also

2 told the crisis center, she's told her teacher, the teacher has

3 reported it. But even today, sir, she's --

4 Q Okay. Hold on.

5 A I'm sorry.

6 Q Today. Today is Monday, June 2nd. What date did the

7 last occurrence occur when she was hit by him.

8 A Are you okay, Ari?

9 Q What date was the last date that he hit her?

10 A Last week she said she was hit by her papa.

11 Q Okay.

12 A She didn't tell me --

13 Q That's good.

14 A She didn't tell me the date.

15 Q Okay. And when you say last week.

16 A Yes, sir.

17 Q Okay. When did she see him last week?

18 A She saw him on, I think, Tuesday.

19 Q Okay. So last Tuesday.

20 A She told, right, but she told me, she told me on

21 Wednesday.

22 Q So last Tuesday was May 27th.

23 A Yes, sir.

24 Q According to the calendar.

25 A Yes, sir.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 96

jfr 18

1 Q And how is it that she saw him last Tuesday?

2 A We have shared legal custody, we see, we both see her

3 every day or every, we both see her all the time, sir.

4 Q Okay. That's fine.

5 A I'm sorry. We both see her all the time. It's very

6 normal. She had her birthday party we'd come over, we see her

7 all the time.

8 Q Okay.

9 A It's a very normal thing.

10 Q So, okay. Why is it that you're coming to court

11 today for an assault that occurred on your daughter last

12 Tuesday?

13 A It's not, today, and she'll talk to you.

14 Q Well, I need to ask you a question.

15 A Yes.

16 Q Can you just answer my questions, please.

17 A Yes, sir, I apologize.

18 Q Please.

19 A I'm so sorry, I'm scared to death. I apologize.

20 Q Okay.

21 A Yes, sir.

22 Q You're telling me that she's been abused for a year

23 and a half and you tell me --

24 A No, no, no. No, sir, I don't know that she's been

25 abused for a year and a half. I don't know that, sir. I said
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 97

jfr 19

1 I, I was stalked but I don't know that my daughter has been

2 abused for a year and a half, sir. What happened today is that

3 she told me that she was scared to death, she told the teacher.

4 She actually peed in the middle of the floor at the school and

5 today she actually told me that she was being hit by her papa

6 and she told me that she was being touched all over, but you

7 can talk to her.

8 Q So when did she tell you that this happened?

9 A She told me this happened, she told me today.

10 Q I know she spoke the words today, but when she spoke

11 the words today, did she refer to a time frame in the past when

12 this happened?

13 A No, sir, she didn't say --

14 Q Okay. That's what I need to know. I need to know

15 when it happened.

16 A I understand, and I have to be very honest.

17 Q I can only act on things that happened in the last 30

18 days.

19 A I understand, sir.

20 Q I can't act on anything that happened last year or

21 six months ago.

22 A No. I understand, sir, but in the last, and I

23 understand and it's very important for me to be very truthful.

24 Even in the last 30 days, Barbara Hill, who is a therapist at

25 the Tree House, said that whatever is happening to her, we


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 98

jfr 20

1 don't know exactly what's happening to her, when and where, but

2 there are at least four or five adults that say one, she's

3 shutting down, she stopped talking to her; two, she's five

4 years old but she's peeing on the floor.

5 Q Those are all symptoms, those are all behaviors,

6 those aren't acts that he's doing. I need to hear about things

7 that he is doing.

8 A No, sir, I understand that, I can only tell you what

9 she's reported, I can't make things up. She said that she's

10 being hit, she's being screamed at and today she said to me,

11 she said she's scared but, as I said, I can remove myself and

12 you can ask her, she said "I'm scared of my papa."

13 She's even told the person sitting with her now, "I'm

14 scared of my papa." Why? "He touches me." Touches you where?

15 "Touches you all over." But, as I said, I don't, I can even

16 dismiss myself, as long as she gets what she needs, or as long

17 as --

18 Q I understand all that. You don't have to tell me all

19 that.

20 A Yes, sir.

21 Q I just need to know really simple information.

22 A Sorry, sir.

23 Q Okay. The most basic of information. When and what.

24 When did it happen and what happened, that's all I need to

25 know.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 99

jfr 21

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q And so you told me that last --

3 A I know that it happened, I know, sorry sir, I should

4 have told you. I know that it happened --

5 Q Hold on. You told me that last week your daughter

6 told you that on Tuesday he hit her.

7 A No. You said when is the last time he saw her, I

8 said Tuesday, she told me on Wednesday that she was hit and she

9 was scared by papa. "Papa hit me and screamed at me." That's

10 the way she says it.

11 Q All right. And so when did he hit her? When did he

12 hit her? If she disclosed this to you last Wednesday, when did

13 he hit her?

14 A I understand that. I would assume that because I see

15 her many times a week, that he hit her during the time between

16 I saw her last and that time, sir. Otherwise, she would have

17 told me the time before, which was only two days or three days,

18 sir.

19 Q Okay. So when you saw her last Wednesday, did she

20 say "Papa hit me yesterday,” did she say --

21 A No, because she's five, she says, "I'm scared, Papa

22 screamed at me and he hit me, I'm scared."

23 Q Okay. And when she told you this on Wednesday the

24 last time that she saw him was the day before, Tuesday?

25 A Yes, sir.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 100

jfr 22

1 Q Okay. And were you present when she was visiting him

2 or does he just pick her up? Do you drop her off? I mean, how

3 does that happen?

4 A No, right. We just pick up and drop off, she goes to

5 the German School and we pick up and drop off at the German

6 School.

7 Q Okay. And so how much time was she with him on

8 Tuesday?

9 A It was Monday and Tuesday actually.

10 Q Okay. How much time?

11 A I'm sorry, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday.

12 Q So she was overnight for a couple of nights.

13 A Right. Sunday night, yes, sir. Sunday night, Monday

14 night, Tuesday.

15 Q Okay. And did she have any apparent injuries that

16 you saw, any bruises, any marks, anything like that?

17 A No, sir, and I didn't look on her body, sir. I just

18 didn't do that.

19 Q Okay. All right. Now, how about you, you indicated

20 that he's stalking you.

21 A Yes, sir.

22 Q Just tell me what.

23 A Okay.

24 Q And tell me when. What did he do and when did it

25 happen?
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 101

jfr 23

1 A Yes, sir. Okay. About five weeks ago.

2 Q Okay. Start with this, I can't do anything that, I

3 can't do anything that occurred beyond 30 days ago.

4 A Okay.

5 Q Okay.

6 A All right

7 Q So start with that.

8 A Okay. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. That

9 makes it a lot easier, about --

10 Q Why don't we start with the most recent occurrence.

11 A Yes, sir. About three weeks ago, I had to, I picked

12 up my daughter and brought her home. I was standing in front

13 of my, I was standing in front of my home, in front of the

14 window. There is only one in the house and he actually drove

15 by the house. Now it doesn't sound unusual, my husband is a

16 neurologist, he works in Washington, D.C. I live in Potomac,

17 Maryland.

18 Q Right.

19 A That was the first time.

20 Q So what did he do when he drove by your house?

21 A He just looked at the car and looked at where I was

22 and what I was doing.

23 Q Okay. Is there something illegal about that?

24 A Oh, sir, I never said that he's acting in an illegal

25 manner, I just said --


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 102

jfr 24

1 Q Well stalking is illegal, but --

2 A -- he was stalking me. Well, no, he's, he's also

3 telling the school that any, as I said, he's telling the school

4 and anybody else to actually e-mail them, to call him any time

5 I'm with my daughter. I have cell phone records to show that

6 even last Saturday, he would call me six, seven times.

7 Q And what did he say when he called you?

8 A Well, just, “Where are you and what are you doing?”

9 “Where are you?” “What are you doing?” or he just says, “What

10 are you doing?” I don't know how to explain it but he tries to

11 keep tabs on where I am and what I'm doing at the time.

12 Q Okay. So why don't you just not answer the phone

13 when he calls you? I mean, you're coming to Court telling me

14 this man is harassing you and stalking you and now you're

15 telling me he's driving by your house and he's calling you to

16 you see how you're doing and where you are.

17 That's not criminal activity, to call the mother of

18 your child and say where are you, what are you doing, or to

19 drive by the house. So is there something that he's done that

20 has threatened you or did he assault you or did he threaten --

21 A Sir --

22 Q -- to kill you.

23 A Sir, I have been and I am a person that has been

24 abused, I've been hit, I've been kicked. I've been called

25 things I cannot tell you in this courtroom in front of this


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 103

jfr 25

1 child.

2 Q Well --

3 A Please let me finish. I'm sorry, sir.

4 Q Okay. I'm going to take a recess. You need to get

5 your act together and think about what has happened and I'm

6 going to come back on the bench in five minutes.

7 A Yes, sir.

8 Q Okay. Just understand that what you're seeking is a

9 petition from, you're seeking a petition for protection from

10 domestic violence.

11 A Yes, sir.

12 Q That means that some time in the last 30 days, he has

13 done something to you that's amounted to an assault, to

14 threatening your life, or to stalking you.

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q So the fact that you may have been assaulted and

17 kicked in the past, that's horrible conduct.

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q No one should have to suffer through that. But I

20 can't act upon that.

21 A Yes, sir.

22 Q Okay. So I'm going to take a recess. You think

23 about it for five minutes, and I'll come back.

24 THE CLERK: All rise.

25 THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 104

jfr 26

1 (Recess)

2 THE COURT: All right. Please be seated. Come on

3 back up.

4 MS. KING: The person I was with went to the

5 bathroom, she couldn't, she didn't want to stay. I'm sorry.

6 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What was that?

7 MS. KING: The person that I was with went to the

8 bathroom. She, she didn't stay.

9 THE COURT: Okay. We're back on the record now.

10 BY THE COURT:

11 Q And, ma'am, I need to ask you, what has happened to

12 you in the last 30 days that done by your husband that has

13 caused you to come here today?

14 A Yes, sir. In the last 30 days, I believe that my

15 husband has been tracking me.

16 Q Okay. And what has he done that led you to believe

17 that he's tracking you?

18 A He has asked other people to e-mail and call him when

19 I'm at certain places at certain times, ask various people to

20 keep track of me during the day, they've told me that. He has

21 called me and I have answered the phone when he calls me many,

22 many, many times to figure out where I am and what I'm doing.

23 And as I said, during his normal work hours, when he

24 would be a physician in the hospital in Washington, D.C.

25 Instead, he's driving in front of a very remote area where I


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 105

jfr 27

1 live in Potomac, Maryland, for no reason known, for no reason I

2 know of, I should say and doesn't necessarily stop by.

3 Q Okay. Anything else?

4 A No, sir, I just want you to know and understand that

5 it's, that I really, honestly can say that I fear for my safety

6 and I want to put it on the record in case something happens to

7 me, that I really do fear for my life, and the Secret Service

8 came the last time when there was a temporary protective order.

9 He said, “I'm a German citizen,” which was a key that nothing

10 could be done, no matter what happens.

11 Q Okay. So you're telling me that you fear for your

12 life and you're fearing for your safety because he's driven by

13 your home and hasn't stopped to say hello, and that he has

14 asked people to, he's called people to find out where you are

15 and what you're doing.

16 A Sir, he's become obsessed with me, where I am and

17 what I'm doing and for a doctor, who is a neurologist, who is

18 really busy with patients, it's very strange to become obsessed

19 with somebody who shouldn't mean too much.

20 Q But you're the mother of his child. Right?

21 A Yes, I have a beautiful child but there's a

22 difference between interest and obsession, I would think.

23 Q Okay. All right.

24 JUDGE'S RULING

25 Based upon what I've heard today, it appears as


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 106

jfr 28

1 though the petitioner and the respondent are married, they have

2 a child together, who is Ariana King Pfeiffer, date of birth is

3 it May or March 7th?

4 MS. KING: I'm sorry. It's May 7th.

5 THE COURT: May 7, 2003, so the petitioner is a

6 person eligible for relief, and she has filed this petition on

7 her behalf and on behalf of her child. So she's a person who

8 is eligible for relief.

9 Based upon the testimony, I believe there is

10 reasonable grounds to believe the respondent has committed, at

11 the very least, physical, if not sexual child abuse on the

12 child, based upon the testimony that the daughter disclosed to

13 the petitioner last week that her father had been hitting her

14 and screaming at her and that she's been she's suffering

15 symptoms at school that are consistent with child sexual

16 abuse.

17 So based upon that, I'm going to issue a temporary

18 protective order, the terms of which are, first, that the

19 respondent shall not abuse or threaten to abuse or harass

20 either petitioner or the daughter, the respondent shall not

21 contact or attempt to contact the petitioner or the daughter.

22 Does he know where you live?

23 MS. KING: Yes, sir.

24 THE COURT: All right. The respondent shall not

25 enter the residence of the petitioner at 11725 Green Lane Drive


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 107

jfr 29

1 in Potomac, Maryland, Zip code 20854. Let's see. At this

2 point, what I'm going to do is grant you temporary care and

3 custody of the child. You told me that you had some previous

4 agreement where there would be pick up and drop off at the

5 German School.

6 MS. KING: Yes, but, yes, sir, at this point, we're

7 concerned about her health so they're not even sure she should

8 be in school, her immune system is too weak right now.

9 THE COURT: Okay. And where is the German School

10 located?

11 MS. KING: It's at 8515 Chateau Drive in Potomac,

12 Maryland.

13 THE COURT: All right. So under paragraph number 4,

14 he's to stay away from the school which is the German School,

15 located at 8515 Chateau Drive in Potomac, Maryland. And, let's

16 see. Is there a child care provider that your daughter goes

17 to, that --

18 MS. KING: Yes, we actually have one at home, we have

19 an au pair at home.

20 THE COURT: Okay. How about place of employment,

21 do you have a place of employment that he needs to stay away

22 from?

23 A Yes, sir but that's in Washington, D.C.

24 Q Okay. So do you want me to include that in the order

25 or not?
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 108

jfr 30

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q Okay. And where is it at?

3 A 1875 I Street, Northwest.

4 Q All right. Is there a business there?

5 A Oh, yes, Suite 500. Yes, it's my office. I have a

6 foundation and I have a consulting business, sir.

7 Q Okay. So this is your own personal business.

8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q Okay. Is there a name for the business?

10 A Yes, it's called Ariel Consulting International.

11 Q Ariel --

12 A I can give a card to be attached to the record and

13 also Ariel Foundation International. One is non-profit and the

14 other one actually makes money.

15 Q Okay. Ariel Consulting and Ariel International.

16 A Ariel Foundation International.

17 Q Oh, Foundation. I'm sorry.

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q All right. So I'll include in this order that he is

20 to stay away from your place of employment which is at the

21 Ariel Consulting International and Ariel Foundation

22 International, located at 1875 I Street, Northwest, Suite 500,

23 Washington, D.C. All right.

24 And under paragraph 6, I'll grant custody of the

25 daughter to the petitioner and suspend any current visitation


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 109

jfr 31

1 that may exist. Now this temporary order is good for seven

2 days.

3 A Yes, sir.

4 Q So, which means that next Monday, you need to come

5 back to court, the final hearing will be scheduled at, yes.

6 A Yes, I had a request to see if it would be on Tuesday

7 because the Tree House counselor and Child Protective Services,

8 they're doing a team meeting on Monday and they said they want

9 to come back to the Court with their findings and how they want

10 to proceed forward, so I'm wondering if I can have Tuesday

11 instead of Monday.

12 Q I'm not sure, well --

13 A They wanted time to meet.

14 Q Well, by law, this is only good for seven days, so we

15 have to have the hearing within seven days. The Tree House

16 findings are not going to have much to do with this hearing

17 because this hearing has to do with what is he doing, not what

18 they plan to, how they plan to treat her.

19 A Yeah, they were trying to, because there were so many

20 different reports, they were trying to gather the reports

21 together and then try to figure out how they were going to go

22 forward to deal with the issues.

23 Q Well, they're talking about treatment. Right?

24 A Yes, and also they're talking about possibly giving

25 her a social worker to track what's going on with her when she
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 110

jfr 32

1 does visitation.

2 Q Okay. Well, that has really nothing to do with this.

3 I mean, what they do to treat and what they do to monitor her

4 and who they assign to watch her case, is --

5 A Okay.

6 Q -- on the treatment side of things. What we're, what

7 the Court is going to be interested in next week, is hearing

8 from you and deciding whether to extend this and make it a

9 permanent situation. So what they do to treat her symptoms is

10 not really relevant to that.

11 A Okay.

12 Q All right. So the hearing is going to be next Monday

13 at 9:30. It will be in this courthouse, it may not be in this

14 courtroom.

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q So when you come back next Monday, on the lobby level

17 downstairs, check the monitors upon on the wall and they'll

18 tell you what courtroom you need to go to.

19 A Yes, sir. And there is no possibility for Tuesday?

20 Q No.

21 A Okay.

22 Q Now, this, now between next, well, as soon as we

23 issue this order, I'm going to have the clerk take you

24 downstairs.

25 A Okay.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 111

jfr 33

1 Q And they're going to, the people in the family

2 violence unit are going to talk to you about getting his case

3 set up.

4 A Okay.

5 Q And most importantly probably getting information

6 from you as to where your husband can be found because these

7 documents need to be served upon him in order for this to

8 become a valid.

9 A He's very hard to serve.

10 Q Okay. Well, that may be a problem but they'll try.

11 A I'm sorry.

12 Q So the better, the most accurate information you can

13 give about where he can be located.

14 A Yes, sir.

15 Q If he's working in a hospital, he can't be too hard

16 to find him.

17 A No, if it's official, they'll find him. Otherwise,

18 yes, sir.

19 Q Yes. So anyway, I'm just telling you this because

20 when you go downstairs, this order is good for seven days.

21 A Yes, sir.

22 Q Next week, you're going to need to come back here.

23 A Yes, sir.

24 Q At 9:30. Now, between now and then, they're going to

25 be trying to serve him with this order.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 112

jfr 34

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q If they serve him with the order, then whatever

3 happens next Monday, can be binding permanent order.

4 A Yes, sir.

5 Q If they don't serve him, then the hearing won't go

6 forward and they'll have to continue it a couple of weeks to

7 give the sheriffs more time to find him. Once they serve him,

8 whether he shows up or not doesn't matter, because once they

9 serve him, they have jurisdiction over him and they can issue

10 an order that will be binding upon him. So when you meet with

11 the people downstairs, just give them as much information as

12 you can as to where they can find him.

13 A Yes, sir.

14 Q Okay.

15 A May I make a request, Judge?

16 Q Sure.

17 A I don't know that she'll be going but she goes to the

18 Potomac Mall for the gym and ballet or even if she's there, I'm

19 wondering if you can include that in the order, because that's

20 where she does all her, her pediatrician, everything is there.

21 Q Are you going to be with her --

22 A Yes, sir.

23 Q -- when she's there?

24 A Yes, sir.

25 Q Okay. Well, this order covers, this order says that


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 113

jfr 35

1 he can't have any contact with you or her, no matter where you

2 are.

3 A Oh, okay.

4 Q And then there are specific locations, typically like

5 your residence and your home and school.

6 A Yes, sir.

7 Q Where he can't go and just sort of hang around.

8 A Thank you.

9 Q All right.

10 THE COURT: Steven going to take her down?

11 THE CLERK: Yes.

12 THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, one of my law clerks,

13 Mr. Long, is going take you downstairs --

14 MS. KING: Thank you, sir.

15 THE COURT: -- so you can meet with the family

16 violence people and get this case set up.

17 MS. KING: Yes, sir.

18 THE COURT: All right. Good luck with everything.

19 MS. KING: Thank you.

20 THE COURT: Make sure you come back next Monday.

21 MS. KING: Yes, sir, I'll be here.

22 THE COURT: All right.

23 MS. KING: Ariana Leilani, say thank you, sir.

24 THE COURT: All right.

25 MS. KING: It's okay, look at him. Thank you, sir.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 114

jfr 36

1 THE COURT: Bye-bye. What is that?

2 MS. KING: It's okay, go give it to him.

3 THE COURT: Is that a picture? Let's see. Wow, you

4 are quite an artist, let me tell you.

5 MISS KING-PFEIFFER: And there's another one.

6 THE COURT: Another one, let me see. Wow. You have

7 a lot of talent.

8 MS. KING: What do you say?

9 MISS KING-PFEIFFER: Thank you.

10 MS. KING: Thank you. Thank you, sir.

11 THE COURT: All right. Have a good evening.

12 MS. KING: Thank you.

13 (The proceedings were concluded.)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 115

FEMA: National Situation Update: Thursday, June 5, 2008 12/28/08 8:26 PM

Exhibit
XI

National Situation Update: Thursday, June 5, 2008


Homeland Security Threat Level: YELLOW (ELEVATED).

Significant National Weather


West:
A front moving ashore from the Pacific will produce showers in Washington, Oregon and northern Idaho. A trough of
low pressure and an upper-air disturbance will produce showers and isolated thunderstorms over western Montana
southward to northern New Mexico. High temperatures are expected to range from the 30s in the higher elevations of
the Rockies to near 100 in southeastern New Mexico.
Midwest:
A complex low pressure system centered in Kansas is forecast to produce showery precipitation over much of the
Region. Severe Thunderstorm activity is forecast for Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska Iowa, North Dakoata, South
Dakoata, Minnesota and Wisconsin. High temperatures will range from the 50s in South Dakota to the 90s in the mid-
Mississippi and Ohio Valleys.
South:
A high pressure ridge will result in another day of hot and dry conditions for most of the Region. South Florida will
have a few afternoon thunderstorms. Gusty southerly winds are forecast for areas west of the Mississippi River. The
complex low pressure system centered in Kansas will produce severe thunderstorms in north Central Texas. High
temperatures will range from the 90s to near 100 in Texas's Rio Grande Valley.
Northeast:
The front extending from the low in Kansas will produce precipitation from the mid Atlantic to New England. High
temperatures will range from 70 in Maine to the upper 90s in Virginia. (NWS, Media Sources)

Mid-Atlantic Severe Weather Outbreak


During the afternoon and evening hours of Wednesday, 4 June severe thunderstorms moved through the Mid- Atlantic
region with hail, gusty winds and tornadoes and locally heavy rain.
Delaware:
Status of Utilities (Power): 7,864 customers without power (NICC)
State and Local Actions: EOC not activated.
District of Columbia:
Status of Utilities (Power): 13,081 customers without power (NICC)
State and Local Actions: EOC not activated
Maryland:
Shelters/Population: One shelter is open in Washington County and 10 families are being sheltered
Status of Utilities (Power): 215,913 customers without power (NICC)
State and Local Actions:
Maryland SEOC elevated to Level 2 (partial activation; increased watch and staffing) at 1530.
MEMA has received a report from Washington County of multiple structures with storm damage, including 4 with
major damage. The total number of structures with damage is unknown at this time.
Calvert County is reporting 14 homes damaged by downed trees. Local emergency management will conduct a
complete assessment and report updated numbers.
There is a report of a tornado touching down in Calvert County. This is unconfirmed at this time.
Virginia:
Deaths: Fairfax County- 1 fatality is reported in Fairfax County as a result of a tree falling on to a motor vehicle
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2008/nat060508.shtm Page 1 of 3
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 116

FEMA: National Situation Update: Thursday, June 5, 2008 12/28/08 8:26 PM

Deaths: Fairfax County- 1 fatality is reported in Fairfax County as a result of a tree falling on to a motor vehicle
Shelters/Population: None Reported
One confirmed report of a tornado touching down in Fredericksburg, VA. An unconfirmed report of a tornado touching
down in Falls Church, VA. There are no damage reports at this time.
Status of Utilities (Power): 259, 147 customers without power (NICC)
State and Local Actions: VEOC normal operations; monitoring NWS; maintaining situational awareness and prepared
to respond to request for assistance from impacted localities
Resource Requests:
VDEM Region 2 - coordinating request for damage assessment fly-over on 5 June
VDEM has received unverified reports of damage to homes and other structures from wind, downed trees and other
storm related causes. There are no specific reports from any counties at this time.
West Virginia:
Deaths: One reported from overnight flooding (Marion County)
Shelters/Population:
1 shelter has been reported with 20 people in Boothsville (Taylor); the shelter population has decreased throughout the
day.
Four shelters are open in the northern portion of the state. Population at the shelters is less than 60 at this time.
Evacuations: Approximately thirty families have self evacuated, with some local assistance.
Status of Utilities (Power):
Current power outages: 18,528 customers without power (NICC)
Allegheny Power is reporting the loss of one high voltage transmission line tower due to wind damage
ATT has lost a cellular node in Culloden due to lightening strike. This effectively negates wireless phone services
throughout most of Southern WV for those using their network. There is no estimated repair timelines at this time
State and Local Actions
State EOC is staffed with National Guard, State Police, WVDOH and Red Cross. West Virginia Conservation Agency is
out inventorying local drain systems with a couple of significant stream blockages reported (Boothsville and Salem)
Several county EOC's are active. These counties include: Barbour, Doddridge, Harrison, Marion, Monongalia, Taylor,
and the surrounding counties of Upshur, Lewis and Randolf
A state of emergency due to flooding, flash-flooding, river flooding, mudslides, landslides, disrupted transportation,
downed trees, stream blockages and the potential for additional severe weather has been declared for Barbour,
Doddridge, Harrison, Marion, Monongalia, Taylor and surrounding counties
Damage reports are being received from multiple counties in northern West Virginia. Most of the storm damage is
related to straight line wind.

FEDERAL ACTIONS:
National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) is Monitoring
Region III not activated but the Duty officer is monitoring.
No request for Federal Assistance (FEMA HQ,NICC, FEMA Region III, National Weather Service, Various media
Sources).

Mid-West Severe Weather Outbreak


Late last night the National Weather Service had preliminary reports of as many as 33 tornadoes in an area stretching
from northeast Colorado across southern Nebraska to South Iowa. There was also a line of six tornadoes reported from
Illinois ending in a single report in northwestern Indiana.
Local Damage Assessments and situational awareness updates continue today.
No request for Federal Assistance at this time. (FEMA HQ, National Weather Service).

Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG)


FMAG-2768-TX was issued for the Hughs Ranch Fire near Fort Davis, TX. The Fire has burned more than 9500 acres
with 100 residences threatened, the Boys Ranch Church Campgrounds and the US Customs Drug Interdiction Blimp
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2008/nat060508.shtm Page 2 of 3
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 117

Exhibit
IV
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Family Division

ARIEL R. KING

Plaintiff,

Case No. 70620-FL

MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF HEARING ON EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH AND


DISMISS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON OR ABOUT THURSDAY AT 11:00


A.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER MICHAEL PFEIFFER BY COUNSEL
WILL MOVE THE HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS CRAVEN, THE
CURRENT FAMILY DUTY JUDGE OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT ON THE 8THFLOOR IN COURTROOM 6 AT 50
MARYLAND AVENUE, ROC~VILLE,MARYLAND TO VACATE THE
EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN
THE PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION ACHED MEMORANDUM
AND ATTACHMENTS.

41 13 Lee Highway
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Tel: (703) 558-0000
Faxe (703) 522-0765
Counsel for Respondent

I hereby certify that on


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 118

Exhibit
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
V MARYLAND

------------------------------x
:
ARIEL KING, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Family Law No. 70620
:
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------x

HEARING

Rockville, Maryland June 5, 2008

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.


6245 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
(301) 881-3344
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 119

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------x
:
ARIEL KING, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Family Law No. 70620
:
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------x

Rockville, Maryland

June 5, 2008

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE THOMAS L. CRAVEN, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

(No appearance.)

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

SEAN W. O'CONNELL, Esq.


4113 Lee Highway
Arlington, Virginia 22207

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 120

I N D E X

Page

WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Plaintiff:


(None)

For the Defendant:


Ann Hoffman 10 -- -- --
Janel Catron 17 -- -- --

Judge's Ruling 22
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 121

jfr 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MR. O'CONNELL: -- Potomac in the middle of the

3 hearing.

4 THE COURT: Oh, okay.

5 MR. O'CONNELL: Excuse me, in the middle of the

6 Virginia proceeding.

7 THE COURT: She had been in Virginia or somebody

8 had.

9 MR. O'CONNELL: She had lived in Virginia from July

10 forward of 2007. She didn't like what the judge was doing and

11 so she moved to Virginia. Judge Algeo dismissed her -- excuse

12 me, she moved to Maryland.

13 THE COURT: Well, just a minute. You have someone --

14 MR. O'CONNELL: Judge Algeo dismissed --

15 THE COURT: -- who is on her way, right?

16 MR. O'CONNELL: I have Ms. Hoffman who is on

17 her way, who works for CPS, who was the CPS worker-assigned

18 supervisor. She called me and said she didn't

19 want to let Mom leave because she thinks Mom, she didn't use

20 the word crazy, but she was worried for the safety of the

21 child.

22 THE COURT: Well, where, where is the mother today?

23 MR. O'CONNELL: We don't know. She was --

24 THE COURT: Well, you say she didn't want to let her

25 leave, leave where?


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 122

jfr 5

1 MR. O'CONNELL: She was at CPS doing an interview.

2 THE COURT: When?

3 MR. O'CONNELL: This morning when she called me.

4 THE COURT: That's what I'm asking.

5 MR. O'CONNELL: She was at CPS doing an interview

6 with the mother this morning, which is why she called, Ms.

7 Hoffman called me.

8 THE COURT: Okay. But the mother is not there now?

9 MR. O'CONNELL: No. In fact, she went back and Ms.

10 Hoffman told me later in a phone call, Mom had, if she had

11 stayed there 60 seconds longer, I would have separated Mom

12 from the child myself, and I would have let Mom leave, but the

13 child would have been safe with us.

14 THE COURT: Well, I'll hear from her. She'll get

15 here, I guess, in the next half hour.

16 MR. O'CONNELL: She told me that it would take about

17 a half hour.

18 THE COURT: Okay. We'll recess until 1:30 and we'll

19 hear from her.

20 MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you very much, Your

21 Honor.

22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The mother is on her

23 way.

24 THE COURT: Thank you. Excuse me, the mother is on

25 her way?
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 123

jfr 6

1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.

2 THE COURT: Oh, good.

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And you can, Mr. O'Connell

4 (unintelligible).

5 THE COURT: Well, what we can probably do if she

6 gets here is just have the final protective order hearing right

7 now.

8 MR. O'CONNELL: Well, that would be great, Your

9 Honor, and as long as we can have, and we also have Ms. Woods

10 from the Virginia court investigative service.

11 THE COURT: Okay.

12 MR. O'CONNELL: And Ms. Hoffman, so we'll get some

13 outside --

14 THE COURT: Well, since Ms. King might be here, I

15 think it would be safest just to do it all when she and Ms.

16 Hoffman get here.

17 MR. O'CONNELL: I agree, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry to be short

19 with you.

20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's fine.

21 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, I would object to him

22 speaking, since he's not counsel.

23 THE COURT: Sir, sir. Who are you?

24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm a friend of the -- and I

25 also happen to be an attorney for Ms. King, but I am not here


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 124

jfr 7

1 representing her as her attorney in this case.

2 THE COURT: All right

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But I just wanted to let you

4 know that she was on her way.

5 THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate that.

6 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, I would say that there

7 are --

8 THE COURT: That's all right. I'm glad you did.

9 MR. O'CONNELL: Well --

10 THE COURT: And we'll hear from her along with

11 everybody else at 1:30.

12 MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you very much, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

14 THE CLERK: All rise.

15 THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.

16 (Recess)

17 MR. O'CONNELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: Good afternoon.

19 MR. O'CONNELL: We have the CPS personnel here and

20 we --

21 THE CLERK: Excuse me.

22 MR. O'CONNELL: Sorry.

23 THE CLERK: I need to call the case.

24 MR. O'CONNELL: Sorry. Sit down, sir.

25 THE CLERK: Okay. And defendant should be at this


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 125

jfr 8

1 table.

2 MR. O'CONNELL: You know, I am so used to being the

3 plaintiff in this case, I apologize. That is certainly

4 correct.

5 THE COURT: Well, you're the moving party. I

6 don't know whether it matters, this is a rather unusual case.

7 MR. O'CONNELL: I'll do whatever the Court tells me

8 to.

9 THE COURT: That's good.

10 THE CLERK: Family Law 70620, Ariel King versus

11 Michael Pfeiffer.

12 THE COURT: Is Ariel King in Court?

13 MR. O'CONNELL: She is not here, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Apparently not.

15 MR. O'CONNELL: I'm Sean O'Connell for Dr. Pfeiffer.

16 THE COURT: Thank you. As I understand from our

17 colloquy earlier, you have now a witness who can shed some

18 light on the bona fides of the assertions that were made in the

19 petition in this case, and I'll hear from her.

20 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, there is Dr. Pfeiffer,

21 who is the father. He, I will proffer, would deny the

22 allegations of any abuse, and he has the doll who that the

23 child does have, it's her favorite doll, but the doll has no

24 penis.

25 We have Michele Woods, who is very familiar with


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 126

jfr 9

1 the parties in this case and has been since September when she

2 was appointed by the Court and has had many on-site visits in

3 both Maryland and Virginia and D.C. with all the parties and

4 she is the court-appointed investigator for the Arlington J &

5 D.R. And we have the Maryland CPS individuals, and if you

6 could stand and identify yourselves, please

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I'm Ann Hoffman, I'm the

8 supervisor of the child section of the CPS investigation unit

9 and this is social worker Janel Catron.

10 THE COURT: Thank you.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Janel has been the one to do the direct

12 investigation and I've been supervising and have had some

13 involvement.

14 THE COURT: Has that investigation commenced?

15 MS. CATRON: No, Your Honor. We just received the

16 case yesterday.

17 THE COURT: That's what I thought.

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Well, Your Honor, what we have done is

19 speak to the child and speak to the mother and we had made

20 approaches to the father, but obviously certain things

21 intervened. We also did have some contact with the mother this

22 morning that was unscheduled, let me just say that, and if Your

23 Honor would like for me to --

24 THE COURT: Well, since you were the last in time,

25 that might be fruitful, but I'll take it any sequence, counsel,


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 127

jfr 10

1 that you want to present.

2 MR. O'CONNELL: Well, most important is the

3 well-being of the child right now and the state of mind of the

4 mother right now.

5 THE COURT: That's right.

6 MR. O'CONNELL: And therefore, I would like to call

7 Ms. Hoffman to the stand.

8 THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. Please raise your

9 right hand.

10 MS. HOFFMAN: I apologize for my appearance, Your

11 Honor, I wasn't expecting to be here today.

12 THE COURT: Ma'am, a lot of people who do expect to

13 be here are dressed a lot less fine than you are.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: And I have no power at my house either,

15 so it's a nightmare.

16 THE COURT: Thank you. Please proceed.

17 ANN HOFFMAN

18 called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, having been

19 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

20 DIRECT EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. O'CONNELL:

22 Q Did you call me earlier today?

23 A I did.

24 THE COURT: Why don't we get her name on the

25 record.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 128

jfr 11

1 MR. O'CONNELL: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

2 BY MR. O'CONNELL:

3 Q State your name for the record.

4 A Elizabeth Ann Hoffman, H-O-F-F-M-A-N. I am the

5 supervisor for the Child Sexual Abuse Investigation Unit for

6 Montgomery County Child Protective Services.

7 Q And did you call me earlier today?

8 A I did.

9 Q And what did you tell me?

10 A We got a, my team received a report stating that we

11 needed to do some, a report for the Court based on certain

12 allegations that had been made previously. We needed to

13 interview the child and the parents and give the Court a

14 report as to what we had found out during that process.

15 During that process, my social worker had spoken to

16 the child and the mother and was making arrangements to speak

17 to the father. Our understanding was that there was a court

18 hearing today that was an intervening court hearing. The

19 mother arrived at our office, our being the Child Assessment

20 Center.

21 THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt, but do you know

22 whether she knew about this afternoon's proceedings?

23 THE WITNESS: She, yes, well, let me tell you what

24 she was told, if I may, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Okay.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 129

jfr 12

1 THE WITNESS: She came to the Child Assessment

2 Center and without being announced or without a scheduled

3 appointment, literally, this is how the director of the CAC

4 described it, burst into Ms. Peterson's office and started

5 basically going on about how she needed help protecting her

6 child and what were we going to do and how was this going to

7 happen. And then, according to Ms. Peterson, she went to a

8 variety of individuals around the office talking about what was

9 wrong, what had happened and could they help her protect her

10 child.

11 She then started to interrogate the child in front of

12 Ms. Peterson to get her to say things like "Your father hit

13 you, didn't he. Tell her what happened because they don't

14 believe it." And she --

15 THE COURT: How old is the child approximately?

16 THE WITNESS: 5, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: And my understanding is she also

19 presented my social worker with what she claimed --

20 MR. O'CONNELL: Court's indulgence. She just turned

21 5, just for your information.

22 THE COURT: Thank you.

23 THE WITNESS: -- to be a videotaped recording of an

24 interview that she'd had with her child, after being

25 instructed, by the way, Your Honor, not to do those types of


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 130

jfr 13

1 interviews with her child, that's what we do, saying that in

2 this interview, the child had made various statements about her

3 father.

4 She was extremely inappropriate in the confines of

5 our office, and she -- to the part of alarming me. Now, Your

6 Honor, I've been doing this work for 13 years and I am not an

7 alarmist. I see lots of bizarre behavior from parents, lots of

8 highly, you know, agitated individuals, hostile people, that's

9 what we do. This woman's behavior concerned me to the point

10 that I felt it, that I needed the Court to help me protect this

11 child.

12 We missed Ms. King by, when I say we, Ms. Catron

13 and I had decided to intervene and remove, change the location

14 of the child versus the mother. When we, after we made that

15 decision, she had left the office by, say 90 seconds. She knew

16 that she had to be in court this morning and what she told my

17 social worker was that "I'm an adult, I can --"

18 THE COURT: This morning?

19 MR. O'CONNELL: 11 o'clock is when I noticed it for,

20 Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Oh, this proceeding.

22 MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, Your Honor.

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Thank you. I'm sorry.

25 MR. O'CONNELL: Tomorrow morning she has another


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 131

jfr 14

1 court date, and that's also true.

2 THE COURT: Thank you.

3 THE WITNESS: She indicated to my social worker that

4 she's an adult and she could make the decisions that were best

5 for her, that her concern was that no one was protecting her

6 child.

7 Let me just say, Your Honor, also, that during the

8 interview that my social worker, who is a trained forensic

9 interviewer, has been doing this work for nine years and is one

10 of my best social workers. This child gave us no information

11 or statements that led us to believe that she was being abused.

12 She, however, demonstrated extremely anxiety-driven

13 behavior and had inappropriate affect and reasons for concern

14 regarding her current mental well-being. You know, children in

15 this position I see --

16 THE COURT: The child's mental well-being?

17 THE WITNESS: The child's. When we see children in

18 this impossible position, where there is this level of

19 hostility and conflict, these children are caught in a web,

20 they have -- there's just, and at this young she has no coping

21 skills and she doesn't know what to do.

22 So she just behaved sort of bizarrely, laughs

23 inappropriately, has inappropriate affect, in any case, Your

24 Honor. So that's the first piece. During our interview, we

25 had nothing to be concerned about with regard to previous


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 132

jfr 15

1 incidents.

2 The mother's behavior this morning raised a level of

3 alarm for me that I felt she needed, you know, it's hard to

4 know what doesn't happen, Your Honor. My feeling is if we

5 took, if we took the child from the mother and there was this

6 separation and nothing happened, great. If we left the child

7 and nothing happened, great. If we left the child and

8 something happened, I really would not want to have to live

9 with that, Your Honor.

10 I feel this mother may be the, at the state where

11 she believes that this child would be better off either dead

12 or gone rather than allowing the Court's process to move

13 forward.

14 And I just didn't want to be in a position where she

15 did something drastic, dramatic and deadly and I was, I hadn't

16 done anything.

17 BY MR. O'CONNELL:

18 Q May I, it's not actually a question. You did call me

19 and tell me that, correct?

20 A I did. Yes.

21 Q And you --

22 A I also --

23 Q -- subsequently tried to reach her on the phone,

24 correct?

25 A Yes.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 133

jfr 16

1 Q And she didn't answer her phone, correct?

2 A Correct.

3 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, I have nothing further

4 for this witness at this time.

5 (Witness excused.)

6 MR. O'CONNELL: I do have, I have Michele Woods who

7 can testify that she's seen the child on numerous occasions

8 wherein the child was not stressed and with the father, but

9 also, interestingly, that the first time she saw the child, the

10 child was with the mother and the child was also extremely

11 psychologically stressed and peed on the floor and it's almost

12 like I'm listening to the same interview and I'd be happy to

13 put her on if Your Honor feels it's necessary.

14 Otherwise, I would simply move for the, if Your

15 Honor doesn't feel it's necessary to put on additional

16 evidence, I would move for the granting of the motion, I

17 submitted an order. And then we already have legal custody in

18 the Virginia order and we would simply go get the child.

19 THE COURT: Well, there's an, there is an order

20 extant right now.

21 MR. O'CONNELL: That's right. That's why I'm moving

22 for the quashing of the order and I submitted an order to that

23 effect. I have another copy of it in my file.

24 THE COURT: Well, a lot of what I just heard was

25 understandably hearsay and since the person who had direct


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 134

jfr 17

1 observation is here, it might be good for her to either confirm

2 or not what was just stated.

3 MR. O'CONNELL: That's fine, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Thank you.

5 MR. O'CONNELL: I just wanted to proffer that the,

6 that we have evidence that Mr. Pfeiffer, that the child, when

7 she is with Mr. Pfeiffer, is not stressed in the form of

8 Michele Woods. But Ms. Catron, would you please take the

9 stand?

10 JANEL CATRON

11 called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, having been

12 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

13 DIRECT EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. O'CONNELL:

15 Q Ms. Catron, you just heard Ms. Hoffman's testimony.

16 A Yes.

17 Q Does that accurately represent the actions of Ms.

18 King?

19 A Yes.

20 THE COURT: Ma'am, do you think there is any imminent

21 danger to this child right now?

22 THE WITNESS: I think there certainly can be, yes,

23 based on the information that I've heard from various parties

24 within our child advocacy center, based on my conversation with

25 the mother.
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 135

jfr 18

1 THE COURT: Well, just based on what you've seen.

2 THE WITNESS: The mother has been presenting to me

3 what appears to be distorted perceptions of circumstances. And

4 so I do believe that she could possibly be delusional at this

5 time. So that leads me to believe that there are some concerns

6 for the safety of the child.

7 THE COURT: Thank you.

8 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

9 MR. O'CONNELL: I have no further questions of this

10 witness, Your Honor.

11 (Witness excused.)

12 MR. O'CONNELL: At this time, I do have, because she,

13 by adopting what Ms. Hoffman said, I think that cures that

14 problem. I do have two more witnesses that I think I can put

15 on for about two minutes each,

16 THE COURT: What will they say?

17 MR. O'CONNELL: As I represented, Dr. Pfeiffer will

18 represent that the child is happy when she's with him and

19 relatively relaxed and that she, the allegations with respect

20 to sexual abuse are inaccurate -- and can I see that doll,

21 please.

22 He'll describe how she likes, the three little pigs

23 is her favorite story so in late 2007 he bought this doll for

24 her, it is "Mr. Piggy," is what she calls him and, I would ask

25 the Court to observe, it’s anatomically is neutral.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 136

jfr 19

1 THE COURT: Even I can tell that.

2 MR. O'CONNELL: Yes. Okay. And that this is all a

3 fabrication, and he is a Ph.D. and an M.D. fellow at Georgetown

4 neurologist. He has, when the child showed that she did have

5 some unusual blood counts on Friday, he had the child seen

6 by the head of infectious disease at Georgetown and there

7 was to be follow up and, in fact, there really are concerns

8 about the child's blood although it is, the concerns are

9 manageable.

10 He had the child. The doctor said that the child

11 could go to school because she wasn't infectious, but -- and

12 there would be further studies, and also he testified that Mom

13 has been lying to him about what pediatrician the child is

14 going to because she identified that and apparently the

15 pediatrician that the child was going to said that he referred,

16 that she had referred her, she?

17 MR. PFEIFFER: Yes.

18 MR. O'CONNELL: -- had referred her to another, to a

19 hematologist. So the child ends up then getting worked up on my

20 client's top people who then refer to Georgetown, which is, of

21 course, the same people. And then, instead, Mom takes them to

22 Shady Grove, somewhere else and without any notice, yanks the

23 child from school, takes the child allegedly to another

24 hematologist so the child ends up being a pin cushion and

25 that's just not, you know, speaking of safety of the child,


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 137

jfr 20

1 that's not right.

2 So he would testify as to that and Michele Wood

3 would testify to, as I said, the fact that the child is

4 happy when she's with Dad, fairly well adjusted and has shown

5 signs of stress when she's with Mom, including peeing on the

6 floor.

7 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. I just read a document

8 that somehow got to this bench and I'm not sure how.

9 MR. O'CONNELL: I don't know what it is, Your

10 Honor.

11 THE COURT: It's called an opposition to defendant's

12 memorandum in support of emergency motion to quash.

13 MR. O'CONNELL: Well, that was handed to me by --

14 THE COURT: It's undated.

15 MR. O'CONNELL: It was handed to me --

16 THE COURT: It's a copy purportedly signed by Ariel

17 King. So I take that to mean she knows that we're proceeding

18 today.

19 MR. O'CONNELL: I believe Mr. Morris --

20 THE COURT: I don't know why she's not here.

21 MR. O'CONNELL: I believe Mr. Morris --

22 THE COURT: Does that have, did you deliver this,

23 sir?

24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I did. Yes.

25 THE COURT: Where is the author?


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 138

jfr 21

1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't know exactly right

2 now.

3 MR. O'CONNELL: Did you tell her that we were meeting

4 at 1:30?

5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I did not communicate with

6 her.

7 MR. O'CONNELL: Didn't you tell us that she was on

8 her way?

9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I assumed she was. Yes.

10 THE COURT: Well, sir, don't play games.

11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not. I'm not playing

12 games, Your Honor. I'm just telling you what I know.

13 THE COURT: Well, earlier you said she was on her

14 way. Now you're saying that she was on her way. Now you're

15 saying you assumed it.

16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believed she was on her

17 way.

18 THE COURT: What made you believe it?

19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I told her, I believe she told

20 me that she was on her way. I messaged her and she said she

21 was on her way.

22 THE COURT: And how long ago was that conversation?

23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Probably a couple of hours

24 ago, an hour ago.

25 THE COURT: Well --


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 139

jfr 22

1 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, in addition to that, I

2 believe, I have reason to believe that he, that Mr. Morris, who

3 is an attorney, and I believe is an attorney in Maryland, D.C.,

4 and Virginia, but I might be wrong on that, is, I suspect

5 he's a paramour, I don't care about that. I don't care about

6 that, but I do also suspect that he's drafting these pleadings

7 and filing them in violation of the rules not -- and not

8 signing them --

9 THE COURT: Well, she signed them, so she's stuck

10 with it.

11 JUDGE'S RULING

12 I find she knows about this, has chosen not to be

13 here and there is reason to believe that the testimony given to

14 Judge Boynton a few days ago is false. And I'm going to sign

15 your order. I haven't seen it.

16 MR. O'CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, I'll hand you

17 another one. It's at the bottom of my pleading, but I will

18 pass --

19 THE COURT: Well maybe it's here, let me look.

20 MR. O'CONNELL: It should be at the very, the last

21 page of my pleading. I do have a copy.

22 THE COURT: They don't usually wittingly punch in

23 proposed orders --

24 MR. O'CONNELL: Right.

25 THE COURT: But they might have in this instance.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 140

jfr 23

1 MR. O'CONNELL: Well, I definitely saw it in my file

2 before I came here, so I will --

3 THE COURT: All right.

4 MR. O'CONNELL: -- retrieve it momentarily, Your

5 Honor. It's the last thing I made sure I had before I left. I

6 should have tabbed it. I will come up with it momentarily. I

7 have it, Your Honor. May I approach?

8 THE COURT: Yes sir. Today is the 5th?

9 MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Okay. I've signed the order dismissing,

11 granting the motion to dismiss and the protective order is

12 quashed. Thank you.

13 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, should I take the --

14 THE COURT: I'll make copies.

15 MR. O'CONNELL: Okay. Thank you.

16 THE COURT: If you need to get it certified or

17 anything, you'll have to do it downstairs.

18 MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, once I get a copy, perhaps I'll

19 take the file downstairs --

20 THE COURT: Okay.

21 MR. O'CONNELL: -- and have it certified.

22 THE COURT: And ths goes in the file, Madam Clerk.

23 Thank you and good luck to you.

24 MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you very much, Your Honor.

25 THE CLERK: All rise.


King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 141

jfr 24

1 THE COURT: We're in recess.

2 (The proceedings were concluded.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 142
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 143
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 144
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 145
King Petition for Certiorari
Pet.Att. - 146