Friday, January 20, 2012

Maryland Judiciary; Can they be trusted

Maryland’s Judiciary: can they be trusted

Marylanders must confront reality, they may not always receive justice under a judicial system that costs them hundreds of millions to support. Revisionists in black gowns have become habituated to reframing laws with interpretations that are far from their initial intent. Classically judgments would be based on facts, exculpatory documents, transcripts and other solid pieces of evidence that support your claim. In Maryland Courts outcomes are now based on considerations that go far beyond distinguishing right from the indecent. In two recent cases before the Howard and Harford Circuit Courts respectively, my own experiences denote the “new justice” that Marylanders can expect from their Courts. As a pro se in both cases the judges opined for the Maryland Board of Physicians though the facts were “200” percent against them. As president of Healthnets Review Services, factual accuracy is the basis of a research organization such as ours. This accuracy was embedded into the legal briefs before both courts. The Courts’ had to know that the lawyers for the Maryland Attorney Generals’ Office (AG) were lying in open court and in their legal briefs or they had no business being judges. Worse the Appellate Courts have allowed similar activities by state employed attorneys from the AG’s office without sanctioning them. Perhaps these judges had aged out, both were in their sixties. Or worse, they were medicated which impaired their judgments. If not, Maryland has an implicit problem in its courts where they will allow the state to triumph when all the facts are against them. The only conclusion one can draw is Maryland Courts can no longer be trusted to provide sound and unbiased judgments when a petitioner sues a state administrative authority because the fix is in. Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services.

No comments:

Post a Comment