Opinion ID: 1900408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: additional exceptions, motions, demand for hearing

Text: 35. It was error as a denial of Due Process to refuse to disqualify all Montgomery County judges. 36. It was a denial of Due Process to refuse to transfer the case out of Montgomery County. 37. It was a denial of Due Process for Mathias to refuse to disqualify himself. 38. This court's intention, custom, or the fact, that each and every individual member will not read the entire transcript is a denial of Due Process. An evidentiary hearing is demanded. 39. This court's illegal delegation to a single member, or less than the whole, of its solemn constitutional duty to judge and decide, as before, is a denial of Due Process. Motion is hereby made to dismiss the case on this basis. An evidentiary hearing is demanded. 40. A jury, on the same facts, with a preponderance of the evidence standard, judged the facts not conclusive against the Respondent; then as a matter of law, there can have been no sufficiency of evidence under a clear and convincing standard, against the Respondent. An evidentiary hearing is demanded. 41. Motion is made to disqualify Murphy, and any other of this court having prejudice or hostility against the Respondent, from any participation in this matter. An evidentiary hearing is demanded. ___________________________________ LEONARD J. KERPELMAN In Proper Person I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of December, 1980, a copy of the aforegoing Additional Exceptions, etc., was mailed to Henry J. Meyerberg, Assistant Bar Counsel, District Court Bldg., Rowe Blvd. & Taylor Ave., Annapolis, Maryland 21401. ___________________________________ LEONARD J. KERPELMAN