Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Trump interview with The Economist | Main | Times Headline on Acting Head of OCC: Lawyer Is Now Regulating Banking Industry He Spent His Career Protecting »

Friday, May 12, 2017



Uh, Judge Phillip Senan Jackson seemed quite pleased to grant the fraudulently-obtained order without regard to the cited Maryland rule. Apparently. Why does it matter if he considers the notarized document in question to be an affidavit at all? It is plain the court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the Defendant and the order is therefore void ab initio. I also don't see how his conclusion that he can't consider the document follows from the rule cited, which merely renders a purported affidavit to not be such.

Interesting that Judge Jackson refuses to consider a signed and sworn document he claims doesn't qualify as an affidavit under the Maryland rules, yet is happy to hand out judgments without anything but a scribble on a purported consent decree. I suppose Chan and Patel should simply file a new action with a new consent decree providing for the prior order to be vacated if they want anything done about this-- the order would have been signed months ago judging from his prior performance.

Judge Phillip Jackson is an embarrassment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30