Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ROBERT GREEN, JR. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al. : : : : MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 10, 2001, the Court issued a letter order, calling upon the plaintiff and his counsel to verify that the signatures on the affidavits of affiants Winkler, Puller, and Reid, submitted in opposition to defendants' summary judgment motions, were actually the signatures of those affiants. The plaintiff, by counsel, in an attempt to, inter alia, comply with the Court's order, submitted a "Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike, etc.," on January 17, 2001. The Court subsequently ordered the plaintiff to CIVIL NO. S 98-100

show cause why this case should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for the perpetration of a fraud on the Court. answered the order to show cause. The plaintiff's submissions establish that the plaintiff, a high-ranking Baltimore City Police Officer and a notary public of the State of Maryland, signed the signatures of the affiants to the affidavits in question, without any indication of agency, and, as to each of them, sealed the documents with his notary's seal and handwrote thereon "Sworn before me," followed by a date. plaintiff claims that the submitted affidavits were The The plaintiff has

simply

"revised" versions of earlier written statements, not under oath, given him by the affiants. The affiants, Reid, Puller, and

Winkler, all have submitted fresh affidavits, acknowledged before another notary, stating, inter alia, that they authorized the plaintiff to sign the submitted affidavits for them after they were told that amendments had been made to the original narratives (never sworn) they gave plaintiff. Notwithstanding any alleged authorization by the affiants to plaintiff to sign the affidavits

Download Robert Green Jr. v Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.pdf

Maryland Law