United States Constitution, and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, not afforded to writs for property, such that review is desirable and in the public interest. The Subject Matter of Appeal No. 02269, September Term 2014 (“the Money Judgment”) challenging the “Amount Due”, if any with the issues of Petitioners’ payment in full, Respondent’s counterfeit documents, and issues with Respondent’s “status as a claimant,” infect the Subject Matter of the Non-Final “Money Judgment” Appeal and consolidated Appeal No. 00388, September Term 2015, (“the Stay of Enforcement/Bond Appeal”). (Attach. 1-5 and Pet. Attach. 1-8). The present appeal and subject matter, requiring compliance with “Amounts Due”, pursuant to MD Rule §§ 2-645(b)(2) and 2641(a)(2), was barred by the subject matter of the prior, properly noted appeal pending in the Court of Special Appeals. MD Cts. & Ju d. Proc. §12-301 (Pet.) Erroneous and abusive writs for property to enforce a “non-final money judgment” by using Court employees to over-come defects and deny rights in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which poses a risk to any unsuspecting litigant forced to engage in the judicial process. It is common knowledge and fact that the Respondent regularly files false complaints and seeks payment on money not owed. (Attach. 1-5) This Court avoided reconciliation of the present appeal with incongruent holdings in cases that prohibited “unlicensed activities” and directly relate to the Petitioners’ First, “Non-Final Money Judgment Appeal”, “Amounts Due”, and the present appeal. Jason v. National Loan Recoveries, 227 Md. App. 516 (2016), Finch, 212 Md. App. 748, cert. denied, 435 Md. 266 (2013)), and Wayne Garrity, Sr. v. Maryland State Board of Plumbing, 447 MD 2

359, 135 A.3d 452 (2016). Notably, this Court has not visited a case which involves issues of Subject Matter jurisdiction, procedural and substantive due process, and the misuse and abuse of writs for property which poses danger for anyone in the judicial process. See William Elliott v. Dyck O’Neal, Inc., 46 N.E. 448, 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) trans. denied; Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Wilson, 332 P.3d 380 (2014); in Higgins v. DyckO’Neal, Inc., __So.3d. __, 2016WL3191146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Allowing jurisdiction to be exceeded, prior noted appeals of non-final money judgments to be disregarded, and allowing enforcement of “non-final money judgments” by improper writs for property, without due process, is dangerous for everyone. Id. Resolution of important questions of law pertaining to the protection of statutory rights to appeal pursuant to MD Cts. and Jud. Proc. Code Ann. §12-301, subject matter appealed, property and due process rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, is essential for the public good. II.

PUBLIC INTEREST

Former judges of this Court have stated that "public interest" means "public importance," namely, issues that are important not just to the parties themselves, but to the public at large. Paul Mark Sandler & Andrew D. Levy, Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer: State and Federal, 325, 339-40 (3rd ed. 2007). The need for this Court to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari "may be triggered by such considerations as novelty, complexity, conflicting precedents, impact or importance

3

and the breadth or extent thereof and likelihood of recurrence." Koenig v. State, 368 Md. 150, 151 (2002) (Bell, C.J., dissenting from Dismissal of Petition for Certiorari). Black’s law dictionary defines Public Interest as 1. The general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection. 2. Something in which the public as a whole has a stake, esp. an interest that justifies governmental regulation. Black’s Law Dictionary 1350 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 9th ed., Thompson Reuters 2009). The ultimate determination of what constitutes the public interest must be made considering the totality of the circumstances of any given case against the backdrop of current societal expectations.” See Wolf v. Ford, 335 Md. 525, 535, 644 A.2d 522, (1994); BJ'S Wholesale Club v. Rosen, 2013, 435 Md. 714, 80 A.3d 345, 349 (2013). III.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

The far reaching implications of the Petition necessitate granting review which is desirable and in the public interest and accordingly the Petitioners hereby respectfully request that this Court take Judicial Notice of the following in consideration of this motion: A. Attachment 1: Respondent’s Maryland False Claim A, “G & S Defeats $170,000.00 Claim by Respondent, http://www.gordonsimmons.com/gs-defeats170000-claim-by-debt-collector-dyck-oneal-inc/ (July 2016, Gordon & Simmons, LLC, Firm News). B. Attachment 2: Respondent’s Maryland False Claim B for Money “Not Legally Owed”, “Gordon & Simmons Defends Clients Against Six-Figure Deficiency Judgment Sought By Dyck O’Neal Inc.”, 4

http://www.gordonsimmons.com/gordon-simmons-defends-clients-six-figuredeficiency-judgment-sought-dyck-oneal-inc/ (November 2014, Gordon & Simmons, LLC, Firm News) C. Attachment 3: Paid in Full Letter (Subject Matter of Appeal 2269/388) D. Attachment 4: Zero Balance Account Statement (Subject Matter of Appeal 2269/388) E. Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted September 2, 2016: Clifford Cain, Jr. v. Midland Funding, Case No. 45, September Term, 2016: Issue pertaining to a “debt buyer’s pattern of filing thousands of collection actions in Md. courts and obtaining judgments was unrelated to a later putative class action seeking a judicial declaration that those earlier judgments were void and disgorgement of the money was so obtained.” (aka Void Money Judgments and Illegal or Improper Garnishments) F. Attachment 5: ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF NOTICE, SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT AND SETTING A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING AND OTHER DATES: Scott Barbely vs Dyck O’Neal Inc., Civil Case 02C14190995, Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for unlicensed collection activities at the 3214 West Park Row address, Arlington, TX 76013 for money previously paid and not owed. G. Attachment 6: Blogger: Consumer Chronicles Approx. Views = 15,113 http://bells4justice.blogspot.com/?view=magazine H. Attachment 7: Twitter Account for: Edwin E. Bell @truthsearch1957.com and Miranda C. Bell @truthsearch1957.com

https://twitter.com/truthsearch1957

Dedicated to: Defending Against a Junk Debt Buyer for a Debt NOT OWED. a. October: Impressions = 194K b. September: Impressions = 672K c. August: Impressions = 373K d. July: Impressions = 28.3K (Petition Filing Date: July 1, 2016**) e. June: Impressions = 7,799K (**Not in Totals) 5

f. May: Impressions = 4,313K (**Not in Totals) I. Popular in you network: a. September 17, 2016: “#Annapolis Defective Foreclosures Using Criminal Tactics To Hide Credit Bids Harms Consumers” b. September 18, 2016: “SCAM ALERT: WATCH OUT 4 DIRTY DYCK Sample BOGUS COMPLAINT by Dirty Dyck” c. September 19, 2016: “#Emmy HELP STOP Corporate Corruption of Courts & Protect the Constitution” d. September 21, 2016: “#classaction Linked Example of Maryland Attorneys Hiding Their Own “White Collar Crime”” e. September 22, 2016: “#Pittsburgh #Pennsylvania Stop #WhiteCollar #CriminalMinds & #crimeinthecourt ROBBING #families of Bone $” f. September 23, 2016: ““Chris Bosh” Feel Better & Help Protect Appeals, Due Process, Property Rights, and Constitution!” g. September 24, 2016: Tweet liked by Miranda C. Bell h. September 26, 2016: “#AllBusiness DONI Fakes R Cimes..FUR REAL 2 STEAL BONE $$$” i. September 27, 2016: ““Miss Universe” UR PERFECT 4 OUR PLATFORM 2 STOP Dirty Dyck Stealn #Bone $$ & Impoverishn” j. September 28, 2016: “Saudi Arabia Even A #Miracle will #Not #Stop the #Truth #Justice will #Prevail” k. September 29, 2016: “New Jersey” THINKING OF U ..FEEL BETTER & RECOVER SWIFTLY” l. October 1, 2016: “ #CBSThisMorning COA AVOID Constitution AIDS Dyck w/ FRAUD Illegal Writs 4 Prop w/o NO DP NOT PUBLIC INTEREST #CBS” m. October 3, 2016: “B 4 PSKLLC & Dyck #Counterfeit #Documents We used 2 B in #manufacturing STOP CORPORATE CORRUPT COURTS #SXSL #FLOTUS 6

n. October 4, 2016: “#morningjoe Wellesley Alumna / UB JD Abused, Oppressed, & Denied Justice 2 Cover-up 6 Year #Malicious Prosecution” o. October 5, 2016: #VPDebate #Attorney ALERT VOID $Js DYCK ONEAL UNSUSPECTING VICTIMS PROSECUTE/CONVICT CRIMINAL DIRTYDYCK #WhiteCollar J. Edwin Bell Google+ Approx. Views = 422,874 (as of October 6, 2016) https://plus.google.com/u/0/102847795492866796753/posts K. Miranda C. Bell @truthsearch1957.com ‘s http://twicsy.com/u/truthsearch1957/skip/80 In addition to grounds initially stated in the Petition and as listed above, review of this Petition is desirable and in the public’s interest. (Pet.) Judicial Notice of Public Interest is requested as evidenced through Social Media, generated specifically for the Petition for Writ of Certiorari for abusive writs for property practices corrupting the judicial process. Social Media has become a trusted source of social and public interest as noted by the September 30, 2016, the Washington Post article discussing the relevance on social media and public opinion by saying, “online platforms are essential to modern campaigns.” See “More and more people get their news via social media. Is that good or bad?”, Washington Post, Monkey Cage, by Kevin Curry, September 30, 2016. As Washington Post article explained social media is a trusted new source, evidence of public interest, and encourages participation for the greater good: According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in January, 35 percent of respondents between ages 18 and 29 said that social media was the “most helpful” source of information about the presidential campaign. For those aged 30 to 49, social media ranked third, behind cable TV and news websites.

7

Of course, much of the news on Facebook and Twitter comes from traditional news outlets such as CNN and the New York Times. But clearly, young people find social media especially useful, in part because they can follow news recommended by people in their social networks. A recent study by Eschelon Insights and Hart Research on behalf of BuzzFeed found that adults ages 18 to 49 trust news and political information shared from friends more than news delivered from other sources. Id. IV.

ARGUMENT

A. ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER WRITS FOR PROPERTY ABSENT DUE PROCESS HEARINGS REQUIRED BY MARYLAND STATUTE, ARTICLE 24 OF THE MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARE DESIRABLE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST For uniformity of decisions and special circumstances, review of illegal and improper writs for property absent mandatory due process hearings required by Maryland statute, Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, review is desirable and in the public interest. Absent notice and a prior hearing, removal of property contrary to one’s constitutional rights violates due process. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 342 (1969), Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 423 (1915). (Pet. 5-12). It is indisputable under Maryland law that mandatory hearings requested pursuant to MD Rules §§ 2-643(f) and 2-311(f), must be held; they were not. The Petitioners have raised questions of great public importance and wide spread applicability. (Pet. at 5-9) Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights, although required, were not afforded to writs for property without hearings. (Pet. at 5-12). (Attach.

8

1-7). Review is desirable to cease non-compliance with subject matter jurisdictional boundaries that violate substantive and procedural due process requirements. Public Interest arises from the fact that erroneous and abusive writs for property, absent due process, are irrefutably incongruent with Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, other decisions of this Court, as well as the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. (Attach. 5) As evidenced in Jud. Notice H and I., a-o, Attach. 6-7, the public interest requirement has been met due to the far reaching implications of the present case. This case, primarily the Petition, has repeatedly been placed among the “Top Media” choices, along with “traditional news outlets such as CNN and the New York Times”, receiving over 1,282,413 impressions most media, such that desirability and public interest can no longer be doubted. (Jud. Notice H and I., a-o, Attach. 6-7). The failure to review the Petition serves only to set a dangerous preference for circuit courts to ignore mandatory due process hearings on writs for property thereby allowing illegal process to stand and to be used by predatory and abusive parties with meritless claims to illegally prevail. Misuse and abuse of writs for property, such as the Respondent’s, should NOT be allowed to stand in control of our courts through misuse and abuse of State and Federal laws. For the reasons stated above, review of illegal and improper writs absent due process is desirable and in the public interest and accordingly the Petition should be granted.

9

B. THE MISUSE AND ABUSE AND OF WRITS FOR PROPERTY TO ENFORCE “NON-FINAL” MONEY JUDGMENTS IS DESIRABLE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST For uniformity of decisions and special circumstances, review of abuse and misuse of writs for property, to enforce illegal and “non-final” money judgments, absent due process and incongruent with the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, is desirable and in the public interest. Review is also desirable and in the Public Interest in order to obtain uniformity of decisions as well as special circumstances where the abuse and misuse of writs for property by “junk debt buyers”, such as the Respondent”, regularly seeking to oppress and enforce illegal, “non-final” money judgments, in a rampant and lawless manner must be stopped. Elliott v. Dyck, 46 N.E. 448, 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) trans. denied; Dyck v. Wilson, 332 P.3d 380 (2014); Higgins v. Dyck, __So.3d. __, 2016WL3191146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). (Attach. 1-5) The Petitioners have raised questions of great public importance and wide spread applicability. (Pet. at 5-16) Although Substantive and procedural due process are essential to due process, often times they are both avoided as is the issue with respect to the present appeal. Misuse and Abuse of writs for property for a Non-Final Money Judgment presents critical issues with subject matter jurisdiction. (Pet. at 9-16, Pet. Attach. 2-9); see also Associates v. Apper, 276 Md. 698, 350 A.2d 661 (1976). Undisputed by the Respondent and “common knowledge”, the Respondent’s persistent and illegal garnishments for money not owed must be prohibited. William Elliott v. Dyck O’Neal, Inc., 46 N.E. 448, 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) trans. denied. (attach. 1-5 and Pet. at 10

9-16) It is also indisputable that under Maryland law, Petitioners have a statutory right to their prior noted Money Judgment Appeal and consolidated Bond/Stay Appeal, for which the Subject Matter of the Money Judgments is Non-Final, and which incontestably prohibited the use of writs to take property for a non-final Money Judgment. See MD Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-301. (Pet. Attach. 2-3 and 8-9). It is unquestionable that it was impossible for Respondent to allege an “amount owed under the judgment” in light of the first appeal. See MD Rules §§ 2-641(a)(2) and 2-645(b)(2) (Pet. at 5-7 and 11-14, Pet. Attachs. 2-3, 7-8, and 10). This Court has not resolved that under Maryland law, absent subject matter jurisdiction, compliance with MD Rules §§ 2-645(b)(2) and 2-641(a)(2) for writs for property is impossible as a matter of fact and law. (Pet. at 12) To be clear, due process violations, as discussed in the Petition and Argument A, cause the failure to comply with procedural due process requirements to result in a voidable judgment. (Pet. at 12). Additionally, this Court did not and cannot resolve the subject matter jurisdiction error of seeking to enforce a “Non-Final” money judgment on appeal with a consolidated Bond/Stay of Enforcement Appeal, as in the present case, in light of the holding in the Mensah v. MCT Federal Credit Union, 446 Md. 525, 132 A.3d 332 (2016). This Court also fails to address this case in light of the holdings in Jason v. National Loan Recoveries, 227 Md. App. 516 (2016), (citing Finch v. LVNV Funding LLC, 212 Md. App. 748, cert. denied, 435 Md. 266 (2013)), and Wayne Garrity, Sr. v. Maryland State Board of Plumbing, 447 MD 359 (2016), which held that an unlicensed debt collector cannot comply with the “Amounts Due” requirement of MD Rule 2-645(b)(2) and MD 11

Rule 2-641(a)(2) because any judgments obtained by unlicensed debt collectors are deemed “unlicensed activities” and are “void judgments”. The Subject Matter of the Petitioners’ First Appeal clearly prohibited the Subject Matter of the Second Appeal, jurisdiction was not properly conferred, and therefore to avoid manifest injustice, the inappropriate and illegal writs for property must be reversed as plainly erroneous and an obvious abusive of discretion. (Pet. at 12-14). A failure to reverse the circuit court would only encourage circuit courts to exceed their jurisdiction by allowing enforcement of non-final money judgments in violation of MD Rules §§ 2641(a)(2) or 2-645(b)(2), thereby diminishing property rights, rights to appeals, and due process rights. Absent a final Judgment no “amount owed” could be stated as required by MD Rule §§ 2-641(a)(2) or 2-645(b)(2) and consequently, the writs could not have been legitimately or properly issued, by the Clerk or served by Sheriff, pending resolution of the Money Judgment Appeal and consolidated Stay of Enforcement/Bond Appeal. See Gardner v Board County Comm’rs, 320 Md. 63, 71 (1990), Wells v. Price, 183 Md. 443, 450 (1944), (Pet. at 12-13). False requests, under oath, for writs of garnishment and writs of execution for real property have become prevalent in our society but violate established laws such as MD Rules §§ 2-641(a)(2) or 2-645(b)(2), through the assistance of courts and clerks exceeded jurisdiction causing visible jurisdictional mistakes and harmful filings. (Pet. at12-14). (Attach. 1-5). Absent harmful and prejudicial assistance from State of Maryland Employees aiding the Respondent to avoid compliance with MD Rules §§ 2-641(a)(2) or 2645(b)(2), avoiding due process protections in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of 12

the US Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the jurisdiction was never present for any post, non-final judgment enforcement pending resolution of a prior noted Money Judgment Appeal on the “Amount Due”. (Pet. at 12-14). (Attach. 1-5) Systematic falsifications of “amounts due” under MD Rules §§ 2-641(a)(2) or 2645(b)(2), like the Respondent’s, are improper, crimes, and prevalent in this state, requiring desirable and public interest review. Due process, property rights, and the constitution must be protected for the public good and not abolished at the hands of a few corporations. Coincidentally, this Court granted Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Clifford Cain, Jr. v. Midland Funding, Case No. 45, September Term, 2016, on September 2, 2016, to review questions pertaining to a “debt buyer’s pattern of filing thousands of collection actions in Md. courts and obtaining judgments was unrelated to a later putative class action seeking a judicial declaration that those earlier judgments were void and disgorgement of the money was so obtained.” (a.k.a. Void Money Judgments and Illegal or Improper Garnishments) Profoundly, illegal Writs plague our country harming numerous people including service members. “Wells Fargo to pay $24.1 million for improper repossession of servicemembers’ cars” LATimes, Jim Puzzanghera , September 29, 2016. Citizens, often the most volunerable, are abused by illegal and improper writs for property. “Georgia Wage Garnishment Law Takes Effect—Again” by ACAInternational, May 13, 2016. Special Circumstances and uniformity of decisions require review due to Respondent’s persistent violations of law which include the Respondent’s lack of 13

licensure and bonding thereby invalidating the Respondent’s status as a claimant required by State law. See Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”) or Business Regulation 7-101, et seq., Finch V. LVNV Funding LLC, 212 Md. App. 748, 71 A.3d 193 (2013), cert denied, 435 Md. 266, 77 A.3d 1084 (2013) On September 23, 2016, almost simultaneous to this court’s denial to review the present case, a contrary and incongruent decision was reached regarding the Respondent and its use of illegal and voidable judgments to obtain and enforce illegal garnishments. See Scott Barbely vs Dyck O’Neal Inc., Civil Case 02C14190995, a Class Action Complaint, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The Barbely Class-Action identically to the present case involves the Respondent’s unlicensed collection activities at its 3214 West Park Row address, Arlington, TX 76013 and its use of illegal and voidable judgments to obtain and enforce illegal garnishments. In the Barbely Class-Action, the Respondent’s illegal judgments and illegal garnishments will be voided. Because the Petitioners’ intervened in the Class Action for the reasons of “Respondent’s lack of standing” and “Respondent’s lack of bonding and licensing for 3214 West Park Row address, Arlington, TX 76013”, in addition to the identical prior payment in full and fraudulent endorsement issues, failure to review and reverse the incongruent decision of the Court of Special Appeals not to reverse the Improper writs for property, is incongruent with the Barbely Case and would be manifest injustice. Failing to review and reverse improper and illegal writs for property for non-final money judgments absent due process is an abomination of justice, serves only to harm 14

ATTACHMENT INDEX: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Attachment 1: Respondent’s Maryland False Claim A, “G & S Defeats $170,000.00 Claim by Respondent, http://www.gordonsimmons.com/gs-defeats-170000-claim-bydebt-collector-dyck-oneal-inc/ (July 2016, Gordon & Simmons, LLC, Firm News). Attachment 2: Respondent’s Maryland False Claim B for Money “Not Legally Owed”, “Gordon & Simmons Defends Clients Against Six-Figure Deficiency Judgment Sought By Dyck O’Neal Inc.”, http://www.gordonsimmons.com/gordon-simmons-defendsclients-six-figure-deficiency-judgment-sought-dyck-oneal-inc/ (November 2014, Gordon & Simmons, LLC, Firm News) Attachment 3: Paid in Full Letter (Subject Matter of Appeal 2269/388) Attachment 4: Zero Balance Account Statement (Subject Matter of Appeal 2269/388) Attachment 5: ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF NOTICE, SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT AND SETTING A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING AND OTHER DATES: Scott Barbely vs Dyck O’Neal Inc., Civil Case 02C14190995, Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for unlicensed collection activities at the 3214 West Park Row address, Arlington, TX 76013 for money previously paid and not owed. Attachment 6: Blogger: Consumer Chronicles Approx. Views = 15, 113 http://bells4justice.blogspot.com/?view=magazine Attachment 7: Twitter Account for: Edwin E. Bell @truthsearch1957.com and Miranda C. Bell @truthsearch1957.com

https://twitter.com/truthsearch1957

Dedicated to: Defending Against a Junk Debt Buyer for a Debt NOT OWED. a. b. c. d. e.

October: Impressions = 194K September: Impressions = 672K August: Impressions = 373K July: Impressions = 28.3K (Petition Filing Date: July 1, 2016**) June: Impressions = 7,799K f. May: Impressions = 4,313K