<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The case of the ‘mongrel Mercedes’</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2008/08/26/the-case-of-the-mercedes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2008/08/26/the-case-of-the-mercedes/</link>
	<description>A Daily Record blog devoted to Legal Affairs</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:19:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brendan Kearney</title>
		<link>http://mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2008/08/26/the-case-of-the-mercedes/#comment-1982</link>
		<dc:creator>Brendan Kearney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2008/08/26/the-case-of-the-%e2%80%98mongrel-mercedes%e2%80%99/#comment-1982</guid>
		<description>UPDATE: As predicted, Dr. Schafler's car crusade continues.

No, she hasn't appealed Judge Titus' decision. Instead, on Monday, she filed a new version of her suit -- but without paying the customary filing fee. Schafler included a letter to the clerk of the federal court explaining her unusual tactic and asking that the fee she paid to file the previous iteration of her suit apply to the new action.

In the letter, she claims the U.S. District Court has a "dirty little secret": censoring pro se complaints and pleadings. She claims the defendants in her suit, not Judge Titus, should have had to make arguments to dismiss her case. "The opponents have advocates paid for by taxpayers," she wrote.

Schafler also claims she has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which asks that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order Maryland's District Court to halt the alleged censoring.

I'll let you know how Judge Titus treats this latest try.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>UPDATE: As predicted, Dr. Schafler&#8217;s car crusade continues.</p>
<p>No, she hasn&#8217;t appealed Judge Titus&#8217; decision. Instead, on Monday, she filed a new version of her suit &#8212; but without paying the customary filing fee. Schafler included a letter to the clerk of the federal court explaining her unusual tactic and asking that the fee she paid to file the previous iteration of her suit apply to the new action.</p>
<p>In the letter, she claims the U.S. District Court has a &#8220;dirty little secret&#8221;: censoring pro se complaints and pleadings. She claims the defendants in her suit, not Judge Titus, should have had to make arguments to dismiss her case. &#8220;The opponents have advocates paid for by taxpayers,&#8221; she wrote.</p>
<p>Schafler also claims she has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which asks that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order Maryland&#8217;s District Court to halt the alleged censoring.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll let you know how Judge Titus treats this latest try.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: red ryder</title>
		<link>http://mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2008/08/26/the-case-of-the-mercedes/#comment-1981</link>
		<dc:creator>red ryder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:25:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2008/08/26/the-case-of-the-%e2%80%98mongrel-mercedes%e2%80%99/#comment-1981</guid>
		<description>here's what confuzzes: if the car was so mongrely, why did the doc buy it in the first place? didn't the faux-dashboard arouse some suspicion before the deal was done?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>here&#8217;s what confuzzes: if the car was so mongrely, why did the doc buy it in the first place? didn&#8217;t the faux-dashboard arouse some suspicion before the deal was done?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
