WPC} lid4Hލ7S=?#P2BՔ? VvI(+kKZmBgFSE볨)Ķ*.{ 5`RJPag25jMq VtZ,`e=ĿYs(2@h*^|BJxb\I2̻?`LpyD7~?_:Nlfm"( EVXy;@itkA<@rBNk= 8K - e<@G@B] 5L+X{LG,=a~| JpMՒY{9˼>AxȫU󓰭6t(Y! ֲgoi4 abG=L;㠌V\._-7 q:EDz:kIx%=߮C\`J/zOSG+[Hd;#!:UN[ % 0U&: 1uJ; 0 E 4   v < 0g i / 0 0: 0 0 1HN^ w@ B: m<S 0=UNCUN 1 1fUNZ;" 1 B*SHP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 60(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(ۆ$XHHXXXX7NXXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) @ ,XXHXXX d   d 9XA: ) 3^dEz030AA ) 3^^dE%30A(2$ ۆ!XHXhXXX8U!XXdd8   d v+H,3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(?$25  0  .3  0@ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5para numberingLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(WMR$0 25  a  .3  0` (#(#(nN$0 0` (#(#25   .3  0 ` (#` (#(>$0 0` (#(#0 ` ` (#` (#25(  0  )3  0  (# (#(2$0 0` (#(#0 ` ` (#` (#0  (# (#25(  a  )3  0h!(#(#(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(- DUDUUDD dU  +XXHXXX d  _,"X @  @  d   wXXH wMICHAELC.WORSHAM,Esq. h+`$0 1916CosnerRoadForestHill,Maryland,210502210(410)5576192Fax:(509)3571930michael@worshamlaw.com(3$ ۆ!XHXhXXX8U!XXdd8   d )l  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.hH Z6Times New Roman Regular  KuhlrecordationColumLungsford        (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.&0 d d ۆ!XHXHXXX8XXdd8  _HXXXXH&@'*REGINALDL.ROBINSON h     * p INTHE   ` Plaintiff#XHXXX#XXXXH   h     * p CIRCUITCOURT   `     h     * p FOR    ` v.    h      p      x      `     h     * p PRINCEGEORGESCOUNTY   PROPHECYHOMEOWNERSetal.  * p     `     h      ` Defendant   h     * p #XHXXX#XXXXHCASENO.:CAL#XHXXX-#XXXXHԀ0025507    * ` * *  * h *  *  * p *  *  * x * *0 (# *  (#%(#% 1 #XHXXX|#$XXXXH  MEMORANDUMOFLAWONHEARSAY    #XHXX$X#XXXXH ` PlaintiffReginaldRobinson,throughcounselMichaelC.Worsham,submitsthis (  memorandumoflawregardinghearsayasitappliestothiscase,insupportofPlaintiffsMotioninLiminefiledonAugust21,2002.   FACTUALBACKGROUND   rL Eh(3L ` PlaintiffsuedDefendantsundertheFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct(FDCPA),15U.S.C.1692,andMarylandConsumerDebtCollectionPracticesAct,CommercialLawArt.14201204,forpublishingadebtallegedlyowedbyPlaintiffinnewsletter#XHXXXW#XXXXHԀarticlesaccompanied @8 bythetitle HallOfShame.Asadefense,DefendantswillseektointroducethetypewrittenminutesfromtheOctober25,1995AnnualMeetingforDefendantProphecyHomeownersAssociation.TheseminutespurportedlyhavethePlaintiffstatingatthe1995meetingthat Mr.  " Robinsonstatedthatweshouldpublishnamesinthenewsletter.Theseminutesandthehearsay P"H$ statementsattributedtoMr.Robinsoninthemshouldnotbeallowedintoevidence.      2Eh  1  .3  0 `   TheProphecyHomeownersAnnualMeetingMinutesAreDoubleHearsay  ݌X%P(` %` % Ќ   ` TheProphecyHomeownersAssociationannualmeetingminutesaredoublehearsay.Apersontakeshandwrittennotesduringthemeeting,andthesehandwrittenmeetingminutesconstitutethefirstlevelofhearsaylevel.Then,thehandwrittennotesarepreparedintotypedminutesbyasecondperson(presumablyanemployeeofthemanagementassociationhiredbythehomeownersassociation),whichishearsayleveltwo.Toadmitthetypedmeetingminutesasevidenceforthetruthofthematterassertedinstatementsallegedlymadeatthemeeting,both p.h'4 hearsaylevelsmustbeaddressedandovercome.Rule5805;6L.McClain,MarylandEvidence,  805.1at483(1987)(whenoneormorehearsaystatementsarecontainedwithinanotherhearsaystatement,eachmustfallwithinanexceptiontothehearsayruleinordertobeadmissibleunderthatrule.Thefactthatoneofthestatementsfallswithinanexceptiondoesnotmeanthatitcancarryinadmissiblehearsayinwithit.).     2Eh  2  .3  0 `   TheMeetingMinutesAreNotARecognizedExceptionToTheHearsayRule ݌ ` %` % Ќ   ` DefendantsarguedintheirResponsetoPlaintiffsMotioninLiminethattheminutesfallunderthehearsayexceptionprovidedatRule5802.1(a)(3).Rule5802.1(a)providesthat:0 ` Thefollowingstatementspreviouslymadebyawitnesswhotestifiesatthetrialorhearingandwhoissubjecttocrossexaminationconcerningthestatementarenotexcludedbythehearsayrule: ` %` % 0 ` (a)Astatementthatisinconsistentwiththedeclarantstestimony,ifthestatementwas(1)givenunderoathsubjecttothepenaltyofperjuryatatrial,hearing,orotherproceedingorinadeposition; ` %` % 0 ` (2)reducedtowritingandsignedbythedeclarant;or ` %` % 0 ` (3)recordedinsubstantiallyverbatimfashionbyastenographicorelectronicmeanscontemporaneouslywiththemakingofthestatement. ` %` % Part(a)(3)whichDefendantsrelyonclearlyrequiresthatthestatementhadtoberecordedby stenographic or electronic means(i.e.taperecorded).Thereisnosuchstenographicor  electronicrecordingsmadeattheDefendantsannualmeetings.Parts(a)(1)and(2)ofthisrulelikewiseshowthatthepurposeofthishearsayexceptionistoonlyallowrecordedstatementswherethereissubstantialindiciaofreliabilitythatthestatementwasactuallymadeandthatitisaccurate.Therefore,themeetingminutesdonotfallunderthishearsayexception.     2Eh  3  .3  0 `   TheMeetingMinutesDoNotComeInAutomaticallyAsAStatementOfAParty $' Opponent .݌&)` %` % Ќ   ` DefendantsarguethatthemeetingminutesareadmissibleasastatementofapartyopponentunderRule5803.ItisofcoursetruethatthestatementsofeitherpartycanbeintroducedbytheopposingpartyunderRule5803.However,theissuehereiswhetherthestatementwaseverevenmadebythePlaintiff.OnlyaftertheDefendantshaveestablishedthatthePlaintiffinfactmadeastatementcanthestatementbeadmittedasthatofapartyopponent.TheCourtofAppealsaddressedsuchasituationinRichardsonv.State,342Md.611,62324 2/*(5 (1991): Richardsonsstatementsmaybeadmissions,buttheonlywaytheycangetbeforethejuryisthroughMcCoysinadmissiblehearsaystatementsmadetothepolice.TheRichardson  courtreversedaconvictionbecauseoftheerroneousadmissionofmultiplehearsaystatementsbypoliceofficersintheirreports.     2Eh  4  .3  0 `   StatementsWithinTheMeetingMinutesAreUnreliableAndDoNotFallUnder   TheBusinessRecordsExceptionToTheHearsayRule ݌ ` %` % Ќ   ` Thebusinessrecordsexceptiontothehearsayruleappliesto:0 ` Recordsofregularlyconductedbusinessactivity.Amemorandum,report,record,ordatacompilationofacts,events,conditions,opinions,ordiagnosisif(A)itwasmadeatornearthetimeoftheact,event,orcondition,ortherenditionofthediagnosis,(B)itwasmadebyapersonwithknowledgeorfrominformationtransmittedbyapersonwithknowledge,(C)itwasmadeandkeptinthecourseofaregularlyconductedbusinessactivity,and(D)theregularpracticeofthatbusinesswastomakeandkeepthememorandum,report,record,ordatacompilation.Arecordofthiskindmaybeexcludedifthesourceofinformationorthemethodofcircumstancesofthepreparationoftherecordindicatethattheinformationintherecordlackstrustworthiness.Inthisparagraph, businessincludesbusiness,institution,association,profession,occupation,andcallingofeverykind,whetherornotconductedforprofit. ` %` % Rule5803(b)(6).MarylandAnn.Code,Courts&JudicialProceedingsArt.10101hasasimilarbusinessrecordsexception,#XHXXX/ #!XXXXHwhichprovidesthat"awritingorrecord madeintheregular @8 courseofbusinessasamemorandumorrecordofanact,transaction,occurrence,oreventisadmissibletoprovetheact,transaction,occurrence,orevent."#XHXX!X/$#XXXXH H@   ` Whiletheminutesmightbeadmissibletoshowthatameetingoccurred,anystatements  " allegedlymadeatthemeetingarenotadmissible.Asimilarsituationarisesinpolicereports,towhichthemeetingminutesareanalogous: #XHXXXe%#!XXXXHApolicereportindicatingthatanaccidentoccurred, #& thepartiesinvolved,etc.,notingaspectsoftheaccidentobservablebytheinvestigatingofficerwouldcomewithinthestatute.Statementsmadebywitnessesorpartiestotheaccidenttotheofficerwouldnotcomewithinthestatute.AetnaCasualty&SuretyCo.v.Kuhl,296Md.446, `(X!, 454(1983)(citationsomitted).!X!XԀ#!&##XHX㇑(#XXXXHԀTheCourtofAppealshasevenexcludedtheintroductionof )". simplyanamefromsuchunreliablereports.InGravesv.State,334Md.30,43(1994),the h+`$0 Courtheldthat,assumingapolicenotebookwaspolicereportwhichqualifiedasabusinessrecordunder10101(a),thetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretionbyadmittingthepolicenotebook p.h'4 whichcontainedamemorialization(aname)ofanextrajudicialstatementbyanotherperson(Trusty): ifthestatementwasofferedforthepurposeofprovingthetruthofthematterassertedbyTrusty,itwasclearlyinadmissiblehearsay.Id.󀀀Evenifthepersonrecordingtheminutesdid   soonaroutinebasis,whichisnotthecasehere,thehearsaystatementsintheminuteswouldstillnotbeadmissible.UnitedStatesv.Lieberman,637F.2d95,101(1980)( Themerefactthat   recordationofthirdpartystatementsisroutine,takenapartfromthesourceoftheinformationrecorded,importsnoguarantyofthetruthofthestatementsthemselves.)(citing48Colum.L.    Rev.920,927(1948)).    ` Therationalebehindevenallowinganyreportinasabusinessrecordsexceptionisthatthewriterisunderadutytomakeatruthfulstatement.#XHXXX(#XXXXHHere,thewriterofthehomeowners   meetingminutes,whoeveritwas,wasundernosuchdutytomakeatruthfulreport,andalsowasnotintheregularbusinessofmakingsuchareportortakingsuchminutes.Further,sincewhatwasdiscussedatthis1995meetingpublishingthenamesofdebtorsinanewsletterispatentlyillegalunderbothstateandfederallaw,thewriterhadamotivetofalsify,mislead,ortoblameorassociateotherswithsupportingthisproposedillegalconduct,makingtheminuteshighlyunreliable.#XHXXX.#XXXXH  #XHXXX1#XXXXH ` Likewise,noneofthepersonsatthemeetingwereundersuchadutytomaketruthful H@  statements.InStatev.Lungsford,400A.2d843,849(N.J.1979)#XHXXXh1#XXXXH,thecourtobservedthat:#XHXXXl2#XXXXH  " #XHXXX2#!XXXXH0 ` Thus,thebusinessrecordexceptionispredicatednotonlyonthecircumstancethatthe P"H$ recorditselfiskeptintheusualcourseofthebusinessbutalsoonthecircumstancethattherecordedinformationisobtainedbytherecorderfromadeclaranthavinga"business"dutytocommunicateittruthfully.>3#XHXX!X3#XXXXHԀ$'` %` % NomembersoftheProphecyHomeownersAssociationhavesuchaduty: Thus,suchcitizendeclarationsarevirtuallyuniversallyheldtoconstituteexcludedhearsayinrespectofotherwiseadmissiblereportsordocuments.#XHXXX4#!XXXXHԀAetnaCasualty&SuretyCo.,296Md.at454#XHXX!X'6#XXXXH(citing ")"- Lungsford,400A.2dat843).#XHXXX6#XXXXHԀ#XHXXX7#XXXXHԀConsequently,thefactssupportingtherationalebehindallowing *#/ themeetingminutesinforanypurposeatall,muchlessforthetruthofanystatementsatthemeeting,iscompletelylacking.#XHXXX_7#XXXXH -&3  ` AnalysisunderRule5803alsoshowstheminutestobeinadmissible.Hereitis 2/*(5 unknownwhopreparedthetypewrittennotes,thehandwrittennotesfrowhichtheycame,orwhenthispreparationoccurred,sothatRule5803(b)(6)(A)isnotmet.Part(b)(6)(D)oftheruleisnotmeteither.WhiletheBoardmeetingminutesmayarguablybemadeandkeptinthecourseofaregularlyconductedbusinessactivity#XHXXXv8#XXXXH,theannualmeetingmeetingswhichbydefinition   onlyoccuronceperyeararenotconducted regularlyinthesenseoftherule. ` Morespecifically,itisnotintheregularbusinessofthehomeownersassociationtochecktheaccuracyofthestatementsmadebyresidentswhomightattendandspeakatanannualmeetings.Caselawsupportsexclusionofhearsaystatementswherethereisnocustomorpracticetochecktheveracityofsuchstatements.InU.S.v.Bell,833F.2d272,276(1987),thecourtruled (  ahotelregistrationcardinadmissibleasabusinessrecord,because withouttestimonythatitwasthecustomarybusinesspracticeforthemoteltoverifythenameandaddresstheguestprovidedwithsomesortofidentificationsuchasdriverslicenseorcreditcard,thecardcannotbeadmittedtoprovethatDefendantregisteredatthehotel.SeealsoU.S.v.Lieberman,637F.2d95(1980) 80 (hotelregistrationcardnotadmissibleasabusinessrecord);UnitedStatesv.Nicholson,1991  U.S.App.Lexis19261617(1991)(businessrecordsexception wouldnotcovertheinformationonthereceiptastothepurchasersnameandhisaddress.Thisisbecausethisinformationwassuppliedbyanoutsidertothebusiness,whowasnotintheregularcourseofbusinessofprovidingsuch,andCircuitCityinnowaycheckedtomakesuretheinformationwascorrect.).L #eh((L      A2eh  6  .3  0 `   TheMeetingMinutesShouldBeExcludedBecauseTheyWillCauseJury #& ConfusionAndWasteTime  A5A݌X%P(` %` % Ќ   ` The1995meetingminutesshouldnotbeadmitted,becausetheyareirrelevantunderthecontrollinglaw,andtheywillconfusethejury.In1995,thetimeoftheallegedstatement,Plaintiffdidnotoweanydebtyet,andDefendantH&EManagementwasnotyetthepropertymanagerforDefendantProphecyHomeownersAssociation.TheFDCPArequiresthatforcommunicationswiththirdparties,suchasthroughtheProphecyPostnewsletteranditsHallofShame,theDefendantmusthavehad thepriorconsentoftheconsumergivendirectlytothe p.h'4 '* '  '  debtcollector.15U.S.C.1692c(b).Obviouslythiscouldnothavehappenedin1995.SincenotonlyPlaintiffsname,butalistofnameswaspublished,anystatementisnotadefensetoPlaintiffsadditionalclaimunder15U.S.C.1692d(3)forpublicationofalistofconsumerwhoallegedlyrefusetopaydebts.#XHXXX:#XXXXHԀSimilarly,undertheviolationsofMarylandlawalleged,   CommercialLawArt.14202(5)and(6),thestatementallegedlymadeisnotadefense.#XHXXX\F#XXXXHԀ   Therefore,evenifPlaintiffhadmadethestatementin1995,itisirrelevantundertheapplicablelawofthiscase,andwillonlyconfusethejury,andalsocauseundueprejudicetothePlaintiff.#XHXXXGG#XXXXH     ` Finally,ifadmitted,Plaintiffwouldlikelyberequiredtorebuttheseminuteswithmanyothermeetingminutesoveraperiodofyearstodemonstratetheinherentinaccuracyanduntrustworthinessoftheseminutes.Thisraisesthedangerofwastingmuchtimeincourt.Toavoidbothjuryconfusion,undueprejudice,andwastingtriraltime,theCourtshouldpreventtheiradmissionunderRule5403.#XHXXXdH#XXXXH     CONCLUSION  80 J ` TheCourtshouldnotadmitintoevidenceorallowwitnessestotestifyaboutstatementscontainedintheminutesoftheOct.25,1995AnnualHomeownersAssociationMeeting. `  Respectfullysubmitted, `     h     򀀀 P"H$  `     h     MichaelC.Worsham,Esq. `     h     1916CosnerRoad `     h     ForestHill,Maryland210502210 `     h     (410)5576192K#XHXXXlJ#XXXXH `     h     AttorneyforPlaintiff &) #XHXXXQN#XXXXH@$D CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE ' +  IcertifythatonSeptember9,2002acopyofthisdocumentwashandcarriedtoMarkI.Cantor, ")"- Esq.,ThePhysiciansPavilion,Suite408,10085RedRunBoulevard,OwingsMills,Maryland211174836,(410)5811111,attorneyforDefendants.O `     h     򀀀 ,%2  `     h     MichaelC.Worsham,Esq. `     h   _  1916CosnerRoad `     h     ForestHill,MD210502210 2/*(5 _rQ   p      x  #XHXXX O#