The Opportunist: From Gun Board Failure to Family Court Predator

John H. Michel, a Maryland attorney with a problematic history, transitioned from a disgraced gun board member to a controversial figure in family court following his wife’s death. Exploiting vulnerabilities, he gained control over a child’s custody, raising serious concerns about his motives and actions, characterized as reckless opportunism. The consequences impact both public safety and family dynamics.

The Opportunist: From Gun Board Failure to Family Court Predator Read More

Maryland Punishes Parents Harder Than Criminals — And It’s a National Shame

In Maryland, a father can be jailed for fighting false accusations in family court while a teenager who commits an armed carjacking is released the same night. Parents like Jeff Reichert have been punished more severely for wanting to see their children than violent offenders face for terrorizing communities. At times, it seems easier to access your child through prison visitation than through family court. That is not justice—it’s systemic failure, and it demands reform.

Maryland Punishes Parents Harder Than Criminals — And It’s a National Shame Read More

Anne Arundel County Schools Put Girls Last with Bathroom Policy

A sign in Old Mill High School allows students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity, raising concerns about safety and privacy for female students. Critics argue that the policy prioritizes inclusivity at girls’ expense, creating a double standard by only posting signs in girls’ restrooms. Parents are urged to hold AACPS accountable.

Anne Arundel County Schools Put Girls Last with Bathroom Policy Read More

Baltimore’s $62 Million Ghost Gun Verdict: Accountability or Scapegoating?

On August 26, 2025, a Baltimore jury awarded $62 million against Hanover Armory for its role in the city’s ghost gun crisis. Critics argue this verdict shifts focus from systemic issues like poverty and failed policies to scapegoating a legally operating business, potentially harming lawful industries and failing to address the root causes of crime.

Baltimore’s $62 Million Ghost Gun Verdict: Accountability or Scapegoating? Read More

Family Court as Legalized Child Trafficking: The Case of Reichert v. Hornbeck

The Reichert v. Hornbeck case highlights serious issues in America’s family courts, where children are treated as commodities and parental rights as bargaining chips. Jeff Reichert’s struggle illustrates a system that profits from prolonged custody disputes, leading to financial ruin for parents while undermining families. This situation equates to legalized child trafficking.

Family Court as Legalized Child Trafficking: The Case of Reichert v. Hornbeck Read More

Double Dipping Isn’t Just Maryland’s Problem – The National Pattern of Replacing Parents While Still Charging Support

In Maryland, courts permit a “de facto father” to replace the biological parent while still enforcing child support obligations, highlighting a troubling trend in family courts nationwide. This practice benefits states financially, creating a system where parental rights are diminished yet financial obligations persist, often under the guise of the child’s best interests.

Double Dipping Isn’t Just Maryland’s Problem – The National Pattern of Replacing Parents While Still Charging Support Read More

Child Support & “Double Dipping” – The Absurd Economics of Erasing a Parent

The Reichert v. Hornbeck case highlights the absurdity of Maryland’s family court system, where a biological father is forced to pay child support despite being replaced as a parent without due process. This practice not only undermines the child’s best interests but also serves the economic interests of the court and state.

Child Support & “Double Dipping” – The Absurd Economics of Erasing a Parent Read More

Maryland’s Parent-Erasure Pattern: Dangerous Crossroads in Custody Law

The Reichert v. Hornbeck ruling in Anne Arundel County exemplifies a troubling trend in Maryland law, where de facto parentage may undermine fit biological parents’ rights. Judge Morris granted standing to John H. Michel without justification, risking judicial overreach. The General Assembly must intervene to protect fundamental parental rights and clarify legal standards.

Maryland’s Parent-Erasure Pattern: Dangerous Crossroads in Custody Law Read More

Maryland’s New Family Law Loophole: Erasing Parents Without Evidence

In Reichert v. Hornbeck, the Circuit Court has created a dangerous legal precedent by granting John H. Michel parental standing without any legal justification or consideration of the child’s wishes. This ruling threatens the rights of fit biological parents in Maryland, allowing judges to grant parental status to unrelated third parties arbitrarily.

Maryland’s New Family Law Loophole: Erasing Parents Without Evidence Read More