1- Md. Gen. Provision, 1-104, is not authority, nor based
on precedent within the rule of 'stare decisis', nor persuasive
authority. Maryland General Provision 1-l04, by their own rule
states 1-l04 is unconstitutional and does not follow precedent
nor this Court. Since Md. Gen. Prov.1-l04, is neither precedent
or within the rule of 'stare decisis', nor persuasive authority,
are the Order(s) by the Maryland Court of Appeals ,specifically,
in this case, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, or void, since they fail to follow
this Court, or is within the rule of '[s]tare [d]ecisis'?
Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates Court's
to follow historical cases. when making a ruling on a similar
case. The Maryland Court of Appeals, have violated this rule
and doctrine in failing to follow law and precedent.

2- The Maryland Court of Appeals states: "We conclude
that public official immunity is not available with respect
to deliberate act(s) that form the basis for intentional torts,
or act(s) committed with actual malice". Md. Court of Appeals,
In Ashton, 456. Public Official immunity is not applicable
. The lower court stated that Isiah
for intentional torts.Id.
Leggett is not liable for deliberate acts committed by his
County Officials. Did the lower Court err, when it stated
Isiah Leggett is not liable or not personally responsible
for the act(s) committed by County Officials for malicious
and deliberate act(s) against Petitioner Jarvis?

3-Did the lower court err, when it stated that Isiah
Leggett is not negligent for the malicious and deliberate
act(s) committed
by County Officials? .

4-Did the lower Court err, when it failed to transfer
the case out of Montgomery County, when Isiah Leggett's Office
was in that County, as well as County Officials, County Attorney's
and County judges'

Whether the Maryland Court of Appeals erred in holding that Isiah Leggett was not liable for malicious acts by his county officials Michael Subin and Melissa Wiak