The Ocean Pines Charter, Article NINTH, at p. 7, states: “The directors of the

according to Ms. Wheatley, was simply to advise her to notify the police and pursue law

enforcement action. It was only after the Board learned that Mr. Janasek was involved, that the

Board majority took steps to respond directly themselves with their unprecedented “ban.”

Transcript, at pp. 215, 223-225.

E. The Ocean Pines Police – the law enforcement agency charged most directly with

protecting the safety and welfare of the Ocean Pines community – took zero action against Mr.

Janasek, even though Ms. Wheatley submitted a criminal complaint and sought charges in regard

to the matter. Transcript, at p. 215.

F. The Worcester County District Court, in hearing and deciding the Peace Order

proceeding, merely barred Mr. Janasek from having any direct contact with Ms. Janasek (for six

months) and/or being present at her house. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10. As Mr. Daly explained during

the hearing (Tr., at pp. 158-159), based on the terms of the Peace Order as entered by the Court,

Mr. Janasek is otherwise free to be in the same place, even in the same room, as Ms. Wheatley,

including at Ocean Pines facilities and amenities. Plainly, on that basis, the Judge perceived zero

threat to the safety of Ms. Wheatley, posed by Mr. Janasek being in her presence at OPA

amenities.

G. As stated, the Board majority has sought to justify the ban (after the fact) as

purportedly necessary to advance and protect the community’s safety and “family-friendly

culture. ” Transcript, at pp. 161, 172. To be blunt, this is contrived nonsense. Registered sex

offenders live in Ocean Pines. Exhibit A. Published Ocean Pines Police Crime Bulletins

(Exhibit B), including recent ones, report dozens of DUI arrests, domestic violence incidents,

assaults, sex offenses, drug-related incidents, and other criminal matters occurring in Ocean

resulted in inquiry, investigation, or action by the Board, consideration of potential action by the

Board, or any associated special meeting(s), to suspend amenity use in the purported interest of

public safety, advancing “family-friendly culture, ” or for any other reason the Board might

advance under the governing document provisions Defendants rely on herein (after the fact) –

not even, for example, as to use of Ocean Pines parks and swimming pools by registered sex

offenders living in Ocean Pines; or as to use of roads or food and beverage amenities by repeat

DUI offenders. Actual and serious crimes are committed regularly in Ocean Pines, by Ocean

Pines members and residents; and they have never resulted in any “ban” or other action by the

Board, in the name of “community safety, ” purportedly to advance a “family-friendly culture,

or for any other reason. Also, as the Court pointed out through questioning during the hearing,

the Board majority’s 90-day suspension applied only to the OPA’s (three) food and beverage

facilities. Ocean Pines has many other facilities and amenities – parks, tennis and other racquet

2 Exhibit A includes a state government record from the publicly available Maryland Sex Offender Registry. Exhibit B includes criminal bulletins published by the OPA on its website and prepared for publication by the Ocean Pines Police Department. Those criminal bulletins reflect, in pertinent and highlighted part, the numerosity and seriousness of sex crimes, assaults, acts of domestic violence, DUIs, and drug offenses committed over the years by Ocean Pines residents/members. Although these highly probative records (especially in light of Defendants’ claimed “public safety” and “culture” reasons for suspending Plaintiff’s right to use amenities) were not made part of the record during the preliminary injunction hearing, this Honorable Court may take judicial notice thereof; indeed, since Plaintiff hereby asks the Court to take judicial notice of the contents of Exhibits A and B, and does so with supporting information as to source and reliability of those records, Maryland Rule 5-201 mandates that the Court do so. Maryland Rule 5-201 governs judicial notice and provides as follows: (a) Scope of Rule. This Rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Sections (d), (e), and (g) of this Rule do not apply in the Court of Special Appeals or the Court of Appeals. (b) Kinds of Facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (c) When Discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.

(d) When Mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the

necessary information. (e) Opportunity to Be Heard. Upon timely request, a party is entitled to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken. (f)Time of Taking Notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.