Attorney Profile – Martin Palmer

Martin Palmer – Attorney

About

• Admitted to practice before the Maryland Court of Appeals, Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court
• Engaged in the private practice of law in Hagerstown, Maryland
• Founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children
• Advocate for the equal humanity and personhood of the preborn child

Member

• American Bar Association
• Maryland Bar Association
• American Society for Justice
• Maryland Trial Lawyers Association
• Who’s Who in American Law

Undergraduate Studies

• University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

Graduate Studies

• University of Baltimore School of Law Juris Doctorate 1970

Law Cases Handled for Preborn Children

• Hagerstown Reproductive Health Services, et al., v. Chris Allen Fritz, Court of Appeals of Maryland, September Term, 1982, #80
  Represented Chris Fritz in a father’s rights in abortion case; obtained preliminary injunction to prevent his wife from aborting their second child. Dr. Bernard Nathanson testified on behalf of the preborn child.
• Coleman v. Coleman, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1984
  Another father’s rights in abortion case which originated in Rockville, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, DC, in which both Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France, and Dr. Bernard Nathanson of New York City testified as to the equal humanity and personhood of the preborn child. Out of the Coleman case grew a letter written by Mr. Palmer with the assistance of his Administrative Assistant, Melanie Port , to Dr. Bernard Nathanson suggesting the filming by means of real time ultrasound of an actual abortion. A copy of this letter was sent to Dr. Lejeune in Paris , who responded that he was horrified at the prospects of making this film and that he thought it preferable to persuade with the beauties of life rather than its horrors. Mr. Palmer, realizing his mistake in suggesting the movie, sent Dr. Nathanson a copy of Dr. Lejeune’s letter which also included the suggestion that perhaps the film could have some use for medical students. Dr. Nathanson ultimately made the film, however, which became known as the movie “Silent Scream.”
• Davis v. Davis, Circuit Court for Blount County, Tennessee, October 1989, Mary Sue Davis Stove, Petitioner, against Junior Davis and Ray King, M.D., d/b/a Fertility Center of East Tennessee (Third Party Defendant), Supreme Court of the United. States, October Term, 1992 (Tennessee Frozen Human Embryo Case)
  Represented Mary Davis in her appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied. Mr. Palmer first learned of the Davis case in August of 1989 upon reading a front page article in the Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer telling of a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Davis, who were getting divorced in Maryville , Tennessee . All issues in the divorce had been decided. except what to do with seven frozen human embryos conceived during the marriage. The husband had filed for an injunction against his wife implanting the embryos, saying he did not want to be a father against his will. His wife said he already was a father (human embryos). The husband said the embryos were only ‘potential life.’ Mary said they were “lives with potential.”Mr. Palmer telephoned the attorney representing Mary and suggested that. Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris would he the one man in the world possessing the unique expertise required of an expert witness in this unique case to speak to the equal humanity and personhood of the preborn child as a human embryo. Mary’s attorney asked if Dr. Lejeune would possibly agree to come to the United States and testify (in which case he felt the judge would delay the trial to await his arrival). At the request of Mary’s attorney, Mr. Palmer telephoned Dr. Lejeune at his lab in Paris . He agreed to fly to the United States for the case which he recognized to be the ‘second judgment of Solomon.’ Dr. Lejeune opined: “The judgment of Solomon is a 3,000 year old judgment. I did not think it could again occur in human history, but it is reoccurring. If it reoccurs in your lifetime, it is worth the trip. I will come.” Based upon Dr. LeJeune’s testimony, Judge W. Dale Young of the Blount County Tennessee Circuit Court ruled for the first time in the history of U.S. law that the human embryos were “children in vitro” and awarded custody of them to Mary Davis for implantation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed Judge Young. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Palmer represented Mary Davis on appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately denied Mary’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, allowing the reversal of the Tennessee Supreme Court to stand, and Judge Young was required to sign the order destroying the preborn children which he himself had declared to be “children in vitro.” Judge Young later commented that although the case was over, it appeared to him that it was perhaps just beginning, and bearing witness to the prophecy of Judge Young is Dr. Lejeune’s telling of the second judgment of Solomon contained in his book The Concentration Can (the story of the Tennessee frozen human embryo case and Judge Young’s decision). Seminar and moot courts reenact the judgment.
• Mary Doe, preborn child in being as a human embryo v. Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., United. States Supreme Court, October Term, 1995
  Appeal which Mr. Palmer handled to the United States Supreme Court of a case Mr. Palmer originally filed on behalf of the National Foundation for Genetic Research to halt prospective human embryo experimentation recommended hy the National Institutes of Health and the Human Embryo Research Panel convened. during the first term of the Clinton administration. Both the Federal District Court and the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to grant the relief sought, and the United States Supreme Court, itself ultimately declined to grant. Petition for Writ of Certiorari. However, while the case was pending, the National Institutes of Health was stopped from funding human embryo experimentation until the highest court had spoken, and during this delay the United States Congress had time to debate and then act to cut off all funding for human embryo experimentation.