Was the trial court's dismissal of the Appellant's Petition for Emergency Injunctive Relief lawful?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Gary Pfeffer Jr. filed an Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief or Any Other Remedy Available asserting claims for financial relief seeking a Cease and Desist order through Common Law in response to Aggressors’ actions to trespass upon the Appellant’s rights and freedoms. Appellant was ordered to leave his work site and suffered harassment, threats of job loss, and loss of pay. On February 10, 2022, the Circuit Court for Harford County ordered the matter dismissed and denied Appellant’s request for a hearing. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Was the trial court’s dismissal of the Appellant’s Petition for Emergency Injunctive Relief filed as a Common Law case based on “failure to state a claim” lawfully correct when a) this is a one-party only case because there is no controversy between parties and this case has already been adjudicated because notice and opportunity were given the other party and documentation of this was submitted and b) the Proposed Order for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Fee Schedule were submitted to trial court making clear Petitioner’s claims? 2. Did Trial and Appellate Courts err by not fulfilling their lawful duty to grant due process review and judicial remedy to Petitioner (in pro per in Sui juris) in the original jurisdiction at Common Law (as per Maryland Rule 1-501 and Bond v. United-States, supra) or did they process in error according to statutory or policy jurisdiction as if this were a complex case with Petitioner presenting in Pro Se? ii , 3. Was the Appellant denied his right to due process and injunctive relief via the trial court’s dismissal of his case without a hearing and denial of his motion for reconsideration according to Common Law and Article 5a and 19 of the Declaration of Rights from the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Rule 2-311(f) requiring a hearing be granted if requested? 4. Did Appellate Court err in claiming “Petitioner cited no authority prohibiting his employer from requiring him to vaccinate” when in fact extensive author; ities, U.S. Constitutional Amendments, Maryland State Constitutional Articles were referenced by Petitioner and not refuted in any detail by Appellate Court? 5. Did Trial and Appellate Courts ignore substantial documentation and authorities proving Petitioner’s lawful claim and Aggressor’s deliberate violation of rights, default, and violation of Estoppel, having been given ample notice and opportunity and satisfying all legal requirements for defaulting and proving he is in tacit agreement of proceeding without lawful authority to trespass upon Petitioner’s rights and cause substantial harm using coercion, duress, and threats?