Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
- Mayoral Election violations
Questionnaires from Community
- Education Questionnaire
- Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
- Emerging Youth Questionnaire
- Health Care policy for Baltimore
- Environmental Questionnaires
- Livable Baltimore questionnaire
- Labor Questionnnaire
- Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
- Maryland Out of School Time Network
- LBGTQ Questionnaire
- Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
- Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
- Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
- Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
- The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
- Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
- African American Tourism and business questionnaire
- Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
- City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
- Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
- Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
- Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
- Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
- Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
- Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
- AFRO questionnaire
- WBAL Candidate's Survey
- Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
- Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
- Federal Healthcare Reform
- Social Security and Entitlement Reform
- Federal Education Reform
- Government Schedules
State and Local Government
- Maryland Committee Actions
- Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
- Maryland State Department of Education
- Baltimore City School Board
Building Strong Media
Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!)
- "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
- Promethius Radio Project
- Clearing the Fog
- Democracy Now
- Black Agenda Radio
- World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
- Daily Censured
- Bill Moyers Journal
- Center for Public Integrity
- Public Radio International
- Baltimore Brew
- Free Press
- Far Left/Socialist Media
- Media with a Third Way Agenda >
- Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
- Progressive Actions
- Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
- Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
- State of the Democratic Party
- Misc 2
- Misc 3
- Misc 4
- Standard of Review
WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
- Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
- Speaking Events
- Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
- Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections
- Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
- Amended Complaint
- Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
- Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
- Injunction and Mandamus
DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint
Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals
- Cover Page ---yellow
- Table of Contents
- Table of Authorities
- Leniency for Pro Se Representation
- Statement of Case
- Questions Presented
- Statement of Facts
- Conclusion/Font and Type Size
- Record Extract
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
- Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
- Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals >
- General Election fraud and recount complaints
Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations
- Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
- Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
- Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
- US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
- Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
- Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
- Viability of a candidate
- Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
- 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
- Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
- Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
- Maryland Elections ---2016
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows
"`that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
Williams v. I.B. Fischer Nev., 999 F.2d 445, 447 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
'Successful motions to dismiss a complaint are a rarity, more the subject of law school civil procedure classes than actual practice. There are several reasons for this. One is the modern doctrine mandating liberal pleadings standards. In effect this means that courts will look not so much at the artfulness in the drafting of the complaint as much as the substance of the purported claim. There is also a corollary to this doctrine: The courts have a general policy of determining actions on the merits' Motions to Dismiss the Complaint by Ron Coleman
The judge in this case used the same reasoning for dismissal as given by Appellees'
lawyers so the Appellant would like to share responses given to the Appellees' Motion To Dismiss E. 25 - 40. The judge states that the Appellant failed to identify laws broken by the Appellees. By claiming censure from a primary election process the court would need to hear the details of these claims in order to reach this decision. Making a sweeping determination that media and 501c3s cannot break election laws by excluding is to fail to take into consideration decades of precedent in this area. The IRS prints every year guidelines for 501c3s in elections with specific directions that state just what the Appellant states in her complaint. This case cannot be dismissed without the opportunity to provide proof that these irregularities exist. Failure to provide any oversight of elections has allowed for extreme overreach of a few in determining what voters are to decide----the viability of a candidate. The arbitrary nature of selection and exclusion; the level of malice towards candidates and their platforms is clear. Precedent overwhelmingly states that the balance between cost of an election event and maintaining free and fair elections requires that the terms of selective exclusion have a solid proof of hardship not just a reason to limit the discussion of issues. Precedent does not allow
complete censure or re-writing of Maryland Board of Election Lists of Candidates.
The relevant constraints are identified in Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local
Educators' Ass'n, 460. U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983):
"In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the State may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view."
University of Maryland used polling data as the reason to exclude the entire time allowing all Republican candidates in the primary participate events while failing to meet any of these guidelines. Why are all Republican candidates in all events? To exclude damages a candidate and undermines the integrity of the race. This case addresses the right of voters to hear all platforms and know all candidates and issues in a race.
The attempts to circumvent these IRS election responsibilities by partnering with public and/or private media corporations for forums and debates is not legitimate. These partnerships are as responsible to IRS and FCC election laws as they are separate. So, for 501c3 organizations equal
Public property that is not a public forum may be reserved by the state
"for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view."
Perry, 460 U.S. at 46, 103 S.Ct. at 955, 74 L.Ed.2d at 805.
Although a speaker may be excluded from a nonpublic forum if he wishes to address a topic not encompassed within the purpose of the forum ... or if he is not a member of the
class of speakers for whose special benefit the forum was created ... the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject.
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508
U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2147, 124 L.Ed.2d 352, 362 (1993)
(quoting Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. at 3451).
"The reasonableness of the Government's restriction of access to a nonpublic forum must be assessed in the light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances."
Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. at 3453, 87 L.Ed.2d at 584.
Even the FEC laws allowing staging organizations the ability to set guidelines for
debate participation state that the structure must not promote or advance one
candidate over another. This law has been used to exclude third party candidates
but not major party primary candidates for no good reason.
The Appellant as a voter reported these irregularities in past elections. Each election it is the candidate with the platform for which Cindy Walsh wants to vote that is completely censured from these primary events just as Cindy Walsh the candidate. This selection is clearly based on platform issues and this is a violation of FCC and IRS election law.
FEC 110.13 - Candidate debates. (b);11 CFR 114.4(f) (1)(2) (c)
Never mind that Brown, Gansler and Mizeur were promoted constantly and ended with 5% and 12% of registered Democratic voters. These three Democratic Primary candidates chosen as public favorites spent tens and hundreds of millions of campaign dollars and received saturated media coverage with the added benefit of gimmicky polling and Cindy Walsh was within striking distance of winner completely censured. These guidelines for exclusion are arbitrary and should never be used unless undo burden requires it.
This complaint is as much about the failure of Maryland Board of Elections and
Maryland Attorney General's office to enforce these election laws so completely
that all organizations in Maryland feel free to openly ignore these laws. The
smaller 501c3 election venues still operate on sending invitations to all candidates
in a race as is required and Cindy Walsh participated in these venues across
Maryland. Since the larger election venues are being allowed to ignore election laws the smaller ones are now moving to circumvent equal opportunity participation.
This failure to enforce election laws does change the result of elections as it did in this case brought by Cindy Walsh. It is the leading factor to Maryland having voter turnouts of around 20% in all primary elections App 5, 6, 7. 501c3 organizations must give equal opportunity if they choose to participate in an election or have strong reasons for not doing so. This especially includes forums and debates.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, the First Amendment has "its fullest and most
urgent application" to speech by candidates in a political campaign.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 15 (1974) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401U.S. 265, 272 (1971)).
Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates
are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our
Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such
political expression in order "to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for
the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." Roth
v. United States,354 U.S.476,484(1957).
The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendment
right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to
advocate his own election and the election of other candidates. Indeed, it is of
particular importance that candidates have the unfettered opportunity to make their
views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate and tirelessly to
advocate his own election the candidates' personal qualities and their positions on
vital public interests before choosing among them on election day. Mr.
Justice Brandeis' observation that in our country" public discussion is a political
duty," Whitney v.California,274 U.S.357,375(1927)(concurring opinion),
applies with special force to candidates for public office.
This Appellant states over and again that the requirements for inclusion outside the the four categories:
Congress created four exemptions to the equal time rule:
(1) regularly scheduled newscasts
(2) news interviews shows
(3) documentaries (unless the documentary is about a candidate)
(4) on-the-spot news events McGlynn v. NJ Public Broadcast. Auth. 88 N.J. 112 (1981) 439 A.2d 54
This is what allows FCC private media selective rights in programming during an
election and this is what the case McGlynn v NJ Public Broadcasting Authority
entailed. Special interview shows or media editorials. These cases make clear the difference between the four exemptions to equal time rule and the need of all media whether private or
public to provide all candidates access and opportunity during an election. Nowhere does it allow media to exclude completely mention of candidates in an election race. Public media is left with greater expectation as McGlynn ruling indicates the state public media outlet had satisfied it obligations to opportunity and access and did not need to meet the exempted categories as well. Throughout this ruling it was clear that media still has the opportunity and
access obligations but do not have to meet them under the exempted categories. All Republican candidates
In response to the Appellees' lawyers and the use of Arkansas Educational Television vs Forbes as a reason to ignore the FCC and IRS election laws for media:
First, we need to be clear that AETC vs Forbes App 11, 12 has no bearing on the election
irregularities in Maryland specifically with this case. The institutions using this
ruling as a guideline for their own procedures are doing so wrongfully and the
Appellees' lawyers and the judge are using AETC wrongfully as well. Arkansas
Public Media was trying to exclude a national third party candidate having only a
few percentage of public voters support. The public media outlet argued that it
was too expensive to include that third party candidate and voters in Arkansas had not supported the Independent Party. The Supreme Court ruled in favor in this one case, but legal challenges by third parties since have reversed this one Supreme Court ruling over and over. So, AETC vs Forbes is not relevant to this case and it is marginal even if used for a third party case like the Independent Party. The Supreme Court ruling on AETC vs Forbes was considered
at the time far from mainstream legal standings and indeed after this ruling many
of the same kinds of complaints have been brought with the plaintiff winning the
right of participation. It shocked much of the legal world.
Cindy Walsh's complaint is about excluding a major party candidate in a primary
race. Even Maryland Election laws define what a race entails.
One of the earliest and most frequently quoted statements of this dilemma is that of
Herbert Hoover, when he was Secretary of Commerce. While his Department was
making exploratory attempts to deal with the infant broadcasting industry in the
early 1920's, he testified before a House Committee:
"We cannot allow any single person or group to place themselves in [a] position where they can censor the material which shall be broadcasted to the public, nor do I believe that the Government should ever be placed in the position of censoring this material."
False statements of fact: False statements of fact may generally be punished
if they are knowing lies, though generally not if they are honest mistakes
(even unreasonable mistakes). There are, however, some situations where
even honest mistakes can be punished, and a few where even intentional lies
are protected. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).
As a matter of constitutional law, a charge of criminal conduct, no matter
how remote in time or place, can never be irrelevant to an official's or a
candidate's fitness for purposes of applying the "knowing falsehood or
reckless disregard" rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U. S. 254.
Pp. 401 U. S. 272-277. Justice Powell, in writing the decision of the Court
reasoned that false statements do not "advance society's interest in
'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate'".
Even though he conceded that some false statements were inevitable, that
did not mean that a system of liability meant to deter such behavior was
impermissible. Society had some interest in ensuring that debate covered
truthful matters, as a key element of public participation in a democracy.
"False" is defined in McBride v. People (126 Col. 277, 248 P.2d 725), a 1952 Colorado Supreme Court Decision
Mack, Lamone, Gansler, Brown, and Mizeur all knew the List of Candidates
for the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland 2014. All Appellees
in this case knew False Statements were being published and election laws
violated and they knew this was done deliberately, willfully, and with malice
and knew this damaged the campaign of Cindy Walsh and would change the
results of the primary election for Governor of Maryland. The burden of
proving "actual malice" requires the plaintiff to demonstrate with
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant realized that his statement
was false or that he subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth of his statement.
See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 280;
see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. at 418 U. S. 342; St. Amant v.
Thompson,390 U. S. 727, 390 U. S. 731 (1968); see generally W. Prosser, Law
of Torts 771-772, 821 (4th ed.1971).