Today I want to talk about elections first locally with mine and then more broadly. Remember, if WE THE PEOPLE cannot elect the legislators we want with the platforms we want----then we are not voting or citizens. This is the condition in Maryland and I think in your neck of the woods with neo-cons and neo-liberals openly ignoring election law.
As I have shown from the beginning, Maryland law states that challenges to a Primary election for Governor of Maryland will be expedited as the election is still ongoing. We are now at 60 days from filing and this case has not even received a scheduling hearing. No communication from the court acknowledging the need to expedited tracking and no response from my motion a few weeks ago with 3 trial dates chosen by plaintiff and sent to court and defendants. Those trial dates are now passed and Anthony Brown is in full swing as media identifies him as the Democratic candidate for Governor. This case clearly shows the election is invalid and Brown is not the winner. The court is failing in its duties not only to expedite----but to initiate scheduling hearings. Below you see the breakdown for trial management and what are called TRACKS. I show the two tracks my civil case would follow as 'expedited'.
This is all important because in Maryland the public has no justice system-----it has been totally dismantled. A citizen having no public justice is sent to pro-bono private lawyers who then do not want to handle civil suits against government or officials. Hence the massive fraud and corruption in Maryland's business and government sector. The public literally has to self-represent to move forward any cases of government fraud and corruption and then these cases are ignored or delayed to such a degree as to show malice to due process protections. IT IS DELIBERATE.
I will be moving forward with what is called a mandamus requesting that a higher court make this lower court do its job in scheduling and upholding the expedited nature. To do this I must pay more fees all while none of this should happen. I will also be filing my complaint with the US Justice Department showing them the Federal Court case and asking them to investigate systemic election violations in Maryland's elections. I am required to follow all these paths of relief before moving to Federal Court and then to the Supreme Court.
KEEP IN MIND THAT THE COURT IS CALLED UPON TO SHOW TOLERANCE AND AID TO PEOPLE SELF-REPRESENTING---THEY ARE NOT TO USE TACTICS THAT MAKE IT TOO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO SEEK JUSTICE.
The last article I show is a well-written complaint from an average middle-class Maryland citizen who by now is enraged that he has no avenue for justice. He's not crazy or a hothead----he is not pressing a case that has no merit----he is doing just as I am-----seeking an avenue for justice from a plain case of fraud and corruption. I have no detailed knowledge of his case but he is taking all the right paths to receive justice and he is being ignored. His complaint is long but it highlights another very important issue for Maryland and especially Baltimore. The rights of citizens to go to a Grand Jury to seek investigative relief when the Baltimore State's Attorney refuses to investigate and charge for fraud and corruption. Remember, it is the City or County Attorney and the Maryland Attorney General that should be protecting against fraud and government corruption but these agencies do not even have white collar criminal units and no funding----they have no intention of finding government corruption. That is what this gentleman is trying to do-----stating that citizens must have access to the Grand Jury in order to seek justice when the City Attorney or Attorney General refuses to uphold law.
It is Mr. Michel Pierson that is head of scheduling and case management. I will first send a letter letting him know I feel I will need a mandamus in this case.
W. MICHEL PIERSON, Circuit Administrative Judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court, 8th Judicial Circuit, since December 1, 2013
Message from Judge In-Charge,
Althea M. Handy
The Civil Division of the Court processes and manages all civil non-domestic matters within the Court's jurisdiction. It employs a differentiated case management system for the processing and tracking of all cases. A scheduling order, which establishes relevant procedural milestones and deadlines and pre-trial conference and trial dates, is generated for all cases that are expected to proceed to trial.
This is an ongoing election and from the start I have called for expedited track. I issued a motion calling for suspension of discovery and arbitration to expedite the trial setting and this should place my case on Track 0 setting trial date from 31 to 91 days without having to go through mandamus------Maryland law already states this is expedited:
An Injunction occurs in expedited cases as we see below-----a preliminary injunction states that the election cannot move forward until this case is resolved.....the defendant Anthony Brown cannot advance as 'winner' until plaintiff receives justice in this case. As we know he is moving forward and scheduling for the case has not happened. It is the ongoing general election that the court is required to use as to decision to set the trial date at the earliest possible----31 days. We are now at 60 days with no sign. If the court waits for 90 days----the general election day is upon us. So, it is clear the court should have Tracked this case as '0', placed an injunction on Brown from running until the court case is over, and set the date 31 days from filing or soon after.
There are two types of injunctions: a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (TRO). The purpose of both is to maintain the status quo -- to insure a plaintiff that the defendant will not either make him or herself judgment-proof, or insolvent in some way, or to stop him or her from acting in a harmful way until further judicial proceedings are available. The court uses its discretionary power to balance the defendant's due process rights against the possibility of the defendant becoming judgment-proof, and the immediacy of the threat of harm to the plaintiff Courts can also issue preliminary injunctions to take effect immediately and effective until a decision is made on a permanent injunction, which can stay in effect indefinitely or until certain conditions are met. In many jurisdictions, plaintiffs demanding an injunction are required to post a bond
Civil Track 0 --No Discovery
District Court Appeals, Injunctions, Mechanic’s Liens, Restraining Orders, Administrative Appeals, Mandamus Cases, Declaratory Relief, Forfeiture (money or vehicles), Landlord and Tenant Jury Demands and Appeals, and Sale in Lieu of Partition (excluding divorce)
Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court, to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority—to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing)—and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.
Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.
- Continuing Mandamus: A mandamus issued to a lower authority in general public interest asking the officer or the authority to perform its tasks expeditiously for an unstipulated period of time for preventing miscarriage of justice.
MD Rules, Rule 7-401
RULE 7-401. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) Applicability. The rules in this Chapter govern actions for judicial review of a quasi-judicial order or action of an administrative agency where review is not expressly authorized by law.
Committee note: A writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy for review of a quasi-judicial order or action of an administrative agency only when no other right of appeal is provided by state or local law. See Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md. 372 (1945). Ordinarily, administrative finality is required, but see Prince George's County v. Blumberg, 288 Md, 275 (1980) and Holiday Spas v. Montgomery County, 315 Md. 390 (1989).
Cross reference: For judicial review of an order or action of an administrative agency where judicial review is authorized by statute, see Title 7, Chapter 200 of these Rules.(b) Definition. As used in this Chapter, “administrative agency” means any agency, board, department, district, commission, authority, Commissioner, official, or other unit of the State or of a political subdivision of the State.Committee note: This Rule does not apply to writs of mandamus in aid of appellate jurisdiction.
Source: This Rule is new.CreditsAdopted Nov. 8, 2005, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.(C) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works.MD Rules, Rule 7-401, MD R CIR CT Rule 7-401Current with amendments received through 2/1/14
MD Rules, Rule 7-402RULE 7-402. PROCEDURES
(a) Complaint and Response. An action for a writ of administrative mandamus is commenced by the filing of a complaint, the form, contents, and timing of which shall comply with Rules 7-202 and 7-203. A response to the filing of the complaint shall comply with the provisions of Rule 7-204.
(b) Stay. The filing of the complaint does not stay the order or action of the administrative agency. The court may grant a stay in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7-205.
(c) Discovery. The court may permit discovery, in accordance with the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 400, that the court finds to be appropriate, but only in cases where the party challenging the agency action makes a strong showing of the existence of fraud or extreme circumstances that occurred outside the scope of the administrative record, and a remand to the agency is not a viable alternative.(d) Record. If a record exists, the record shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7-206. If no record exists, the agency shall provide (1) a verified response that fully sets forth the grounds for its decision and (2) any written materials supporting the decision. The court may remand the matter to the agency for further supplementation of materials supporting the decision
e) Memoranda. Memoranda shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7-207.
(f) Hearing. The court may hold a hearing. If a hearing is held, additional evidence in support of or against the agency's decision is not allowed unless permitted by law.
Source: This Rule is new.CreditsAdopted Nov. 8, 2005, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.(C) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works.MD Rules, Rule 7-402, MD R CIR CT Rule 7-402Current with amendments received through 2/1/14
MD Rules, Rule 7-403RULE 7-403. DISPOSITION
The court may issue an order denying the writ of mandamus, or may issue the writ (1) remanding the case for further proceedings, or (2) reversing or modifying the decision if any substantial right of the plaintiff may have been prejudiced because a finding, conclusion, or decision of the agency:
(A) is unconstitutional,
(B) exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency,
(C) results from an unlawful procedure,
(D) is affected by any error of law,
(E) is unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in light of the entire record as submitted,
(F) is arbitrary or capricious, or
(G) is an abuse of its discretion.
Source: This Rule is new.CreditsAdopted Nov. 8, 2005, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.(C) 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works.MD Rules, Rule 7-403, MD R CIR CT Rule 7-403Current with amendments received through 2/1/14
This court case highlights how Baltimore City closes every door to justice in cases of fraud and government corruption. You see as well that a Maryland Assembly person and O'Malley recently passed law that made Baltimore City unique in the State of Maryland in that citizens cannot seek redress as readily with the Grand Jury as in all other Maryland counties. Keep in mind the level of fraud and corruption in Baltimore is tops in the nation and so for the Maryland Assembly to pass a law making Baltimore unique in blocking citizens from using the Grand Jury for investigative relief must be unconstitutional and we hope this gentleman is heading for the State and Federal Supreme
On February 3, 2011, Maryland State Senator Lisa Gladden, who represents Maryland’s 41stDistrict in Baltimore City, submitted legislation to the Maryland General Assembly entitled Maryland Senate Bill 347, Baltimore City –Circuit Court –Grand Jury Investigation.
On April 6, 2011, Maryland Senate Bill 374 was passed by the General Assembly with a vote of 136-0. On May 10, 2011, Governor Martin O’Malley signed MD Senate Bill 374 into law with an enactment date of October 1, 2011.This action restricts the citizen’s right to bring allegations of criminal behavior to have been committed by elected and appointed officials of the City of Baltimore and is effectively being used to obstruct the proper amount of justice that citizens require when officials violate the public trust.
Pursuant to Maryland Rule of Civil Procedure 15-701, plaintiff Brian Charles Vaeth, appearing pro se before this court respectfully requests the Court’s intervention and hereby files this action to compel defendant to present allegations of criminal violations of law against Assistant Baltimore City Solicitor Sabrina Willis to the Grand Jury for an investigation. It is the allegation of plaintiff that Assistant Baltimore City Solicitor Sabrina Willis committed fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice,among others,in a matter before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
[Summary of pleading]-
Due to defendant’s continued failure to act according to the aforementioned provisions of the Baltimore City Code and various Maryland Laws, plaintiff respectfully submits this request to compel the State’s Attorney to present the criminal allegations to a Grand Jury for a full investigation. To give a complete view of the culture of corruption in Baltimore City would far exceed the limits of mere “bullet points” and to trace the effects to their causes would be exhausting for everyone involved. If the volumes of complaints that have been filed against the City of Baltimore were used to gauge the sentiments of the complainants who have suffered serious injury under the arbitrary and capricious culture of the corruption that is the administration of Baltimore City, the sum of them may be demonstrated in the following statement, “No public official is above the law and as a consequence of participating in public corruption and abusing their positions of trust they should be subject to the same laws as the public.” Herein, are presented several propositions of fact and law upon which the court’s consideration can only help the cause of the citizens of Baltimore, to be protected from the unlawful acts alleged against the various elected and appointed officials now pending before you. The high offices of the accused, the manner in which these allegations are presented, the gravity of those allegations, and the importance of the questions presented for your review requires this manner of relief. Criminal misconduct by elected officials has become a recurring issue in Baltimore and the citizens, as well as municipal employees deserve and expect city officials to act in the public’s best interest. Yet contrary to this, we have been subjected to one story after another about corrupt officials using positions of influence to benefit only them, while diminishing the hard work of municipal employees that make substantial contributions to the public health and welfare of the City. There have been countless allegations of this sort of conduct being demonstrated in the media, on postings on the internet, and complaints filed before agencies charged with investigating them, yet these occurrences rarely get the level of attention that is required to uncover the criminal conduct involved. There is a culture of corruption that trumps the rights of the citizen in Baltimore and as a result it has shaken the public’s trust in those government officials.
DECLARATIONOF BRIAN VAETH IN RE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On July 25, 2013, defendant was, and remains to this day, the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City.On July 25, 2013, plaintiff presented a criminal complaint, pursuant to the Maryland Rules of Procedure, alleging charges of perjury, fraud, and obstruction of justice against Assistant Baltimore City Solicitor of Baltimore City Sabrina Willis, to a magistrate for the court who is a commissioner for Pretrial Services of the Department of Corrections for Baltimore City and the State of Maryland That complaint is included herein, demonstrated as Exhibit 1, and plaintiff incorporates it in its entirety, as if fully set forth herein.Upon the filing of the complaint to the magistrate for the court, plaintiff was advised that the criminal information provided by plaintiff would be forwarded to the State’s Attorney for a determination regarding whether or not charges would be brought. Plaintiff received no response from the defendant.On September 21, 2013, plaintiff attempted to approach the foreman of the Grand Jury to present the aforementioned allegations of criminal conduct and to request the opportunity to address the remainder of the panel to obtain an indictment against the Assistant City Solicitor. Plaintiff, along with two other individuals who were there for the same purpose, were informed by a member of the Baltimore City Sheriff’s Office that they were in a restricted area of the building, despite any barrier or notice being in place to prohibit travel by the public in that part of the building, and they were instructed to contact the Honorable Marcella Holland, Administrative Judge for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City or they would be arrested.On September 21, 2013, plaintiff was advised by a staff member of Judge Holland that the only way that plaintiff could deliver the request to approach the Grand Jury would be via United States Postal Service.On September 22, 2013, plaintiff mailed the request to Judge Holland’s office, as instructed by her staff.On January 9, 2014, plaintiff attempted to ascertain the status of his request and was informed that the Honorable Judge retired from serving in the position of Administrative Judge for the Circuit Court of Baltimore City without taking any action on this request.It is plaintiff’s belief that due to defendant’s lack of action, abuse of power is demonstrated by defendant in that defendant institutes criminal prosecution against citizens of Baltimore City without cause and refuses to bring charges against certain government officials for violating the same laws. It is believed that Judge Holland’s failure to act on plaintiff’s request only furthers the defendant’s desire to obstruct justice when it comes to our elected and appointed officials to protect them and not the State, which is made up of the people and not exclusive to those officials.The arbitrary action of defendant prevents citizens from holding their elected and appointed officials accountable in the only manner that they have. MARYLAND SENATE BILL 347 (2011)On February 3, 2011, Maryland State Senator Lisa Gladden, who represents Maryland’s 41stDistrict in Baltimore City, submitted legislation to the Maryland General Assembly entitled Maryland Senate Bill 347, Baltimore City –Circuit Court –Grand Jury Investigation.A synopsis of the legislation is as follows:For the Purpose of altering the law relating to grand jury investigations in Baltimore City by requiring a grand jury to carry out an investigation if directed to by a judge of the circuit court instead of as directed by a judge of the circuit court; and providing for the application of this Act; and generally relating to a grand jury investigation in Baltimore City.Without an explanation, as to why this action before the Maryland General Assembly was necessary, the legislation and the proceedings during which it was enacted, makes it clear that the primary focus of Senate Bill 374 was to remove the rights of citizens to approach the Grand Jury to present criminal causes to them for an investigation. On April 6, 2011, Maryland Senate Bill 374 was passed by the General Assembly with a vote of 136-0. On May 10, 2011, Governor Martin O’Malley signed MD Senate Bill 374 into law with an enactment date of October 1, 2011.This action restricts the citizen’s right to bring allegations of criminal behavior to have been committed by elected and appointed officials of the City of Baltimore and is effectively being used to obstruct the proper amount of justice that citizens require when officials violate the public trust.The State’s Attorneys of Maryland are constitutional officers. See Constitution of Maryland, Art. 5, § 7 (declaring that “[t]here shall be an Attorney for the State in each county and the City of Baltimore, to be styled ‘The State’s Attorney’”).In Murphy v. Yates, 276 Md. 475, 348 A.2d 837 (1975), the Court traced the origin and scope of the powers of the State’s Attorneys and concluded that they have had the constitutional duty since 1851 to prosecute and defend on the part of the State all cases in which the State may be interested, subject only to constitutional limitations. Id. at 485-86, 348 A.2d at 843 (citing Article 5, § 9 of the current Maryland Constitution and the 1851 Maryland Constitution). This constitutional duty was derived from the common law and statutory powers and responsibilities formerly possessed by the Attorney General of Maryland. Id. at 491-92, 348 A.2d at 846. The powers of the State’s Attorneys are codified in Md. Code (1957, 2001 Repl. Vol., 2004 Cum. Supp.), Art. 10 § 34, which provides that the State’s Attorney shall “prosecute and defend, on the part of the State, all cases in which the State may be interested.” See id. at 487, 348 A.2d at 844.In Murphy, the Court held unconstitutional an act creating an office of Special Prosecutor because the General Assembly had no authority to reduce the constitutional powers of the State’s Attorneys and the Attorney General. Id. at 494-95, 348 A.2d at 848. In the wake of Murphy, Article 5, § 9 of the Constitution was amended to provide that “[t]he State’s Attorney shall perform such duties . . . as shall be prescribed by the General Assembly,” rather than “as prescribed by law.” See 1976 Md. Laws, Chap. 545; In reSpecial Investigation No. 244, 296 Md. 80, 87, 459 A.2d 1111, 1114 (1983). This amendment permitted the General Assembly to limit the powers of the State’s Attorneys. See Special Investigation No. 244, 296 Md. at 87, 459 A.2d at 1114 (stating that the amendment enabled the General Assembly to pass legislation creating the State Prosecutor).
State’s Attorneys have broad discretion to determine which criminal cases to prosecute. In Brack v. Wells, 184 Md. 86, 40 A.2d 319 (1944), the Court explained the discretion of the State’s Attorneys as follows:“By the Constitution of Maryland, Article 5, Section 9, the State’s Attorney shall perform such duties as may by law be prescribed. By section 33 of Article 10 of the Code, that officer is required to ‘prosecute and defend, onthe part of the State, all cases in which the State may be interested.’ In such prosecutions of persons accused of crime, he must exercise a sound discretion to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. He must be trusted with broad official discretion to institute and prosecute criminal causes, subject generally to judicial control. The office is one not purely ministerial, but involves the exercise of learning and discretion. As a general rule, whether the State’s Attorney does or does not institute a particular prosecution is a matter which rests in his discretion. Unless that discretion is grossly abused or such duty compelled by statute or there is a clear showing that such duty exists, mandamus will not lie.”In that action brought through the judicial process of Mandamus by William F. Brack against J. Bernard Wells, State's Attorney of Baltimore City, the plaintiff sought to compel the State's Attorney to present certain evidence to the grand jury. Generally, whether state's attorney does or does not institute a particular prosecution is a matter which rests in his discretion. Code 1939, art. 10, § 33; Const. art. 5, § 19. Mandamus does not lie to compel state's attorney to institute a particular prosecution unless discretion of state's attorney in such matter is grossly abused, or such duty is compelled by statute, or there is a clear showing that such duty exists. Code 1939, art. 10, § 33; Const. art. 5, § 9. The inquisitorial powers of the grand jury are broad, full and of a plenary character and are not limited to cases in which there has been a preliminary proceeding before a magistrate or to cases laid before them by the court or state's attorney, and the grand jury may investigate a case which state's attorney, in his discretion, has decided not to present to that body. Code 1939, art. 10, § 33; Const. art. 5, § 9.The Court further instructs that an individual who unsuccessfully had requested the state's attorney to present to grand jury a case involving alleged violation of criminal laws, and who also made a complaint before a magistrate and a warrant was refused, was entitled to an opportunity to present his complaint to the grand jury for whatever action that body desired to take. A citizen desiring to bring to grand jury's attention alleged violations of criminal laws should exhaust his remedy before the magistrate and state's attorney, and if relief cannot be had there, citizen then may ask foreman of grand jury for permission to appear before that body.By the Constitution of Maryland, Article 5, Section 9, the State's Attorney shall perform such duties as may be law be prescribed. By section 33 of Article 10 of the Code, that officer is required to “prosecute and defend, on the part of the State, all cases in which the State may be interested.” In such prosecutions of persons accused of crime, he must exercise a sound discretion to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. He must be trusted with broad official discretion to institute and prosecute criminal causes, subject generally to judicial control. The office is one not purely ministerial, but involves the exercise of learning and discretion 42 American Jurisprudence, p. 245. As a general rule, whether the State's Attorney does or does not institute a particular prosecution is a matter which rests in his discretion. Unless that discretion is grossly abused or such duty compelled by statute or there is a clear showing that such duty exists, mandamus will not lie. 38 Corpus Juris, p. 623; Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 265, 34 P. 707; McLaughlin v. Burroughs, 90 Mich. 311, 51 N.W. 283; State v. Talty, 166 Mo. 529, 66 S.W. 36.Maryland law dictates that the adequate remedy to which a plaintiff is entitled to is that of personally presenting his case to the grand jury of Baltimore City. Whether the plaintiff should without formality present himself at the door of the grand jury room and ask to state his case or whether he should communicate with the foreman of the grand jury and ask for an opportunity to appear before that body is not for this Court to say. The members of the grand jury in their oath prescribed by the common law, in addition to other things, swear that they will diligently inquire and true presentment make of all such matters and things as shall be given them in charge or shall otherwise come to their knowledge. The inquisitorial powers of the grand jury are not limited to cases in which there has been a preliminary proceeding before a magistrate nor to cases laid before them by the Court or State's Attorney. Whatever may be the duties and powers of that important body in other jurisdictions, in Maryland those inquisitorial powers are broad, full and of aplenary character. The Court, speaking through Judge McSherry in the case of Blaney v. State, 74 Md. 153, 156, 21 A. 547, 548, said: ‘However restricted the functions of grand juries may be elsewhere, we holdthat in this state they have plenary inquisitorial powers, and may lawfully themselves, and upon their own motion, originate charges against offenders, though no preliminary proceedings have been had before a magistrate, and though neither the court nor the state's attorney has laid the matter before them. The peace, the government, and the dignity of the state, the well-being of society, and the security of the individual demand that this ancient and important attribute of a grand jury should not be narrowed or interfered with when legitimately exerted.’ In that same case and at the same reference is contained a very pertinent quotation as to the duties of the grand jury in language which cannot be improved upon here: ‘To them is committed the preservation of the peace of the county; the care of bringing to light for examination, trial, and punishment, all violence, outrage, indecency, and terror; everything that may occasion danger, disturbance, or dismay to the citizen. They are watchmen, stationed by the laws to survey the conduct of their fellow-citizens, and inquire where and by whom public authority has been violated or the laws infringed.” These broad inquisitorial powers of the grand jury in this State have been further affirmed in many other cases among which are: In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Md. 616, 621, 137 A. 370; Coblentz v. State, 164 Md. 558, 566, 166 A. 45, 88 A.L.R. 886; Hitzelberger v. State, 173 Md. 435, 440, 196 A.288. Under these broad inquisitorial powers the grand jury may, of course, investigate a case which the State's Attorney, in his discretion, has decided not to present to that body. Upon the proper functioning of the grand jury the lives, security, and property of the people largely depend in the case of In re Lester, Mayor, 1886, 77 Ga. 143, at page 148: ‘It is the right of any citizen or any individual of lawful age to come forward and prosecute for offenses against the state, or when he does not wish to become the prosecutor, he may give information of the fact to the grand jury, or any member of the body, and in either case, it will become their duty to investigate the matter thus communicated to them, or made known to one of them, whose obligation it would be to lay his information before that body.’ And further in the case of State v. Stewart, 45 La.Ann. 1164, 14 So. at page 145, supra: ‘It is complained by the defendant that one S. A. Morgan, the leading state witness, went without summons or request before the grand jury, and gave his own version of the case against defendant, and instituted this prosecution. The witness had the undoubted right to go before the grand jury voluntarily, and disclose his knowledge of the case. As a good citizen, it was his duty to do so. No one can be excused for withholding knowledge of a crime from the public until he is summoned to give his testimony of its commission.’ Hott v. Yarborough, 112 Tex. 179, 245 S.W. 676, supra. It seems, therefore, from the cases herein cited, which might not be all on that subject, that the right of a private person to appear before the grand jury to make a complaint has been affirmed in the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and Georgia and denied in the state of Pennsylvania and also denied in Tennessee where the witness was not under oath. The Illinois Court seems to hold that there is adequate remedy before a magistrate and redress must be first sought there. The Federal decisions are not controlling, as there is a Federal statute on the subject. The broad common law inquisitorial powers of the grand jury never have been curtailed by statute in this state but have been reaffirmed as set out in the opinion in other cases. This Court further said in the case of In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Md. 616,at page 622, 137, A. 370, at page 372: ‘Presentments are accusations of crime made by the grand jury from their own knowledge or from evidence furnished them by witnesses or one or more of their members.’ If the presentation of cases before the grand jury in Baltimore City is controlled entirely by the State's attorney, the question naturally arises as to why there should be a grand jury at all. It has been the custom in many of the counties of this State for private persons to make complaints to the grand juries. In this State no action has been taken to do away with that important body. The decisions of this Court that are aforementioned stresses the importance of that body. STATEMENTIN SUPPORT OFISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Under Maryland Rule 15-501, Injunctions (General Provisions), a Temporary Restraining Order is defined as an injunction granted without opportunity for a full adversary hearing on the propriety of its issuance. This request seeks to restrain the obstruction of justice that is required and is long overdue, which has been withheld both willingly and knowingly by public officials and even officers of the court, in this matter. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court issue a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin defendant and other elected and appointed officials from obstructing the proper pursuit of justice of the citizens of Baltimore and that this action should be immediate, as it is in the public’s interest that their elected political and appointed officials be held accountable.Recognizing that the representative form of government is dependent on the trust of the people in their public officials, the Baltimore City Council enacted The Baltimore City Ethics Law (Article , Baltimore City Code) in 1985 because each citizen of Baltimore City has the right to be assured of the impartial and independent judgment of their public officials.As demonstrated in this pleading and is found throughout many other sources,it is apparent that the citizen cannot rely on the impartiality and independent judgment of these officials and when it rises to the level of allegations of criminal activity, actions like these are not only justified, they are necessary in assisting to meet the judiciary’s ultimate goal, which is to be viewed as being fair and impartial in an effort to promote the importance and integrity of the rule of law in our democratic society.Plaintiff has exhausted all remedies available for initiating criminal proceedings against the Assistant City Solicitor by petitioning a magistrate for Baltimore City, a court commissioner for the Department of Pretrial Services for the Maryland Department of Corrections, by submitting a criminal information report. This request was forwarded to defendant by the court commissioner for his decision. Defendant has not responded to this request. Respectfully Submitted,