Citizens' Oversight Maryland---Maryland Progressives
CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE----SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Citizens Oversight Maryland.com
  • Home
  • 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
  • Blog
  • Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
  • Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
    • Third Way Think Tanks
  • Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >
      • CFPB Actions
    • Voted to Repeal Glass-Steagall
    • Federal Reserve >
      • Federal Reserve Actions
    • Securities and Exchange Commission >
      • SEC Actions
    • Commodity Futures Trading Commission >
      • CFTC Actions
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency >
      • OCC Actions
    • Office of Treasury/ Inspector General for the Treasury
    • FINRA >
      • FINRA ACTIONS
  • Federal Healthcare Reform
    • Health Care Fraud in the US
    • Health and Human Services Actions
  • Social Security and Entitlement Reform
    • Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP Actions
  • Federal Education Reform
    • Education Advocates
  • Government Schedules
    • Baltimore City Council
    • Maryland State Assembly >
      • Budget and Taxation Committee
    • US Congress
  • State and Local Government
    • Baltimore City Government >
      • City Hall Actions
      • Baltimore City Council >
        • Baltimore City Council Actions
      • Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting >
        • Board of Estimates Actions
    • Governor's Office >
      • Telling the World about O'Malley
    • Lt. Governor Brown
    • Maryland General Assembly Committees >
      • Communications with Maryland Assembly
      • Budget and Taxation Committees >
        • Actions
        • Pension news
      • Finance Committees >
        • Schedule
      • Business Licensing and Regulation
      • Judicial, Rules, and Nominations Committee
      • Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee >
        • Committee Actions
    • Maryland State Attorney General >
      • Open Meetings Act
      • Maryland Courts >
        • Maryland Court System
    • States Attorney - Baltimore's Prosecutor
    • State Comptroller's Office >
      • Maryland Business Tax Reform >
        • Business Tax Reform Issues
  • Maryland Committee Actions
    • Board of Public Works >
      • Public Works Actions
    • Maryland Public Service Commission >
      • Public Meetings
    • Maryland Health Care Commission/Maryland Community Health Resources Commission >
      • MHCC/MCHRC Actions
    • Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
  • Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
    • Baltimore/Maryland Development History
    • Committee Actions
    • Maryland Development Organizations
  • Maryland State Department of Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Public Schools
    • Algebra Project Award
  • Baltimore City School Board
    • Charter Schools >
      • Charter Schools---Performance
      • Charter School Issues
    • Public Schools >
      • Public School Issues
  • Progressive Issues
    • Fair and Balanced Elections
    • Labor Issues
    • Rule of Law Issues >
      • Rule of Law
    • Justice issues 2
    • Justice Issues
    • Progressive Tax Reform Issues >
      • Maryland Tax Reform Issues
      • Baltimore Tax Reform Issues
    • Strong Public Education >
      • Corporate education reform organizations
    • Healthcare for All Issues >
      • Universal Care Bill by state
  • Building Strong Media
    • Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
      • anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
      • "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 >
      • MSNBC
      • Center for Media and Democracy
      • Public Radio and TV >
        • NPR and MPT News
      • TruthOut
  • Progressive Organizations
    • Political Organizations >
      • Progressives United
      • Democracy for America
    • Labor Organizations >
      • United Workers
      • Unite Here Local 7
      • ROC-NY works to build power and win justice
    • Justice Organizations >
      • APC Baltimore
      • Occupy Baltimore
    • Rule of Law Organizations >
      • Bill of Rights Defense Committee
      • National Lawyers Guild
      • National ACLU
    • Tax Reform Organizations
    • Healthcare for All Organizations >
      • Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
      • PNHP Physicians for a National Health Program
      • Healthcare NOW- Maryland
    • Public Education Organizations >
      • Parents Across America
      • Philadelphia Public School Notebook thenotebook.org
      • Chicago Teachers Union/Blog
      • Ed Wize Blog
      • Educators for a Democratic Union
      • Big Education Ape
    • Elections Organizations >
      • League of Women Voters
  • Progressive Actions
    • Labor Actions
    • Justice Actions
    • Tax Reform Actions >
      • Baltimore Tax Actions
      • Maryland Tax Reform Actions
    • Healthcare Actions
    • Public Education Actions
    • Rule of Law Actions >
      • Suing Federal and State government
    • Free and Fair Elections Actions
  • Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
    • 2014 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICES
    • Maryland Assembly/Baltimore
  • Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
    • Complaints - Government and Consumer >
      • Sample Complaints
    • Petitions >
      • Sample Petitions
    • Freedom of Information >
      • Sample Letters
  • State of the Democratic Party
  • Misc
    • WBFF TV
    • WBAL TV
    • WJZ TV
    • WMAR TV
    • WOLB Radio---Radio One
    • The Gazette
    • Baltimore Sun Media Group
  • Misc 2
    • Maryland Public Television
    • WYPR
    • WEAA
    • Maryland Reporter
  • Misc 3
    • University of Maryland
    • Morgan State University
  • Misc 4
    • Baltimore Education Coalition
    • BUILD Baltimore
    • Church of the Great Commission
    • Maryland Democratic Party
    • Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
    • Maryland Municipal League
    • Maryland League of Women Voters
  • Untitled
  • Untitled
  • Standard of Review
  • Untitled
  • 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
          • Argument
          • Conclusion/Font and Type Size
          • Record Extract
          • Appendix
          • Motion for Reconsideration
          • Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
          • Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
      • 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. >
        • Print press accountable to false statement of facts
      • 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 >
        • 501c3 violations of election law-----private capital
      • Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
  • Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
  • Maryland Elections ---2016

August 31st, 2014

8/31/2014

0 Comments

 
I blog during the week and talk about actions and for now, elections on the weekend.

Anyone can do this as these violations effect all voters. We do not want neo-liberals and neo-cons simply dismantling our democracy!


Below you see the making of my Federal Court complaint.  We are ready to file this complaint but are waiting on the Maryland Circuit Court complaint to invalidate the Democratic Primary for election violations so as to know what to include in this Federal case.  These violations are clear, they are real, and they are systemic.  The courts should be ruling in my favor on most of these claims.

I'd like people to think how this race for governor is so important as to move Trans Pacific Trade Pact and the neo-liberal dismantling of our democracy.....and that is what is happening.  Also, you will see my letter to Maryland ACLU asking them to represent me in this complaint in Maryland and they responded they did not have the resources to do this.  Free and Fair Elections is the #1 civil right and liberty we are guaranteed so having the ACLU protecting the laws of going to the polls while not making sure candidates for whom people want to vote are allowed to participate and to allow widespread election violations to openly occur shows we are needing leadership in our justice non-profits.  We already have public justice being dismantled----we need these non-profits working for what their mission statements say they work.  This issue should be front and center for Maryland NAACP but they actually participated in violating election laws and excluded.  Common Cause Maryland is all about shoring up these kinds of fundamental Constitutional rights and yet----no connection to this major election problem.

I will be filing in Federal Court soon.  I should hear from the Circuit Court in the next week as to trial date or dismissal leaving me to appeal and start this case.






CIVIL CLAIM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN BALTIMORE CITY

 
Parties in the complaint: 

Cindy Walsh vs   University of Maryland System---College Park;University of Maryland Carey Law School; University of Baltimore;
Philip Merrill College of Journalism University of Maryland;Bowie State University;Salisbury University;Towson University ;Coppin State University;Universities at Shady Grove;UMBC - University of Maryland Baltimore County;WYPR Public Media;Maryland Public Television;WEAA Public Media; Baltimore Education Coalition BEC;Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development BUILD;Church of the Great Commission;Maryland Democratic Party;The Gazette's Corporate Office;Maryland Reporter.com;WBFF TV;Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church;WBAL TV; WJZ TV; WMAR TV; Baltimore Sun;WOLB  AM Radio- Radio One Baltimore;Baltimore City Public Schools - City Springs School;Maryland League of Women Voters




1.  Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert St
reet                                   Civil Action #  __________________
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Plaintiff

 

                   VS.

 


2.  University of Maryland System
William E. Kirwan- Chancellor
3300 Metzerott Road
Adelphi, MD 20783


  Defendant

 

3.  University of Maryland---College Park
Wallace D. Loh-President
1101 Main Administration Building
College Park, MD 20742-6105

 Defendant


 

4.  University of Maryland Carey Law School     
Phoebe A. Haddon-Dean
500 W. Baltimore Street   Suite 260
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786

Defendant

 

5.  Coppin State University
Mortimer Neufville-President
2500 West North Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21216-3698

 Defendant


 

6.  Philip Merrill College of Journalism University of Maryland
Lucy Dalglish-Dean
1100 Knight Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742


  Defendant



7.  Bowie State University
Mickey L. Burnim, Ph.D., President
14000 Jericho Park Rd
Bowie, MD 20715


  Defendant



8.  Salisbury University
Dr. Janet Dudley-Eshbach-President
1101 Camden Ave.
Salisbury, MD 21801
 

  Defendant

9.  Towson University
Maravene Loeschke- President
8000 York Road
Towson, MD 21252

  Defendant

 

10.  Universities at Shady Grove
Dr. Stewart Edelstein
9630 Gudelsky Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850


 
Defendant


11.  UMBC - University of Maryland Baltimore County
Freeman A. Hrabowski, III - President
1000 Hilltop Circle
Halethorpe, Maryland 21227


  Defendant



12.   University of Baltimore
Robert L. Bogomolny
President
1420 N. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21201

Defendant


13.  Morgan State University
David Wilson
President
1700 East Cold Spring Lane
Baltimore MD 21251

 Defendant

 
14.  Maryland Public Television
Larry D. Unger
President and Chief Executive Officer
11767 Owings Mills Boulevard
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117

 Defendant

 

15.  WYPR Public Media 
Anthony Brandon
President & General Manager
2216 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Defendant

 

16.  WEAA Public Media
Morgan State University--David Wilson-President
1700 E. Coldspring Lane
Baltimore, MD 21251

 Defendant


17.  Baltimore Education Coalition
Yasmene Mumby/ Jimmy Stuart Co-Chairs
Cathedral of the Incarnation
4 East University Parkway
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Defendant

 
18.  Baltimore- Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development
- BUILD
Co-Chairs
Rev. Andrew Foster Connors, Pastor of Brown Memorial Park Avenue Presbyterian Church
Rev. Glenna Huber, Pastor of Church of the Holy Nativity

2439 Maryland Ave
Baltimore, MD 21218

Defendant


19.  Church of the Great Commission

Rev. Joshua Kevin White is Host Pastor.
Collective Empowerment Group, Inc.
President, Rev. Anthony G. Maclin  Board of Directors
5055 Allentown Road
Camp Springs, MD.  20746


 Defendant
 


20.  Maryland Democratic Party
Yvette Lewis, Chair
33 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Defendant



21.  The Gazette's Corporate Office
Douglas Tallman,  Editor
Vanessa Harrington,  Editor
9030 Comprint Court
Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Defendant



22.  Maryland Reporter.com
Len Lazarick
6392 Shadowshape Place
Columbia, MD 21045

Defendant



23.  WBFF TV
Steve Moretz Operations Manager
2000 W. 41st Street
Baltimore, MD 21211

Defendant



24.  Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
Reverend Lester A. McCorn, Senior Pastor
1128 Pennsylvania Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Defendant



25.  Maryland Municipal League  
Scott A. Hancock,  Executive Director
1212 West Street  
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Defendant



26.  WBAL TV
Dan Joerres  -- President & General Manager
3800 Hooper Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21211

Defendant

 

27.  WJZ TV
Gail Bending -- News Director
3725 Malden Ave
Baltimore, MD 21211-1322

Defendant

 

28.  WMAR TV
Kelly Groft --- News Director
6400 York Rd
Baltimore, MD 21212-2117

Defendant

 

29.  Baltimore Sun
Trif Alatzas -- Senior vice president, executive editor
501 N. Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21278

Defendant



30.  WOLB  AM Radio- Radio One Baltimore
Howard Mazer -  General Manager
1705 Whitehead Road
Baltimore, MD 21207


Defendant


31.  Baltimore City Public Schools - City Springs School
Rhonda Richetta - Principal
100 S. Caroline Street
Baltimore, MD  21231 

Defendant



32.  Maryland League of Women Voters
Susan Cochran- President
111 Cathedral Street Suite 201
Annapolis MD 21401

Defendant




Jurisdiction

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing in United States District Court for Maryland in Baltimore because plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore and the election irregularities identified in the Federal Court case include businesses located and operating in Maryland.  The plaintiff claims University of Maryland system is tasked with oversight and accountability of all universities under its umbrella and its Chancellor, the Deans, and Presidents of affiliated universities failed to abide by election law.  Violations include FCC and IRS laws protecting elections.

U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part IV › Chapter 85 › § 1343 28 U.S. Code § 1343 - Civil rights and elective franchise (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)


Statement of Facts and Claims

Cindy Walsh was approved by the Maryland Election Commission as a legally qualified candidate for the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland and was added to the list of candidates for this office on February 25, 2014.  The plaintiff immediately reached out to all election venues, organizations, and media making them aware of this candidate and the desire to participate in all election events during the course of the primary.  The plaintiff responded to invitations to forums across Maryland that this candidate would be participating within the time frame given on the request.  Candidate questionnaires were answered and returned to organizations participating in this primary election.  Cindy Walsh responded when an organization chose not to include and encouraged at several points in the primary to include this candidate as it was required by IRS and FCC election law making the defendants aware of there requirements in election law when they choose to participate in elections.  All of the defendants below violated either FCC, IRS election law or both as they censured the campaign of Cindy Walsh for election events and media coverage throughout the primary election going so far in some cases to create their own list of Democratic candidates for Governor always minus the plaintiff, actually changing the Maryland Election list of candidates to their own view.  The violations vary from failing to invite the plaintiff, to inviting and then refusing participation when the event occurred, to posting election information online or in print, radio, or television that gave a false representation of who was in this primary election.  Media may not have to give equal opportunity to all candidates but it does have to give opportunity and it absolutely does have to post a government document like the Maryland Election list of candidates accurately.  To change a government document is itself illegal and it is defamation of Cindy Walsh as a candidate, harming her professional aspirations with false statements.  A non-profit organization cannot partner with a media outlet that takes the stance of 'selecting' which candidates will appear in forums whether that media outlet is private or public.  The 501c3 laws regarding participating in elections are clear-----take no opposition or do no damage to a candidate in a campaign.  The FCC laws are clear that whereas media may not be required equal opportunity it must allow access to all candidates.  The FCC laws also make clear that media may not discriminate in elections as regards platform in forums and debates.  All issues in an election must be allowed to be represented in order that voters are able to go to the polls educated on the issues and candidates so as to make an intelligent vote.  This is guaranteed to every citizen as regards their civil rights to elections and voting.  The defendants in this lawsuit violated one or many of these requirements and thus the laws themselves.  Since the number of defendants is long, the plaintiff will attach a separate Facts and Claims and Demand for Relief for each defendant.  The plaintiff will prove these violations were systemic, that the people charged with the duties in these organizations and businesses were notified and chose to willfully, deliberately, and with malice ignore Cindy Walsh's calls for relief from these violations.

Please see individual claims and demands for relief for each defendant.

_______________________________________________________________________

Legal basis of complaint:

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing suit in Federal Court because of violations to Federal Election laws carried in FCC and IRS organization requirements when participating in elections.



The following IRS regulated organizations violated:

1.501(c)(3)–1; Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i); Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii); 178 Rev. Rul. 66-256, 1966-2 C.B. 210;  Rev. Rul. 74-574, 1974-2 C.B. 160; Rev. Rul. 78-248, 1978-1 C.B. 154; Rev. Rul. 80-282, 1980-2 C.B.; Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73


The following FCC regulated organizations violated:

Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] (7) (f) (1) (2)

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] (1) (2) (3)  (4)  Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] 
Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] (a) (1) (2) (3) (b) (1) (3) (b) (1) (f)

Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] (1) (2) (3) (4) (b) (c) (d) (e) )  Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.




To save the time and space of including this list in every defendants' claim below you see the common communication by the plaintiff to media and some of the largest 501c3 venues.  Cindy Walsh started with an introduction of my campaign in early March and this list shows the plaintiff tried to seek relief throughout the primary letting these organizations and businesses know the election laws were being broken and how they applied to this election.  The responsibilities these FCC and IRS election law place on the candidate of asking for opportunity and identifying violations as they occurred were met.  These communications show contact with media, 501c3s, and the Maryland Election and Attorney General tasked with upholding election law and providing Cindy Walsh with relief from these violations.  They also show escalating frustration by the plaintiff as the primary election approached with no response from any of these organizations and businesses.



Me To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.comSuzanne.Huettner@TheDailyRecord.com
ecanzian@baltsun.comLen@MarylandReporter.comfwachter@mpt.orgeditors@baltimorebrew.com
jbriggs@bizjournals.comfoxnewstips@foxnews.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com

Mar 7

I include all of the information you'll need in highlighting my policy stances at the same time you speak of the other democratic candidates in the race for governor.  My website has all the policy issues and history of my stances and below is my personal information.  I look forward to interviews and don't forget to carry/link to debates from the Maryland League of Women Voters debate series.

Thanks,

Cindy Walsh
***********************************************************************************



Me

To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.comdan.rodricks@baltsun.com
Suzanne.Huettner@TheDailyRecord.compearlstein@washpost.comecanzian@baltsun.com
Len@MarylandReporter.comfwachter@mpt.orgjbriggs@bizjournals.comfoxnewstips@foxnews.com
Mar 27

cindy Walsh has been a candidate for Governor of Maryland for 30 days now with no mention in the media and I am waiting for time on station programming to share my platform at both the city and state levels.  Please contact me with a date for such an engagement.
Thank you,
Cindy Walsh



RESPONSE TO THE GAZETTE NEWSPAPER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland would love to answer your questions. I sent a copy of my campaign platform and personal information and now will answer questions:


CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND TICKET:

Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert St
Baltimore, Md 21218
cwals99@yahoo.com
 

***************************************************************************************

Me
To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.combienstock@wypr.org
pearlstein@washpost.comLen@MarylandReporter.comfwachter@mpt.org
foxnewstips@foxnews.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com
Apr 13

From:  Cindy Walsh – Governor of Maryland democratic primary race
To:  Susan Goering -  Executive Director of Maryland ACLU
RE:  Election violations are systemic in the Baltimore area  
Cindy Walsh 2522 N Calvert St. Baltimore, Maryland 21218 443-825-7031 

Ms. Goering,   As a primary candidate for Governor of Maryland living in Baltimore City I request the aid of the Maryland ACLU and Maryland Attorney General’s office in addressing what is a systemic violation of election law that results in a crony and corrupt political process affecting all elections in Maryland, but especially the elections tied to Baltimore, the largest voting district in the state.  As a candidate I receive equal protection under law as regards elections in regions all over Maryland but in Baltimore I have not received one opportunity to advance my platform or to gain face and name recognition in this primary race for governor.  This is deliberate and it is why voting in the Baltimore is now down to 20%------there are no candidates getting the benefit of election law for whom voters want to vote. Election are the fundamental principal of a democracy and the US Constitution is unique in the world in stating very strongly that US citizens are the legislators and their rights as citizens who determine law will not be denied.  The US is unique as well in a Constitution that offers equal protections under law to all citizens.  American election laws clearly state that all 501c3/4 organizations will provide equal access to forums and/or debates open to the community.  This includes the political party machines, education institutions from K-college, churches, and private non-profits.  These include as well all public media outlets from public radio and TV to government public access media. I attended a public forum recently given by a private non-profit in Howard County that met every criteria in election law that was run efficiently and openly.  Every candidate in the election from local Howard County offices to governor race candidates were sent an email invitation and allowed to participate with equal time and freedom to share their platform to the public.  I have dates for similar events all over the state of Maryland.  In Baltimore, I am left out of every one.  Baltimore has a system where 501c3/4 either openly violate the election laws requiring invitation to all candidates and open forum to discuss their platforms or there is systematic exclusion with policy meant to circumvent the letter of election law with an institution hosting a forum or debate ‘sponsored’ by a private group of individuals that then select the candidates who are invited to speak to the public.  The election environment in Baltimore are the kinds of elections held in developing world nations having Constitutions not half as clear about protections of citizens’ rights and Rule of Law including law surrounding elections.  When I speak to a state politician whose district includes Baltimore I am told that’s just the way we do it.  Well, Rule of Law does not allow this. I will take one incident already past as a case for the MD ACLU and Maryland Attorney’s office for election violation with the knowledge that I am documenting many such violations to be pursued at the end of this primary session.  Violations of election law taint election results and bring into question the candidate designated as having won an election.  In the world of Rule of Law and Equal Protection, this election process would be NULL AND VOID.  A government cannot allow candidates in major voting districts to be silenced and state that they have free and fair elections.   I am going to start by identifying the Baltimore Education Coalition and its education forum in Baltimore that selectively invited 3 candidates for governor and failed to invite all candidates for governor.  Not surprisingly, the candidates for governor chosen were politicians backing the education reform supported by the BEC.  This is a clear violation of election law and since education policy in Baltimore is a major priority for parents in the city, the failure to allow politicians with education policy stances counter to what most residents of the city do not want represents a deliberate effort to corrupt free and fair elections and voter’s rights to know the candidates they will see on the primary ballot.  When we see a constant reference to the top candidates in the media or as I am known in Baltimore public media-----‘the two other candidates’, you have failed to meet election law requirements that all candidates be given time on public media.    Below we see two separate news journals and their approach to elections.  My campaign received an opportunity for input in many news journals across the state as they sent out a general email to all candidates in primary races.  In Baltimore, the Baltimore Sun which owns most of the news journals outside public media sent the email below and my campaign did not receive this solicitation…..again, the candidates chosen as the ‘top candidates’----which means global corporate and global market----were  included.  Now, election law does not require private media to meet election law, but media in America has always been pressured by government to provide a fair and balanced presentation of public events and especially elections.  I have received no solicitation from Baltimore public media for my campaign platform or time to speak of my issues----a clear violation of election law.  The Gazette, a Washington beltway news journal has a general solicitation policy to meet the spirit of election law:   Read candidates' responses to questions about minimum wage, the economy, taxes, education, Maryland Health Exchange, marijuana and the environment here.  Baltimore Sun’s North Baltimore Patch.   As part of its 2014 election coverage, The Gazette is asking all candidates for some basic information about themselves and to fill out a questionnaire. We will post this information on an election page on our website, www.gazette.net. Responses will not be edited, except for possible libel. We need the following information about you and the answers to the questionnaire below by 5 p.m. on March 21. If you run into any problems as the deadline approaches, please let us know. ********************************************************************  

The last avenue of election coverage comes with government public access media.  Montgomery County has democratic elections and a strong system allowing all candidates access to platforms sharing their views.  Maryland League of Women Voters holds its forum in Montgomery County and there is no such forum by the Baltimore League of Women Voters.  Its webpage links to this Montgomery County event.  Now, as a candidate I am happy to have at least Montgomery County branch adhering to the election laws and one can think that cost of providing this election event may be stopping the Baltimore branch, but again, the one strong source of free and fair elections does not happen in Baltimore, the largest voting district in the state.  Then again there is Montgomery County public access media that sends a general email to all candidates for office in primaries to come to their studio to record a platform stance to be available to the public, in Baltimore our government public access has nothing on the primaries:   The League of Women Voters of Maryland and its affiliated local leagues hope you will participate in this process and use this opportunity to reach out to voters in your district. For many years, voters throughout the state have looked to the League of Women Voters for fair and accurate information about candidates and their positions, as a nonpartisan organization that does not endorse candidates.     If you have already scheduled your appointment for Montgomery Community Media’s Candidate Spotlight, you may disregard this e-mail.  The deadline to reserve your space for Montgomery Community Media’s Candidates’ Spotlight is this Friday, April 11 at 12pm.  To make your appointment, please call  301-424-1730 ext 351 or 313. I have attached the information for your review. We look forward to seeing you at Montgomery Community Media soon! *************************  

I have shared these election violations and deliberate policies made to circumvent free and fair elections for a few election cycles to all the players I have listed above.  I have as well written formal complaints to the FEC and Maryland Election Board and Maryland Attorney General’s office for several years about this systemic problem in Baltimore elections.  I am submitting this letter to each of these agencies tasked with the protection and enforcement of election law once again, this time as the person victimized by this failure to uphold Rule of Law surrounding elections. I listened to Jon Cardin at a primary event embrace the issue of free and fair elections in his run for Maryland Attorney General.  Now, Jon is the head of Maryland Assembly elections committee….and it is no coincidence that his election district reaches into Baltimore.  I asked Jon how systemic election violations in Baltimore and his district over decades holds up to having free and fair elections as a platform stance and by extension running for Maryland Attorney General……the office tasked with enforcing election law.  Remember, the current Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler is not only ignoring Baltimore election violations, he participates in Baltimore forums-------like the Baltimore Education Coalition------that he knows violates election law.  As I inform the Federal Election Commission of all of these violations of election law by politicians tasked to upholding these laws we will see how the Federal government is protecting election law whether under a republican Bush or a neo-liberal Obama.  Remember, Rule of Law and Equal Protection requires laws to be enforced. What the citizens of Maryland need to know is that not only are your rights to free and fair elections being violated by the political appointments to government positions tasked with creating and overseeing election law…and/or candidates allowed to run for office as Public Justice tasked with enforcing law openly breaking the law.…but the American system of government has all your elected officials taking an oath of office to serve in the public interest and protect the US Constitution.  No matter the office being local, state, or Federal.  So, when a Maryland Assembly politician tells me that Election Law is a Federal Law and not his business, I am shouting that the Federal Election Commission would not be derelict in its duties if all of Maryland’s elected officials were shouting about systemic election violations in Baltimore.  It is their business and it is their job.   I thank you for your time,    Cindy Walsh Candidate, Governor of Maryland primary race

Me
To fsmith@wypr.orgnewsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.com

dan.rodricks@baltsun.compearlstein@washpost.comfwachter@mpt.org
foxnewstips@foxnews.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com
May 1

We are in the last two months of the primary elections for 2014 and Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland has been mentioned a few times----never by name and yet I am just 10% away from being tied with the 'front-runners' with several months of media saturation.  Brown 25%, Gansler and Mizeur around 10% with over 54% undecided democratic voters.  Imagine if Cindy Walsh had received a fraction of that media coverage-----there is the platform 54% of democrats seek!  More would come.

Baltimore Sun and its many local news journals have never mentioned Cindy Walsh the candidate for Governor.  WYPR has mentioned her a few times as 'one of two other candidates' but now only act if 3 candidates are in the democratic race.  I searched Maryland Public Television----bastion of free and fair elections in Maryland and not a word.  I am not on the list of Governor's candidates in Baltimore Sun or MPT.  Morgan State and WEAA with Marc Steiner has not mentioned my campaign nor had me on.

Dan Rodricks had a show on the governor's race and all of the callers stated they did not want Brown or Ganser but someone 'like' Mizeur.  That is of course----Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland.

No Baltimore news program taped and aired the Montgomery County forums that had the one candidate from Baltimore included in the forum.  Having a candidate from Baltimore running in this governor's race is never mentioned.  I am 10% away from being a 'front-runner'  and 30% from winning the election and you will not hear it in Maryland media.

So, Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland has a Federal Election Commission complaint and will pursue this in court.  The citizens of Maryland will rebuild free and fair elections in Maryland!

Cindy Walsh



Me
To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.combienstock@wypr.org
pearlstein@washpost.comfwachter@mpt.orgjbriggs@bizjournals.com
foxnewstips@foxnews.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.comsteinershow@gmail.com
May 7

As Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland moves to the FEC for election violations----public media still call 10% of polling making candidates 'front-runners' deserving all media attention!



May 6, 2014

To: Dr. Wallace Loh----- University of Maryland College Park
Dr. Ronald Daniels ---- Johns Hopkins University
Dr. David Wilson ----- Morgan State University
Dr. Mortimer Neufville ----- Coppin State University

From: Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland democratic primary
2522 N Calvert St.
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
443-825-7031

RE: Flagrant violations of Federal Election laws must stop

I am including a note to all of you so all can see how deeply flawed our election system is in Maryland. The citizens of Maryland have had enough and are demanding Rule of Law and respect of election law that allows all candidates in a race to be heard especially when 501c3/4 organizations are involved. Everyone understands the open invitation rule and most organizations in Maryland follow it, but for some reason, the very institutions that once held free and fair elections sacred and served as a political forum for all have chosen to be the source of election capture. I demand that the change happen now as my campaign want a voice in these last several weeks of this primary!

Dr. Loh --------President of University of Maryland College Park

Hello,

This is Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland on the democratic ticket. The one you did not include in this forum. As a 501c3/4 organization you are required to extend an invitation to all candidates in a race and to fail to do so is deliberate intent to damage the campaign of others running. Everyone knows that with a polling of around 10% of democratic voters supporting Gansler and Mizeur we have no 'front-runners' and indeed if my platform was heard the 54% of undecided will have found their candidate----or already have.

The public university is the bedrock of political debate and discussion. If you as President deliberately seek to silence a candidate because of political views you do not support you are failing as head of a public university. My candidacy is real------I am qualified and more capable than any of the candidates you 'selected' to appear. You have a responsibility as an education leader to uphold election law and allow all voices to be heard at all times but especially at election primaries and general elections. I am pursuing the failure of 501c3/4 in Maryland to meet the election law requirement of doing no harm to election campaigns and these events are front and center.

I demand that Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland be one of the participants in these forums. I wish acknowledgement and will be attending Wednesday's forum!

Thank you,

Cindy Walsh





Me

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing election complaints with election commissions and heading to Federal District Court (2)

 

To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.combienstock@wypr.org
Suzanne.Huettner@TheDailyRecord.comsteinershow@gmail.compearlstein@washpost.com
Len@MarylandReporter.comfwachter@mpt.org
foxnewstips@foxnews.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com

May 18

THIS DISCUSSION ON ELECTIONS IS RELEVANT TO ALL STATES IN THE US BECAUSE THIS IS HAPPENING IN YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS.

Who is your pol pledging allegiance to in a corporate state? Maryland is becoming a corporate state.
SEC. 9. Every person elected, or appointed, to any office of profit or trust, under this Constitution, or under the Laws, made pursuant thereto, shall, before he enters upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation: I, _______________, do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of________________, according to the Constitution and Laws of this State, (and, if a Governor, Senator, Member of the House of Delegates, or Judge,) that I will not directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my acting as___________ (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).

I am pleased to be invited and participate in events all across Maryland because people do know election law and follow it. When the larger venues openly flaunt the law----it is a step to break down the process because of course if breaking the law is allowed----no one follows the law....which is the point. If public media and public universities are allowed to break law why should the smaller 501c3/4 follow law? If the Maryland Attorney General tasked with enforcing election law actively participates in a process he knows is breaking the law----

WE NO LONGER HAVE EQUAL PROTECTION AND RULE OF LAW.





Me

The time is now to stop the election rigging in Maryland. Crony party politics and media collusion will end.

 
To fsmith@wypr.orgnewsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.com
dan.rodricks@baltsun.combienstock@wypr.orgSuzanne.Huettner@TheDailyRecord.com
steinershow@gmail.compearlstein@washpost.comLen@MarylandReporter.com
jbriggs@bizjournals.comfwachter@mpt.orgfoxnewstips@foxnews.com
editors@baltimorebrew.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com

Jun 19

 

Hello WYPR and WBAL-TV, et al.

This is Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland on the democratic ticket reminding you once again that media are required to do no damage to any one candidate in an election race -----I listened this week and again heard all four republican candidates listed but only 3 democratic candidates.

Fraser Smith had a reporter on his commentary that actually did some investigative journalism.  She reported that over 630,000 voters had changed their party affiliation to independent this past year and you know why? The citizens of Maryland are fed up with the election rigging and party cronyism in this state.  There will be change.

I look forward to being on all of your media outlets over the coming general election.

Thank you,

Cindy Walsh
0 Comments

August 30th, 2014

8/30/2014

0 Comments

 

As the article stated yesterday---costs for PIP are not going up----there is simply more fraud and corruption lifting the costs as with Medicare and Medicaid.  We are reforming Medicare and Medicaid because the health industry fraud sucked the Trusts dry.  That is what is happening with PIP.  The insurance and health industries are inflation costs by fraud with soaring profits and then claiming PIP needs to be dismantled because it is too costly.....same as Medicare.  So, rather than having the costs of your health care covered with this auto insurance that is required by law---you are now going to be pushed into Medicaid which now mostly covers only preventative health care.  This eliminates yet another outlet for health coverage for the working and middle-class while insurance and health industry profits soar.

Notice the Maryland Assembly is about to end PIP and push Maryland citizens into the most private and profit-driven health system in the nation---Medicaid and preventative care.
  The No Fault auto premiums are no small payment---as many times as people use it the total premium amounts paid often covered costs.

Think that at the same time, your rates go higher and higher for simply being in an accident no matter it wasn't your fault.  That is what deregulating the insurance industry looks like.  It gives them the ability to charge anything they want as laws are on the books requiring you to have some kind of insurance.  Deregulating while making insurance mandatory----watch that disposable income disappear with rate hikes.

Tort-based auto insurance means the ambulance-personal injury lawyers that you see on TV will be the only recourse for paying medical bills and we all know these lawyers pocket most of the money won in the lawsuit with the plaintiff often receiving pennies on the dollar.  So, this will cost health care more and that money will go to lawyers and it will come from taxpayer Medicaid.
So, now the insurance, the health care, and lawyers are getting a cut money that always went to actual care for the patient who will be bankrupt and/or left with little access to care.

THESE ARE NEO-LIBERAL AND NEO-CON POLICIES MOVING ALL MONEY TO CORPORATE PROFIT ON THE BACKS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


All Maryland pols are neo-liberal and neo-cons doing all of the above.

'Rates did go down initially'---before the fraud and corruption sent them soaring.

PIP and No-Fault Auto Insurance Reform


More and more states are abandoning the PIP/No-Fault form of auto insurance in favor of a tort-based set of laws. PIP/No Fault originated in the 1930s as an alternative to the often slow and expensive process of litigating claims. The intent was to speed up the process by shifting the dispute resolution from the courts to the insurance companies. In theory, this was supposed to reduce insurance rates—and rates did go down initially.

By the mid-70s, almost 20 states had some form of no-fault insurance laws. However, over time, rates again rose until "No-Fault" states had higher rates than tort-based states. Beginning in 1980, states started repealing their no-fault laws, and now only nine states (Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota and Utah) have mandatory no-fault laws. Eleven states plus the District of Columbia have hybrid laws (Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia), which are a combination of no-fault and tort systems.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back to tort-based auto insurance. What does this mean for you as a policyholder?

The Good News

Tort-based systems, in theory, give you more choices for medical payments and could save you substantial amounts of money. As an example, depending on the insurance company and coverages selected, those with Colorado car insurance (the most recent state to revert to a tort-based system) could see savings of 10 percent to 30 percent, according to several recent Denver Post articles.

The Choices

PIP, or Personal Injury Protection, is still available (in most cases), should you wish (or need) to pay for it. If you choose to drop this coverage, or if you are already under a tort-based system and don't have this coverage, you can still purchase it with most policies to cover medical expenses. However, coverage will be limited, with a general ceiling of $50,000. This additional coverage, if purchased, will pay expenses incurred by you and your immediate family for injuries resulting from an at-fault auto accident.

Since many drivers are uninsured or underinsured, it is essential that you understand the ramifications of this and make an informed decision about the "Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists" coverage option.

What if?

What happens if you are at fault? Your auto policy should pay the other person's claims. Companies normally negotiate this with each other. If you have insufficient coverage, you may have to go to court—thus displaying the tort aspect of the law. Either you or your health insurance company will pay medical expenses for you and your family once those expenses exceed your auto policy coverages.

What if you are injured by another driver who is at fault? Generally, the two auto insurance companies will work together to determine fault and pay benefits accordingly. This resolves the problem in most cases. If not, or if the amounts paid are insufficient, it may be necessary to resort back to the court system to recover damages.

What if the other driver is at-fault and has no (or inadequate) insurance? Your insurance company normally covers your medical expenses. This protection is provided under the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. If you do not have this coverage, your health insurance usually pays the bills, or you can sue the other party.

Consider the "Deductible Gap"

Generally, under a tort system, medical payments from your own policy are limited. However, in most cases you can choose "additional medical payments" and "Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists" coverage as part of your auto insurance policy.

After years of rising rates, many people may choose to forgo any additional coverages. Adding these coverages creates financial strain if you have high-deductible health insurance, or no health insurance at all. However, there is a potentially huge gap between the amount paid under a tort-based policy and your health insurance deductible. If you have no insurance, the out-of-pocket costs could be staggering. If you are not at fault in the accident, the tort-based system allows you to go to court to receive compensation for these costs, as well as for pain and suffering. But you must do so within a specified time period, and a lot of out-of-pocket expenses may be involved.

What does this mean for health insurance?

As more costs are shifted to the health insurance system, your insurance costs are likely to rise. This also means more people will be without health insurance.

So, what is next?

This is a good time to look at your health insurance to make sure you will have adequate coverage if you drop your PIP/No-Fault coverage. Don't wait until you're in an unpleasant situation to find out if you need more insurance. Be prepared!

_______________________________________________

This is when PIP was working in the interest of citizens and government coffers.  Insurance corporations were earning profits in the millions while the Uninsured auto insurance pool was bursting at the seams with revenue. 

NOW, HOW CAN WE DIVERT THE MONEY PAID INTO THIS FUND FOR HEALTH CARE INTO PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS.

This is when a good program was targeted for fraud and corruption just as with the other Federal programs Medicare and Federal Housing Authority.  Working well for citizens, leaving government coffers flush to handle future events, allowing millions in profits to be earned---BUT THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH.  You see the article below was written in 1993----HERE COMES NEO-LIBERAL CLINTON TO DEREGULATE ALL THAT HE CAN SEE......this is the deregulation that sent all of this surplus in the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund to development corporations like Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.  There's Donald Schaefer funneling money from Transporation Trusts and now MAIF to balance the budget with the public's designated money.  Baltimore Development paraded all kinds of working class and poor out to praise Schaefer who was behind creating Baltimore Development Corporations to funnel all the city's revenue from where it was to go----to where they wanted to send it.

You see the insurance corporations were able to move more and more people into MAIF clearing its rolls of all but the best of drivers.  It went from helping low-income people to subsidizing the costs of these auto insurance corporations.  It was gutted of its funds for
pet projects.  I know Ravens fans love their stadium----but most of the fans are the ones no longer affording auto insurance because of the subsidy.  Note that the Uninsured Motorist insurance had high premiums and should have paid all health care costs when needed.

Remember, this was done through fraud and corruption because this money was not to be fungible.  It needs to come back to this government coffer.



I KNOW---LET'S SEND THIS PIP MONEY TO BUILD THE NEW FOOTBALL FIELD.----M AND T STADIUM AND BALANCE THE BUDGET WITH IT.


MAIF's embarrassment of riches

March 04, 1993|
By Frank A. DeFilippo  Baltimore Sun

THE Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund has a big-time problem. It's rich. So rich, in fact, that other state agencies are itching to get their hot little hands on MAIF's $118 million surplus.

MAIF's been approached about financing a new football stadium in Baltimore. Sen. George W. Della Jr. of Baltimore has sponsored a bill that would shift $50 million of MAIF's money to the general fund. And the Schaefer administration is pilfering $5.4 million from MAIF to help balance the budget.

MAIF is Maryland's state-run insurer of last resort. Any Maryland motorist who's turned down by at least two commercial insurers is automatically MAIFed.

MAIF's rates aren't cheap.
Depending on how bad a motorist's record is, the driver's age and ZIP code, bare-bones coverage can range from $2,559 to a stick-it-to-'em high of $8,677 a year.

That MAIF should be suffering such an embarrassment of riches during a time of budget cuts and deficits is an embarrassment itself. MAIF's $118 million surplus is larger than the $100 million budget shortfall that's being plugged with keno proceeds and other money.

In theory, at least, MAIF is supposed to be non-profit. It was created in 1973 as an antidote to the no-fault insurance craze at the time, kind of an everybody's-fault approach. It's run by a board of trustees and receives no state funds, nor are its assets part of the state treasury. To settle claims, MAIF has the power to attach salaries and seize property.

Over the years, the commercial insurance companies in Maryland have pumped $137 million into MAIF. In effect, good drivers subsidize the insurance of bad drivers. In 1980, MAIF had 30,000 policies. Today it has 135,000.

Much of MAIF's excess is due to changes in the way it does business as well as some shrewd investments. At the same time MAIF has reduced rates over the past three years, it's also lowered awards. MAIF is also now doing all of its work in-house instead of farming it out to free-lance adjusters and collectors.

So it should come as no surprise that the Schaefer administration's pie-slicers approached MAIF about lending the Maryland Stadium Authority $100 million to help finance a new football stadium if Baltimore wins one of two NFL expansion franchises.

There are serious legal questions about whether the Stadium Authority has a funding mechanism for another stadium if the city is awarded a team. Because of a change in the tax code, the use of tax-free bonds to finance stadiums expired at the end of 1990.


The authority argues, though, that it's confident that it can float tax-free bonds because there have been a number of test cases around the country that might allow it.

Moreover, the authority has a bonding limit of $220 million, of which it has already used $170 million to build the new baseball stadium. The authority will pocket another $30 million over three years from lottery proceeds -- on top of the $50 million in bond money left over from the ballyard -- a total of $74 million. But a new topless football stadium will cost about $130 million. Put a lid on it, and it'll cost millions more.

So here's the catch: If the authority can't float tax-free bonds, it will have to go to market with bonds at a much higher interest rate. But before it can go to market with bonds, the authority will need the General Assembly's approval to increase its bonding capacity. This could hoist the total bond package over the spending affordability limit. Allowing this is action the legislature is reluctant to take.

It's for this reason that Gov. William Donald Schaefer is bypassing the spending affordability limit and proposing the use of transportation bonds to finance improvements to Baltimore's Convention Center. Now he's trying to scoot around the spending limit again just in case there's a football team in the city's future.

So drive carefully. Get MAIFed, and the premiums you pay could wind up helping to finance some government geegaw.

Frank A. DeFilippo writes every other Thursday on Maryland politics.

_______________________________________

Here we are just a handful of years later and what the first article stated was in fact true in Maryland----it was the hybrid model Maryland adopted that sent auto insurance money to lawyers and doctors.

Now, they are working to end hybrid and make it all tort. 
People not being able to afford strong health coverage will be preyed upon -----80% of the American people.

Again, another public program that worked fine for the people gutted and dismantled by neo-liberals and neo-cons.  Profit over people every time

Again, we are at the height of Reagan/Clinton's deregulation frenzy.
I wonder if those voters wanting small government wanted to be pushed out of driving because they can no longer afford car insurance? 

Your Public Trusts are being gutted by small government and deregulation.


Why car insurance is so high Law suits: System encourages excessive litigation, raises premiums $130 to $150 a year

.
December 23, 1996  Baltimore Sun

WANT TO LOWER your car-insurance premiums? It could happen -- if legislators in Annapolis stop catering to powerful special interests. More than 60 percent of your premium covers liability. Of that amount, 19 percent could be saved if excessive litigation and fraudulent claims were eliminated.Sadly, state legislators yawned at the problem when a gubernatorial commission sought reforms this year. Too many of them want to please trial lawyers and doctors who vigorously fight for the status quo. These special interests know that lower insurance premiums would come out of their pockets.



_________________________________________



I have talked about AIG spinoff HighStar and its connection with the Ivy League schools like Johns Hopkins.  The subprime mortgage fraudulent loans were insured here with the idea that HighStar would break from AIG with the equity and leave taxpayers to pay 100% on the dollar for the fraudulent Credit Default Swaps.   This article does a good job doing this.  Geithner was the NY FED chief that watched as trillions of dollars of fraud ran through the mortgage industry and did nothing about it----he aided and abetted the massive fraud.  What many people may  not know AIG was more a Life Insurance agency with this HighStar hedge fund sucking all its profits into their bank accounts.  Indeed, the taxpayer bailout of AIG saved the shareholders and those insured by CDS-----but it left an AIG still in business and limping along saying it is healthy when indeed it is not.  AIG Life Insurance advertises on Free TV---you know , where you get life insurance with no checkup.  Like you get a house without having a job. 

SAME THING.  THIS IS THE SUBPRIMING OF LIFE INSURANCE.


They are simply selling as many policies as they can and gaining those monthly payments knowing the coming economic collapse will bankrupt them again.

You are guaranteed to get back what you put into this Life Insurance plan-----OH REALLY????  They will spin that Life Insurance money off as they did with HighStar----probably to HighStar just as the economy is ready to crash.  THEN WE WILL HEAR----WE CAN'T PAY YOUR PREMIUMS BACK!


They will keep doing this with every business sector until you and I get rid of the neo-liberals and neo-cons that have allowed this corporate system to be deregulated with no oversight and accountability.

AIG's Collapse: The Part Nobody Likes to Talk About


Hester Peirce JUN 16, 2014 12:00pm ET

  Earlier this month, American International Group announced the departure of Robert Benmosche, the CEO who led the company through most of its recovery from the financial crisis. Now that the company’s postcrisis chapter is underway, it is worth taking a fresh look at AIG’s downfall and rescue and the implications for reform.

The standard AIG story lays all the blame for the company’s problems on AIG Financial Products—an allegedly unregulated, irresponsible, derivatives dealer hiding within an otherwise solid insurance company.

Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner repeats this traditional line in his recent book, where he recounts how an aggressive “hedge fund-like subsidiary called AIG Financial Products” brought the otherwise healthy insurance company to its knees and ultimately drove it into the Fed’s welcoming arms. Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke made a similar claim when he told Congress how angry he was about AIG’s Financial Products unit—“a hedge fund attached [to] a large and stable insurance company.” And former Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, with typical dramatic flair, explained that AIG’s “subsidiary, AIG Financial Products, operating out of London, brought down the company and nearly toppled the U.S. economy.”

This widely repeated narrative ignores or downplays a critical aspect of AIG’s downfall--the insurer’s securities lending program run for the benefit of its regulated life insurance subsidiaries.

An endnote in Geithner’s tome explains that securities lending was one of “AIG’s major liquidity needs” at the time of its rescue. As I describe in a recent working paper, the company got itself into hot water by lending securities from its life insurance companies’ portfolios. AIG took the cash collateral it received for these short-term loans and—in a departure from insurance industry practice—invested much of it in longer term, illiquid residential mortgage-backed securities.

The securities lending program grew from about $10 billion at the end of 2001 to over $80 billion by the end of 2007. When borrowers stopped renewing the loans, returned their securities, and asking for their cash back, AIG was in a bind—the borrowers’ cash was tied up in reinvestments. 

To meet borrowers’ demands, AIG lent more securities and used the cash collateral from new borrowers to return to existing borrowers. This solution only aggravated the problem. When CEO Robert Willumstad took the reins of AIG in June 2008, the cash drain from securities lending worried him more than AIG Financial Products’ liquidity needs.

Losses from the securities lending program threatened the viability of a number of AIG’s regulated life insurance subsidiaries. To save them from falling below minimum capital requirements, AIG pumped billions of dollars into these units.

Government rescue money was critical to this recapitalization effort. Taxpayer funds were also critical in meeting securities borrowers’ demands for cash. Securities lending counterparties received $43.8 billion in the last quarter of 2008, comparable to $49.6 billion in collateral postings and payments to AIG’s derivatives counterparties.

As consequential as it was to AIG in a time of crisis, nobody likes to tell the securities lending part of the story. First, it doesn’t feed as nicely into the vilification of derivatives that laced crisis narratives and fueled calls for an intense derivatives regulatory regime. Second, the fact that heavily regulated insurance companies got into trouble does not support the call for greater reliance on government regulators. Finally, the rescue of a deeply troubled company is less defensible than the rescue of a healthy insurance company with a troubled derivatives subsidiary.

The Fed’s contention that its loan was adequately secured rested on the supposition that apart from the derivatives unit, AIG was sound. The banks that went in to AIG in September 2008 to assess whether it was worth rescuing concluded that it was not.

As one of the private bankers subsequently explained, “The value of the company in its entirety was not necessarily sufficient to cover the liquidity need that the company had.”


Geithner recounts in his book that—looking for confirmation that a loan to AIG would comply with the legal requirement that “the Fed can only lend against reasonably solid collateral”—he asked Warren Buffett “what he thought about the earning power of AIG’s traditional insurance subsidiaries.” Buffett “was pretty positive about their underlying value, which made [Geithner] more confident that [the Fed] could meet the legal test of being secured to [its] satisfaction.” Buffett’s words of assurance to Geithner weren’t matched by a willingness to put his own money on the line; he refused AIG’s overtures to invest during 2008.

AIG was on the verge of filing for bankruptcy when the Fed stepped in with a better deal for shareholders and creditors. The government subsequently re-rescued the company by devoting additional taxpayer funds to it and softening the lending terms.
 At any of these re-rescue points, the government could instead have let the company go through bankruptcy.

By continuing to prop up AIG, the government shielded the company from the toughest regulator of all—the markets. AIG’s problems were not confined to one unregulated corner; problems also arose in full view of insurance regulators. Rather than assuming the Fed will be better than AIG’s other regulators, we ought to allow the truly superior regulator—the market—to do its job.







_____________________________________________

I spoke yesterday about Life Insurance corporations being the most leveraged and ready to collapse of the insurance industry but guess what is the next in line of threatened insurance corporations-----

THAT'S RIGHT----WORKMAN'S COMP.

They have been allowed to create the same over-leveraged financial status that will have them bankrupt with this coming economic collapse.  No more worker's compensation----

THAT'S HOW YOU GET RID OF THE NEW DEAL SAY NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS!  BLOW THEM UP AS WE DID THE HOUSING MARKET WITH FRAUD AND CORRUPTION!


Coming after more public wealth and no public justice in place to protect or give us recourse....that is what neo-liberals and neo-cons have been building these few decades-----Clinton and Obama taking the people's party and handing it to Wall Street.  Run and vote for labor and justice in all Democratic Primaries!  WE CAN REVERSE THIS!


Rapidly writing new contracts for worker's comp that they could not afford----sound familiar?


IMPLODING ALL OF THE NEW DEAL PROGRAMS TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DURING HARD TIMES.


After Tower Group collapse, lingering concerns about industry’s reserve adequacy

By Adam Cancryn and Saurabh Nair, SNL Financial Posted: May 6, 2014

...................................................

Most of the concern centers on long-tailed commercial lines, particularly workers’ compensation. Claims behavior takes longer to develop than in other sectors, making it more difficult to tell how much money should be set aside even years after a policy is written. Misjudging those reserving needs can be disastrous. SeaBright Holdings Inc. sold in 2013 after reserve charges pressured its operations, and Meadowbrook’s stock dropped nearly 35% from 2012 through 2013 amid several quarters of reserve charges. Tower Group served as the highest-profile example of reserving gone wrong, with its shares losing more than 80% in the six months before it hastily agreed to a sale.

Those companies ran into problems with business written during a softer market between 2007 and 2011, when they grew their books rapidly just as the rates being charged for coverage were at their most inadequate. When claim costs far outstripped the rates they originally charged, the insurers had to quickly build up their loss reserves. Analysts now consider the 2010 accident year one of the worst performers of the cycle, attributing the troubles to low prices and more expensive claims driven by high unemployment.

“The troubles they have now is on stuff they wrote years ago,” Keefe Bruyette & Woods analyst Robert Farnam told SNL.


The 10 workers’ comp insurers with the greatest adverse development in 2013 reported an aggregate $702.6 million in charges. SeaBright and Meadowbrook did not make that list. Tower Group was also absent, as it has not yet submitted all of its filings, but it said in February that its U.S.-taxed subsidiaries recorded $269.2 million of 2013 reserve charges.

Despite the issues, the sector continues to steadily release reserves.
Companies argue that Meadowbrook and Tower Group in particular are isolated situations, driven just as much by reckless growth as the broader industry conditions.
The rest of the industry, they contend, was more prudent in writing business during the soft market, leaving it with less risk and the ability to make up for a few unfavorable accident years with better results from other parts of their books of business. The insurers themselves are also working with much more detailed data than analysts and outside actuaries, they say, allowing them to most accurately evaluate their reserves.

“We look at it on a much more granular basis, and we think we have certainly better information,” W. R. Berkley Corp. Vice President of External Financial Communications Karen Horvath told SNL. Analysts have singled out W.R. Berkley’s reserving position as one of the more concerning in the industry, predicting that its quarterly releases would soon slow. But the company in the first quarter released about $25 million, extending a string of favorable reserve development that dates back to 2007.

Even so, skeptics are not quite willing to accept insurers’ assurances as fact. They worry that companies are already drawing down their reserves for the 2012 and 2013 accident years to supplement earnings or balance out problems in earlier years, without enough data to be sure about how those most recent years will ultimately perform.


“There is just no way a company would know or have the type of certainty under which they would be able to release reserves from some of the most recent business,” said Standard & Poor’s credit analyst Siddhartha Ghosh, who warned that the workers’ comp sector will eventually have to strengthen reserves significantly. “We don’t think that’s a prudent way of addressing reserves.”

He pointed to the previous market cycle, when workers’ comp companies released $12.4 billion of reserves between 1994 and 2000 and then had to scramble to add back $10.6 billion from 2001 to 2005 to make up for their overconfidence.

The sector’s fortunes over the next several years will depend heavily on whether insurers can keep raising prices, analysts said.
The workers’ comp business is still not reliably profitable despite recent pricing actions, and low interest rates continue to pressure investment income. If companies can continue to move their prices considerably and consistently higher over the next couple years, the new premium should be enough to cover costs. If the rate hikes falter and claims from recent policies start piling up, though, the reserving actions that insurers used to buoy earnings for so long could stick them with a deficit that will take years to fill.

“It’s a simple equation,” Ghosh said. “The premium coming in has to be higher than the losses going out.”


________________________________________________
This is a pretty good analysis of the coming bond market crash.  Notice it states that the insurance market will be taken out----Life Insurance the first to go.  See why you are seeing all those Life Insurance ads requiring no medical checkup or anything-----

THEY ARE SIMPLY GOING TO POCKET THOSE MONTHLY PREMIUMS.


This was written in 2013 acting as if the crash would come in 2014 but Bernanke allowed the QE bond bubble machine to continue another year and Yellen is now having to address it as the FED is leveraged out.  The crash will come soon......the FED is simply manipulating the inevitable.

'The most vulnerable are those who can least afford to suffer losses: Seniors who are approaching or in retirement, who have shifted large amounts of their money into fixed income investments.

Your tax-free municipal bonds could tank.

Your annuities and other insurance policies could turn to dust.

Your money invested in bank and insurance company stocks could vanish right before your very eyes'.


All of this is pretty important----yet, we do not hear a thing about it from media, labor or justice, our pols---and all of these national leaders know it is coming.  Their policies created this mess and labor and justice leaders are constantly backing neo-liberals.
  It is important to have Governors and Mayors that will work through this in the people's interest and not corporate interest.

This article is not
hyperbole---it will happen.
I did edit out his marketing ---

The Next Great Bubble about to Collapse

Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D. | Saturday, January 19, 2013 at 7:30 am

130 Senator Orrin Hatch warns that the bubble has the power to “destroy the retirement savings of millions of Americans.”

Famed economist Leonard E. Burman of Syracuse University is warning the U.S. Senate of “disastrous consequences for ourselves and the rest of the world.”

Goldman Sachs … Bank of America … Morgan Stanley … Royal Bank of Scotland … JPMorgan … and Oppenheimer Funds are all warning that it could bankrupt millions of investors.

Congressman Ron Paul says, simply, “this country will be ruined.”

These and many other authorities are talking about the greatest financial bubble in human history:

A bubble that is now more than EIGHT times larger than all the stock exchanges in the United States combined.

A bubble so massive, it is four times larger than the dot-com bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of the 2000s combined.

Now that bubble has begun to burst.

As it implodes, it will launch interest rates into the stratosphere … crush the feeble U.S. economy … destroy major U.S. banks and insurance companies … drive your cost of living through the roof, threaten your standard of living and financial security … and push the U.S. government to the very brink of financial collapse.

But the best defense is a strong offense -- and this crisis will also create windfall profit opportunities for a select group of investors who make the right moves now.

Just a few days ago, Weiss Research analyst Tom Essaye hosted a special online summit meeting to explain exactly how, and I’ll give you a transcript of the meeting in a moment.

In our online summit, he was joined by Safe Money editor Mike Larson and Real Wealth editor Larry Edelson. Here’s the transcript…

The Next Great Bubble about to Collapse
with Tom Essaye, Mike Larson and Larry Edelson — abridged transcript

Tom Essaye: If there’s anyone who knows how to capitalize on bursting bubbles, it’s our firm, Weiss Research.



For nearly a year now, I’ve been sounding the alarm again; NOT for the bursting of a bubble in the tech sector or housing sector … but in a market that is many times larger than all the stock exchanges in the United States COMBINED.


Debt is created in the bond market. That’s where the government goes to borrow money. So do states and local governments. Companies, too.

Borrowers sell bonds — or notes and bills — that guarantee investors a certain rate of interest or “yield” over time.

Since the turn of the century, the U.S. bond market has simply exploded in size — adding $20.7 trillion in new debt.


But now, despite massive new initiatives by the U.S. Federal Reserve, the meteoric rise in prices that characterized the debt market since the turn of the century has sputtered, stalled and is now dead in its tracks.

Millions of investors all over the world — including many of the world’s richest central banks — have started to stampede for the bond market’s exit.

And now, we’re beginning to see the first cracks appearing in this massive bubble.


This chart of the PIMCO Total Return Bond Fund is a perfect picture of the bubble in the bond market — and also the beginning of the crash.

On the left side of the chart, you can see the bubble in the bond market being inflated.

On the right-hand side, you can see how prices just plunged well below their support levels.

And just look at this chart of the iShares Municipal Bond ETF: It just fell off the proverbial cliff, giving back every penny it gained since last July!

But this crash has barely begun. The last few Treasury auctions showed that bidding from foreign central banks is plunging to the lowest level in years.

In addition, U.S. investors are starting to turn bearish on Treasuries. A recent report from a top industry watchdog showed that nearly 20% of all Treasury investors have started to cut back their holdings.

Even Fitch — the normally conservative ratings firm — is warning that a massive bubble has been created in the bond market.

This is huge. Bubbles are like an enormous Ponzi scheme: They collapse when the money stops flowing in.

The moment that happens, it’s over. And it’s beginning to happen right now!

As this bubble — the greatest bubble mankind has ever seen — implodes, the consequences will be devastating for millions of unprepared investors, just like the tech bubble was and just like the housing bubble was.


The most vulnerable are those who can least afford to suffer losses: Seniors who are approaching or in retirement, who have shifted large amounts of their money into fixed income investments.

Your tax-free municipal bonds could tank.

Your annuities and other insurance policies could turn to dust.

Your money invested in bank and insurance company stocks could vanish right before your very eyes.






0 Comments

August 29th, 2014

8/29/2014

0 Comments

 
THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS THE NEXT VEHICLE FOR PREDATORY FRAUD AND GUTTING OF PUBLIC WEALTH. FOR OVER A DECADE CONGRESS HAS LOOSENED POLICY TO ALLOW INSURANCE CORPORATIONS TO OPERATE LIKE BANKS WITH THE MONEY THEY COLLECT.  THEY ARE NOW USING THEM WITH LEVERAGING SCHEMES AND COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE SAFETY OF YOUR FUNDS.  A CRASH IS COMING THAT WILL CAUSE THESE CORPORATIONS TO GO INTO BANKRUPTCY JUST AS AIG INSURANCE DID IN 2008.  PLEASE CONSIDER THAT PLACING YOUR MONEY IN THESE POLICIES WILL RESULT IN THE SAME FRAUD AND USE OF FUNDS AS FODDER AS HAS HAPPENED WITH OUR PENSIONS. 


IFAwebnews.com > National >

P&C industry enjoys portfolio boost from soaring stocks in 2013

P&C industry enjoys portfolio boost from soaring stocks in 2013
By IFAwebnews Staff Posted: May 30, 2014


When Republican pols say they are going to rebuild oversight and accountability they mean they are going to stop all that Food Stamp or pension fraud by employees faking injury.  They do not mean they are going to stop the billions of dollars in corporate fraud from corporate fleecing of consumers and policy holders.  Neo-liberals simply say nothing and let it all continue because their goal is to empty government coffers to restructure for Trans Pacific Trade Pact and global tribunal rule.

I have shown so much data that shows the billions of dollars in corporate fraud and yet this corporation working for the insurance industry states that 90% of insurance fraud is by the consumers or 'non-professional' fraudsters.  That's the 99% for you and me.
  Given that most Americans were pushed into poverty with last decade's massive corporate fraud, no doubt some average Americans are looking for ways to survive the stagnant jobless economy.  Insurance corporations might want to join the fight to get rid of neo-liberals and neo-cons so we can rebuild a domestic economy and citizens have jobs to and consume.

Insurers continue to count the cost of soaring fraud

July 2012  Experian Identity and Fraud


'The vast majority of fraud – more than 90 per cent - is being carried out by consumers or ‘non-professional’ fraudsters, so-called first-party fraud'.

Below you see what is really happening----insurance corporations are creating reasons to get rid of all consumer protections regarding policies that create some level of cost protection.
You will notice that this article refers to pushing the cost of business onto Medicaid and the public as does health care reform.  Yet another move to send most Americans to Medicaid-level of care for all health care.

Is insurance fraud causing auto No-Fault premiums to rise, or are insurance companies price-gouging and trying to hide the truth?


February 20, 2012 by Steven Gursten

Insurance lawyer says truth is not what the insurance industry would like public to believe

There is a lie being spread by the auto No-Fault insurance industry in Michigan --
a lie that our auto insurance premiums are more expensive due to insurance fraud.

This from an insurance industry that is making record-breaking profits– and on the heels of a $1 billion raise. The insurance industry would love to divert attention away from its own profits and find something – anything – to blame the cost of our premiums on.

In a recent press release from the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), the group stated that fraud is “forcing” drivers into paying more for their auto insurance, especially in states like Michigan:

Soaring medical bills, high attorney fees and rampant fraud and abuse are forcing drivers in (several of the nation’s largest states including Michigan) to pay significantly more for auto insurance than they should,” said Paul Blume, senior vice president of state government relations for PCI. “Over the last several years, fraud rings and abuses of the system have cost consumers over $1.6 billion in New York and Florida alone. This amounts to a “fraud tax” on hardworking citizens and the cost trends in these states are unsustainable.”

This fraud and abuse argument couldn’t be farther from the truth. The insurance industry always lumps Michigan into its paint-with-a-broad brush approach. Yet the insurance industry has not produced actual cases of No-Fault insurance fraud in Michigan.


Yes, there have been widely publicized abuses occurring in other states. Yes, I will be the first to say there are some No-Fault insurance lawyers who are too aggressive today, and from time to time I blog about these excesses as well.

But unlike what is happening in some states, in Michigan the insurance companies are making record-breaking profits. In other words, the real cost driver of auto insurance remains an insurance industry that is almost entirely unregulated in what it can charge Michigan drivers who are forced by law to purchase No-Fault insurance.


Want to really curb insurance fraud? I’d start with empowering our insurance commissioner to regulate clearly excessive premiums that insurance companies charge here in Michigan. And then watch the cost of No-Fault insurance premiums plummet.

There is no reason why insurance companies should make more money off the backs of Michigan drivers in this state than they do in any other state in the US.

And fraud goes two ways. If we are really serious about fraud, then why not start tackling the insurance company IME industry of cut-off doctors that find nothing wrong with anyone, and that always deny people their PIP benefits, no matter how serious the injuries?  THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!

There will always be accusations by the insurance industry’s spin doctors, but so far these accusations have been without any factual support. In fact, this report from the National Crime Insurance Bureau puts Michigan at the lower end of questionable claims.

Let’s control excessive insurance industry profits before we pass No-Fault “reform” Meanwhile, this same insurance industry wants to increase profits even more. There is a huge push by the insurance industry for No-Fault “reform” that would eliminate vital insurance protections. In exchange for the suggestion of lower premiums (they refuse to promise), drivers would be able to choose lower amounts of PIP insurance coverage that provide limited No-Fault (PIP) benefits – including levels clearly insufficient if someone is seriously injured in a car accident, truck accident or motorcycle accident.

These auto accident victims would simply be pushed onto Medicaid. And taxpayers will be stuck footing the bill.

So while the deep-pocketed insurance industry is aiming to take away our most important insurance protections – touted by the insurance industry itself as the best No-Fault system in the nation — I’d look to the insurance industry first as the reason why our No-Fault insurance premiums are so expensive.

It’s not because there’s rampant insurance fraud in Michigan. And it is not because of the cost of medical care or No-Fault attorney fees, as the insurance industry spin-doctors would like us to believe.

It is because, again, Michigan is one of the only states that does not allow our insurance commissioner the power to regulate excessive profit-gouging by our own auto insurance companies. To put it simply, our insurance is high because the insurance industry makes it that way, in order to charge more and make higher profits in Michigan than in any other state in the country!


- Steve Gursten is one of the nation’s top insurance attorneys handling auto accident lawsuits. He is head of Michigan Auto Law and president of the Motor Vehicle Trial Lawyers Association. Steve frequently writes about Michigan auto insurance and insurance company abuse, and is available for comment.

Related Information:

Help save Michigan No-Fault: Write your representatives


Charade over “savings” from Michigan No-Fault “reform” has finally stopped

Michigan No-Fault insurance resource center

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (888) 996-0279 for a free consultation with one of our Michigan insurance attorneys.

__________________________________________

This is a great article written last decade by New York's Attorney General Spitzer known to be actually fighting for corporate responsibility at the time.  This shows the degree of fraud and corruption that existed before the economic crash of 2008------everyone knew AIG insurance corporation was loading itself with fraudulent debt----and it shows what exists today as no attempts to change this environment have happened.  In fact, neo-liberals Obama and Congress are making it worse.

So, when insurance corporations paint consumers as driving fraud in order to hide profiteering and fraud by these very corporations-----you have a free-for-all as regards Rule of Law and accountability.  The American people are being required by law to buy these No Fault Insurance plans-----or with Affordable Care Act----the Catastrophic Care policies with rates that just keep rising.  You cannot escape them unless you opt out of driving and/or accessing health care.
......WHICH IS THE POINT.


I actually cried when Spitzer was brought down with prostitution charges.  You can believe these charges came to light to get rid of him although his behavior was unexcusable.  The point now is that this corporate fraud is going to soar with Trans Pacific Trade Pact seeking to end all US Constitutional rights of WE THE PEOPLE.


This is only a partial post of this article----you should check out the whole article.



 
State Attorney Generals And Other Agencies ?Investigate? Insurance Industry "Widespread Fraud And Corruption" Charges

Extent Of Government Agencies Insurance Industry Investigations, Results
[Notes: the "Headlines" lists (below) tell the extent of the investigations for each agency.
"Articles Library" following the headlines lists (farther below) includes the articles full text.]





Introduction - AGs Investigations, Results (various states)

On October 14, 2004,

NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer Announced A Lawsuit Brought Against Marsh & McLennan Companies, "The Nation's Leading Insurance Brokerage Firm", For "Fraud, Bid-rigging and Antitrust Violations".  The following Major Insurance Companies AIG, Hartford, ACE, and Munich American Risk Partners" were named in the Complaint as Participants." AG Spitzer said, "The insurance industry needs to take a long, hard look at itself."  "If the practices identified in our suit are as widespread as they appear to be, then the industry's fundamental business model needs major corrective action and reform." "There is simply no responsible argument for a system that rigs bids, stifles competition and cheats customers," he added, "alleging that it steered unsuspecting clients to insurers with whom it had lucrative payoff agreements, and that the firm solicited rigged bids for insurance contracts."  "The Attorney General's office has uncovered extensive evidence showing that it distorts and corrupts the insurance marketplace and cheats insurance customers." "Marsh, at times, solicited fake bids" "even as it claimed in public statements that its "guiding principle" was to always consider its client's best interests." The "immediate victims of the illegal practices were ... mainly large corporations seeking property and casualty coverage, but also small and mid-size businesses, municipal governments, school districts and some individuals." In a press conference, Attorney General Spitzer indicated, as referenced by the title of his Press Release, "Investigation Reveals Widespread Corruption In Insurance Industry", that as the investigation continues, it could proceed further into property & casualty, expand into auto, health and other areas of insurance. "Trust me," Spitzer said upon filing his complaint against Marsh, "this is Day 1".





Introduction - National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and States Departments Of Insurance (DOIs) Investigations, Results (if any)
[also includes other related state and federal agencies as may be applicable].

It Is Proven Extremely Doubtful For Most DOIs, If Any, To Investigate Or Take Real Criminal Action Against Insurance Companies That They Are Supposed To Regulate, Which Historically They Have Had A Warm And Cozy Relationship With For 150 Years. If Ever, There Has To Be A Legal Action Taken And/Or Criminal Conviction First Before DOIs Might Take Any Meaningful Action, If Any, ... And That Is To Justify Their Reason For Being. Instead state DOIs' do occasional "Market Conduct Examinations" which is no more than fluff for the Press and to deceptively show state citizens that they are supposedly doing their jobs and to justify their Agency's reason for being and to protect their jobs. EXPECT the usual politically correct announcements of alleged cooperation with state Attorney General Probes, an alleged task force set-up to investigate that we will never hear from again ... and then, even after Attorney General investigations and criminal prosecutions take place, expect no actions from the state DOIs and NAIC. This section nonetheless will cover their deceptions and announcements of their intent to cooperate with state Attorney General probes (esp. as they have all of the state insureds complaints, etc.) even though they won't share these files or information or ultimately will not cooperate with their state Attorney General's investigation ... this section also includes comments, studies and reports from FBIC and outside industry experts.

Unfortunately, based on decades of industry knowledge and experience, one should not expect any meaningful new investigative or prosecutorial results from the NAIC or state DOIs with exception of a token prosecution from a few states DOIs … who know in cases that if they don't prosecute, NY Attorney General Spitzer's office will. Otherwise, expect "the usual deception, cover-up, well disguised lack of 'real' and 'meaningful' cooperation or actions in most if not all cases. Expect their appearances of going through the exercises to satisfy the media, possibly a few meaningless fines from insurance companies which usually each state DOI gets to keep, along with a meaningless company warning or reprimand and/or temporary suspension of an employee (with pay) ... But in the whole grand scheme of things, any actions will be meaningless and have no measurable effect or contribution toward reform and the final results ... in fact expect just the opposite and maintenance of the status quo.

The truth of the matter is the NAIC’s and state DOIs’ historical record of duplicitous rhetoric, consistently staunch, pro-insurer allegiance and secretive anti-consumer positions being well disguised to the contrary for decades as they deceptively continue to portray themselves as champions of the consumer and protectionists of the people. This deception has been well maintained under a strict industry non-transparent cloak of secrecy tightly hidden behind a wall of silence made possible by decades of successful industry legislative lobbying affording them unnecessary special laws and an exemption from federal laws that are exclusive only to the insurance industry.  Regardless, in the interest of objectivity, FBIC will look to report the announcements along with outcomes and results of the NAIC and state DOI investigations and cooperation with state Attorney General offices which NONE are expected ... and then let you be the judge. The investigations are indicated as of this writing and date have just begun ...


The NAIC's and individual states DOIs' past three decades actions and track record strongly indicates a strong biased favoring of insurers versus a near total lack of actions in the protection of consumers from the unscrupulous and unlawful actions by many of the country's largest and most powerful national interstate insurers which are indicated as bad faith insurers. From research, experience and input from the many thousands of Americans, FBIC knows not to expect any meaningful actions or any real cooperation by the NAIC or individual states DOI commissioners and the Departments they oversee. Instead, FBIC expects the usual politically correct press releases from them espousing the same rhetoric and hyperboles in the past, indicating the alleged actions they are supposedly taking to investigate the insurers related criminal activities. According to their alleged usual routine, they will issue these periodic press releases to the media which espouse and give the implication that investigations are underway, active, and ongoing. As usual they hope their press releases will be adequate enough to stave off the persistence of the Press looking for interviews and more specific details. Their preferred modus operandi in between press releases is the exact opposite, that is to run and hide quietly behind their vaulted tightly closed doors and remain as quiet as possible. But when given no choice by a persistent reporter for the Press, their canned routine is to comment only on their last press release, no more and no less.  When cornered and really pressured into a corner for comment, the occasional use of the "we never comment on ongoing investigations" appears to be most suitable.


_______________________________________


Below is a stat that has a broad range.....actually most government watchdogs place the amount at $400 billion a year and rising.  This amount is staggering and it is why neo-liberals and neo-cons are claiming that the Medicare Trusts will be empty in just a decade.  IT WAS LOOTED BY THE HEALTH INDUSTRY AND FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS.  Then, neo-liberals allowed these same health institutions write the Affordable Care Act privatizing all public health and deregulating and making global corporations of our health care.

Please stop allowing neo-liberals to control the Democratic Party.  The people's party is the one that should put protecting public wealth first.



Industry Execs Targeted for Health Fraud
Posted in Health Insurance , Medicaid , Medicare


June 1st, 2011



Health care fraud, especially in the areas of Medicare and Medicaid, is known to be costly. In fact, the government is said to lose between $60 billion and $2 trillion to fraud every year.

We Must Stop the Rampant Fraud in the Health Care Industry

www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/we-must-stop...  

Jun 29, 2009 · What we have seen over the last several decades is the systemic fraud perpetrated by private insurance companies, private drug companies, and private for ...

_______________________________________

I am shouting about this corporate fraud because it is expanding into insurance industries like LIFE INSURANCE.  If you watch free TV the commercials are on Life Insurance corporation after another.  They are using the decline in American people's wealth as the scare tactic behind buying LIFE INSURANCE.....you don't want to leave your family with your expense.  This is the same industry that used AIG to bring down the economy and take millions of people's homes through the subprime mortgage fraud.  We got your house, now come to us to protect you after you die......OH REALLY?????

What they are doing is setting the stage for the exact economic collapse that took AIG into bankruptcy unable to pay its debt and having US taxpayers paying 100% of insurance bets on subprime mortgage loans.  Only this time, it will be Life Insurance.  They are taking all that equity you and I are paying each month and using it to leverage 1,000 times what they can afford and guess what?  AN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IN THE BOND MARKET IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.  They will be taken into bankruptcy with your equity disappearing.

NEO-LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ACTUALLY PASSED LEGISLATION ALLOWING INSURANCE CORPORATIONS TO ACT AS BANKS WITH THE POLICY INSTALLMENTS----LEVERAGING BEYOND WHAT CAN BE COVERED.


ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS.


This is a partial clip of a great look at how the insurance industry is being allowed to become as entwined and leveraged as the financial industry creating the same conditions of too-big-to-fail and propensity to collapse.

Systemic Risk and the U.S. Insurance
Sector

By J. David Cummins and Mary A. Weiss
Temple University




Systemic Risk and the U.S. Insurance Sector

Abstract

This paper examines the potential for the U.S. insurance industry to cause systemic risk events that spill over to other segments of the economy. We examine primary indicators that determine whether institutions are systemically risky as well as contributing factors that exacerbate vulnerability to systemic events. Evaluation of systemic risk is based on a detailed financial analysis of the insurance industry, its role in the economy, and the interconnectedness of insurers. The primary conclusion is that the core activities of the U.S. insurers do not pose systemic risk.
However, life insurers are vulnerable to intra-sector crises because of leverage and liquidity risk; and both life and property-casualty insurers are vulnerable to reinsurance crises arising from counterparty credit exposure. Non-core activities such as derivatives trading have the potential to cause systemic risk, and most global insurance organizations have exposure to derivatives markets. To reduce systemic risk from non-core activities, regulators need to develop better mechanisms for insurance group supervision.



By way of preview, the analysis suggests that the core activities of insurers are not a major source of systemic risk. However, there are several sources of exposure to intra-sector crises, which could potentially spill over into the broader economy if sufficiently severe. For example, a substantial proportion of insurers have very high exposure to one or a few reinsurance counterparties, suggesting the possibility of a reinsurance spiral that could lead to substantial financial deterioration. In the life insurance industry, the high leverage of the life insurers, exposure of surplus to reinsurance defaults, and insurer investment in mortgage backed securities raise concerns about sectoral stability.


MEANWHILE-----

While they are leveraging themselves to the point of collapse-----they have a new revenue source-----SELLING YOUR PERSONAL INSURANCE DATA
....a profit bonanza.  So, too-big-to-fail and emergency bailouts with bankruptcy clearing all that need to pay consumer LIFE INSURANCE policies and VOILA-----you have AIG all over again.

THAT'S WHERE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS ARE TAKING US!


All of that data you send in that is supposed to be confidential?  FORGET ABOUT IT-----IT IS EARNING INSURANCE INDUSTRIES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS A PRODUCT.


How the Insurance Industry Should Leverage Big Data

  Posted February 27, 2014


The Insurance Industry generates vast amounts of data, from legacy systems, call centre dialogues to customer records and it is multiplying rapidly. It is time for the insurance companies to start getting access to all this available data and start analysing it. In this video, Laura Hay – National Leader Insurance KPMG, talks about the massive potential of Big Data, Mobile and Predictive Analytics for the Insurance industry.


0 Comments

August 28th, 2014

8/28/2014

0 Comments

 
Walsh for Governor of Maryland goes to court

I received motions to dismiss from the defendants in the case and now



I am sharing these court case proceedings in the hopes that more and more people will go to court to challenge what is an extremely crony political system in Maryland.  Each voter has the right to do what I am as a candidate because if the candidates you may want to vote for can be excluded as is happening now......you are denied the right to vote.  As WYPR told us-----HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE.  That is what third world countries tell their people.

Please look at the very bottom of this long document to see what legal ruling hinges on my case.  The defendants are going to say that this Arkansas Educational Television vs Forbes gives them the right to exclude what they determine to be candidate who are not viable.  Viability lies with a candidate being qualified.  Viability is determined at the poll by how many people vote for a candidate.  The voters need to know the platforms to make an intelligent vote as law requires.  The Supreme Court ruled against Forbes as a Third Party candidate demanding to be part of a debate on Arkansas Public Television much as I am today but with many differences to my benefit.  The lower court in Arkansas ruled with Forbes protecting his right to opportunity and the ACLU wrote a great defense of that ruling.  It makes clear that the Supreme Court's ruling was far from mainstream law and social acceptance and damages civil rights regarding elections......as it does.  Many same cases taken to court after this Supreme Court ruling reversed it and went with the plaintiff.  So, plenty of law supports Cindy Walsh and very little law supports these Maryland officials in this case.  I should win, but it will take a judge not to agree with dismissal.  Maryland has a history of protecting public officials no matter how corrupt.

Another thing to note is this national case of Forbes is that at the time of this case----1996 it was Bill Clinton as Governor of Arkansas who appointed someone to head public television in Arkansas who denied this access to Forbes just as O'Malley appoints the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Public Television heads that denied me access to the election. The IRS and FCC election law is written just to protect the rights of all citizens to run for office.  It was this ruling that sought to undermine that right and give the media the power to decide who has popular support.



Cindy Walsh Response to Defendant's Motion         to Dismiss

CIVIL CLAIM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT  IN          BALTIMORE


August 28, 2014


Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert Street                                               Civil Action #  24-C-14-004156
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Plaintiff

 
 VS.


 Bobbie Mack et al

Defendants



RESPONSE TO ANTHONY BROWN'S MOTION TO DISMISS




The Plaintiff, Cindy Walsh who serves as her own attorney files this reply in Response to Anthony Brown's 'Motion to Dismiss'.

Plaintiff respectfully opposes the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to MD Rule 2-322(b)(2). To dismiss without trial would be a huge injustice for the plaintiff and without warrant.



In Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

A judge is required to show a little lenience toward a Pro Se litigant: Hayes vs Kerner and children

Non-Lawyer pro se litigants not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer

Many pro se litigants will use this in their pleadings; "Pleadings in this
case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are
to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria, pleadings are
not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th
Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In
Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."

In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less
stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth
Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
"The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the
principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on
the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which
holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."


Defense against dismissal of complaint under Rule 12-B

There is legal sufficiency to show Plaintiff is entitled to relief under his
Complaint. A Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond a doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) also Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct.
1827, 1832 (1989). Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based on a
judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. In applying the
Conley standard, the Court will "accept the truth of the well-pleaded
factual allegations of the Complaint."





Statement of Facts and Claims

The US Constitution and Maryland Constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to free and fair elections.  This includes the rights of citizens to run for elected office and the rights of citizens to go to the polls educated on the issues and candidates in an election race so they may cast an intelligent vote.  The FCC and IRS regulate businesses under their venue and have laws that protect elections and how businesses may participate in elections.  These laws state that if a business decides to participate in elections it must do no damage to one candidate or oppose a candidate and it must educate voters on the issues and candidates in an election race excluding no candidate because of platform.  These laws protect Federal, State, and local elections.  This case does not address a third party candidate; it addresses a candidate in a Democratic Primary and has the protection of major party status.  Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland was systematically excluded from election coverage by Maryland media and election events by major 501c3 organizations and this exclusion was complete in the City of Baltimore. 
The plaintiff will prove that widespread election irregularities changed the results of the Democratic Primary.  It is only the proof that the results were changed and not the degree or with a burden of 'without a doubt' that must be proven in order to invalidate the results of the election.  Candidates Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur acting as 501c3 political committees willfully, deliberately, and with malice excluded Cindy Walsh from planned and executed primary forums damaging her campaign.  They committed violations of False Statements by changing the Maryland Board of Election list of Democratic candidates for Governor with this exclusion.  They violated oaths of office to uphold Maryland and US Constitution especially as regards FCC and IRS election law.  All should be disqualified from the primary election and Anthony Brown disqualified as winner of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.  These violations changed the results of the Democratic Primary election for Governor of Maryland and denied the citizens of Maryland the information on a campaign platform that in all probability included issues valuable to their decision to vote and for whom to vote.    This case claims that Bobbie Mack and Linda Lamone of the Maryland Board of Elections and Doug Gansler of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office willfully and deliberately failed in their duties of oversight and enforcement of Maryland and Federal Election Law and refused to respond to plaintiff’s requests for relief from said election irregularities.  Rather, they allowed them to continue creating the conditions now necessitating the invalidation of the election results in the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.  This case claims as well that Democratic Primary candidates Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur and their campaign committees knowingly violated election law and ignored and participated in election venues that violated election law.


Argument

1. Dismissal due to a legally sufficient cause of action




'The cause of action is often stated in the form of a syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning that begins with a major premise (the applicable Rule of Law), proceeds to a minor premise (the facts that gave rise to the claim), and ends with a conclusion'.





Cindy Walsh begins her complaint with a major premise (the applicable Rule of Law) by stating the source of widespread election irregularities-----failure of media outlets and non-profit organizations to meet FCC and IRS regulations regarding their participation in elections. I identify these regulations and how these businesses failed to meet their obligations followed the body of the complaint with a list of the worst offending organizations.    I include the actual statutes in this motion. The complaint includes a draft of the Federal Court lawsuit that very clearly outlines the major premise of this case .  The statement of laws violated cannot be any clearer and the number of laws violated and the number of venues alleged doing this is pervasive. The evidence will prove the claim that the irregularities changed the results of the election and the actions of the defendants and businesses involved were deliberate, willful, and with extreme malice. To dismiss this case before the plaintiff has a day in court would be a huge injustice.

Cindy Walsh tied the law to the action of candidates as they themselves planned debates and as they participated in forums sponsored by the businesses listed with detailing her being completely censured throughout the Democratic Primary. This is the minor premise (the facts that gave rise to the claim). The conclusion describes what will become the demand for relief in identifying specifically the duty of the individuals named and how they contributed to the irregularities. The trial will have the plaintiff presenting individual cases of violations and individual examples of the defendants' participation in these irregularities. The plaintiff meets all requirements for a sufficient cause of action. The list of Federal Court defendants shows the degree of censure of the plaintiff from what were the most visible forums and media outlets in the race.  This identifies the failure of Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General's office to respond to the plaintiff's requests for relief and shows a pattern of aiding and abetting these election irregularities to the point of making the entire election system rife with violations.  Make no mistake, exclusion of a candidate in a race is opposition and does damage to that candidate.  To have this exclusion systemic throughout the State of Maryland's election structure with plaintiff unable to receive relief from any person charged with upholding these laws shows extreme malice.  There was not only one attempt to correct this problem.  There were several. The City of Baltimore and Prince George's County are the largest voting districts in the state and heavily labor and justice voting demographics and is where Cindy Walsh faced the greatest censure. The complaint does not have to present all of the details to be shared in the course of the trial, it merely has to lay the groundwork for the claim legally and state the relief desired.

Doug Gansler, Anthony Brown, and Heather Mizeur on several occasions acted to create forums for debate that openly excluded Cindy Walsh.  All three watched as the plaintiff was pulled out of forums and the defendant participated in forums he knew were not following FCC and IRS election law by excluding candidates.  If you choose to participate in actions that are known to be illegal you can be alleged guilty as well.  This is not what the defense calls 'just being a candidate in the Democratic Gubernatorial primary'.  When you exclude, you oppose and damage a candidate.  If you participate in an event violating election law you are aiding and abetting and equally guilty.


The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.  The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level.


1.501(c)(3)–1; Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i); Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii); Rev. Rul. 66-256, 1966-2 C.B. 210;Rev. Rul. 74-574, 1974-2 C.B. 160; Rev. Rul. 78-248, 1978-1 C.B. 154; Rev. Rul. 80-282, 1980-2 C.B. 178; Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73


I included the laws pertaining to FCC election requirements for private and non-profit media in my original complaint.  I include the IRS laws in this response referred to above.  It is clear that widespread violation of FCC and IRS election law existed during this Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.  It is clear that the Maryland Board of Elections and the Maryland Attorney General's office allow these violations to exist.  Even calls for relief by a candidate did not prompt response from these agencies tasked with enforcement of Federal and State election law.  There are no grounds for dismissal due to insufficient cause of action.



2. The complaint does not allege any cognizable cause of action against Defendants

a)  There is so much evidence for cause of action in this case. Brown, Mizeur, and Gansler's violations were not simply the act of running for Governor.  Exclusion of1/2 of the participants in a race at the starting line is not accepted in any competition venue and especially elections.  Cindy Walsh identifies Brown, Mizeur, and Gansler in all references to the candidates for Democratic Primary for Governor and as a 501c3 political committee in this original complaint.

Below you see where Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur are themselves planning their own set of debates and forums.  This is a direct violation of 501c3 election law and below that you see a list of election events Brown, Mizeur, and Gansler attended knowing the selective nature of the panels. The defendants are aware of 501c3 election laws as is their obligation as candidate committees so would know that all of the organizations below would be required as well to be inclusive of all candidates.  This was outlined in my original complaint.

'The three major Democratic candidates for governor' it says below. Oh, you mean the candidates that received 5% and/or 12% of the entire registered Democratic vote after months of saturated media coverage?  That makes a major candidate?  Cindy Walsh finished with 1%----within 'striking distance' being completely censured from most major election venues.  The process of claiming public support is so arbitrary and filled with corruption as to fail in free and fair elections even if using polls and public support were allowed to exclude candidates from the rights given by IRS and FCC election laws.  The Maryland Board of Elections with Mackie and Lamone are charged with protecting candidates from just these kinds of election frauds.  The polling in this Democratic race for Governor was used as a marketing tool having no basis in the science of polling.  Using 'Likely voters' in polling that only include the 20% of voters that come to the polls perpetuates the exclusion of the 80% not finding candidates for whom they want to vote.  'Likely voters' creates an arbitrary poll and not a scientific poll.  Leaving Cindy Walsh off the polls and then requiring these poll numbers in order to be 'selected' shows deliberate, willful, and extreme malice in trying to exclude candidates and the plaintiff says it has to do with platform and not viability.


Md. Democratic gubernatorial candidates clash over plan for TV, radio debates

  By John Wagner April 30 The three major Democratic candidates for governor of Maryland publicly feuded Wednesday over how often they would debate, with two rivals threatening to hold a televised encounter in Baltimore without the front-runner, Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown.

The contentious day began with an early morning statement from Brown’s campaign that he had agreed to participate in two televised debates — including one next Wednesday — and one radio debate in advance of the June 24 primary.

Aides to Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and Del. Heather R. Mizeur (Montgomery) said that schedule did not make good on an agreement among the campaigns to participate in three televised debates.




Place, date, and time of violation:

 

Universities at Shady Grove, March 24, 2014 at 12:00pm

Towson University SECU Arena Thursday, April 17  7-8 p.m.

University of Maryland Carey Law School Baltimore, MD Monday, Apr 21 6:45p
 
UMBC - University of Maryland Baltimore County April 21, 2014 Monday 6:45 PM - 9:00 PM

University of Maryland College Park, May 7, 2014 at 7:00pm

Bowie State University May 7, 2014 7:00-8:00 p.m

Coppin State University, May 17, 2014 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.,

Philip Merrill College of Journalism University of Maryland Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:10 PM

Salisbury University Saturday, May 31, 2014

Morgan State University Thursday, March 27th 6:30 - 9:30pm

Maryland Public Television Studio Monday, June 2, 2014 7:00pm

March 22 2014 at the annual Young Democrats of Maryland convention in Annapolis.

Brown, Gansler and Del. Heather R. Mizeur (D-Montgomery) at April 17, 2014 forum, sponsored by the Baltimore branch of the NAACP.

Maryland Municipal League conference in Ocean City June 10, 2014

Baltimore Education Coalition Forum City Springs Elementary/Middle School   March 5, 2014
6:00 pm - 8:30 pm

Baltimore BUILD Governor's Forum St. Matthew’s Catholic Church  May 14th, 7-9 PM

Church of the Great Commission/Collective Empowerment Governor's Forum May 29, 2014 at 7:00pm




b)  Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur were in the news continually as they met to plan 3 debates amongst themselves openly excluding 3 other Democratic candidates as will be shown in the trial. They participated in events over and over where only Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur were included. The media described events as 'The Three Democratic Candidates for Governor'.  Brown is not responsible for that headline but he knows at that point the event excluded 3 other candidates for Governor. There is no defense of ignorance of these irregularities. Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur were often present as Cindy Walsh was openly left unable to participate. If you sit down at a panel and one candidate is being taken off so as to be excluded, you are participating in the violation. It is like a gambler who enters a gambling hall he knows is illegal and then sits down to play. If he plays, he breaks the law. Brown will contend he had no knowledge of exclusion but the saturation of exclusion was complete. No one can plead ignorance in these cases.

Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets in the commission of a discriminatory act.


It is illegal civil violations this complaint claims changed the election results.  When you allow the media/non-profits to ignore FCC/IRS regulations regarding elections and participate.....the behavior distorts the entire election process and denies legal candidates in a race civil rights and justice and voters a chance to get to know all candidates and platforms in an election.



In Maryland, the Constitution states that"the right of the people to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty and the foundation of all free government" and directs the General Assembly to"pass laws necessary for the preservation of the purity of elections."'



"Aiding and abetting"


MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES Section 20-801 - Prohibited acts.

§ 20-801. Prohibited acts.
 
A person may not: 

(1) aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce any person to commit a discriminatory act; 

(2) attempt, directly or indirectly, alone or in concert with others, to commit a discriminatory act; or 

(3) obstruct or prevent any person from complying with this title or any order issued under this title. 
 
[An. Code 1957, art. 49B, § 12A; 2009, ch. 120, § 2.]   



Dowling v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Maryland. June 01, 1856 9 Md. 242 1856 WL 2786
The constitution provides, that the clerk of the Superior Court of Baltimore city shall be subject “to be removed for wilful neglect of duty or other misdemeanor in office, on conviction in a court of law.” The 5th section of the act of 1856, ch. 286, enacts, that a “refusal or neglect” on the part of this clerk to give the bond prescribed by that... ...

But if not giving the bond be a wilful neglect of duty, or misdemeanor in office, then there is a neglect of duty or misdemeanor not covered and provided for by the bond; and that, too, such a neglect of duty as almost to embrace within its scope and consequences every other neglect of which the clerk might be guilty; for if the clerk is himself irresponsible, and has given no bond, there is no pecuniary indemnity against his official misconduct....
...It is not every neglect of duty which will, under the constitution, justify a conviction; it must be a “wilful” neglect....





A legal principle in California that allows the state to prosecute everyone who is "in on" a crime...even if they don't perpetrate the crime directly. 

Example: Alan, Bill and Charlie plan out a bank robbery. Each plays a different role. Alan draws up a diagram of the teller windows and the safes. He gives it to Bill (after which Alan's role is done). Charlie drives Bill to the bank and waits out front in the getaway car. Bill actually goes in and robs the bank. Bill comes running out with the loot, jumps in the car, and Charlie drives the two of them off.

Technically speaking, only Bill did the actual "robbing." But prosecutors could charge all three with bank robbery: Bill as the direct perpetrator, Alan and Charlie as aiders and abettors. In Alan's case, he's liable for the robbery even though he wasn't even present at the crime scene.
That's because California's aiding and abetting laws assign criminal liability to anyone who

  • encourages,

  • facilitates, or

  • aids

in the commission of a crime, no matter how seemingly insignificant that person's role.1 But there must be some type of involvement before you can be convicted. Mere knowledge about the crime or presence at the scene will not suffice


c)  The Maryland Board of Elections list of Democratic Primary candidates for Governor is an official government document.  It is not to be altered in any way.  To present a government document in a way that distorts the original is a False Statement.  When media, 501c3s including political candidates openly choose to distort the list of Democratic Primary candidates for Governor they are misrepresenting/deceiving the public.  Changing an element of a government contract for gain is no different than changing the list of candidates for gain.  When you have public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution falsifying an election document, you have violations of False Statement.  A citizen damaged by these False Statements has the right to claim damage according to Maryland law.  Media outlets presented lists of Democratic candidates for Governor that selected who made that list.  The Maryland Democratic Party website had its list of candidates for Governor with all the candidates except Cindy Walsh including all branch websites across the state.  This is False Statement and the Maryland Board of Elections needs to monitor and hold accountable deliberate, willful, and with extreme malice cases of censuring candidates.

2013 Maryland Code
CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS
§ 10-207 - Liability for false statement in certificate

Universal Citation: MD Corp & Assn Code § 10-207 (2013) §10-207.

(a) If any certificate contains a false statement, one who suffers loss by reliance on the statement may recover damages for the loss from:

(1) Any person who executes the certificate, or causes another to execute it on that person’s behalf, and knew, and any general partner who knew or should have known, the statement to be false at the time the certificate was executed; and

(2) Any general partner who thereafter knows or should have known that any arrangement or other fact described in the certificate has changed, making the statement inaccurate in any material respect, if that general partner had sufficient time to amend or cancel the certificate or to file a petition under § 10-205 of this subtitle before the statement was relied upon.


The plaintiff's amended complaint addressed a missed defendant and it redefined the damage relief from that of official capacity to personal capacity.  This was done because of original lack of awareness of these distinctions.  The defense claims financial claims have not been made on public officials but in fact there have been claims and money awarded for malice.  The plaintiff asks for $500,000 in award due to False Statements and defamation and personal capacity damages with malice.





d)  The Federal Code protects citizens from defamation; the law and legal history included in original complaint.  Broadcasting through media or forums that Cindy Walsh was not a candidate for Governor by exclusion sought to damage her career and financial gains in salary as Governor.  A four year term as Governor would be approximately $500,000.  This is on what the $500,000 relief was based.


Compensatory Damages

The amount of money that will restore her to the position she was in before the defendant’s conduct caused an injury.The single recovery principle requires a court to settle the matter once and for all, by awarding a lump sum for past and future expenses.
 


18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally Current through Pub. L. 113-142, except 128. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;





 The defense finds the Oath of Office irrelevant----it is the center-piece of all duties in office.  If you pass law to preserve the purity of elections then a public official must abide by it.  This is the Constitution...the highest law.  Brown, Gansler, Mizeur, Mackie, and Lamone are not protected by official capacity in this complaint because they individually chose to ignore election law.  The defendants were not acting in an official capacity and the candidates are running as citizens, not elected officials.

The defendants needs to honor these Maryland laws and allow due process in what is a court claim requiring an expedited trial.

Maryland Constitution

1.7 Laws to be passed for preservation of purity of elections. The General Assembly shall pass Laws necessary for the preservation of the purity of Elections.

1.8 Legislature to make provisions for contested elections. The General Assembly, shall make provisions for all cases of contested elections of any of the officers, not herein provided for.

1.9 Every person elected, or appointed, to any office of profit or trust, under this Constitution, or under the Laws, made pursuant thereto, shall, before he enters upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation: I, ..........., do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of .............., according to the Constitution and Laws of this State, (and, if a Governor, Senator, Member of the House of Delegates, or Judge,) that I will not directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my acting as ..........




3.  Plaintiff's Claim is Untimely filed and Must be Dismissed.

The defendant's lawyer wants to make the case that a law protecting voters from any act or omission relating to an election does not refer to the candidates in the election but may only regard the polls.  The reason 80% of voters do not vote is the quality of candidates allowed full participation in these election races.  It makes no difference if your polling rights are protected if you have no one for which to vote. This is why we have the IRS/FCC election laws and it is why election laws say ' the voters must be aware of all issues and candidates so as to cast an intelligent vote.  That is what makes a citizen and voter.  Also, the candidate is a voter.  There is no inconsistency with the election article with this interpretation.  Nothing changes the results of an election more than 80% of voters not coming to the polls.  Precedent in law always starts from the first verdict.

Regarding Md Code Ann. Election Law Statute 12-202(a):

Cindy Walsh was so overwhelmed by the level of irregularities that it was impossible for the plaintiff to address them individually or seek relief from the court as they occurred.  I am sure the court would not want the plaintiff to have handled systemic election irregularities that way.  That is why plaintiff decided to let the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General know and sough relief from those agencies since they are tasked with those duties.  The intent is to address the larger organizational violations in a Federal lawsuit.  This is why the plaintiff did not come to the court when first offended.

The law gave the second option---contesting the election due to irregularities that changed the results of the election and that is what this complaint does.  The law gives 3 days after election is certified.  The timeline of contesting the results of this Democratic Primary election for Governor of Maryland started when the Maryland Board of Elections certified the election on July 10, 2014.  The plaintiff filed the complaint in the Baltimore City Circuit Court on July 11, 2014.  The summons were served July 21, 2014.  The 30 day response period was over on August 22, 2014.  All of this meets every obligation the plaintiff has in processing this case.

The defendant's lawyer seems to refer to the primary election date itself as if that were when the timeline should begin.  The plaintiff cannot move forward until it is clear the Maryland Board of Elections would not invalidate the election by certifying the results.  Why would the court want to become involved until it is known the Elective Body will not respond to the plaintiff's calls for relief?  So, the defendant's mention of July 14, 2014 makes no sense.  The statute clearly gives the choice of 3 days after the certification of the election.






4. The defense says in its response that the plaintiff stated 'substantial probability' she would win.  Cindy Walsh did not allege that for the irregularities there was a substantial probability she would win. The Amended Complaint spoke specifically to the fact that the only burden of proof fell to simply finding the irregularities would change the election results.

The defense contends that invalidating an election in which approximately 500,000 Democratic voters cast a vote would be unjust for those voting in this election.  Given that only the voters for Anthony Brown actually benefited from this vote that number falls to approximately 250,000.  Meanwhile, 1 and 1/2 million registered  Democratic did not vote due to lack of support of the candidates allowed to participate in the election.  Whether or not those not voting would vote for Cindy Walsh, it is without a doubt that given the access required by law the plaintiff would have received the 250,000 votes needed to win.  So might the other 2 Democratic candidates declared not viable at the start of this race.  A million and 1/2 votes is a lot of votes up for grabs.  The plaintiff does not have to prove a number of votes, she only has to prove that the election irregularities changed the results of this election and it did.


5. Official capacity vs personal capacity The complaint does indeed show extreme malice and gross negligence in both Gansler's run for office and with Mackie and Lamone's oversight of Maryland Elections Board. An election system does not become systemic with irregularities if proper oversight is in place. A candidate in an election is not censured from most election events even as FCC and IRS laws say 'do not oppose' if proper oversight is in place. Gansler was not acting as a public official in this election. He was a citizen running for office. Mackie and Lamone cannot be said to be working in official capacity while openly failing to perform their duties. Protection from official capacity comes when a public official is sued while performing the duties of their office. Negligence and non-performance of duties falls to individual capacity as Mackie and Lamone chose to act illegally in allowing these wide-spread irregularities to exist. Again, when one sees a crime and does not stop or report it …...it becomes aiding and abetting crime. We are dealing in a civil case so we have irregularities, but as a whole it adds up to election fraud. The crime is fraud.



Official Capacity vs Personal Capacity Lawsuits


Personal capacity suits are brought against government officials who exceed or abuse their authority under state or local law. Under Section 1983, officials who exceed or abuse their authority under state or local law can be held personally liable for damages. The damages are limited, however, by various immunities. Officials with qualified immunity may be held liable only for actions which violated the 'settled constitutional rights' of the plaintiff at the time of the action.


Maryland does not recognize a distinction between suits against officials in their individual vs official capacities. Damages may be awarded against the official personally in both instances. Also, Maryland does not seem to recognize a qualified immunity for state officials. These two differences may make it possible for plaintiffs to recover in Maryland courts under some of the circumstances where recovery is not allowed under federal law.


6. In response to the defendants' lawyer and the use of Arkansas Educational Television vs Forbes as a reason to ignore the FCC and IRS election laws requiring opportunity and that there be no opposition:

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. We ask this court to stand with the mainstream standings and not one marginal ruling. Below you see the court ruling before heading to the Supreme Court and the reasons this court ruled with Forbes. Most important, we do not want to confuse a court case involving national third party candidates with a state election involving major party candidates. Cindy Walsh's complaint is about excluding intra-party, not excluding a third party without popular support. The use of the term 'popular public support' is so arbitrary as to be useless in a state-wide election as is the standard used to decide this. Anthony Brown supposedly won with 12% of the registered Democratic vote; Gansler and Mizeur garnered 5% each. Is that popular support? Of course not. Gimmicky polling was used to create the appearance of popular support. Polling that did not even have Cindy Walsh included; there was no way for this plaintiff to poll. Using these final percentages Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur would not have been allowed in these major forum venues. To call a candidate with my platform marginal shows a lack of understanding of the political climate in Maryland. The defendants' lawyer wants to make the IRS and FCC election laws irrelevant but they are not.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

Aldrich v. Knab,
858 F.Supp. 1480 (W.D.Wash. 1994)

Anderson v. Celebreeze,
460 U.S. 780 (1983)

Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus,
482 U.S. 569 (1987)

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union,
466 U.S. 485 (1984)

Bryant v. Secretary of the Army,
862 F.Supp. 574 (D.D.C. 1994)

Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1, 15 (1974)

Cammarano v. United States,
358 U.S. 498 (1959)

Chandler v. Georgia Public Telecommunications Comm'n,
917 F.2d 486, 489 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
112 S.Ct. 71 (1991)

Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic Nat'l Comm.,
412 U.S. 94 (1973)

Consolidated Edison v. Public Service Comm'n,
447 U.S. 530 (1980)

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund,
473 U.S. 788 (1985)

DeYoung v. Patten,
898 F.2d 628 (8th Cir. 1990)

Estiverne v. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n,
863 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1989)

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation,
438 U.S. 726 (1978)

Federal Communications Comm'n v. League of Women Voters,
468 U.S. 364 (1984)

Keyishian v. Board of Regents,
385 U.S. 589 (1967)

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,
508 U.S. 384 (1993)

Lamont v. Postmaster General,
381 U.S. 301 (1965)

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.,
513 U.S., 115 S.Ct. 961 (1995)

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.,
69 F.3d 650 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
116 S.Ct. 2537 (1996)

Madison School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167 (1976)

McGlynn v. New Jersey Public Broadcasting Auth.,
88 N.J. 112, 439 A.2d 54 (1981)

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n,
514 U.S., 115 S.Ct. 1511 (1995)

Mills v. Alabama,
384 U.S. 214 (1966)

Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy,
401 U.S. 265 (1971)

Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Comm'n,
688 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
460 U.S. 1023 (1983)

Multimedia Publications v. Greenville -Spartanburg Airport,
991 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1993)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Perot v. Federal Election Comm'n,
97 F.3d 553 (D.C.Cir. 1996), cert. denied,
U.S., 65 U.S.L.W. 3753 (1997)

Perry Educational Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators Ass'n,
460 U.S. 37 (1983) Perry v. Sindermann,
408 U.S. 593 (1972)

Pickering v. Board of Education,
391 U.S. 563 (1968)

Rankin v. McPherson,
483 U.S. 378 (1987)

Regan v. Taxation With Representation,
461 U.S. 540 (1983)

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia,
515 U.S., 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995)

Serra v. General Services Admin.,
847 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir. 1988)

Speiser v. Randall,
357 U.S. 513 (1958)

Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
354 U.S. 234 (1957)

Texas v. Johnson,
491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School Dist.,
927 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1991)

Widmar v. Vincent,
454 U.S. 263 (1981)

Statutes and Regulations

Ark.Stat.Ann. §6-3-101, et seq.

§6-3-101

§6-3-102(b)(1)

§6-3-105(a) §6-3-105(c)

§6-3-105(d) 47 U.S.C. §315(a)



Cindy Walsh will include this analysis by the ACLU in its entirety because it addresses all the elements in this case.  Remember, the ACLU was arguing from the mainstream with precedent behind them.  The Supreme Court ruling had marginal following.



7.  In Conclusion

The defendant's lawyer makes these cases for dismissal:

Insufficient Cause of Action
No Alleged Cause of Action against Mr Brown
Claim Untimely Filed


'The cause of action is often stated in the form of a syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning that begins with a major premise (the applicable Rule of Law), proceeds to a minor premise (the facts that gave rise to the claim), and ends with a conclusion'.

Cindy Walsh followed a reasoned path in providing proof that the original complaint had all the elements of cause, ties these claims directly to the defendant and does so further in this response.  The law was defined; the duties of the defendant under these laws was defined; and the failures to adhere to these laws were clearly shown.  A complaint does not have to include all the specific of place and time, it simply needs to clearly state the claims and over a relief. 

The State of Maryland is in crisis with its election system.  With 80% of voters eligible to vote in primaries choosing not to vote and many counties and cities seeing only around 20% coming out to general elections we know citizens are not seeing anyone for whom they want to vote.  My complaint shows exactly why this is the case.  The candidates people want to see are not given a venue to have their names and platforms heard by systemic exclusion from the election events all of which violate law.  Cindy Walsh cannot demand private media give her campaign the 300 mentions that they give Anthony Brown.  That is where the FCC laws state that there is no expectation of equal opportunity in these venues.  It clearly states that if media chooses to open the door to one candidate it must open the door to all candidates.  Whether voter lists, lists of candidates for governor, special series involving talks with the candidates, and election coverage that names all the candidates in a race when talking of the field in general.  Media even felt brave enough to use the phrase 'the three Democratic candidates for Governor' over and over again as if Cindy Walsh did not exist.  Even private media has to meet these guidelines and public media especially.  None of that happened in this election in any of the media venues.  The irregularities were systemic.

It is the voters who decide which candidate has a platform they want to support.  Calling a candidate not viable because of money issues, which major organization is supporting the candidate, what the polls say has nothing to do with a voter simply knowing who each candidate is and what the platform contains.  It is the voter who decides which candidate will have popular support.  Anthony Brown supposedly won this election with 12% of registered Democratic voters.  Mizeur and Gansler ended with 5% each and this was after saturated media and event coverage for months.  Cindy Walsh won 1% of the votes completely censured which in journalistic terms is 'within striking distance' of Anthony Brown.  It is without a reasonable doubt the election results would have been changed and in fact the plaintiff would have won this election had these systemic violations not occurred. 

The plaintiff only needs to prove the election results would be changed by these election irregularities.  The cause of action is clear;  the defendant is tied to those causes; the filing timeline was met and it would be extremely unjust to deny the plaintiff her day in court.

Thank you,

Cindy Walsh----Self-representing
2522 N. Calvert St
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
443-825-7031

I have sent a copy of this response to all the defendants in this claim.




Bobbie Mack, Chairman Maryland Board of Elections
151 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401

Defendant


Doug Gansler, Maryland Attorney General and candidate
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202


Defendant

Heather Mizeur- candidate
House Office Building, Room 429
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401


Defendant


Linda H. Lamone -State Election Administrator   

151 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401

Defendant




No. 96-779 In the
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1996

Arkansas Educational Television Commission, Petitioner, v. Ralph Forbes, Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Arkansas in Support of Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS

GOVERNMENT BROADCASTERS ARE GENERALLY ENTITLED TO BROAD PROGRAMMING DISCRETION AND GOVERNMENT BROADCAST NETWORKS SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED, FOR MOST PURPOSES, AS A FORUM FOR SPEECH BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC II. WHEN A GOVERNMENT BROADCASTER SPONSORS AND AIRS A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DEBATE, IT CREATES A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM FOR SPEECH BY BALLOT-QUALIFIED CANDIDATES III. REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE FORUM CREATED BY AETN, ITS EXCLUSION OF FORBES WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VIEWPOINT-BASED AND NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE PURPOSE OF THE DEBATE A. Deciding That a Ballot-Qualified Candidate Is Not Viable Or That The Public Will Be "Best Served" By Excluding Him From A Debate Is Viewpoint Discrimination B. Excluding Forbes was Unreasonable in Light of the Forum's Purpose CONCLUSION NOTES INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization with nearly 300,000 members dedicated to defending the constitutional rights and liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The ACLU of Arkansas is one of its statewide affiliates. This case implicates two principles that have been central to the ACLU since its founding in 1920: the general free speech right of journalists to make editorial decisions, and the obligation of government not to discriminate against nonmainstream political candidates. Amici submit this brief because we believe that the proper resolution of this case must take into account both of these fundamental constitutional principles. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ralph Forbes filed suit in October 1992 against the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC), the Arkansas Educational Television Network (AETN), and other groups, challenging on First Amendment grounds their decision to exclude him from a televised debate among candidates for Congress in the Third District of Arkansas.2 Forbes had submitted sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot, and was the only ballot-qualified candidate in the race other than the major party Republican and Democratic nominees. AETN is a state-owned and operated television network created by Arkansas law, Ark.Stat.Ann. ¤6-3-101, et seq., for the purpose of developing and enhancing public education, and making its benefits available to the people of Arkansas. See Ark.Stat.Ann. ¤6-3-105(a); note to ¤6-3-101. The network is governed by the AETC, which has the statutory power to "control[] and supervis[e] the use of channels reserved by the Federal Communications Commission to Arkansas for noncommercial educational use," to "designate the location of stations to utilize such channels," and to "make rules and regulations governing the operation of these stations and the programs televised over these channels." ¤6-3-105(c), (d). All of the commissioners of the AETC are appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate for terms of eight years. ¤6-3-102(b)(1). AETN's Programming Policy recognizes the network's status as a state agency that must, for example, "observe[] the constitutional principle of separation of church and state." Appendix J to Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 99a (Cert.App.). Although a state agency, AETN is not simply a mouthpiece for the ideas and viewpoints of the government of Arkansas. According to its Programming Policy, "AETN maintains public trust in its editorial integrity by shielding the programming process from improper political pressure or influence from program funders or other sources." Cert. App. at 98a. It subscribes to the "Statement of Principles of Editorial Integrity in Public Broadcasting," id. at 99a, developed at the Wingspread Conference on Editorial Integrity in 1985, which emphasizes the importance of protecting all public broadcasters from "extraneous interference and control," as well as fostering "journalistic objectivity" and "a free and independent decision-making process which is ultimately accountable to the needs and interests of all citizens." Id. at 68a, 69a. AETN's Programming Policy also stresses the network's obligation to "further[] the goals of a democratic society by enhancing public access to the full range of ideas and viewpoints required for citizens/voters to make informed judgments about the issues of our time." Id. at 100a. It adds: "In matters of public importance that may be controversial, special attention is invested to assure fairness in treatment of different points of view." Id. Nevertheless, in September 1992, AETN denied Forbes' request to be included in the Third District candidates' debate which it had scheduled for October 22nd. Its reason, according to its executive director, was that AETN had "made a bona fide journalistic judgement that our viewers would be best served by limiting the debate to elected nominees of the two major parties." Id. at 103a. AETN then promoted the debate with an advertisement that said: Do you know your candidate? Get better acquainted with the candidates and the issues. Democrat John Van Winkle of Fort Smith and Republican Tim Hutchinson of Bentonville debate the issues as they campaign for the Third Congressional District seat, live tonight at 7:00, AETN, where learning never ends. Joint Appendix (J.A.) at 135. Forbes then filed suit and moved for a preliminary injunction ordering his inclusion in the October 22nd debate. The district court denied his motion, relying on the then-governing Eighth Circuit precedent of DeYoung v. Patten, 898 F.2d 628 (8th Cir. 1990), which had rejected a political candidate's First Amendment claim of access to a televised campaign debate sponsored by a government broadcaster. See Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television Network Found. (Forbes I), 22 F.3d 1423, 1428 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 500 (petition of AETC); 115 S.Ct. 1962 (1995)(petition of Forbes). The district court subsequently dismissed Forbes' complaint for failure to state a claim. See Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television Comm'n (Forbes II), 93 F.3d 497, 500 (8th Cir. 1996). The Eighth Circuit reinstated the First Amendment claim on appeal, overruling DeYoung in part. Specifically, the Eighth Circuit held that, if the facts showed that AETN had created a "limited public forum" for the televised debate, "then Forbes would have a First Amendment right to participate" and "could be excluded only if AETN had a sufficient government interest." Forbes I, 22 F.3d at 1429. The court further held that "if AETN failed to include Forbes because of objections to his viewpoint, it has violated his First Amendment rights," even if the state-sponsored debate were a "nonpublic forum." Id. The case was remanded for factfinding on these two issues. On remand, the case was tried to a jury, which found in response to special questions that AETN's decision to exclude Forbes was neither "the result of any political pressure coming from outside the professional staff of AETN," nor a product of "disagreement with his opinions." Forbes II, 93 F.3d at 501. Based on these answers, the district court found no viewpoint discrimination. Since the court had also ruled as a matter of law that the debate was a nonpublic forum, it entered judgment for AETN. Id. The Eighth Circuit again reversed. Although approving the district court's handling of the viewpoint discrimination issue, it took issue with the trial judge's determination that AETN had not created a limited public forum when it sponsored the televised debate. Citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995), and Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), the court of appeals found that the debate was a limited public forum because AETN, "by staging the debate, opened its facilities to a particular group -- candidates running for the Third District Congressional seat." Forbes II, 93 F.3d at 504.3 Emphasizing that "we are dealing here with political speech by legally qualified candidates, a subject matter at the very core of the First Amendment," id., the Eighth Circuit then held that the exclusion of Forbes was unconstitutional. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This case presents the narrow question whether a government-owned and operated broadcast network's ordinarily broad discretion to make editorial decisions must give way to First Amendment interests when the network sponsors a campaign debate among ballot-qualified candidates for political office, but excludes one such candidate on the ground that network executives do not consider his candidacy "viable" and believe that the public would be "best served" by not hearing his views. Accordingly, the case presents no occasion to question a government broadcaster's general authority to make programming decisions, advance some points of view, and exclude others. Still less does it raise any issue regarding access by outsiders to programs produced and aired by private broadcasters, whether for-profit or nonprofit, and regardless of whether they receive government funds. A candidate's debate sponsored by a government broadcaster is different from almost all other television programming not only, as we argue below, because the debate constitutes a limited public forum for speech by the small, easily defined class of ballot-qualified candidates, but because the stakes are particularly high. 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, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971)). Because the inevitable consequence of a decision by government broadcasters to exclude a ballot-qualified candidate will be to diminish that candidate's visibility, deprive the public of an opportunity to hear his views, "skew the debate" toward mainstream, conventional ideas, and accordingly distort the democratic process, the Court should recognize a narrow, First Amendment-based exception in these circumstances to the general proposition that government broadcasters have editorial discretion to determine the nature and viewpoint of their programming. The Eighth Circuit thus correctly ruled that AETN's sponsorship of the candidates' debate created a limited public forum. Unlike most programming on a government-owned television station, which is simply not a forum for speech by the general public, a televised debate for a particular political office is by its nature a forum created for political advocacy by a particular class of speakers -- here, ballot-qualified candidates for that office. AETN intentionally opened this program to a limited class of ballot-qualified candidates, and the program was completely "compatib[le] with [their] expressive activity." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985). The Eighth Circuit erred, however, in concluding that the exclusion of Forbes was not viewpoint-based. Although the jury found that AETN did not reject Forbes because of hostility to his views or outside political pressure, the network's very conclusion that he was not "viable" and that the public was "best served" by not being exposed to his ideas was fundamentally viewpoint-discriminatory because it represented a judgment that nonmainstream or controversial opinions are not worth hearing. Thus, regardless of the nature of the forum created by a government-sponsored candidates' debate, AETN's exclusion of Forbes on the basis of perceived nonviability or unpopularity violated the strong First Amendment command of viewpoint neutrality. The rejection of Forbes was also, as the Eighth Circuit ruled, fundamentally unreasonable "in light of the purpose served by the forum." Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806. It vests too much discretion in state employees -- even when they are journalists -- to permit them to exclude a ballot-qualified candidate from a televised debate based on their perception that hearing the candidate's views will not be in the best interests of the public. Indeed, such an exclusion contravenes AETN's own educational purpose because it deprives the public of political information and ideas in the important context of an electoral campaign. Recognizing the existence of a limited public forum here, and acknowledging that the exclusion of Forbes was both unreasonable and viewpoint-based, will not interfere with the otherwise broad discretion of government broadcasters to determine the nature and quality of their programming. This case turns on two relatively unique facts: the creation of a forum and the context of an election. When these facts are not present, a state-owned broadcasting station resembles in many respects a public library, a public museum, or even a public university -- entities owned and financed by government, yet vesting substantial editorial discretion in the professional employees who decide what literature, art, or educational materials will be communicated. Under other circumstances, therefore, the professional decisions of these employees are themselves entitled to First Amendment protection -- as, for example, when a state-employed university professor resists forced loyalty oaths or other infringements of academic freedom. However, as the present facts demonstrate, these employees are also state actors, and in some cases can violate the First Amendment rights of others. ARGUMENT I. GOVERNMENT BROADCASTERS ARE GENERALLY ENTITLED TO BROAD PROGRAMMING DISCRETION AND GOVERNMENT BROADCAST NETWORKS SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED, FOR MOST PURPOSES, AS A FORUM FOR SPEECH BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. The question of whether and how the First Amendment applies to a government agency that operates a broadcast network is a complex one. On the one hand, it is clear that the First Amendment "protects the press from governmental interference; it confers no analogous protection on the Government." Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 139 (1973)(emphasis in original) (Stewart, J., concurring). At the same time, the care that AETN has taken to establish its editorial integrity undoubtedly reflects important First Amendment values, including the right of the public to receive information free from partisan political constraints. See Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965). As AETN's Programming Policy makes clear, the network asserts a high degree of editorial independence and does not view itself as simply a propaganda arm of the state. A fortiori, this is true of the journalists employed by AETN.4 Accordingly, amici agree with the observation of the plurality in Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Comm'n, 688 F.2d 1033, 1041 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1023 (1983)(rejecting a First Amendment challenge to the cancellation of a controversial program), that government broadcasters generally should have the same ability "to make free programming decisions as their private counterparts." As Judge Rubin explained in a separate concurring opinion (joined by Judges Politz, Randall and Williams): The function of a state agency operating an informational medium is significant in determining first amendment restrictions on its actions. State agencies publish alumni bulletins, newsletters devoted to better farming practices, and law reviews; they operate or subsidize art museums and theater companies and student newspapers . . . . The first amendment does not dictate that what will be said or performed or published or broadcast in these activities will be entirely content-neutral. In those activities that, like television broadcasting to the general public, depend in part on audience interest, appraisal of audience interest and suitability for publication or broadcast inevitably involves judgment of content. Id. at 1050.5 Thus, even though a government agency, AETN retains editorial discretion in most circumstances to design programming that it believes is educational and valuable without oversight by the judiciary or any other branch of government.6 Properly understood, most of a government broadcaster's programming decisions simply do not fit within traditional forum analysis because the broadcaster has not ceded its platform to outside speakers. Compare Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993). Even invited guests who appear on a program generally do so within a format over which the broadcaster retains editorial control.7 But because AETN is a government agency, it is also bound by the First Amendment, and once it exercises its discretion to create a forum for qualified political candidates it must bear the constitutional consequences of its decision.8 Despite disagreements over the outcome, the various opinions in Muir accepted the principle that government broadcasters may be subject to First Amendment constraints in appropriate circumstances. See 688 F.2d at 1050 (Rubin, J., et al., concurring)(different First Amendment requirements exist when state is "conducting an activity that functions as a marketplace of ideas" than when it "is devoted to a specific function" such as publishing a military newspaper or holding a press conference); id. at 1053-60 (Johnson, Hatchett, Anderson, Tate, and Thomas A. Clark, JJ., dissenting) (government broadcaster's cancellation of already scheduled program because of political pressure should be seen as unconstitutional); id. at 1060 (Reavley, J., dissenting)(government broadcaster has editorial discretion, but may not make decisions based upon "viewpoint alone"). Even the court in Chandler v. Georgia Public Telecommunications Comm'n, 917 F.2d 486, 489 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 71 (1991), although denying the First Amendment claims of two candidates excluded from state-sponsored television debates, noted that "the use of state instrumentalities to suppress unwanted expressions in the marketplace of ideas would authorize judicial intervention to vindicate the First Amendment."9 This Court has also recognized that state actors have constitutional obligations to the public when they publish, broadcast, distribute literature, or otherwise engage in the business of communicating ideas. In Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. at 870-71, a plurality held that the First Amendment limits the power of local school boards to remove books for ideological reasons.10 Other courts have come to like conclusions as they have struggled to balance the competing claims of the public and of government decisionmakers in dealing with government-disseminated speech.11 E.g., Serra v. General Services Admin., 847 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (2d Cir. 1988)(citing Pico)(even with respect to government-owned artwork, "there are conceivably situations in which the Government's exercise of its discretion . . . could violate the First Amendment rights of the public . . . [I]t is possible that the Government's broad discretion to dispose of its property could be exercised in an impermissibly repressive partisan or political manner"); Estiverne v. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n, 863 F.2d 371, 381-82 (5th Cir. 1989)(even though state-owned bar journal has editorial independence, it is nevertheless bound by First Amendment, so that decisions must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral); Bryant v. Secretary of the Army, 862 F.Supp. 574 (D.D.C. 1994)(rule banning writings "not in consonance with policies of the Department of the Army" in "personal commentary" section of military publication is unconstitutionally viewpoint-based); Aldrich v. Knab, 858 F.Supp. 1480, 1490-94 (W.D.Wash. 1994)(state university-owned radio station had opened itself as nonpublic forum to speech by volunteers and thus could make general editorial decisions but not discriminate based on speakers' viewpoints). As in Pico, Serra, Estiverne, Bryant, and Aldrich, so here, the problem is to reconcile the government-employed speakers' discretion with the public's First Amendment right to receive relevant information about a political campaign, and the candidate's First Amendment right to avoid discriminatory exclusion from a government-sponsored debate. Given that the First Amendment has "its fullest and most urgent application" to political campaign speech, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 14-15, the balance in this case must tilt in favor of Forbes and the public. As Judge Clark noted in Chandler, For the state to set up . . . a debate and exclude certain candidates not only puts its stamp of approval on the favored candidates, it also "curtail[s] access to ideas" by preventing the ideas and information that would be produced through the debating candidates' interaction from coming to light. 917 F.2d at 493-94 (Clark, J., dissenting).12 II. WHEN A GOVERNMENT BROADCASTER SPONSORS AND AIRS A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DEBATE, IT CREATES A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM FOR SPEECH BY BALLOT-QUALIFIED CANDIDATES In this case, AETN's editorial discretion was limited by its creation of a limited public forum for speech by candidates for the Third Congressional District.13 That is, the televised debate was not like most AETN programs, in which the government broadcasters frame the subject matter and decide what viewpoints will be heard. Instead, for purposes of the debate AETN essentially turned the microphone over to the candidates. As Judge Clark perceived in Chandler, so here, AETN "already decided to give over its airwaves to political contenders for [elected] office[]." 917 F.2d at 493 (Clark, J., dissenting). This Court ruled in Cornelius that two factors guide the determination whether a state agency has opened a limited forum for citizens' speech: first, the agency's intent "to designate a place not traditionally open to assembly and debate as a public forum" and, second, "the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity." 473 U.S. at 802. AETN's candidate debate satisfies both of these requirements. First, by sponsoring the debate AETN opened to ballot-qualified candidates a forum (a TV program) that is not generally available for members of the public. The fact that this was a forum so limited that only three people qualified does not change its nature,14 for Forbes was certainly in the "class of speakers" for which the forum was designed. As the Second Circuit explained in Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School Dist., 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir. 1991), "in a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre" (emphasis added). See also Estiverne, 863 F.2d at 378 n.10 (in limited public forum, medium "must at least be designed to provide a vehicle for expressive activity by the class of speakers claiming access"). Thus, the Eighth Circuit properly ruled that AETN could not, "simply by its own ipse dixit, define a class of speakers so as to exclude a person who would naturally be expected to be a member of the class on no basis other than party affiliation." Forbes II, 93 F.3d at 504. Or, as this Court reiterated in Rosenberger, 115 S.Ct. at 2517, "[o]nce it has opened a limited forum, . . . the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set."15 The televised debate was also a limited public forum because of "the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity" by all three candidates. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802. As noted, as a ballot-qualified candidate Forbes was a member of the limited class whose campaign speech was compatible with the forum that AETN created. Indeed, AETN's advertisement created the impression that all candidates were included -- "Do you know your candidate? Get better acquainted with the candidates and the issues . . . ." (J.A. 135) -- while falsely implying that the Republican and Democratic nominees were the only available choices. AETN and its amici, making a great issue of Forbes' limited support and shoestring approach to campaigning, argue essentially that AETN can redefine the forum to include only "serious" or "viable" candidates.16 But the State of Arkansas had already determined Forbes' viability by certifying that he was ballot-qualified. In rejecting Forbes, AETN in essence made a judgment that his ideas were not worth hearing despite his ballot-qualified status -- a judgment that condemned him to marginality, and that government agencies should not make even under the guise of journalistic discretion. For, as scholars have observed with respect to independent candidacies, "[t]he prophecy that a candidate cannot win is self-fulfilling." Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, & Edward Lazarus, THIRD PARTIES IN AMERICA 39 (2d ed. 1984). Because state broadcasters, like public schools and other government agencies, have unique potential for manufacturing consent, indoctrinating, and controlling access to ideas,17there is particular danger of skewing the political process in favor of the status quo when a government agency decides that the public would be "best served" by hearing only the views of the major parties. Ultimately, the "nature of the forum" is compatible with expressive activity by all three candidates because of the political and historical importance of independent parties in electoral campaigns. Independent and third party candidates have long been gadflies, challengers, and question-raisers. This Court has noted that "[h]istorically political figures outside the two major parties have been fertile sources of new ideas and new programs; many of their challenges to the status quo have in time made their way into the mainstream," Anderson v. Celebreeze, 460 U.S. 780, 794 (1983); and that "[a]ll political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of the two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted." Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. at 250-51. This process of challenging the comfortable views of the major parties and forcing mainstream candidates to confront questions that they might otherwise ignore is critical to the process of peaceful social change. Third parties have a unique capacity "to affect the content and range of political discourse, and ultimately public policy, by raising issues and options that the two major parties have ignored." Rosenstone, et al., THIRD PARTIES IN AMERICA at 8. History thus belies any notion that a ballot-qualified candidate's relative lack of immediate electoral "viability" makes his participation in a government-sponsored debate "incompatible" with the nature of the forum.18 As this Court has often recognized, political campaign speech is at the heart of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 14-15; Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966)("a major purpose" of First Amendment "was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs , . . . of course includ[ing] discussions of candidates"). "In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation." McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. , , 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1519 (1995). AETN's debate program was a limited public forum most fundamentally because at the very heart of our democracy is the principle that all ballot-qualified candidates for political office should be heard, and therefore that a government broadcaster cannot close a campaign debate to those aspirants whom it deems unsuitable, or whose ideas it thinks most voters will not take seriously. III. REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE FORUM CREATED BY AETN, ITS EXCLUSION OF FORBES WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VIEWPOINT-BASED AND NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE PURPOSE OF THE DEBATEII. As Perry Educational Ass'n, Cornelius and, mostly recently, Rosenberger have made clear, even when a forum for citizen speech is "nonpublic," a government decision to deny access must be both "reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum" and "viewpoint-neutral." Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806. AETN's decision to exclude Forbes was neither. Since the televised debate was at the very least a "nonpublic forum" for ballot-qualified candidates, the exclusion of Forbes was unconstitutional regardless of how the Court ultimately characterizes the debate for purposes of forum analysis. A. Deciding That a Ballot-Qualified Candidate Is Not Viable Or That The Public Will Be "Best Served" By Excluding Him From A Debate Is Viewpoint Discrimination. This Court in Rosenberger held that a public university's denial of student activity funding to a publication that promoted a "religious perspective" was unconstitutionally viewpoint-based. 115 S.Ct. at 2518. The Court rejected a narrowly "bipolar" definition of viewpoint discrimination in favor of a more realistic understanding that public debate is by nature "complex and multi-faceted," and that discrimination against whole categories of ideas can "skew" that debate "in multiple ways." Id. See also Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches, 508 U.S. at 390-91. The Rosenberger ruling is consistent with numerous precedents condemning discrimination against ideas or speakers because they are deemed "dangerous," unpopular, or controversial. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 115 S.Ct. at 1519 (controversial political viewpoints are "the essence of First Amendment expression"); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989)(government may not prohibit expression of ideas simply because they are disagreeable); Consolidated Edison v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537-38 (1980)(rejecting argument that government can constitutionally restrict both sides on "controversial issues of public policy"; "[t]o allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for political truth"); Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 548 (1983)(government may not discriminate in subsidy or benefit programs "in such a way as to `[aim] at the suppression of dangerous ideas'")(quoting Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 513 (1959), and Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 519 (1958)).19 The Eighth Circuit thus understood the concept of viewpoint discrimination too narrowly. Viewpoint discrimination occurs not only when a government agency acts, in a "bipolar" sense, out of hostility to a particular point of view, but when it disfavors a minority perspective on a given subject because it is unpopular, marginal, controversial, or otherwise not deemed to "best serve" the viewing public. As Judge Clark observed in Chandler, excluding minor party candidates based on judgments about the best interests of the voters amounts to viewpoint discrimination because it derives from a belief that "the viewpoints of the Libertarians [are] less valuable than those of the Democrats and Republicans." 917 F.2d at 491-92 (dissenting opinion). So here, as the Brief Amici Curiae of the States of California, et al., in fact acknowledges, excluding Forbes "convey[ed] the message" of the government that his candidacy was not worthy of attention. AETN's disqualification of Forbes was viewpoint discriminatory because it arose from a bias favoring the status quo, valuing major over minor party candidates and ideas, and devaluing the uninhibited and wide-ranging political debate that the First Amendment contemplates. B. Excluding Forbes was Unreasonable in Light of the Forum's Purpose. AETN's decision to exclude Forbes based on its judgment that he was not a viable candidate, and that the public would not be "best served" by hearing his views, was also unreasonable in light of the purpose of a televised debate. As noted above, judgments about a candidate's viability or likelihood of success too often become self-fulfilling prophecies. Moreover, minor party candidates raise issues that the more mainstream candidates would otherwise ignore. See Point II, supra. Thus, the fundamental purposes of a political debate among qualified candidates are ill-served when government excludes those holding opinions that are considered controversial, unpopular, or radical. 20 Forbes' exclusion was particularly unreasonable in light of AETN's own policy commitment to "further the goals of a democratic society by enhancing public access to the full range of ideas and viewpoints required for citizens/voters to make informed judgments about the issues of our time." Cert.App. 100a (emphasis added). The network violated this provision of its own Programming Policy when it took it upon itself to decide that the voters were "best served" by not hearing the views of one of the contest's ballot-qualified candidates. Judged by its own standards, therefore, AETN's decision was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit observed in Multimedia Publications v. Greenville-Spartanburg Airport, 991 F.2d 154, 159 (4th Cir. 1993), that the reasonableness of speech restrictions in a nonpublic forum should be scrutinized with some care because "protected First Amendment activity" is at stake. The court accordingly struck down a local airport's ban on newsracks because none of the reasons asserted to support it was persuasive. AETN's paternalistic judgment that it knew what was "best" for the voters of the Third District is equally unpersuasive, and was as unreasonable in relation to the purpose of a campaign debate as was the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport's newsrack ban in Multimedia or, for that matter, the Los Angeles Airport's decision to prohibit all First Amendment activity in Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987). The court of appeals in this case accurately summarized the unreasonableness of AETN's action: AETN itself characterizes the criteria it used as . . . "essentially subjective" . . . . In a sense, the State of Arkansas had already, by statute, defined political viability. Mr. Forbes had gathered enough signatures to appear on the ballot. So far as the law was concerned, he had equal status with the Republican . . . and Democratic nominee. Whether he was viable was, ultimately, a judgment to be made by the people of the Third Congressional District, not by officials of the government in charge of channels of communication . . . . The question of political viability is, indeed, so subjective, so arguable, so susceptible of variation in individual opinion, as to provide no secure basis for the exercise of governmental power consistent with the First Amendment. Forbes II, 93 F.3d at 504-05. AETN and its amici make exaggerated claims that the sky will fall on all editorial discretion for all noncommercial broadcasters if the Eighth Circuit's judgment is affirmed. But invalidating AETN's decision to exclude Forbes from its televised campaign debate will not interfere with the network's journalistic control over the great bulk of its programming, will have no effect at all on the nongovernmental press, and represents a constitutionally proper balance between the editorial needs of government broadcasters and the First Amendment rights of the public and of nonmainstream candidates to an "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" exchange of political views in a government-sponsored forum. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, Marjorie Heins
(Counsel of Record)
Steven R. Shapiro
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004 Dated: June 27, 1997
0 Comments

August 27th, 2014

8/27/2014

0 Comments

 
Here in Baltimore the media and watchdogs expose scandals and corruption all the time and nothing happens.  If you go to a Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting you will see no one protesting anymore because the Board has worn down all of the contractors seeing what is widespread bid rigging and inflation.  I was at a meeting where an out of state contractor's bid was so much lower and he was as qualified and was incredulous as he was turned away from protest.  People no longer go to the meetings because they are so closed to justice there is no way through normal public channels to seek justice.  This is what happens on the state and Federal level as well.  Now that global corporations are getting contract bids from all levels of government and subcontracting ----they are the only ones pocketing all of this fraud and corruption.  Local contractors are left to the status of subcontractor having to bid so low as to not be able to earn a profit.  They then lower the standards for their workers so everyone is effected by this massive and systemic fraud.  Let's take a look again today at a local fraud and then national.  Remember, your pols are creating these conditions.  They could shout loudly, place pressure on the people in the process or the Attorney General to give due process and equal protection but the laws they are passing moves to further keep the public from accessing justice. 

NEO-LIBERALS ARE WORKING FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND NOT YOU AND ME!  STOP VOTING FOR THE SAME INCUMBENTS AND RUN FOR POLITICAL OFFICE!

Below you see how our public utilities are being corrupted by this privatization push.  My concern for Smart Meters is they are set to gather data to sell and that the goal will be to ration water and electricity.  Even greater than that is that the process has already been filled with fraud and corruption.  California, Texas, and Arizona were ground zero for this privatization and installation of Smart Meters and tons of articles exist speaking of billing inflation-----the high cost of the product and installation----all when the public system we used for a century has worked just fine until the last decade when public employees were fired and bills were 'estimated'. 

When global corporations commit fraud----no one goes after them.  Imagine a $600 utility bill and how you would get that back?  Well, those already exposed to this are shouting -----YOU DON'T GET IT BACK AND YOUR STATE WILL NOT HELP YOU!


In Maryland, O'Malley and the Maryland Assembly are so neo-liberal as to pass laws that fine you for opting out and making those fines grow too costly to have a choice.  They say----YOU WILL CONNECT---WE WANT THAT DATA!


Another Attorney General exposes "smart" meter scam
Written by Donna Hancock
Date: 04-22-2013
Subject: Big Brother
Sent from at reader:

“What the record sadly lacks is a discussion of competing considerations regarding the program or the necessity of the program and its costs as related to any net benefit to customers.”
~ Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette

Warren Woodward

55 Ross Circle

Sedona, Arizona 86336

928 204 6434

April 20, 2013

Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)

Docket Control Center

1200 West Washington Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: Docket # E-00000C-11-0328

Commissioners;

           In addition to both the Attorneys General of Illinois and Connecticut, the Attorney General of Michigan has also issued a statement calling into question the efficacy of “smart” meters and the “smart” grid.

           Salient excerpts:

·         “A net economic benefit to electric utility ratepayers from ... smart meter programs has yet to be established.”

·         “Any assumption that large numbers of residential customers will have the time, ability and motivation to attend to, and act upon daily or even hourly changes in their electrical is questionable.”

·         “What the record sadly lacks is a discussion of competing considerations regarding the program or the necessity of the program and its costs as related to any net benefit to customers.” [italics in original]

           The Michigan Attorney General's statement (enclosed and available online here: http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/17000/0408.pdf) reinforces what I have said repeatedly: the only benefit of the “smart” grid is to utilities, not ratepayers. Utilities are gaming the system through their 8 to 10% guaranteed rate of return on so-called “capital investments”.

           Of course another part of the scam is the proven over-billing of “smart” meters. California's KION/FOX35 TV did a three month side-by-side comparison of a “smart” meter and a calibrated mechanical analog meter. After three months the “smart” meter showed an extra 37 kilowatt hours. The test is consistent with anecdotal over-billing reports I receive from Arizonans. Do the math. I calculate a similar rip-off in Arizona would net APS over $20 million more per year. (“PG&E Smart Meter Side By Side Test Final Results” – http://www.kionrightnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14016659)

           What a miserable pity for Arizona ratepayers that the ACC never followed through on its 2007 decision that called for the costs and benefits of the “smart” grid to be considered. Indeed, “What the record sadly lacks is a discussion of competing considerations regarding the program or the necessity of the program and its costs as related to any net benefit to customers.”

           When will it be admitted that the ACC made a colossal mistake by allowing the utilities to install “smart” meters without any regulatory oversight or examination? How much more ratepayer money will be wasted on this utility scam, while the already bloated salaries of APS executives are set to double and triple? (“APS offering executives potential bonuses for 2013” - http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/12/28/aps-offering-executives-potential.html?ana=yfcpc)

Sincerely,

 Warren Woodward

Cc: Governor Jan Brewer, Attorney General Tom Horne



_____________________________________________
I had a friend run into these problems where late water bills end in your house being placed for auction.  The City Hall allows citizens homes to be handed to an investment firm buying the debt.  My friend asked 'DO YOU WANT MY HOUSE' to which the City Council person said----yes they do.  It's in a valuable section of the city.  The article below is from 2012 but it is still happening today.  Nothing has changed.

Baltimore uses fraud and corruption to take people's houses from them and it of course hits those struggling financially as it is.  WHEN GOVERNMENT PREYS ON THE PUBLIC FOR REVENUE RATHER THAN COLLECT IT FROM CORPORATIONS----

You have a neo-liberal or neo-con working City Hall.  GET RID OF THEM!


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE         Contact: Lester Davis Monday, March 5, 2012        410-396-4804 (office)   443-835-0784 (mobile)
Council President Young Calls for Moratorium on Placing Liens Against Properties Based Solely on Unpaid Water or Sewer Charges
Legislation comes after audit reveals dozens of homes were placed under lien based on estimated water bills


BALTIMORE
, MD –City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young has taken the bold step of calling for a moratorium on listing properties in the City’s annual tax sale based solely on unpaid water or sewer charges.

Council President Young will introduce a resolution at tonight’s City Council meeting requesting a moratorium on placing liens on properties with unpaid water or sewer charges. The moratorium would be in place for a two year period, or until the Departments of Public Works and Finance are able to create a viable and fair system for billing the more than 400,000 city and Baltimore County customers served by DPW. Tonight’s resolution will be followed on Monday, March 26, 2012, by the introduction of an ordinance that would enforce the moratorium through a change in city law.

Council President Young’s legislation was prompted by a recent audit that found widespread problems with the integrity of the billing system used by the Department of Public Works to charge residents for water and sewer usage.

Some of the troubling findings from the audit include:

  • 38,000 customers in Baltimore City and Baltimore County were over-billed, resulting in refunds totaling more than $4 million.
  • More than 18,000 properties were billed based solely on estimates, with no actual meter readings for a year or longer.
  • More than 2,600 customers were billed based solely on estimated meter readings for at least 4 ½ years.
  • Efforts by customers to correct these billing issues by requesting actual meter readings often resulted in the customers subsequently being over-billed.
  • $31.7 million, or 25 percent, of the total adjusted water billings for the year examined resulted from estimated billing.
Council President Young has a history of working to solve long-standing problems with the city’s water billing system. As recently as 2010, Council President Young supported legislation by Maryland State Sen. James Brochin that sought to stop the forced sale or foreclosure of properties due to unpaid water or sewer bills. Council President Young has also introduced legislation in the City Council to address this persistent problem.

“I’ve encountered too many constituents on fixed incomes, who routinely have to choose between feeding their families and buying needed medication or paying improperly estimated water bills, which if left unpaid have the danger of forcing them into homelessness,” Council President Young said. “It’s time we do something serious to remedy this situation, which has driven too many Baltimoreans further into poverty.”

In May 2010, 851 properties were included in the city’s tax sale based solely on estimated readings for one or more years. Some of these bills were for just hundreds of dollars, and a DPW review suggested that in at least one instance a property would not have been eligible for the tax sale if actual readings, instead of estimates, had been used.

Ms. Lelia Ellerbe, who has lived at Alameda Place in North Baltimore for 18 years, said that she recently contacted Council President Young’s office after growing increasingly suspicious about inflated water bills. Ms. Ellerbe said her research showed that nearly a dozen of her neighbors had received identical water bills over several billing cycles, despite differences in their water consumption.

“If you’re on a fixed income, a discrepancy with your water bill could be extremely detrimental,” Ms. Ellerbe said.

Placing unnecessary financial burdens on families during difficult economic times is harmful and unacceptable, but overcharges on water and sewer bills are especially dangerous because the charges, if left unpaid, are routinely converted into liens against the properties. The liens can then be sold or foreclosed on, which could lead to a family losing its home because of an unpaid water or sewer bill.

Click here for a copy of Council President Young’s resolution

_____________________________________

If corporations are not paying taxes, getting all kinds of subsidy, and committing huge frauds-----we need the working and middle-class paying lots of fines and fees to state and local government.  That is what speed cameras is about.  In Baltimore it became so corrupt and fraudulent that thousands of people were ticketed without cause and we could not get City Hall to turn off the cameras.  It took a huge upswell of citizen rage to have these faulty cameras turned off.

Again, a public employee used to do just fine randomly setting up speed zones to keep citizens aware.  THAT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED.   Now, you have no idea when an infraction happens and almost no way to fight it.

The reason all this exists is no oversight and accountability and no public justice makes the conditions for a free-for-all in corporate operations.  Remember, all these businesss getting these contracts are global corporations.


This article is long but it does a great job at showing how massive the corporate grab for money has become.

Speed Cameras: A Scam the Motorist Cannot Win

It's all about the revenue

May 9, 2013 by Doug Gill

So glad we are all better drivers these days. No cell phone calls, no texting, no smoking with the snowflakes present, mandatory seat belts, helmet laws, the crackdown on drunk drivers, sobriety checkpoints, red light cameras, work zone cameras, speed cameras – why, getting behind the wheel these days is the motoring equivalent of being a babe in its mama’s arms.

Well, one may think that is so – especially the way the elected ninnies tout all the “safety” regulations they’ve enacted, particularly when it comes to traffic surveillance.
But the truth? Well, the reality belies what our lawmakers are shoveling, as 2012 saw the highway death total climb faster than at any time since 1975.

Yet, fudged safety stats notwithstanding, the real truth about traffic cameras lies not in the amount of lives saved and accidents avoided, but in the enormous amount of revenue it supplies both the camera manufacturer and the jurisdictions that embrace these forms of policing for profit.

And in most instances the profits roll in whether the cameras are accurate or not… and these contraptions are proving to be anything but precise.

The evidence of that inaccuracy is overwhelming.
In mid-April, Baltimore City became the latest jurisdiction to join the ever-growing list of cities/municipalities that are revamping, reevaluating or in some cases eliminating their revenue-generating speed camera programs.

The Department of Transportation issued a news release saying Baltimore City has temporarily suspended use of its red light and speed cameras because “the devices haven’t been accurate.”
Of course, that explanation reeks of dishonesty; if accuracy was the true reason for shelving the automated cash-snatchers they would have been abandoned six months after implementation.

As of April 1, more than 580 communities had welcomed some form – red light, speed, work zone – of traffic enforcement cameras. And while 29 states currently have no camera enforcement laws on the books, only 12 states have banned the use of speed cameras.
Seven states currently prohibit red light cameras.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 66 bills related to photo enforcement have been presented nationwide so far in 2013.

But at the same time, the critical chorus against these boxed money-grabs is growing exponentially.

In New York, the same state senate that nearly always accepts Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Liberal credit card put the kibosh on a plan for cameras in New York City, prompting Emperor Michael Bloomberg to throw a hissy and announce that the next time a speeder kills a kid it will be the legislature’s fault.

Shocking, I know: Bloomberg desperate to support for-profit businesses other than his own.

In Ohio, Judge Robert Ruehlman ordered the Elmwood Place township to halt usage of the cameras saying they are “a scam” and described the issuing of thousands of $105 citations as a “high-tech game of 3-Card Monty.”

Similar rulings have ignited debate from sea to strobe-flashing sea, and Baltimore’s actions are now at the forefront of the discussions.

Not only did the city suspend use of the cameras, officials also agreed to nullify more than 6,000 tickets that had been mailed to the alleged violators.

Total cost? Over 300 grand. In the last fiscal year the city’s speed cameras – just the speed cameras – generated $19 million.

Gesture, meet token.

Obviously, the business partnerships between camera companies and cities willing to deliberately tweak their speed limits, camera locations and caution lights for maximum ticket profits, rather than for safety, are thriving in spite of symbolic damage control.
“The cameras have never really fully been tested,” Gene Simmers, a retired Maryland State Highway Administration employee, told CBS Philadelphia. Simmers was referencing a state report that found the cameras were not tested as many times as they should have been and that the type of speed detection equipment used by the cameras in highway work zones was not approved by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Pennsylvania media is interested in the thoughts of a former SHA employee because the state legislature in Harrisburg had been considering expanding the automated enforcement programs.

Now, thanks to some of the laughable examples of Baltimore City’s camera follies, even AAA Mid-Atlantic has joined the anti-camera chorus.

“It wasn’t even moving and it got a ticket,” AAA spokesperson Jenny Robinson told CBS News, referencing a Baltimore delivery truck that was issued a citation for traveling 57 miles-per-hour in a 25-mph zone even though video from the camera showed the truck was nearly at a standstill.
“That’s one example of the concerns that we have with automatic enforcement,” Robinson continued. “If it’s not accurate then there’s no point in using it.”
But there is a point in using them, and that purpose is to continue reaping the benefits of the $6 billion per year that Americans pay for speeding violations.

According to an extensive investigation by The Baltimore Sun we’ve learned – through the former camera company’s own admission – that the error rate for these devices exceeds five percent. And more than 1.6 million tickets have been issued since 2009.
And the city nullified 6,000.


“The troubles with Baltimore’s speed camera system have raised the eyebrows of motorists, legislators and traffic safety advocates,” wrote AAA spokesperson Ragina Averella, “and have truly called the integrity of the city’s entire program into question.”
But it’s not just Baltimore. Prince George’s County is taking action to stop Fairmount Heights from issuing any camera citations because the town appears to be in violation of a state law that allows photo enforcement only in school zones and requires that cameras are properly announced via signage.

In Laurel, the city is under fire for circumventing state requirements for independent calibration of the cameras.

Dozens of other national jurisdictions are waking up to elected officials trying to follow the lead of former D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty who, in 2010, accelerated the revenue-vs-safety debate when he raised traffic fines – in one instance from $50 – $125 – to help balance his city’s budget.
And why not? In a report released by AAA one camera on one stretch of the District’s New York Avenue raised $11 million in two years.

That kind of cash comes in mighty handy when you need to grease the lobbyists that help government skim the taxpayer.

If the actions of Fenty and other such kindred governmentals don’t offer proof enough of automated enforcement offering no more than a direct line to your wallet, witness the actions of the Maryland Legislature during the just-concluded General Assembly sessions.
Delegate John Cluster (R – Baltimore County) introduced a bill that would have imposed a daily calibration check on the cameras. Delegate Jon Cardin’s (D – Baltimore County) legislation would have forced the courts to impose a $1,000 fine on the camera company if it were found that a citation was issued erroneously. Delegate Frank Conaway (D – Baltimore City) wanted those who maintain the speed enforcement systems to pay a $250 penalty to the motorist who received said erroneous ticket.

Various speed camera bills were introduced by Sen. James Brochin, Sen. E.J. Pipkin, Del. Carolyn Howard and Del. Mike Smigiel and they not only addressed accuracy and effectiveness, but some also called for outright elimination of the program.
When the confetti dropped (made from shredded taxpayer dollars) in early April to signal the end of the session not a single traffic camera bill had passed, including a final version that would have placed stricter limits on where local governments could put speed cameras, required appointments of ombudsmen to hear complaints, and strengthened language prohibiting governments from entering into new contracts under which they paid private companies for each ticket issued.

Noting the bill’s failure, Sen. Brochin told the Baltimore Sun that the final product would have helped protect Maryland drivers from abuses of the camera system.
Of course, Marylanders are use to having elected officials that continually fail to do the right thing – even if it is our own fault for sending the same repeat offenders back to Annapolis.

No amount of information – no amount of facts counteracting the myths of these devices – will prevent lawmakers from trumping-up the safety angle while gorging at the predatory revenue trough.
“We’ve been able to achieve a pretty significant reduction in traffic fatalities,” Gov. Martin O’Malley weighed in on the safety aspects of traffic cameras in Maryland. “I think part of that has to do with better technology and all of us taking it a little slower. We are saving a lot of lives and reducing traffic fatalities.”

Well, save for that pesky spike in 2012 – and even though he ignored the numbers that showed fatal crashes on state highways dropped in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

State wide use of speed cameras wasn’t authorized until 2009.

In Baltimore the focus remains on getting the cash IV back into the arm of the motoring public. In January the city switched from its current camera provider – Xerox State & Local Solutions – to Brekford, a Maryland-based “upstart” in the industry that has been contracted to install/replace 72 speed cameras throughout the city. In addition to costing $2.2 million, the contract will allow a vendor to share in the proceeds of the fines collected – for every $75 traffic ticket generated by the cameras and collected by the city, Brekford is rebated $21. For every $40 ticket, Brekford gets $11.20.
Also of interest is an April 19 report by Baltimore Brew that notes that members of Brekford’s board include Douglas DeLeaver, a former chief of the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Police; Jessie Lee Jr., executive director of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (which has longstanding ties to the Baltimore City Police Department).

The Brew also reported that the head of Brekford’s speed camera division, Maurice Nelson, was hired from Montgomery County’s automated traffic enforcement program.
In addition, the $2.2 million was handed over to Brekford even though that company’s “clerical mistakes” (and software compatibility issues) are what resulted in an undisclosed number of erroneous tickets given out to motorists.
And, Brekford scored all the repeat business without having to jump through the hoops of competitive bidding
.

“We decided it was not practical to seek competitive bids on these additional cameras,” Timothy M. Krus, the city’s chief purchasing agent said in response to City Comptroller Joan Pratt questioning the process.

When it comes to the cameras themselves as well as the government officials who vote to authorize them, it becomes more apparent that Judge Reuhlman’s said it best: automated traffic enforcement is “a scam the motorist cannot win.”


0 Comments

August 26th, 2014

8/26/2014

0 Comments

 
TO REBUILD OUR ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY WE NEED TO REINSTATE RULE OF LAW AND REBUILD OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.  DO NOT BELIEVE THE SMALL GOVERNMENT MANTRA. 

Trillions of dollars are still being lost every year from our Federal, state, and local government coffers from fraud and corruption.  It is simply being redirected from public programs and into the pockets of connected corporations.  Obama has been as committed to dismantling all government oversight and accountability and placed Wall Street people in our public agencies to do that redirecting of public funds.  It's like having an invading army looting your Treasury.

When a neo-liberal calls for Open Government they do not mean public transparency----they mean selling the public's data to whatever corporation can use it.

Neo-cons don't even try to disguise that they do not recognize our rights as citizens to privacy and equal protection from this fleecing of our government coffers and personal wealth.  Maryland has pretty much dismantled all of public justice.

Let's take a few days to see the scope of this looting.  It is not only one corporate industry....the financial industry drives it but there is literally a free for all.


Feds Transparency Website Can’t Account for $619 Billion


By: Rachel Blevins Aug 7, 2014

In the midst of the Obama administration’s attempt to implement the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, a recent government audit shows that $619 billion is missing from 302 federal programs.

The Transparency Act was passed by Congress last year to “expand the amount of federal spending data available to the public.”

USASpending.gov was originally created as a way to make government spending more transparent. However, a report from the Government Accountability Office revealed that only 2% to 7% of the recorded spending data in 2012 is “fully consistent with agencies’ records.”

The report stated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should implement more oversight of the spending data from federal agencies, and that until it does, “any effort to use the data will be hampered by uncertainties about accuracy.”

Jamal Brown, a spokesman for the OMB, made a statement insisting that the OMB is “committed to federal spending transparency and working with agencies to improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions.”


According to USA Today, The Department of Health and Human Services was one of the 302 federal agencies, which failed to report money it had spent. This agency “failed to report nearly $544 billion, mostly in direct assistance programs like Medicare.”

The Department of the Interior neglected to report $5.3 billion it had spent, due to the fact that it claimed its accounting systems “were not compatible with the data formats required by USASpending.gov.”

USA Today also reported that for more than 22% of federal awards, “the spending website literally doesn’t know where the money went.”

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senator Tom Carper, acknowledged the problem saying, “We live in a world in which information drives decisions, and given the budget constraints that our government faces, we need reliable information on how and where our money is being spent.“


____________________________________________________


The health data once protected under HIPPA is now an open market.  States are selling public health data they now consider a new revenue source.  Johns Hopkins has a huge computer network that does nothing but receive and process data from around the state and from NSA networks.  All the money made from this data is pocketed as profit.  We see all kinds of efforts at protecting data----at the same time we have credit cards using fingerprints for easy access....liking simply signing is too hard.  Hackers access this data and now identity theft will include people's fingerprints. 

DIDN'T COMMIT THAT CRIME------WE HAVE YOUR FINGERPRINTS THAT SAY YOU DID!  JUST THINK HOW THAT CAN BE USED BY AN AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.

I won't go into the national fingerprinting goal of Republicans for decades to say that is what this will do---I want to look at how people's money is being made more vulnerable and we are being forced at some point to use these technologies.
It was said this year that Wall Street and the NSA stated hackers like Snowden and Anonymous are making it impossible for NSA systems to keep data secure and our businesses systems are tens of thousands time more vulnerable to people around the world wanting to steal our money.  They do not secure these systems they build---they simply build and sell them. 

There is no thought given to societal implications.


Discover testing fingerprint payments

November 26, 2012|By Becky Yerak | Tribune staff reporter

Discover Financial Services Inc. employees will be able to pay by finger at their Riverwoods headquarters' cafeteria and convenience stores as they become the first to test a new payment system.

Discover, which is working with French biometrics firm Natural Security on the project and which plans to get the pilot underway in the next three months, has previously used hundreds of its employees to test new technologies including various "contactless" payments, in which credit cards are simply tap. It plans to test the fingerprint payment system with 300 to 350 employees.

Discover employees who want to participate will register at an on-site kiosk, which will read an index fingerprint and assign a number to it. Each employee will also receive a key fob with a chip that includes information about their individual credit-card account as well as their fingerprint.
 
To complete a purchase, the user will place his or her finger on a fingerprint reader near checkout, with the key fob kept nearby, such as in a pocket or purse, for the transaction to go through. One security benefit to the process is that it guarantees that the fob or credit card and its owner are at the same place at the same time. It could also be faster and more convenient as people won't have to fumble around with their credit cards.
 
The credit-card company's test comes a few years after U.S. grocer Jewel abandoned its program with Pay by Touch, which got about $300 million in debt and equity financing from investors. 

In 2006, Pay by Touch said about 10,000 Chicagoans had signed up for its fingerprint-payment program. A year later, some creditors tried forcing the owner of Pay by Touch into involuntary bankruptcy as its finances went into disarray. By 2008, the Pay by Touch machines were removed  from Jewel stores.
 
Troy Bernard, Discover's global head of emerging payments, said his company is working on several payment technologies that could come to fruition both in the short- and long-term.
 
"Biometrics falls into long-term solutions," Bernard said, acknowledging potential concerns about both biometrics as well as the barrier to entry of making someone register for something.


___________________________________________

You see below Wall Street is selling this as a means to cut down on identity theft but as this article states----it will be just as vulnerable with much more of your identity to steal.  So, you have a credit card stolen----you close the account.  You have a biometric credit card stolen and they have you for life.

Monkeetech announces iris-based credit card fraud prevention ...www.biometricupdate.com/201306/...based-credit-card-fraud...   Cached

Monkeetech has announced the development of a new (patent-pending) iris scan biometric credit card fraud prevention system, called EyeWatch.


Your Biometric Identity Proof Positive


By Jake Stroup Identity Theft Expert

One way that shows a lot of promise in trying to combat identity theft is implementing biometric identification. You can see this on television crime shows like CSI, NCIS, etc. Biometrics include fingerprints, facial recognition, voice patterns, retinal scans, DNA, the list goes on.

Although it has been a scapegoat for many identity thefts, in many ways technology has provided some of the most solid defenses against the rising tide of identity theft. RFID tags, data encryption and innovations along those lines have gone a long way to helping us secure our personal information. The Federal government is even considering using biometric ID cards to combat illegal immigration. In fact, it's easy to make the argument that the problem isn't in the technology but in our lack of interest in protecting personal information.


Victims of identity theft report that it can take three to five years, or even longer to fix an identity theft problem. Keep in mind, you can get a new credit card in two weeks, once you have all the information to the bank or credit issuing authority. But who's going to the issue you a new set of fingerprints if they get stolen?

The idea of somebody stealing your biometric information isn't as farfetched as you might hope. It has already been shown how simple it would be to plant false DNA evidence. This article even goes so far as to say, "Any biology undergraduate can perform this."

In the end we will probably see the same problems arise, and some think the problem may get even worse. This is because the way biometrics work isn't really any different from credit cards.

What's The Difference? It's easy to think of credit in terms of the plastic cards in our pocket, since we can touch them, and that makes it more real. But this isn't the case. Today, credit is really nothing more than a long string of numbers stored in a computer somewhere. When you swipe your card at the local Wal-Mart, the information stored on your card is converted into a number as well and sent to your bank. If the numbers match up you get to walk home with a bag full of goodies.

  Biometric identification works in a similar manner, but you're using your fingerprint instead of a card. It will still be turned into a string of numbers and run through a computer network. In the end does it really matter where the string of numbers comes from when an identity thief gets hold of it?


Despite the predictions of some experts, a database is still just a database. A hacker can still steal data from a computer or network, it doesn't matter if that data is a credit card number, or a digital voice print.

As far as security is concerned, many experts agree that maintaining "token" forms of identification are probably superior. Token identification is a card, password, PIN etc. – something that can be canceled, or changed if it is lost, misplaced or stolen. On the other hand biometric identification can't be lost, misplaced, or loaned to a friend, but it can't be replaced if it's compromised, either. This, combined with certain privacy issues (tracking, profiling, consumer-related privacy issues etc.) are making experts give serious consideration to whether or not biometrics are a viable option on a large scale.

It's easy to understand why this brings a sense of security, since no two fingerprints are the same. On the surface it seems like a secure form of identification. But security doesn't come from knowing that you are you, security only comes from knowing the information associated with your name is accurate, no matter what database that information might be in. In other words, if an identity thief managed to convince a fingerprint scanner that they were you, they will probably not come back to court if they manage to get released on bail/bond. In that situation, proving who you are won't help.

Biometrics have a few quirks of their own, though. For example, some states have started implementing a "no–smiles" policy for driver's licenses. This is because those states are now using facial recognition software to stem the flow of driver's license fraud. But the software might get confused if the subject smiles.

Furthermore, advocates like to say it's impossible to duplicate (for example) a fingerprint, but that's already been proven wrong. In fact, it's easy to do with a simple laser printer, and a little bit of spit.

But the biggest consideration is that a biometric identity system is only going to be as good as the information that's put into it in the first place. In other words, your fingerprint won't tell anyone who you are, all it can really do is keep you from using somebody else's identity once you are in that system. In fact, identity theft expert John Sileo said, "If we implement biometrics without doing our due diligence on protecting the identity,
we are doomed to repeat history — and our thumbprint will become just another Social Security Number."


And that would be a grim future indeed.

____________________________________________

The American people need to look at the Bush/Obama years as the USSR Perestroika where all the common public wealth was divided between a few connected families.  That is what is happening now.  We had our Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler who worked hard to see Maryland citizens got as little money from massive subprime mortgage fraud as possible making the small payments made into charitable contributions and tax write-offs just as the article below says.  That has happened to all settlement money.  Most of the money goes back to the government which then hands it to corporate subsidy.

I think Gansler was actually surprised when he received 5% of Democratic votes for Maryland governor as if people don't know.  He did almost beat Anthony Brown with 12% of the Democratic vote.  For some reason people just don't like this systemic fraud and corruption.


REMEMBER, WHEN A GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS---IT SUSPENDS STATUTE OF LIMITATION.



'We have seen this pattern - creating the appearance of punishing wrongdoing while actually leaving the bank basically unscathed and unchanged in its practices - over and over again from the Obama administration in the last few years'.


Friday, 22 August 2014 05:29


Bank of America's $16.6 Billion Mortgage Fraud Agreement Is Another Public Relations Stunt


MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT


BuzzFlash at Truthout has written many commentaries on how the Obama administration has been - and continues to be - quite lenient with Wall Street when it comes to financial malfeasance. In particular, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have assiduously avoided, for the most part, any serious institutional or personal criminal responsibility for massive fraud committed by banks too big to fail and other mega-financial institutions. 


The settlement this week between the DOJ and Bank of America for its role in the financial fraud that busted the economy in 2008 (including its acquisition of the scam company it acquired, Countrywide Financial) is yet another example of a large fine that looks like punishment, but amounts to much, much less than meets the eye. Indeed, that is the assessment of an August 21 article in the "Dealmaker" section of The New York Times (NYT): 

"The real financial cost to the bank could be considerably lower," said Laurie Goodman, a specialist in housing at the Urban Institute. "This is helping consumers, but it may not be costing the bank."

The actual pain to the bank could also be significantly reduced by tax deductions. Tax analysts, for instance, estimate that Bank of America could derive $1.6 billion of tax savings on the $4.63 billion of payments to the states and some federal agencies under the settlement. Shares of Bank of America jumped 4 percent on Thursday, suggesting investors believe that the bank could take the settlement in stride.

"The American public is expecting the Justice Department to hold the banks accountable for its misdeeds in the mortgage meltdown," said Phineas Baxandall, an analyst with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization. "But these tax write-offs shift the burden back onto taxpayers and send the wrong message by treating parts of the settlement as an ordinary business expense."

Given that we are talking about a dominant Wall Street bank and financial behemoth, the takeaway sentence from The New York Times is: "Shares of Bank of America jumped 4 percent on Thursday, suggesting investors believe that the bank could take the settlement in stride." When a bank's stock goes up after what initially appears to be a huge fine, you know that it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

We have seen this pattern - creating the appearance of punishing wrongdoing while actually leaving the bank basically unscathed and unchanged in its practices - over and over again from the Obama administration in the last few years.


It is true that at least one part of the Bank of America settlement could benefit mortgage holders desperately in need of readjusting the terms of their home loans. That is good:

The consumer relief is expected to help tens of thousands of homeowners across the country. Most notably, the deal could result in Bank of America forgiving billions of dollars in mortgage principal. Unlike the other settlements, a person briefed on the matter said, the Bank of America plan could involve cutting the principal on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, a move that will primarily help low- and moderate-income borrowers.

However, as The New York Times points out, this relief is coming much too late for the large number of people who lost their homes to foreclosure in the six years since 2008. It would have assisted tens of thousands more individuals and families if the DOJ had forced Bank of America years ago to be more flexible with underwater mortgage holders. 

The Times notes that the restructuring of loans will have little impact on the finances of Bank of America:

At issue is how much of the cost of the $7 billion in "soft dollars," or help for borrowers, the bank will bear under the settlement. Some of the relief the bank will provide involves cutting the principal of a loan to make it easier for the borrower to pay. The dollar amount of that reduction gets credited toward what it needs to fulfill the settlement. But Bank of America wrote down many of its troubled mortgages years ago. And investment firms, not Bank of America, may now own some of the loans that get written down, potentially shielding the bank from a financial hit. 

Taking a closer look at the Bank of America fine, The New York Times finds that at least half of the $16.8 billion dollars is in the form of soft money or tax breaks. There are also additional financial offsets.

In what has become a traditional part of any DOJ settlement with a bank too big to fail, unnamed DOJ sources are promising to pursue charges against individual executives. Of course, the indictments never appear, but the statements make for good politics with a citizenry that wants to see some personal accountability for fraudulent bank practices.

It is clear now, with a little over two years left in the Obama presidency, that one of his key legacies will be casting little more than a wink and a nod at Wall Street's violations of the law, including a failure to prosecute any high-ranking officials for the illegal and deceptive practices that led to the near-collapse of the United States economy.

_______________________________________
As we watch Wall Street go from billions to trillions of dollars in wealth much from fraud-----the American people are being soaked with fees, fines, and taxes to make up for the government revenue stolen.  Students are deliberately left unemployed//underemployed and mid-life adults are left with no retirement because of the crash and stagnation.  Obama has placed the Department of Education in the hands of Wall Street to treat citizens most in need as if a predator.  Old student loans for a few thousands of dollars grows with thousands of fees and fines in just a few years????


Retirees' Social Security checks garnished for student loans Many had forgotten of old loans

Author: By Patrick M. Sheridan Published On: Aug 24 2014 11:33:31 AM CDT   Updated On: Aug 24 2014 06:30:52 PM CDT



What's surprised Cohen lately is the increasing number of gray-haired people walking in his doors with a problem: A portion of their meager Social Security benefits are being taken by the government to pay for old student loans they had mostly forgotten about.

It's a growing national trend. Last year, 156,000 Americans had their Social Security checks garnished because of student loans they had defaulted on. It's tripled in number from 47,500 in 2006, before the Great Recession. That's according to analysis done by the U.S. Treasury for CNNMoney.


Like Cohen, other groups have noticed the increase too. A leading nonprofit group that works with students on repaying loans, American Student Assistance, has worked this past year with over 1,000 Americans who have had their social security payments garnished to repay outstanding student loans. That's a sharp increase from 200 people in the previous year.

For retirees, any cuts to their Social Security benefits really hurts.

"Social Security means survival. It means food, shelter, medication," said Cohen, a Connecticut attorney, who works with people on debt collection harassment and student loan repayments.

What's worse is that even if the unpaid student loan was small, the amount they owe now is usually a lot larger because of compounding interest rates.

Retired Americans can start collecting Social Security benefits at 62. However, the folks that Cohen has worked with are in their 70's and 80's.

The amount taken from these checks isn't small. The average Social Security monthly check is $1200, the typical amount taken is $180.


Very few student loans can be refinanced and many people have outstanding loans with interest rates locked at over 7%, even though rates have fallen in recent years to below 3%.

Repayment terms on student loans are extremely rigid. They are rarely forgiven even in bankruptcy and people can have their wages garnished if they default.

The issue caught the attention of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who introduced a bill earlier this year to allow millions of people like Anderson to refinance their student loans. However, the bill was blocked in June.

Social workers are also seeing an increase in the number of people with mental and health issues having their Social Security disability checks garnished.

"I had a Korean War veteran in his 80's who had taken out a student loan for his son and then began having health problems. The government took money from his Social Security disability checks - money that he needed to buy medications," said Deanne Loonin, a director at the National Consumer Law Center, which works to provide economic security to low income and disadvantaged people, including the elderly.

According to the government data, the total amount garnished from social security checks last year came to $150 million.

  • Copyright 2014 by CNN NewSource. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
    ___________________________________________



While seniors have their SS seized, the IRS has been allowed to be dismantled and defunded so it is now being fleeced just as Medicare and Medicaid Trusts are.  They make it sound like average people are the avoiders but most of this is corporate tax fraud.


Neo-liberals and neo-cons are simply allowing all public wealth to be gutted and stolen.  We see it to a large extent in Baltimore with Baltimore Development Corporation and Johns Hopkins leading the culture of corruption in the city.

This creates a culture of non-compliance.  Nations like Greece and Italy have never been able to develop structurally because of the massive tax evasion gutting government revenue.  That is what is happening here.....
strangling all sources of revenue to justify AUSTERITY
.  For people that want less IRS you need to know---the working and middle class will take more and more of the burden of revenue no matter the talk of reduced taxes.

ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS

IRS Funding Cut Days Before Report Shows $330 Billion In Uncollected Taxes Posted: 04/11/2011 6:03 pm EDT Updated: 06/11/2011 5:12 am EDT Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- As part of the budget deal hashed out on Friday evening, lawmakers agreed that no additional federal funds would be used to hire new IRS agents.

Then on Monday, the Government Accountability Office publicly released a study showing that, as of the end of fiscal year 2010, roughly $330 billion in federal taxes had never been paid -- an amount that, if collected, would represent nearly nine times the amount of savings as the budget itself.

The dual developments aren’t shocking. Despite evidence that a single dollar spent on enforcing the tax code could result in up to ten dollars in revenue, politicians, naturally, are reluctant to align themselves with tax collectors. And yet, the sacrificing of funds for IRS agents in the continuing resolution deal underscores a particular problem that seems bound to confront fiscally conscious lawmakers.

“Cutting back on IRS enforcement could easily cost the treasury much more in revenue than it saves,” said Chuck Marr, Director of Federal Tax Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The GAO report, which looks specifically at the issue of passport holders who have failed to pay their full share of taxes, underscores Marr’s point. Titled “Federal Tax Collection: Potential for Using Passport Issuance to Increase Collection of Unpaid Taxes,” the study labels poor enforcement of tax laws and the tax code as a “high-risk” hole in government policy. In fiscal year 2008, passports were issued to about 16 million individuals. Of those, more than 224,000 owed more than $5.8 billion in unpaid federal taxes.

A good chunk of the evasion, the GAO concluded, was committed by individuals with “substantial personal assets” including multi-million-dollar homes and “luxury cars.” One passport recipient bought a house for $2 million and another property for $1.5 million despite owing $1 million in federal taxes.

“If you look, you can find records of most capital gains income,” said Rob Shapiro, former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce. “People deposit it in their bank accounts or the institutions may issue reports if it is capital gains on stock transactions. So it is not hard to pick it up if you have the manpower to look for it. And again, given that the salary of an IRS agent is at least as high as the average salary in America, the fact that there is a ten-to-one ratio for the returns on auditing tells you that [tax evasion] is coming from the high-income brackets.”

Regardless of who the worst evaders are, the GAO concludes that “IRS enforcement of federal tax laws is vital,” not just to pinpoint the offenders but to promote “broader compliance.” And what do the study’s authors cite as a compelling reason to beef up IRS functions? A “federal deficit” that “continue[s] to mount.”

Indeed, several close observers of the budget debate have wondered exactly how lawmakers can shudder at going after tax evasion while simultaneously preaching fiscal responsibility on the stump. Marr, for one, noted that Congress has already disbanded a tax reporting provision in the president’s health care reform law that would have resulted in stronger compliance. That was scuttled for politically obvious reasons: the paperwork it placed on small businesses was deemed well beyond burdensome. But the decision to deny funding for more IRS agents doesn’t have such an easy-to-distill an explanation.

“Hiring more IRS agents would have allowed the Obama administration to enforce its agenda, insofar as its agenda is to make sure that people don't cheat on their taxes,” wrote Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic.

Obama has made buffing up the IRS a relative hush-hush plank of his tax reform agenda. Upon entering office he advocated for more funds for the agency, and as part of his 2012 budget, he proposed a 9.4 percent increase so that it could hire roughly 5100 new employees. The proposal, which pivoted off of previous studies that reached similar conclusions as the GAO's, was met with somewhat frenzied pushback from conservative circles -- the specter of black-suited tax collectors roaming the streets undoubtedly on the mind. And almost immediately, the suggested increase in IRS funds became a target of cut-happy legislators.


0 Comments

August 25th, 2014

8/25/2014

0 Comments

 

One more post about education-----teachers and administrators are under attack and it has nothing to do with quality of education and nothing to do with democratic education.  Maryland and especially Baltimore has instituted laws surrounding education reform that are not constitutional.  You cannot simply pass a law that says a charter school given special allowances to circumvent all kinds of public education requirements will be called 'public charters'.....

IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE AND IF THESE LAWS WERE CHALLENGED IN COURT THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED! 


Most importantly everyone needs to understand that EQUAL PROTECTION is not only policy that protects the poor, people of color, or people with disabilities-----it is what gives all Americans Rule of Law and Constitutional rights.  This is what makes the difference between only the rich and corporations being protected under law as neo-cons and neo-liberals are trying to do now----and everyone having those protections.  Don't allow them to dismantle these protections one by one and this goes especially for education.  No one wins when low-income schools and communities are denied EQUAL PROTECTION in education.  They are only being hit by Wall Street privatizers first because they don't have the voice of the middle-class.  THEY WILL EXPAND TO ALL OF MARYLAND WHAT IS BEING BUILT IN BALTIMORE. 


Peter Greene: Why Teachers are Breaking Up with Common Core August 22, 2014

Pennsylvania teacher Peter Greene has written a fine post on why he believes that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are going down the toilet in supposed “teacher popularity.”

What I appreciate about Greene’s post is that he became aware of the CCSS facade of “teacher created, state-led” several months following my own revelation (which was sealed with education historian Diane Ravitch’s February 2013 post, Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards). Now, several months might not sound like much of a time difference, but I had already been actively involved in confronting issues of punitive, test-driven “reform” in Louisiana for almost a year, beginning in March 2012 with Louisiana’s Act 1 and Act 2. So, in May 2013, when Greene was still unaware of the CCSS fraud, my pump had already been primed regarding the CCSS sales job, and my realizing that teachers were once again being sold off– now via CCSS– was a done deal for sure by the time I began examining supposed CCSS-teacher-endorsing survey results beginning with the suspect AFT survey “finding” of “75 percent of teachers overwhelmingly approving of CCSS” (see this link and this link and this link– all written in May 2013).

Even in this spring 2013 survey, the truth was that teachers did not “overwhelmingly” support CCSS. They did so with reservation– a finding that continues to be slighted in 2014 survey reporting on CCSS regarding both teacher and general public opinion.

In any case, Greene’s post entitled How the Common Core Lost Teacher Support is a fine read. I offer part of it here and the link to Greene’s Huffington Post printing at the end of the excerpt:

Today’s big headline from the new Education Next poll is “Teachers No Longer Love CCSS.”

Support for the Core among teachers dropped like a stone, from 76% in 2013 to 46% in 2014. That’s a lot of love lost. Now, as we move from the “Holy schneikies!” phase into the “Got some splainin’ to do” phase, we’ll start to ask the big question.

Why?

Over at The Fordham, Mike Petrilli hopes he knows why — Note the phrase, “they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance.” Perhaps these words triggered the more negative response. I think Petrilli is hoping in vain. I think there’s a much more likely explanation for CCSS’s bad year among teachers.

Let’s think back to May of 2013. Personally, I’m a fine example of what teachers were like at that point. I didn’t know a lot about the Core, and what I did know didn’t sound all that bad. As far as I’d heard, a bunch of important people had called together a bunch of teachers to write some standards that could be used across the country to bring a little coherence to the higgledy-piggledy crazy-quilt that is US education. I’m not really a fan of national standards, but as long as they came from educational experts and were largely voluntary, it couldn’t hurt to look at them. Heck, if you had asked me in May of 2013 if I supported the Common Core standards, I might very well have said yes. And though there were teachers out there who had already caught on, there were plenty of teachers like me who were perfectly willing to give the whole business a shot.


So how did the reformsters lose all those hearts and minds?

I think it’s a measure of how detailed and painstaking and inch-by-inch this massive debate has been that it’s easy to lose track of the big picture, the many massively boneheaded things that CCSS supporters did along the way. Let’s reminisce about how so many teachers were turned off.

The lying.

Remember how supporters of the Core used to tell us all the time that these standards were written by teachers? All. The. Time. Do you know why they’ve stopped saying that? Because it’s not true, and at this point, most everybody knows it’s not true. The “significant” teacher input, the basis in solid research — all false. When someone is trying to sell you medicine and they tell you that it was developed by top doctors and researchers and you find out it wasn’t and they have to switch to, “Well, it was developed by some guys who are really interested in mediciney stuff who once were in a doctor’s office” — it just reduces your faith in the product.

The involuntariness

In many places, it took a while for it to sink in — “You mean we’re not actually allowed to change ANY of it, and we can only add 15%??!!”

It quickly became clear — this was not a reform where we would all sit around a table at our own schools and decide how to best to adapt and implement to suit our own students. Session by session, we were sent off to trainings where some combination of state bureaucrats and hired consultants would tell us how it was going to be. We were not being sent off to discuss or contribute our own professional expertise; we were being sent to get our marching orders, which very often even our own administrators were not “important” enough to give us (or understand).

Shut up.

Particularly in the latter half of 2013, we all heard this a lot. Phrased in diplomatic language, of course, but on the state and federal level we were told repeatedly that this was not a discussion, that our input was neither needed nor wanted, and that if were going to raise any sorts of questions, we should just forget about it.

This was particularly true for public schools. After all, the narrative went, public schools were failing and covering it up by lying to students and their parents about how well they were doing. It became increasingly clear that the Common Core were not meant to help us, but to rescue America’s children from us. “Just shut up and sit down,” said CCSS boosters with a sneer. “You’ve done enough damage already.”

The slander.

Arne Duncan told newspaper editors to paint core opponents as misguided and misinformed. Then he portrayed objectors as whiny white suburban moms. Opposition to CCSS was repeatedly portrayed as coming strictly from the tin hat wing of the Tea Party. If you opened your mouth to say something bad about the Core, you were immediately tagged a right-wing crank. There was no recognition that any complaint about any portion of the Core could possibly be legitimate. It had to be politically motivated or the result of ignorance.

To read the rest (well worth your time), follow this link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-greene/how-the-common-core-lost-_b_5694139.html?ir=Education




Want to know more about those exploiting public education? Read my newly-released ed “reform” whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who in the Implosion of American Public Education


__________________________________________

Race to the Top seeks to end the gains of Brown v Board of Education.  While this landmark ruling addressed segregated education it also spoke to separate but equal.  This ruling was about everyone's right to quality and equal access education.  The faces being placed on Race to the Top-----it would have been Hillary if not Obama are the very people losing the most with these reforms.  They place these faces at the national level and now the state and local level.  Meanwhile the one's pushing these policies-----Wall Street, corporations like Bill Gates and Walmart's Walton family-----and locally Johns Hopkins University-----all working to end democratic education and return to tracking children by income level.  Remember, the goal is to have 90% of Americans at or near poverty so this is nearly all citizens.  Remember as well that before Reagan/Clinton the most people in history were raised in education achievement and income.

Brown v. Board of Education

From Wikipedia,
Decided May 17, 1954

Holding Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal.

This is not only about race as it led to equal rights guarantees to all people, most notably children with disabilities/income class.  The key statement is 'BECAUSE SEPARATE FACILITIES ARE INHERENTLY UNEQUAL'.



Equal Protection Clause

From Wikipedia

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.


What Third Way corporate democrats along with Republicans are trying to do is eliminate this Constitutional interpretation by ignoring it.  This is why O'Malley under the direction of Obama pressed for special clauses in charter agreements that allowed for separate funding of schools (private donors), tiered level of funding per student (Advanced Placement gets the most.....underserved less, and disabled the least).  They allow a school choice and lottery that openly has schools selecting students in and out arbitrarily in an effort to gentrify.  The bottom line is this:  We are watching as O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake with the help of Baltimore City Council work to end Brown vs Board of Education and violate all Equal Protection laws all while keeping the title of 'public' charter.

Here in Baltimore the disparity is stark.  We always had separate schools as desegregation brought white flight.  I don't know if most people are concerned with the idea that we need integration of schools.  THE ISSUE IS THAT IS A DECISION A PARENT MAKES.  IF A PARENT HAS NO CHOICES THEY ARE NOT MAKING A DECISION.  So we have schools for only disabled and schools for underserved.  We have schools attached to businesses with vocational tracks and schools that house at-risk students and all of it is funded differently AND NONE OF IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

I could extend all of these issues with education to housing and the development plans that are excluding according to socioeconomic parameters....all of which determines the quality of school your child will have according to these reforms.  WE THE PEOPLE DID NOT TELL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WE WANTED OUR DEMOCRATIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISMANTLED......AND WE WILL NOT ALLOW IT!!

To add to the inherent violations of Equal Access in Education is this placement of grads in underserved schools where they are almost always from elite schools as is the case in Baltimore.  The very college grads who would have the most ability to find jobs are taking jobs that should serve as a pathway for people living in the school's community.  ALL PATHWAYS FOR ADVANCEMENT ARE DICTATED OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF AND THAT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION.  Then to place vocational charters in underserved communities or track the underserved to these charters under the guise of school choice IS NOT DEMOCRATIC OR LEGAL.


__________________________________________________


IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE THAT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT EDUCATION REFORM AS IT IS BEING DONE NOW IS ABOUT PRIVATIZING PUBLIC EDUCATION INTO PRIVATE VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS ATTACHED TO BUSINESS INTERESTS.......THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING!!!! THIRD WAY CORPORATE POLS ARE PUSHING FOR YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTO THE HANDS OF WALL STREET.

WE NEEDED TO REFORM OUR SCHOOLS NO DOUBT, BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT DEMOCRATIC REFORM LOOKS LIKE....THIS IS WHAT ENDING BROWN VS BOARD OF EDUCATION LOOKS LIKE!!!!


Mr. President, Education Is a Human Right, Not a Product
Thursday, 10 January 2013 09:10 By Bill Ayers, Truthout | Op-Ed

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on education and budget priorities, while Jack Lew, Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget, right, and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, look on at the Parkville Middle School and Center of Technology, in Baltimore on February 14, 2011. (Photo: Drew Angerer / The New York Times)

The landscape of “educational reform” is currently littered with rubble and ruin and wreckage on all sides. Sadly, your administration has contributed significantly to the mounting catastrophe. You’re not alone: The toxic materials have been assembled as a bipartisan endeavor over many years, and the efforts of the last several administrations are now organized into a coherent push mobilized and led by a merry band of billionaires including Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Sam Walton, and Eli Broad.

Whether inept or clueless or malevolent—who’s to say?—these titans have worked relentlessly to take up all the available space, preaching, persuading, promoting, and, when all else fails, spreading around massive amounts of cash to promote their particular brand of school change as common sense. You and Secretary Arne Duncan—endorsed in your efforts by Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, and a host of reactionary politicians and pundits—now bear a major responsibility for that agenda.

The three most trumpeted and simultaneously most destructive aspects of the united “school reform” agenda are these: turning over public assets and spaces to private management; dismantling and opposing any independent, collective voice of teachers; and reducing education to a single narrow metric that claims to recognize an educated person through a test score. While there’s absolutely no substantive proof that this approach improves schooling for children, it chugs along unfazed—fact-free, faith-based reform at its core, resting firmly on rank ideology rather than any evidence whatsoever.

The three pillars of this agenda are nested in a seductive but wholly inaccurate metaphor: Education is a commodity like any other—a car or a refrigerator, a box of bolts or a screwdriver—that is bought and sold in the marketplace. Within this controlling metaphor the schoolhouse is assumed to be a business run by a CEO, with teachers as workers and students as the raw material bumping along the assembly line while information is incrementally stuffed into their little up-turned heads.

It’s rather easy to begin to think that “downsizing” the least productive units, “outsourcing” and “privatizing” a space that was once public, is a natural event. Teaching toward a simple standardized measure and relentlessly applying state-administered (but privately developed and quite profitable) tests to determine the “outcomes” (winners and losers) becomes a rational proxy for learning; “zero tolerance” for student misbehavior turns out to be a stand-in for child development or justice; and a range of sanctions on students, teachers, and schools—but never on lawmakers, foundations, corporations, or high officials (they call it “accountability”)—is logical and level-headed.

I urge you to resist these policies and reject the dominant metaphor as wrong in the sense of inaccurate as well as wrong in the sense of immoral.  

Education is a fundamental human right, not a product. In a free society education is based on a common faith in the incalculable value of every human being; it’s constructed on the principle that the fullest development of all is the condition for the full development of each, and, conversely, that the fullest development of each is the condition for the full development of all. Further, while schooling in every totalitarian society on earth foregrounds obedience and conformity, education in a democracy emphasizes initiative, courage, imagination, and entrepreneurship in order to encourage students to develop minds of their own. 

When the aim of education and the sole measure of success is competitive, learning becomes exclusively selfish, and there is no obvious social motive to pursue it. People are turned against one another as every difference becomes a potential deficit. Getting ahead is the primary goal in such places, and mutual assistance, which can be so natural in other human affairs, is severely restricted or banned. It’s no wonder that cheating scandals are rampant in our country and fraudulent claims are commonplace.

Race to the Top is but one example of incentivizing bad behavior and backward ideas about education, as the Secretary of Education begins to look and act like a program officer for some charity rather than the leading educator for all children: It’s one state against another, this school against that one, and my second grade in fierce competition with the second grade across the hall.

You have opposed privatizing social security, pointing out the terrible risks the market would impose on seniors if the voucher plan were ever adopted. And yet you’ve supported—in effect—putting the most endangered young people at risk through a similar scheme. We need to expand, deepen, and fortify the public space, especially for the most vulnerable, not turn it over to private managers. The current gold rush of for-profit colleges gobbling up student loans is but one cautionary tale.

You’ve said that you defend working people and their right to organize and yet you have publicly and noisily maligned teachers and their unions on several occasions. You need to consider that good working conditions are good teaching conditions, and that good teaching conditions are good learning conditions. We can’t have the best learning conditions if teachers are forced away from the table, or if the teaching corps is reduced to a team of short-termers and school tourists.

You have declared your support for a deep and rich curriculum for all students regardless of circumstance or background, and yet your policies rely on a relentless regimen of standardized testing, and test scores as the sole measure of progress.

You should certainly pause and reconsider. What’s done is done, but you can demonstrate wisdom and true leadership if you pull back now and correct these dreadful mistakes.

In a vibrant democracy, whatever the most privileged parents want for their children must serve as a minimum standard for what we as a community want for all of our children. Arne Duncan attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools (as did our three sons); you sent your kids to Lab, and so did your friend Rahm Emanuel. There, students found small classes, abundant resources, and opportunities to experiment and explore, ask questions and pursue answers to the far limits, and a minimum of time-out for standardized testing. They found, as well, a respected and unionized teacher corps, people who were committed to a life-long career in teaching and who were encouraged to work cooperatively for their mutual benefit (and who never would settle for being judged, assessed, rewarded, or punished based on student test scores).

If it's good enough for you, good enough for the privileged, then it must be good enough for the kids in public schools everywhere—a standard to be aspired to and worked toward. Any other ideal for our schools, in the words of John Dewey who founded the school you chose for your daughters, “is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy.”




HERE IS A COMMENT FROM A TEACHER:

Until Teach for America becomes committed to training lifetime educators and raises the length of service to five years rather than two, I will not allow TFA to recruit in my classes. The idea of sending talented students into schools in impoverished areas, and then after two years encouraging them to pursue careers in finance, law, and business in the hope that they will then advocate for educational equity really rubs me the wrong way.

It was not always thus. Ten years ago, when a Teach for America recruiter first approached me, I was enthusiastic about the idea of recruiting my most idealistic and talented students for work in poor schools. I allowed TFA representative to make presentations in my classes, filled with urban studies and African American studies majors. Several of my best students applied, all of whom wanted to become teachers, and most of whom came from the kind of high-poverty neighborhoods where TFA proposed to send its recruits.

Not one of them was accepted!

Enraged, I did a little research and found that Teach for America had accepted only four of the nearly one hundred Fordham students who applied. I become even angrier when I read in the New York Times that TFA had accepted forty-four of one hundred applicants from Yale that year. Something was really wrong if an organization which wanted to serve low-income communities rejected every applicant from Fordham, students who came from those very communities, and accepted half of the applicants from an Ivy League school where very few of the students, even students of color, come from working-class or poor families.

Since then, the percentage of Fordham students accepted into Teach for America has marginally increased, but the organization has done little to win my confidence that it is seriously committed to recruiting people willing to make a lifetime commitment to teaching and administering schools in high-poverty areas.

Never, in its recruiting literature, has Teach for America described teaching as the most valuable professional choice that an idealistic, socially-conscious person can make. Nor do they encourage the brightest students to make teaching their permanent career; indeed, the organization goes out of its way to make joining TFA seem a like a great pathway to success in other, higher-paying professions.

Three years ago, a TFA recruiter plastered the Fordham campus with flyers that said “Learn how joining TFA can help you gain admission to Stanford Business School.” The message of that flyer was “use teaching in high-poverty areas a stepping stone to a career in business.” It was not only profoundly disrespectful to every person who chooses to commit their life to the teaching profession, it advocated using students in high-poverty areas as guinea pigs for an experiment in “resume-padding” for ambitious young people.



Why Teach For America Is Not Welcome in My Classroom

By Mark Naison

Every spring, without fail, a Teach for America recruiter approaches me and asks if they can come to my classes and recruit students for TFA, and every year, without fail, I give them the same answer.

“Sorry.”

Until Teach for America becomes committed to training lifetime educators and raises the length of service to five years rather than two, I will not allow TFA to recruit in my classes.  The idea of sending talented students into schools in impoverished areas, and then after two years encouraging them to pursue careers in finance, law, and business in the hope that they will then advocate for educational equity really rubs me the wrong way.

It was not always thus.  Ten years ago, when a Teach for America recruiter first approached me,  I was enthusiastic about the idea of recruiting my most idealistic and talented students for work in poor schools.  I allowed TFA representative to make presentations in my classes, filled with urban studies and African American studies majors.  Several of my best students applied, all of whom wanted to become teachers, and most of whom came from the kind of high-poverty neighborhoods  where TFA proposed to send its recruits.

Not one of them was accepted!

Enraged, I did a little research and found that Teach for America had accepted only four of the nearly one hundred Fordham students who applied.  I become even angrier when I read in the New York Times that TFA had accepted forty-four of one hundred applicants from Yale that year.  Something was really wrong if an organization which wanted to serve low-income communities rejected every applicant from Fordham, students who came from those very communities, and accepted half of the applicants from an Ivy League school where very few of the students, even students of color, come from working-class or poor families.

Since then, the percentage of Fordham students accepted into Teach for America has marginally increased, but the organization has done little to win my confidence that it is seriously committed to recruiting people willing to make a lifetime commitment to teaching and administering schools in high-poverty areas.

Never, in its recruiting literature, has Teach for America described teaching as the most valuable professional choice that an idealistic, socially-conscious person can make.  Nor do they encourage the brightest students to make teaching their permanent career; indeed, the organization goes out of its way to make joining TFA seem a like a great pathway to success in other, higher-paying professions.

Three years ago, a TFA recruiter plastered the Fordham campus with flyers that said “Learn how joining TFA can help you gain admission to Stanford Business School.”  The message of that flyer was “use teaching in high-poverty areas a stepping stone to a career in business.”  It was not only profoundly disrespectful to every person who chooses to commit their life to the teaching profession, it advocated using students in high-poverty areas as guinea pigs for an experiment in “resume-padding” for ambitious young people.

In saying these things, let me make it clear that my quarrel is not with the many talented young people who join Teach for America, some of whom decide to remain in the communities they work in and become lifetime educators.  It is with the leaders of the organization, who enjoy the favor with which TFA is regarded with by captains of industry, members of Congress, the media, and the foundation world.  They have used this access to move rapidly to positions as heads of local school systems, executives in charter school companies, and educational analysts in management consulting firms.

The organization’s facile circumvention of the grinding, difficult, but profoundly empowering work of teaching and administering schools has created the illusion that there are quick fixes, not only for failing schools but for deeply entrenched patterns of poverty and inequality.  No organization has been more complicit than TFA in the demonization of teachers and teachers’ unions, and no organization has provided more “shock troops” for education reform strategies which emphasize privatization and high-stakes testing.  Michelle Rhee, a TFA recruit, is the poster child for such policies, but she is hardly alone.

Her counterparts can be found in New Orleans (where they led the movement toward a system dominated by charter schools), in New York (where they play an important role in the Bloomberg education bureaucracy) and in many other cities.

And the elusive goal of educational equity—how well has it fared in the years Teach for America has been operating?  Not only has there been little progress in the last fifteen years in narrowing the test score gap by race and class, but income inequality has become greater, in the last fifteen years than at any other time in modern American history.   TFA has done nothing to promote income redistribution, reduce the size of the prison population, encourage social investment in high-poverty neighborhoods, or revitalize the arts, science, and history in the nation’s schools.  TFA’s main accomplishment has been to marginally increase the number of talented people entering the teaching profession, but only a small fraction of those remain in the schools where they were originally sent.

But the most objectionable aspect of Teach for America—other than its contempt for lifetime educators—is its willingness to create another pathway to wealth and power for those already privileged in the rapidly expanding educational-industrial complex, which already offers numerous careers for the ambitious and well-connected.  An organization which began by promoting idealism and educational equity has become, to all too many of its recruits, a vehicle for profiting from the misery of America’s poor.

Mark Naison

Mark Naison is a Professor of African American Studies and History at Fordham University and Director of Fordham’s Urban Studies Program. He is the author of three books and over 100 articles on African American History, urban history, and the history of sports. His most recent book, White Boy: A Memoir, was published in the spring of 2002

Republished with permission from History News Network

________________________________________________
In Baltimore I watched as a wave of educators fired and sent packing had rippling effect across all communities of color.  These were the few people in these communities with good jobs and desperately needed income.  A few years later we have a Governor O'Malley and Mayor Rawlings-Blake bringing in military-style policing to handle the effects this destabilization had on an already stressed community.  IT IS MIND-BOGGLING HOW PEOPLE CAN BE SO DISINTERESTED IN HUMANITY WHEN THEY ARE TASKED WITH A MISSION DRIVEN SOLELY BY AFFLUENCY.

MAKE NO MISTAKE......THE NEED FOR LUXURY DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN AREAS IS NOT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR A HEALTHY CITY....IT WAS PLANNED AS A VISION OF MAKING A WORLD-CLASS CITY TO THE DETRIMENT OF MOST OF ITS CURRENT RESIDENTS.

Almost all academic study that is allowed to surface show that all of these policies but into place as reform hasn't shown any favorable affect NO MATTER HOW HARD MARTIN O'MALLEY TRIES TO FIX THE DATA!!



Among Obama supporters, the gap between popular perceptions of the president's policies and the actual content of those policies is nowhere wider than in public education. While the president pays lip service to the centrality of public education, teachers and parent input, his Race To The Top is paving the road to privatization, closing more public schools and firing more teachers than any president in US history.

Obama's Race To The Top Drives Nationwide Wave of School Closings, Teacher Firings

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

A nationwide epidemic of school closings and teacher firings has been underway for some time. It's concentrated chiefly in poor and minority communities, and the teachers let go are often experienced and committed classroom instructors, and likely to live in and near the communities they serve, and disproportionately black.

It's not an accident, or a reflection of changing demographics, or more educational choices suddenly becoming available to families in those areas. It's not due to greedy unionized teachers or the invisible hand of the marketplace or well-intentioned educational policies somehow gone awry.

The current wave of school closings is latest result of bipartisan educational policies which began with No Child Left Behind in 2001, and have kicked into overdrive under the Obama administration's Race To The Top. In Chicago, the home town of the president and his Secretary of Education, the percentage of black teachers has dropped from 45% in 1995 to 19% today. After winning a couple skirmishes in federal court over discriminatory firings in a few schools, teachers have now filed a citywide class action lawsuit alleging that the city's policy of school “turnarounds” and “transformations” is racially discriminatory because it's carried out mainly in black neighborhoods and the fired teachers are disproportionately black.

How did this happen? Where did those policies come from, and exactly what are they?

Beginning in the 1980s, deep right pockets like the Bradley and Walton Family Foundations spent billions to create and fund fake “grassroots movements.” They churned out academic studies and blizzards of media hype, first for vouchers, later on for charter schools and what’s become a whole panoply of privatization-oriented “education reforms” ranging from teacher merit pay to common core curriculum and more.  

Those billions paid off with the 2001 passage of the No Child Left Behind Act which made the right wing corporate agenda of undermining and ultimately privatizing public education national policy.  Though standardized test scores were long known to prove little aside from student family income, they suddenly became the gold standard for judging teacher & school performance.  School districts were required to purchase & give dozens of costly meaningless tests and to publish lists ranking their own schools and teachers as “failing” when test scores were low, which again, was mostly wherever students were poor.

Amid torrents of “blame the teachers” propaganda, so-called “failing schools” were required to hire expensive contractors with cockeyed “run the school like a business” remedies and more crackpot tests. Thus it was that NCLB spawned almost overnight an entire industry of jackleg educational consultants and test suppliers guaranteed a market with dollars diverted from already tight public school budgets. Those industries attracted capital investors, and began doing what every other industry does in the US ---- make big campaign contributions to politicians to get sweeter contracts and more favorable regulation.  When test scores still didn’t rise, NCLB required many schools to close, making openings for chains of charter schools, often highly profitable charter schools, bringing the blessings of “choice” and free market competition to the educational “marketplace.”

It was an unequal sort of “competition” though, because charter schools have always been allowed to pick and choose their students, to turn away those with special needs, and to hire teachers and principals with little or no relevant training.

Results in the classrooms of poor neighborhoods around the country were devastating.  Where in 1987-88 the modal year for teacher experience -- that’s the number of years the largest cohort of teachers had been in the classrooms ---  was ten years, by 2008 the biggest block of teachers were in their very first year, by definition --- the least confident, the least experienced and the least effective.  

This was the state of public education when President Obama walked into the White House door.  What did he do? Did he turn it around? Or did he double down? The answer is that in the spirit of corporate bipartisanship, president Obama sided with the charter school sugar daddies instead of black teachers, black parents and their children.

President Obama appointed Chicago Schools CEO Arne Duncan Secretary of Education. A champion of privatization, Duncan had closed dozens of Chicago schools, many on short notice, some at the apparent behest of gentrifying real estate developers.  Duncan fired so many veteran black Chicago teachers to , fill their slots with mostly white rookies, that teachers sued him for racial discrimination in federal court and won.  Duncan even introduced military charter schools in Chicago, in one case handing a west side middle school to the US Marine Corps.

No Child Left Behind had been passed by a Democratic congress in the first days of the Bush administration. Opposition to its policies was widespread, and much of that opposition was among Democratic constituencies. So President Obama's signature education policy initiative, would bypass Congress and the opportunity for public debate on the disastrous effects of existing pro-privatization policies.

Secretary Duncan at his side, President Obama introduced Race To The Top, drawn up by the Bill & Melinda Gates, the Eli Broad, Boeing, Walton Family and other foundations.  Under Race To The Top states and school districts are forced to bid against each other for many of the same education dollars they used to receive as a matter of course. The winning districts are those who apply Race To The Top's four official solutions to their so-called “failing schools.”

Race To The Top's four federally mandated “solutions,” which are never spelled out by corporate media news outlets, are “school transformations,” “school turnarounds,” “school restarts,”  and “school closures.”

Race to the Top defines a “school transformation,” its first remedy, as firing the principal and up to 50% of teachers, replacing them with temps and newbies, hiring expensive consultants, often the same folks who drafted Race To The Top guidelines or their cronies, to redesign curriculum and personnel policies. “Transformed” schools tie teachers jobs to test scores (that’s what caused the national epidemic of cheating scandals) lengthening school days with no extra pay, cutting wages & benefits and of course lots more costly and useless tests.

Race To The Top calls its second remedy “school turnaround.” Turnarounds are exactly the same as school transformations, with high priced “run the school like a business” consultants, increased reliance on standardized tests, sanctions for teachers and all new hires sourced from Teach For America type agencies, except that transformations fire up to 50% of school staff, but to be called a turnaround schools must fire at least 50% of school staff.

“School restarts,” are the third Race To The Top solution. In a “restart” you close the public school and reopen a new school with new staff and the same connected consultants used for transformations and turnarounds, but all under the management of a private corporation. In other words, you close the public school and open a charter school in the same building. Charters of course can use public money to hire even less qualified teachers, pick and choose the students it serves, and often to generate handsome private profits.

Race To The Top's fourth remedy is “school closure.” You fire the staff, padlock the school doors and let families take their chances on the free market, or find another public school if they can.

The states and school districts quickest to carry out the most transformations, turnarounds, restarts and school closings are the ones who get to keep or increase their levels of federal funding. Those who drag their feet lose federal education dollars. That's why it's a race, but not exactly to the top.

Clearly there's no broad support for these insanely destructive educational policies. But since news media never report what Race To The Top's actual requirements are, or even that a nationwide wave of school closings and teacher firings is underway, much of the public, and even many teachers and their unions are unable to make the connection between federal policies and their local school crises. Corporate media point helpfully instead to corrupt local officials, greedy organized teachers insufficient reliance on the invisible hand of the free market. News reports in many areas are full of stories about school districts whose certification is imperiled because of looming loss of federal funds, but the public is offered few clues as to exactly WHY the funds are lacking or WHAT measures the district will have to take to get them restored. The fact is, Race To The Top is consciously designed to punish school districts that try to protect their educational assets, and rewards those who eviscerate and sell them off.

President Obama's Race To The Top then, is the direct cause of our national wave of school closings and mass teacher firings from Philly to Atlanta and Los Angeles to Rhode Island. It was local implementation of Obama's Race To The Top mandates that forced Chicago teachers out on strike last fall, and it's reluctance to carry out these measures that now imperils education funding in cities as large as Las Vegas.

The Chicago teachers class action lawsuit is a good thing. But the courts have been captive to the far right wing for a long time now, and are not likely to issue quick and sweeping rulings that upset things as they are. In the end, the only thing that will begin to save public education, that will halt the wave of school closings and teacher firings is mass mobilization on a scale not seen in fifty years. Right now, that seems almost as unlikely as corporate school reform being reversed or halted by the federal court.

What passes for black leadership these days, the descendants of the old line “civil rights” organizations are firmly on the corporate education reform bandwagon. Bill Gates, for example, delivered the 2011 keynote at the National Urban League's annual meeting. The NAACP and similar outfits are no better, all preferring to do the bidding of their funders and their president, over the interests of ordinary black families and their children. Even teachers unions are handicapped. Unlike the Chicago Teachers Union most haven't spent the last few years forging deep ties with organized forces in their school communities, and lack even a tradition of standing up for their own members they way labor unions ought to.

In human history, the notion that everybody is entitled to a quality public education is still relatively new, and has powerful enemies. President Obama is one of these. It was the insistence of newly freed slaves that led to the first universal public education laws in the South. African American leaders till now have always been stalwart champions of public education. Until we raise up a new crop of leaders and movements not beholden to corporate funding, not disposed to uncritical worship of corporate power wielded by a black face, public education will continue to wither and die.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and a member of the state committee of the Georgia Green Party. Contact him via this site's contact page, or at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com.

0 Comments

August 23rd, 2014

8/23/2014

0 Comments

 
Sorry I've been posting these blogs later in the afternoon.....my summertime schedule makes consistency hard.  Please keep coming back-----I am lucky to have thousands of visits.


FOLKS....NEO-LIBERAL MARYLAND HAS NOT ONLY SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD IN THE CASE OF THE ELECTION FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND BUT A NEW LAW THAT PLACES ONLY ANNE ARUNDEL COURTS AS JURISDICTION FOR ELECTION LAWSUITS SHOULD HAVE EVERYONE UP IN ARMS.....THIS IS A REAL POWER-GRAB THAT THREATENS CIVIL RIGHTS AND ELECTION FREEDOM.
  THESE CONDITIONS ARE WHAT HAS EXCLUDED LABOR AND JUSTICE AND SEEK TO MAKE THAT PERMANENT!  Subject Jurisdiction always allows courts in each county/city to handle that subject----for example----disability court/family court.  Law that limits a subject (election) to just one county looks to be unconstitutional.

CINDY WALSH IS STILL EXPECTING TO BE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND!

I want to use today to talk election issues by looking at my lawsuit claiming widespread election irregularities in the Democratic Primary race for Governor of Maryland should invalidate the election results.   As neo-liberals pretend to protect election rights they are consolidating the power of these incumbents with legislation threatening the public's ability to hold the elections process accountable.


Below you see the next step of my court case in Maryland.  I have filed the complaint, served the defendants, written an amended complaint, and the 30 day response period for defendants just passed.  We now need the court to set the trial date and verify it will accept jurisdiction.  In other words----if the court is going to dismiss this case it needs to do it now.  Routine cases can see a wait of 4 months just for jurisdiction and trial date....my case is expedited because Maryland law requires a speedy process for contests to elections for Governor.  I'm not a lawyer so all that I do is not correct or the best approach----but it should get to the end result.

I want to note some of the concerns I have while doing this.  First, the Maryland Assembly moved the cost of funding for Legal Aid---a Federal/Maryland Constitutional right from the state budget to people who file complaints in court nearly doubling the cost to the public to go to court.  The average person will feel the expense of $135 filing fee.  Then Maryland has the plaintiff bare the costs of serving the defendants.  In many cases courts include this serving with the filing fee.  Not too bad with one defendant---but it becomes pretty expensive if you have multiple defendants.  Maryland also has the laws that place the burden of trial costs on plaintiff if case is not won.  I know this cuts on frivolous lawsuits but in an atmosphere of fraud and corruption one doesn't have to have a bad case to not win.  Remember, my case should have been handled by the Maryland Attorney General protecting my rights as a candidate so I should not even be self-representing or taking this to court. All the costs of multiple copies of trial evidence and motions----all the costs of mailing to all defendants should be falling on Maryland Attorney General's office.  They do not have a public justice section or funding allotted to it.  So costs can easily grow to thousands of dollars by the trial's end.





August 26, 2014




                              
Cindy Walsh files motion to Baltimore City Circuit Court regarding date of trial and jurisdiction
                    Civil Action # 24-C-14-004156





Plaintiff notice to court and defendants of prospective trial dates

Plaintiff's Notice Requirement

It is the responsibility of the plaintiff's counsel to give notice of trial and settlement conference dates, times and departments. Only dates set by the court will be noticed by the court.



Your Full Name: Cindy Walsh - Plaintiff

Phone Number (with area code):

Email Address:

Case Number: 24-C-14-004156

Case Title: Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie Mack et al

Name of Party Representing: Self-representing----Cindy Walsh

Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie Mack is an expedited case due to the case being a contest of the election for Governor. The plaintiff requests the trial dates of September 8, 10, or 12, 2014 to meet the expedited requirement set by Maryland law and to give the defendant Linda Lamone added with an amended complaint a two week preparatory period. The original complaint filing and affidavit of process serving of summons was July 21, 2014 with August 21 meeting the original 30 day period for defendant response. The plaintiff has received no response from any defendant as of August 21 so the court should not have pending responses. Due to the expedited nature of this case the plaintiff calls for the court to shorten these scheduling proceedings to include the court's moving forward with setting the trial dates as listed above.


Cindy Walsh is self-representing

Cindy Walsh

2522 N Calvert St

Baltimore, Maryland 21218


_______________________________________

The plaintiff filed this complaint in the Circuit Court of Baltimore and not Anne Arundel County because this case is not protesting actions at the polls, actions regarding ballot presentation or presentation of election material by Maryland Board of Elections. This is not an official capacity lawsuit; it is an individual capacity lawsuit claiming willful and deliberate violation of Federal and State law and Civil Rights. The plaintiff also seeks to challenged the Maryland Assembly's right to legislate which court is given jurisdiction in contests to elections. It has been the right of a plaintiff to file suit in any court qualifying for jurisdiction and the election process effects all citizens of the state. This case and elections do not qualify for special jurisdiction.  Special jurisdiction such as family court has a presence in all counties/cities and is not particular to any one county.  It without a doubt creates an environment of conflict of interest, bias, and/or undue power to have one court system handling all cases especially of a subject having strong civil rights implications like elections.

Many of the election irregularities included in this case occurred in Baltimore City, the plaintiff lives in Baltimore City, and the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a defendant has his office in Baltimore City. This motion not only seeks to bring to the attention of the court that this case contesting the election for Governor of Maryland is by law directed to be handled in an expedited manner, but seeks to avoid dismissal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This is an ongoing election with the General Election for Governor of Maryland officially beginning after Labor Day so the Baltimore Circuit Court has the power to rule on jurisdiction without regard to the constitutional challenge and must set the trial date or dismiss sooner rather than later due to the expedited rules of the case.

The plaintiff concerns regarding delays in setting a court trial include:

  • The 30 day period after serving of summons with no response from defendants should provide the court with rights to set a trial date earlier than normal cases. The plaintiff includes in this motion the request for trial dates with the dates desired listed.

  • The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and does not receive summons for two weeks and only by making two calls. The rule of summons has a three-day turn-around from time complaint is filed to issuing summons. The plaintiff loses two weeks in setting trial date because of this delay. Second, the summons for the new defendant in this amended complaint is given 30days for response rather than falling into the time line of the original complaint. If the summons had been sent to the plaintiff in three days this window of two weeks remaining in the original time line would have given the new defendant time to respond to the court. As it is the court looks to add another month and a half to setting a trial date which fails to meet the expedited nature of this case and denies justice for the plaintiff. The new defendant, Linda Lamone needs to be made aware by the court she does not have 30 days to respond in this case and will instead have two weeks (14 days). The 30 day period for the original defendants to respond was over August 22, 2014 ----Lamone will be served by August 25 so we need the trial date set two weeks after this service date. Resolving this court case the first week in September falls into the ongoing election cycle. If the Baltimore Circuit Court decides to dismiss on grounds of jurisdiction the 5 day Appeal requirement of this Maryland election law will have the case resolved with expediency.

  • The plaintiff was told on August 22, 2014 by the court clerks handling filings that the court has not even reviewed defendant responses for this case and will take time to do that before setting a trial date. This sounds like more delay. Since the plaintiff has received no communication from any of the defendants, and the defendants are required by law to include the plaintiff in any communication with the court, it is safe to say the court had no response issues to consider. We need to set the trial date in two weeks to meet the expedited nature of this case.


  • The plaintiff provided proof of process to all defendants in this case by certified mail with restricted delivery.  Signatures were obtained at the addresses attached to each defendant.  On August 4, 2014, the envelope with all of the court documents and summons delivered to Heather Mizeur was returned to Cindy Walsh at her address unopened and stripped of all identifying delivery indicators such as the certified mail and restricted delivery paperwork attached the said envelope as if never delivered.  Plaintiff does not want this used as reason to delay trial date.




The plaintiff asks this court to set this trial date with the original filing date in mind and notify the new defendant Linda Lamone that the 30 day period to respond is actually 14 days. Plaintiff will not receive justice in this case if a decision on trial date does not occur soon after Labor Day.



Self-representing:

Cindy Walsh

2522 N Calvert St

Baltimore, Maryland 21218






MARYLAND ELECTION LAW:

Title 12 Subtitle 2.    Judicial Review of Elections

12-202.  Judicial challenges

a)  In general--- If no other timely and adequate remedy is provided by this article, a registered voter may seek judicial relief from any act or omission relating to an election, whether or not the election has been held, on the grounds that the act or omission:

1)  is inconsistent with this article or other law applicable to the elections process; and
2)  may change or has changed the outcome of the election.

b)  Place and time of filing.---- A registered voter may seek judicial relief under this section in the appropriate circuit court within the earlier of:

1)  10 days after the act or omission or the date the act or omission became known to the petitioner; or

2)  7 days after the election results are certified, unless the election was a gubernatorial primary or special primary election, in which case 3 days after the election results are certified.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-202; 2002, ch.291, 2, 4)


12-204.  Judgement.

a)  In general.  ------- The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) if this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and:

1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or

2) may change the outcome of a pending election.

b)  Act or omission that changed election outcome.  ----If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the
outcome of an election already held, the court shall:
1)  declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or

2)  order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy.

c)  Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election.  -----  If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may:


1)  order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and

2)  if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy,, direct that the elections for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court.

d)  Clear and convincing evidence.  -----  A determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-204; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4)




 

The motion below addresses what I feel is a real threat to the public's ability for impartial judicial action.  Maryland just passed a law that requires contests of elections be given to the courts in Anne Arundel.  Special jurisdiction for elections.  This mirrors having jurisdiction for Wall Street banks in the states having a strong banking presence.  It gives the defendant the immediate advantage with the plaintiff having no control of jurisdiction.  This is why if we sue banks we are taken to New York or North Carolina because that is where Wall Street and Wall Street South is located.  Having special jurisdiction for something as general as elections taken to one county takes the plaintiff out of his/her district and into what we all know is a very crony  Annapolis system.....which is what this lawsuit is about.  A plaintiff has always had the right to file where he/she wants if the jurisdiction rules are met.....I live/work in Baltimore/many of the crimes were committed here.....for example.  I ate lunch one day in Annapolis and asked where to go to share my views on issues and the restaurant owner told me----they don't want you there----they do as they like.  Is there bias against this kind of lawsuit in Anne Arundel courts?  Let's stay with the historical precedent of plaintiffs filing in any court they want and even special jurisdiction courts are available in every county/city. 

So, I am challenging the law setting Anne Arundel with special jurisdiction for elections.  Now, I filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court rather than Anne Arundel because I want this court to decide whether to take jurisdiction or dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.  The contest of constitutionality will still go to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler as he is a defendant in this lawsuit.  As a plaintiff I can take this to the Maryland AG and then the US AG if necessary to fight this special status.


The law states that the Baltimore City Court does not have to wait for the resolution of constitutionality to set a date of trial or dismiss so none of this should delay this court case.  If Baltimore moves to dismiss----I will head to the Appeals Court with this case.  What is most important is getting the court to keep the spirit of the Maryland law calling for expedited trial for contests of Maryland election for Governor.





Contesting the 2013 Maryland Statute assigning Anne Arundel County as the only court to hear election contests.


The Plaintiff asserts that the law setting Anne Arundel County as the only jurisdiction for a plaintiff to file election lawsuits is not valid, or do not constitutionally exist as they do not conform to certain constitutional prerequisites, and thus are no laws at all, which prevents subject matter jurisdiction to the above-named court. A state statute cannot undermine Federal law. This is not an official capacity lawsuit.

Special jurisdiction such as family court has a presence in all counties/cities and is not particular to any one county.  It without a doubt creates an environment of conflict of interest, bias, and/or undue power to have one court system handling all cases especially of a subject having strong civil rights implications like elections.


Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. In state court systems, statutes that create different courts generally set boundaries on their subject matter jurisdiction. One state court or another has subject matter jurisdiction of any controversy that can be heard in courts of that state.

The plaintiff filed this election lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baltimore because that is where the plaintiff lives, that is where much of the election irregularities occurred, and the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a defendant in this case has his office in Baltimore. The plaintiff has legal history as the one deciding jurisdiction. I am sending this contest to constitutionality to the Maryland Attorney General as part of this lawsuit. The Circuit Court of Baltimore must rule on jurisdiction in this particular case in an expedited manner as Maryland law places urgency on any contest of election for Maryland Governor. This is an ongoing election and a ruling of jurisdiction cannot wait. The case was filed and summons served to the original defendants over 30 days ago giving defendants time to petition the court. As yet no trial date has been set damaging the plaintiff's right to due process and expedited trial. This court can rule on jurisdiction before the Maryland Attorney General makes a ruling on constitutionality. If the Baltimore Court finds it does not have jurisdiction it will dismiss the case as such allowing the plaintiff to appeal.

Jurisdiction may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.


ARTICLE IV Part III - Circuit Courts.


SEC. 20. (a) There shall be a Circuit Court for each County and for Baltimore City. The Circuit Courts shall have and exercise, in the respective counties, and Baltimore City, all the power, authority and jurisdiction, original and appellate, which the Circuit Courts of the counties exercised on the effective date of these amendments, and the greater or lesser jurisdiction hereafter prescribed by law.




By rule, each of the Circuit Courts is required to have a differentiated case management plan “for the prompt and efficient scheduling and disposition of actions[.]”[20] Such plans vary by jurisdiction, but include the classification of cases by complexity and priority, to be assigned to particular scheduling “tracks” based on that classification.[20] Consistent with applicable court rule, the Circuit Courts have endeavored to make their differentiated case management plans as similar as possible;[21] in practice, however, the plans do vary somewhat among the Circuit Courts.



In a federal and state civil law suit, the plaintiff decides where a case is going to be heard by filing the complaint at whatever court she chooses. An individual or a company may file a claim in any jurisdiction for any reason.  The historical precedence is long-standing.



Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute



(a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:

(1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:

(A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or

(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and

(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.


(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.

(d) No Forfeiture. A party's failure to file and serve the notice, or the court's failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.

Notes (As added Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; amended Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)

Committee Notes on Rules—2006

Rule 5.1 implements 28 U.S.C. §2403, replacing the final three sentences of Rule 24(c). New Rule 5.1 requires a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing in question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute to file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The party must promptly file and serve the notice of constitutional question. This notice requirement supplements the court's duty to certify a constitutional challenge to the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The notice of constitutional question will ensure that the attorney general is notified of constitutional challenges and has an opportunity to exercise the statutory right to intervene at the earliest possible point in the litigation. The court's certification obligation remains, and is the only notice when the constitutionality of a federal or state statute is drawn in question by means other than a party's pleading, written motion, or other paper.

Moving the notice and certification provisions from Rule 24(c) to a new rule is designed to attract the parties’ attention to these provisions by locating them in the vicinity of the rules that require notice by service and pleading.


Rule 5.1 goes beyond the requirements of §2403 and the former Rule 24(c) provisions by requiring notice and certification of a constitutional challenge to any federal or state statute, not only those “affecting the public interest.” It is better to assure, through notice, that the attorney general is able to determine whether to seek intervention on the ground that the act or statute affects a public interest. Rule 5.1 refers to a “federal statute,” rather than the §2403 reference to an “Act of Congress,” to maintain consistency in the Civil Rules vocabulary. In Rule 5.1 “statute” means any congressional enactment that would qualify as an “Act of Congress.”

Unless the court sets a later time, the 60-day period for intervention runs from the time a party files a notice of constitutional question or from the time the court certifies a constitutional challenge, whichever is earlier. Rule 5.1(a) directs that a party promptly serve the notice of constitutional question. The court may extend the 60-[day] period on its own or on motion. One occasion for extension may arise if the court certifies a challenge under §2403 after a party files a notice of constitutional question. Pretrial activities may continue without interruption during the intervention period, and the court retains authority to grant interlocutory relief. The court may reject a constitutional challenge to a statute at any time. But the court may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the attorney general has responded or the intervention period has expired without response. This rule does not displace any of the statutory or rule procedures that permit dismissal of all or part of an action—including a constitutional challenge—at any time, even before service of process.

Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Rule 5.1 as proposed for adoption incorporates several changes from the published draft. The changes were made in response to public comments and Advisory Committee discussion.

The Advisory Committee debated at length the question whether the party who files a notice of constitutional question should be required to serve the notice on the appropriate attorney general. The service requirement was retained, but the time for intervention was set to run from the earlier of the notice filing or the court's certification. The definition of the time to intervene was changed in tandem with this change. The published rule directed the court to set an intervention time not less than 60 days from the court's certification. This was changed to set a 60-day period in the rule “[u]nless the court sets a later time.” The Committee Note points out that the court may extend the 60-day period on its own or on motion, and recognizes that an occasion for extension may arise if the 60-day period begins with the filing of the notice of constitutional question.


The method of serving the notice of constitutional question set by the published rule called for serving the United States Attorney General under Civil Rule 4, and for serving a state attorney general by certified or registered mail. This proposal has been changed to provide service in all cases either by certified or registered mail or by sending the Notice to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

The rule proposed for adoption brings into subdivision (c) matters that were stated in the published Committee Note but not in the rule text. The court may reject a constitutional challenge at any time, but may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the time set to intervene expires.

The published rule would have required notice and certification when an officer of the United States or a state brings suit in an official capacity. There is no need for notice in such circumstances. The words “is sued” were deleted to correct this oversight.

Several style changes were made at the Style Subcommittee's suggestion. One change that straddles the line between substance and style appears in Rule 5.1(d). The published version adopted the language of present Rule 24(c): failure to comply with the Notice or certification requirements does not forfeit a constitutional “right.” This expression is changed to “claim or defense” from concern that reference to a “right” may invite confusion of the no-forfeiture provision with the merits of the claim or defense that is not forfeited.

Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment

The language of Rule 5.1 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.



Determining the Constitutionality of Laws By John DiMotto




Today, I wa
nt to examine the Rules of Statutory Construction that are considered by the courts when a constitutional challenge to legislation is raised.

When a party claims that a law is unconstitutional, that party is claiming that the law is at odds with a provision in either the US or the Wisconsin Constitution or both and, as such, the law cannot stand or be enforced. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defines "Constitution" as:

"The organic and fundamental law of a nation or a state...establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people ... of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments (ie. branches) and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until is shall be changed by the authority which established it (ie. by amendment), and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void."

It is a fundamental bedrock of our government, by virtue of the "separation of powers," that:

1) The Legislature enacts the law.


2) The Executive enforces the law.

3) The Judiciary interprets the law.

Thus, when a law is challenged as being unconstitutional -- an affront to the constitution -- it is the judiciary which makes the final decision.

A party has standing to challenge a statute's constitutionality if that party has a sufficient interest in the outcome of a justiciable controversy to obtain a judicial resolution of that controversy. Standing involves a two step analysis. The court must determine whether the plaintiff has suffered threatened or actual injury and the interest asserted must be recognized by law. see State v. Oak Creek, 232 Wis.2d 612 (2000).

The Rules of Statutory Construction as they pertain to constitutionality provide that:

1) Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, and,

2) All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality.

3) Therefore, a party challenging a statute's constitutionality bears a heavy burden and must demonstrate the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.

see Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 284 Wis.2d 573 (2005).

The only exception to the challenger bearing the burden of proof is when a statute infringes on a First Amendment Right. In this instance, the State has the burden of proving constitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. see State v. Trochinski, 253 Wis.2d 38 (2002).

A constitutional challenge to a law can be:

1) A "facial" challenge; that is, on its face, the law is unconstitutional in every context, or

2) An "as applied" challenge; that is, the law is unconstitutional as to the challenger alone.

see State v. Smith, 323 Wis.2d 377 (2010).


A constitutional challenge to a law can be based on:

1) Overbreadth -- a statute is overbroad when its language is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the State is not permitted to regulate. see County of Kenosha v. C & S Management Inc., 223 Wis.2d 373 (1999). In order to assert a claim of overbreadth, it is not necessary that a person's own conduct be constitutionally protected. The overbreadth analysis reflects the conclusion that possible harm to society from allowing unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech will be muted. Thus, if a statute included in its prohibition conduct which is constitutionally protected, it is void even if the person's own conduct is unprotected and may be prohibited by a more narrowly drawn law. see State v. Johnson, 108 Wis.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1982). The danger in overbroad statutes is that they provide practically unbridled administrative and prosecutorial discretion that may result in selected prosecution based on certain views deem objectionable law enforcement. However, overbreadth must be real and substantial. Marginal infringement or fanciful hypotheticals of inhibition which are unlikely to occur will not render a statute unconstitutional on overbreadth grounds. see State v. Stevenson, 236 Wis.2d 86 (2000).

2) Vagueness -- a statute is vague if it fails to afford proper notice of the conduct it seeks to proscribe. The test for vagueness is whether a statute is so obscure that men of ordinary intelligence must guess as to its meaning and differ as to its applicability. To withstand a vagueness challenge it must be sufficiently definite so that potential offenders are able to discern boundaries of proscribed conduct. see Johnson, supra. Procedural due process is at issue. see County of Kenosha, supra.

3) Procedural Due Process -- requires that a person who has life, liberty or property at stake must be afforded the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Failure of a statute to so provide renders a statute unconstitutional. see
Estate of Makos v. Masons Health Care Fund, 211 Wis.2d 41 (1997).

4) Substantive Due Process -- the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause is a guarantee of "more than a fair process." It contains a substantive sphere as well barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. The threshold inquiry when analyzing an alleged violation of substantive due process is whether the challenger has established a deprivation of a liberty or property interest protected by the constitution. see Dowhower v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co., 236 Wis.2d 113 (2000).

5) Equal Protection -- a statute which treats members of similarly situated classes differently violates the Fourteenth Amendment. If the challenge implicates a fundamental right or suspect classification the statute is subject to a strict scrutiny test. It must be shown by the State that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. see State v. Baron, 318 Wis.2d 60 (2009). If the challenge does not implicate a fundamental right or suspect classification then the statute is subject to a rational basis test. It must be shown by the challenger that the regulation is not rational. All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality. see Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 245 Wis.2d 86 (2001).

Whenever there is a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, notice must be given to the Wisconsin Attorney General under 806.04(11) so he/she can decide whether the State wishes to be heard above and beyond the parties to the lawsuit.

0 Comments

August 22nd, 2014

8/22/2014

0 Comments

 
Finally for now as regards K-12-----we see corporations writing K-12 education policy, making K-12 into businesses, defunding education funding under the guise of stressed government coffers pushing public schools to corporate partnerships for support.  In Baltimore that is Johns Hopkins and as Hopkins pushes the most autocratic of education policies in the city----tracking children from pre-K to work-----let's see what this school choice and selective admission does for a community.

Hopkins is shipping the youngest of school children all over the city in search of a good school that cannot be found in their own neighborhoods.  These young children ride city buses across town and sometimes transfer every day because lack of funding has closed schools in low-income communities.  These closing are created by policy that has corporations not paying taxes-----by huge corporate subsidy-----and by a billion dollars every year missing to fraud and corruption.  Hopkins is a corporation-----it has several businesses operating out of its complex and as its Dean told the media and citizens when Hopkins was told to pay taxes----NO, WE WILL NOT BE PAYING TAXES.  The city is starved of revenue and public schools are forced to beg for private donations.  The State of Maryland is cutting financial aid and scholarships. We are to be thankful a corporation that should be paying taxes -----'donates' to a school or gives a scholarship to its own institution.  Want a scholarship to a school of your choice?  FORGET ABOUT IT.  Let's look at the wall of corporate shame:


I KNOW SAYS HOPKINS----WE WILL IDENTIFY THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE CITY AND SEND THEM TO HOPKINS TO LEARN THE WAYS OF WALL STREET!  THE FARM TEAM!

Johns Hopkins tells its graduates to enter politics----most of Baltimore pols are grads of Hopkins legislating all that neo-conservative policy!

Johns Hopkins CTY Scholars

The Johns Hopkins CTY Scholars Program was developed in 2004 as the signature scholarship initiative of The Center for Talented Youth. Our mission is to identify high potential 8th grade students from low-income families and from groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education. The scholarship prepares these students for top levels of academic achievement and leadership through participation in rigorous summer programs, distance education courses, a mentoring program, and academic support provided by a personal educational advisor.

To fulfill this mission, the Johns Hopkins CTY Scholar, together with his or her parents, will participate in several activities and programs over the next four years.

For more information on program eligibility please click:

______________________________________________

Maryland: University System to Reduce Financial Assistance in Wake of Budget Cuts
(Baltimore Business Journal) 27 August 2009


 “Student financial aid, facility upgrades and student services at the University System of Maryland will take a hit as part of a statewide $454 million budget cut approved Wednesday,” the Baltimore Business Jo
urnal reports.


_____________________________________

Sequestration
is simply Congressional neo-liberals and neo-cons paying off tens of trillions of dollars in corporate fraud taken from the US economy and government coffers by cuts to Federal programs, services, and public employee cuts.  As neo-liberals pretend to be protecting the Democratic base of labor and justice-----education and health care is being gutted of funding and oversight and accountability killed just as in other Federal agencies.  This makes way for soaring fraud and corruption in education and health care as if there hasn't been enough---just as it is further privatized.  These programs are all connected to low/working/middle-class funding programs, immigrant education, and higher education financial aid.

Remember, these cuts are happening because of corporate fraud, corporate subsidy, corporate tax breaks, and a dismantling of the Federal Department of Education.
  If your organization is simply shouting DO NOT CUT without outing and demanding massive corporate fraud pay these debts----they are not working for you and me!  Maryland added to these cuts.

DO YOU HEAR YOUR POLS SHOUTING-----BRING BACK THE CORPORATE FRAUD INSTEAD OF CUTS???  DO YOU HEAR LABOR AND JUSTICE LEADERS SAYING THAT????  WELL, THAT MEANS THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS.


National Education Association ---Impact of Federal Budget Cuts From Sequestration

MARYLAND


Applying CBPP's Estimate

Students Affected        Potential Job Losses     Funding Cut


Grants to Local Educational Agencies (ESEA Title I, Part A)       
School Improvement State Grants (ESEA section 1003(g))

                                                                     
Migrant (ESEA I-C) and Neglected and Delinquent (ESEA I-D)


Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (ESEA II, Part A)


Education for Homeless Children and Youths (MVHAA Title VII-B)


Rural Education (ESEA VI-B)

English Language Acquisition (ESEA III, Part A)

Special Education Grants to States (IDEA-B-611)

Preschool grants (IDEA-B-619)

Grants for infants and families (IDEA-C)

Vocatio
nal Rehabilitation State Grants (RA Title I-A and Title I-C)




Career and Technical Education State Grants (Carl D. Perkins CTEA Title I)

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (HEA IV-A-3)

Federal Work-Study (HEA IV-C)

Federal TRIO Programs (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 1)

Head Start (HSA section 639 )

Impact Aid Basic Support Payments (ESEA VIII section 8003(b))

21st Century Community Learning Centers (ESEA IV-B)


Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants (AEFLA & WIA section 503)---

THE 'FISCAL CLIFF' DEAL'


As a result of the "fiscal cliff" deal (American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012) reached at the beginning of the year, sequestration, or automatic, across-the-board budget cuts, was postponed by two months. Absent any agreement to replace sequestration, budget cuts will be uniformly applied to almost all federal programs beginning on March 1, 2013. Due to the delay, however, the total amount of the cut in fiscal year 2013 has been lessened by$24 billion, from $109.3 billion to $85.3 billion. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) indicates that nonexempt, nondefense discretionary programs would be cut by 5.1 percent; and a cut of 5.3 percent would be applied to nonexempt, nondefense mandatory programs. Since Congress has not yet completed work on appropriations for fiscal year 2013, the estimated cuts by education program presented here assume the same rate of operations as in fiscal year 2012. Actual cuts could differ once appropriations are enacted for 2013.

_______________________________________

This is the sad part where the very candidate for Governor most ready to privatize public education and cut public tuition is Brown----says he is the education candidate.  The entire article is a campaign advertisement for Brown.

You saw cuts in 2009 and each year until now students are saying enough is enough.
  You would think there is commitment to funding education if you listened to Maryland neo-liberals.  We cannot even get a several year old Thornton Bill fully funded for K-12.....Remember, Dean Loh is the face of corporate universities and this is what drives tuition higher.  He feels these student's pain!

BUT DEVELOPMENT,
CORPORATE TAX BREAKS, AND LEVERAGED BOND DEALS HAVE NEVER BEEN STRONGER.  DON'T COLLECT REVENUE----MORTGAGE THE STATE'S FUTURE.


University System of Maryland students protest higher education budget cuts

Posted by: Universities News Mar 5, 2014 in United States

University of Maryland Eastern Shore

University students united in Annapolis with students from other colleges across the state to rally against rising budget cuts to higher education as part of the University System of Maryland’s Lobby Day.

“We are joined here together to keep higher education affordable, accessible and of the highest quality possible,” Antoine Battle, an international business student and president of The Universities at Shady Grove Student Council, said after leading the crowd in chanting “college affordability.”

Gathered in Lawyers’ Mall, across the street from the Statehouse, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown and several members of state government and the university system met with student leaders from this university, Salisbury University and the University of Baltimore.

Brown told the students about his father, who escaped poverty in Kingston, Jamaica, with the help of higher education. The proposed cuts would harm colleges greatly when the state government should be trying tto help, he said. “We are going to be increasing the number of scholarships and focus more on need-based scholarships,” Brown said. “Every child deserves access to college regardless of their financial position.”

 About 21 students from this university attended the 45-minute rally to protest the legislature’s proposed $7 million cut to the system’s 2015 fiscal year budget, potentially forcing universities in this state to raise tuition by 5 percent to compensate, according to Student Government Association student affairs vice president Josh Ratner.

“We hope to make it known that every penny the government gives to us is needed,” Ratner said.

Ratner and other rally attendees said they supported a less harsh budget proposal by Gov. Martin O’Malley that would cut less money from colleges and raise tuition by about 3 percent.

“Even though that $7.6 million is spread out over all USM schools, any budget cuts will affect the quality of education at Maryland,” said SGA President Samantha Zwerling. “We can’t afford that if want to keep improving our school.”

University President Wallace Loh also attended the rally in support of the students and later testified alongside Zwerling.

“It shows great commitment … that these students are coming out in 23 degree weather to rally,” he said. “When I speak, it is part of my job, but when they speak to legislators, they do it out of passion.”

David Colon-Cabrera, president of this university’s Graduate Student Government, agreed with the rally’s message but wanted to see more discussion about graduate school tuition. Over the past years, tuition raises for graduate school have averaged about 4 to 5 percent, he said.

“So many graduate students are affected from the same college affordability problems undergrads face, but we still have different needs,” he said.

After the rally, participating students spoke to delegates in the General Assembly to voice their concerns about rising tuition. While no students from this university lobbied the legislators directly, SGA governmental affairs director Lindsey Anderson, a senior English and government and politics major, said students also spoke to their delegates last week at Terrapin Pride Day.

____________________________________
Below you see yet another Baltimore revenue sucking machine and this one earning billions in profit every year.  They not only do not pay taxes on income as they are a NINO----non-profit in name only------they don't even pay property tax as Baltimore City owns the land.  Yet, look at the article below to hear Ravens shout they are team players with the city---!  Making tax-deductible donations to education as they choose rather than paying taxes to the general fund----not a good corporate citizen!

THIS IS WHAT IS STARVING BALTIMORE'S COFFERS AND MAKING BEGGERS OF OUR SCHOOLS.
  This is very dangerous to say given the loyalty of Ravens fans!

Who owns M&T Bank Stadium, located in Baltimore Maryland?

M&T Bank Stadium, located in Baltimore Maryland: Owner: Maryland Stadium Authority




NFL doesn't pay taxes??

Someone at work sent me a petition found on change.org to change the tax status of the NFL. I didn't know they were non profit. I must be living under a rock. Below are contents of the petition.

Despite the fact that it is a $9Billion/Year industry, the National Football League (NFL) continues to enjoy status as a non-profit organization -- meaning it doesn’t have to pay federal corporate taxes.

The Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, makes nearly $30 million a year -- earning more than the heads of companies like Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart. Through TV deals alone, the NFL has inked nearly $30 billion with various television networks. And so often, fans like you and me are asked to foot the bill for new stadiums through our own taxes.

Yet despite being the most profitable sports league in the entire world, the NFL does not pay federal taxes.

The NFL should pay their fair share towards our economy! Just like Major League Baseball, which gave up its nonprofit status in recent years, as well as the National Basketball Association, the NFL should not be able to hide under a nonprofit status in order to avoid paying federal taxes.

The NFL has methodically worked to shift all the power to their side, leaving players, employees and PARTICULARLY THE FANS little say in what goes on with the league. We deserve a say, but do not wish to boycott our teams! Therefore, we are calling on our elected representatives to revoke the tax-exempt status we bestowed upon the league half a century ago. Please sign this petition, and let Congress know that you want them to reconsider the NFL’s tax exempt status.



I bet teachers would rather have fully funded schools and classrooms with teachers aides and resources paid for by corporate taxes!


Baltimore Ravens and M&T Bank announce Touchdown for Teachers winners

5/15/2014, 6 a.m. 52 BALTIMORE —

Baltimore Ravens and M&T Bank announced and honored the inaugural Touchdown for Teachers program finalists and grand prize winner at the Ravens Draft Party event, held at M&T Bank Stadium on Thursday, May 8.

The 2014 Touchdown for Teachers finalists are:

Jasmine Blanks – Magnolia Middle School

Cassandra Carter – Mergenthaler Vocational Technical High School

Kim Coleman – Patterson Park Public Charter School

Charles Emerson – Northeast Middle School

Jeniqua Moran – Westport Academy

The program honors and recognizes local teachers for their leadership, dedication and commitment to education and for their outstanding service to their school, students and community.

The five finalists were honored during the Ravens Draft Party event during an on-field presentation at M&T Bank Stadium and received 10 tickets to the event, a personalized Ravens jersey and an award certificate. The grand prize winner was presented with a check for $1,000 in grant funds and will receive a classroom visit by a Ravens’ coach or player, accompanied by Ravens mascot Poe.

The grand prize was awarded to Jasmine Blanks, who teaches music at Magnolia Middle School in Joppa, Md. Blanks’ main focus is to ensure that all students gain an awareness and appreciation for the arts. She teaches classes in chorus, music history, piano and guitar and her lesson plans are often linked to other subject areas such as math and science. Blanks and her students can be seen attending concerts, sitting in related musical sessions at the local library or viewing relevant foreign films during after school hours. She is a teacher in the after-school reading and mathematics intervention program and often volunteers to chaperone school dances, field trips and other school related activities. Ms. Blanks instituted activities for the school in honor of Black History Month, including a college and university fair, "Rock the Rights" dance, book and movie club, performance assembly, essay and poetry contest and an art appreciation contest, which all take place during the month of February.

In addition to her achievements in the classroom, Ms. Blanks’ work in the community is extenxive. She is an advocate for at risk youth and has become a certified Resource Parent for Harford County Foster Care. Blanks helps high school students gather resources for scholarship opportunities, teaches violin and viola lessons to elementary students of lower income families and is active in her church, where she educates youth about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. During the summer months, Blanks spends time in Liberia, West Africa, running an arts based youth empowerment program that serves over 300 children. Magnolia Middle School has since developed a partnership with this program and Ms. Blanks is known to integrate information that she has learned from her work in the community and travels abroad directly into her classrooms.

“It’s important to recognize the outstanding teachers in our community and the tremendous impact they have on students throughout the school year,” said Augie Chiasera, President of M&T Bank’s Greater Baltimore and Chesapeake regions. “Quality education is a cornerstone of thriving neighborhoods, and M&T is committed to strengthening the communities we serve.”


_______________________________
Oh look!!!!!!  Exelon donating the money required by a merger deal that won it hundreds of billions of dollars in future earnings!  $7 million augmented by $100 million in tax break given by Baltimore City Hall for no reason.  All these corporations are being made to sound as if they are good corporate citizens while everyone of them is owing the citizens of Maryland revenue lost to fraud and corruption.  IT'S ALL ABOUT EDUCATING OUR YOUTH SAYS EXELON!  Exelon is a major push behind education privatization.


Exelon donations in Maryland made as agreed

Company promised $7 million a year for a decade, amount ultimately mandated by state regulators

April 12, 2013|By Jamie Smith Hopkins, The Baltimore Sun

There's no plan for a pullback in Maryland contributions after the mandate expires, Exelon said.

"Even after the 10 years is done, we'll still be in the community, doing the good work that we do," said Steve Solomon, Exelon's vice president of corporate relations.

BGE's CEO, Kenneth W. DeFontes Jr., said the utility has prided itself on community involvement for so long that "it's part of our DNA." BGE employees sit on more than 75 boards in the region and last year logged 18,500 hours of volunteering, the company said.

"We believe we have an obligation for giving back to the community," said DeFontes, chairman of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and a member of the Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore's board. It "helps us invigorate and improve the community in which we serve, and it also helps us get our message out about the things we care about. It really makes sense for us to do this."

In the 12 months since the merger, Exelon contributed just over the mandated $7 million in Maryland — most of it through its Constellation and BGE units.

BGE used to handle donations itself, years ago. After the reorganization that created Constellation, the new parent company took the lead. But now the pendulum is swinging back to BGE, which is gearing up to field most of the funding requests.

BGE officials say they are focusing donations in five areas: the environment, energy efficiency, education and the arts, economic and community development, and emergency response.

The 9,000 trees BGE is giving out first-come, first-served — via http://www.arborday.org/bge — fit into the first category. But the utility said customers also can save energy, and money, with well-placed shade.

Habitat for Humanity of the Chesapeake, which builds affordable housing in the region, is another BGE beneficiary.

Last month, the utility pledged $300,000 over three years to help build energy-efficient Habitat homes, a follow to a five-year, $500,000 grant from Constellation. A BGE executive sits on Habitat's board. The charity regularly gets construction help from BGE volunteers.

The company's contributions to first-responders, meanwhile, were parceled out across the region in grants of up to $10,000.

The Baltimore Fire Department got 1,000 smoke alarms to install in homes. The Hereford Volunteer Fire Company in Monkton replaced the rusted-out bed of a pickup truck it uses to fight brush fires. North Point-Edgemere Volunteer Fire Department is putting its $10,000 toward the nearly $250,000 cost of replacing its 27-year-old fire rescue boat.

Joe Walters, a lieutenant at the North Point-Edgemere department, said he's grateful for the support. Firehouses have always relied on community donations, but it's hard these days, he said. Residents and small businesses are strapped.

"The money from fundraising has dwindled," he said.



0 Comments

August 21st, 2014

8/21/2014

0 Comments

 
Please take time to think about the two education policies below.  One is the Wall Street education reform we have now and the other is modeled after American education that gave the largest rise in education achievement in low-income, people of color, women, working and middle-class groups.  We have a proven model that neo-liberals and neo-cons defunded and dismantled.


JUKING THE STATS-----BALTIMORE CAME UP WITH THE TERM AS CORPORATIZED DATA ALWAYS GIVES SPIN.


No one knows Baltimore and Maryland stats are fixed than students in Baltimore City schools.  As I showed yesterday---the A and B of the AP classes were all simply easy grading.  They have to----the policy was bad and teachers could not do what neo-liberals and neo-cons wanted---improve performance using bad education policy. The data coming from education privatization groups is shown time and again to ignore all research standards to report a finding they want, just as happens now with corporatized universities.  So we have to listen to Race to the Top pols tell us this reform is working when it is failing miserably.

Obama's education reform is a Republican plan to hand K-12 to Wall Street and who would move this fastest but Jindal of Louisiana.  Below you see he has made K-12 completely charter and reports all kinds of great achievement ----only, no one believes it.  The data is not real.
  Below you see what Jindal is doing----just as Johns Hopkins does in Baltimore with all data----Lying, cheating, and stealing is the Ivy League way!  Get them out of government!  This is what is happening in Baltimore and Maryland and the same play on stats are used.  This is not only policy aimed at poor schools and communities.  This is a structure being built for all public schools.  So, middle-class is seeing its standards drop as well. You hear protests in Baltimore County and Howard County as well because everyone knows these reforms will hurt all children.

WE ARE MANY. THERE IS POWER IN OUR NUMBERS. TOGETHER WE WILL SAVE OUR SCHOOLS.

Watch this interview with Ravitch:


On Moyers & Company, Diane Ravitch tells Bill Moyers, ”I think what’s at stake is the future of American public education. I believe it is one of the foundation stones of our democracy: So an attack on public education is an attack on democracy.”

The Truth About The New Orleans School Reform Model


Anyone who saw the remarkable HBO series The Wire remembers the scene in the fourth season focused on Baltimore public schools where the term “juking the stats” defined how corporate-driven reengineering of the public sphere has distorted institutions so they no longer serve ordinary people.

An anniversary post for The Atlantic described that memorable moment thus, “Historical pressures push teachers in season 4 as President George Bush’s No Child Left Behind education plan casts a real-life shadow. When a new city teacher, formerly of the Baltimore police, hears how his school will teach test questions, the young man immediately recognizes the dilemma: “Juking the stats … Making robberies into larcenies. Making rapes disappear. You juke the stats, and majors become colonels. I’ve been here before.”

Juking the stats is a practice now so ingrained in the way education solutions are posed to the public that examples are rampant.

But anyone who wants to have a genuinely honest discussion about education policy based on the real facts of the matter – and not statistical distortions achieved through gross manipulation and “policy speak” that covers up realities on the ground – needs to constantly question what policy leaders and their scribes in the press are foisting off as “information.” There are better sources to turn to, and the Internet makes that search remarkably easy.

No Way To Talk About NOLA

An especially egregious example of “juking the stats” is the way school administration in New Orleans – where, basically, the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina was used as an opportunity to summarily fire school teachers and turn over the majority of schools to privately managed charter school operators from out of town – is now being marketed to the entire country as a “solution” for public education everywhere.

As I pointed out in a recent piece for Salon, “In the most recent presidential election, both candidates hailed the New Orleans charter-dominated system as a model for other states to follow. It has been touted by think tanks on the center left and the far right as “what should come next” for “transforming” the nation’s schools.”

I went on to explain that although this model of “reform” was being touted by politicians and in the press, ” There’s no evidence anywhere that the NOLA model of school reform has “improved education.”

This prompted a letter to my Salon editor from an official of the Recovery School District in New Orleans (RSD NO) – the administrative apparatus put in charge of most of New Orleans schools post Katrina – stating there were “several inaccuracies regarding the Recovery School District and the state of public schools in New Orleans.”

I post the exchange that ensued not just to take readers deep into the weeds of understanding why the NOLA model for running schools should be avoided at all costs, but also to exemplify why and how to contest the “solutions” for education policy constantly being marketed to us by a disingenuous campaign that distorts data to serve its generally hidden ends.

Call

“Jeffrey [sic] Bryant states “There’s no evidence anywhere that the NOLA model of school reform has ‘improved education’.” The percentage of RSD students performing at grade level on state assessments has more than doubled from 2007-2013 from 23% to 57%. RSD has been first in the state of Louisiana in performance growth each year since 2007. Also, the percentage of all New Orleans public school students attending a failing school has decreased from 65% in 2005 to 5.7% in 2013. 67% of all public school students in New Orleans attend A, B, or C schools, up from 20% in 2005.

“Jeffrey states “Any comparisons of academic achievement of current NOLA students to achievement levels before Katrina should be discredited because the student population has been so transformed.”

The proportion of African-American students has decreased since Katrina, but only by 7 percentage points; and the proportion of free and reduced lunch students has actually increased by 6 percentage points.

Pre-Katrina – 04-05 New Orleans public school students:

  • 94% African-American; 3% White; 3% Other
  • 77% eligible for Free and Reduced School Lunch
  • Post-Katrina – 12-13 New Orleans public school students:
  • 87% African-American; 7% White; 6% Other
  • 83% eligible for Free and Reduced School Lunch
“Jeffrey states “despite reform efforts, the NOLA Recovery School District has many of the lowest performing schools in Louisiana.” To say this, clearly indicates that Jeffrey does not have the context needed to explain what the RSD is and what we were created to do. The RSD is not a typical school district. Back in 2003, the Louisiana legislature created the RSD to transform the state’s lowest performing schools. A school has to fail for four consecutive years to be RSD eligible. So, only the lowest performing schools are eligible to be in the RSD and as you can see from the growth data, we are improving these schools and will continue to make progress to ensure they are high performing.

“Jeffrey states “You’re not allowed to choose the best performing schools in the city – those that make up the Orleans Parish School Board – because those are selective enrollment only. You’re not going to get priority based on proximity, even if there is a school across the street from your home.”

“OneApp, New Orleans’s central enrollment system, was created by the RSD and the Orleans Parish School Board to provide students and families with the opportunity to choose a school anywhere in the city that suits their interests and needs. Of the 85 public schools, 75 are part of the enrollment system. These 75 schools, are all RSD schools and the schools that Orleans Parish School Board directly operates. In 2012, OPSB passed a policy that states that the remaining ten OPSB schools will join when their charters are up for renewal or they can volunteer to join now. RSD has been vocal about the need for all schools to join now voluntarily and some have chosen to do so already.

“As far as the priority based on proximity comment, we do offer geographic priority for 50% of the available seats in a school. We did this in an effort to allow for families who want to send their children close to home, while also ensuring that students from outside of a school’s neighborhood have access.

“I am writing to request that accurate context and facts be sought prior to posting articles pertaining to our organization and public schools in New Orleans. I am also requesting that Jeffrey correct the article or allow us to publish a response to his piece. Thank you for your time and consideration.”

Zoey Reed

Executive Director of Communications, External Affairs

Recovery School District

Response

Dear Ms. Reed,

Thanks so much for reading my Salon piece “Look out, Chris Christie: The new war on public schools just might be defeated” and taking time to write a thoughtful reply.

In your letter to my Salon editor, you contend that my article contained “several inaccuracies regarding the Recovery School District and the state of public schools in New Orleans.” I want to respond specifically to each of your points and use this exchange as an opportunity to go into more depth about the record of achievement for RSD-NO.

As I stated in my article, public school policies implemented in New Orleans following Katrina are being held up as a “reform” model for troubled school systems around the country, and it is important that we have clear understandings of what this model has actually accomplished.

Your first point of difference with me was that I’ve misread the “evidence” of the NOLA model’s school performance record. While I stated that evidence of improvement is practically nonexistent, you counter, “The percentage of RSD students performing at grade level on state assessments has more than doubled from 2007-2013 [and] the percentage of all New Orleans public school students attending a failing school has decreased from 65% in 2005 to 5.7% in 2013.”

Although these statistics certainly sound impressive, there is much more to the story behind these numbers. As Louisiana math teacher Mercedes Schneider has pointed out on her blog (http://deutsch29.wordpress.com), the main reason RSD has made such great strides in grade level performance is that from 2012 to 2013 the state changed the formula and scale for measuring school performance, which artificially inflated RSD’s scores.

Schneider, who also authored the book “A Chronicle of Echoes,” wrote on her blog, “Of the 37 RSD-NO schools with complete 2012 and 2013 SPS/letter grade information, 26 increased a letter grade as an artifact of [state superintendent] John White’s changes to the scoring system … In other words, had the same rules applied in 2013 as were applied in 2012 to grading RSD schools, then 15 schools would have received a ‘D’ instead of a ‘C,’ five would have received an ‘F’ instead of a ‘D,’ and five would have received a ‘C’ instead of a ‘B.’ Had consistent criteria been used in grading RSD-NO from 2012 to 2013, its district letter grade would have remained a ‘D.’”

RSD-NO scores were further inflated due to the fact that of the 63 schools in the 2012-2013 ratings, only 49 have complete data for both years, and only 37 have letter grades other than “T” for both years. As you know, “T” schools have no letter grades because they are considered to be in “turnaround” state and are exempt for two years. Thus, of the 64 RSD-NO schools in the 2012-2013 ratings, only 37 have the data that any school outside of RSD is expected to have for a two-year period.

Despite how state reports on RSD-NO performance have been able to “juke the stats” in the district’s favor, those schools continue to show little if any academic gains. As Louisiana teacher Mike Deshotels recently reported on his blog (louisianaeducator.blogspot.com) the Louisiana Department of education has just released the results of the state accountability testing called LEAP and ILEAP for the Spring of 2014. The report includes a percentile ranking of each of the public school systems in the state according to the performance of their students in math, and English language arts. Deshotels, who taught Chemistry and Physics at Zachary High School near Baton Rouge and served as Research Director for the Louisiana Association of Educators, noted, “This official LDOE report now ranks the New Orleans Recovery District at the 17th percentile among all Louisiana public school districts in student performance … this means that 83 percent of the state’s school districts provide their students a better opportunity for learning than do the schools in New Orleans… This 17th percentile ranking places the New Orleans takeover schools just about where they were before the takeover.”

As Deshotels pointed out, “Dramatic improvements in the LEAP measure of grade level performance for math and ELA” has coincided with “very little improvement for Louisiana students” on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAPE). He concluded, “This discrepancy is a strong indication of score inflation for the state’s accountability testing. Either the tests got easier or students learned how to perform better on the state tests without significantly improving their English and math skills.”

Your next point of contention is with my statement, “Any comparisons of academic achievement of current NOLA students to achievement levels before Katrina should be discredited because the student population has been so transformed.”

My statement merely echoes advice from respected education researchers. Independent, peer-reviewed studies generally agree – as research experts at the National Education Policy Center recently did, in comments regarding a study of RSD-NO charter schools – “Right after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans experienced immediate and dramatic shifts in the school population, with a quick enrollment decline from about 68,000 to 32,000 students – slowly climbing back to 42,000 by 2011 … making well-founded conclusions becomes exceptionally problematic in a city with such fundamental changes and such potentially strong selection effects.”

Your next complaint is with my finding that, “despite reform efforts, the NOLA Recovery School District has many of the lowest performing schools in Louisiana,” which you contend, indicates I do “not have the context needed to explain what the RSD is and what we were created to do.”

As Louisiana Weekly recently reported, the whole intentions behind creation of RSD-NO have been murky from the beginning. As the analysis stated, “Before Hurricane Katrina, the RSD (created in 2003) could only take over a school with a performance score less than 60, and which had already gone through four years of corrective action. To legally justify taking the majority of New Orleans schools and then privatizing them, the state changed the failing benchmark from 60 to just under the state average of 87.4. The constant changing of grading scales and benchmarks has continued since, and has become an often scoffed at trademark of Superintendent John White’s dissemination of annual data.”

In fact, the whole “context” for RSD’s existence has changed since its inception. As the Louisiana Weekly article reported, “According to a study by Tulane University’s Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives:

‘Intended as a mechanism for restructuring and reform, the RSD was never meant to be a permanent part of the public school governance landscape in New Orleans. Instead, the RSD was meant to take control of and turn around chronically failing schools for an initial period of five years. After that time, and assuming adequate school improvement, schools would be released from the jurisdiction of the RSD and returned to their local school board. ‘

But that didn’t happen.”


As the article pointed out, the charters that constitute RSD-NO have been given the power to choose whether or not they want to return to the OPSB. But all those eligible thus far have said, “No,” because they would then be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny that characterizes OPSB management.

Your last point of contention is with how I’ve portrayed the OneApp process parents have to do go through to find placement for their children in NOLA schools. You state that the process was created “to provide students and families with the opportunity to choose a school anywhere in the city that suits their interests and needs.”

A recent article by Jessica Williams for The Lens described what the OneApp process means for most parents and how well they fare as they seek to find a school “that suits their interests and needs.” Williams looked at the probable trajectory of students whose “failing” schools were being closed down by the district and found, “the vast majority … are headed to other substandard schools next year.”

Williams reported that parents needed to relocate their students were given a list of choices by the district, and “of the 17 schools listed with grades C or better, nine had seats open in only one or two grades. Five others had no vacancies.”

As Williams reported in another article, “Parents have few options when moving kids from failing public schools” in the RSD-NO system. She found, “More than seven years into the New Orleans choice experiment, documents and interviews reveal the schools are so academically anemic that the RSD fell short in its attempts to comply with federal policy requiring school districts to offer higher quality alternatives to students in failing schools.”

Mercedes Schneider has gone into greater depth on the messy, confusing nature of the OneApp process. On her blog, she recently wrote, “enrollment is no longer based upon students residing in a given area and automatically attending a community school. Thus, the ‘parental choice’ of selecting a school by moving to the neighborhood is moot. That choice exists no more. Now, parents must apply to the schools they would have their children attend – even if they live right next to the school.”

Further complicating matters, the process “involves a detailed application process, with one application necessary per child within RSD and OPSB direct-run schools, and a different consolidated application (no guarantees here) for some (not all) OPSB charter schools. And even though the RSD/OPSB direct-run application notes that siblings are given priority for attending the same schools, there are no guarantees there, either.”

For years, parent activist Karran Harper Royal has struggled to place her children in schools she feels would be best for them and has concluded that what RSD-NO provides to parents isn’t real “choice” at all. She has written, that instead of providing real choice, “students only have the choice to apply to over 70 schools; many students end up in lotteries for the higher performing schools.  Students not selected in the lottery don’t have a choice; they have to attend schools where available seats remain.” Even the higher performing charter schools, Harper Royal noted, are routinely “not offered as options for the lowest performing students in New Orleans.”

For these reasons and others, Harper Royal has joined with other civil rights activists in filing a civil rights complaint against RSD-NO.

To conclude, one point we agree on is, “The RSD is not a typical school district.”

Let’s also agree to keep it that way.

____________________________________________________

Meanwhile, Finland has the best in the world education system that it modeled from US education in the 1950s-1970s----THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SYSTEM IN THE US BEFORE REAGAN/CLINTON REFORMS. 

The US was ranked #1 in the nation doing what Finland is doing now and none of it involves testing, evaluations, private education contractors and business partnerships with schools----all they do is fully fund schools, provide resources, and respect and treat as professionals---the teachers.
This is all Wall Street profiteering and will kill Democratic education.

DO WE REALLY WANT THE CULTURE OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN CHARGE OF TEACHING OUR CHILDREN?  OF COURSE NOT!


The Children Must Play


By Samuel E. Abrams

While observing recess outside the Kallahti Comprehensive School on the eastern edge of Helsinki on a chilly day in April 2009, I asked Principal Timo Heikkinen if students go out when it’s very cold. Heikkinen said they do. I then asked Heikkinen if they go out when it’s very, very cold. Heikkinen smiled and said, “If minus 15 [Celsius] and windy, maybe not, but otherwise, yes. The children can’t learn if they don’t play. The children must play.”

In comparison to the United States and many other industrialized nations, the Finns have implemented a radically different model of educational reform--based on a balanced curriculum and professionalization, not testing. Not only do Finnish educational authorities provide students with far more recess than their U.S. counterparts—75 minutes a day in Finnish elementary schools versus an average of 27 minutes in the U.S.—but they also mandate lots of arts and crafts, more learning by doing, rigorous standards for teacher certification, higher teacher pay, and attractive working conditions. This is a far cry from the U.S. concentration on testing in reading and math since the enactment of No Child Left Behind in 2002, which has led school districts across the country, according to a survey by the Center on Education Policy, to significantly narrow their curricula. And the Finns’ efforts are paying off: In December, the results from the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an exam in reading, math, and science given every three years since 2000 to approximately 5,000 15-year-olds per nation around the world, revealed that, for the fourth consecutive time, Finnish students posted stellar scores. The United States, meanwhile, lagged in the middle of the pack.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined his plans for reforming U.S. public education, including distributing competitive grants, raising test scores, and holding teachers accountable for student achievement. But there is much Finland can teach America’s reformers, and the rest of the world, about what outside of testing and rigid modes of management and assessment can make a nation’s schools truly excellent.

Finland’s schools weren’t always so successful. In the 1960s, they were middling at best. In 1971, a government commission concluded that, poor as the nation was in natural resources, it had to modernize its economy and could only do so by first improving its schools. To that end, the government agreed to reduce class size, boost teacher pay, and require that, by 1979, all teachers complete a rigorous master’s program.

Today, teaching is such a desirable profession that only one in ten applicants to the country’s eight master’s programs in education is accepted. In the United States, on the other hand, college graduates may become teachers without earning a master’s. What’s more, Finnish teachers earn very competitive salaries: High school teachers with 15 years of experience make 102 percent of what their fellow university graduates do. In the United States, by contrast, they earn just 65 percent.

Though, unlike U.S. education reformers, Finnish authorities haven’t outsourced school management to for-profit or non-profit organizations, implemented merit pay, or ranked teachers and schools according to test results, they’ve made excellent use of business strategies. They’ve won the war for talent by making teaching so appealing. In choosing principals, superintendents, and policymakers from inside the education world rather than looking outside it, Finnish authorities have likewise taken a page from the corporate playbook: Great organizations, as the business historian Alfred Chandler documented, cultivate talent from within. Of the many officials I interviewed at the Finnish Ministry of Education, the National Board of Education, the Education Evaluation Council, and the Helsinki Department of Education, all had been teachers for at least four years.

The Finnish approach to pedagogy is also distinct. In grades seven through nine, for instance, classes in science—the subject in which Finnish students have done especially well on PISA—are capped at 16 so students may do labs each lesson. And students in grades one through nine spend from four to eleven periods each week taking classes in art, music, cooking, carpentry, metalwork, and textiles. These classes provide natural venues for learning math and science, nurture critical cooperative skills, and implicitly cultivate respect for people who make their living working with their hands.

But perhaps most striking on the list of what makes Finland’s school system unique is that the country has deliberately rejected the prevailing standardization movement. While nations around the world introduced heavy standardized testing regimes in the 1990s, the Finnish National Board of Education concluded that such tests would consume too much instructional time, cost too much to construct, proctor, and grade, and generate undue stress. The Finnish answer to standardized tests has been to give exams to small but statistically significant samples of students and to trust teachers—so much so that the National Board of Education closed its inspectorate in 1991. Teachers in Finland design their own courses, using a national curriculum as a guide, not a blueprint, and spend about 80 percent as much time leading classes as their U.S. counterparts do, so that they have sufficient opportunity to plan lessons and collaborate with colleagues. The only point at which all Finnish students take standardized exams is as high school seniors if they wish to go to university.

Regard for students’ well-being is evident in more subtle ways, as well. Since 1985, students have not been tracked (or grouped by ability) until the tenth grade. Furthermore, since 1991, authorities have rejected the practice of holding back underachievers, concluding that the consequences of grade repetition were too stigmatizing to be effective and that students would be better off being tutored by learning specialists in areas of academic weakness.

The Finnish business community and conservative members of the country’s parliament criticized the end of tracking as a recipe for mass mediocrity—but they went silent following the publication of the 2000 PISA results. “PISA was a lucky gift for Finnish educators,” said Kari Louhivuori, the principal of the Kirkkojärvi Comprehensive School in Espoo, who began his career as a teacher in 1974. “We were under attack from traditional forces and needed outside validation of our new way.” (Some testing is thus ultimately necessary, Louhivuori conceded, if only to prove that regular testing is not.) What’s more, there is now strong proof of the economic benefits of the Finnish educational reformation, particularly in the country’s high-tech sector, which is distinguished by Nokia in telecommunications, Orion in medical diagnostics and pharmaceuticals, Polar in heart-rate monitors, Vaisala in meteorological measurement, and VTI in accelerometers. Flanking highways out of Helsinki are research centers for these companies, as well as ones for Ericsson, IBM, and SAP.

The reflexive critique of comparing the Finnish and U.S. educational systems is to say that Finland’s PISA results are consequences of the country being a much smaller, more homogeneous nation (5.3 million people, only 4 percent of whom are foreign-born). How could it possibly offer lessons to a country the size of the United States? The answer is next door. Norway is also small (4.8 million people) and nearly as homogeneous (10 percent foreign-born), but it is more akin to the United States than to Finland in its approach to education: Teachers don’t need master’s degrees; high school teachers with 15 years of experience earn only 70 percent of what fellow university graduates make; and in 2004,* authorities implemented a national system of standardized testing. The need for talent in the classroom is now so great that the Norwegian government is spending $3.3 million on an ad campaign to attract people to teaching and, last year, launched its own version of Teach for America in collaboration with Statoil—called Teach First Norway—to recruit teachers of math and science.

Moreover, much as in the United States, classes in Norway are typically too large and equipment too scarce to run science labs. A science teacher at a middle school in Oslo told me that labs are unfortunately the exception, not the rule, and that she couldn’t recall doing any labs as a student a decade ago. Unsurprisingly, much as in 2000, 2003, and 2006, Norway in 2009 posted mediocre PISA scores, indicating that it is not necessarily size and homogeneity but, rather, policy choices that lead to a country’s educational success.

The Finns have made clear that, in any country, no matter its size or composition, there is much wisdom to minimizing testing and instead investing in broader curricula, smaller classes, and better training, pay, and treatment of teachers. The United States should take heed.

*CORRECTION: This article originally stated that the testing regime was created in 2006. It was created in 2004.


0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Cindy Walsh is a lifelong political activist and academic living in Baltimore, Maryland.

    Archives

    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    2014 Economic Crash
    21st Century Economy
    Affordable Care Act
    Affordable Care Act
    Alec
    Americorp/VISTA
    Anthony Brown
    Anthony Brown
    Anti Incumbant
    Anti-incumbant
    Anti Incumbent
    Anti Incumbent
    Attacking The Post Office Union
    Baltimore And Cronyism
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Recall/Retroactive Term Limits
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Of America
    Bank Settlement
    Bank-settlement
    B Corporations
    Bgeexelon Mergerf59060c411
    Brookings Institution
    Business Tax Credits
    California Charter Expansion
    Cardin
    Career Colleges
    Career Colleges Replacing Union Apprenticeships
    Charters
    Charter School
    Collection Agencies
    Common Core
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Consumer-financial-protection-bureau
    Corporate Media
    Corporate-media
    Corporate Oversight
    Corporate-oversight
    Corporate Politicians
    Corporate-politicians
    Corporate Rule
    Corporate-rule
    Corporate Taxes
    Corporate-taxes
    Corporate Tax Reform
    Corporatizing Us Universities
    Cost-benefit-analysis
    Credit Crisis
    Credit-crisis
    Cummings
    Department Of Education
    Department Of Justice
    Department-of-justice
    Derivatives Reform
    Development
    Dismantling Public Justice
    Dodd Frank
    Doddfrankbba4ff090a
    Doug Gansler
    Doug-gansler
    Ebdi
    Education Funding
    Education Reform
    Edwards
    Election Reform
    Election-reform
    Elections
    Emigration
    Energy-sector-consolidation-in-maryland
    Enterprise Zones
    Equal Access
    Estate Taxes
    European Crisis
    Expanded And Improved Medicare For All
    Expanded-and-improved-medicare-for-all
    Failure To Prosecute
    Failure-to-prosecute
    Fair
    Fair And Balanced Elections
    Fair-and-balanced-elections
    Farm Bill
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmaryland
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmarylandd20a348918
    Federal-emergency-management-agency-fema
    Federal Reserve
    Financial Reform Bill
    Food Safety Not In Tpp
    For Profit Education
    Forprofit-education
    Fracking
    Fraud
    Freedom Of Press And Speech
    Frosh
    Gambling In Marylandbaltimore8dbce1f7d2
    Granting Agencies
    Greening Fraud
    Gun Control Policy
    Healthcare For All
    Healthcare-for-all
    Health Enterprise Zones
    High Speed Rail
    Hoyer
    Imf
    Immigration
    Incarceration Bubble
    Incumbent
    Incumbents
    Innovation Centers
    Insurance Industry Leverage And Fraud
    International Criminal Court
    International Trade Deals
    International-trade-deals
    Jack Young
    Jack-young
    Johns Hopkins
    Johns-hopkins
    Johns Hopkins Medical Systems
    Johns-hopkins-medical-systems
    Kaliope Parthemos
    Labor And Justice Law Under Attack
    Labor And Wages
    Lehmann Brothers
    Living Wageunionspolitical Action0e39f5c885
    Maggie McIntosh
    Maggie-mcintosh
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin-omalley
    Martin-omalley8ecd6b6eb0
    Maryland Health Co Ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops1f77692967
    Maryland Health Coopsccd73554da
    Maryland Judiciary
    Marylandnonprofits
    Maryland Non Profits
    Maryland Nonprofits2509c2ca2c
    Maryland Public Service Commission
    Maryland State Bar Association
    Md Credit Bondleverage Debt441d7f3605
    Media
    Media Bias
    Media-bias
    Medicaremedicaid
    Medicaremedicaid8416fd8754
    Mental Health Issues
    Mental-health-issues
    Mers Fraud
    Mikulski
    Military Privatization
    Minority Unemploymentunion And Labor Wagebaltimore Board Of Estimates4acb15e7fa
    Municipal Debt Fraud
    Ndaa-indefinite-detention
    Ndaaindefinite Detentiond65cc4283d
    Net Neutrality
    New Economy
    New-economy
    Ngo
    Non Profit To Profit
    Nonprofit To Profitb2d6cb4b41
    Nsa
    O'Malley
    Odette Ramos
    Omalley
    O'Malley
    Open Meetings
    Osha
    Patronage
    Pension-benefit-guaranty-corp
    Pension Funds
    Pension-funds
    Police Abuse
    Private-and-public-pension-fraud
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People6541f468ae
    Private Non Profits
    Private-non-profits
    Private Nonprofits50b33fd8c2
    Privatizing Education
    Privatizing Government Assets
    Privatizing-the-veterans-admin-va
    Privitizing Public Education
    Progressive Policy
    Progressive Taxes Replace Regressive Policy
    Protections Of The People
    Protections-of-the-people
    Public Education
    Public Funding Of Private Universities
    Public Housing Privatization
    Public-libraries-privatized-or-closed
    Public Private Partnerships
    Public-private-partnerships
    Public Transportation Privatization
    Public Utilities
    Rapid Bus Network
    Rawlings Blake
    Rawlings-blake
    Rawlingsblake1640055471
    Real Progressives
    Reit-real-estate-investment-trusts
    Reitreal Estate Investment Trustsa1a18ad402
    Repatriation Taxes
    Rule Of Law
    Rule-of-law
    Ruppersberger
    SAIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
    Sarbanes
    S Corp Taxes
    Selling Public Datapersonal Privacy
    Smart Meters
    Snowden
    Social Security
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement0d62c56e69
    Statistics As Spin
    Statistics-as-spin
    Student-corps
    Subprime Mortgage Fraud
    Subprime-mortgage-fraud
    Surveillance And Security
    Sustainability
    Teachers
    Teachers Unions2bc448afc8
    Teach For America
    Teach For America
    Technology Parks
    Third Way Democrats/new Economy/public Union Employees/public Private Patnerships/government Fraud And Corruption
    Third Way Democratsnew Economypublic Union Employeespublic Private Patnershipsgovernment Fraud And Corruption
    Third-way-democratsnew-economypublic-union-employeespublic-private-patnershipsgovernment-fraud-and-corruptionc10a007aee
    Third Way/neo Liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals5e1e6d4716
    Third Wayneoliberals7286dda6aa
    Tifcorporate Tax Breaks2d87bba974
    Tpp
    Transportation Inequity In Maryland
    Union Busting
    Unionbusting0858fddb8b
    Unions
    Unionsthird Waypost Officealec3c887e7815
    Universities
    Unreliable Polling
    Unreliable-polling
    Van Hollen
    Van-hollen
    VEOLA Environment -privatization Of Public Water
    Veterans
    War Against Women And Children
    War-against-women-and-children
    Youth Works

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.