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 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

July 13th, 2014

7/13/2014

0 Comments

 
JUST AN FYI AS THE MARYLAND BOARD OF ELECTIONS CERTIFIED THIS GOVERNOR'S RACE ON JULY 10, 2014.  THIS MEANS ITS TIME FOR CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND TO GO TO COURT.  THIS EFFORT IS NOT ONLY TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM SO IT WORKS AS RULE OF LAW REQUIRES---IT IS ABOUT THE CITIZENS OF MARYLAND KNOWING HOW THINGS SHOULD WORK AND ASK YOURSELF----WHY IS MY INCUMBENT NOT SHOUTING THIS? 

IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS.




Neo-liberals in Maryland have such control of the state and local Democratic committees that they openly violate election laws to make sure that any candidate with a platform against neo-liberal policies is excluded from election events and media coverage----a blackout of labor and justice candidates. For others across the US -----this may be happening in your neck of the woods.

THIS IS ILLEGAL AND WE MUST TAKE THIS TO COURT. EVEN IF THE COURT IS CORRUPT WE MUST DOCUMENT THIS BREAKDOWN OF RULE OF LAW AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD WORK!

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland has filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Maryland/Baltimore claiming systemic election violations changed the results of the election for Governor of Maryland in the Democratic Primary and need to be invalidated. If not for these election violations Cindy Walsh would have won the election without a doubt! The next step is for the court to issue summons' to these defendants in an expedited process as required by Maryland law in challenges to elections for Governor. Failure to do so will deny me my US Constitutional rights to due process and rights to participate freely in elections. Remember, I should be campaigning for the general election right now as the Republican candidate is doing.

I am self-representing as Maryland has no public justice protecting citizens against government malfeasance. I feel confident the complaint is written correctly and I know the claims are valid and easily proven. Lawyers may LOL at my lack of legalese-----be kind!!!!




CIVIL CLAIM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT  OF MARYLAND IN BALTIMORE



Cindy Walsh vs
Bobbie S. Mack , Chairman Maryland Board of Elections; Doug Gansler, Maryland State Attorney General; and Democratic Primary candidates for Governor of Maryland,  Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur.


Parties to this complaint


1.  Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert Street     Civil Action#____________
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Plaintiff

 
 VS.


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

Defendant


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


Defendant

 

4.  Anthony Brown- candidate
100 State Circle 
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Defendant

 

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


Defendant

 

Jurisdiction

6.  Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing in Maryland Circuit Court of Baltimore because plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore and the election irregularities identified in the Federal Court case include businesses located and operating in Baltimore.  The plaintiff claims Maryland agencies tasked with oversight and enforcement, the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General’s Office, failed to oversee Maryland elections and enforce Maryland and Federal election laws. 

TITLE 6 Subtitle 1 Section 6-102 (a); Section 6-103 (a) (b) (1); TITLE 6 Subtitle 2 Section 6-201 (a) 


Statement of Facts and Claims

 7.  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 these widespread election irregularities without a doubt 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 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.


MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES


8.  Cindy Walsh claims election irregularities; requests to invalidate an election result can be taken to Maryland Circuit Court.


Title 12 Subtitle 2.    Judicial Review of Elections Section 2-102 (a) (b) (1) (2) (3); Subtitle 2. 12-202 (a) (1) (2) (b) (2); 12-203 (a) (1) (2) (3) (b); 12-204 (a) 1) (2) (b) (1) (2) (c) (1) (2) (d) 


9.
  Cindy Walsh claims Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler has the power to investigate election violations through the State Prosecutor’s Office and as an elected politician has taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law.  Doug Gansler failed to respond to requests from plaintiff to investigate claims of election irregularities and participated in election irregularities so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.

 Chapter 612, Acts of 1976; Code Criminal Procedure Article, secs. 14-101 through 14-114; Sec. 6 (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).

 
10.
  Cindy Walsh claims the Maryland Board of Elections Chairman Bobbie Mack is tasked with ensuring that elections are free and fair and to respond to candidate’s complaints identifying election irregularities and as an appointed state official has taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law.  Bobbie Mack failed to respond to complaints of election irregularities and this candidate's request for relief from those irregularities.
These irregularities were so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.

Title 2 Subtitle 1 Section 2-102 - (a) (b) (1) (2) (3)

 

11.  Cindy Walsh claims Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur willfully, knowingly, and with malice violated FCC and IRS election laws and as elected politicians having taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law, have violated that oath of office.



ARTICLE I SEC. 6; SEC. 9.



  Demand for relief

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland asks the court for the following:

12.  Invalidate the 2O14 Democratic Primary due to election irregularities so widespread as to without a doubt changed the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.

13.  Find the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General’s Office guilty of failing to perform the duties of their office and of obstruction of justice placing these agencies under court supervision for a probationary period of several election cycles until the citizens of Maryland are assured free and fair elections.

14.  Find the Democratic Primary candidates for Governor of Maryland, Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur guilty of failing to honor their oath of office by upholding all Federal and State Constitutional laws especially election law and actively violating these election laws.

15.  Provide the Democratic Primary candidate Cindy Walsh an election venue after being denied one in this Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.  Disqualifying Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur for knowingly committing election irregularities and knowingly participating in election venues violating election law would place Cindy Walsh the next highest in votes and therefore the winner of this Democratic Primary.  If the court deems the entire primary invalid then allow Cindy Walsh a spot in the 2014 general election for Governor of Maryland running as a Green Party candidate.  This would require the court for one time to suspend general election filing date requirement date of February 2014 and suspending the law that precludes a candidate losing a primary from running in a general election.  If this is the solution, then the court would need to protect Cindy Walsh from the same kind of media and 501c3 organization censure through the general election this time because of being a third party candidate.

16.  Refund the costs of running this election including candidate filing fees for the candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor and costs of electioneering, refund court costs, with financial damages to the plaintiff for an amount of $500,000.  The plaintiff asks the court to assure the Maryland Assembly pay this award or be sent to jail for contempt of court.   Cindy Walsh is self-representing and is her own lawyer.  Defendants and their lawyers can use the following contact information: Cindy Walsh   2522 N. Calvert St. Baltimore, Maryland 21218; 443-825-7031; Cwals99@yahoo.com  



Signature/date of plaintiff and plaintiff’s lawyer 

______________________________                                                                                          _____________________________


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)


12-203. Procedure

a) In general.----   A proceeding under this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with the Maryland Rules, except that:

1)  the proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury and as expeditiously as the circumstances require;

2) on the request of a party or sua sponte, the chief administrative judge of the circuit court may assign the case to a three-judge panel of circuit court judges; and

3)  an appeal shall be taken directly to the Court of Appeals within 5 days of the date of the decision of the circuit court.

b)  Expedited appeal.  ----  The Court of Appeals shall give priority to hear and decide an appeal brought under subsection (a) (3) of this section as expeditiously as the circumstances require. (An Code 1957, art.33, 12-303; 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)


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

Maryland Attorney General’s Office

Chapter 612, Acts of 1976; Code Criminal Procedure Article, secs. 14-101 through 14-114; Sec. 6 (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).
The Office of State Prosecutor was established by Constitutional amendment and legislation in 1976 (Chapter 612, Acts of 1976, ratified Nov. 1976). The State Prosecutor’s Office began operation January, 1977.

The State Prosecutor may investigate on his own initiative, or at the request of the Governor, the Attorney General, the General Assembly, the State Ethics Commission, or a State’s Attorney, certain criminal offenses. These include: 1) State election law violations; 2) State public ethics law violations; 3) State bribery law violations involving public officials or employees; 4) misconduct in office by public officials or employees; and 5) extortion, perjury, or obstruction of justice related to any of the above.

 MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES


Maryland Board of Elections
Title 2 Subtitle 1 Section 2-102 - Powers and duties. Listen § 2-102. Powers and duties.

(a) In general-The State Board shall manage and supervise elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process.

(b) Specific powers and duties.- In exercising its authority under this article and in order to ensure compliance with this article and with any requirements of federal law, the State Board shall:

(1) Supervise the conduct of elections in the State;

(2) Direct, support, monitor, and evaluate the activities of each local board;

(3) Have a staff sufficient to perform its functions;

[An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 2-102; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4; 2003, ch. 379, § 2; 2004, ch. 25; 2006, ch. 61, § 1.]


 

18 U.S. Code § 1001  (a) (2) (3) False statements of fact

 

(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;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years

 

·         Defamation per se

 

 

Damages Awarded for Defamation in Maryland Among the damages for defamation in Maryland include:

  • actual damages
  • punitive damages
  • other damages awarded by the court
 

Punitive Damages in Maryland: Reconciling Federal Law, State Law, and the Pattern Jury Instructions

·        


·         Stephen J. Shapiro

·        
University of Baltimore - School of Law

Fall 2007

University of Baltimore Law Forum, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 27-53, Fall 2007

·        
Abstract:     

·         Starting in the early 1990's, both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed the issue of jury discretion in awarding punitive damages. The two courts addressed the perceived problem in two different ways. The United States Supreme Court focused their attention mainly on the excessive amount of such awards. It held that the Due Process Clause regulates both the procedures used in awarding punitive damages and the amounts of such awards. The Court required that juries be given sufficient instructions to enable them to make awards based on the purpose of punitive damages, and required state trial judges and appellate courts to reduce the amount of such awards if they were “grossly excessive.” The Court provided state judges with guideposts for determining the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards and required that the amounts be proportionate to the amount of compensatory damages.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland focused its attention instead on the proof required for a jury to make a punitive damages award in the first place. It held that punitive damage awards could only be made if the defendant's conduct rose to the level of actual malice (evil motive or intent to do harm, or knowing that its actions would be harmful) and not just implied malice (gross negligence, recklessness, or should have known of the harm). In addition, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that juries should be instructed that they must find that actual malice had been proved by “clear and convincing evidence,” and not just a preponderance of the evidence.

This article will suggest several changes to Maryland law and the Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions, so that the instructions more accurately reflect Maryland law, and that Maryland law complies with the Due Process Clause. The proposed changes include:
• providing a clearer standard in the instructions for when punitive damages should be awarded;
• clarifying that the “clear and convincing” standard applies only to the finding of “actual malice” and not to the broader question of whether and in what amount to award punitive damages;
• changing the law, the procedure and the jury instructions relating to whether and when a jury may consider evidence of the defendant's financial condition in calculating the amount of a punitive damage award; and
• providing more guidance to juries as to the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards.


·         Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

·         Keywords: punitive damages, jury discretion, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals of Maryland, Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions, compensatory damages, Due Process Clause

·         JEL Classification: K13, K49

·         Accepted Paper Series



·         Download This Paper

·         Date posted: June 24, 2009  

·         Suggested Citation

·         Shapiro, Stephen J., Punitive Damages in Maryland: Reconciling Federal Law, State Law, and the Pattern Jury Instructions (Fall 2007). University of Baltimore Law Forum, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 27-53, Fall 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1425083

Punitive damages in Rockville, Maryland usually cannot exceed 10 times the amount of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. However, this is just a guideline, and not a strict rule. Courts in Maryland have found larger punitive damage awards to be perfectly valid, and smaller ones to be invalid. This will be highly dependent on the facts of each case.

___________________________________________


THIS IS A DRAFT OF THE COMPLAINT GOING TO FEDERAL COURT


CIVIL CLAIM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

 

Cindy Walsh

2522 N Calvert Street                                   Civil Action #  __________________
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Plaintiff

 

                   VS.

 

1.      University of Maryland---College Park

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

 
Defendant

 
2.      University of Maryland Carey Law School     

Phoebe A. Haddon
Dean
500 W. Baltimore Street   Suite 260
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786


Defendant


3.      University of Baltimore

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

 
Defendant


4.      Morgan State University

David Wilson
President
1700 East Cold Spring Lane
Baltimore MD 21251

 
Defendant

 
5.      Coppin State University

Mortimer Neufville
President
2500 West North Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21216-3698

 
Defendant



6.      Maryland Public Television

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

 
Defendant

 

7.      WYPR Public Media 

Anthony Brandon
President & General Manager
2216 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

 
Defendant

 

8.      WEAA Public Media 88.9 FM

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

 
Defendant


9.      Baltimore Education Coalition

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

Defendant

 
10.  BUILD

Baltimore- Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development

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



 11.     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
 


12.  Maryland Democratic Party

Yvette Lewis, Chair
33 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

 
Defendant



13.    The Gazette's Corporate Office

Douglas Tallman,  Editor
Vanessa Harrington,  Editor
9030 Comprint Court
Gaithersburg, MD 20877


Defendant



14.  Maryland Reporter.com

Len Lazarick
6392 Shadowshape Place
Columbia, MD 21045

Defendant



15.  WBFF TV

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


Defendant



16.  Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church

Reverend Lester A. McCorn, Senior Pastor
Lady Charlene M. McCorn, First Lady
1128 Pennsylvania Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21201


Defendant



17.   Maryland Municipal League  


Scott A. Hancock,  Executive Director

1212 West Street  
Annapolis, Maryland 21401


Defendant



18.   WBAL TV Channel 11

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

Defendant

 

19.  WJZ TV Channel 13

Gail Bending -- News Director
3725 Malden Ave
Baltimore, MD 21211-1322

Defendant

 

20.  WMAR TV Channel 3

Kelly Groft --- News Director
6400 York Rd
Baltimore, MD 21212-2117

Defendant

 

21.  Baltimore Sun

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

Defendant



22.  WOLB  AM Radio- Radio One Baltimore

Howard Mazer -  General Manager
1705 Whitehead Road
Baltimore, MD 21207


Defendant






________________________________________

THIS IS A DRAFT OF THE FEDERAL COURT LAWSUIT TO BE FILED BY CINDY WALSH

 

 

Background to Federal Court lawsuit regarding election irregularities in the Democratic Primary for the Governor of Maryland

Censure in media and 501c3 events of my candidacy and platform damaged my campaign and denied the voters the right to freedom and intelligent casting of a vote.  This was a huge factor in election results and directly changed the course of this primary election.  Anthony Brown with 12% of registered democratic voters left 72% of those voters deciding not to participate.  Cindy Walsh with 1% of registered democratic voters could have easily won the 15% more of voters needed to win this election if not for the systemic election violations that left my campaign out of primary election events and media. 





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.


Below you see the FCC requirements for media coverage of elections.  It clearly states that media cannot ‘willfully’ disallow reasonable access to time given to other candidates in a race.  There is no expectation of equal time, but there is an expectation of reasonable access to those media vehicles and an expectation of accurate depictions of an election race to include a full list of candidates in a race :

Federal election laws are not only for Federal Elections ----they cover any candidate for public office.


Four Exemptions
In 1959, Congress amended the Communications Act after the FCC ruled that Chicago broadcasters had to give "equal time" to mayoral candidate Lar Daly; the incumbent mayor was then Richard Daley. In response, Congress created four exemptions to the equal time rule:

(1) regularly scheduled newscasts
(2) news interviews shows
(3) documentaries (unless the documentary is about a candidate)
(4) on-the-spot news events


Federal Communications Commission Rules (Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations)
Statutes and Rules on Candidate Appearances & Advertising

Relevant Sections of the Communications Act of 1934
Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.


(a)    If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section.  No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.  Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –

(1)    bona fide newscast,

(2)    bona fide news interview,

(3)    bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

(4)    on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection.



FCC 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.
 

Below we see the FCC statute for 501c3 media entities participating in elections.  Again, it is clear that these media outlets will not oppose-----which complete exclusion as opposition-----any one candidate.  This was systemic in all 501c3 media in Maryland.


Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] Support of political candidates prohibited.

No noncommercial educational broadcasting station may support or oppose any candidate for public office.

Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] Legally qualified candidates for public office.

(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who:

(1) has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;

(2) is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and

(3) has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.

(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person:

(1) has qualified for a place on the ballot; or

(2) has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method, and makes a substantial showing that he or she is a bona fide candidate for nomination or office.


(e) A person seeking nomination for the office of President or Vice President of the United States shall, for the purposes of the Communications Act and the rules thereunder, be considered a legally qualified candidate only in those States or territories (or the District of Columbia) in which, in addition to meeting the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) He or she, or proposed delegates on his or her behalf, have qualified for the primary or Presidential preference ballot in that State, territory or the District of Columbia; or

(2) He or she has made a substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy for such nomination in that State, territory or the District of Columbia; except, that any such person meeting the requirements set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section in at least 10 States (or 9 and the District of Columbia) shall be considered a legally qualified candidate for nomination in all States, territories and the District of Columbia for purposes of this Act.

(f) The term "substantial showing" of a bona fide candidacy as used in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of this section means evidence that the person claiming to be a candidate has engaged to a substantial degree in activities commonly associated with political campaigning. Such activities normally would include making campaign speeches, distributing campaign literature, issuing press releases, maintaining a campaign committee, and establishing campaign headquarters (even though the headquarters in some instances might be the residence of the candidate or his or her campaign manager). Not all of the listed activities are necessarily required in each case to demonstrate a substantial showing, and there may be activities not listed herein which would contribute to such a showing.

[43 FR 32795, July 28, 1978, as amended at 43 FR 45856, Oct. 4, 1978; 43 FR 55769, Nov. 29, 1978; 45 FR 26066, Apr. 17, 1980; 45 FR 28141, Apr. 28, 1980; 57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 57 FR 27708, June 22, 1992]


Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] Equal Opportunities.

(a) General requirements. Except as other-wise indicated in § 73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:

(1) Bona fide newscast;

(2) Bona fide news interview;

(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or

(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)

(b) Uses. As used in this section and § 73.1942, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.

(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.

(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.


 

FCC 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.





18 U.S. Code § 1001  (a) (2) (3) False statements of fact

 (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;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years

 

·         Defamation per se


[57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 59 FR 14568, March 29, 1994]

 

Damages Awarded for Defamation in Maryland Among the damages for defamation in Maryland include:

  • actual damages
  • punitive damages
  • other damages awarded by the court
 

Punitive Damages in Maryland: Reconciling Federal Law, State Law, and the Pattern Jury Instructions

·        


·         Stephen J. Shapiro

·        
University of Baltimore - School of Law

Fall 2007

University of Baltimore Law Forum, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 27-53, Fall 2007

·        
Abstract:     

·         Starting in the early 1990's, both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed the issue of jury discretion in awarding punitive damages. The two courts addressed the perceived problem in two different ways. The United States Supreme Court focused their attention mainly on the excessive amount of such awards. It held that the Due Process Clause regulates both the procedures used in awarding punitive damages and the amounts of such awards. The Court required that juries be given sufficient instructions to enable them to make awards based on the purpose of punitive damages, and required state trial judges and appellate courts to reduce the amount of such awards if they were “grossly excessive.” The Court provided state judges with guideposts for determining the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards and required that the amounts be proportionate to the amount of compensatory damages.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland focused its attention instead on the proof required for a jury to make a punitive damages award in the first place. It held that punitive damage awards could only be made if the defendant's conduct rose to the level of actual malice (evil motive or intent to do harm, or knowing that its actions would be harmful) and not just implied malice (gross negligence, recklessness, or should have known of the harm). In addition, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that juries should be instructed that they must find that actual malice had been proved by “clear and convincing evidence,” and not just a preponderance of the evidence.

This article will suggest several changes to Maryland law and the Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions, so that the instructions more accurately reflect Maryland law, and that Maryland law complies with the Due Process Clause. The proposed changes include:
• providing a clearer standard in the instructions for when punitive damages should be awarded;
• clarifying that the “clear and convincing” standard applies only to the finding of “actual malice” and not to the broader question of whether and in what amount to award punitive damages;
• changing the law, the procedure and the jury instructions relating to whether and when a jury may consider evidence of the defendant's financial condition in calculating the amount of a punitive damage award; and
• providing more guidance to juries as to the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards.

·         Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

·         Keywords: punitive damages, jury discretion, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals of Maryland, Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions, compensatory damages, Due Process Clause

·         JEL Classification: K13, K49

·         Accepted Paper Series



·         Download This Paper

·         Date posted: June 24, 2009  

·         Suggested Citation

·         Shapiro, Stephen J., Punitive Damages in Maryland: Reconciling Federal Law, State Law, and the Pattern Jury Instructions (Fall 2007). University of Baltimore Law Forum, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 27-53, Fall 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1425083

Punitive damages in Rockville, Maryland usually cannot exceed 10 times the amount of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. However, this is just a guideline, and not a strict rule. Courts in Maryland have found larger punitive damage awards to be perfectly valid, and smaller ones to be invalid. This will be highly dependent on the facts of each case.
0 Comments

June 29th, 2014

6/29/2014

0 Comments

 
I sent notice that I would be challenging in court the Maryland governor's race and the democratic primary because of systemic violations of election law.
WBAL came back saying the democrats left out did not have the money to run a statewide race.  Well, the republicans in the race did not either yet the publicity they received being included in all election coverage allowed them to bring in a modest amount.  No WBAL---you excluded because of platform.

Dan Rodricks wrote an Opinion piece that is so galling it takes your breath away.  He states that even if the press gives you candidates that you do not want---it is your duty to vote for the least worst.  There's a reason Dan runs when he sees me in the grocery store.
 

Dan is WYPR and WYPR is the worst offender of free and fair elections and actually said on air----

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CANDIDATES WE PUT IN FRONT OF YOU THEN DON'T VOTE.

They mean it!  They work hard to make sure the same crony pols get into office each election by censuring any candidate not committed to the status quo.


Dan Rodricks envisions an election more third world than now for Maryland.  He sees Saadam Hussein and Putin of Russia telling the citizens they must come out and vote for them or else.  Required voting in order to make it appear there are elections.  This is what is happening today in the US and Maryland is one of the worst offenders of public justice and civil rights and equal protection.  The pols do not even think the citizens of Maryland have those rights.  Doug Gansler ran on the issue of dismantling the public prosecutor's office, probably the only legal agency left in Maryland that would have been used for public justice.

The idea the citizens of America are going to sit and have media and 501c3s controlled by the very pols making politics crony in Maryland and elsewhere WILL NOT FLY. 

WE WILL NOT BE TOLD WE WILL VOTE FOR A PERSON WE HATE THE LEAST.


Yeah Dan----like that is what is turning off voters---an empty podium and negative campaigning....a stage full of neo-liberals couldn't be it!

For the Maryland 80 percent, still time to get off the bench Holding your nose to vote is still better than not voting at all


Dan Rodricks 10:49 p.m. EDT, June 27, 2014 WYPR

Among the 80 percent of registered Republicans and Democrats who stayed away from Maryland's primary was Sally Staehle of Baltimore. She wrote me a letter to explain why she took a pass on voting this time around.

"I turned off to local politics when I saw a commercial of an empty podium at a debate, with a voice-over that said somebody didn't bother to show up for the debate, how can we trust him? I just couldn't bear to even try to figure out what that was all about. I don't even remember who the commercial was for."

You can understand Staehle's reluctance to waste mental energy on a campaign ad. But it would not have been hard to figure that one out.

What I assume Staehle saw was a TV spot slamming Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown for skipping the WBFF-TV debate a few days earlier. His challengers, Attorney General Doug Gansler and Del. Heather Mizeur, participated in the debate and appeared on screen, an empty lectern bearing Brown's name between them.

Gansler's camp paid for the ad. ("If Anthony Brown won't even show up in Baltimore to debate," it said, "how can we trust him to stand up for us as governor?")

While Staehle might not have liked or understood the ad, Brown's decision to skip the WBFF debate was fair game; he deserved to be knocked for it.

Staehle cited another factor — the proposal by Mizeur to legalize and tax marijuana to pay for an expansion of prekindergarten education.

"Early childhood professionals work really hard to help children learn and develop their brains and sharpen their wits," Staehle wrote. "Using drug money to fund their education just seemed so stupid that I couldn't pay any more attention."

Fair point. But while Mizeur's proposal might have been a reason to reject a particular candidate, it wasn't a reason to reject an entire election.

I understand how negative campaigning and foolish grandstanding turn people off. But that's just the reason voters need to be informed — so they can separate the baloney salesmen from the real deals.

Being a good citizen calls for discernment, the ability to judge well. It means paying attention so you can vote with some confidence that you're picking the best candidate for a particular job.

As we just saw with Tuesday's election, with its embarrassingly low voter turnout, that doesn't always happen (see results of the state's attorney primary in Baltimore).

Some people argue that it's better this way — let an informed, civic-minded minority do the voting.

I don't accept that; no one should.

And I disagree with the sentiment that foolishness and negativity in a campaign are reasons to belong to Maryland's 80 percent of nonvoters. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote, but you have to vote — or else you don't get to complain about the quality of your government.

I've heard over the last week from some of the biggest complainers in our state, and they're mostly Republicans. They're bitter about being outnumbered 2 to 1 by Democrats, and they cite that as a reason for not voting. One tweeted that it's futile to vote for Larry Hogan because, if elected, a Republican governor won't be able to accomplish anything with a legislature dominated by Democrats.

The nonvoting Republicans don't understand that by sitting out elections, belonging to the sedentary 80 percent, they push their party closer to irrelevancy.

What Republicans should be doing is pushing their party closer to the center and appealing to some of Maryland's 650,000 independents. Less extreme ideology and more focus on making government work, instead of tearing it down, would serve the GOP. It would serve both parties.

It might bring back voters like Sally Staehle.

"I work very hard and am a contributing citizen," she wrote. "But there was nothing for me to hold onto in our local politics. I care very deeply about all the trash in the streets I walk on, how dirty the harbor and bay are, and the endless murders that go on in our city. I am sick and tired of seeing people spit in the streets and of smelling urine at the bus stops where I transfer. And I wait too long for buses sometimes. This is a start of what I care about immediately."

Roger that. But that's exactly why we vote, especially in local elections.

All that Staehle mentions, all that quality-of-life stuff, flows back to the people who run your city, your county, your state, your country. Trash removal, road repairs, aircraft safety, police and fire response, schools and universities, fair and firm criminal justice, vigilance on the environment, public health and financial markets — you can trace all of those things back to someone in power and, ultimately, someone accountable on Election Day.

If you were part of the 80 percent this time, OK. I won't bring it up again.

But consider coming off the bench; the general election is Tuesday, Nov. 4. I think this constitutes adequate notice.


Doug Gansler ran for governor with a promise to end funding for the public prosecutor's office.  Who is Doug hoping to catch with that promise?

_________________________________
Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler ran on an issue of ending the state prosecutor's office.  Well, no wonder----Doug did not even know it was there obviously----you don't have systemic corruption and fraud with an active state prosecutor's office.  This is how empowered these crony pols are becoming.  To tell the citizens of Maryland you will have no recourse in criminal activity is to end your status as citizen and equal protection.
Note that one of the duties of this position is election law violations. This office is like the evolutionary appendage lost over millions of years from lack of use!


Mission

The Office of State Prosecutor
was established by Constitutional amendment and legislation in 1976 (Chapter 612, Acts of 1976, ratified Nov. 1976). The State Prosecutor’s Office began operation January, 1977.

The State Prosecutor may investigate on his own initiative, or at the request of the Governor, the Attorney General, the General Assembly, the State Ethics Commission, or a State’s Attorney, certain criminal offenses. These include: 1) State election law violations; 2) State public ethics law violations; 3) State bribery law violations involving public officials or employees; 4) misconduct in office by public officials or employees; and 5) extortion, perjury, or obstruction of justice related to any of the above.

At the request of the Governor, Attorney General, General Assembly, or a State’s Attorney, the State Prosecutor also may investigate alleged crimes conducted partly in Maryland and partly in another jurisdiction, or in more than one political subdivision of the State.

If a violation of the criminal law has occurred, and the State Prosecutor recommends prosecution, he makes a confidential report of his findings and recommendations to the Attorney General and the State’s Attorney having jurisdiction to prosecute the matter. Such a report need not be made to the State’s Attorney, however, if the State Prosecutor’s findings and recommendations contain allegations of offenses committed by the State’s Attorney. If the State’s Attorney to whom the report is rendered fails to file charges within 45 days in accordance with the State Prosecutor’s recommendations, the State Prosecutor may prosecute such offenses. The State Prosecutor may immediately prosecute offenses set forth in the report and recommendations if they are alleged to have been committed by a State’s Attorney.

Where no violation of the criminal law has occurred or prosecution is not recommended, the State Prosecutor reports his/her findings to the agency mentioned in paragraph one above that requested the investigation. The report is made available to the public if the subject of the investigation so requests.

In investigating and prosecuting cases in which he is authorized to act, the State Prosecutor has all the powers and duties of a State’s Attorney.

The State Prosecutor is nominated by the State Prosecutor Selection and Disabilities Commission and appointed by the Governor for a term of six years and until his successor is appointed and qualifies. He may be removed only for misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform the duties of the office, or conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. (State Government Article, Sections 9-1201 thru 1213, Annotated Code of Maryland).


__________________________________


When you have a ranking of 44th worst in finance disclosure laws and you are ranked the same nationally for fraud, corruption, and lack of transparency you have a problem with campaign donations.  If you are Doug Gansler and spent 8 years as Maryland Attorney General 'seeing no fraud and corruption' as billions are lost to the Maryland state coffers each year----you will certain have a campaign war chest.  If you have 8 years of privatizing all that is public and giving a record number of corporate tax breaks and subsidy-----you are going to have a war chest.

The election of an unknown in the Virginia race against the top republican in Congress Eric Cantor-----running a grassroots campaign against a candidate with millions of dollars in his war chest shows
elections do not have to be run on money.

Below you see the republicans in the Maryland governor's race having very little in their campaign bank----Lollar having almost nothing and that is said to be his own money.  Yet, all these republicans were covered in the media and allowed access to all forums and debates.  So, when WBAL states after receiving
notice of the pending lawsuit challenging the election results for governor because of the censuring of democratic candidates that these democrats did not have the money to run a statewide race-----THEY ARE LYING.  CINDY WALSH WAS LEFT OUT BECAUSE OF PLATFORM!



'Del. Ronald A. George (Anne Arundel) missed the filing deadline Tuesday night because of what his campaign said were technical problems. His campaign said he has about $40,000 cash on hand and had raised $69,000 since the end of the legislative session in April.

Charles County businessman Charles Lollar continues to run his campaign on a shoestring budget and had about $18,000 in the bank as of last week, according to his report. Lollar might not be allowed to spend that money, as a judge recently ruled that the campaign owes a political database software vendor in Northern Virginia more than $20,000'.



'Maryland has the 44th-worst-ranked set of campaign finance disclosure laws in the country, according to a UCLA study'.


In Md. governor's race, Baltimore no longer epicenter for campaign cash
  By Aaron C. Davis and Luke Rosiak Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 30, 2010; 10:10 PM


Baltimore and its suburbs have for decades served as the epicenter of political fundraising in Maryland. Businesses atop the city's downtown high-rises, often with views of the shimmering Inner Harbor, and wealthy residents farther out in the tidy suburbs that ring the city's version of a beltway have most often opened their checkbooks for candidates running for governor.

Not this year. Down Interstate 95, across the twisty northern span of the Capital Beltway, and tucked in a cluster of gated mansions in Potomac is Maryland's new capital for money in politics.

Just outside the District line, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) have collected more money from Montgomery County's 20854 Zip code than from any other.

"It's mostly Democratic around here, as you can probably see," said John Sverha, a retired former hospital president, motioning late last week to O'Malley campaign signs in yards flanking his relatively modest brick home off Falls Road. "I guess I gave this year to Ehrlich out of principle. I'm expecting a tax hike if O'Malley is reelected."

Sverha's $50 check stands out as noticeably tiny in Potomac. Down the block, a neighbor wrote one to O'Malley for $500. Around the corner, another for $1,000. And thanks largely to donations from a few hundred who live in tree-lined estates with four- and six-car garages north of Congressional Golf Course, the total for Zip code 20854 last week stood at nearly $600,000.

The Washington suburbs' emergence as a fundraising powerhouse, however, has done little to shed light on the industry and business interests working most intently to influence the governor's race.

In fact, good-government advocates say, the shift has only highlighted how, because of weak state laws, much less is known about the way money influences politics in Maryland compared with national races next door in Washington.

For its progressive reputation in many other areas, Maryland has the 44th-worst-ranked set of campaign finance disclosure laws in the country, according to a UCLA study. Donors are shielded from having to disclose the names of their employers, what industries they work in and other basic data commonly required to contribute to federal campaigns.

"When all you can see is that John Jones from Baltimore or Jane Smith from Washington is giving $4,000 to Martin O'Malley, that doesn't mean much," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies at UCLA. "But if you can see that John works for a company where a bunch of other people are giving money and he's a secretary - and how can he afford $4,000? - it raises a whole other set of questions."

Maryland's lack of disclosures makes it impossible to come up with a comprehensive portrait of the interests behind the majority of $26 million being spent to elect and curry favor with the next governor, but a Washington Post analysis identified the industries associated with 40 percent of the money contributed to the two men over the past eight years.

The donors' employers and industries were identified through federal records from the Center for Responsive Politics, information from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and Post research.

The analysis found that many with related interests are giving more than the state's $4,000 cap for a single political campaign and its $10,000 cap in a four-year period. Some are donating through multiple family members or divisions of a company.


One real estate developer has given 14 donations through 11 different names totaling more than $28,000 to O'Malley since 2007. Five members of the family of Craftmark Homes' Kenneth Malm gave $2,000 each to Ehrlich in a single day in May.

The analysis also turned up more than 150 businesses, some involved in hot-button industries, that have hedged their bets by donating more than half a million dollars to both candidates.

Penn National Gaming, which last month opened Hollywood Casino Perryville, the state's first slots casino, gave $16,000 to O'Malley's campaign on a single day in August. Penn and its political action committee split contributions that day. Each gave two maximum contributions to two different O'Malley campaign accounts.

Gambling interests have given at least $143,000 to the men's campaigns, mostly to O'Malley, in the past two cycles.

Merritt Properties and its leader, Leroy Merritt, which in September unveiled plans for a nearly 40-acre office park for military contractors near the Aberdeen Proving Ground, has in the past two years donated $24,000 to Ehrlich and $6,000 to O'Malley.

Merritt gave 19 contributions totaling $57,000 through 15 entities, including at least 10 differently numbered limited liability corporations. He's given heavily to both candidates but has favored Ehrlich.

Swaths of donors connected to utility companies, health-care providers, defense contractors and construction industries also appear to be betting on O'Malley.

The governor has aggressively moved to implement the federal health-care overhaul approved by Congress, while Ehrlich has vowed to slow it down.

A slice of large donors who work for hospitals and nursing homes favored Ehrlich four years ago. This time they have given more than $120,000 to O'Malley and about $26,600 to Ehrlich.

Total donations from a similar slice of top contributors who work in construction amount to about half of what they were four years ago, near the peak of the housing bubble. The group has given more than $500,000 to O'Malley and $235,000 to Ehrlich. O'Malley's administration has overseen the spending of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money and increased funding for school construction.

Federally registered lobbyists have also given more than $63,500 to O'Malley and nearly $13,000 to Ehrlich.

Combined, the businesses banking on an O'Malley win go a long way to explaining the governor's multimillion-dollar fundraising advantage. As of early last week, O'Malley had raised nearly $12 million to Ehrlich's $7.2 million for the full four-year fundraising cycle. National groups have filled in an estimated $7 million in additional campaign spending, split roughly evenly on both campaigns.

But another criticized feature of Maryland's campaign finance laws means political contributions made in the final weeks before an election are not revealed until weeks later. Nothing is known, for example, about the sources of $800,000 raised in a single day this month for O'Malley at fundraisers headlined by former president Bill Clinton and Vice President Biden.

_______________________________________
You cannot raise contributions if your name and message is nowhere to be seen in the major venues.  As citizens we have the right to run for office and we have the right to go to the polls intelligent of all of the election platforms and candidates.  In Maryland there is not one venue the state or local government sponsors in educating the voters on any race.  The public universities were the hotbed of politics and political discussion and that is where the hostility against my candidacy was most harsh.  It is because of the corporatization of these campuses.  When you leave the public in the hands of media for most election education and then you allow those institutions to tell the citizens of Maryland----IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE CANDIDATES WE PUT IN FRONT OF YOU THEN DON'T VOTE----you do not have an election system.

Below you see how little was needed to defeat what everyone in America wants to defeat whether republican or democrat-----crony capitalism ----neo-coservatism and neo-liberalism.


The Tea Party is the political opposite of labor and justice but they are working hard to get rid of global corporate control and protect the US Constitution as progressive labor and justice.



Dave Versus Goliath, By the Numbers
by Russ Choma on June 11, 2014




Dave Brat is congratulated last night after defeating House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. (AP Photo/Richmond Times-Dispatch, P. Kevin Morley)

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s campaign spent more money on food — $168,000 on steakhouses alone — than Dave Brat did on his entire campaign. But it wasn’t just steak. On April 6, the Cantor campaign spent $790 at Proof, a downtown D.C. restaurant, where the cheapest entree on the menu is a “Napoleon of Crispy Tofu, Wild Mushrooms & Spring Vegetables,” which costs $25. Brat’s biggest food expense was $789 for catering from Honey Baked Ham in Richmond (where boxed lunches go for $8.29 apiece) on May 8.

Cantor has been widely admired — inside the Beltway — for his successful fundraising operation and his largesse in donating to other candidates, especially from his leadership PAC, Every Republican Is Crucial (ERIC PAC). But last night, Cantor’s brand turned from ERIC to epic — as in, failure of historic proportions. Since 2000, there have been 30 instances of incumbents losing to primary challengers, but there is no comparison in terms of the chasm in spending between the winner and loser. According to an OpenSecrets.org analysis, Cantor spent more than Brat by a ratio of almost 41-to-1, a margin that is close to ten times wider than the spending spread between contestants in any other race on the list of 30.

Brat’s rhetoric railed against big-money Washington, decrying lobbyists and Wall Street types who funnel cash to leaders in both parties. And despite his severe financial disadvantage, it’s apparent that he managed to tap into a public anger that isn’t much affected by campaign ads or sophisticated strategizing.

A look at each campaign’s spending in late March helps tell the tale. On March 25, Cantor wrote checks for $8,900 for private jet services, $6,700 for food for a fundraising event (the Washington, D.C. catering company’s website is currently touting its “Star Spangled & Sumptuous” menu, featuring chilled roasted salmon with cucumber banchan) and $1,017 for legal consulting from McGuire Woods. Brat’s campaign had no expenses on March 25, but the day before, it spent $87 at WalMart on “office supplies.”

While Cantor’s campaign was once admired in Washington for its high-flying ways and is now being mocked for its lavish food expenses, Brat’s campaign spending was so minimal that it’s hard to detect a pattern. His largest vendor was a payroll firm ($29,700), followed by Concentric Direct ($25,300), a small political consulting firm that, according to its website, had previously overseen Mitt Romney’s primary win in Wyoming and also had success in Cleveland city council races.

One of the more seasoned political operatives working for Brat was his direct mail consultant, Dennis Fusaro, a longtime Virginia conservative activist who recently blew the whistle on what he said were illegal campaign activities at the National Right To Work Committee. Fusaro was paid $500 by Brat’s campaign; he told OpenSecrets Blog that he and a handful of others ran a shoestring operation, mailing out 40,000 introduction letters. Fusaro added that he helped coordinate another 12,000 phone calls to gun owners. According to Brat’s filings, about $21,000 was spent printing mailers and making robocalls.

Similarly, it was already widely known that Cantor’s biggest donor was Wall Street. And though his fundraising numbers — $5.4 million so far in this election cycle — had been the envy of congressional colleagues, they are now the symbol of how out-of-touch he was. Conversely, it’s almost impossible to profile Brat’s typical donor, because he had so few.

Other gleanings from the campaigns’ reports:

  • Brat raised $206,000 through May 21, and at least an additional $16,600 after that, while Cantor raised $5.1 million, and another $298,000 just since May 21.
  • The majority leader brought in $2.1 million from PACs. Not a single PAC gave to Brat’s effort.
  • Cantor had hundreds of donors who maxed out their donations to him — $2,600 for the primary race — while Brat had 12 donors who gave the maximum amount, one of whom is a family member.
  • Cantor received just 21 percent of his campaign cash from Virginia residents, according to OpenSecrets’ latest analysis, which covers large individual donations (over $200) from 2013. Brat didn’t even raise money in 2013, but in 2014, 81 percent of the money from his large individual donors came from Virginia residents.
  • Cantor raised at least as much from donors living in D.C. ($193,000 in 2013 alone) as Brat raised overall. The challenger received just $50 from the District.

0 Comments

June 27th, 2014

6/27/2014

0 Comments

 
I write about this election and now the followup court proceedings to encourage good people to run for elected office.  I know the system is so crony as to work against good candidates for office but use these methods and go to court to fight for the rebuilding of free and fair elections in Maryland.

Today I want to look at the final issue I must prove in court as regards voiding these democratic election results----would the election results have been different if not for these election violations?  The answer is a resounding YES!  The combination of extremely low voter turnout combined with my 6,500 votes placing me at 1% of total of registered democrats will prove that the election could have and would have had different results.  Any election news commentator would say------this candidate is 10% away from the front-runner so is still in 'striking distance'.  Indeed, with only 10% of votes separating Anthony Brown and Cindy Walsh and 72% of registered democratic votes available to win-----the only conclusion is that Cindy Walsh would have garnered that 15% needed to win this election.  No one of those 72% wanted Brown, Gansler, or Mizeur so they would have voted for Cindy Walsh----at least 15% had they had just a moderate exposure to my campaign.  See why it was so important to keep even my name out of this democratic primary coverage?

CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND WOULD HAVE WON IF NOT FOR SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD.

One thing all Marylanders know is that in no venue is the citizen allowed to openly ask questions of these political candidates.  A moderator decides what is asked and in almost every case that moderator asks the same talking points Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur discuss.  The small venues that allowed my campaign access were almost always ones that allotted 1 minute for the candidate to say her name and the office for which she ran.  One event allowing 3 minutes actually changed the rules in mid forum when they heard my platform dismantled O'Malley's policies and the moderator made clear that the goal was to continue O'Malley's policies.  Sadly, these are  black election venues. The neo-liberal dismantling of public justice, Bill of Rights, and equal protection will hit people of color and women the hardest as is already seen by last decade's massive corporate fraud of people's retirement investments-----overwhelmingly hitting these groups afforded no equal protection.  This is why these election violations are going to court as civil rights violations as well as election rigging.  Dismantling the US Constitution will damage every citizen of America.
  How can you have an informed electorate if people are denied any access to questioning and answers to the greatest issues?  The judge in this case is required to consider if these violations kept the voters from being that informed electorate.

Below you see one of many comments on my campaign website.  It is clear if not for the censure of my campaign I would have had the votes needed to win this election.


What can be done about the automated phones calls? They have been annoying & disruptive! Please don't give up Cindy! We found about you the day after we early voted

keep us posted and networking I will!!! Good Luck!!!


Let's look at the duplicity of the media outside these election violations and polling frauds by looking at the headlines after the election.  Whether local or national media----whether election businesses or political pundit all you saw in the news was that Anthony Brown won a decisive victory with a wide lead over the two contenders.  His 12% was decisive over Gansler and Mizeur's 5%.  THOSE FRONT-RUNNERS!

Below you see one national media outlet----albeit the Philadelphia Inquire of political commentary----but aren't they all now?  All of these media outlets know the polling was rigged.....they know Brown won with 12% of the vote and they know I am contesting this election and none of this will be mentioned.  If I win the case and the election is voided as needs to happen----the media will not say a word.


You will know you are tuned to a labor and justice media outlet if they are talking to you about the issues in my race.

The importance for neo-liberals to place a person of color or woman as the face of these policies lies strongly to the dismantling of equal protection and move to third world society that always pushes women and people of color to the lowest extremes.  This is Clinton neo-liberalism folks.

Anthony Brown Wins Democratic Nomination In Maryland Gubernatorial Primary

The Huffington Post  | By Samantha Lachman




Posted: 06/24/2014 9:12 pm EDT Updated: 06/24/2014 9:59 pm EDT
Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown won the Democratic nomination in the race to succeed Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), the Associated Press reports.

Brown emerged from a field of candidates that also included Attorney General Doug Gansler and state Del. Heather Mizeur. He had held a commanding lead in the polls throughout the race and had picked up endorsements from much of Maryland's Democratic political establishment, including O'Malley, so his Tuesday evening win read as more of a coronation than a surprise.

Gansler had tried to tie Brown to the state's troubled rollout of its online insurance exchange, since Brown oversaw the Affordable Care Act's implementation. However, Gansler's strategy proved unsuccessful, as the state's voters ultimately didn't blame Brown for the website's structural problems. Gansler did get Brown to admit during a candidate debate that he should have taken a more active role in guiding the exchange's development.

Brown is widely expected to be Maryland's next governor, given the state's strong Democratic tendencies. A November win would be a historic one: Brown would be the state's first black governor.



___________________________________________

It was Brown's disciplined reticence that contributed to record-breaking low turnout!  Who knew?  We all thought it was a repudiation of these 3 candidates.  Brown simply needed to wait silently as O'Malley's political machine worked----only it did not work well enough.  Even the union and justice leaders that campaigned hardest could not put lipstick on these neo-liberal pigs!

What is historic is a candidate winning a primary for governor with 12% of the registered voters-----that is something to write about! 

Anthony Brown wins Md. Democratic nod with shrewd but gutless campaign

  • Washington Post
1 of 35 Marylanders go to the polls In the Maryland primary, voters chose candidates for governor, attorney general and local offices. Robert McCartney Columnist Robert McCartney’s column on local issues appears Thursdays and Sundays in The Post’s Metro section. June 25

“Cautious” and “shrewd” are two words that fairly describe Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown’s wildly successful campaign strategy for winning the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

“Opportunistic” and “gutless” are others.

The safe, easy route prevailed. Brown parlayed a shiny résumé, blue-chip endorsements and a message of bland generalities to secure a landslide anointment as the state’s likely next governor.

His campaign theme: “Building a Better Maryland for More Marylanders.” Who would argue?

But Brown’s refusal to take bold, forward-looking positions on major issues means Maryland voters are set to elect a new chief executive without having a clear sense of where he wants to lead the state.

Governor Democratic Primary Lead Win
Votes %Won


Anthony Brown          236,037                51.29%

Douglas Gansler         111,497                 24.23


Heather Mizeur            99,913               21.71


100.00% of precincts reporting 0:19 See more results


Sure, Brown would govern as a liberal in the mold of his patron, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). But the Democrats who effectively voted for a third O’Malley term did so without a clue about how it might be different from the first two.

Brown and his team should have been willing to say more, for the sake of securing a true mandate for action. Instead, his disciplined reticence contributed to such voter boredom that the primary had the lowest turnout in memory.


______________________________________________

Here is Politico----the Washington political journal.  They make this race seem like a landslide for Brown-----and as we know, Brown is the Clinton pick to be a raging neo-liberal. 

Brown won by 58% to 21%----WOW!  Doesn't sound like the 12% to 5% at all does it? 

This is why the American people have not been able to fight this neo-liberal takeover of the democratic party and the same goes for the neo-conservatives and the republican party.  The media are completely providing propaganda and not journalism on these elections and it is why people truly caring about elections in America are demanding the voters be allowed the opportunity to become informed on all issues and candidates.


Did you know that Ben Cardin's campaign re-election had that primary completely blacked-out in the media around Cardin's Baltimore district-----not one word on the Senate primary was heard during the primary.  With 8 challengers in this race none of them were known to the public.  As usual Cardin was re-elected by around 10% of registered democrats in his district.  This then becomes the pollster's 'likely voters' cohort when polling.  ONE GREAT BIG ELECTION FRAUD.

Democrat Anthony Brown wins Maryland governor primary
  •  
  •  
Brown will face GOP businessman and activist Larry Hogan. | AP Photo

By STEVEN SHEPARD | 6/24/14 9:26 PM EDT Updated: 6/25/14 11:32 AM EDT Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown won the state’s Democratic gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, defeating two challengers in a race marked by personal attacks and a debate about the legacy of potential presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, who has governed the state for the past eight years.

Brown led Attorney General Doug Gansler 58 percent to 21 percent when The Associated Press called the race, with 5 percent of precincts reporting. State Del. Heather Mizeur was third, with 19 percent of the vote.

The race between Brown and Gansler was ugly from the start. Before Gansler even declared his candidacy, he was embroiled in two scandals: Maryland state troopers alleged he misused his state police vehicular detail, ordering officers to speed and break other traffic laws; and a photo emerged of Gansler at a Delaware beach party at which underaged attendees appeared to be drinking alcohol.

(Full results from Maryland's gubernatorial primary)

Also last summer, an audiotape emerged of Gansler suggesting that Brown had little to offer voters other than the historic nature of his candidacy. “I mean, right now his campaign slogan is, ‘Vote for me, I want to be the first African-American governor of Maryland,’” Gansler told a group of campaign volunteers last July, according to The Washington Post. “That’s a laudable goal, but you need a second sentence: ‘Because here’s what I’ve done, and here’s why I’ve done it.’”

In April, Gansler dismissed the notion that Brown’s military service was relevant experience to be governor. “You know, I’m running against somebody who has never managed anybody, never run anything,” Gansler said at a forum in Bethesda. “You know his ads are about how he was a lawyer in Iraq, and that’s all fine and good, but this is a real job.”

More recently, Gansler’s television ads accused Brown of opposing President Barack Obama in 2008 — Brown and O’Malley endorsed then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) — and have criticized Brown’s leadership on the problematic implementation of the federal health care law in Maryland.

On the other side, Brown’s ads suggested that Gansler’s stance on universal pre-Kindergarten sounds like that of a Republican candidate (Gansler told POLITICO last week those ads and mailers have mischaracterized his position), and a pro-Brown super PAC aired a television ad resurrecting the state-trooper and underaged-drinking scandals.



Brown and Gansler were both well-funded, but polls never showed the attorney general erasing Brown’s early lead. Brown had the support of most of the state’s Democratic political establishment — including O’Malley, Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin.

Mizeur’s campaign, on the other hand, was publicly financed — which hamstrung her against her more cash-flush opponents. “We always knew with less resources and with a restriction on how much I could spend overall that we wouldn’t be able to get my ads on TV till the last three weeks of the race,” Mizeur said last week.

Brown will face GOP businessman and activist Larry Hogan, who won Tuesday’s Republican primary, in November. Democrats have controlled the governor’s mansion for all but four of the 45 years since Spiro Agnew left Annapolis to become Richard Nixon’s vice president.

The specter of the term-limited O’Malley loomed large over the primary. Gansler and Mizeur both praised O’Malley on social issues in pre-election interviews with POLITICO, but said he fell short on the state’s economy — with Gansler hitting O’Malley mostly from the right on the economy, and Mizeur hitting him from the left.

Brown, who was O’Malley’s lieutenant for all eight years in Annapolis, put little distance between himself and the incumbent during the campaign.

“I think Gov. O’Malley is going to be viewed … as a very successful governor because of the results that we’ve achieved over or during his administration and his leadership,” Brown told POLITICO last week. “I think he’ll be judged as a governor that got results for the people of Maryland.”
___________________________________


You can see the voter turnout falling with the advent of Clinton and neo-liberal capture of the democratic party and political system.  Clinton ran as a progressive labor and justice candidate and then served the democratic constituents neo-liberal policies that killed the democratic majority of labor and justice.  Clinton did this by lying about his intent.  If you notice the 1998 election with Clinton had democratic voters faced with a democratic candidate that killed the democratic base as much as the republican candidate and that is when you see the voter turnout fall.  Democrats were electing progerssive labor and justice and getting republican neo-liberals.  Obama did the exact thing as he campaigned as progressive labor and justice.  We all came out to voter still naive as to the degree of capture of the US election system and he is serving to the right of George Bush for goodness sake.  So, the American people are feeling these elections are rigged and as we see in this one Maryland election the election rigging is complete and it is all illegal.

Will a judge rule with this overwhelming evidence that this election would not have had different results had Cindy Walsh not been censured?  It would be impossible not to.  The evidence is stark.  Will a judge rule that there is direct prejudice in this censure based on platform? Again, the evidence is stark. The low voter turnout is not a symptom of voters not caring about politics-----it is the overwhelming capture of politics by these political machines that are then allowed to act with impunity in breaking all election law that has people feeling they have no recourse.

 OUR ELECTION LAWS REQUIRE THAT CITIZENS BE FREE AND INTELLIGENT IN ENGAGING THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE.

Please think about the organizations whose mission is protecting election rights------who make 'getting out the vote' and voter protections at the polls' a priority but then participate in this very act of rigging elections by breaking election laws meant to allow equal access to the election process to all platforms and citizens wanting to run for elected office.  Maryland ACLU, Maryland Leaque of Women Voters, NAACP, the National Lawyer's Guild-----all tasked with protecting civil rights and liberties and all silent and/or participating in rigging these Maryland elections.

MAKE NO MISTAKE----THERE IS NOTHING PROGRESSIVE ABOUT NEO-LIBERALISM.  IT IS ONLY REGRESSIVE.


Voter turnout for the Maryland gubernatorial primary: About 22 percent


Bill Boteler votes in the state's primary elections at the Annapolis Middle School on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Capital Gazette, Joshua McKerrow) (Joshua Mckerrow/AP) By Jenna Johnson June 25 About 22 percent of eligible Marylander voters appear to have cast ballots in the contentious gubernatorial primary Tuesday, which is higher than some had predicted but still a new low for a state that has seen participation in primaries gradually dwindle.

Unlike past years when gubernatorial primaries lacked competition, the Democratic and Republican contests this year both featured slates of viable candidates. The Democrats, in particular, spent millions of dollars on television advertising in an attempt to set themselves apart from their competition.

There were tense debates, controversial scandals and rounds of attacks lobbed between Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown, who won the Democratic nomination with about half of the votes, and Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler. In the final weeks, supporters of Del. Heather R. Mizeur (Montgomery) flooded Twitter and Facebook with talk of her candidacy.

But it just wasn’t enough to get most voters to show up.

Of the more than 3 million Democrats and Republicans who were eligible to vote in the primary, about 667,500 did so, according to results from nearly all precincts on Wednesday morning. Participation was about the same in both parties.

During the last gubernatorial primary in 2010 — when Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) easily won their primary battles — more than 25 percent of eligible voters participated.

Back in 1994, nearly 40 percent of voters cast ballots in the gubernatorial primary, but participation has been steadily falling since then. In 1998, it was 28.6 percent. In 2002, 30.8 percent. In 2006, 29.6 percent. Then 25 percent in 2010 and 22 percent this year.

_______________________________________________

This would be LOL if it was not so sad.  WYPR was the king of election rigging.  It acted with impunity in openly lying about the election making sure the citizens of Baltimore did not even know there were candidates in the democratic primary that were not neo-liberals. 

WYPR ACTUALLY SAID AFTER EARLY POLLS SHOWED NO INTEREST IN THE CANDIDATES RUNNING----'IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE CANDIDATES WE PUT IN FRONT OF YOU----THEN DON'T VOTE'! THEY LITERALLY SAID THIS.

So, when people listened to WYPR and stayed home----WYPR pretends to be indignant.  These are people with no moral compass attending our public media outlets and this has to change.  WYPR's actions were so hostile to my campaign.....mocking the citizens of Maryland's right to free and fair elections.....they need to lose their licence and be charged with a felony assault on democratic elections.  A corporation like Johns Hopkins should not be attached to public media anyway.


WYPR was the leader in the media blackout during the senate race of Ben Cardin----they are a chronic problem in election rigging.


Excuses aside, Maryland voter turnout an embarrassmentIn other countries, voters face real obstacles to exercise their right


June 25, 2014|Dan Rodricks

In Ukraine last month, some people braved the threat of violence to get to the polls to vote for a new president. According to news reports, heavily armed men in ski masks tried to scare off voters by smashing ballot boxes and blocking entry to polling stations in the eastern part of the country; election officials were threatened, some kidnapped.

In Maryland, we just had a primary election to nominate candidates for governor — you know, like the president of Maryland — and the voter turnout was embarrassingly low. The vast majority of registered Democrats and Republicans did not participate.

There were no masked gunmen, and no election judges were abducted. So why did so few Marylanders exercise a right that — pardon this purple flourish — people all over the world have fought and died for?

Excuse me while I list excuses.

I'll start with the obvious: We take voting and the democratic process for granted. We think, "Someone else will do it," and they usually do. We've had breathtakingly low voter turnout before — see Baltimore City elections, 2011 — but not so low that the majority of us gets embarrassed and swears never to let it happen again.

We also want to be entertained. If a contested election isn't entertaining, if it isn't exciting, we stay home and watch something that is. Apparently, even with Doug Gansler running for governor, the Maryland primary wasn't entertaining enough for more than a small percentage of registered Democrats.

I could go on, so I will.

Here's another: The Maryland primary was moved from September to June, and people weren't ready for it. This reminds me of a brown T-shirt I saw on a guy at the state fair 20 years ago: "I'm so poor I can't even pay attention." I'm not sure what that has to do with the 2014 election, but I'm channeling it. I mean: You didn't know there was an election this month? There weren't enough TV commercials alerting you to the fact?

Here's another theory about low turnout: Early voting might be a culprit. I used to think it was a good idea, but now I'm not so sure. Easy voting is sold as a convenience for citizens who are really engaged and diligent about getting to the polls, but now I'm thinking that early voting might just diminish the specialness of Election Day.

Election Day should be a celebrated civic event, highly anticipated, a dress-up affair, a red-letter day, your big chance to be a good citizen.

But look what happened: A week of early voting set a record for a primary. More than 140,000 Marylanders went to the polls to cast votes between June 12 and June 19.

That means they didn't have to go June 24.

So we didn't have much of a Primary Day.

I know: There are many other reasons. People are sick of politics and politicians. People are still worried about the economy, their jobs, their households. People think their votes do not matter, especially in Maryland, where Democrats dominate and set the public agenda statewide year after year.

And, with one or two exceptions, the leading candidates were pretty — let me be polite — ordinary.

Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, the favorite in the Democratic gubernatorial primary — nice guy, but not a lot of that vision thing there. He ran a careful campaign designed to put him across the finish line first. Brown represents a safe choice; he represents continuity and stability, and that might have been all Democrats are looking for this year.



0 Comments

June 26th, 2014

6/26/2014

0 Comments

 
CENSURING A CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF PLATFORM IS THE ISSUE FOR ELECTION VIOLATIONS IN MARYLAND.  THE DIFFERENCE FALLS BETWEEN NEO-LIBERAL AND LABOR AND JUSTICE PLATFORMS IN THE MARYLAND DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THEY ARE ENTIRELY IN OPPOSITION.


I do want to spend today and tomorrow talking of the court challenge of this primary election so people understand the extent of corruption in the system and to encourage more people to run for office with the idea of challenging this process if it continues to operate illegally.  Movement of operations and oversight from public institutions to private non-profits often funded by the rich and corporations sets the stage for these abuses in the system.  If private media becomes the only source of election coverage......if public media is allowed to skirt FCC and IRS election laws.....if the state does not provide rigorous outlets for political discussion in communities across the state to assure the opportunity for citizens to be informed and intelligent when going to cast a ballot-----

THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONING ELECTION PROCESS----AND MARYLAND RECEIVES A GREAT BIG 'F'.


My task in this case will be to prove there were violations so severe as to change the results of this primary election.  This will be easily done.  I must prove I was a viable and legal candidate and since Supreme Court rulings in the past use terms like 'cannot exclude because of platform' and 'can select candidates with strong public support' that the exclusion from election venues occurred as a consequence of my platform.  I have proven through the polling debacle the claim of 'strong public support' was not there.  I contend that 501c3s have the obligation of participating in ways that do not damage a candidate's campaign so none of the above should matter.  It is obvious if a candidate is left out of major venues.....damage is done.  It is obvious if exclusion from smaller local events occurs to a great degree.....damage is done.  The targeting of Prince George's County and Baltimore City for the greatest of election violations is not only a civil rights issue but targets a population that would most readily embrace the issues encompassed in my platform and this is willful and deliberate.  I do not believe I should have to prove platform is the issue as 'damage' should prevent exclusion, but I will focus on the issue of platform because of the previous Supreme Court rulings regarding the FCC election laws and media participation---the largest factor in electioneering.

The Maryland Democratic Party has for a few decades been controlled by Clinton neo-liberals.  O'Malley is a neo-liberal politician who controls much of the Maryland democratic apparatus and as governor appoints the people to head agencies like the Maryland Board of Elections, Maryland public universities, and Maryland Public Television.  I go further to contend that since the politicians in Baltimore work for the Baltimore Development Corporation and Johns Hopkins which write all of the city's public policy-----and the fact that they are both the most neo-conservative of institutions----the Baltimore democratic committee are largely neo-conservatives.  Anyway you look at the Maryland Democratic Party today it is 'neo'.  What does 'neo' mean?  The conservatives of the republican party will say that neo-cons are not republicans----hence the term RINO just as labor and justice of the democratic party will say that neo-liberals are not democrats-----hence the term DINO.  Both neo-conservatives and neo-liberals embrace global markets, global corporate control of the economy and government, and what they call free market although everyone knows what we have today is not free market.  The republican and democratic platforms both are tied to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights albeit with different interpretations.  We are guaranteed rights as citizens to legislate....we are guaranteed rights to equal protection under Rule of Law.  We are guaranteed protection under the Bill  of Rights.  The republican and democratic platforms are built with these rights central to the party.  Republicans differ from democrats in wanting free enterprise -----which we do not have now---- while democrats want regulations enforced that enforce labor and justice laws  and public institutions to protect civil rights and liberties.

NEO-CONS AND NEO-LIBERALS DO NOT WANT ANY OF THIS.  THEY WORK STRICTLY TO MAXIMIZE CORPORATE PROFITS AND TO HAND CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY AND GOVERNMENT TO CORPORATIONS.  THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT EITHER PARTY PLATFORM STATES.  NEO-CONS ARE NOT REPUBLICANS AND NEO-LIBERALS ARE NOT DEMOCRATS YET THEY HAVE GAINED CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES AND ARE MOVING THE US TOWARDS THIS STRUCTURE OUTLINED IN THE TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT.

This is what I mean when I identify 'platform' as the reason for my exclusion from the democratic party primary events in the Maryland race for governor.  Yet, it happens at all levels of political races.  Neo-liberals controlling the democratic party today are willfully and deliberately excluding candidates that have this labor and justice platform.  Republican voters are feeling the same exclusion hence the large number of 'unaffiliated' and the extremely low voter turnout.  It is not lack of interest----it is apathy caused by chronic and systemic election fraud.


Below we see the contradiction in philosophy-------one wants to dismantle all of the public structures that provide oversight and accountability and public justice.  It wants to privatize all that is public to send all the power of public policy and enforcement of that policy to corporations-----

THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM.

No matter how many times a candidate says they support public justice, or strong public education, or strong public health care.....when they are neo-liberals working to deregulate and consolidate all industries to a global corporate they have no intention of protecting these issues.  Throwing these progressive bones is what media labels a progressive candidate.  As you can see Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur all support public private partnerships, Wall Street development and financial instruments of leverage and credit that have mortgaged the future of Maryland.  They all support dismantling the public sector, none speak of the ranking of Maryland at the bottom nationally for fraud, corruption, and lack of transparency, and they never mention Trans Pacific Trade Pact TPP ----the very policy towards which all legislation in Maryland works because of neo-conservative/neo-liberal control of politics.


THIS CLEARLY DELINEATES BETWEEN ISSUES WITHIN A PLATFORM AND CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THOSE ESPOUSING A LABOR AND JUSTICE PLATFORM ARE COMPLETELY CENSURED IN MEDIA AND LARGE 501C3 VENUES.  IT IS THE PLATFORM THAT DRIVES THIS EXCLUSION.


Neoliberalism
From Wikipedia,

Neoliberalism is a form of economic liberalism, which advocates support for great economic liberalization, free trade, open markets, privatization, deregulation, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[1][2]



National Democratic Platform
  • Moving America Forward
  • Rebuilding Middle Class Security
    1. Putting Americans Back to Work
    2. The Middle Class Bargain
    3. Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share
    4. Economy Built to Last
  • America Works When Everyone Plays by the Same Rules
    1. Wall Street Reform
    2. 21st Century Government: Transparent and Accountable
    3. Lobbying Reform and Campaign Finance Reform
  • Greater Together
    1. Strengthening the American Community
    2. Protecting Rights and Freedoms
    3. Ensuring Safety and Quality of Life
  • Stronger in the World, Safer and More Secure At Home
    1. Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
    2. Disrupting, Dismantling, and Defeating Al-Qaeda
    3. Responsibly Ending the War in Afghanistan
    4. Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons
    5. Countering Emerging Threats
    6. Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions
    7. Promoting Global Prosperity and Development
    8. Maintaining the Strongest Military in the World
    9. Advancing Universal Values

    ___________________________________

Heather was assigned the moniker of progressive because she supports some social issues that are deemed progressive.  Yet, she is solidly in the Clinton camp of neo-liberals as her views of economy and business go.  Embracing a Wall Street everyone knows is predatory and rife with fraud and corruption as an answer to development while supporting corporate subsidy and corporate tax breaks that are needed for our government coffers to do these public works clearly shows this conflict.  Pushing the neo-liberal sound bite that the economy is suffering because of the need to shed even more business regulations when the state suffers from absolutely no oversight and accountability leading to extremely high levels of fraud and corruption shows Mizeur is not a progressive.  Commercializing our public universities is what has created the high tuition that Heather says she will work to lower not to mention compromising the one unbiased source of all public data.  Embracing a transportation public private partnership of this magnitude in this environment of fraud and corruption and lack of oversight while not mentioning that simply rebuilding oversight and accountability first would bring the money to government coffers to publicly finance the entire project shows you are a neo-liberal.

Read Heather's plan to use innovative financing options



Read Heather's plan to facilitate greater commercialization of academic research.

Read Heather's plan to fund much-needed infrastructure projects across the state


Read Heather's plan to Streamline Our Regulatory System


Brown, who is running in the Democratic primary for governor, released the five-point plan on Tuesday.

At the top of the list is using innovative financing to pay for infrastructure. Brown led an effort to better define public-private partnerships in the state last year.

Using a P3 for a transit project of this size is rare.
The four candidates expressed support for the decision to seek a public-private partnership (P3) to build the Purple Line


Please look at what these politicians say and how these progressive issues fit in with the larger visions of economic and business models and you will see-----giving more and more of our public sector control to corporations and tying the state to ever larger amounts of global corporate investment in lieu of collecting corporate taxes and giving corporate subsidy-----prohibits the interjection of these progressive issues.  This is why time and again we elect these neo-liberals running as progressives and watch as they ignore all those progressive promises.  NEO-LIBERALISM CANNOT BE PROGRESSIVE----IT IS REGRESSIVE.

The Maryland Assembly passed the most private and profit-driven health system in the nation; Baltimore has one of the most privatizing and tiered K-12 reform in the nation that will serve as a platform to expand across Maryland and the Maryland Assembly passed these laws to allow this.  Maryland and Baltimore are at the bottom for fraud and corruption that is killing the middle/working class----and that is not what a democrat would allow---it is a neo-liberal policy of profiting any way possible.  So, we know Maryland has a political system controlled by neo-liberals and neo-cons and this is why it is the candidates on the democratic primary side that always see exclusion from the election process.  It is strictly based on platform of rebuilding oversight and accountability of corporations and government and holding global corporations at bay and building a domestic economy fueled primarily on small and regional businesses.

The State of Maryland allows contract awards to go to national and global corporations that then subcontract to Maryland businesses and force bids so low as to put Maryland small businesses out of business.  This process exists at state and local levels. So, how are you advocating for small business development when you work within this contracting dynamic?  The objective of global corporations is to take all consumer market share and eliminate small and regional businesses.  Do you hear anyone in the democratic race shouting that this is the problem of losing businesses in Maryland?  That is how you know you are dealing with neo-cons and neo-conservatives.

IT'S A HOSTILE TAX AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THAT IS CREATING HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND A STAGNANT ECONOMY SAY NEO-LIBERALS!  NO, IT IS GLOBAL CORPORATE CONTROL OF OUR ECONOMY AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PUTTING ALL SMALL AND REGIONAL BUSINESSES OUT OF BUSINESS.



BELOW YOU SEE WHERE NEO-LIBERALISM HAS TAKEN THE MARYLAND ECONOMY AND THE SOLUTIONS OFFERED BY CANDIDATES LIKE MYSELF.  THE POLICY STANCES ARE AT OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM----ERGO----THE REASON FOR EXCLUDING MY PLATFORM FROM THIS DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND.

1. Living Indicators. The use of financial indicators like gross domestic product (GDP) and the Dow Jones average to assess the performance of the economy gives priority to false values. We currently see just how invalid these financial measures are: GDP grows, but jobs don’t. The Dow Jones climbs, but wages are stagnant and foreclosures continue. Neither is a valid measure of the kind of economic performance we need.

Replace financial indicators like GDP with indicators of human- and natural-systems health as the basis for evaluating economic performance. The Bhutan experiment with a happiness index is an excellent start.

2. A Real Wealth Money System. Wall Street control of the creation and allocation of money concentrates the power to set national priorities in institutions that recognize no interest beyond their own profits. As we become ever more dependent on money to meet our basic daily needs, this control becomes ever more complete—and more destructive of all that we truly value.

Decentralize and democratize the money system so that it redirects the flow of money away from Wall Street speculators to productive Main Street businesses. We once had a system of community banks, mutual savings and loans and credit unions that were locally rooted and served local needs. But that system has been largely dismantled and transformed into too-big-to-fail Wall Street mega-banks that suck wealth out of communities and depend on government subsidies and protections. There is nothing esoteric about the banking system we must create. It looks a great deal like the system we had before the start of banking deregulation in the 1970s.

3. Equitable Distribution. Wall Street political influence has produced trade, fiscal, workplace and social policies that create ever more extreme inequality by suppressing wages and eroding protections, services and safety nets for those who do productive work to increase profits for the owning class. Aren’t we glad politicians restored tax breaks for the very rich so they could continue to inflate their claims against the real wealth of the rest of us?

Implement fiscal, workplace and social policies that distribute income and ownership equitably. Equitable societies are healthier, happier, more democratic and avoid the excesses of extravagance and desperation.

4. Living Enterprises with Living Owners. An ideology of market fundamentalism has embedded a belief in public culture that the sole purpose and responsibility of a business enterprise is to maximize financial returns to its owners. This belief, combined with a system of absentee ownership and instantaneous trading of corporate shares, encourages short-term over long-term thinking and strips corporate decision making of concern for social and environmental consequences. 

Recognize the primary purpose of any enterprise is to serve the needs of a living community. Favor living enterprises with living, locally rooted owners who have a direct stake in the social and environmental consequences of the firm’s management decisions—people who are looking not for maximum financial return, but for a living return that includes a healthy community and natural environment. This means favoring cooperative, worker- and community-owned enterprises and discouraging the speculative public trading of corporate shares.


5. Real Markets/Real Democracy. The institution of the global corporation is designed to facilitate the creation of global-scale, legally-protected concentrations of economic and political power dedicated to extracting social, environmental and governmental subsidies to advance the exclusive and narrow private interests of financial elites beyond public accountability. This violates the principle of shared and distributed power foundational to democracy and a market economy.

Create real rule-based markets and democracy by breaking up concentrations of corporate power, barring corporations from competing with human beings for political power and implementing rules and incentives that support cost internalization.

6. Local Living Economies. Fragmented local economies dependent on global corporations for jobs and basic goods and services leave people and nature captive to the financial interests of distant institutions that have no concern for their well-being or accountability to their interests.

Pursue local economic development programs that build diversified, self-reliant, energy efficient, democratically self-organizing local economies comprised of locally-owned living enterprises devoted to serving local needs.


7. Supportive Global Rules. Global rules put forward by institutions like the WTO that are largely captive to corporate interests circumvent institutions of democracy to support the other six Old Economy dysfunctions.

Restructure global rules and institutions to honor and serve life values and local control.

Leadership in framing and popularizing a vision for a New Economy must come from We the People. We are the one’s we’re waiting for.

0 Comments

June 25th, 2014

6/25/2014

0 Comments

 
As you will see below Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland received 6,500 votes or 1% of the democratic vote. Antony Brown supposedly won this race with only 12% of registered democratic voters. My campaign with just a little media coverage---with access to major venue coverage----would have easily won.


I want to thank those of you having voted for me.  It is not in vain as I take this election result to court these votes prove I had support and was active in this race.  As you see with today's post.....the entire Maryland election process is corrupt and the election rigging willful and deliberate.  I should have no problem with winning in court, but if corruption extends to this Maryland Circuit Court----I will appeal.  Meanwhile, I am preparing to file in Federal Court the case against the organizations committing these election violations and the primary candidates that participated knowing my campaign was being illegally excluded.


Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland has proven that with the final vote showing the supposed winner Anthony Brown at 12% of registered democratic voters to Cindy Walsh’s 1%-----I could have easily won this election with just a moderate media exposure and participation in the forums and debates that should have included me.  I could have easily won with a platform of ending corporate fraud and government corruption and holding global corporations at bay while building an domestic economy in Maryland driven by small and regional businesses.  It is this platform that motivated the exclusion from this primary race.

St. Mary’s College performs what looks to be the most academic and reliable polling in the State of Maryland yet it too uses methods that diminish accuracy like automated calling and small cohorts for extremely low polling figures.  As you can see below, St. Mary’s does not post its polling model even as it says the information is coming so we do not know how they randomized, what the protocol for failed calling attempts was, etc.  The other polling agencies like Gonzalez, Sun, Washington Post use models that make polling data irrelevant.  The percentages that make it to media for each candidate always include those methods with higher margin of error and ‘likely’ voter cohorts.  Again, it is not cost or time that figures into these choices of polling methods because a handful of people working just a few hours can call 1,000 voters.  It is a willful and deliberate attempt to use polling data to manipulate the election process.


 

Welcome To INSIGHTS

 

The Maryland Poll or MPoll, our Blog INSIGHTS, and Hosted Blogs

Professor Susan Grogan

April’s MPoll results are in!

 Download Graphs of the MPOll‘s Results.

You are on the Welcome (Home) Page of INSIGHTS, The Maryland Poll’s  blog.   The Maryland Poll , a.k.a. the MPoll, was conceived from two years of research toward starting a public opinion polling research center within St. Mary’s College of Maryland’s Political Science Department.  My professional reasons were to develop a pedagogical model incorporating more technology and involving more public service in my political science classes as well as steering my own professional career in that direction.  (Personal reasons may have included a knee-jerk response to certain members in the House of the US Congress who absurdly continue to insist that ‘we don’t do science in political science.‘)

Much of our activity will involve gathering together public opinion data  from polls conducted within and about Maryland.  We will also conduct our own MPolls.  We conducted our first poll from April 10 – 13 and the results were published April 18, 2014.  Polls are planned for the fall semester during the Maryland 2014 Gubernatorial Election.

Thus, the project is multidimensional.  As mentioned, the MPoll will conduct polls.  INSIGHTS, MPoll’s blog, will gather polling data and will provide straightforward commentary as nonpartisan as is possible.  As another aspect of our public service mission, INSIGHTS will also publish background information on polling and how to interpret polling data.  The idea is that, in addition to professional commentary, INSIGHTS will offer the necessary background the layperson would need to analyze polling data.

We could say that commenting provides another useful measure of public opinion.  INSIGHTS as well as Hosted Blogs are open for comments that further the discussion by presenting a more diverse range of opinions and ideas about public opinion and political goings-on that affect or attempt to influence the opinions of persons residing in or near Maryland.  Most often, the primary demographic of concern will be eligible voters.

All comments will be moderated.  Not all comments will be accepted.  In most cases, it likely will be that we are too overwhelmed at the moment to respond but we also hope to maintain a reasonable level of decorum.

 

About Candidates v. Polls

Coming soon.  We should have content up by the end of January on most of this site.

Thank you for your patience.

About Interpreting Polls Coming soon.  We should have content up soon on most of this site.

Thank you for your patience.

About Polling Techniques Coming soon.  We should have content up soon on most of this site.

Thank you for your patience.


As I show elsewhere in the evidence provided, the various polls greatly exaggerated the candidates favored to win.  When the public is shown these irrelevant stats it creates the apathy for voting for a candidate they would actually want.  Psychologically, it is known that voters tend to follow the front-runner and this is why the exaggerated figures for Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur were created with manipulated polling standards like margin of error and selected polling groups of ‘likely’ voters.  Can you imagine when voter turnout hits 10-20% how small and homogenous that polling pool of likely voters become?  Why would polls include all republican candidates even as they barely polled and not all of the democratic candidates?

The media identified the apathy of voters as ‘not caring’ but we know the apathy is from an inability to exact change to a system voters know is rigged.


 

Undecided voters dominate in new gubernatorial poll

April 23, 2014|By Michael Dresser  Baltimore Sun

 

The poll strongly tracks previous surveys of the race and shows little sign that any candidate is gaining significant ground. For instance, a poll released by The Baltimore Sun in February showed Brown with 35 percent, Gansler with 14 percent and Mizeur with 10 percent.  On the Republican side Hogan polled at 13 percent and Craig at 7 percent.

The methodologies of the two polls were significantly different. Unlike the St. Mary’s poll, The Sun's poll used live callers and concentrated on 500 likely voters rather than all registered voters. The college’s automated poll surveyed 954 registered voters and had a margin of error of 3.17 percentage points.


 

Look at this media representation of the Maryland democratic primary race for governor.  The polling numbers are so skewed it is a mockery of the election process.  Again, the use of likely voters, a subset so small as to be useless in attaining actual polling data.  Is it illegal for media and polling agencies to deliberately skew these polling data in a way that willfully and deliberately damages the campaign of other candidates?  Yes, it is.  It is also illegal for organizations participating in these election events to use these polling data everyone knows are skewed.  I can assure this court, Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland gave the larger venues participating in this primary election this information on polling as the primary progressed.  Allowing these polls saying Brown was polling at 46% of likely voters right before the primary election and ending with 12%  of registered democratic voters -----this is a crime.  It takes away all voter enthusiasm to participate and tells prospective candidates and those like me that this system is so corrupt you will not have a chance.  There is no way the Maryland Election Board does not have staff with enough knowledge on polling methodology to know these polls were willfully and deliberately misleading the Maryland voters and skewing the primary election.  As you will see below Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland received 6,500 votes or 1% of the democratic vote. Antony Brown supposedly won this race with only 12% of registered democratic voters. My campaign with just a littlemedia coverage---with access to major venue coverage----would have easily won.

 

 

Maryland Politics

Lt. Gov. Brown holds commanding lead over Democratic rivals in Maryland governor’s race

  •  
  •  

From left, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, Del. Heather R. Mizeur (Montgomery) and Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown, the Democratic candidates for governor of Maryland. (Matt Mcclain/AP)

By John Wagner and Peyton M. Craighill June 10   Washington Post

Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown holds a commanding lead over his Democratic rivals for governor, according to a new Washington Post poll, two weeks before a primary election that most voters are not following closely and that is likely to attract a low turnout.

Though nearly half of likely voters say they could still change their minds, the poll found backing for Brown across a broad demographic range — and deep support among fellow African Americans — and showed that Brown voters are firmer in their allegiance than those siding with the other candidates. With scant evidence that attacks on Brown’s management skills, particularly his handling of the state’s health insurance exchange, have damaged him, the poll shows no obvious path to victory for the other Democratic hopefuls in the June 24 primary.

Statewide, 46 percent of likely Democratic voters support Brown, while 23 percent back Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and 16 percent support Del. Heather R. Mizeur (Montgomery), according to the poll.

Analysts said Brown’s lead is formidable in the race, in which early voting starts Thursday.

“Absent a gigantic mistake from the Brown campaign, this is probably over,” said Donald F. Norris, chairman of the public policy department at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. “I think the only strategy left for a candidate in Gansler’s situation is to attack, attack, attack, and that’s likely to backfire.”



If Gansler is too aggressive, Norris reasoned, he could strike voters as desperate and wind up driving voters to Mizeur as an alternative.

 

 

Here's the breakdown of votes in the primary as of 2:26 a.m. Wednesday, according to the Maryland Board of Elections, with 1982 of 1988 precincts reporting:

Republican
Larry Hogan/Boyd Rutherford: 43.01 percent
David Craig/Jeannie Haddaway: 29.12 percent
Charles Lollar/Ken Timmerman: 15.51 percent
Ronald George/Shelley Aloi: 12.36 percent

Democrat
Anthony Brown/Ken Ulman: 51.29 percent
Doug Gansler/Jolene Ivey: 24.23 percent
Heather Mizeur/Delman Coates: 21.71 percent
Cindy Walsh/Mary Elizabeth Wingate-Pennacchia: 1.4 percent
Charles Smith/Clarence Tucker: 0.72 percent
Ralph Jaffe/Freda Jaffe: 0.65 percent




The following results are from early voting (June 12 to 19), as reported by the Maryland Board of Elections.

Democrat
Anthony Brown/Ken Ulman: 57.71 percent
Doug Gansler/Jolene Ivey: 20.82 percent
Heather Mizeur/Delman Coates: 19.4 percent
Cindy Walsh/Mary Elizabeth Wingate-Pennacchia: 1.05 percent
Ralph Jaffe/Freda Jaffe: 0.51 percent
Charles Smith/Clarence Tucker: 0.51 percent

Republican
Larry Hogan/Boyd Rutherford: 42.79 percent
David Craig/Jeannie Haddaway: 31.95 percent

Charles Lollar/Ken Timmerman: 13.74 percent
Ronald George/Shelley Aloi: 11.53 percent


If you look at all of the election result coverage it almost always refers to the percentage won of votes casted and not percentage of total registered voters.  You see below the extremely low percentage of registered voters who actually voted.  As the group at St. Mary’s College stated in the article on polling…..the problem is the failure to educate the voters.  This speaks to the inclusion of all candidates and platforms and it speaks to the election venues available to the citizens of Maryland.  The fact that there is not a Maryland State election platform that allows all candidates access to forums and debates all over the state shows the capture of this election system.  The fact that organizations tasked with the mission of free and fair election oversight, like the Maryland League of Women Voters, use the same arbitrary polling guidelines and front-runner status and openly work to make sure a candidate with a certain platform does not have videotaped exposure on its website shows a captured election system.  When the University of Maryland is telling me it uses a 15% polling threshold and Maryland Public Television and Maryland League of Women Voters uses 10% and they all are allowing all republican candidates mostly polling lower than these thresholds in all forum events while excluding democratic candidates because of platform-----you have a captured election system.  As I pointed out, the private non-profits that are taking over this duty all express prejudice and as I have proven, do it in ways that are illegal and violate election law.  The law states that the voters have the right to go to the polls with freedom and intellect to participate as an educated electorate.  Denying viable candidates the right to exposure and access to major forums and debates whether on media or tied to a 501c3 event willfully and deliberately damages a candidate’s campaign and works to keep people from this ballot intellect.

I ask that you look as well at the final percentages of registered voters for each candidate to see how this actual count compares with the polling numbers given to us all through the governor’s race.  Don’t forget that we just came through the most media campaign advertisement blitz of the primary election period so these percentages would be a peak.  You will notice that these percentages are closer to the St Mary’s poll in April where most of the candidates barely broke 10% and many were around 5%.  These are the polling numbers used by major venues to exclude Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland and the arbitrary nature is obvious.  I would say that it is obvious as well that some polling agencies provided polling numbers that were so inflated and unreal as to set the stage for some candidates being labelled front-runners and meeting guidelines.  Again, this kind of polling is so irrelevant and excludes candidates who are relegated to the ‘undecided’ and ‘other’ category that it fails to meet the Supreme Court ruling about identifying candidates as viable or strongly supported by the public.

 

2014 Primary Election Results - Maryland Governor

UPDATED 2:22 PM EDT Jun 23, 2014

 

Governor - Dem Primary

June 25, 2014 - 08:26AM ET

Maryland - 2033 of 2033 Precincts Reporting - 100%

 
Name    Party   Votes     Vote %



Brown, Anthony   Dem  235,974   51%
Gansler, Douglas  Dem  111,444   24%
Mizeur, Heather Dem  99,84  22%
Walsh, Cindy  Dem  6,441   1%
Smith, Charles  Dem  3,296  1%
Jaffe, Ralph    Dem   2,995  1%



Governor - GOP Primary

June 25, 2014 - 08:26AM ET

Maryland - 2033 of 2033 Precincts Reporting - 100%

 
Name  Party  Votes   Vote %



Hogan, Larry    GOP   89,100  43%
Craig, David   GOP   60,357   29%
Lollar, Charles  GOP    32,155  16%
George, Ron  GOP    25,613    12%


Read more: http://www.wbaltv.com/politics/2014-primary-election-results-maryland-governor/26550226#ixzz35eavyG7j



Brown ---------236,000 of 2,000,000 registered democratic voters =  12% of the vote

Gansler ------- 111,500 of 2,000,000 registered democratic voters =  6% of the vote

Mizeur -------  100,000 of 2,000,000 registered democratic voters =   5% of the vote     

Walsh -------  6,500 of 2,000,000 registered democratic voters =  1% of the vote

 

23% of registered democrats voted

 

 

 

Hogan ------  89,000 of 1,000,000 registered republican voters =  9% of the vote

Craig ------- 60,500 of 1,000,000 registered republican voters =  6% of the vote

Lollar ------ 32,000 of 1,000,000 registered republican voters =  3% of the vote

George ----- 26,000 of 1,000,000 registered republican voters =   3% of the vote

 

21% of registered republicans voted.


 

Please look at these final election results with the actual percentage of registered voters per candidate to see the 12% of voters for Brown to see these figures have been super-sized from the start.  There is no reasonable explanation that after the last few weeks of concentrated campaign advertisement and after several months of media saturation of this one candidate that he only garners 12% of registered democratic voters ----other than democratic voters did not want this candidate that is now declared primary winner with 12% of the voters.  Meanwhile, Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is not far behind with 1% of the vote and completely censured in the media and major forum and debate venues.

The expedited nature of this election process denies me the ability to subpoena all of these polling tools to verify the voracity of methods.  I would as well have used the subpoena to have an official set of guidelines for forums and debates from the institutions I have quoted.  I feel confident because of the irrelevant methods we do see and the extreme inflation of the polls to the reality of the election that I have proven the invalidity of polling as a method of exclusion and identifying a candidate as viable, a front-runner, or having strong public support.  Everyone in this primary race knew these polling figures and methods allowed this inflation of percentages as did the organizations using polling to exclude arbitrarily.  As the final results show only one candidate meets the 10% polling requirement of Maryland Public Television and Maryland League of Women Voters and none meet the polling requirement of University of Maryland’s 15% polling.  If this court allows these polling agencies to arbitrarily inflate results to effect the conduct of these elections, the election process in Maryland will remain corrupt and disillusioned voters left with no government agency protecting free and fair elections.

The court must recognize the systemic fraud and corruption in this democratic primary system at all levels of operation and rule this primary election result invalid and recognize that replicating the primary with the system without reform would be impossible.  I will be requesting in my Federal Court lawsuit against the defendants listed that the Federal government place an oversight decree on Maryland Elections Board and the Maryland Democratic Party and monitor the behavior of elections in the state over several election periods until all entities involved in the election process understand and develop good standards of operation while participating in elections.  The candidates in the democratic primary are all guilty of Federal election law and as such will be tried under felony indictment.  This should give this Maryland Circuit Court further reason to declare this democratic primary void with no second primary.

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland did all that was possible to identify, report, mitigate, and seek resolution to the violations listed in this complaint.  I should not be denied my place in this election for governor.  Since I had the ability in February 2014 to register as a general election candidate for governor with the Green Party, I request that this be allowed now by suspending this one time the requirement to file for this general election status by February 2104.  I request the court assess financial penalty to those government agencies assigned to protect elections and my rights as a candidate to include candidate filing fees for myself and my Lt Governor and for the costs of electioneering over the course of several months.


 

Polls Potential Democratic primary match-ups [hide]Primary trial heats for 2014 gubernatorial race

Poll

Anthony Brown

Doug Gansler

Heather Mizeur

Undecided

Margin of Error

Sample Size



Brown-Ulman Internal Poll conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang
(September 11-15, 2013)

43%

21%

5%

31%

+/-4.0

608


Gonzales Research/Marketing Strategies Poll
(October 1-14, 2013)

41%

21%

5%

33%

+/--

403



Baltimore Sun Poll
(February 8-12, 2014)

35%

14%

10%

40%

+/-4.4

500



Washington Post Poll
(February 13-16, 2014)

32%

15%

9%

39%

+/-3.5

1,002



The Maryland Poll
(April 10-13, 2014)

27%

11%

8%

54%

+/-3.17

954



WPA Opinion Research
(May 6-7,2014)

34%

20%

7%

40%

+/-4.9

400










AVERAGES

35.33%

17%

7.33%

39.5%

+/-1.86

644.5

Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org






0 Comments

June 21st, 2014

6/21/2014

0 Comments

 
Weekends I do not blog but  share actions and in this election season speak to the primary races and soon to be general elections in Maryland.

As I stated earlier, it is the duty of the Maryland Attorney General and the Maryland Election Board to enforce both Federal and state election law.  The Maryland Attorney General would let the US Attorney General's Office know election violations are happening in the state.  If these agencies fail to uphold Rule of Law, it is the Maryland Circuit Court responsible to provide justice for someone experiencing election fraud.  It is the Federal Election Commission charged with investigating and providing justice for someone experiencing election fraud.  If the FEC fails to do its duty.....then the Federal courts come into play.

MAKE NO MISTAKE-----ALL OF WHAT I SPEAK IN THIS ELECTION IS INDEED CLEAR ELECTION VIOLATION AND SYSTEMIC FRAUD.  YOU ARE WITNESSING STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES REFUSING TO ACT IN THEIR CAPACITY TO PROTECT AND SERVE----TO ENFORCE RULE OF LAW.

This is no small matter and it reflects why more and more American people are not voting or feeling their votes do not matter.  It is a systematic dismantling of our election system.  We heard just recently that in Maryland over 630,000 voters are unaffiliated with a party and it is because of these illegal election practices. 

THAT'S 1/3 OF MARYLAND VOTERS AND THOSE STILL IN PARTIES HAVE AN EXTREMELY LOW TURNOUT.  IT IS THE SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD THAT CREATES THE APATHY.

A political campaign is a non-profit entity and as such are susceptible to the same election laws as everyone else.  So, when a candidate in a race participates in an election event or organizes an event that willfully and deliberately excludes candidates in that race------they are guilty of election violations.  The practice of having one candidate invite two others to a forum or debate, deliberately leaving out others in a race constitutes a 501c3 violation of election law that says----do not damage a candidate's campaign.  The same is true when these same candidates participate in an election event hosted by other organizations knowing that event violates election laws of excluding other candidates in a race.

When Anthony Brown invites Gansler and Mizeur to debate-----when Gansler, Mizeur, and Brown participate in forums while Cindy Walsh is protesting exclusion from these events as they walk by to the stage venue----they are actively breaking election law.  Violating election law is a felony offense and as the guideline show below-----any candidate elected having committed a felony shall be ineligible to hold public office.


Keep in mind, this systematic censure of one candidate's campaign is VERY serious election violations.  We will ask that the democratic primary results be disqualified and no democratic candidate move forward in the general election.

At the same time, Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland seeks her opportunity to participate in these elections and requests a reprieve from the election statute requiring registration for the general election by February 2014 allowing her to register as a Green Party candidate in Maryland's General Election of 2014 for Governor of Maryland.


MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES Section 16-1001 - General penalty provisions. Listen § 16-1001. General penalty provisions.


  Disqualification of candidate found in violation.- A candidate who is convicted of any practice prohibited by this article shall be ineligible to be elected or appointed to any public office or employment for a period of 5 years following the date of the conviction. 
 

[An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 16-1001; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4.] 

MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES Section 5-101 - In general. Listen § 5-101. In general.
 


(a)  Applicability.- This subtitle governs the process by which an individual becomes a candidate for a public or party office in an election governed by this article. 

(b)  Compliance required.- An individual's name may not be placed on the ballot and submitted to the voters at an election unless the individual complies with the requirements of this title. 
 

[An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 5-101; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4.]   



_____________________________________________

Cindy Walsh for Governor was told time and again that 3 of the democratic candidates would not appear at an event if I was invited, the candidates arranged their own debates/forums exclusive of me, and on many occasions physically saw me protesting my exclusion from events.  Media constantly referred to the democratic race in ways that defined the contest with only 3 candidates in the race.

When someone knows an operation is acting illegally and chooses to participate with no acknowledgement of said crime they are now guilty of the crime itself.  If you walk into a gambling activity and find it to be illegal but sit down anyway to participate-----you are just as guilty as those organizing the event.  If any or all of those democrats for governor had refused to participate and/or made an official protest of illegal actions those charged with enforcement would have been pressured to act.  It is the failure at all levels to report and refuse to participate in illegal activities that has allowed Maryland's election system to become systemically criminal.

Cindy Walsh even went to Jon Cardin----candidate for Maryland Attorney General and head of the Maryland Assembly Elections Committee -----to complain about the fraud and he said----'that's the way we do it in Maryland'.


Since the entire democratic primary was rife with fraud there is no way any one candidate can win this election.  It is therefor necessary to void the primary election results and require the Maryland Democratic Party be monitored for a period of several gubernatorial election cycles by both state and federal officials for adherence to the letter of the law.


Pursuant to 18 USCS § 594, whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The statute prosecutes individuals who conspire to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in order to violate election laws. 


Pursuant to 18 USCS § 241, two or more persons are prohibited from conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his or her having so exercised the same.


42 USCS § 1985 provides that an action for damages where two or more persons have conspired to:

  • deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;
  • prevent or hinder the constituted authorities of any state or territory from giving or securing to all persons within such state or territory the equal protection of the laws; or
  • prevent by force, intimidation, or threat any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote from giving his or her support or advocacy in a legal manner toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a member of Congress, or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy.
In any case of conspiracy as set forth above, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his or her person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
0 Comments

June 12th, 2014

6/12/2014

0 Comments

 
NEO-LIBERALISM IS A WAR AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS POVERTY DEEPENS AND BROADENS AND OUR US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL PROTECTION ARE SUSPENDED.



I will talk about elections in Maryland today and Friday and then return to the policy issues.  Maryland can easily have free and fair elections but it must have leadership that creates this environment.  Whether republican or democrat if all candidates in a race cannot get name recognition and their platform to the public through 501c3 to balance the onslaught of private media ads and coverage----there will be no elections.  I hear Sarbanes, Cardin, Cummings, and Mikulski all of Baltimore pushing for early voting, for getting out the vote, and for campaign finance reform and all of them are the face of the democratic system in Maryland that allows such blatant censure of candidates-----   AND THIS HARMS ELECTIONS THE MOST.  THESE ARE NEO-LIBERALS FOLKS---NOT DEMOCRATS!

Let's look at Maryland political organizations and how they work within this captured system.  First, let's look at neo-liberalism and how it moves towards third world society and how women and people of color are harmed most in third world poverty and then ask----why are these organizations saying they support women and people of color supporting neo-liberals and allowing captured elections?




________________________________________________

The Maryland State office of the League of Women Voters controls all of the branches and they have partnered throughout this primary with events they know break the election laws.  They themselves use this poll number guideline and break it whenever necessary.  The League allows this arbitrary election process.

It has as its mission protecting elections and advocating for women in the election process but has told Cindy Walsh---we accept all of the republican candidates and neo-liberals.

THIS IS A CAPTURE OF A VITAL ORGANIZATION WITH LEADERSHIP WORKING FOR NEO-LIBERALS AND NOT PUBLIC JUSTICE.  WE NEED TO SHAKE UP LEADERSHIP ALIGNED WITH GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.



Mission:

The League of Women Voters,

a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.

Watch the MPT/LWVMD Republican and Democratic Gubernatorial Debates On-Line

The one-hour debates between Republicans Ron George, Larry Hogan, Charles Lollar, David Craig and Democrats Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, Heather Mizeur can be seen at http://www.mpt.org/debate/

___________________________________________

Below you see what the most pressing issue in Maryland is-----fraud and corruption and not one political organization, justice organization, or candidate mentions it-----and if that candidate does----they are censured.  Remember, these frauds hit women and children the hardest----people of color as well so if an advocacy group is not making this their top issue in selecting a candidate to endorse----THEY HAVE LEADERS WORKING WITH NEO-LIBERALS.


THIS IS WHAT NEO-LIBERALISM HAS DONE TO GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATIONS:

Maryland Corruption Risk Report Card Center for Public Integrity

Rank among 50 states: 40th  

Overall grade: D-

Click a category to see detailed scores and notes.

Public Access to Information F

Political Financing C

Executive Accountability F

Legislative Accountability F

Judicial Accountability D+

  State Budget Processes C-

State Civil Service Management D-

Procurement D-

Internal Auditing C+

Lobbying Disclosure D-

  State Pension Fund Management F
 Ethics Enforcement Agencies D

State Insurance Commissions F

Redistricting D-
 

Click here to share this report card on your site The story behind the score

In Maryland’s “clubby” Capitol, there’s little transparency, procurement policies are byzantine, and audit results are often ignored. Read more from SII State Reporter Christian Bourge

__________________________________________________

Maryland ranked fifth nationally in mortgage fraud incidents ...
Maryland Among Top States with Most Fraud Complaints ...

***********************************************************
Top States in Internet Fraud Complaints
Complainants per 100,000 People
(rank state per 100,000 people)
Maryland 121.67     is #7.

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

America's 10 Worst States for Fraud - DailyFinancewww.dailyfinance.com/.../americas-10-worst-states-for-fraud 


Maryland has the fifth highest rate of fraud regarding debt collection at 56.2 complaints per 100,000 population. In the identity theft category, ...

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

THE CANDIDATES IN MARYLAND MAKING OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTRAL---WHO SHOUT OUT AGAINST GLOBAL CORPORATIONS IN THEIR PLATFORM ARE THE ONES NOT INCLUDED IN THESE ELECTION EVENTS.


It's important to know that neo-conservatives are the same as neo-liberals and this is why the right has created the Tea Party.  Labor and justice are still at opposites with Tea Party in many ways, but we both know that global corporations are killing our democracy and US Constitutional rights.  Here in Maryland all pols are working for global corporations------ and we are taking the democratic party back to the people.  The reason republican voters are just as mad at neo-cons is that the economy of today is not free-market----is is naked/crony capitalism---- the opposite of free-market and George Bush is equally responsible for it as Clinton and now Obama.

For those thinking Heather Mizeur is not a neo-liberal----why is she in every forum and not speaking to any of the issues my campaign brings forward?  She has talking points.

No matter your political stance everyone knows that the corporate and government systems are full of fraud and corruption and this is the crony of naked capitalism-----no regulation---no oversight or accountability.  The US Constitution is built on Rule of Law and Equal Protection so none of what is happening is legal.

Below you see the goal of neo-liberalism-----third world status for even the formerly first world Western nations.
  Neo-cons/neo-libs = third world society.  Clinton is the face of neo-liberalism as he dismantled all of the protections against corporate power knowing it would end democracy and our rights as citizens.  Bush ran with it----and Obama is now protecting the massive movement of wealth to the top mostly through systemic corporate fraud. 

'WE SEE NO FRAUD' SAY NEO-CONS AND NEO-LIBERALS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS OF PROTECTION.


Global Capitalism, Third World Development:

Is the Sweat Shop the Destination or
the start of a Take Off into Self-Sustained Growth?


In a deregulated world, the sweat shop is not a step on the road to 'economic development', it is the destination of most Third World people who aspire to Western-style economic development.

Western economic forces, given free rein, lead to people living lives of borderline starvation, of endemic poverty, with the few who control access to finance and resources, or who can become involved in international corporate activity, able to maintain wealthy lifestyles 43.




Neo-liberalism is dead as people realise markets need regulation

Date May 6, 2009

Chris Bowen

'It's very clear we're in the middle of a paradigm shift. We are witnessing the end of the neo-liberal project."


Remind Me Again How Neo-Cons Are ''Conservatives''

... by Josh Robinson Posted September 03, 2012

_________________________________________________

CINDY WALSH CREATED CITIZENS OVERSIGHT MARYLAND-----MARYLAND PROGRESSIVES SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I SAW MARYLAND PROGRESSIVE AND OTHER PROGRESSIVE GROUPS WERE CONTROLLED BY NEO-LIBERALS.

THERE IS NOTHING PROGRESSIVE ABOUT NEO-LIBERALISM.

Each election since I moved to Maryland I have had to watch as groups calling themselves 'progressive' all back the most neo-liberal of candidates.  There is not a person in Maryland that does not know Anthony Brown is O'Malley and O'Malley is Clinton and all are neo-liberals.  EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.  There is nothing progressive about neo-liberalism----it is autocratic and repressive so when people try to call a neo-liberal progressive----THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT SPEAKING TRUE. 

THE REASON BROWN, GANSLER, AND MIZEUR POLLED AT NEAR 10% THROUGHOUT THESE PRIMARIES IS THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS.  IT TOOK A BOGUS POLL TO MOVE THOSE POLLING NUMBERS UP----AND THESE GROUPS KNOW THAT.


Every year Progressive Maryland chooses neo-liberals as their choice and never mention the main problems in Maryland----dismantled public justice, no oversight and accountability, and global corporate control of our economy----and never shout against an election system rife with violations.

NEO-LIBERALISM IS NEVER PROGRESSIVE FOLKS!


PROGRESSIVE MARYLAND & ELECTIONS

Progressive Maryland exists to advocate for and improve the lives of working families in Maryland and reduce income inequality. In order to accomplish our goal of turning progressive legislation into progressive laws, we need legislators who share our values. This means Progressive Maryland must actively engage in the political process to ensure the most effective, most progressive legislators are sworn in. For more than a decade, our organization has worked hard to achieve electoral success. We examine closely the records of candidates for office, get to know them, educate them on our issues, and obtain their commitment through candidate questionnaires to support measures we intend to push for in the upcoming legislative sessions. We endorse candidates who are authentically supportive of working families, promote their candidacies, and aggressively work to get them elected. In some cases, we go door-to-door in priority races, and we work the polls on Election Day. Engaging in the process in this fashion ensures that elected officials will be accessible to us and allow us every opportunity to present our perspective on priorities. It also helps to guarantee the votes we need to make Maryland a leader among progressive states. Our track record speaks for itself.In 2010, 90 percent of candidates we endorsed won election. In 2006, we helped elect over 90 endorsed candidates.

OUR ENDORSEMENT PROCESS

All candidates registered with the Board of Elections are emailed at the address listed with the State Board of Elections an invitation to seek Progressive Maryland’s endorsement, with a link to our electronic questionnaire. Completed questionnaires for all candidates are made available to Progressive Maryland Board members prior to recommendations being made, and copies of the completed questionnaires for all candidates are posted online on the Progressive Maryland website. Before ProgressiveMaryland employs our organizational resources to support candidates, we apply rigorous standards for our endorsement process based on more than a decade of on-the-ground electoral experience. An endorsement requires supermajority 2/3 support of our board of directors. We take into account the level of support for ProgressiveMaryland's full range of priority issues and how they have translated their support with action in their communities.
For incumbents, we consider an individual's voting record and their leadership on passing legislation and advancing key policies that improve the lives of working families. We also weigh viability by examining objective metrics of public support for a candidate.Progressive Maryland’s final candidate recommendations are posted online, as soon as the recommendation process is completed. To view the completed questionnaires for every candidate who applied for our endorsement, visit: http://progressivemaryland.org/endorsements/2014/Have any other questions about Progressive Maryland’s endorsement process?  

Please do not hesitate to contact Kate Planco Waybright at kate@progressivemaryland.org


_______________________________________________
As I said----neo-liberals know they are killing all of the public justice and equal protection and that largely hits people of color and women so they are deliberately giving this push the face of the very people hurt most by it.  This is why we had Obama and now they are gearing up for Hillary.  Hillary will be sold as the woman's candidate----the glass ceiling breaker as Obama was but we know both Obama and Hillary are the face of neo-liberalism and Trans Pacific Trade Pact (TPP).

Remember, in Maryland it was Cummings, Sarbanes (Sr), Cardin, and Hoyer that voted with Clinton for NAFTA and breaking the Glass Steagall wall to create this global market and corporations.  They did it knowing these corporations would become unaccountable and take over our democracy.  Well, this next Presidential election is about bringing neo-liberalism full circle with Hillary bringing in TPP.

Note the long list of women in Congress supporting Hillary and neo-liberalism.  That is what is reflected by Maryland's women and justice organizations doing the same.

IF YOUR JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS ARE PRETENDING HILLARY IS ABOUT SENDING A WOMAN TO BREAK A GLASS CEILING ------THEY NEED TO GO!


The politicians below are not progressives-----they are neo-liberals!

January 28, 2014, 06:00 am


Dems' 2016 endorsement list starts here
By Jasmine Sachar and Bob Cusack

  The following congressional Democrats have endorsed Hillary Clinton’s possible presidential bid in 2016:

CLINTON BACKERS

Senators who have endorsed Clinton (19)

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.)

Barbara Boxer (Calif.)

Maria Cantwell (Wash.)

ADVERTISEMENTDianne Feinstein (Calif.)Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)

Kay Hagan (N.C.)

Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.)

Mazie Hirono (Hawaii)

Tim Kaine (Va.)

Amy Klobuchar (Minn.)

Mary Landrieu (La.)

Claire McCaskill (Mo.)

Barbara Mikulski (Md.)

Patty Murray (Wash.)

Charles Schumer (N.Y.)

Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.)

Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)

House members who back Clinton  (41)

Robert Andrews (N.J.)

Tim Bishop (N.Y.)

Joaquín Castro (Texas)

David Cicilline (R.I.)

Joseph Crowley (N.Y.)

Danny Davis (Ill.)

John Delaney (Md.)

Lois Frankel (Fla.)

Gene Green (Texas)

Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.)

Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.)

Janice Hahn (Calif.)

Colleen Hanabusa (Hawaii)

Alcee Hastings (Fla.)

Brian Higgins (N.Y.)

Mike Honda (Calif.)

Steny Hoyer (Md.)


Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas)

Hank Johnson (Ga.)

Jim Langevin (R.I.)

Sandy Levin (Mich.)

John Lewis (Ga.)

Nita Lowey (N.Y.)

Stephen Lynch (Mass.)

Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.)

Doris Matsui (Calif.)

Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)

Grace Meng (N.Y.)

Jim Moran (Va.)

Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.)

Richard Neal (Mass.)

Chellie Pingree (Maine)

Cedric Richmond (La.)

Tim Ryan (Ohio)

Jan Schakowsky (Ill.)

Allyson Schwartz (Pa.)

David Scott (Ga.)

Terri Sewell (Ala.)

Louise Slaughter (N.Y.)

Dina Titus (Nev.)

Frederica Wilson (Fla.)

This list was last updated at 12:30 p.m on 5/6/14




0 Comments

June 11th, 2014

6/11/2014

0 Comments

 
WHAT IS A 'VIABLE' CANDIDATE IN MARYLAND?  WHAT CONSTITUTES 'DAMAGE' TO A CAMPAIGN?  THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED IN A FEDERAL COURT CASE AGAINST RIGGED ELECTIONS IN MARYLAND.  THE VIOLATIONS ARE SO STARK THAT PROOF OF VIOLATIONS WILL BE EASY.

FOR 80% OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY----LABOR AND JUSTICE----WE HAVE WATCHED OVER TWO DECADES WHILE GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS WON ELECTIONS AT EVERY LEVEL-----MY ELECTION RUN SHOWS WHY!


IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS THE MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTING CINDY WALSH IN MY CASE BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THESE ELECTION VIOLATIONS-----BUT DOUG GANSLER IS TOO BUSY PARTICIPATING IN THE VERY SYSTEM THAT IS BREAKING THESE LAWS.  IT'S CALLED BANANA REPUBLIC POLITICS.

I want to focus on one media outlet in Maryland because it is the face of election rigging and the staff make no bones about it.  The problem is doubled when that media outlet takes on a status of 'public' radio when in fact it is run by Johns Hopkins and Hopkins is a corporation.  WYPR is a corporate radio station receiving public money and it overtly skews election coverage in the favor of the global corporate economy and protection of the massive fraud and corruption in the state----driven by Johns Hopkins.

This morning Frazer Smith-----WYPR's political 'analyst' gave us yet another totally meaningless poll on the governor's race----this time the Washington Post.  The Post had to lower the standards of that poll so much just to have any polling in this governor's race-------7% and 11% margin of error for democrat and republican----that it now calls into question if the Baltimore Sun poll even really used a 4.4% margin of error in its poll.  Remember, it costs very little and takes very few people to conduct a real scientific polling event.  A handful of people working for a few hours can call a thousand people randomly to meet the requirements of an evidence-based poll.  When media has to skew these standards to such a degree.....moving the republican candidates higher by 11% for example if the error is on the negative side------the democratic candidates by as much as 7% shows no movement in candidates in the governor's race at all.  They are deliberately moving the margin of error----added to non-random cohort of people polled to give a GREAT BIG PROPAGANDA SHOW AS ELECTION POLLING.    If a media outlet allows this kind of information on its program-----you are listening or reading a news outlets that has no journalism.

Let's return to the next problem that comes from an election filled with people no one wants to vote for---creating the environment of people not wanting to vote. 

AS WYPR LITERALLY SHOUTED TO ALL LISTENERS----IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE CANDIDATES WE PLACE IN FRONT OF YOU----DON'T VOTE.

That is indeed the goal of these captured elections---to frustrate voters to the point of apathy as exists in Baltimore, they are now extending it statewide.  Then elections will be third world where people are paid to come to the polls to make it look like a candidate has the people's support.  This is Baltimore's election process.  All of those millions of dollars  in social services and the threats of closing senior centers or pushing small businesses out of business-----real Tammany Hall politics.-----that are used to get people to the polls for the captured candidate.  If you think for one minute that my campaign would not be the front-runner had I received just a small percentage of media and 501c3 coverage-----required by law----you do not know the stakes of this 2014 election for governor.


THIS IS WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING IN THIS ELECTION AND CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR WILL TAKE THIS TO FEDERAL COURT AS OVERT ELECTION RIGGING.


Let's look at the court case that Maryland media and 501c3s think will be their defense and which I will use as my own:

In 1998, the US Supreme Court ruled in Arkansas Educational Television Commission vs Forbes that government-owned public broadcast stations may also exclude candidates from debates, as long as the decision to exclude candidates is not based on their views, but rather on their viability-----often determined by the percentage of voters that may support the candidate.  The court ruled that the Arkansas Educational Television Commission was permitted to invite only major party candidates, or candidates with 'strong popular support' to participate in its 1992 presidential debate.  Since then, candidates from Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura have fought for access to these media forums and won.

You see where the words used most in Maryland media in their rights to exclude----a campaign is not viable or only major party candidates need be included.  Only, none of the vehicles they would use to determine these criteria are valid and openly skew these determinations.  I want to point out as well that Arkansas if Clinton country and you see it was Clinton's public media outlet fighting to limit access to elections and this was in 1998.  So, Clinton was back then setting the stage that would be used by neo-liberals to silence 80% of the democratic base---labor and justice.


The other piece with this ruling is that it is directed at third party candidates and not campaigns within party races.  So, Maryland media is very careful to include all republican candidates in election coverage no matter the campaign money raised or polling data because-------that is how election coverage must meet the standard of doing no damage to a candidate's campaign.  They ignore these same standards because they think no one will contest this----largely because the Maryland Democratic Central Committees are captured by O'Malley/Johns Hopkins political machines-----right now Maggie McIntosh heads the state democratic party.  So, it is this democratic structure that should be fighting for the right of all democratic candidates to be heard.  Since neo-liberals do not want labor and justice heard----the natural protector becomes the one violating these laws the most.
  So, to allow all republican candidates, most not polling at all, into all election discussion places the requirement that all candidates receive the same treatment.  To pretend that Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur are major candidates with polling around 10% is not defensible and all Maryland media outlets----especially the 501c3 ones know this! 

Remember, this is a FCC ruling-----looking only at media outlets.

THIS IS WHY THE CLINTON MACHINE/NEO-LIBERALS HAVE CONTINUED TO HOLD ELECTION CONTROL ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND IT ALL INVOLVES ELECTION VIOLATIONS AND RIGGING.

Citation. 523 U.S. 666, 118 S. Ct. 1633, 140 L. Ed. 2d 875, 1998 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary.

Forbes (Petitioner) was running for political office and was denied the opportunity to participate in a television debate.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The First Amendment does not compel public broadcasters to provide access to programming for third parties.



Facts. Arkansas Educational Television Commission (Respondent) decided to broadcast a political debate amongst the top congressional candidates. One hour was allotted for the debate in a question and answer format. Respondent acquired enough signatures to be on the ballot after Petitioner issued the initial invites. Respondent requested that he be allowed to participate, but Petitioner still refused.

Issue. Because the government owned the television station was it obligated to open the debate to all candidates?


What 501c3s must adhere to are the IRS laws regarding non-profits and how they may or may not participate in elections.  This does indeed overlap the 501c3 media events as well and I believe it is this law below that has all the Maryland major venues including all the republican candidates in forums and debates-----

THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DAMAGE ANY ONE CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN WHILE PARTICIPATING IN ELECTIONS.


This is pretty cut and dry----keeping Cindy Walsh from all of the early 501c3 events and media coverage is what keeps a candidate from being viable----it is not that their platform was not viable.  The actions of those participating in Maryland elections makes the candidate unviable-----not the voters choosing not to support the platform.  Now, is the Federal Court so corrupt as to look beyond so many election violations and systemic corruption of Maryland election system as some tell me will be the case? 

IT WILL BE REALLY, REALLY HARD FOR ANY FEDERAL JUDGE TO RULE AGAINST MY COMPLAINTS ------THE APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION WILL BE UNMISTAKABLE.

We must get these court cases on record so that when Rule of Law is rebuilt----we will have the cases established.

Violations of the election law requiring 501c3 organizations to invite all candidates to debates or forums as the only way to eliminate bias or showing opposition to another candidate.

What Does "Participating in a Political Campaign" Mean?
Organizations with 501(c)(3) status cannot participate in political campaigns.

What is a political campaign? In general, the IRS rule refers to campaigns between people who are running for offices in public elections. These can include: candidates running for president of the U.S.; candidates running for governor; candidates running for mayor; and also candidates for lower elected offices such as school board officials, city supervisors, and county trustees.

What is "participating?" Your organization cannot participate in a campaign, directly or indirectly, on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate. If your organization takes a stand in any campaign, supporting or opposing one or another candidate, this violates the prohibition.


I want to look at the 'only 3 candidates in the democratic race for governor' per the establishment----Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur-----and then look at the other 3 democratic candidates left out-----Walsh, Smith, and Jaffe.  I am only representing myself in this election, but it is good to see why these 3 candidates are selected out of the race----AND IT IS INDEED THEIR PLATFORM.

EDUCATION-----BROWN, GANSLER, AND MIZEUR ALL SUPPORT THIS EDUCATION REFORM, ERGO, THEY ARE 'VIABLE'.

The citizens of Baltimore will note that neo-liberal O'Malley and neo-conservative Johns Hopkins brought to the city a new school superintendent----or CEO----a candidate from Milwaukee----home of education privatization on steroids. This report shows you how bad this system in Milwaukee has become and I want to be clear-----this will not only be for poor students-----it will take all of public schools. Remember, the goal of TPP is to kill the middle-class and move everyone to the status of poor!

Report: Charters Creating Two-Tier Education


Tuesday, 10 June 2014 11:26 By Samantha Winslow, Labor Notes | Report

As an antidote to the “grow grow grow” mentality of the elected officials and business leaders pushing charter schools, a recent report by University of Oregon professor and political economist Gordon Lafer outlines what’s wrong with privatization of public schools.

The report, titled Do Poor Kids Deserve Lower-Quality Education than Rich Kids? Evaluating School Privatization Proposals in Milwaukee, focuses on the model of Rocketship, a national charter elementary school organization that hopes to expand its Milwaukee footprint to eight schools by 2018.

City officials have even considered carving out the lowest-performing parts of the city’s schools for charters to operate, similar to the New Orleans “recovery district.” Milwaukee’s Chamber of Commerce and Democratic Mayor Tom Barrett are among the charter chain’s supporters, raising millions to help it grow.

Rocketship’s investors, who are tech industry heavyweights, claim altruistic intentions: they care about the kids! But they’re also profiting from the expansion of charter schools, a market for their own products and services.

Case in point: Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, on the board of Rocketship, is also an investor in a company called Dream Box, which runs software the schools use for math applications. In the public sector this type of self-dealing is often prohibited, because schools should be choosing the service or product with the best track record, not the one that will enrich investors.

So it’s no surprise that businessmen like Hastings find investing in charters much more appealing than paying more taxes to support public schools.

Two-Tier Schools

Lafer points out that the charter companies’ self-proclaimed cutting-edge learning models offer anything but advanced instruction.

In Rocketship’s “blended learning,” for instance, students learn basic literacy and math with an emphasis on test preparation, receiving online instruction in the schools’ computer labs. Other academic subjects, arts, and music are left out of this education model.

The teachers at such schools are often inexperienced, with an average 30 percent teacher turnover from year to year—twice the Milwaukee school district average. A non-union workforce is part of the incentive for school districts to switch to charters, though some charter teachers have begun to unionize.

50 to 1

While it claims a 29 to 1 student-teacher ratio, which includes non-certified, lower-paid instructors, Rocketship has actually redesigned its instructional model, shifting the ratio closer to 50 to 1. Company leaders explained bluntly that they were changing the schools’ structure to extract more money for expansion.

Even as they skimp on teachers and dumb down the curriculum, Rocketship and other charters brag of their mission to serve low-income black and Latino students. In reality they are further segregating America’s schools, creating two tiers: one for the affluent, where students get exposure to the arts, languages, sports, and one-on-one instruction, and the other where they are taught the basics, and spend most of their time in front of a computer.

At the 60-year anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education, separate is still not equal. Lafer proposes that all schools receiving taxpayer money be subject to the same accountability and transparency, and that they be governed democratically, such as by elected school boards where parents and community can have oversight.

Read the whole report here.


_________________________________________
ENVIRONMENT----BROWN, GANSLER, AND MIZEUR WILL ALLOW GLOBAL CORPORATE ENERGY TO CONTROL THE STATE AND WILL TURN AN EYE TO GROWING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS LIKE THE PORT OF BALTIMORE.....ERGO, THEY ARE 'VIABLE'.


'UNTIL CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET'------Oh, Mizeur is not against fracking-----she is just pretending to be!



Sen. Ron Young (D-Frederick) and Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery) have introduced the Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act this session “to ensure our communities get the answers they deserve and to ensure the General Assembly has a say in the ultimate decision,” Young said in the release.

The legislation would prohibit MDE from issuing a permit for fracking of a well for the exploration or production of natural gas until specified conditions are met.


__________________________________________
HEALTH CARE----BROWN, GANSLER, AND MIZEUR ALL SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND THE MOST PRIVATE, PROFIT-DRIVEN STATE HEALTH SYSTEM IN THE NATION......ERGO, THEY ARE 'VIABLE'.

Thanks for this acknowledgement that Gansler, Brown, and Mizeur are not progressive on health care as they pretend. Remember, neo-liberalism is never progressive....the Maryland exchange is one of the most private, profit driven in the nation with most people in Maryland falling into Medicaid and Bronze----preventative care.  Consider over 80% of Marylanders falling into this Medicaid-level care at the same time Medicaid has been gutted of funding and is being made into a third world clinic care model.  Longevity will drop dramatically in one generation with these draconian health policies.

Let's be clear----Brown is already pushing the Connecticut health system to replace this failed Maryland system.  Connecticut is home of all the insurance corporations behind this health care reform. So, Brown is going to 'look' at the Vermont model?  OH, REALLY??????

BROWN, GANSLER, AND MIZEUR----BUILDING THE STRUCTURES FOR ENDING PUBLIC EDUCATION, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND HANDING ALL THAT IS PUBLIC OVER TO CORPORATE CONTROL AND THIS MAKES THEM 'VIABLE'.


Cindy - We just posted this on the Healthcare-Now Maryland website.
http://www.mdsinglepayer.org/candidates-for-governor-respond-to-survey-walsh-supports-single-payer/
Eric Naumburg



Candidates for Governor Respond to Survey; Walsh Supports Single-payer
June 10, 2014

Responding to a Healthcare-Now! of Maryland health care survey, gubernatorial candidates Del. Heather Mizeur, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown and Cindy Walsh all indicated that they believed that health care was a basic human right.  They all agreed that it was the responsibility of the state to ensure that all Marylanders received the health care they need. There were differences, however, regarding a single-system.

Neither Brown nor Mizeur would say that they favored a single-payer system and that they would support single-payer legislation and, if passed, sign it into law.  Only Walsh unequivocally supported single-payer calling for “expanded and improved Medicare for all”.  In his response, Brown expressed support for universal healthcare and the Affordable Care Act.  He indicated that he would be watching the experience of Vermont’s Green Mountain Care single-payer model as he considered options to build a better Maryland.  Mizeur favored studying a single-payer system.   If it was shown to be fiscally responsible, she would push for passage of single-payer after 2017 when the federal government allows for innovation waivers.

The health care survey was sent to all of the candidates from both parties running in the June 24th primary.

By Rich Bruning


__________________________________________

Here are the platforms that emphasize government corruption and promotes politicians as 'public servants' and not CEOs.  Sound familiar to Cindy Walsh's campaign?  YOU BETCHA-----

THIS CANDIDATE IS 'NOT VIABLE'!




Ralph Jaffe for governor

April 26, 2010

My name is Ralph Jaffe. I am a political science teacher. When I first started teaching in 1964 I told my students that Maryland was one of the most corrupt states in the Union. Fast forward to 2010 - nothing has changed. This is why I am now a candidate for governor in the September 2010 Democratic primary. I want to put a stop to the moral bankruptcy in Maryland politics and replace it with a new word, ETHICS.

My platform is based on 5 principles.

#1 - I will not accept campaign contributions because they are disguised bribes.

#2 - I will have no dealings with paid professional lobbyists.

#3 - I will serve one term only. This way I'm not in the campaign for power, fame, or personal wealth, but rather I want to be a good public servant.

#4 - I will tell the truth all of the time, not some of the time.

#5 - I will serve free. I will set aside the $150,000 annual salary of the governor for the purpose of trying to hire a combination of three teachers, firefighters and/or police officers.

These 5 principles must be adhered to if we are ever going to get true, ethical politicians. I am not a politician; rather, I am a teacher. Electing me as the next governor in the state of Maryland would mark a major step in the movement to compel future politicians to comply with the above stated principles.


Yes - thisi s a peaceful revolution to get rid of money and corruption out of politics. I'm asking you to join this movement and make this goal a reality. Please call me at 410-764-2409 and help bring about true, ethical reform in our political system.

Ralph Jaffe, Democratic candidate for Governor


__________________________________________

Charles U. Smith for governor

Charles is a perennial candidate but his message is very relevant especially these days-----he is a strong advocate for the Veterans Administration and veterans health care.  This is his primary policy issue and he speaks very knowledgeably of the changes to the VA that is leading to the decline in care.  Maryland leads in dismantling VA and the worst record in VA operations so......

THIS CANDIDATE IS NOT 'VIABLE'





Both Harris and Mikulski knows that the VA in Maryland is being dismantled and the doctors have been outsourced to private health facilities with this health care reform.  The goal in Maryland is to end the public health care with the VA and simply send them to the state health system where they will be categorized as Medicaid-level care.  It is a huge thing to work to deny health coverage to veterans and neo-liberals and neo-cons are a tag team in dismantling the VA and sending veterans into these private state health systems
.  Having to listen to these pols lie over and over is just what third world nations with manufactured 'elections' do.

Sen. Mikulski and Rep. Harris React to More Veterans Affairs Findings June 10, 2014 By Dagger News Service

MIKULSKI EXPRESSES OUTRAGE ABOUT VA FINDINGS DETAILING ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURES RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYING VETERANS ACCESS TO CARE

From the office of U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski:

U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) today expressed outrage on the findings of an audit by the Veterans Administration (VA) detailing organizational failure and dysfunction within the VA that has led to lengthy delays in veterans’ access to health treatment and care:

“I am outraged at this colossal organization failure at VA which has put lip service ahead of the health and well-being of our veterans. We must get to the bottom of delay and denial at the VA.

“When it comes to Maryland, this report outlines both good news and bad news. The bad news is that the average wait time for new primary care patients is 81 days. This is unacceptable and clearly shows that more must be done. The good news for Maryland contained within this report is that for existing VA patients, the wait time to see a doctor is as low as four days. Additionally, the audit did not find any evidence of wrongdoing or deceptive or duplicitous behavior on the part of employees in Baltimore.

“This week I will vote in the Senate to pass bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders and John McCain that makes a significant down payment on reforms needed to address this crisis immediately. Our veterans who have fought on the front line shouldn’t have to stand in line for the care and benefits they have earned and deserve.”

The Veterans’ Access to Care Through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014, legislation introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and supported by Senator Mikulski, would address patient wait times at hospitals and improve accountability at the Veterans Affairs administration. Specifically, the legislation would give veterans access to private doctors, community health centers, Department of Defense medical facilities and facilities funded by the Indian Health Service. It would allow veterans living more than 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic to access more convenient private care.

The bill also would provide for the hiring of new medical personnel in an expedited manner at hospitals and clinics that lack enough doctors, nurses and other medical staff to provide quality care in a timely manner and ensures dedicated funding is available to hire health care professionals. And at a time when new construction is needed for VA health care around the country, this legislation allows VA to lease 26 new medical facilities that would expand access to care.

In addition to these provisions, this bill would allow the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to terminate senior VA employees for poor performance. This would also require the Secretary to provide Congress a justification for any removal within 30 days and offers terminated employees the ability to appeal to the Merit System Protection Board within seven days of termination, providing them the protections from retaliation and discrimination they deserve.

Lastly, the bill takes another step in ensuring our service members are prepare for their transition to civilian life by requiring public higher institutions to give veterans residing in their state in-state tuition while using the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

In May, Senator Mikulski used her oversight position as Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee to call on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate and potential criminal wrongdoing. A copy of that letter is available here.

Rep. Andy Harris Releases Statement in Response to New Department of Veterans Affairs Audit

Audit Says VA Maryland Health Care System Has Fourth-Longest Average Wait Time for New Patient Primary Care

From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:

Congressman Andy Harris, M.D., a Navy veteran and physician who worked in both the military and veteran health systems, has released the following statement in response to news that the VA Maryland Health Care System has the fourth-longest average wait time for new patient primary care, according to a new nationwide Department of Veterans Affairs audit. The audit, released today, found that the Maryland system, which includes the Baltimore and Perry Point VA hospitals as well as the Loch Raven VA Community Living and Rehabilitation Center, had an average wait time of 81 days for new patients. The wait is more than five times the 14 days the VA had set as guidelines for patients to see a doctor.

“The report is no surprise, as the number-one complaint my case workers receive is problems with the veterans’ administration. Wait times of this length are completely unacceptable, which is why we need to allow our high-priority veterans to opt out of a failed veteran health system.”


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.