As a mayor wanting to stop Baltimore Development Corporation and a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins from making Baltimore an International Economic Zone under a Trans Pacific Trade Pact that pretends to allow all US sovereignty and US Constitutional laws and rights be applied-----let's remember the primary US and Maryland Constitutional laws saying just that-----
I THINK GLOBAL CORPORATE RULE CAN BE CONSIDERED ODIOUS.
Art. 41. That monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.
I spoke yesterday of how the Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall are deliberately writing laws that are so vague as to allow the Maryland courts to deny citizens any pathway to justice in trying to access the spirit of these laws. The US and Maryland Constitution states that Federal law is supreme and Federal laws states that legislators cannot write law that cannot be understood or enforced. Laws must specify intent because as the article below states enforcement by courts becomes arbitrary. In Maryland, the first thing a lawyer will say to a citizen calling for representation in court is THE LAW IS TOO VAGUE TO WIN IN COURT.
So, with Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-conservatives we have the Federal government saying it can ignore Constitutional law enforcement---including all of the Equal Protection Amendments and anything else---and at the state and local level statutes are being written so vague as to give citizens no feeling of equal rights to Rule of Law.
AND THIS IS DELIBERATE BECAUSE UNDER TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT---ONLY CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH ACCESS RULE OF LAW.
The first thing a social Democrat would do in Baltimore is review all Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall laws deliberately written vaguely and with loopholes and challenge these laws to be written with the intent politicians claimed. Many of modern statute in Maryland and Baltimore fail to meet any Constitutional objective in legislation.
OF COURSE---IT IS THE COURTS THAT SHOULD BE SHOUTING THAT A LAW CANNOT BE DELIBERATELY VAGUE AND SEND IT BACK TO THE ASSEMBLY.
Supposedly this was the reason no Wall Street fraudsters were convicted----fraud laws are too vague.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Void for vagueness)
of the United States
In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. Criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable for example are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions. Related to the "void for vagueness" concept is the "unconstitutional vagueness" concept (see below).
To summarize the contents of the doctrine, it establishes specific criteria all laws, or any legislation must meet, to qualify as constitutional. Such criteria includes the following:
• Law must state explicitly what it mandates, and what is enforceable.
• Definitions of potentially vague terms, are to be provided
Roots and purpose
In the case of vagueness, a statute might be considered void on constitutional grounds. Specifically, roots of the vagueness doctrine extend into the two due process clauses, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The courts have generally determined that vague laws deprive citizens of their rights without fair process, thus violating due process.
The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by Justice Sutherland in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):
[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
The void for vagueness doctrine is a constitutional rule. This rule requires that criminal laws are so written that they explicitly and definitely state what conduct is punishable. The void for vagueness doctrine thus serves two purposes. First: All persons receive a fair notice of what is punishable and what is not. Second: The vagueness doctrine helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws and arbitrary prosecutions. There is however no limit to the conduct that can be criminalized, when the legislature does not set minimum guidelines to govern law enforcement. (See p. 13 of).
There are at least two ways a law might be attacked for being unconstitutionally vague:
- When a law does not specifically enumerate the practices that are either required or prohibited. In this case, the ordinary citizen does not know what the law requires. Also see Coates v. Cincinnati.
- When a law does not specifically detail the procedure followed by officers or judges of the law. As a guard, a law must particularly detail what officers are to do, providing both for what they must do and what they must not do. Judges must, under the doctrine, have a clear understanding of how they are to approach and handle a case.
Unconstitutional vagueness is a concept that is used to strike down certain laws and judicial actions in United States federal courts. It is derived from the due process doctrine found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. No one must risk criminal prosecution merely because he or she cannot reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited under the law.
Maryland's State Attorney's Office is widely known to ignore public corruption and public justice abuses and as this article below states-----a Mayor of Baltimore can and should take the State's Attorneys Office to Federal level and force these investigations and convictions of Maryland and Baltimore politicians and government officials. Under Obama the FBI has not been led by people wanting to do this and Congress with Senator Mikulski at the lead of Appropriations made big cuts to FBI white collar crime units as did Federal agencies tasked with oversight of white collar crime. We are hoping yet again that a Bernie Sanders social Democrat will not be a progressive poser and rebuild Federal Rule of Law.
What a mayor of any city could and should be doing is having a legal team that pulls all these cases together FOR THESE STATE'S ATTORNEYS AND/OR FBI. Presenting all the evidence of misconduct and being very public about it makes it harder for these public justice officials to ignore Rule of Law.
One of the biggest methods to justice comes from a Mayor of Baltimore using COLOR OF LAW Federal laws. This is used mostly today for police and law enforcement excess cases but COLOR OF LAW is protection from any negligent or corrupt government official harming a citizen or the City of Baltimore.
IF YOU DO NOT HEAR A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE TALK OPENLY ABOUT THE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION AND SHOUTING LOUDLY THESE WAYS TO PURSUE JUSTICE----THEN THEY WILL NOT DO SO.
Why It’s Our #1 Criminal Priority
Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices. It’s also the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. To explain why the Bureau takes public corruption so seriously and how we investigate, we talked with Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, assistant section chief of our Public Corruption/Civil Rights program at FBI Headquarters.
Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities?
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road.
Special Agent Patrick Bohrer
Q: Can you describe the kinds of public corruption that the FBI investigates?
A: It really runs the gamut. Bribery is the most common. But there’s also extortion, embezzlement, racketeering, kickbacks, and money laundering, as well as wire, mail, bank, and tax fraud. Right now, based on our intelligence on emerging trends, we are focused specifically on several major issues: corruption along our national borders; corrupt officials who take advantage of natural disasters or economic crises to divert some of the government’s aid into their own pockets; and a myriad of officials who may personally benefit from the economic stimulus funding.
Q: Where do you find this corruption?
A: Just about everywhere—at the federal, state, and local levels throughout the country. And I should point out, the vast majority of our country’s public officials are honest and work hard to improve the lives of the American people. But a small number make decisions for the wrong reasons—usually, to line their own pockets or those of friends and family. These people can be found—and have been found—in legislatures, courts, city halls, law enforcement departments, school and zoning boards, government agencies of all kinds (including those that regulate elections and transportation), and even companies that do business with government.
Q: How does the FBI investigate public corruption?
A: We’re in a unique position to investigate allegations of public corruption. Our lawful use of sophisticated investigative tools and methods—like undercover operations, court-authorized electronic surveillance, and informants—often gives us a front-row seat to witness the actual exchange of bribe money or a backroom handshake that seals an illegal deal…and enough evidence to send the culprits to prison. But we have plenty of help. We often work in conjunction with the inspector general offices from various federal agencies, as well as with our state and local partners. And we depend greatly on assistance from the public. So let me end by saying, if anyone out there has any information about potential wrongdoing by a public official, please submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office. Your help really makes a difference.
If citizens understand global pols are only progressive posing when they pretend to be addressing citizens concerns then you know that the bill just passed by Maryland Assembly submitted by Maryland Attorney General Frosh that touts his commitment to control fraud and corruption of government revenue is designed to protect those committing these frauds WHEN MARYLAND POLS WANT IT THAT WAY.
Maryland has always been lax on what is called False Claims laws----this is where frauds against government coffers are pursued. With all the outrage from citizens across the nation----lots of states are doing what Frosh here in Maryland did----passed a law that looks like he is getting tough on crime. Maryland loses tens of billions of dollars to fraud and corruption every year and as always, State's Attorney Office likes to tout the few hundred million it recovers.
Below you hear from a Maryland lawyer who is shouting that what Frosh's law actually does is keep private lawyers and Pro Se self-representation claims from pursuing cases that the Maryland Attorney General chooses not to. This is course right away is illegal simply because pathways to justice cannot be blocked for the reasons I give above. With Maryland citizens having no pathway to justice for open fraud and corruption for decades---especially in Baltimore---it is clear Frosh will not use this law to advance against fraud----he is using it to keep anyone other than his office from filing complaints of fraud.
If you remember, the US Justice Department under Eric Holder used a similar scheme when his office did the pennies on the dollar $25 billion settlement with Wall Street for trillions of dollars in fraud. People wonder why---if he was going to ignore almost all fraud would he pretend to be doing this small deal? The answer was------he was using these settlements to secure as classified all documents found by his office in cases of fraud from any further access by private lawyers wanting to pursue these cases further. Again, this is not legal-----but when the US AG acts illegally to block justice one has no other recourse---UNTIL NEXT ELECTION OF A NEW PRESIDENT.
The point is this------Frosh and state attorneys across the country are using this 'progressive' bill not to increase enforcement against fraud----but to control all cases that may come forward allowing his office to pick and chose who gets investigated and charged with fraud---AND THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
'The proposed Maryland law, like the federal False Claims Act, allows qui tam relators to file suit, but unlike the federal law, it does not allow the qui tam relator to prosecute the case on her own if the government does not choose to intervene'.
Md. False Claims Act needs qui tam provision
Julie Grohovsky Baltimore Sun
Brian Frosh's proposed changes to Maryland's False Claims Act need to include a qui tam provision.
It's welcome news that Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh is proposing legislation that will expand Maryland's False Claims Act (the current law addresses Medicaid fraud only), but the proposed legislation falls short because it lacks a vital element to the success of the federal False Claims Act: a strong, private qui tam provision.
The current federal False Claims Act has been hugely successful in fighting fraud against the federal government. One key to its success is that it allows private individuals, known as qui tam relators, and their lawyers to file a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government against alleged fraudsters. These qui tam relators are often industry insiders who witness fraud first hand. In most cases, the government would likely never discover the fraud without the help of these brave individuals.
The proposed Maryland law, like the federal False Claims Act, allows qui tam relators to file suit, but unlike the federal law, it does not allow the qui tam relator to prosecute the case on her own if the government does not choose to intervene.
By way of background, the federal False Claims Act requires a qui tam relator to file her lawsuit under seal, and that suit remains under seal for 60 days or longer while the government investigates and determines whether it wants to intervene. If the government intervenes, it assumes primary responsibility for prosecuting the case, although the qui tam relator remains an important part of that investigation.
In the federal system, when prosecutors decline to intervene in a False Claims Act case, they allow private qui tam relators to pursue the fraudsters on their own. When this happens, the federal prosecutors continue to monitor the progress of the investigation and trial preparation and may intervene in the case at a later time in order to settle or try it. Regardless of whether the government eventually intervenes or allows the private qui tam relator to take the case to trial, if the qui tam relator is successful, the government gets the lion's share of the money recovered (between 70 percent and 85 percent). What this means is that the federal False Claims Act allows the federal government to harness the power of the private qui tam relator and her lawyers to fight fraud in cases where the government lacks the time and/or resources to do so.
Maryland's proposed law lacks this provision and would not allow private qui tam relators to go forward in cases where the government did not intervene, thus forgoing the resources of the private qui tam relators and their attorneys in recovering money stolen from the state and forgoing the recovery of perhaps millions of dollars stolen from its treasury.
So why does Maryland's proposed law lack this important provision? No doubt, fears of trial lawyers run amok may be one reason. Those fears, however, are unfounded. Like the federal False Claims Act, the Maryland False Claims Act could include provisions to prevent qui tam relators from going forward when the government, for example, shows that certain actions by the relator will interfere with an ongoing civil or criminal investigation or where important national security issues are implicated. Additionally, Maryland, like the federal government, could ensure that regardless of the stage of the pending litigation, the government is always free to step in and dismiss, settle or pursue the case. Likewise, as in the federal system, the cost of litigation and the heightened scrutiny placed on fraud cases by judges will also help to deter frivolous or vexatious suits in Maryland.
By allowing private qui tam relators to go forward under the watchful eye of Maryland state prosecutors, the state would be able to expand its prosecutorial resources and recover more money stolen from its taxpayers. It will also encourage more individuals who witness fraud to come forward with their evidence, and it will bring Maryland in line with the federal government and the governments of a number of other states who have qui tam provisions that mirror the federal law. Without such an expansion of the current proposed law, Maryland risks leaving millions of hard earned taxpayer dollars in the pockets of thieves.
I heard a stat from a candidate for Baltimore City judge------most cases moving through Baltimore City Courts are Pro Se and I can attest to being one in those stats. The Maryland Assembly has passed so many laws blocking Baltimore citizens from accessing courts one way or another-----that people are resorting to self-representation and of course----most do not even make it into the courtroom---they pay a court fee and never get heard. Judges rule on cases without allowing a day in court.
Lawyers in the business of trying to help low-income people are seeing court costs rise higher and higher claiming it is becoming too expensive to take on low-income people----WHICH IS THE POINT. Pro-Bono work in Maryland is all volunteer private lawyers picking and choosing which cases they will handle----leaving many citizens in BAltimore unable to access legal justice. The Maryland Assembly even pretended it was legal to deny legal council for Baltimore Central Booking because the soaring numbers of citizens in Baltimore being arrested was costing the state too much money for Constitutionally required representation.
ALL OF THIS CAN BE REVERSED BY A BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR THAT DEMANDS RULE OF LAW AND PUBLIC JUSTICE.
It is Baltimore's Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall pols who introduce all these laws making it harder for a citizen to access justice as costs for private lawyers soar.
GLOBAL POLS ARE ELIMINATING ALL ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE -----REMEMBER, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES ONLY RECOGNIZE CORPORATE LAW AND RIGHTS.
WHAT IS A PRO SE
A pro se defendant is one who represents himself in a criminal or civil lawsuit. The individual files all the legal documents and proceeds without any help from an attorney in court. That’s not to say that the defendant cannot rely on the assistance of a lawyer outside of court who may act as a coach during the proceedings. Legal systems often permit defendants to represent themselves as long as they can show that they are mentally competent and physically able to do so. A judge may deny a defendant the opportunity to proceed pro se if he or she determines that the defendant cannot.
In a civil case, a defendant has only two options: proceed pro se or hire an attorney. There’s a third option in some legal systems. The court system may provide a public defender, a lawyer who is paid by the taxpayers to represent low-income individuals who cannot afford to hire an attorney. A judge may also appoint a public defense lawyer in cases where the defendant is found to be incapable of representing himself and he refuses to hire his own attorney. Some defendants still often choose to represent themselves in a criminal case, knowing the risks of imprisonment and other penalties, and they have a legislative right to do so in most cases.
A pro se defendant in a civil case is often held to the same standard as attorneys when it comes to court decorum and sanction rules. For example, if the defendant does not file pro se forms in a manner consistent with the requirements of the court and in accordance with the applicable laws, then the judge may sanction the defendant. A pro se defendant is not exempt from sanctions just because she is representing herself. If a defendant wins a case, the plaintiff or attorney may be required to pay him court costs and legal expenses. He or she often cannot collect reasonable attorney fees.
There are alternatives to going to court that a pro se defendant can take advantage of or may be required to pursue. Mediation is one method of conflict resolution where a third and unbiased party facilitates a resolution between the plaintiff and the defendant. A judge may order a case to go to mediation first before proceeding with a trial. Contractual terms may also require a pro se defendant to go to arbitration before or in lieu of filing a lawsuit. In arbitration, the rules are often more relaxed than court rules, and the defendant has to present her case before a panel of lawyers or retired judges.