March 23rd, 2015

I wanted to look generally at Maryland Assembly Bills that are directly behind the citizens of Maryland having no voice in public policy and no pathway to justice when victim of civil or criminal actions.  The Maryland Assembly has literally written laws that make it impossible to take a public official to court for corruption and it is closing all ability to take a corporation to court for crimes. 

Johns Hopkins needs to make sure since health care and medical device/procedure patents are deregulated and allowed to do anything with no oversight----no HIPPOCRATIC OATH---only profit----that the public's ability to sue for malpractice disappears. 

 Below you see a Bill that makes a citizen in Maryland wait 6 months to file a malpractice case.  Now, one does not file thee cases unless there is serious injury and who supports that patient for the year it will take to settle a lawsuit?  Maryland health systems get you out of the hospital and paying for your own after-care if you have insurance with large deductibles and co-pays---most Marylanders.  What are families going to do when they are victim of medical malpractice?  GET THAT LAWSUIT ADVANCE.  These law firms then raise their take from court awards according to how long it takes to settle.

I've never seen so many law firms geared to getting most of people's money from any kind of legal action than Baltimore.  Remember, Maryland gives absolutely no avenue of public justice for citizens not able to afford a private lawyer except these kinds of law firms---basically the pay day lenders of legal profession.

THIS IS HOW YOU KEEP THE CITIZENS POOR---AND MAKE SURE THEY CANNOT ACCESS THEIR RIGHTS TO EQUAL PROTECTION.

Can you think of how this Bill was written in the public interest?

Senate Bill 143---Health Care Malpractice Claims

brought to you by Pugh, Conway, Middleton, and Nathan-Pulliam----


1.  Wait 180 days before filing a lawsuit against a health care provider for medical injury.  We need to send a notice of intent to file a lawsuit to the corporation.  This notice must be sent by certified mail----first class---



Pre Settlement Funding on Medical Malpractice Lawsuits


Lawsuit Cash Advances to Plaintiffs Expecting to Receive Medical Malpractice Settlements Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Funding

TriMark Legal Funding LLC is one of the leading and most respected national lawsuit funding and settlement loan providers in the United States.

TriMark Legal Funding LLC provides fast, affordable, risk-free lawsuit cash advance and pre settlement funding from $500 up to $100,000 - often in as little as 48 to 72 hours for plaintiffs involved in medical malpractice (medmal) or medical negligence lawsuits. If you are currently involved in any type of serious medical malpractice or medical negligence lawsuit and you happen to need some cash now, before your case settles, TriMark Legal Funding LLC can help you. It's free & easy to apply now!

Below----did you know breathing air is a contributory negligence so the law below is intended to make claims very, very, very difficult.


Contributory or Comparative Negligence

Maryland is one of the few remaining states that recognizes the traditional common law doctrine of contributory negligence. Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Ed., 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983). Thus, any negligence by a claimant will bar his recovery completely.


State discipline rates ranged from 11.87 serious actions per 1,000 doctors (Wyoming) to 1.07 actions per 1,000 physicians (Hawaii), a tenfold difference between the best and worst states.
Maryland is ranked 46th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia for the number of serious actions taken per 1,000 physicians. (Note: Most of these actions are unrelated to medical malpractice and instead involve sanctions for substance abuse, sexual and criminal
offenses.)

____________________________________

In Maryland the Maryland Attorney General only becomes involved in criminal actions that involve hundreds of millions of dollars.  We have a Public Justice branch that will take on smaller cases but will not take a case against a public official.  So, if you have a case of government corruption and fraud----of which is systemic in Maryland and Baltimore right now.....you have no avenue for recourse because a pro-bono lawyer will not come forward for these cases either.

My organization is getting ready to take the credit bond leverage financial fraud against the citizens of Maryland to court but that is something our Maryland Attorney General/States Attorneys are supposed to do.  The cost of doing this is pushed to the public while the AG protects the public officials guilty of conspiracy to defraud.

One of the first things the Maryland Assembly did after the subprime mortgage fraud and the economic crash in 2008 was re-write the corporate fraud laws such that citizens had only 3 years to take to court fraud cases while corporations thinking they have been victims of fraud have 10 years to take the case to court.  That is what this 3 year window does to False Claims----

These pols are not supporting this Bill written by corporations because it is in the public interest---they are writing it to keep the public from pursuing justice.  As we saw with the subprime mortgage fraud that recovered pennies on the dollar----the government investigated as much as it wanted and set the settlement and closed the case and sealed the evidence and then the public had a few years after to pursue real justice with private lawyers.  Of course only the wealthy were able to get any justice from that entire process.  What this law says is that the actions of the Maryland and US Attorneys start the statutes of limitation and 3 years later----its too late to seek justice. 

WHEN A GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW AND REFUSES DUE PROCESS----IT SUSPENDS STATUTES OF LIMITATION AND THIS LAW WOULD BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Senate Bill 374-----Maryland False Claims Act

Mike Miller sponsored this at the Maryland Attorney General's request with Conway, Gladden, McFadden, Pugh as co-sponsors.


Prohibiting certain actions constituting false claims against a government entity-----providing certain penalties for making false claims---REQUIRING THE COURT TO DISMISS THE ACTION IF THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY ELECTS NOT TO INTERVENE IN THE ACTION.

A civil action filed under this title may not be filed after the later of -----6 years after the date of the violation or 3 years after the date when the facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known.

Everyone should read this Bill because it gives what would be the Maryland AG office even more power to limit which lawsuits are taken before the court.  Right now Maryland has a public justice system that allows the AG and State's Attorneys to choice the cases they take to court leaving citizens with no avenue for Due Process for what are often legitimate civil and criminal cases.  Literally, citizens are having their rights to Equal Protection and Due Process taken for them with Bills just like this one.  Everyone in Maryland knows the level of pay-to-play and state and local contract bidding fraud is sky-high and it operates openly because the Maryland AG and State's Attorneys ignore all white collar and government corruption.  What citizens have left as an avenue is self-representation in court----taking these lawsuits to court themselves.  It appears to me to say----

IF THE MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL OR STATE'S ATTORNEY DOES NOT TAKE A CASE OF FALSE CLAIM TO COURT----NO ONE CAN.

Consider my coming lawsuit for credit bond fraud----we know this is real criminal actions and the Maryland Attorney General and States Attorney are aware----and do nothing about it.  This law seems to make my ability to pursue this claim of fraud against bond leverage BILLS impossible.   Considering my lawsuit primarily aims at Baltimore's use of credit bonds---considering Baltimore Board of Estimates is under continuous fire for misappropriation tied to contract awards-----
_______________________________


The final Bill for today is

House Bill 1199----Baltimore City ---Renters Tax Credit Program
sponsored by the usual cast of characters----Carter, Anderson, Oaks.

You remember last week I testified against a Baltimore City targeted tax break for certain citizens living in certain areas for a certain amount of time.  This is how Johns Hopkins writes Bills now----certain, certain, certain.  Totally vague.  Maryland Constitution states that legislation cannot be written too vague.  It also states that tax laws will be uniform.  So, last week I told our Baltimore House of Delegates that I would take to court this wildly unconstitutional taxation policy and Kurt Anderson pulled the bill---I thought maybe thinking twice about the injustice of these bills.  This week I see the same bill modified and it said the same thing----certain, certain, certain-----but now it said----AND THIS LAW CANNOT BE OVERTURNED.  They simply tried to make it court-proof.   You can tell Kurt Anderson had Nancy Pelosi as a political mentor----when she was caught involved in Insider Trading she passed a law that said Congress could not be charged with Insider Trading for goodness sake which is of course illegal with Equal Protection and Rule of Law making all citizens available to the same laws.  Well, Bill 1199 is just another in a long list of UN ----UNIFORM TAX LAWS trying to make taxes more affordable for some while piling taxes on others in the city.


'In short, the uniformity clause prohibits granting preferential property tax treatment to specific property owners. However, the uniformity clause allows the legislature to entirely exempt specific, reasonably defined classes of property from taxation. If there is any question as to whether proposed legislation would create a partial property tax exemption or otherwise violate the uniformity clause, it may be advisable to draft the legislation as an exemption that exempts, in its entirety, the property that is the subject of the legislation'.


Wisconsin Constitution
Article VIII, Section 1
THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSEThe rule of taxation shall be uniform but the legislature may empower cities, villages or towns to collect and return taxes on real estate located therein by optional methods. Taxes shall be levied upon such property… as the legislature shall prescribe [with certain exceptions].

History and purposes of this sectionThis section of the Wisconsin Constitution, which requires the uniform taxation of property, was adopted as part of the original state constitution. It is called “the uniformity clause” in reference to the words with which it begins: “The rule of taxation shall be uniform.” The uniformity clause has been amended five times. In 1908 the section was amended to authorize income taxes, privilege taxes, and occupational taxes. An amendment in 1927 allowed classification of forests and minerals for tax purposes. An amendment in 1941 allowed municipalities to collect taxes by methods that are not uniform. A 1961 amendment exempts livestock, merchants’ inventory, and manufacturers’ materials and finished products from the uniformity requirement. A 1974 amendment exempts agricultural land and undeveloped land from the uniformity requirement.

The uniformity clause was intended to prevent the legislature and local officials from granting preferential tax treatment to influential property owners and “to protect the citizen against unequal, and consequently unjust taxation.” Weeks v. Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 186, 201 (1860). Wisconsin is neither the first nor the only state to include a uniformity clause in its constitution. At the time that the convention that drafted the Wisconsin Constitution met, ten states had uniformity clauses in their constitutions. Today all but two state constitutions have uniformity clauses, although the interpretation and the wording of such clauses vary among the states.

How courts interpret the sectionThe Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided numerous cases involving uniformity clause issues. Two of the most important cases are Knowlton v. Supervisors of Rock County, 9 Wis. 378 (1859) and Gottlieb v. Milwaukee, 33 Wis. 2d. 408 (1967).

In Knowlton, the city of Janesville imposed a tax on agricultural property within the city limits at a rate that was one-half of the rate of the tax it imposed on other property in the city. The court rejected the contention that the uniformity clause allows such “partial exemptions.” The court also rejected the argument that the legislature may classify property to be taxed at different rates as long as uniformity exists within the class. The court held that the uniformity clause allows the legislature to select some property for taxation and to completely exempt other property from taxation. In addition, the court held that property selected for taxation must be taxed in its entirety and at the same rate as all other property in the same taxation district. In other words: “There cannot be any medium ground between absolute exemption and uniform taxation.” Knowlton at 392.

Over 100 years after Knowlton, in another decision involving a partial property tax exemption, the court established standards for complying with the uniformity clause. Gottlieb involved a challenge to the Urban Redevelopment Law. The law allowed a municipality to freeze the property tax assessments of property owned by a redevelopment corporation for a 30-year period. The court held that such a freeze on property taxes resulted in a partial exemption and, therefore, consistent with Knowlton, violated the uniformity clause:

While it may be conceded, as contended by respondent, that, if the law accomplishes its purpose, new building may be stimulated and the tax base broadened to the extent that at some time in the future other taxpayers not covered by the freeze might be benefited, nevertheless, the fact remains undisputed and undisputable that, if redevelopment corporations are assessed at a figure less than that which would be assigned to other taxpayers holding equally valuable property, other taxpayers will be paying a disproportionately higher share of local property taxes. This is not uniformity.In Gottlieb, the court set forth the following standards for tax uniformity required by article VIII, section 1:

1. For direct taxation of property under the uniformity rule, there can be but one constitutional class.
2. All within that class must be taxed on a basis of equality so far as practicable and all property taxed must bear its burden equally on an ad valorem [according to value] basis.
3. All property not included in that class must be absolutely exempt from property taxation.
4. Privilege taxes are not direct taxes on property and are not subject to the uniformity rule.
5. While there can be no classification of property for different rules or rates of property taxation, the legislature can classify as between property that is to be taxed and that which is to be wholly exempt, and the test of such classification is reasonableness.
6. There can be variations in the mechanics of property assessment or tax imposition so long as the resulting taxation shall be borne with as nearly as practicable equality on an ad valorem basis with other taxable property.