I want to return to the cyber-war and the costs to our society something that not only fails to benefit the American people as regards the cost financially and through loss of civil liberties----but has as a goal to control communication and personal information to such an extent that huge sectors of US population will not be included in ordinary transactions and made available to constant attack if they do. THIS IS HUGE FOLKS.
First, I wanted to update people as to my candidacy in the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland. I received a notice from Baltimore Circuit Court that they dismissed this case before it was allowed to go to trial. Below you see how it was done so to allow me no opportunity to appeal. As it states below irregularities in the Baltimore City clerk's office should lift these appeal deadline dates------more importantly as we bring these lawsuits forward and self-represent because in Maryland a lawyer will not take these kinds of cases forward-----be aware of this self-representative and the things I could have done better. I should have demanded a receipt for the injunction filed because I knew it was odd that they did not stamp the filings while I was there. I should have demanded a copy of the filing even as one of the clerks said there could be no copies made. You simply have to pay for the copies made by the clerk's office. I did have copies of the motion for injunctions mailed to each defendant with the date mailed so I do have proof that I filed this motion for injunction on that date.
As I said in this letter below between the fact that my court case # was never accessible in Maryland Courts.gov and the fact that Baltimore City Clerk's Office accepted my motion for injunction acting as if the case was still active when at that date the judgment had been made and recorded two days before. There was no way for me as the plaintiff to know that date of judgment.
Contesting a governor's race is expedited and that is good except that the timelines are so short that it is easy especially for self-representers to miss deadlines. Could or should I have come down to the clerk's office every day to check for judgment dates? That is impossible especially over a 60 day period this case was waiting for trial date. They chose which cases can be accessed on Maryland Courts.gov------how do they decide this? These are the details I will need to follow through to fix for the future.
I am not one who had high hopes for the Maryland Court of Appeals and my case-----but it is a step in the process and needs to work. I will now be off to Federal Court and take all these court irregularities with me to that venue.
Below you see my letter to the Maryland Court of Appeals explaining these timeline irregularities and asking that they intervene to allow this appeal to move forward. The normal time for appeal is 30 days so it can be done. Maryland law states that if I fail to meet a deadline no court can intercede.....let's see if court procedure problems will be considered.
The second important piece of this court process was that I filed a lawsuit to invalidate the election in the Baltimore City Circuit Court. They did not dismiss because of venue issues-----they ruled the case. As I said, the Maryland Assembly passed a law that all challenges to elections have to be done in the Anne Arundel Circuit Court-----taking away venue options for Maryland citizens guaranteed by law. Centralizing all election law to one county and court heightens the ability and likelihood for corruption. I will be taking this to court as unconstitutional. This may be why they allowed the decision to be made in the Baltimore City court.
When your government and court system make it hard for you to access justice-----if laws and process seem to exist only to undermine or find a loophole to dismiss------YOU DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN TO DUE PROCESS. Many citizens in Baltimore cannot even get a case filed and given a number-----many see these cases dismissed as was mine. LOTS OF FILING FEES BEING PAID AND NOT MANY CIVIL CASES MOVING FORWARD. Don't forget, citizens in Maryland cannot find public justice representatives to even work these kinds of cases and Maryland Assembly has written laws making it harder and harder to hold corrupt politicians accountable-----IF WE DO NOT STEP FORWARD NOW------THEY WILL CHANGE LAWS THAT WILL KEEP US FROM MOVING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE EVEN IF THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
One does not have to be clairvoyant to see that the right to self-represent will go away and the amount of money to file and conduct these cases will grow.
THIS IS LIKE FALLING OVER A CLIFF AND HANGING ONTO LEDGE -----DANGLING. THIS IS NOT DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UPHELD.
October 8, 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland
Case # 24-C-14-004156
Cindy Walsh
Appellant
vs
Bobbie Mack et al
Defendants
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Cindy Walsh notes an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals in the above-captioned action
This document was mailed to all the defendants below on October 8, 2014
Bobbie Mack, Chairman Maryland Board of Elections
151 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401
Defendant
Doug Gansler, Maryland Attorney General and candidate
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202
Defendant
Anthony Brown- candidate
100 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Defendant
Heather Mizeur- candidate
House Office Building, Room 429
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
Defendant
Linda H. Lamone -State Election Administrator
151 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401
Defendant
The plaintiff is self-representing
2522 N. Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
_______________________________________
October 8, 2014
To: Maryland Special Court of Appeals
361 Rowe Blvd.
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
From: Cindy Walsh----Appellant
2522 N Calvert St
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Baltimore City Circuit Court case # 24-C-14-004156
Below you see the Plaintiff's response to the Baltimore City Circuit Court and this is what the irregularities are in this decision and appeal process:
You see below the judge issued a judgment on September 22, 2014 and the Clerk of Court Frank M Conaway signed off on this judgment with no date different from the judge so we must assume that date to be the same. This places my ability to petition for appeal at September 22, 2014. I received notice of the decision mailed on October 3, 2014 on October 6, 2014. Keep in mind that this court case could not be accessed from Maryland Courts.gov. It noted that this case was not available for viewing so plaintiff did not have easy access to filing proceedings.
I went to Baltimore City Circuit Court clerk's office on September 26, 2014 to file a motion for injunction on this case not knowing a judge had been assigned and dismissed the case on the 22nd. The clerks took that motion for injunction as if the case was ongoing. At each step when I filed a motion in this case the clerks checked the status of the case, stamped the motion request and handed me a copy. This time they simply accepted the motion and told me I could not receive a copy----I knew I could have received a copy if at least I paid for it. If plaintiff had been told at that time, September 26, 2014, the case had been dismissed and closed, she would have immediately filed this appeal in a timely manner. This filing for appeal is very simple and quick and would have been done right at the clerk's window. I was allowed to leave thinking I had filed a motion and without knowing the case had been dismissed.
As you see, after receiving this letter on October 6, 2014, mailed on October 3, 2014 from the court stating the case had been dismissed, I immediately sent notice of appeal to defendants on October 8, 2014 by certified mail and will deliver to the court with proof of service. So, plaintiff is meeting the 5 day deadline to file for the appeal.
WHY DID THEY NOT TELL ME?
To appeal this case to the Maryland Special Court of Appeals I was required by law to do so in 5 days after judgment and clerk of court signed the case settled as dismissed. This is what the law regarding contests to an election for Governor of Maryland entails. We applaud the expedited nature but was unable to meet these obligations through no fault of this plaintiff. One cannot meet a deadline if one does not know a decision date.
Special circumstances necessitate an extension from this appeals deadline. I am requesting that the Maryland Special Court of Appeals not allow this call for appeal be rejected for failure to meet this 5 day timeline. I request the opportunity to write a brief outlining my complaint with the decision of the lower court. This case is of huge public value as we need to address all election irregularities which undermine free and fair elections. My brief will show I met the timeline of that court process and it will show my case had merit and clearly outlined the irregularities that changed the results of the Democratic Primary election for Governor of Maryland.
I thank the Maryland Special Court of Appeals for providing justice in moving this case forward to appeal.
Self-representing
Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert St
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
________________________________________
It is very strange that the court refers to filing date of July 21, 2014 which is the same date used by the defendants' lawyers. I have documented proof of filing this case on July 11, 2014.
Here is the letter from the court deciding to dismiss my claim:
Order:
The 'civil claim' filed by Cindy Walsh in this action complains of unspecified election or campaign irregularities in the Democratic Primary election for Governor of Maryland. Walsh, proceeding pro se, identifies herself as a candidate for Governor and sues Bobbie Mack, as chair of the Maryland Board of Elections, candidates Doug Gansler, Anthony Brown, and Heather Mizeur, and Attorney General Douglas F Gansler. An Amended Complaint (Docket 6) adds Defendant Linda Lamone as State Election Administrator.
Three motions to dismiss are pending, by Attorney General Gansler, Bobbie Mack, and Linda Lamone (7); by Anthony Brown (9); by former candidate Douglas Gansler (10). All three motions are opposed by Plaintiff Cindy Walsh for reasons set out in her 'Response' (7/1. 9/1, 10/1).
The Amended Complaint relies on Maryland Election Law 12-202 and challenges the Democratic Primary results. Section 12-202 identifies the elements necessary to be alleged and proved to show some illegal 'act or omission' that changed the outcome of the election. The Amended Complaint provides a scattershot approach to claim election 'irregularities' and election law violations; Plaintiff makes vague and conclusory assertions about 'the media' unfairly ignoring her own campaign while the other candidates ignored her at various campaign venues. Nothing on the face of Walsh's Amended Complaint presents facts even hinting of wrongdoing by election officials or gubernatorial candidates. Nor does Walsh specify any dates on which acts, omissions. or any wrongdoing actually occurred during the campaign preceding election day on June 24, 2014. The original Walsh complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, does not appear to have been filed timely, at least, within the 10 days of any actionable misconduct occurring on or before election day.
Upon considering applicable law, the allegations of the Amended Complaint, the parties' motion papers and arguments, it is on this 22nd day of September, 2014, hereby ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants (7, 9, 10) are GRANTED and the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff (6) is DISMISSED.
Judge Pamela J. White
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
RSS Feed
