September 24, 2014

 

US Justice Department of Justice

Criminal Division --- Public Integrity Section/Election Crimes

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20530

 

Tax Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington DC  20530

 

RE:  Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland 2014 lawsuit claiming systemic election irregularities that discriminate against candidates and platforms.

 

To Whom It Concerns,

 

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland filed a lawsuit contesting the 2014 Democratic Primary election results in Maryland Circuit Court of Baltimore City on July 11, 2014 and the complaint was assigned a case number and after 60 days and the election ongoing, a trial date has not been filed.  Cindy Walsh is self-representing and is now moving to Mandamus to set the trial date or dismiss so plaintiff can pursue justice in this complaint.  The court has not responded to plaintiff or defendants’ motions.  This is an expedited case by Maryland law and the general election is ongoing creating great injustice for the plaintiff while the defendant is campaigning as if no election challenge has been filed.

The plaintiff will move this case to Federal Court as the elements of the case involve not only Maryland Election Commission and Maryland public officials but it includes media and 501c3 organizations that chose to violat4e Federal election law.  I am also claiming False Statement charges, mail fraud, and honest services fraud as regards arbitrary and corrupt use of polling and posting of candidate lists.  This is why I am sending this to both the Criminal Department, Public Integrity/Election crimes and the Tax Department.

I filed a complaint earlier in the election with the FEC hoping they would find that such election irregularities would create violations of election campaign finance law and now I am moving to Federal Court with the lawsuit I have attached as a DRAFT.  I request that the US Justice Department investigate this complaint not only as a single event but this practice I relay is systemic over multiple election cycles.  It has created an election crisis in Maryland as 80% of registered Democrats and 80% of registered Republicans do not even vote in primaries because they want none of the candidates ‘selected’ to be highlighted by media and 501c3s participating in these elections.  This is not apathy, it is the fact that elections have been captured by incumbents to the point of open exclusion of candidates having a platform different from those currently in office and wanted by that super-majority of voters that chooses not to vote.  Candidates and voters are told only selected candidates will participate in election functions needed to obtain name and platform recognition.  We are told ‘if you do not like the candidates we put before you then don’t vote’.  This was literally spoken over the air be WYPR commentators.  The election violations are willful, deliberate, and done with malice in collusion with the Maryland State Democratic Party Committee and the media and 501c3 organizations choosing to participate in these election primaries and general elections.

My responsibility in this Maryland Circuit Court lawsuit challenging these Democratic Primary results is simply that election irregularities changed the result of the election for Democratic candidate for Governor.  My case is clearly without a doubt the election irregularities changed the results of the election but I cannot get a trial date to even present this case as the general election nears.  I request that not only would the US Justice Department investigate the irregularities in this complaint against media and 501c3 organizations operating in Maryland but investigate as well why the Maryland Circuit Court in Baltimore is failing to provide Due Process and justice in the election challenge.  Below I include the Federal Statutes that would allow the Federal Justice Department to become involved in this state election for governor.  The violations of IRS and FCC election laws are already Federal venue.

I have details of each defendant’s charge in my DRAFT of the Federal Court lawsuit available upon request and the original complaint with Amendment of the Maryland Circuit Court of Baltimore City case. 

Please contact me as to the department’s ability to handle this complaint.  As you know I am in need of immediate relief regarding the ongoing election for governor.

 

Thank you,

 

Cindy Walsh

2422 N. Calvert St

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

443-825-7031

I am self-representing

 

Attaining federal jurisdiction over State election crime.

 

These generally include election frauds that involve the necessary participation of public officer, notably election officials acting “under color of law”.

State action

In Federal Civil Rights Acts, dating back to 1875, any activity by the government of a state, any of its components or employees (like a sheriff), who uses the “color of law” (claim of legal right) to violate an individual’s civil rights.  Such “state action” gives the person whose rights have been violated by a governmental body of official the right to sue that agency or person for damages.

 

Statutes Applicable to Nonfederal Elections

18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 –

 

any scheme that involves the necessary participation of public officials, usually

election officers or notaries, acting “under color of law,” which is actionable as a derogation of the “one person, one vote” principle of the FourteenthAmendment, i.e., “public schemes;”

 

STATUTES

 

 

 

Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Constitutional Rights.

 

18 U.S.C. § 241

 

 

Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to“conspire 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 by the

Constitution or laws of the United States.” Violations are punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years or, if death results, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or by a sentence ofdeath.

 

The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241.

United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough,110 U.S. 651 (1884). Although the statute was enacted just after the Civil War to address efforts to deprive the newly emancipated slaves of the basic rights of citizenship, such as the right to vote, it has been interpreted to include any effort to derogate any right that flows from the Constitution or from federal law.

 

Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office, it has recently been successfully applied to nonfederal elections as well, provided that state action was a necessary feature of the fraud. This state action requirement can be met not only by the participation of poll officials and notaries public, but by activities of persons who clothe themselves with the appearance of state authority, e.g., with uniforms, credentials, and badges. Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951).

 

Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. Williams v. United States, 179 F.2d 644, 649 (5th Cir. 1950), aff’d on other grounds, 341 U.S. 70 (1951); Morado, 454 F.2d 167. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). The use of Section 241 in election fraud cases generally falls into two types of situations: “public schemes” and “private schemes.” A public scheme is one that involves the necessary participation of a public official acting under the color of law.

 

Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

18 U.S.C. § 242

 

 

Section 242, also enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 

 

Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy. However, the defendants must have acted illegally “under color of law,” i.e., the case must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).

 

Because a Section 242 violation can be a substantive offense for election fraud conspiracies prosecutable under Section 241, the cases cited in the discussion of Section 241 that involve public schemes (i.e., those involving misconduct under color of law) apply to Section 242.

 

 

 

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1341

 

The federal mail fraud statute prohibits use of the United States mails, or a private or commercial interstate carrier, to further a “scheme or artifice to defraud.” 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Violations are punishable by imprisonment for up to twenty years.

 

Salary theory of mail fraud

 

Schemes to obtain salaried positions by falsely representing one’s credentials to a hiring authority remain prosecutable under the mail fraud statute after McNally. The objective of such “salary schemes” is to obtain pecuniary items by fraud; such schemes are therefore clearly within the scope of the common law concepts of fraud to which McNally sought to restrict the mail fraud statute.

 

 

Election fraud schemes can present related issues concerning the quality and value of the public officer hired thereby.  The Supreme Court observed in McNally that deceit concerning the quality and value of a commodity or service remains within the scope of the mail fraud statute.  McNally, 483 U.S. at 360 (emphasis added). Election fraud schemes involve an aspect of material concealment insofar as the “value” of the services the public is paying for are concerned: the public “hired” the candidate because it was falsely led to believe this candidate received the most valid votes, and consequently received services from a qualified individual that were thus of lower value.

 

 

Honest Services Fraud ----18 U.S.C. § 1346

 

 Defined “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include “the intangible right of honest services.”

 

Moreover, jurisprudence in the arena of public corruption has generally confined Section 1346 to schemes involving traditional forms of corruption that involve a clear breach of the

fiduciary duty of “honest services” owed by a public official to the body politic, e.g., bribery, extortion, embezzlement, theft, conflicts of interest, and, in some instances, gratuities.