April 4, 2015

 

To:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Election Complaints Division
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554

sent via email to campaignlaw@fcc.gov

Internal Revenue Code to IRS - EO Classification,

 1100 Commerce Street, MC 4910

 DAL, Dallas, TX  75242.

Sent via Email to eoclass@irs.gov.

FBI – Baltimore Division- Election law violations

2600 Lord Baltimore Drive
Baltimore, MD 21244

Sent via e-mail to baltimore@ic.fbi.gov."

From:  Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland Democratic Primary
2522 N. Calvert St

Baltimore, Md 21218

RE:  Election irregularities during the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland 2014

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is now in Maryland Circuit Court demanding justice from election violations of Maryland State law and Federal Election laws both of which the State of Maryland and Board of Elections is required to enforce.  She will be filing a lawsuit in Federal Court next.  In preparation for this Federal Court case filing complaints with the agencies tasked with election law enforcement at the Federal level will create an official complaint before the time of one year from violation passes.  Violations of civil rights can be made beyond one year but we want to create precedent before coming elections. 

This case is broad because the election violations are systemic within the media and 501c3 organizations participating in election primaries.  It is chronic in that I as a voter have fought these same irregularities towards candidates for which I have voted and wanted to win.  Now, as a candidate having these same election violations damaging my campaign, I will initiate the legal steps to address this problem as a whole in the State of Maryland.

This case is very different from previous cases before the FCC for media election violations.  First, I was a major party candidate; I had a campaign platform with several issues never discussed during the primary campaign; and I supported political issues that would have been relative to a majority of Democratic voters where the election irregularities were greatest.  The censuring of my campaign was complete in the Maryland/Baltimore media with media creating their own List of Democratic Candidates for Governor of Maryland in any number of ways.  The point of this complaint is not equal time or opportunity as we know FCC election law does not require this.  It is the complete, deliberate, willful exclusion from an election race coverage done with malice as this candidate communicated time and again with media reminding them of the requirements that they include all candidates in election coverage and all platform issues in forums and debates so the voter can go to the poll intelligent of the candidates and the issues.  This is not a third party candidate asking for a place in a debate/forum----it is a major party candidate.  Media will say they are only required to include candidates with popular support.  The court decisions on this issue overwhelmingly go with the idea that exclusion should only occur for a good reason and that it does not silence platform issues.  Each debate/forum and most election coverage had all of the Republican candidates included as you would any race.  It was the Democratic Primary candidates that were excluded although I bring this case only for myself.  The time and cost of including all candidates in an election debate/forum that occurs a few times every two years is not onerous.  This is not national media coverage; it is local and statewide and these media outlets are the major source of name recognition and platform recognition a candidate has.  To be censured is to be damaged and this changes the results of an election.  Maryland has a growing history of registered voters failing to come to the polls for primary and in this election even for the general election.  Anthony Brown was given this primary election with only 12% of registered Democratic votes and Larry Hogan won the general election with low 20% of the Republican vote.  These are not elections when citizens have no candidate for whom they want to vote that the media and 501c3 organizations allow to participate in primary elections.  This is also clearly not popular support in regards Brown with 12%; Gansler with 5%; and Mizeur with 5%.  These three were touted over and over as the only Democratic candidates---as the candidates with the popular support and I show how media polling became so distorted and unscientific as to be simply marketing to make these candidates look popular.  This case includes many levels of violations---I cannot go into all here in this complaint but have the evidence documented.  These claims are valid, the evidence clear, and the violations done deliberately, willfully, and with malice to effect the results of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland 2014.  The primary ran from February 2014 as the candidate filing deadline to the election date of June 24, 2014. 



Below is a very brief summary of case with facts but I have plenty of evidence to submit to an investigation.  This complaint will be sent to IRS, FCC, and FBI agencies so contains information that one or the other agency does not need to know.  It is helpful in assessing the situation as a whole.  The 501c3 violations of election law are clear and the FCC election law having many court rulings will fall in favor of my complaint.  The FBI needs to look at this from a State of Maryland Election Board level to the Federal laws surrounding FCC and IRS.

Thank you for your time,

Cindy Walsh

2522 N. Calvert St

Baltimore, Md 21218

443-825-7031

cwals99@yahoo.com

 

Below you see a summary of events and violations surrounding this complaint:

 

Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Election law enforcement and election violations:

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

 

Cindy Walsh vs Federal Election law enforcement---IRS, FCC, FBI  Election law violations and fraud:

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

 

Statement of Fact


Cindy Walsh experienced widespread election irregularities while running as
a Democratic candidate in the primary for Governor of Maryland in
2014.  Violations of Federal 501c3 and FCC media election laws kept the
candidate from participating in the Maryland primary election as a legal
candidate for office and these actions changed the results of the primary
election. Maryland law defines an election race; a list of candidates as a ballot.

Election Statutes §1–101(d) (1); (l) (1); (m) (1)(i); §5–401(b)(2).


501c3 election law requires a non-profit that chooses to participate in an
election do so in ways that do not harm a candidate in a race and to allow
equal participation in debates and forums and coverage in 2014 IRS501c3 literature. Even Action 501c3 organizations that are allowed to support selected issues and candidates during the year are required to participate in elections giving equal opportunity to all candidates.  FCC election laws allow media to be selective and do not require equal time but they require that all candidates have access and exposure and that platform issues be made available to the
public.  Completely censuring Cindy Walsh and her platform throughout the campaign did
harm and in this election it was done with willfully, deliberately, and with
malice. Most issues on this platform received absolutely no primary exposure. Cindy Walsh claims all  Defendants  actively engaged in these election violations and/or neglected to perform the duties described by their position in protecting the integrity of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland in 2014. These irregularities were so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.


Federal IRS and FCC Election laws:
Title 47 Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] (a) (7) (f) (1) (2); Section 315 [47 U.S.C.
§315] (a) (1) (2) (3)  (4); Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] ; Section 73.1940 [47
CFR §73.1940] (a) (1) (2) (3) (b) (1) (2) (e) (1) (2) (f); Section 73.1941 [47 CFR
§73.1941] (a) (1) (2) (3) (4) (b) (c) (d) (e); 1.501(c)(3)–1; Section 1.501(c)(3)-
1(c)(3)(i); Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii); 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. 178; Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73 


Maryland law defines a contest as the aggregate of candidates who run
against each other or among themselves for nomination for, or election to, an
office or multiple offices of the same category and the Democratic Party is the
Majority Party with popular voter support.  When Cindy Walsh is censured
from 501c3 Democratic primary election events and from all FCC media
coverage the election is no longer a race and no longer inspires trust and
confidence from the public.  Maryland Board of Elections failed to pursue
fraud diligently and prosecuting all offenses. Election Statutes §1–201 (1)(4)(7) (8) .
This censure damaged the campaign of this candidate, it denied the voters the
right to intelligent vote in knowing all the issues and candidates in the election
race, and it compromised the race itself as a race is defined as all the
candidates listed on the Maryland Board of Election's Ballot for an election, in
this case the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland 2014.  Media
and some 501c3 went so far as to change the Maryland Board of Elections List
of Candidates----the election ballot for the Democratic Primary for Governor
of Maryland---a government document.  When 501c3 and media make public
the candidates for an office and selectively omit Cindy Walsh they are
falsifying a government document and they are damaging Cindy Walsh with
those false statements.


18 U.S. Code § 1001  (a) (2) (3) False statements of fact
Maryland and Federal Defamation per se

Maryland Election Statutes §16–901(a)(1)(2)(b)


Irregularities were documented and shared with both the organizations and
corporations committing these irregularities as well as the State agencies
tasked with upholding election law in the State of Maryland throughout the
primary election.  The Democratic Primary ended with a certification of the
election declaring Anthony Brown winner of the Democratic Primary for
Governor of Maryland.  This certification was made despite the complaints
filed by the Appellant as candidate in the Democratic Primary and the
certification of election date of July 10, 2014 was the date that allowed
challenges to the election results be filed in court and with the Maryland
Board of Elections.

Election Law Title 2 Subtitle 1 Section 2-102 - (a) (b) (1) (2) (3)
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).
Cindy Walsh filed a complaint challenging the Democratic Primary results
with the Baltimore City Circuit Court within the 3 days required for an
expedited challenge of an election for Governor, officially filing on July 11,
2014 asking for an expedited trial as required by Maryland law for contesting
an election for Governor of Maryland.  The relief included setting aside the
primary election results and eliminate Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur from this
race for election violations committed.  This would make Cindy Walsh top
voter-getter of this Democratic Primary race and the opponent against
Republican Larry Hogan.  We now need to stage another General Election for Governor of Maryland because of the delay in this case.
Title 12 Subtitle 2.    Judicial Review of Elections 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)
Demand for relief from the Baltimore City Circuit Court
Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland asks the court for the following:

Invalidate the 2014 Democratic Primary due to election irregularities so
widespread as to without a doubt changed the result of the Democratic
Primary for Governor of Maryland.
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.
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 election law and actively violating these election laws.
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 violations of election law placing Cindy
Walsh the next highest in votes and therefore the winner of this Democratic
Primary.
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.
Stephan J. Shapiro University of Baltimore Law School
42 USC Section 1983 liability for deprivation of rights secured by Constitution and laws with award of damages to a plaintiff whose constitutional rights have been violated.
Baker vs Carr, 369 US 186 (1962) reaffirming every citizens' right to vote free
from impairment by arbitrary state action.


The Defendants in the case include the head of agencies tasked with enforcing
election law in Maryland-----Bobbie Mack and Linda Lamone of the
Maryland Board of Elections and Doug Gansler, Maryland Attorney
General.  The three Democratic Primary candidates given full access to the
primary events and media coverage----The Defendants Doug Gansler, Anthony Brown, and
Heather Mizeur were listed because they are 501c3 organizations as campaign committees and as individual citizens required to obey election laws just as organizations and media are required.  The three Appellees planned and organized election events as 501c3s that excluded
Cindy Walsh and participated in others they knew openly excluded the Plaintiff.
§2–101 (d); §2–102(a)(b) (1); §2–103(a)(b)(4)(5)(c)
§16–301 (a) (b); §16–901(a)(1)(2)(b)
§ 20-801(1)(2)(3)
Three Democratic primary candidates, Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur, were
running for office as private citizens and not as elected politicians thus
categorized as personal capacity, not official capacity for this lawsuit.  The
designation of personal capacity for Bobbie Mack, Linda Lamone, and Doug
Gansler follows the fact that these public officials willfully, deliberately, and
with malice refused to recognize the irregularities that undermined the
integrity of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland 2014.  This
places them in a category of personal capacity in this lawsuit as they willfully,
deliberately, and with malice failed to do their duty under official capacity.
Richie vs Donelly, 324 Md. 344,597 A.2d 432 (1991); Clea vs City Council of Baltimore, 312 Md. 662,541 A.2d 1303 (1988).   Public official not granted immunity----personal capacity 
When the constitutional violation is not caused by government policy, but by
actions of an individual official, the suit is considered a 'personal-capacity
action'. Defendants in such cases are usually accused of acting outside of the
scope of their authority or in violation of state law. Damage awards in such
cases can be executed only against the official's personal assets and not the
government. Under Section 1983, officials who exceed or abuse their authority under state
or local law can be held personally liable for damages.

Place, date, and time of violation by 501c3s, media, and Defendants Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur:

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

 University of Maryland Carey Law School      Phoebe A. Haddon –Dean 500 W. Baltimore Street   Suite 260                                                                 Baltimore, MD 21201-1786

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

Morgan State University   David Wilson-President  1700 East Cold Spring Lane  Baltimore MD 21251

Coppin State University   Mortimer Neufville-President   2500 West North AvenueBaltimore, MD 21216-3698

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

 BUILD Baltimore- Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development    2439 Maryland Ave  Baltimore, MD 21218

 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

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

Maryland Municipal League   Scott A. Hancock,  Executive Director 1212 West Street   Annapolis, Maryland 21401


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

 

Argument

The IRS prints every year guidelines for 501c3s in elections with specific directions that state just what the Appellant states in her complaint. This case cannot be dismissed without the opportunity to provide proof that these irregularities exist. Failure to provide any oversight of elections has allowed for extreme overreach of a few in determining what voters are to decide----the viability of a candidate. The arbitrary nature of selection and exclusion; the level of malice towards candidates and their platforms is clear. Precedent overwhelmingly states that the balance between cost of an election event and maintaining free and fair elections requires that the terms of selective exclusion have a solid proof of hardship not just a reason to limit the discussion of issues. Precedent does not allow
complete censure or re-writing of Maryland Board of Election Lists of Candidates.
The relevant constraints are identified in Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local
Educators' Ass'n, 460.   U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983):
"In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the State may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view."
University of Maryland used polling data as the reason to exclude the entire time allowing all Republican candidates in the primary participate events while failing to meet any of these guidelines. Why are all Republican candidates in all events? To exclude damages a candidate and undermines the integrity of the race. This case addresses the right of voters to hear all platforms and know all candidates and issues in a race.
The attempts to circumvent these IRS election responsibilities by partnering with public and/or private media corporations for forums and debates is not legitimate.  These partnerships are as responsible to IRS and FCC election laws as they are separate.  So, for 501c3 organizations equal
Public property that is not a public forum may be reserved by the state
"for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view."
Perry, 460 U.S. at 46, 103 S.Ct. at 955, 74 L.Ed.2d at 805.

Although a speaker may be excluded from a nonpublic forum if he wishes to address a topic not encompassed within the purpose of the forum ... or if he is not a member of the
class of speakers for whose special benefit the forum was created ... the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject.
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508
U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2147, 124 L.Ed.2d 352, 362 (1993)
(quoting Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. at 3451).

"The reasonableness of the Government's restriction of access to a nonpublic forum must be assessed in the light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances."
Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. at 3453, 87 L.Ed.2d at 584.

Even the FEC laws allowing staging organizations the ability to set guidelines for
debate participation state that the structure must not promote or advance one
candidate over another.  This law has been used to exclude third party candidates
but not major party primary candidates for no good reason. 
The Appellant as a voter reported these irregularities in past elections. Each election it is the candidate with the platform for which Cindy Walsh wants to vote that is completely censured from these primary events just as Cindy Walsh the candidate. This selection is clearly based on platform issues and this is a violation of FCC and IRS election law.
FEC 110.13 - Candidate debates. (b);11 CFR 114.4(f) (1)(2) (c)
Never mind that Brown, Gansler and Mizeur were promoted constantly and ended with 5% and 12% of registered Democratic voters. These three Democratic Primary candidates chosen as public favorites spent tens and hundreds of millions of campaign dollars and received saturated media coverage with the added benefit of gimmicky polling and Cindy Walsh was within striking distance of winner completely censured. These guidelines for exclusion are arbitrary and should never be used unless undo burden requires it. 
This complaint is as much about the failure of Maryland Board of Elections and
Maryland Attorney General's office to enforce these election laws so completely
that all organizations in Maryland feel free to openly ignore these laws.  The
smaller 501c3 election venues still operate on sending invitations to all candidates
in a race as is required and Cindy Walsh participated in these venues across
Maryland.  Since the larger election venues are being allowed to ignore election laws the smaller ones are now moving to circumvent equal opportunity participation.
                                                        

This failure to enforce election laws does change the result of elections as it did in this case brought by Cindy Walsh.  It is the leading factor to Maryland having voter turnouts of around 20% in all primary elections.  501c3 organizations must give equal opportunity if they choose to participate in an election or have strong reasons for not doing so.  This especially includes forums and debates.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, the First Amendment has "its fullest and most
urgent application" to speech by candidates in a political campaign.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 15 (1974) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401U.S. 265, 272 (1971)).
Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates
are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our
Constitution.  The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such
political expression in order "to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for
the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."  Roth
v. United States,354 U.S.476,484(1957).
The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendment
right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to
advocate his own election and the election of other candidates. Indeed, it is of
particular importance that candidates have the unfettered opportunity to make their
views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate and tirelessly to
advocate his own election the candidates' personal qualities and their positions on
vital public interests before choosing among them on election day.  Mr.
Justice Brandeis' observation that in our country" public discussion is a political
duty,"  Whitney v.California,274 U.S.357,375(1927)(concurring opinion),
applies with special force to candidates for public office.
This Appellant states over and again that the requirements for inclusion outside the the four categories:
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 McGlynn v. NJ Public Broadcast. Auth. 88 N.J. 112 (1981) 439 A.2d 54

This is what allows FCC private media selective rights in programming during an
election and this is what the case McGlynn v NJ Public Broadcasting Authority
entailed.  Special interview shows or media editorials.  These cases make clear the difference between the four exemptions to equal time rule and the need of all media whether private or
public to provide all candidates access and opportunity during an election.  Nowhere does it allow media to exclude completely mention of candidates in an election race.  Public media is left with greater expectation as McGlynn ruling indicates the state public media outlet had satisfied it obligations to opportunity and access and did not need to meet the exempted categories as well.  Throughout this ruling it was clear that media still has the opportunity and
access obligations but do not have to meet them under the exempted categories.   All Republican candidates
In response to the Appellees' lawyers and the use of Arkansas Educational Television vs Forbes as a reason to ignore the FCC and IRS election laws for media:
First, we need to be clear that AETC vs Forbes App 11, 12 has no bearing on the election
irregularities in Maryland specifically with this case.  The institutions using this
ruling as a guideline for their own procedures are doing so wrongfully and the
Appellees' lawyers and the judge are using AETC wrongfully as well.  Arkansas
Public Media was trying to exclude a national third party candidate having only a
few percentage of public voters support.  The public media outlet argued that it
was too expensive to include that third party candidate and voters in Arkansas had not supported the Independent Party.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor in this one case, but legal challenges by third parties since have reversed this one Supreme Court ruling over and over.  So, AETC vs Forbes is not relevant to this case and it is marginal even if used for a third party case like the Independent Party. The Supreme Court ruling on AETC vs Forbes was considered
at the time far from mainstream legal standings and indeed after this ruling many
of the same kinds of complaints have been brought with the plaintiff winning the
right of participation. It shocked much of the legal world.
Cindy Walsh's complaint is about excluding a major party candidate in a primary
race. Even Maryland Election laws define what a race entails. 
One of the earliest and most frequently quoted statements of this dilemma is that of
Herbert Hoover, when he was Secretary of Commerce. While his Department was
making exploratory attempts to deal with the infant broadcasting industry in the

early 1920's, he testified before a House Committee:
"We cannot allow any single person or group to place themselves in [a] position where they can censor the material which shall be broadcasted to the public, nor do I believe that the Government should ever be placed in the position of censoring this material."
False statements of fact: False statements of fact may generally be punished
if they are knowing lies, though generally not if they are honest mistakes
(even unreasonable mistakes). There are, however, some situations where
even honest mistakes can be punished, and a few where even intentional lies
are protected.  Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).
As a matter of constitutional law, a charge of criminal conduct, no matter
how remote in time or place, can never be irrelevant to an official's or a
candidate's fitness for purposes of applying the "knowing falsehood or
reckless disregard" rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U. S. 254.
Pp. 401 U. S. 272-277.  Justice Powell, in writing the decision of the Court
reasoned that false statements do not "advance society's interest in
'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate'".
Even though he conceded that some false statements were inevitable, that
did not mean that a system of liability meant to deter such behavior was
impermissible. Society had some interest in ensuring that debate covered
truthful matters, as a key element of public participation in a democracy.


"False" is defined in McBride v. People (126 Col. 277, 248 P.2d 725), a 1952 Colorado Supreme Court Decision
Mack, Lamone, Gansler, Brown, and Mizeur all knew the List of Candidates
for the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland 2014.  All Appellees
in this case knew False Statements were being published and election laws
violated and they knew this was done deliberately, willfully, and with malice
and knew this damaged the campaign of Cindy Walsh and would change the
results of the primary election for Governor of Maryland.  The burden of
proving "actual malice" requires the plaintiff to demonstrate with
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant realized that his statement
was false or that he subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth of his statement.
See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 280;
see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. at 418 U. S. 342; St. Amant v.
Thompson,390 U. S. 727, 390 U. S. 731 (1968); see generally W. Prosser, Law
of Torts 771-772, 821 (4th ed.1971).