In Maryland, any defeated candidate for public office may petition for a recount within three days after the results have been certified.[1] The petition may seek a recount in all of the precincts in which the candidate was on the ballot or in only a select number of precincts. If the winner of the election is changed on completion of the recount, the opposing candidate may file a counter-petition within two days of the original winner being changed.[2]
Both the petition and counter-petition must be filed with the election board with which the candidate’s certificate of candidacy was filed.[3]. Recount petitions and counter-petitions also may be filed by any registered voter eligible to vote for the office.[4].
Any petitioner or counter-petitioner shall pay for the cost of a recount, unless: (1) the recount changes the outcome of the election or the recount;
(2) the recount has resulted in a gain of votes equal to 2% of the total votes cast; or
(3) the margin of difference between the winner and the second place finisher is 0.1% or less than the total votes cast for those candidates.[5]





Appellant's Motion of Injunction request to Maryland Special Court of Appeals

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING SETTING TRIAL DATE AND INJUNCTION PENDING MANDAMUS APPEAL





Court of Special Appeals of Maryland



Civil Appeal Information Report

Appeal #_______________________


1. Case Identification


Case name: Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie Mack, Doug Gansler, Anthony Brown, Heather Mizeur, and Linda

Lamone

Case Number: 24-C-14-004156





REQUEST FOR HEARING REGARDING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AND SETTING TRIAL DATE.

 Maryland Rule 2-311(f) provides that if a party requests a hearing on a motion, the court may not render a dispositive decision without a hearing. If this rule applied to an injunction on the court’s “own motion,” an in-person hearing would be required. The Maryland Rules on injunctions, which mandate a hearing on a preliminary injunction, Md. Rule 15-505(a), and a trial on the merits of a permanent injunction, Md. Rule 15-505(b)

The decision to grant a preliminary injunction is a matter within the sound discretion of the court. In exercising this discretion, a court considers four factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the “balance of convenience” determined by whether the injury suffered if the injunction is granted is less than the harm that would result from its refusal, (3) irreparable injury, and (4) public interest





Appellant's response to the four factors in granting an injunction:

1) The likelihood of success on the merits:

The complaint filed by Appellant seeking to invalidate this Democratic Primary and block certification of this general election is backed by the proof of systemic election irregularities centered on violations of 501c3 and FCC election laws that were evidenced throughout media coverage of the primary election, evidenced by the appellant's communications with candidates, agencies, and organizations. The evidence is overwhelming and this case cannot be seen as lacking merit. The Appellant sites as well the widespread complaints of polling site irregularities during the General election as well.

2) Balance of convenience

Had this case seen a trial date expedited under the management rules of Track '0' allowing for trial as early as 31 days both the plaintiff and Anthony Brown would not have been inconvenienced or damaged by injustice. Since we are now at day 90 without a trial date the harm transfers to the Appellant as her rights to Due Process and Equal Protection is now being denied. Each day the voting public thinks Anthony Brown is the Democratic candidate for governor is a day that damages the candidate Cindy Walsh in this general election. A candidate winning a primary election with 12% of registered Democratic voters does not have popular support and should not be viewed as a leading candidate in this Democratic Primary. So, with the merits of this case clear, it is the Appellant's convenience that takes precedence in this case and therefor an injunction against Anthony Brown's campaign actions in this general election needs to stand until this case has a final court decision.

3) Irreparable Injury

The Appellant can win this general election by simply being the only candidate on the general election ballot with Larry Hogan the Republican so winning this case before the election is certified will leave Cindy Walsh in a viable position for election. If the court delays setting this trial, which can be completed in just a few days, until after the general election the damage to the appellant's will make reparations for the plaintiff and Maryland voter unnecessarily difficult as a new general election and the costs associated with this new election constitute burden. The Maryland Circuit Court is charged by law in matters of election to work with the understanding that denying Due Process and contributing to the cost of running elections bare heavily on the decision of court process.

4) Public Interest

As stated above, when only 12% of registered Democratic voters vote for a candidate in a primary there are 80% of voters looking for someone different. When elections are not free and fair as happened in this 2014 Democratic Primary and now in the general election, voters are left feeling the censure of any candidate for who they might vote harms that candidate's viability and they choose not to cast a vote. When WYPR commentators state 'if you do not like the candidates we present then don't vote' or 'hold your nose and vote even if you do not like the 3 Democratic candidates we select' , Maryland citizens are being told they have no rights as citizens and voters to expect that a candidate they choose will have a fair chance and the rights as a candidate upheld. This case before the Maryland Circuit Court is critical for the future of elections in Maryland. It is critical in this general election to have a candidate in the race that played by the rules, broke no laws, and if not under threat of legal actions after this general election. Honest services necessitates that this trial be concluded before this general election to serve in the public interest. The costs of petitioning and winning a second election because of a ruling in favor of the plaintiff bares in this courts decision for injunction and setting a trial date.
We now have a general election with widespread election irregularities at the polls and 1.5 million registered Democratic voters choosing to stay home rather than vote for a Democratic candidate that won illegally.





These factors are not like the required “elements of a tort,” but are simply designed to guide a court in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. DMF Leasing, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car of Maryland, Inc., 161 Md.App. 640, 648 (2005) (citing Lerner v. Lerner, 306 Md. 771, 776-77

(1986)). As the balance of convenience tilts towards the moving party, the importance of demonstrating likelihood of success on the merits declines, and the relevant inquiry becomes whether the moving party has “raised questions going to the merits that are so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more

deliberative investigation.” DMF Leasing, 161 Md.App. at 649 (quoting

Lerner, 306 Md. At784).


Mandamus to stop the Maryland Board of Elections from certifying this 2014 General Election
 
The Appellant should not have to petition the higher court for Due Process:

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court, to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority—to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing)—and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it. Continuing Mandamus:    A mandamus issued to a lower authority in general public interest asking the officer or the authority to perform its tasks expeditiously for an unstipulated period of time for preventing miscarriage of justice.  

The appellant, Cindy Walsh requests that the court rule on the motions of emergency injunction and setting of trial date so this trial can move forward and serve an Injunction on the Maryland Board of Elections until all of the complaints and legal challenges against this entire election season have been finalized.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,



Plaintiff Cindy Walsh is self-representing

Cindy Walsh

2522 N. Calvert St.

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

443-825-7031



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 11, 2014, that the persons below were mailed copies of

this document, EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED APPEAL HEARING SETTING TRIAL DATE AND INJUNCTION AGAINST CERTIFICATION OF GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS.

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

Cindy Walsh

2522 N. Calvert Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

__________________________________________________________


No response from the Maryland Board of Elections and Linda Lamone on this request for public audit of the election results for Baltimore City mailed November 12, 2014.  Cindy Walsh mailed this request a second time on Wednesday December 3, 2014.

November 12, 2014


To:

Linda H. Lamone -State Election Administrator   

151 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401




From:




Cindy Walsh

2522 N. Calvert St

Baltimore, Maryland 21218




RE: Widespread election irregularities in the Maryland General Election




Ms. Lamone,




It has been widely reported and there are numerous independent claims of election tampering around the State of Maryland. This is especially true in the City of Baltimore. Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland in the Democratic Primary already has a lawsuit in the Special Court of Appeals contesting the original Democratic primary because of systemic election irregularities by 501c3 and FCC regulated media outlets ignoring Federal election laws regarding forums, debates, and access to media and the deliberate attempt to deny primary candidates their rights as citizens to run for office with the expectation of free and fair elections and protection from our Maryland Board of Elections and our Maryland Attorney General's office. Now, we have widespread election tampering at the polls in this General Election taking the form of voting machines changing the voter's choices at the ballot box. Whether reversing the voter's selection on the ballot or eliminating the write-in choice of these voters completely......whether deliberately seeing that all but one voting machine out of several work causing huge lines of voters waiting in an effort to discourage these voters......the attack on free and fair elections in Maryland is systemic and must receive justice.




As a voter I personally experienced the scenario of having 4 of 5 voting machines down during what would be the busiest time for voters coming to the polls in the morning before work. I questioned the polling officials as to why these machines were down and how long it would take to bring them up as this was creating a condition of discouraging voters and within 5 minutes of making clear I was aware of these violations all voting machines were up and running, just minutes after being told that only one would be working. We hear on the news that polling places across Baltimore had the same problem of one machine in several operating with long lines to vote and it can be deduced that had someone made very public the intent to discourage voters at these polls as I did at mine----those machines would have been brought online. The candidates for whom I voted were the one's experiencing the effects of lost votes from polling machines flipping votes from one candidate to another and the effects of write-ins being erased.




We are demanding a hand recount of all ballots in Maryland and especially in the City of Baltimore. We demand that a citizen group be at every recount location and participate in seeing these ballots one by one and witness the counting of these ballots. I want to be assigned a leadership position in this in Baltimore City. This Maryland General Election cannot be called for Larry Hogan as from start to finish this election was systemically fraudulent and irregularities must be addressed in order to assure the citizens of Maryland they have had a Rule of Law free and fair election process. I am waiting for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to rule on my original contest of the Democratic primary and will be heading to Federal Court when that decision comes. No election results can be certified until a complete audit of the entire state election sites is done.




Please respond with your plans to meet the demands of the citizens of Maryland united against widespread election fraud.




Thank you for your time,


Cindy Walsh