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

CIVIL CLAIM IN THE MARYLAND CIRCUIT COURT IN BALTIMORE

September 26, 2014


Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert Street                                               Civil Action #  24-C-14-004156
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Plaintiff

 
 VS.

 Bobbie Mack et al

Defendants

 

 

 

W. MICHEL PIERSON, Circuit Administrative Judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court

The plaintiff is forced to seek relief with a higher court in setting the date of trial for this case or, if the court decides to dismiss----a dismissal.  The plaintiff is being harmed and being denied justice with the delay of what Maryland law states is an expedited case when challenging an ongoing election for Governor of Maryland.

 

Cindy Walsh brought this election challenge to court making clear the need for urgency due to the ongoing election race and the November general election date for Governor of Maryland.  From the start the plaintiff has called for expedited track.  The evidence for widespread election irregularities is without dispute.  A motion calling for suspension of discovery and arbitration to expedite the trial setting was made shortly after the 30 days from filing the complaint.  This should place this case on Track 0 setting trial date from 31 to 91 days from filing without having to go through mandamus------Maryland law already states this is expedited as my original complaint showed.  The court can see that waiting to day 91 to set a trial date places the trial just as the November elections are to occur and damages Cindy Walsh’s ability to actively engage in this general election against the Republican candidate Hogan.  The voters need to know who the legal Democratic candidate is and/or who all the candidates are in this race for Governor.  The plaintiff requests the court make the decision to set the trial date now or to dismiss so the plaintiff has time to appeal.  This case has merit and will prove the plaintiff’s claims the Democratic Primary operated with election irregularities that changed the result of the election.  There is no need to dismiss or delay. This motion for injunction and trial date centers on one defendant, Anthony Brown, as he is the candidate that has moved forward in to the general election. The other defendants in this complaint are not affected by this element of time but equally culpable in the claims brought by the plaintiff. This is why plaintiff speaks to Anthony Brown in these motions.

Dates relevant to this case:

July 11, 2014 -------- Plaintiff files the complaint with Baltimore City Circuit Court
July 14, 2014 -------- Baltimore City Circuit Court releases Summons for defendants in the case
July 21, 2014 -------- Plaintiff receives certified mail AOD of summons to all                                                                              defendants
August 6, 2014 -----  Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint with Baltimore City Circuit Court
August 8, 2014 ----- Plaintiff receives certified mail AOD of Amended Complaint                                                                      including the addition of Linda Lamone as defendant 
August 22, 2014 ---  Plaintiff and Baltimore Circuit Court sent defendants' motion to dismiss                                             by  certified mail
August 28, 2014 ---  Plaintiff files response to motion to dismiss and files a motion for                                                      expedited trial providing 3 sets of trial dates  
September 24, 2014 - Plaintiff files motion for Emergency Injunction and Track                                                                    '0' trial management status; makes Baltimore Circuit Court
                                  and defendants aware of Plaintiff filing request in  higher court
                                  for a Writ of  Mandamus, US Justice Department/ Federal Court filing dates.

The plaintiff filed a motion for expedited trial dates and an exclusion from Discovery and Arbitration.  Cindy Walsh has made every effort to move this trial forward to give justice to Anthony Brown and the Maryland voting public.  This case could have been resolved shortly after Labor Day in start of the general campaign season.  We are now entering the last month of the general election with Brown electioneering and voters unaware that this complaint will invalidate the Democratic Primary election.

An Injunction occurs in expedited cases as we see below-----a preliminary injunction states that the election cannot move forward until this case is resolved.....the defendant Anthony Brown cannot advance as 'winner' until plaintiff receives justice in this case.  As we know he is moving forward as we see campaign advertisements and electioneering engagements as media presents Brown as the challenger to the Republican Hogan and still, scheduling for the case has not happened.  This ongoing general election requires the court to set the trial date at the earliest possible----31 days.  We are now at 60 days with no response from the court.  It is clear the court should have Tracked this case as '0' and set the date 31 days from filing or soon after. This would have precluded the need for injunction against Anthony Brown regarding campaigning in this general election. It is the failure to do this that allows Anthony Brown to campaign.  The trial would have been over and resolved had the trial dates been set on an expedited schedule.  Confusing the voting public as to who the Democratic candidate in the general election does irreparable harm to Cindy Walsh as the plaintiff and candidate in this case and to the voting public wanting a choice other than Brown----80% of the registered Democratic voters.

 

The plaintiff is required to keep the court and defendants aware of all legal actions taken with the case at hand.  The plaintiff is notifying the Baltimore Circuit Court and Circuit Court Judge, The Honorable Michel Pierson that an appeal for mandamus will be made due to failure to move this case forward in the expedited manner required for election challenges in races for governor.  The plaintiff is filing today a motion for injunction against Anthony Brown to stop his electioneering against the Republican candidate Hogan until this case is resolved.  Brown should not be advertising, attending events, or engaging the media as to his campaign.  This injunction should hold until this case is resolved through appeal if necessary.  The plaintiff is also beginning her move towards Federal Court against the media and 501c3s involved in the systemic election irregularities creating the need to invalidate this Democratic Primary election.  Cindy Walsh will first file a complaint with the US Justice Department asking for investigation and relief later this week as required before moving to Federal Court.  The Federal Court case will be filed the first week of October 2014.

 

Civil Track 0 --No Discovery
TRACK 0:

District Court Appeals, Injunctions, Mechanic’s Liens, Restraining Orders, Administrative Appeals, Mandamus Cases, Declaratory Relief, Forfeiture (money or vehicles), Landlord and Tenant Jury Demands and Appeals, and Sale in Lieu of Partition (excluding divorce)










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.






Plaintiff's response to the four factors in granting an injunction

1. The likelihood of success on the merits:
   
   The complaint filed by plaintiff seeking to invalidate this Democratic Primary 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 plaintiff's communications with candidates, agencies, and organizations. The evidence is overwhelming and this case cannot be seen as lacking merit.
   
   

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 60 without a trial date the harm transfers to the plaintiff 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 plaintiff'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 plaintiff 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 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 plaintiff 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, 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.






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).



 
The plaintiff 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 plaintiff, 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/or the plaintiff can appeal with Due Process and the opportunity for justice. The plaintiff would like to see these proceedings expedited without hearings, but has asked for such hearings if the court finds a them an aid in ruling.

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 September 24, 2014, that the lawyers of the below listed persons were mailed copies of

this document, EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING SETTING TRIAL DATE AND INJUNCTION PENDING MANDAMUS APPEAL. Heather Mizeur has not responded with a lawyer and so these motions are sent directly to her.

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