Statement of Fact

The Appellant Cindy Walsh is self-representing in this Maryland Special
Appeals Court case as she was in the Baltimore City Circuit Court case.  The
brief of the Appellant is to be filed with the office of Clerk on or before
3/11/2015 Rule 8-502(a)(1).
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
Appellant 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 Appellees 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.






-6-
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  App 4-40
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
-7-
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:
-8-
Invalidate the 2104 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 Appllant 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.

-9-


The Appellees 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 Appellees 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 Appellant.
§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


-10-




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 and Appellee Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur:
See App 10
Cindy Walsh met all of the obligations of filing and serving of complaint counter to what both the Appellees' lawyers and the judge stated in their comments. See E. 55 - 60. While the defense lawyers and the Baltimore City Circuit Court call these claims 'scatter-shot', there are only three issues at hand-----the election laws and the failure to adhere to them/enforce them.  The Appellant's claims are concise, real, and well conceived. The Baltimore City Circuit Court cannot possibly determine whether the Appellant has the ability to prove irregularities occurred without hearing testimony at trial. The Appellant brings this case to Maryland Special Appeals Court asking that the higher court consider the questions included in this appeal.  The Appellant seeks to reverse the order of the lower court and remand this case for a trial on the merits.


Appellant brief to be filed with the Clerk on or before 3/11.2015
This appeal has been set for argument before this Court one of the following
days: September 01, 02, 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 2015

 

  -11-