NOTICE:
I am suspending my campaign for the United States Senate effective immediately. I will continue to expose the corruption in the City of Baltimore, however, none of the material on this website should be viewed as a solicitation for clients. I do not provide any legal services related to the information contained on this website. Thank you,
firehouse
analytics
nfp
political & economic studies
Loretta E. Lynch
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

                                                                                                                                June 22, 2016

Attorney General Lynch,                                                                                                                      

I am writing to respectfully request the assistance of the Department of Justice to commence with immediate action to address the systematic violations of federal law demonstrated by the Baltimore City Solicitor’s Office.  These allegations include, but are not limited to abuse of power, fraud, waste and obstruction of justice that collectively and individually prevents the Mayor of Baltimore and the City Council from being an effective representative of the citizens of Baltimore.  As a result, distrust and hostility often characterizes interactions between citizens and city officials that has effectively eroded the public trust.  This behavior only exacerbates tensions and has the effect of stifling community confidence, of which is absolutely vital to maintaining the public trust.

The issues listed in my complaint have been brought to the attention of law enforcement in the past.  I have reported it in court documents submitted in relation to a claim of discrimination I alleged against the City of Baltimore.  The City Solicitor is absolutely committing a fraud on the court, of which is a crime, and yet these allegations have never been investigated properly.  I have attempted to forward these charges to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, to the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and to all local and state law enforcement agencies without action being taken by any of them.  A complaint that was forwarded to the DOJ’s Division of Civil Rights was lost by them.  In a separate complaint filed with the US Attorney’s Office in Baltimore, Mr. Alan Loucks, informed me that the complaint that I presented would go into a “black box” and never be seen again.  The FBI accepted my complaint and took no action on it because I was seeking civil relief in the US District Court.  It took me 18 months and the filing of a Freedom of Information Act request with the US District Court just to obtain this determination.  The Attorney General of Maryland reported to me that they do not have the time nor the resources to investigate the allegations and the State’s Attorney flat out refuses to forward charges or even present them to a grand jury to be investigated.  I have attempted to present the allegations to the grand jury myself, as is provided for in Maryland Law, but was threatened with being arrested if I proceeded in my intent to assert my constitutional rights.

The malfeasance and outright obstruction of justice demonstrated by government officials has led me to becoming an advocate for criminal justice reform relating to corruption and to inform people of the lack of public officials to uphold their oaths of office.  In this case, it is the failure of law enforcement officials to pursue charges against violators of the law that are law enforcement officials themselves.  The pervasive and coordinated misconduct of the Baltimore City Solicitor’s Office, whether viewed in isolated parts or as a whole, clearly and convincingly reflects an effort by the City to prevent the judicial process from functioning in the usual manner.

I have more than alleged a colorable claim of fraud upon the court in the complaint.  This action began with the fateful decision by the City Solicitor’s Office to frame a legal issue to suit what they believed were the facts in the case to mislead the Court.  Thereafter, these unlawful actions only persisted and are the basis of the allegations forwarded in the accompanying complaint, the focal point of extensive perjury and violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permitted the equally fateful decision to attempt to protect their actions and cover for them, while then adding to it the egregious efforts to protect themselves from any prosecution resulting from it.

As truth and candor are synonymous with justice, honesty is an implicit characteristic of the legal profession.  Thus, although rules proscribing fraud, deceit, deception, and dishonesty are somewhat superfluous, most jurisdictions have provisions which impose obligations to be truthful and which prohibit misleading a court.  For example, Canon 1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.  These Rules specifically prohibit an attorney from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a court and from misleading a court by omission.  It also prohibits an attorney from offering evidence known to be false.

The professional obligation to report and act upon deception is a fundamental aspect of the legal profession.  The ABA Code requires a lawyer or judge having unprivileged knowledge of a violation of the ABA Code to report it to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.  Similarly, the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge “should” take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware. To be effective, the word “should” must be replaced with “shall”, as to not marginalize the intent of the Code.  The Judiciary has a clear professional responsibility to report and take action against attorneys who deceive the court.  Regrettably, current case law reflects little judicial action in this critical area however, it is clear that the judiciary must do more to curb deception.  If individual attorneys and judges shirk that responsibility, permitting wrongdoers in their midst to escape disciplinary action unless the circumstances are reported by laymen, the public may conclude that self-policing is in reality self-protection. The failure of attorneys and judges to report instances of misconduct, while undoubtedly the result of the almost universal reluctance to inform, hampers effective enforcement and does a disservice to the bench, the bar, and the public.

In the cases that have been reported, the judge usually took action against the attorney, whether by reporting the action to the attorney, or by directly imposing a sanction, or by citing for contempt. However there are cases in which the judge either took no action or merely imposed a fine or contempt citation without making a referral to the disciplinary agency. It must be emphasized that a contempt citation by a judge is not a sufficient disciplinary mechanism. It must be joined with a complaint to and an investigation by a separate body to discipline attorneys. A judge should refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary body regardless of any independent investigation and sanction imposed by a judge himself. One of the chief reasons for mandating a referral to the appropriate disciplinary authority is the fact that the offending attorney may, and probably is, engaging in the same type of misconduct in other courts. The disciplinary authority is the only agency which can detect such a course of conduct and properly deal with it.

In conclusion, Baltimore City residents are being shut out of the judicial process and complaints about abuses of power by our elected and appointed officials are not being investigated, as mandated. If any investigations occur, they are not conducted under any investigatory best practices standard that is known to City residents. When actions resulting from allegations of the like contained in the accompanying complaint are brought to light they must be investigated fully, yet citizens have been denied many requests to have their complaints investigated and have been treated in such a repugnant manner that can only be viewed as less than the deserving of the respect that is required. It is our right to forward charges of misconduct against public officials under the fundamental precepts of the rule of law that is so heavily being promoted by the current administration and must be upheld at all times. I am requesting an opportunity to present my allegations and all applicable evidence that I have in my possession to an investigator with the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, as I am also presenting this complaint with all associated Congressional representatives. The favor of your reply to the request to present the matter to a US DOJ representative, as in an expedient time as possible is appreciated.



Respectfully,





Brian Vaeth