In the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland
Brian Charles Vaeth
                        Plaintiff,

                 v.

MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
FIRE & POLICE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF BALTIMORE
                        Defendants
ELH-18-1600
UPDATE
Is this Obstruction of Justice by the Baltimore City Solicitor's Office?
I think so, but don't take my word for it. Here's the evidence.
After meeting with the Inspector General to report allegations of fraud on the court against the Balto. City Solicitor, a MD Public Information Act was filed to ascertain the IG's progress with their investigation and to request audiotape interviews conducted in association with the reporting of this criminal violation. This information had to be requested from the Custodian of Records for the IG's Office. The Custodian of Records for the IG is the Balto. City Solicitor. The request for those audiotapes was denied because the Balto. City Solicitor asserts that the OIG prepared them for possible litigation and they are protected under attorney/client privilege.
To make a long story short...
For those that don't know, let me bring you up to date. I was a firefighter for the City of Baltimore and after being seriously injured in the line-of-duty, I was medically disqualified from performing the duties of a firefighter by the City of Baltimore. In a proceeding for retirement benefits from the Fire & Police Employees Retirement System, I was denied all benefits, including healthcare, and was effectively terminated for being injured. I filed a lawsuit against the City and the retirement system. In that proceeding in the United States District Court, the Baltimore City Solicitor filed a fraudulent affidavit that was manufactured for the sole purpose of deceiving the Court and had the case dismissed. In the aftermath of that dismissal, I sought to report the misconduct. As you can see from the Court transcripts, I raised the issue on the record, however, the judge disregarded it. I reported the misconduct to the United States Attorney (Rod Rosenstein), the Baltimore City States Attorney (Bernstein & Mosby) The Baltimore City Inspector General, the Mayor of Baltimore City (Dixon, Blake, & Pugh), the Baltimore City Council, the Baltimore City Police Commissioner (Batts & Davis), the Board of Ethics, the Board of Estimates, and finally back to the Inspector General. In December of 2017 and again in March of 2018, I was interviewed by the Baltimore Inspector General, as a result of my criminal allegations being forwarded to them by Baltimore City Police Commissioner Davis and a complaint that I filed with that office. After meeting with the Inspector General to report the allegations of fraud on the court against the Balto. City Solicitor, a MD Public Information Act was filed to ascertain the IG's progress with their investigation and to request audiotape interviews conducted in association with the reporting of this criminal violation. This information had to be requested from the Custodian of Records for the IG's Office. The Custodian of Records for the IG is the Balto. City Solicitor. The request for those audiotapes was denied because the Balto. City Solicitor asserts that the OIG prepared them for possible litigation and are protected under the attorney work product doctrine.
OK, here's the problem...
The Inspector General is not the City of Baltimore's attorney. They provide oversight into the ethical behavior of City officials and as is demonstrated by the office's website: 
The OIG investigates allegations of misconduct by City of Baltimore employees and contractors, which may involve violations of criminal law, civil statutes, City of Baltimore regulations or employee standards of conduct. Reports also include findings and recommendations regarding program weaknesses, contracting irregularities and other institutional problems that are discovered as a result of the investigations initiated by the OIG. 
The City Solicitor is the Mayor & City Council's attorney, so that begs to question, how can the reporting of a crime be considered attorney work product if the crime is not reported to the City's attorney, but to the Inspector General? As the above clearly shows, the Inspector General has the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct by City of Baltimore employees and contractors, which may involve violations of criminal law, civil statutes, City of Baltimore regulations or employee standards of conduct. it appears that the authority extends to everyone in City Hall except the Baltimore City Solicitor. 

This is my complaint. I have alleged and as evidence I have made public in my lawsuits against the City of Baltimore shows, the real criminal in the City of Baltimore is the Baltimore City Solicitor. No objective can be undertaken by the City of Baltimore unless it is approved by the City Solicitor first. That means that the City attorney's office has been shown to purposely violate the US Constitution. Let me just break it down like this, if you have a complaint against the Baltimore City Solicitor and you report that to the only agency authorized to investigate it, the Baltimore Inspector General, who asserts that it is attorney work product to prevent disclosure of documents and audio recordings related to it, how is that not obstruction of justice?

Read the letter:
Click on the image below