Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

BRIAN CHARLES VAETH Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL of BALTIMORE CITY Defendants

-oOo-

MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY ATTORNEYS AND LAW FIRMS UNDER LOCAL RULE 705

Plaintiff requests an investigation into alleged attorney misconduct under U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Local Rule 705. Disciplinary Proceedings, and brings to the attention of a judge of this court the need for an investigation. Plaintiff's original complaint, on which this case arises, is number RDB-08-708 in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Maryland and contains a long pattern and history of numerous allegations of misconduct by numerous attorneys in the Baltimore City Solicitors Office. Plaintiff's allegations against these attorneys constitute an extensive pattern and history of known misconduct dating back to 1996 and ongoing till present. The multitude of alleged known and unknown fraudulent schemes and the active participation by these attorneys, appointed officials, union representatives, and agents in

furtherance of their scheme to defraud not only municipal employees who become disabled in their performance of their duties of their rightful disability retirement pensions, but the United States of America, only causes their scheme of fraud to be further perpetrated on the Social Security Administration, (hereinafter referred to as SSA). The United States Social Security Administration (SSA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that administers Social Security, a social insurance program consisting of retirement, disability, and survivors' benefits. To qualify for these benefits, most American workers pay Social Security taxes on their earnings and future benefits are based on the employees' contributions. Baltimores Police Officers, Firefighters, and Paramedics are not eligible to receive benefits from the SSA, due to the fact that they receive retirement benefits from the Fire and Police Employees Retirement System of Baltimore City. SSA administers the Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter referred to as SSI) program, which is needs-based, for the aged, blind, or disabled. This program was originally called by separate names, Old Age Assistance (originally Title I of the Social Security Act of 1935), and Disability Assistance (added in 1946). In 1973, these assistance programs were renamed and reassigned to SSA. SSI recipients are paid out of the general revenue of the United States of America. In addition, some states pay additional SSI funds. As of this writing, 7 million people are covered by SSI. When a municipal employee is denied of their rightful disability pension arbitrarily and capriciously by the Board of Trustees for the Fire and Police Employees Retirement System of Baltimore City, the employees only option is to apply for SSI benefits. These benefits are the responsibility of the Board of Trustees for the Fire and Police Employees Retirement System of Baltimore City and not the United States of America. Under *Local Rule 704, Disciplinary Proceedings:

1. Allegations of Misconduct a. Referral for Investigation When allegations of misconduct which, if substantiated, would warrant discipline of an attorney shall come to the attention of a Judge of this Court, the judge shall refer the matter to the Court's Disciplinary Committee.1 Additionally, under Local Rule 704. Rules of Professional Conduct, this court shall apply the Rules of Professional Conduct as they have been adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The attorneys employed by the Baltimore City Solicitors Office are licensed by the Maryland Bar and practice in both the Maryland federal courts and Maryland State Courts. These attorneys represent a cross section of the highest level federal law enforcement attorneys in the State of Maryland, the highest level State law enforcement attorneys in the State of Maryland and attorneys of the most powerful and politically connected law firms in the State of Maryland. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULE 705 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS The Federal judges and courts in the state of Maryland have distinguished themselves by actively investigating and enforcing the Maryland Rules of Professional conduct. This is evidenced in the case of convicted lobbyist, Bruce C.Bereano a politically well connected Maryland attorney who was barred from practicing law in the District of Columbia and in the federal courts but won a reprieve to practice law at the Maryland State level because of his association with a Maryland State judge.

Rule 705 (Local Rule, pg.66, 67,68 U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland)

Disciplinary Proceedings.

The primary concerns in a disciplinary proceeding are to uphold the highest standards of professional conduct and to protect the public from imposition by the unfit or unscrupulous practitioner ." Attorney Grievance Comrn'n v. Green, 278 Md. 412,414,365 A.2d 39,40(1976), quoting Maryland State bar Ass'n v. Boone,225 Md. 420,425,258 A.2d 428(1969). Deceiving a court constitutes a most serious and direct interference with the administration of justice and harms to clients, the Bar and the public. Truth and candor are essential to our system of justice and the judiciary must play a key role in deterring fraud. If deception remains unchallenged the public's perception of the legal system{ the judiciary and our profession will suffer. Only by strictly enforcing rules against deception and by taking initiative against violators will the judiciary earn the respect of the public and help improve the justice system. A court's failure to take action against deception, whether it is by failing to report the misconduct to a disciplinary agency or by failure to invoke contempt power, tacitly encourages this type of professional misbehavior. This memorandum highlights the court's responsibility to enforce all applicable disciplinary rules and presumes that the judiciary will insure that criminal prosecution for perjury, obstruction of justice and other similar violations will be pursued when a lawyer's conduct demands it.

Truth and candor are synonymous with justice, and 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 ABA 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 (DR 1-

102(A). the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3 specifically prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a court and from misleading a court by omission. Rule 3.3 also prohibits an attorney from offering evidence he knows is false.

The professional obligation to report and act upon deception is found in DR 1-103. This very fundamental ABA Code provision 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 Canon 3B(3) states that " a judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware." 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. It is clear that the judiciary must do more to curb deception. In ABA Special Committee on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement Problems and Recommendations in Disciplinary Enforcement, it is noted that lawyers and judges are reluctant to report instances of misconduct. The publication states: 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 reported in this study 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 the 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 incourt misconduct in other courts. The disciplinary authority is the only agency which can detect such a course of conduct and properly deal with it.

A portion of the evidence and documents this Court will need to initiate an investigation concerning the allegations of attorney misconduct and who would control these key pieces of documentary evidence are as follows. These documents will clearly indicate the active participation and knowledge in furtherance of the multitude of fraudulent schemes by the attorneys only to defraud plaintiff but the following victims:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The United States of America The Plaintiff The US District Court The Circuit Court for Baltimore City The members of the Fire and Police Employees Retirement System of Baltimore City The employees of the City of Baltimore The Office of the Inspector General for Baltimore City The US Social Security Administration The US Department of Justice

THESE ATTORNEYS AND FIRMS HAVE A DUTY TO COMPLY WITH ANY REQUEST THIS COURT MAKES FOR THESE DOCUMENTS UNDER THE MARYLAND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly : (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;

SAMPLE OF DOCUMENTS NEEDED BY THIS COURT TO INVESTIGATE ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT

Вам также может понравиться