How does one SUE the State of Maryland?

[paradocs]

What is the name of your state?I have made an apparent enemy in the form of a disingenous Police Chief who currently serves as head of the Maryland Transportation Authority. I had the audacity to write him and challenge him about the way his police officers conduct traffic stops along I-95 just outside of Baltimore while perilously endangering themselves and passing motorists. And after one of his cops was killed last year in an unfortunate traffic accident, I challenged the fakeness of the Police Chief's tears as reported by the local newspaper from behind an email address which was the only identifying info I revealed to the Chief.

He subsequently charged one of his underlings (who promptly contacted AOL) with ascertaining the identity associated with my email address. The Police Chief then sent that underling to my employer (which was out of their jurisdiction) where he proceeded to utter disparaging comments about me in a blatant attempt to make me look like an unreasonable partisan in the eyes of my employer. My employer bought the cop's story "hook, line and sinker!" They recently gave me my first performance evaluation ever and included in it was mention of the supposedly "inflammatory" email I sent to the Police Chief. The way I see it, I have an undeniable right to petition and challenge government/public officials. These unscrupulous cops set out to intentionally and deliberately soil my good name and reputation!

In a 1964 landmark decision, the US Supreme Court pointed to "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In Duran v. City of Douglas, AZ, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) 904 F.2d 1372, it was noted that “no less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity.” In Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S. Ct. at 2509, it was noted “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”

I feel strongly that this Police Chief sought retribution and retaliated against me both professionally and personally by reporting me to my employer because I had unpleasant things to say! Considering my employer's evaluation of me, this Police Chief achieved his goal! Now I want to sue the offending culprits and teach them a thing or two about previous legal precedent(s)!

It is my understanding that I have only 6 months (from the time of the workplace visit by the underling) to file a lawsuit against the state of Maryland... is this true? I also understand that I must give notice to the state of Maryland... how does one give notice that a lawsuit is going to be filed? Furthermore, apparently I can only sue for $100K... my good name and professional reputation are worth more than that! Can I sue the Police Chief personally? Can I sue his cohort underling? Can I sue the Maryland Transporation Authority? Can I sue the Governor? Is there some attorney out there who would be willing to help me out?

[Wayst Past]

You may if you want to, sue under many titles such as for Defamation of Character, Terrorism, Tyranny, Usupation

Criminal charges against the state? only conspiracy comes to mind.
It is possible Tort law may also be used to compensate for injuries to a number of other individual interests that are not recognized in property or contract law, and are intangible. This includes an interest in freedom from emotional distress, privacy interests, and reputation. These are protected by a number of torts such as infliction, privacy torts, and defamation. Defamation and privacy torts may, for example, allow a celebrity to sue a newspaper for publishing an untrue and harmful statement about him. Other protected interests include freedom of movement, protected by the intentional tort of false imprisonment.

The boundary between an error in judgement and the usurpation oj judicial power is this:
The former is reversible by an appellate court and is, therfore, only void-able, which the
latter is a nullity. State v. Mandehr, 209 N.W. 750, 752 (Minn.1926)

[Zigner]

You must sue under defamation of character,

Tort law may also be used to compensate for injuries to a number of other individual interests that are not recognized in property or contract law, and are intangible. This includes an interest in freedom from emotional distress, privacy interests, and reputation. These are protected by a number of torts such as infliction, privacy torts, and defamation. Defamation and privacy torts may, for example, allow a celebrity to sue a newspaper for publishing an untrue and harmful statement about him. Other protected interests include freedom of movement, protected by the intentional tort of false imprisonment.

I love suing government employees and I currently practice Law in CA but Maryland's court proceedings differ from CA's. You'd need to find a lawyer as crazy as me, but in your own state. Enough money would find one.

...Or you may subpoena the Police Chief to the Federal Court system yourself. Sue Pro se, That is what I would do.

First - this thread is 4+ years old. I'm sure the "problem" is resolved.

Second - truth is an absolute defense to the defamation action you are suggesting. Our OP says he DID send the email - why would you even suggest that defamation would apply?

[TheGeekess]

You must sue under defamation of character,

Tort law may also be used to compensate for injuries to a number of other individual interests that are not recognized in property or contract law, and are intangible. This includes an interest in freedom from emotional distress, privacy interests, and reputation. These are protected by a number of torts such as infliction, privacy torts, and defamation. Defamation and privacy torts may, for example, allow a celebrity to sue a newspaper for publishing an untrue and harmful statement about him. Other protected interests include freedom of movement, protected by the intentional tort of false imprisonment.

I love suing government employees and I currently practice Law in CA but Maryland's court proceedings differ from CA's. You'd need to find a lawyer as crazy as me, but in your own state. Enough money would find one.

...Or you may subpoena the Police Chief to the Federal Court system yourself. Sue Pro se, That is what I would do.

Care to back up such claim with the admin?

[quincy]

To continue with Zig's post -

Third - Even if there HAD been a defamation action possible in 2005 (and based on the post there wasn't), the statute of limitations for filing such a suit in Maryland is one year.

Wayst seems to be a few years too late with his advice (which, considering the advice, is probably a good thing for paradocs ).

[Wayst Past]

I know my post was years off. I meant it as a hopeful booster for the spirits of anyone going up against the government/officials.
Sadly you all seem so skeptical...

And yes it is possible to fight an entire state, anything is possible.
You must start with two separate writs, one of prohibition, one of mandamus.
One prohibiting the state supreme court to sit at its own hearing therefore challenging the jurisdiction of itself, and one of mandamus requiring action by the state supreme court to call upon the United States Supreme court to mediate its case. Not to mention you must subpoena public officials themselves and of course you must have plenty of FACTUAL proof.


TheGeekess
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekess

Care to back up such claim with the admin?

retort: care to share your own opinion?

[quincy]

Wayst, the Geekess was asking you to back up the claim you made in your original post that you are an attorney "practicing law in CA." Claiming you are an attorney when you are not - when you have no legal background at all, let alone a license to practice law - makes you subject to banning from the site (read the Terms of Service).

I see that you have now removed that erroneous claim from your original post - a wise move.

In addition, you have altered your original post substantially (the original is preserved in both Zigner's and The Geekess' posts). It has not been altered enough, however, to make your advice any more worth following than it was before. There was no defamation action available for paradocs, for instance, even if your post had not been several years too late to do paradocs any good.

No one has to "back up" opinions - but when you are giving LEGAL advice, it has to be ACCURATE legal advice based on the law. Giving a "hopeful booster" to someone when there is no legal support for this booster is not only not helpful, it is harmful.

Your crusade to sue the government is better left to a blog than to a legal advice site.

[Wayst Past]

Though I may have posted too quickly the first time I stand by the fact that the state is not impervious.

And who put me on a crusade to sue the state? You did with your assumptions. And though may understand them, they remain the latter.

Ive been involved in 3 actual cases as a legal proctor, for friends of mine wishing to defend themselves. Not surprisingly with 100% success
I never said I was an Attorney? Anyone and their grandmother can "practice law"

[quincy]

To quote your original post, Wayst:

"I love suing government employees..."
"I currently practice Law in CA... "
"You'd need to find a lawyer as crazy as me..."

I don't make "assumptions," Wayst. I read what is written. And, no, not "everyone and their grandmother can 'practice law'." For that you need a license.

[Wayst Past]

OMG Quincy you are right! You've proven it and I feel terrible!
And I'm sure you'll have another retort for this reply as well, so continue...

[quincy]

Why would I want to retort? You said I was right and you feel terrible. My job here is done.

[Wayst Past]

How about you post your address so I can send a formal apology?

[JakeB]

I never said I was an Attorney? Anyone and their grandmother can "practice law"

California Business and Professions Code

§6125. Necessity of Active Membership in State Bar

No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar. (Origin: State Bar Act, §47. Amended by Stats. 1990, ch. 1639.)

[Wayst Past]

Do any of theses purported laws have Enacting Clauses showing their authority?

California Business and Professions Code

§6125. Necessity of Active Membership in State Bar

No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar. (Origin: State Bar Act, §47. Amended by Stats. 1990, ch. 1639.)



The almost unbroken custom of centuries has been to preface laws with a statement in some form declaring the enacting authority. The purpose of an enacting clause of a statute is to identify it as an act of legislation by expressing on its face the authority behind the act. 73 Am. Jur.2d, "Statutes,"~ 93, p. 319, 320; Preckel v. Byne, 243 N.W. 823, 826, 62 N.D. 356 (1932)

The enacting clause is that portion of a statute, which gives it jurisdictional identity and constitutional authenticity. Joiner v. State, 155 S.E.2d 8, 10 (Ga. 1967)

The "laws" in the CALIFORNIA statutes do not show on their face the authority by which they were adopted and promulgated. There is nothing on their face which declares they should be law, or that they are of the proper legislative authority in this State.

Open Deering's first Penal code book you'll find a copyright in the inside cover. You cannot copyright a public law! This makes it a private law! The Session laws of California remain without privatization.

[CdwJava]

Thus, you are not an attorney.

You do not have to agree with the law, but there it is. You cannot practice law in the state of CA as an attorney. You can certainly act pro se on your OWN actions, but you cannot legally represent another.

- Carl