Source: https://www.vaethforgov.com/complaint-before-city-council
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:26:36+00:00

Document:
This complaint represents over a decade of extraordinary efforts to hold accountable for their corrupt practices Baltimore City officials and is focused on a particular species of fraud perpetrated by those officials in an effort to prevent the judicial process from functioning in its usual manner and involved perjury or a nondisclosure so fundamental that it undermined the workings of the adversary process itself. More importantly, this complaint is about far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is about a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. The assessment of this complaint should include the conduct addressed in it that is focused on governmental actors, who are required to operate under a higher standard of care in light of the power they hold in our society. When they fail to do so, it puts everyone at risk. Here, the Baltimore City Solicitor's Office abandoned this fundamental objective and also any effort to observe the constitutional rights of the citizens of Baltimore. Instead, they went all in to win at any cost. The actions of those accused threatens not only the judicial process but also all citizens who are exposed to litigating matters before the court.
Baltimore City firefighters engage in one of the most dangerous and physically taxing professions in this nation, wherein they regularly risk serious physical injury and face life threatening situations in service to the residents who live in, and tourists who visit, the City of Baltimore. The intent is to provide the best service to the public that is possible, to advance the general health and welfare of the City while protecting the public servants who suffer serious injury in furtherance of that intent. The notion that a public servant who risks serious injury while performing their duties can be denied of disability pension benefits after suffering a disabling injury is repugnant and goes against all standards of logical reasoning. Instead, the City of Baltimore has a history of purposely and willfully denying firefighters, whose actions reflect immense credit on the Mayor, the City Council, and the Chief of Fire Department, of their rightful benefits by subjecting them to a process that determines the eligibility of those benefits that is arbitrary and capricious in and of itself.
Brian Charles Vaeth, was a Baltimore City firefighter, eminently qualified by virtue of the many times he was cited for meritorious conduct during his career until an injury caused him to be deemed "medically unable to perform his duties" and that injury occurred in the line of duty. The circumstances surrounding that injury are fully set forth herein along with the details regarding the allegations presented against the officials named in it. From the instant this case began there has been a concerted effort by officials to obfuscate the truth in the matter and forward Baltimore City's unlawful discriminatory scheme unchecked. As the allegations presented have never been fully investigated and no one has been held accountable for their violation of the law, it has empowered those officials to continue with this unlawful behavior. These allegations further victimize the citizens of Baltimore City because the conduct detailed herein has neither been assessed for the trust it naturally places in the City Solicitor, as an officer of the court, nor has anything been done to deter the behavior in the context of that which has been discovered about their actions. The circumstances presented by this complaint alleges pervasive and egregious corruption at the core of the underlying claim, the repeated suppression of key facts by medical and legal representatives for the City of Baltimore that seriously altered the ability to properly adjudicate this claim. Each of these examples has been laminated into an egregious fraud that goes well beyond what is required for the US Department Justice to exercise its inherent powers, so as to effectuate justice and preserve the public's confidence in our judicial system. The conduct constitutes a fraud which defiles the court and was perpetrated by officers of the court, so that the judicial machinery could perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.
As aforementioned, on August 2, 1996, Firefighter Vaeth was seriously injured in the Line of Duty, as a firefighter for the City of Baltimore when an alarm was sounded for multiple reports of a building fire. Truck 1, Firefighter Vaeth's assigned company was the first arriving unit on the scene and encountered heavy smoke conditions coming from a 4 story office building. The members of Truck 1 entered the building to begin providing access to the arriving engine companies, to ventilate the structure, and to search for any trapped occupants. They were met with extreme heat and very heavy smoke conditions, which lowered the interior of the structure's visibility to nothing. As the engine company was advancing their hose line up the steps to Firefighter Vaeth's location on the 4th floor, he breached the ceiling and exposed the fire. This caused the near simultaneous ignition of the exposed combustible materials in the enclosed area and the air gave it the added element that it needed to progress rapidly. The force of this occurrence threw Firefighter Vaeth over a railing and down the stairwell into the basement. He landed on his back, on top of the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and after enduring many surgeries, his lower back has essentially been rebuilt over the years. Despite the severity of the injury and due to his eagerness to return to work, he recovered and returned to perform the full scope of his duties.
In March of 1999, Firefighter Vaeth suffered a recurrence of this injury which caused the City of Baltimore's medical representative for injuries occurring to police, firefighters, and E.M.S. personnel Dr. James Levy of the Public Safety Infirmary (PSI), to deem him physically disabled from the further performance of his duties. Firefighter Vaeth was ordered to file an application for disability retirement benefits to the Fire and Police Employees Retirement System of Baltimore City (F&PERS) and an administrative hearing was conducted to determine his eligibility to receive those benefits. This hearing commenced before Mr. Frederick McGrath, with the City Solicitor representing the F&PERS and Firefighter Brian Vaeth represented by Mr. Alex Katzenberg. In his findings of fact, the hearing examiner for the F&PERS, Mr. Frederick McGrath, ruled in error. Rather than accept the decision of the hearing examiner for the Fire and Police Employees Retirement System of Baltimore City, Firefighter Vaeth filed an appeal of this arbitrary and capricious ruling with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Before the matter could be heard by the court, Acting Chief Carl E. MacDonald reinstated him to his duties. Firefighter Vaeth was re-examined by PSI physicians to determine his ability to perform his duties, as a firefighter for the City of Baltimore and returned to his the full performance of his duties.
In 2002, Firefighter Vaeth suffered another recurrence of this injury and was again deemed to be disabled from the performance of his duties by the medical director of PSI, Dr. James Levy. Firefighter Vaeth was informed that PSI was determining this as a Non Line of Duty injury and he disputed this adverse employment action with his recognized bargaining unit, International Association of Firefighters Local Union 734 by requesting that the liaison between Local 734 and PSI, Mr. Jerome Robusto file a grievance in the manner prescribed in the labor contract, the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Baltimore and Local 734 that was in force at the time. Firefighter Vaeth was again ordered to file an application for disability retirement benefits with the F&PERS by Chief of Fire Department William Goodwin. A hearing for those benefits commenced before Mr. Frederick McGrath again, with the City Solicitor representing the F&PERS and Firefighter Vaeth representing himself. Firefighter Vaeth was denied disability retirement benefits by Mr. Frederick McGrath again. An appeal was filed to address this second arbitrary and capricious decision by Mr. Frederick McGrath, however, while the appeal was pending Firefighter Vaeth required an additional surgery in relation to this injury and the appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution while he was recovering from the surgery. Firefighter Vaeth filed a civil lawsuit to correct the errors in this case upon attempting to exhaust all administrative remedies and by filing a complaint with the EEOC. It is alleged that the City Solicitor, George Nilson along with Assistant City Solicitor Sabrina Willis and Assistant Chief Rod Devilbiss, Jr. conspired to commit fraud upon the court in order to obstruct justice by having a fraudulent affidavit introduced into the record in an effort to unlawfully restrict Firefighter Vaeth's ability to present his claim to the court.
Upon the filing of the complaint and subsequent pleadings, as a result of the City's Motion to Dismiss, Firefighter Vaeth filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. As Firefighter Vaeth attempted to obtain the evidence required to overcome the motion, the City Solicitor responded to his request for discovery of the evidence required that was in their control by telling him that he would have to file an action under the Freedom of Information Act to get it. This request was forwarded to the City Solicitor in an effort to obtain the evidence needed to overcome the City's fabricated evidence and fraudulent assertions. By blocking Firefighter Vaeth's attempt to obtain the evidence that was needed and was contained in his employment file that the City had in their possession, the City Solicitor was able to commit the fraud by fabricating the evidence they needed necessary to prevent Firefighter Vaeth from fully participating in the proceeding.
Much of the Court's opinion focused on findings that the underlying reason Firefighter Vaeth could not proceed was because the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested because he could not prove that he exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a dispute with the City over the adverse employment action in a timely manner. This assertion, supported by the fraudulent affidavit submitted by Assistant City Solicitor Sabrina Willis, completed by Assistant Chief Devilbiss, Jr., was fraudulent and, more importantly, was accommodated by the willingness of Baltimore City Solicitor George Nilson to allow that fraud to thoroughly invade and support their effort to prevail against Firefighter Vaeth.
Mrs. Sharon Garcia, Claims Administrator for the F&PERS, had the responsibility of assembling the medical record on behalf of the City of Baltimore and submitting it to the hearing examiner for the F&PERS. The record shows that not only was irrelevant material introduced into the record, which can only be viewed as an attempt to convolute the record and cause confusion, relevant medical information was willfully withheld from inclusion by Mrs. Garcia. This information was vital to Firefighter Vaeth being able to prevail at the hearing before the F&PERS, and ultimately to overcome the City Solicitor's Motion to Dismiss in this matter before the Court. This information was excluded because Mrs. Garcia either did not know where to locate it, or she withheld it purposely. A report by the Baltimore Sun demonstrated that during the time relevant in this complaint, the Mayor of Baltimore City Martin O'Malley's Chief of Staff, Michael Enright visited the office that handled the files relating to work related injuries of City employees approximately 6 months after he took office. Upon his arrival, he found the office virtually empty and employee files piled up on desks, defying any system of organized filing methods and former Mayor Kurt Schmoke's picture still on the wall. The information required for Mr. Frederick McGrath to make the proper determination in Firefighter Vaeth's case was in this office but was knowingly withheld by the City Solicitor. Firefighter Vaeth attempted to obtain this information from the City Solicitor but he was informed that he would need to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the court. Firefighter Vaeth filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from the City Solicitor but the fraudulent and perjuriously fabricated affidavit submitted by the City Solicitor and by Assistant Chief Devilbiss, Jr. prevented that.
Under provisions prescribed by the Baltimore City Code, Firefighter Vaeth was to file a dispute with the adverse employment action within 5 days of the date of that decision. Firefighter Vaeth absolutely complied with this requirement, as he contacted his Union representative, Mr. Jerome Robusto to grieve the matter. Firefighter Vaeth was hospitalized during the relevant time herein, in order to facilitate having surgery for the injury. Firefighter Vaeth was unsuccessful in the grievance and it was his intent to subpoena Mr. Robusto upon receiving permission from the Court to serve upon him a set of interrogatories and through testimony obtained during a deposition, if necessary, that would have sufficiently demonstrated that the affidavit was fraudulent. Upon contacting officials from IAFF Local 734 to obtain an affidavit attesting to the dispute being filed by Mr. Robusto, Firefighter Vaeth was informed that they would only respond upon receiving an order of the Court. Despite having knowledge of this dispute being filed, the City Solicitors Office willfully and knowingly filed the fraudulent and perjuriously fabricated affidavit which successfully prevented this.
At the outset of the hearing before Mr. Frederick McGrath, hearing examiner for the F&PERS, he asked Firefighter Vaeth, "What makes you think you can re-file an application for Line of Duty disability benefits after I already denied them to you?" This demonstrates extreme bias and prejudice that should never be exhibited by a trier of the facts. As the Court has found, Mr. McGrath is not considered to be a judge and as such, there are no standards of professional conduct in which he is held to.
In an email Firefighter Vaeth received from Baltimore City Fire Chief William Goodwin, he details the fact that he was told to find a way to fire Firefighter Vaeth during his retraining at the Baltimore City Fire Academy upon his reinstatement, as a result of the appeal he filed related to the errors the hearing examiner made in the first hearing for disability retirement benefits. This email is included herein, as evidence of the City of Baltimore's efforts to retaliate against Firefighter Vaeth for prevailing in his appeal of that decision.
The complaint more than alleges a colorable claim of fraud upon the court. This action began with a fateful decision by the City Solicitor to frame the issue to suit what they believed were the facts in the case by assembling an incomplete medical record of the relevant injury in question using inaccurate and incomplete statements to mislead the Court, submitting fabricated and fraudulent evidence, and failing to correct the false impression created by their expert's medical opinion based upon the incomplete medical record which was submitted by the City, all being sufficient to show a scheme to defraud the Court. Thereafter, these acts of corruption only grew and is the basis of the allegations forwarded in this 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 counsel from any prosecution resulting from it.
A government attorney is "the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty . . . [whose] interest in a . . . prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) (emphasis added); see also Prof. Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference, 44 A.B.A.J. 1159, 1218 (1958) (a government lawyer possesses "governmental powers that are pledged to the accomplishment of one objective only, that of impartial justice." As such, an attorney representing the United States government is â€œheld to a higher standard of behavior. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1985) (Brennan, J., concurring). The standard applies with equal force to both criminal and civil cases. See Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 47 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see also A.B.A. Code of Prof.Responsibility 7-14; Model Code of Prof. Responsibility EC 7-14 (1981) ("A government lawyer in a civil action has the "responsibility to seek justice." This higher standard requires that a government attorney refrain from using "his position or the economic power of the government to harass parties or to bring about unjust settlements or results."A.B.A. Code of Prof. Responsibility 7-14. A government lawyer should similarly "refrain from instituting or continuing [civil] litigation that is obviously unfair." Model Code of Prof. Responsibility EC 7-14 (1981).
Critically important to this case is the obligation of a lawyer representing the government "to see that all evidence relevant to the case is presented, even if unfavorable to its position." United States v. Chu, 5 F.3d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). "A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence." While the government's disclosure obligation encompasses more than just exculpatory evidence, the failure to produce evidence "material either to guilt or punishment" gives rise to constitutional violations. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1947). Thus, an attorney who withholds such evidence not only violates his disclosure obligations, but also the due process clause. Id. Although the Supreme Court has not yet explicitly stated that Brady applies in civil cases, numerous federal courts have opined that the policy justifications underlying Brady apply in civil settings as well. For example, in EEOC v. Los Alamos Constructors, Inc., the court ordered the government to disclose a list of witnesses and stated that a defendant in a civil case brought by the government should be afforded no less due process of law than a defendant in a criminal case. 382 F. Supp. 1373, 1383 (D.N.M. 1974) (citing Berger, 295 U.S. at 88). Similarly, the court in Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. FTC stated that the due process requirements that inhere in a criminal case, requiring the prosecution to "disclose evidence in its possession which may be helpful to the accused, should also apply in civil actions brought by the government, as [i]n civil actions, also, the ultimate objective is not that the Government "shall win a case, but that justice shall be done."256 F. Supp. 136, 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
It is as if these rules did not exist in this case and to the contrary, it has been demonstrated that the City Solicitor's Office does not recognize the "Rule of Law."
In the context of the broad tapestry of misconduct presented by this action, there was perhaps nothing as primary and significant as the manner in which the City Solicitors office perpetrated their fraud, as they provided false and misleading testimony on the most fundamental aspect of their investigations, in an effort to obstruct justice. Upon receiving notice of their errors, the City Solicitor's Office did nothing to correct the record afterward, as was their responsibility, but only advanced their fraud using those investigatory agencies responsible for reviewing this matter. This permitted the City Solicitor to advance their fraud into the realm of the civil justice system through the utilization of the fraudulent affidavit and perjured testimony. The pervasive and coordinated misconduct of the Baltimore City Solicitor's Office and the F&PERS, whether viewed in isolated parts or as a whole, clearly and convincingly reflects an effort by the Baltimore City Solicitor's Office to prevent the judicial process from functioning in the usual manner.
The Baltimore City Solicitor's Office and the F&PERS obfuscated the truth at every turn, a process which began in March of 1999, continued with the submission of an incomplete medical record and their drafting of a false affidavit, which is ongoing at this time. Ultimately, the Baltimore City Solicitor joined in the process by concealing key documents, falsifying responses to motions and requests for admissions, and by allowing witnesses to lie under oath. Whether analyzed independently or collectively, these acts establish a fraud upon this Court. As has been stated by the court, "corrupt intent knows no stylistic boundaries." But the fraud upon the Court on this key issue did not stop there. The City Solicitor also advanced their fraud into the judicial proceedings by submitting a false and misleading declaration from Assistant Chief Devilbiss, Jr. in summary judgment practice and also by attaching the false affidavit to that declaration.
Regardless, the profound misconduct of the City Solicitor's Office and the F&PERS has caused grave injury to our system of justice. Such misconduct, if not addressed by law enforcement, will only create an intolerable sense of invulnerability in those responsible and likely to perpetuate and accelerate additional frauds, doing further damage to our entire judicial system. The United States Department of Justice has the power to act when our legal process is so thoroughly corrupted, and it is difficult to imagine a case more deserving in which to exercise the full measure of that authority.
Firefighters, along with other first responders, put their lives on the line to protect the citizens of Baltimore City every day. Timely and responsibly meeting the medical and basic living expenses of firefighters who are determined to be disabled, as a result of being injured in the Line of Duty, is not just a legal obligation but a moral one. An injury such as the one that Firefighter Vaeth suffered, and many others who served in the fire and police departments, which is fully detailed in the pleadings presented to the United States District Court in this matter, should not result in medical conditions worsened by delay and denial of necessary benefits, nor should it leave the firefighter, paramedic, police officer, or their family financially destitute and emotionally battered. Those entrusted with maintaining the medical files related to injuries suffered in the performance of a firefighter's duties have a clear responsibility to do so, as provided for in the Baltimore City Code. In no way should the failure of officials within the City of Baltimore to properly maintain and submit the complete medical files of injured members create obstacles bound to worsen the physical and financial conditions of members of the department who have suffered debilitating injuries. Instead of carrying out these duties consistent with their legal and moral obligations, the City of Baltimore routinely and improperly chooses to forward legally inconsistent arguments, withhold relevant evidence that they have in their possession, and fabricate evidence that they don't have to unlawfully obtain a ruling that is favorable to them, all in an effort to wrongfully deny what is ultimately the City of Baltimore's obligation to the members of the Fire & Police Employees Retirement System and permit their pattern and practice of discrimination to continue at their will.
After being injured on the job, members of the fire and police departments have been met with abuse and have been made subject to the prejudicial opinions of medical staff at PSI, just to meet the program goals for which PSI was actively bidding on. These allegations, as reported by the media which supports that these allegations are not just baseless, have merit that must be investigated by someone, at some point. If not, there is a lot of context that can be scrubbed from both Maryland Law and the Baltimore City Code regarding them. If no investigation is ever conducted, as is prescribed by law, then it demonstrates that justice is only available for a chosen few and is only available to continue the false impression that justice really exists.
In every instance complained of in the lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, the Baltimore City Solicitor knowingly forwarded the ongoing scheme by the City of Baltimore to refuse to pay retirement benefits to disabled members who suffer severe injuries on the job, all in bad faith. Benefits were denied without reasonable investigations and without forming a good faith belief that the standards for compensable disability had not been met when evidence of the entitlement to benefits had been provided by me and other members of the fire and police departments for Baltimore City.
The City of Baltimore acted with knowledge that the methods they were using to investigate claims caused them to ignore evidence of compensability and produce false evidence demonstrating that I, and others similarly situated, were not entitled to compensation. They also acted in bad faith by ignoring that the methods they used to investigate claims and conduct hearings to decide compensability did not accurately reflect the ethical standards for doing so by producing false evidence and the City Solicitor's opinion, offered as testimony on the record before the Panel of Hearing Examiners and eventually the Court. As officers of the court, attorneys are afforded a bit more trust in matters before the courts because the attorneys are the ones responsible for seeking justice and finding the truth is the fundamental purpose of justice itself. Without truth, there can be absolutely no justice. When there is no truth, fair and equal no longer becomes part of that equation either. When rulings are issued on cases wherein counsel for the defense has possession of all of the evidence and they disclose just what they want to and not what is relevant, and are willing to fabricate what evidence they don't have just to obtain a ruling that is favorable to them, what is left is a version of justice that rewards unethical behavior and only empowers them to carry on the continuing pattern and practice of prejudicial and discriminatory violations of the law that are apparent in this case, and the cases of many other members of the Baltimore City Police and Fire Departments similarly situated.
Exhibit 1: Record before the Panel of Hearing Examiners, F&PERS.
Exhibit 5: Affidavit submitted by Assistant Chief Rod Devilbiss, Jr.
Exhibit 6: Letter of Abraham Schwartz, Counsel for F&PERS.
Dated this 9th of August, 2016.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.