Source: https://www.citizensoversightmaryland.com/argument.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:48:05+00:00

Document:
"`that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
Williams v. I.B. Fischer Nev., 999 F.2d 445, 447 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
complete censure or re-writing of Maryland Board of Election Lists of Candidates.
"In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the State may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view."
University of Maryland used polling data as the reason to exclude the entire time allowing all Republican candidates in the primary participate events while failing to meet any of these guidelines. Why are all Republican candidates in all events? To exclude damages a candidate and undermines the integrity of the race. This case addresses the right of voters to hear all platforms and know all candidates and issues in a race.
"for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view."
Perry, 460 U.S. at 46, 103 S.Ct. at 955, 74 L.Ed.2d at 805.
class of speakers for whose special benefit the forum was created ... the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject.
(quoting Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. at 3451).
"The reasonableness of the Government's restriction of access to a nonpublic forum must be assessed in the light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances."
Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806, 105 S.Ct. at 3453, 87 L.Ed.2d at 584.
but not major party primary candidates for no good reason.
The Appellant as a voter reported these irregularities in past elections. Each election it is the candidate with the platform for which Cindy Walsh wants to vote that is completely censured from these primary events just as Cindy Walsh the candidate. This selection is clearly based on platform issues and this is a violation of FCC and IRS election law.
Never mind that Brown, Gansler and Mizeur were promoted constantly and ended with 5% and 12% of registered Democratic voters. These three Democratic Primary candidates chosen as public favorites spent tens and hundreds of millions of campaign dollars and received saturated media coverage with the added benefit of gimmicky polling and Cindy Walsh was within striking distance of winner completely censured. These guidelines for exclusion are arbitrary and should never be used unless undo burden requires it.
Maryland. Since the larger election venues are being allowed to ignore election laws the smaller ones are now moving to circumvent equal opportunity participation.
This failure to enforce election laws does change the result of elections as it did in this case brought by Cindy Walsh. It is the leading factor to Maryland having voter turnouts of around 20% in all primary elections App 5, 6, 7. 501c3 organizations must give equal opportunity if they choose to participate in an election or have strong reasons for not doing so. This especially includes forums and debates.
urgent application" to speech by candidates in a political campaign.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 15 (1974) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401U.S. 265, 272 (1971)).
vital public interests before choosing among them on election day. Mr.
applies with special force to candidates for public office.
right of participation. It shocked much of the legal world.
race. Even Maryland Election laws define what a race entails.
"We cannot allow any single person or group to place themselves in [a] position where they can censor the material which shall be broadcasted to the public, nor do I believe that the Government should ever be placed in the position of censoring this material."
are protected. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).
reckless disregard" rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U. S. 254.
'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate'".
truthful matters, as a key element of public participation in a democracy.
was false or that he subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth of his statement.
see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. at 418 U. S. 342; St. Amant v.
of Torts 771-772, 821 (4th ed.1971).

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