Gibson V Maryland CorrectedBrief As Filed 8-3-2023

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1369 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 50
NO. 23-1369
In The
United States Court Of Appeals

For The Fourth Circuit
LOIS ANN GIBSON; MARYLAND 20-20 WATCH, FREDERICK, MARYLAND;
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23,
AND/OR PUTATIVE CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED V OTERS OF MARYLAND
AND/OR ELSEWHERE I N THE UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA; ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SI TUATED INJURED PERSONS, I N WHATEVER STATE O R COUNTY THEY
RESI DE, DEPRIVED OF THEI R CO NSTI TUTIONALLY GUARANTEED, FREEDO M,
LIBERTY, EXPRESSION AND RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE VOTE BY THE ACTS O R
ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS H EREI N,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND and Several Agencies of the Stat e, Including at least t he State
and County Boards of Elections in the Specific Counties Listed herein; A STATE AND
NATIONAL RICO ENTERPRISE, I N PART LOCATED I N MARYLAND, AND/OR DOING
BUSI NESS AS PART OF THE COMMERCE IN MARYLAND WITH COUNTI ES, I .E.,
FREDERICK, HOWARD COUNTY, CARROLL CO UNTIES, MARYLAND AND
18 ADDI TIONAL COUNTIES OR VOTING JURISDI CTIONS; CENTER FOR TECH AND
CIVIC LI FE ( CTCL), A Chicago IRS Code 501 (c) (3) Corporation; PRESENTLY
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS; TH E STATE OF MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE STATE
PROSECUTOR;KENT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; CALVERT COUNTY;
WASHINGTON COUNTY; HOWARD CO UNTY, MARYLAND; CARRO LL COUNTY,
MARYLAND; ANNE ARUNDEL CO UNTY; HARFORD COUNTY;
MONTGOMERY CO UNTY; PRI NCE GEORGE'S COUNTY,
Defendants – Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND AT BALTIMORE
______________
CORRECTED BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

______________
Walter T. Charlton
WALTER T. CHARLTON &
ASSOCIATES
P. O. Box 370
Woodsboro, MD 21798
(410) 571-8764
charltonwt@comcast.net
Counsel for Appellants

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1369 Doc: 47
15 Filed: 08/03/2023
05/02/2023 Pg: 2
1 of 50
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
• In civil, agency, bankruptcy, and mandamus cases, a disclosure statement must be filed by all
parties, with the following exceptions: (1) the United States is not required to file a disclosure
statement; (2) an indigent party is not required to file a disclosure statement; and (3) a state
or local government is not required to file a disclosure statement in pro se cases. (All parties
to the action in the district court are considered parties to a mandamus case.)
• In criminal and post-conviction cases, a corporate defendant must file a disclosure statement.
• In criminal cases, the United States must file a disclosure statement if there was an
organizational victim of the alleged criminal activity. (See question 7.)
• Any corporate amicus curiae must file a disclosure statement.
• Counsel has a continuing duty to update the disclosure statement.
23-1369
No. __________ Caption: __________________________________________________
Gibson et al v. Maryland et al & Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL)
Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1,
______________________________________________________________________________
Lois Ann Gibson, and Lewis T. Porter-Chairman 20-20 Watch and Amicus, a IRS Code Section 501 (c)(3)
(name of party/amicus)
______________________________________________________________________________
Maryland Corporation, Charlton Scientific Educational and Engineering Foundation, Inc (CSEAEF)
who is _______________________,
Amicus Curiae makes the following disclosure:
(appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor)
1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES ✔ NO
2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations? YES ✔ NO

If yes, identify all parent corporations, including all generations of parent corporations:
3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or

other publicly held entity? YES ✔ NO
If yes, identify all such owners:
12/01/2019 SCC -1-

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1369 Doc: 47
15 Filed: 08/03/2023
05/02/2023 Pg: 3
2 of 50
2
4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct
financial interest in the outcome of the litigation? YES ✔ NO
If yes, identify entity and nature of interest:
5. Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question) YES ✔ NO
If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected
substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is
pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member:
6. Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding? YES ✔ NO

If yes, the debtor, the trustee, or the appellant (if neither the debtor nor the trustee is a
party) must list (1) the members of any creditors’ committee, (2) each debtor (if not in the
caption), and (3) if a debtor is a corporation, the parent corporation and any publicly held
corporation that owns 10% or more of the stock of the debtor.
7. Is this a criminal case in which there was an organizational victim? YES ✔ NO

If yes, the United States, absent good cause shown, must list (1) each organizational
victim of the criminal activity and (2) if an organizational victim is a corporation, the
parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of the stock
of victim, to the extent that information can be obtained through due diligence.
In light of the known nationwide scope of unlawful criminal RICO acts in this case, undoubtedly
there is such an organization, although presently unknown. For Example: The Maryland State
Prosecutor's Office is a creature of the Maryland Constitution. That organization rightfully should
be a PLAINTIFF in this case, but because of the magnitude of the actual known and provable
corruption of its Constitutional duties is a named Defendant herein.
Walter T. Charlton e-SIGNATURE

Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ___________________
April 20, 2023
All Plaintiffs to date.

Counsel for: __________________________________
-2- Print to PDF for Filing

Table of Contents
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Here Jurisdiction is Inextricably Intertwined with the Merits. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.. . . . . . . . . 4
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Rule 28 (a)(4) (B(C)and (D) Timing Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Statement of Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Irregularities in the Voting Process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
History of the dismissal of this Alleged RICO Case by

the United States District Court:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Engineering Analysis of Laundered Money with

Camouflaged and/or False Names.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Standing to Sue Under F. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Comments upon Links to These Complex Jurisdictional

and Standing to Sue Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
STANDARD OF REVIEW- THE SEVERAL STANDARDS

APPLICABLE HERE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
-ii-
IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Summary of Table 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
V. ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
VI. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
VII. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
-iii-
Table of Authorities
Cases
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 25, 29
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond and Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 28
Hoffman v. Zenith Ins. Co., 487 F. App. 365 (2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 26
In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 (1888). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Paolino v. Glunt, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-5436 E.D. Pa. (2013). . . . . . . . . . . 2, 28
Sosa v. DIRECT TV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 941 9th Cir. (2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 26
Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 729 N.W.2d 335 (2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 28
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 96, RICO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,11,25
Rules
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fed. R. App. P. 28(B)(C).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fed. R. App. P. 28(D). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,17,35
Fed. R. Crim. P. 1962. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fed. R. Crim. P. 1964. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
-iv-
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This case began as a RICO case, alleging money-laundering with the
objective of the existing RICO Enterprise being to use the money laundered to
change election results. About 9 different methodologies of fraud, including
violation of money transfers limits which violated both banking and voting
fairness controls, machine manipulation, altered ballots, forgery of vote
documents, and machines with online connectivity were financed by the RICO
Enterprise.
There can be no doubt that these plaintiffs have both alleged and
proven the existence of money-laundering. Alleged and detailed in newly
discovered evidence are the methodologies used to effectuate the money-
laundering and thereby accomplish financing of the various means which created
the actual election results.
These plaintiffs alleged actual injuries to their person and property,
which vary depending on the personal status of each plaintiff. Those same acts,
which caused damages to each of the plaintiffs, also corrupted the election
process, which was the main objective and the reason for existence of the RICO
Enterprise.
1
Therefore, as a matter of fact to be proven either in an accelerated
hearing for a preliminary injunction, or in an accelerated jury trial, which was
demanded as a part of the merits of the case, the standing to sue of each
plaintiff/appellant is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the case. The
damages question as to each plaintiff appellant bringing this lawsuit is also
inextricably intertwined into the merits of this case.
Under 18.U.S. C. § 1964 (c), RICO plaintiffs have the right to sue in
Federal Court by demonstrating “that the defendants’ alleged misconduct proximately
caused the plaintiffs’ injury” (Hoffman v. Zenith Ins. Co., 487 F. App. 365 (2012),
citing Sosa v. DIRECT TV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir. 2006)). Also, as a matter
of geographic jurisdiction, although the original complaint in this case recognized that
money flowed across state boundaries, the actual workings of the lifeblood of the
RICO enterprise were vague and amorphous at the time this case was filed.
Additionally, according to precedent set in In re Coy, 8 S. Ct. 1263
(1888), if a state or federal government fails to perform their affirmative duty to
enforce a law, whether intentionally or negligently, it is a violation of criminal law
or civil law (Paolino v. Glunt, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-5436 E.D. Pa. (2013),
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 9th Cir. (2012), and Sazama v. State ex rel.
Muilenberg, 729 N.W.2d 335 (2007)).
2
The only remaining issue as to jurisdiction centers around whether
these violations actually occurred. This is an issue inextricably intertwined with
the allegations of malfunction in the voting system in 9 different areas and
manipulation of voter data.
Here Jurisdiction is Inextricably Intertwined with the Merits1
If the merits are so intertwined with the jurisdiction issue that the two
cannot be separated, the ultimate resolution of the Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction may need to await trial. In such instances, several courts apply
summary judgment principles, inquiring whether a genuine dispute exists over
material jurisdiction facts; if so, the lawsuit must proceed to trial for the fact
finder’s determination of those facts. Other courts differ in their approach1
The principle of law involved in the Coy case presumes that the
state or federal authorities have the power to secure the governance rights of the
various components that make a society function. One of these rights is voters’
rights to choose their leaders, so that the Coy principle does not specifically
allow these plaintiffs to enforce a correct tabulation of votes or proper
1
The Jurisdictional aspects of this case are in fact inextricably intertwined
with the merits. This section is largely extracted from Baicker-McKee Janssen
Federal Civil Rules Handbook 2023, Page 459.
3
maintenance of documents and systems by which a viable voting process
functions.
In this case, however, it is demonstrated that the Maryland authorities
are indeed part of the problem, and alleged to be participants in the RICO scheme
and indeed the Enterprise itself, and therefore where the constituted authorities
have failed, as here, the plaintiffs via the RICO entry point have stepped into the
breach. In other words, there is no one else to do this job, as the Department of
Justice, and FBI have been demonstrated to be complicit in the failures to enforce
the law, at least this aspect of the Election laws.
It should therefore be obvious that the Summary of Argument in this
case is a direct corollary to this Jurisdictional Statement.
II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether the State of Maryland and All of the Agencies Therein
Have the Affirmative Duty to Conform to the Mandatory Provisions of the Entire
Election Law, Including Accuracy of Voters' Names, Addresses, and Eligibility
Requirements, and Also Including Election-related Financial Controls, While
Simultaneously Maintaining the Integrity of Not Just the Election Process but
Nationwide and Statewide Financial Controls over Unlawful Transfer of Monies.
For Example, in the Event That Controls over Unlawful Contributions from
4
Foreign Entities, Unions, Corporations, or Amounts in Excess of Monetary
Limitations in Support of Candidates Are Evaded, Whether the State or Federal
Authorities Have the Authority to Enforce Both Criminal and Civil Violations?
2. Whether, as a Factual Matter, Massive Money-laundering
Occurred, Resulting in Violation of Civil RICO Laws, and a Creation of a Rico
Enterprise, and with the Principal Objective of, (A) a Criminal Violation of the
Voting Mechanism for Maryland, and All 50 States, and (B) Damage and Injury to
All Plaintiffs.
3. Whether, Where the Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated the Existence of
a RICO Enterprise, Which Not Only Contains a Statutorily Defined Unlawful
Activity, but in Addition, That Activity Is Alleged to Be Unlawful Election
Conspiracies. The Judicial System must Have the Power to Correct Itself by
Stamping Our All Manipulation and Cheating of the System Itself and All
Components of That System, Not Just Part of Them. Plaintiffs, by Their Very
Presence in That System For One Issue Should Have Standing to Demand the
Court’s Full Equitable Corrective Action for All Inextricably intertwined issues
(Particularly as Now When there Is No one Else to Accomplish Those
Corrections). Therefore Plaintiffs Should Be Deemed to Have Jurisdiction for All
Purposes to Order Corrective Actions of Any and All Types.
5
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiffs/Appellants filed this case on July 4, 2022 (JA18) and
amended it several weeks later (JA136). This was a RICO Enterprise, alleging
damages to plaintiffs in their constitutional voting rights and property. Although
plaintiffs initially requested injunctive relief for protection against destruction of
evidence and other election malfunctions, including unlawful monetary
transactions, they had no initial direct evidence of statutory unlawful RICO acts.
Nevertheless, the alleged damages involved monetary transfers from grantors
totaling approximately 6.3 million to most of the counties in Maryland. Expert
witnesses were engaged and performed services over the following several months
whereby electoral malfunctions were disclosed. Service of process proceeded and
a renewal of the motion for injunctive relief and a hearing for a preliminary
injunction were renewed, but no discovery or subpoenas were allowed and
plaintiffs’ request for relief was denied.
2. However, as it turned out, and beginning with the filing of this
case and proceeding onwards to the time just several weeks later for the filing of
the first amended complaint, and further still to about the end of 2022, (JA455),
when the United States District Court dismissed all of the allegations based upon
"a failure to state a claim", hundreds of investigators throughout the country, and
6
many skilled analysts attacked the problem of how this massive fraud worked and
how it came to be.
3. Nevertheless, the defendants were dutifully served and in due
course. Maryland governmental agencies and most of the counties filed responses
to the complaint with technical Motions to Dismiss, most on grounds of lack of
standing.
4. On December 16, 2022 the District Court Judge, (SAG)
dismissed the case with the memorandum opinion relying upon "failure to state a
claim" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (JA13, Docket Entry
73). Timely, on January 13, 2023 plaintiff/appellants filed the motion pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter/amend the judgment (JA321), citing,
among other things, newly discovered evidence.
5. That newly discovered evidence contained the investigations
that had been made by a large number of plaintiff volunteers assisted by several
groups of expert witnesses. One of these expert witnesses is a registered electronic
engineer familiar with voting materials, the Maryland and national voting system
containing public information on campaign financing and donations in Maryland,
and indeed across the nation. That system is identified as the Federal Election
Commission database, or FEC system.
7
6. After the filing of the motion to Alter/Amend, the newly
discovered evidence, was then available for filing, including the thousands of
transactions that were analyzed by proffered expert Engineer Lisa Batsch-Smith
(Draza Smith). The results of those official transactions were reported in publicly
maintained transaction databases, and the expert’s reports were duly filed in the
District Court case, specifying in detail the content of the evidence that had been
analyzed. The donor names and amount of funds that made up the newly
discovered and alleged money laundering transactions are therefore described in
specific detail.
7. Nevertheless, the District Court denied the Motion to Alter and
Amend, on March 29, 2023 (JA455). Plaintiff Appellants timely appealed on April
1, 2023, (JA456), the finally dismissed claims to this Court, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
8. In the transfer of the record to the Fourth Circuit the District
Court of Maryland, the Court did not initially transfer the newly filed evidence and
transactions filed with the District Court after the dismissal of December 16, 2022.
By a separate consent motion to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth
Circuit entered the Order Granting the supplementing of the record to include
appellants’ post-dismissal filings on June 15, 2023 (JA466).
8
9. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and rule upon
this appeal. Also notable and relevant to Jurisdiction is the fact that the to and fro
flow of the fungible money being laundered goes both directions via interstate
commerce and the Banking and Credit Card systems. That is both into Maryland,
causing injury and harm - and out of Maryland, also causing injury and expense to
Maryland citizens by running up their governmental expenses for which they, and
their progeny must bear the ultimate expense or injury, whether legitimate or not.
10. Each of the appellants/plaintiffs allege injuries; both individual
property losses and individual freedom losses, along with loss of constitutional
rights, whether small or large in financial magnitude. The key combined foundation
for each citizen’s and each organization’s standing to sue is therefore dependent on
the factual basis of the activities actually alleged to exist. These investigations from
government database sources have now actually proven these activities of
transmitting camouflaged fund to actually occur. These activities have proceeded for
decades, merely culminating in the factual allegations herein, which begin on or
about November 2019 and proceed thereafter, thereby demonstrating the continuing
existence of the RICO Enterprise. This also demonstrates the immediate, irreparable
and massive harm, not just up to the date of this complaint, but rather even as this
case proceeds today, the harm and the racketeering continues.
9
11. Participants in the cash largess, excess donations, printing,
machine sales of corrupted WiFi-enabled machines and fake ballots are known and
alleged to use the laundered funds to conduct the operations of the RICO
enterprise to influence votes. Plaintiffs alleged this objective as the primary goal
of the RICO enterprise, subject to verification of specifics by subpoenas and
depositions, likely 30(b)(6) definitions of RICO principals. The manifestations of
these objectives in the data analyzed for incoming data into the RICO enterprise
appears in engineering charts. Yet to be discovered is the specific flow of money
out of the RICO enterprise to the various activities alleged to be the enterprise’s
unlawful objectives.
12. In addition, extensive inquiry into what actual audit and
monetary limit controls exist over, for example, foreign money flowing through
the election monetary control reports and controls disclose a shocking fact.
Apparently, no such controls exist at all. Certainly, our experts have discovered
none despite repeated inquiries.
13. Virtually all of the monetary control mechanisms normally and
purportedly acting to ensuring fair and honest elections and fair and honest flow of
monies, as well as a fair and accurate count of election tallies, have not only been
corrupted, but intentionally so by hundreds upon hundreds of known individuals
10
in concert with money managers not only throughout the state of Maryland, but
also interacting with Maryland money managers throughout the nation.
14. Thus, when viewed as a “RICO Enterprise” (utilizing the Boyle
RICO Standards (Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009)) in these
descriptions there can be no doubt whatever that such RICO Enterprise
organization existed as of the filing of this lawsuit and continues unscathed, alive
and well, as we speak.
15. But these examples of the various frauds disclosed by both
layman and expert witness alike, actual data analysis convertible to live testimony
if and when any such hearing, for example for equitable relief or a Preliminary and
Permanent Injunctions, is allowed, demonstrates without any question whatever
that the entire electronic system whereby the states compile vote counts and voter
records is corrupted beyond redemption.
16. How this matter is relevant to the question of jurisdiction is:
18U.S.C. Sec. 1964(c). The statue requiring damage or injury to the person or
property of a “person” is a required element of standing to file a RICO Claim.
17. Plaintiffs/Appellants have in fact alleged such damages by the
RICO Enterprise in this nationwide money laundering scheme (including
Maryland). Since every person whose vote is degraded or damaged, the millions of
11
dollars siphoned out of Maryland is indeed a loss, gigantic in magnitude, even
though the loss for each citizen many be minuscule. This monetary loss is in
addition to the intellectual or intangible property loss that stems from a takeover
by persons laundering money in the form of the “Big Cheat” (See charts, JA386-
397). Since this case contains a jury demand, the award of damages for the loss of
a basic freedom and right could conceivably be very large.
18. Even if constitutional rights of freedom and ownership and
control of the government are given any monetary value, howsoever de minimis, at
triple, damages for all those citizens, the damages award would have to greatly
exceed the jurisdictional limit to sue of $75,000.
Rule 28 (a)(4) (B)(C)and (D) Timing Considerations:
19. To be sure, since the inception and filing of this case on July 4,
2022, the knowledge of facts relating to the alleged RICO Enterprises' activities have
grown exponentially. Every week that goes by, more onerous disclosures are made.
Through the use of citizen volunteers, the actual organizational structure of the money
laundering mechanism has been discovered. This discovery was accomplished via the
analysis of millions of individual accounts of donations, and the flow of those
donations through the organic electronic systems of the state of Maryland, as recorded
in the federal recording systems mandatorily maintained by the FEC.
12
Statement of Relevant Facts
20. RICO Enterprise: There is strong evidence of a RICO enterprise
conducted by ActBlue, which is exhibited in the expert testimony and research of
Draza Smith (JA386-397). The table on JA397 shows a list of the 32 top
contributors in Maryland, by name, since January 2019, to March 2023, the last two
election cycles. These data are sorted extractions from government public files,
accumulating reports for the number(s) of contributions made by voting persons.
The numbers are so great, to be virtually impossible to have been done without the
aid of computerized assistance.
21. For example, the highest donation number in Maryland in the last
two election cycles, is one individual with 21,831 donations with a total dollar
amount of $217,324.34. would mean that this individual made an average of 14.25
donations per day between 1/1/2019 and 3/13/2023.
22. Since purported names for contributors are furnished for all
contributions, explanations of the actual fraud (or not) is readily available.
Examples of this information point to the use of identity theft in the corruption of
these official federal (FEC) reports. This same technique for audit is therefore
available nationwide. It is merely an exercise involving time and money to stamp
out the obviously widespread laxity in honesty controls. The only question is the
13
overall magnitude of these small donations. Many millions of dollars of actual
money appear to have been laundered by as of yet unidentified actual donors using
the harvested name of real voters. All of these factual donations are subject to
simple analysis to obtain the real source of the funds, using subpoenas and the
discovery process, for identifying the money mules. This apparent fraud meets the
criteria for a RICO enterprise under federal law (JA219-221).
Irregularities in the Voting Process
23. Certain polling places in Maryland have been witnessed to have
had enabled Wi-Fi connectivity on the November 8th, 2022 election (JA350-351).
Wi-Fi connectivity in the polling place poses a cyber-security threat to our election
infrastructure, and are illegal in Maryland (JA185) but used never the less.
24. Despite the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s
assertion to the contrary (JA450-455), the plaintiffs submit that they have standing
to bring this suit under the constitution of the United States, the constitution of
Maryland, assuring them an accurate and fair election, and as a matter of the RICO
statute, anti-money laundering provision as well as likely additional violations
involving conspiracy to further the RICO objective.
25. Certification of ES&S Tabulators: The standard for election
results as stated in official regulations is that each system to be certified must be
14
re-certified each year. Plaintiff researchers have been unable to find any
certifications or decertifications based upon the certification requirement.
Therefore, on the basis of the record in this case to date, all of Maryland’s election
results must be decertified as a matter of the Code of Maryland since about 2012.
Accordingly, plaintiffs contend they have standing to bring violations of federal
and Maryland voting law for correction in this federal lawsuit in addition to the
previously discussed issue of money laundering, as a factual matter on the basis of
current evidence. But, in the information furnished by the Maryland systems, if
this question has been answered correctly in the data furnished, none of the
Maryland results are certifiable for the last two election cycles.
26.The State of Maryland claims to maintain an accurate system of
voter rolls through ERIC, however, our case contains at least one testimony to the
contrary (JA186-187), where the injured party claims that she was registered
simultaneously in both Maryland and Florida, as the system failed to update her
mailing address in spite of her attempts to contact both states’ boards of elections.
History of the dismissal of this Alleged RICO Case by the United States
District Court:
27. On August 20, 2022, all plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
summarizing the accumulations to that date of newly discovered evidence and all
exhibits were filed (JA136-221), including specific eyewitness reports to indicate

15
the functioning of a system known as the ERIC system, whereby the voter rolls for
the state of Maryland were coordinated electronically by ERIC to furnish
information indicating coming to Maryland and leaving Maryland, thereby gaining
information allegedly to manipulate voting by unknown persons, but apparently
centered again upon the Maryland central system of voter registration. A second
motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was filed,
which was apparently never ruled upon by the presiding judge. A new presiding
judge (SAG) was appointed.
28. On November 23, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to
the multiple motions to dismiss (JA275-306). However, it should be noted that in
the meantime, the investigations as to the alleged RICO activities were continuing
and accelerating.
29. The majority of the known alleged defendants are Maryland
government subdivisions, entities, or individuals contracting with those entities.
Those defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of standing and or failure to
state a claim. On December 16, 2022 (JA13, Docket Entry 73) the United States
District Court dismissed all claims against all defendants. This dismissal by the
District Court effectively ended all claims for relief in that Court. On January 13,
2023 (JA321-349) plaintiffs/appellants timely filed, (within 28 days per the rule,
16
having effectively a statutory effect, of reopening the case pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (e) (motion to alter/amend the entry) of dismissal.
30. Plaintiffs, however, did not stop their investigation. Analysis by
voluntary professional engineering analysis examined the flow of money into the
coffers of the alleged RICO Enterprise via the available federal election records,
with somewhat astounding results.
31. All available indications of this analysis demonstrate that multiple
names for actual persons, fictitious persons, and some existing and departed
persons were used as conduits to transfer monies in thousands of transactions
through the purportedly legitimate donation channels set up in the election
procedures in Maryland.
32. As a matter of well-established case law, based upon the statutory
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the Motion effectively reopens the
otherwise final case. This is particularly true where there has been no opportunity
for formal discovery, as here. And also for the limited purposes of challenging the
dismissal of failure to state a claim to present new evidence.
33. The 59(e) Motion allowed plaintiffs/appellants to introduce newly
discovered evidence. As mentioned above, about thirteen exhibits have been
submitted as evidence accompanying the initial complaint and the amended
17
complaint, which have been obtained by hundreds of volunteer citizens and
disgruntled voters. Many of these citizens by definition were at the time injured
persons who perceive they had been cheated by the RICO activities more fully
described in the statement of facts following.
34. Plaintiffs based their early complaints on expert testimony and
discrete items of evidence. Now, however, plaintiffs have shifted their analysis
to a volume of data extracted from available official federal and state
government records. The evidence gathering thereafter concentrated on the
records of donations and monetary support contained in the official government
records of donation sources documenting how the money was collected and how
it was spent.
35. This newly discovered evidence was accumulated, analyzed and
presented in a series of motions subsequent to the Dismissal of December 16, 2022
and before that evidence was denied, accomplished this by presenting massive
evidence of Money Laundering, a RICO Violation sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
The results of the money laundering investigation are contained in an initial report,
later amplified by newly discovered and never presented evidence. As of now, new
evidence remains pending, although a jury trial and multiple hearings alleging
18
massive2 fraud(s) were requested to present evidence. No hearing to accomplish
this was ever allowed by the District Court.
36. Accordingly, the definitions of RICO activities, including money
laundering and additional discrete but interrelated forgeries of names, ballots,
deliveries by bribed couriers of such altered election materials were described in
specific detail by investigators and those newly described discovered evidence
items were presented as newly discovered evidence during the period of time
immediately following dismissal of the RICO claims by the United States District
Court, and indeed continue to this day as continuing investigations. However,
these investigations are functioning under great handicap in that the difficulties of
obtaining evidence of falsification, in the ongoing atmosphere of obfuscation,
without the subpoena power of the Courts is indeed daunting.
37. Nevertheless, such evidence was obtained and has been submitted
in this appeal in such magnitude, for the money laundering discovered, both prior
2
See proffered Expert Engineering Witness Draza Smith’s Report (Below).
Official Federal Election Commission donation reports disclose hundreds of
thousands of usually very small camouflaged donations by persons whose identity
and conduit for donations was apparently the result of false names or identity theft.
Also well publicized media reports including admissions of Maryland Residents
who denied making the reported donations. These “donations” are, by all present
evidence, in fact the result of falsely labeled foreign and fake name donations
resulting in money laundering. The dollar sums total many millions of dollars and
cross state lines (JA385, JA 386-397).
19
to and following the dismissal of claims in the United States District Court as
deemed appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
38. On March 29, 2023, by memorandum opinion (JA450-455),
United States District Court judge Stephanie A. Gallagher finally dismissed all
remaining claims in this case.
39. Notice of appeal was timely filed on April 1, 2023 (JA456-465),
thereby clearing the way for this appeal is timely filed in this case.
40. On three independent but interrelated grounds, this Court of
Appeals has jurisdiction to review this case. Those independent grounds are:
immediate and irreparable harm to the property and person of a class of citizens of
the United States of America in the state of Maryland by violations of the RICO
statute, including but not limited to money laundering affecting the property
values of each injured person and the constitutional liberty and property rights of
each citizen deprived of their vote or the effect of their vote in terms of ownership,
rights of control over all management aspects of this nation, and thirdly, rights of
Maryland citizens to the benefits of Maryland Constitutional law to the extent that
it varies from federal law in that Maryland Constitutional law requires the state of
Maryland to maintain a valid and accurate voting system with monies flowing
throughout the vote accumulation and verification process in an accurate manner
20
which has been patently violated as to each voter in the state of Maryland, and
finally, for the unjust enrichment by all persons benefitting financially from the
functioning in conduct of a RICO enterprise both within and without of the state
of Maryland for which this United States Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to
review and correct all such malfunctions harming citizens either individually or in
conjunction as a conglomeration with all such similarly injured persons.
Engineering Analysis of Laundered Money with

Camouflaged and/or False Names
41. During the time of the filing of the amended complaint, with the
second request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
hearing and the motion to alter and amend the judgment filed on January 13, 2023
plaintiffs, many of whom were professional data processing researchers and who
were joined by expert witness Draza Smith, Professional Engineer.
42. At this time, it is suggested that the reader refer to the evidence
depicted in the charts accompanying Appendix pages JA386-397, JA352-353.
This information is a part of the expert opinion initially reported by Ms. Smith,
obtained entirely from an analysis of the evidence of the federal election
commission and state of Maryland official records.
43. While it is possible that experts might have some differences of
opinion on one subject or another, there can be no doubt that the record source is
21
authentic and as accurate as is currently available. Certainly, given the standard to
be applied to pre-discovery allegations, these engineering results are entitled to be
taken as true for purposes of all matters in this appeal.
44. Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, to the extent they
exist, are an unimpeachable source of information as to the flow of election funds
both into and out of Maryland in a multiplex of financial transactions crossing
state lines in both directions.
45. Although investigated in great detail, it appears that there is
absolutely no control audit or verification of these financial transactions to ensure
conformity with state or federal election donation or election expenditure controls.
That is, although it is plain and patent that all of these funds are subject to federal
controls, nobody, such as the FEC, FBI, Federal Reserve, Government Office of
Accountability (GAO), or any Inspector General, have taken any responsibility
whatsoever to ensure that the alleged RICO enterprise operations are infringed or
monitored in any respect.
46. If this statement is indeed true as alleged by plaintiffs in their
initial complaint of the existence of a RICO enterprise, with this proven element of
money laundering, this case has indeed stated a viable claim, in fact many
thousands of them.
22
47. The flow of money was both into Maryland for Maryland
candidates and out of Maryland to non-Maryland candidates. The flow of money
was effectively camouflaging thousands of small transactions and allowing the
manipulation of out-of-state money, out-of-state donations and donations of
money without a traceable source, whereby all money was laundered and made
available however the money manipulators deemed most effective.
48. On another front, it was stated that foregoing that the flow of
money as depicted in the engineering charts and tables contained in the appendix
by order of this Court approving the consent motion to supplement the record by
the newly discovered evidence effectively suppressed by the United States
District Court also contains references to falsification of votes, measured by
"Blank ballots" and the now demonstrated actual fact that Maryland voter
machines, all manufactured by ES&S have not been certified, and therefore in
addition to being capable of unlawful online functioning, also represent
payments of amounts garnered from the unlawfully laundered money at the
expense of the citizens of Maryland paying for the actual theft of their voting
rights.
49. Other information indicating nefarious uses of the ocean of
money thereby gained from all sources legal and illegal were detailed and
23
approximately nine different activities whereby in Maryland, and with virtually
identical usages throughout the entire 50 states these funds were used to pay
persons to torque elections.
50. For example, it is alleged that, based on this newly discovered
evidence, that the machine purchases and rentals for electronic tabulation
machines in Maryland, for ES&S machines utilized the money laundering and that
although falsely described in testimony both sworn and unsworn by the Maryland
state election board nevertheless such machines were never certified, and were in
fact in the attachments by a professional recent elections in fact being manipulated
online as described in these plaintiffs data engineer acting as a whistleblower
furnishing photographic evidence (JA350-351).
Standing to Sue Under F. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Although not relied upon by the District Court in its decision, several of the
Defendants have pled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, therefore that
subject is addressed in this discussion of Standard of Review. On the contrary,
all of the plaintiffs pled clearly that they were private citizens with a right to vote
who were directly damaged in their property and person by the acts of the
defendants. They also argued in their opposition to dismissal that and
specifically in their dissertation of the newly discovered evidence of Money
24
Laundering that the damages were massive and widely spread both in Maryland
and, indeed traced to effects both to and from the entire nation affecting
Maryland and all States.
The specific standing of a plaintiff, that is, a non-governmental
plaintiff, to sue in a U.S. District Court is authorized by the Federal Statute
Establishing the RICO Act, at U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
§ 1962 at § 1964(c).
Substantial case law establishes the principle that the most
important element of a RICO claim is to establish that a RICO Enterprise
actually exists, and an important element of that finding is that the Enterprise has
a common objective(s), Boyle (Id.)(2009); and for a private RICO Plaintiff, here
thousands of citizen voters and their businesses or personally to demonstrate a
standing to sue.
Also, each private person as a RICO plaintiff, unless represented by a
Class Representative, for example pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23, which has been
requested to be applicable in both of the filed versions of the Complaint, and
contemplated and mentioned in the most recently denied newly discovered
evidence filings also denied by the District Court, must establish standing to sue
under RICO’s private right of action, 18.U. S. C. § 1964 (c) by demonstrating
25
“that the defendants’ alleged misconduct proximately caused the plaintiffs’ injury”
(Hoffman v. Zenith Ins. Co., 487 F. App. 365 (2012), citing Sosa v. DIRECT TV,
Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir. 2006)).
Comments upon Links to These Complex

Jurisdictional and Standing to Sue Facts:
In normal times any approach of one or more private citizens
litigating money laundering linked to and indeed financing the overthrow of our
nation would not be necessary, and indeed unthinkable. But with the DOJ and FBI
abdicating the field of battle, and indeed apparently a part of the huge problem,
these are not normal times. There appears to be no normal or rational alternative to
this reasonable application of these anti-racketeering measures.
Most certainly, with the volume of hundreds of thousands of
violations of identified and countless money laundering situations, substantially
sampled in Maryland for the last two election cycles, it would appear to be a
virtual certainty for proof by dozens of prospective Plaintiff/Appellants of actual
causation of harm to their businesses or person (See Table 1, following).
Thus, for this alternative reason, any attempt to dismiss for lack of
standing should also be found to be unavailing. Plaintiffs also submit that they
have proven direct links of the injury to their businesses and person and their
theory of standing under RICO where the money laundering is integral to

26
Plaintiffs theory of causation as discussed in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond and Indem.
Co., 553 U.S. 639, 659 (2008).
As a final comment upon Standards applicable herein, Appellants
invite the Honorable Court to view just one page which summarizes a thirty-two
person sampling from the Joint Appendix to this case contained in JA397. This
page is reproduced verbatim from the Appendix, except for two changes. The first
is to conform with evidence gleaned by Plaintiff/Appellants directly from Federal
Government files to the requirement of the Font point size required by the Court,
14 point type. The second is to add the totals for just these 32 persons in Maryland
for the alleged money laundering transactions pertaining to these 32 persons. The
totals, compiled by plaintiffs’ counsel are astounding. This one sheet of paper
identifies and specifies by each name of the purported “donor” as follows:
Total Number of individual contributions that were recorded by the
Federal Election Commission that this “donor” made in his/her name and the Total
dollar amount of those same contributions.
STANDARD OF REVIEW-
THE SEVERAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE HERE:
In this case, plaintiffs/appellants allege multiple falsifications of
voting records such as addresses, names, and actual forgeries in uttering of various
documents constituting the voting system. The standard of review in accordance

27
with state law and federal law is that such violations, whether occurring by reason
of an intentional act, or alternatively, failure to perform a corrective act, are equal
violations of civil and criminal law, whether by omission or commission (In re
Coy, 127 U.S. 731 (1888)[with relation to voting records]) (Gonzalez v. Arizona,
677 F.3d 383 9th Cir. (2012)[with relation to voting records]. Both the Federal
Government and State Courts have the authority to impose criminal sanctions for
the perpetrator. The following cases, although not on the subject of voting records,
nevertheless affirm the general authority and duty of each state in the nation and
the federal government to enforce the integrity of documents and laws establishing
operating functions of the state or federal jurisdiction: Paolino v. Glunt, No.
11-5436, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185862 (2012)[with relation to insurance fraud and
medical licensure] - and Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 729 N.W.2d 335
(2007) [with relation to child custody and parental rights].
A case should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1), which the
District Court specifically cited in this case in its dismissal, unless it appears
beyond doubt that under no set of facts [can anyone] of the plaintiffs prevail in this
case (Conley v. Gibson - 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)). Under the facts pled,
and essentially those facts have been proven beyond reasonable doubt under the
expanded facts alleged in newly discovered and hugely voluminous evidence, the
28
reverse is true. The allegations of money laundering with numerous types of
damages to the class or classes of plaintiffs are legion. See the sample of 32
alleged perpetrators of Maryland money laundering (or alternatively victims), in
JA397. For the convenience of the Court and other readers, that evidence is both
identified, detailed and (in part) summarized on the page following this
description of the standard of review.
As a part of the Statement of Facts herein, the injury and deprivation
of property, monetary, and constitutional rights, through diminution of the legal
effect of each complainants vote are described, regarding the effects upon each
voter/plaintiff whose votes were effectively wholly or partially cancelled by the
RICO Entity's undeniable effectiveness of its primary objective (seizure of the
election process).
Other details of the several standards herein involved to analyze the
standard(s) of review applicable follow:
It appears without any substantial or reasonable question that a RICO
Enterprise exists. Some components, including all necessary to the existence of a
viable Enterprise entity, as required by Boyle, are located in the State of Maryland.
It is alleged in all versions of the Complaint, both filed and prospective based
upon newly discovered evidence admitted to the record via the Order of this Court
29
supplementing the record upon appeal, and some newly named defendants, both
identified and unidentified participated in the unlawful acts described with
specificity, aided and abetted those acts knowingly and/or at least should have
known of their existence because of the decades long history alleged and also
some of them conspired to make those acts so.
IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The events reported in this lawsuit began decades before, but for
practicality reasons the facts described herein begin in 2019 with the run-up for
the 2020 presidential election. The operations of the RICO Enterprise alleged to
exist are not confined to the State of Maryland. This is because the money
laundering operations and money-flow itself travel back and forth between all 50
states and also, allegedly despite being unlawful, foreign locations as well.
These coordinated events affected the entire nation in all aspects of
the about 9 different vote manipulation methodologies, not only through the
election process but the aftermath of policies adopted that resulted in economic
downturns and other negative outcomes for each plaintiff and the voters they seek
to represent via this class complaint. (See the Experts reports and the specific
sample of Maryland data gleaned from official United States Federal Election
Commission (FEC) data by plaintiffs expert witness, Engineer Draza Smith for
30
examples of the dynamics of just how the Money Laundering links into, and
dominates the financial aspects of the election process. (JA384, JA387-JA397).
To demonstrate the likelihood of necessity for proof of falsities never
allowed to come to trial or even the three separate requests for preliminary
injunctive or equitable accelerated trial relief, indeed the absurdity of the situation
Appellants submit just two pages of summarized evidence.
The Court is requested to note the magnitude of just 32 persons
whose data has been gleaned from the FEC data, representing a part of the
approximately 4 million voters in Maryland.
As stated, the only changes made in this brief is to sum those totals
and display those totals immediately following the data reported following:
Summary of Table 1.
Total Number of Contributions by each such person

researched, and a total number of contributions for the persons
listed from 2019 to 2023. Engineering Analysis of Laundered
Money.
Total Number of Contributions is: 222,144

(There were almost a quarter of a million donations made); And:
The Total Dollar Amount Donated by these same

32 persons (the dollar total of those items since
January 2019 was: $3,241,002.88
See the following duplication of JA397

31
Last Name First Name Number of Total Dollar

Donations Amount of
Contributions
Doonan Nancy 21831 $ 217,324.34
Riggs Garland 19308 78,963.59
Krieger Karl 13541 179,495.00
Beder Michael 12210 22,057.31
Mote Clayton 12144 217,502.48
Curds Isabel 10633 95,028.44
Parron-Ragland Delores 10210 84,319.85
Peterson Ronalie 8939 69,650.26
Franklin Stewart Vera 8865 75,806.64
Mullin Valerie 8115 43,014.26
Israel Lesley 6877 273,660.03
Gifford Barbara 6300 106,063.60
Sadler John 6384 101,198.63
Barker James 6384 89,984.52
West George 6155 196,764.69
Billey Catharine 5518 57,223.49
Brudenell Thomas 5228 28,869.30
Klees Ned 5216 27,077.72
Schechter Kendra 5184 92,112.99
Mather Jane 4864 94,625.02
Weir John 4794 34.355.94
Robbins Jeffrey 4493 36,025.99
Merrick Claire 4237 62,526.37
Pines Maya 3918 42,888.60
Stress Alice 3496 27,077.72
Rees Leanna 3372 174,509.15
Kahn Tamar 3141 34,944.93
Samuel Ellen 3033 31,146.05
Siefring Marie 2951 117,703.16
Knepper Kathleen 2665 480,057.75
Keldsen Donald 2136 49,025.06
TOTALS number of Contributions from 32 Persons: 222,144 $ 3,241,002.88
32
This sample of only 32 persons is however alleged by appellants to
be typical and relevant to demonstrating the overall process of the RICO
Enterprise in Operation. It was obtained to demonstrate that in Maryland alone,
the donation process is not just merely suspect, but being actually being massively
manipulated by financial forces, who are persons not subject to any control
whatever by agencies supposed to control such matters. There is no control at all.
On the contrary these evil forces are vitally manipulating thereby
adversely affecting the whole election process. And not just the process, but the
results and each citizen’s lives. If this does not damage these plaintiffs, what
does? This is just a small sample of activity in Marylands about 4 million voters.
And this same set of procedures is in effect throughout the nation. Mrs. Smith
demonstrates that with her charts prepared from the same Nation-Wide Data base
as used for Maryland. This is a national violation of federal election code, and the
federal and state banking laws as to money transfer limitations and tracking as
well as a clear indicator of where the money comes from and how it was spent.
And it certainly can be inferred that the prolific errors in addresses,
names and all other identifiers of the money transfers are not being done by the
persons doing the reporting and likely many (Likely Most) not with their own
money since many of the reported donors are also reported as unemployed
33
persons, which is one method used to locate these suspicious persons for
tabulation in the first place.
The Court will appreciate that the process of discovering the this
information (although existing in its camouflaged form for decades) was
problematic, and unfolded for Appellants in this case over a 6 month period with
extensive research provided by hundreds of volunteers across Maryland who
donated thousands of hours, for purposes of seeking the truth.
The great bulk of the data was found despite the courts denial of any
evidentiary hearings or allowing any discovery at all, including the subpoena
process.
The information finally discovered revealing election violations and
the bulk of the 9 specific unlawful and likely fraudulent practices, like stuffing
ballot boxes and using internet or on-line connected voting machines, have been
traced back for more than a decade and in some instances, complaints of
violations were reported but were dismissed summarily out of hand in every
instance by officials within the Maryland Governors’ several administrations and
their respective State of Maryland Election Board Officials.
Due to the complexity of the data research and the cover up by the
election data managers, using slow walking tactics, through corrupt voter roles
34
with such issues as fake name, fake addresses, blank ballots that were assigned
votes by computerized programmed outcomes, much of the information regarding
the about 9 types of falsities, and all of the information regarding money
laundering, was reported for the first time as newly discovered evidence.
However, during the interim period, plaintiffs retained an expert
electronic engineering and data analyst. Her expert analysis of official
government records and data maintained by the Federal Election Commission
(FEC) and the State of Maryland Election Board in each jurisdiction were
analyzed revealing the financial mechanisms patently used for financing of the
about nine different avenues and methodologies for manipulating false election
results. See Appendix for the supplementary newly discovered methodology for
financing the whole election fraud through the RICO Enterprise and its
manipulation of the entire elections in Maryland using the methodologies
uncovered by the hundreds of volunteer researchers.
This new information was timely reported, pursuant to F.R. Civ. P.
59(e) as newly discovered evidence immediately following the dismissal of the case
by the Maryland District Court, which was opposed by plaintiff’s timely filed
Motion to Alter and Amend (JA14 Docket ECF 74) and (JA16 for Docket Number
ECF 94-ECF 98) reporting those engineering results as newly discovered evidence.
35
That evidence is presented in the Appendix at JA384, JA387-397 and
demonstrates by irrefutable government financial data a money laundering scheme
whereby the nine different types of data manipulation were financed, not just in
Maryland, but across the nation. Please see how the money financing flows to and
from Maryland from the other states, all of which is clear from the massive data
maintained in government files.
Therefore, this data, evidence, actually exists and thereby
demonstrates the existence of a RICO enterprise. Those facts standing alone
demonstrate that the dismissal of this case was erroneous. In addition, however,
the ancillary evidence by which this case began, should be viewed as simply the
nine difference methods for manipulation of the data to achieve the unlawful
election results, achieved their objective.
In conclusion, this Court should reverse the dismissal on the basis of
the original allegation of the actual existence of a RICO Enterprise, thereby
finding that finding there in fact does exist a viable claim for relief and the
District Court’s ruling was simply wrong. There can be little doubt that at least
the allegation of the existence of a RICO enterprise is well founded because There
it is!
36
Accordingly, Judgment with a mandate and specific instructions with
a new Judge to stamp out all aspects of the RICO enterprise in gathering of money
in violations of national and state monetary laws is a patent necessity.
These now known and obvious violations of law include any and all
violations of financial control over money transfers and restrictions and violations
of voter integrity laws. Mandatory relief should also include making all plaintiffs
whole and all government institutions follow the law as to both money matters
and election accuracy to ensure election integrity from this point forward in time
as a matter of Constitutional Law of the Nation.
V. ARGUMENT
1. The State of Maryland and All of the Agencies Therein Have the
Affirmative Duty to Conform to the Mandatory Provisions of the
Entire Election Law, Including Accuracy of Voters' Names, Addresses,
and Eligibility Requirements, and Also Including Election-related
Financial Controls, While Simultaneously Maintaining the Integrity of
Not Just the Election Process but Nationwide and Statewide Financial
Controls over Unlawful Transfer of Monies. For Example, in the Event
That Controls over Unlawful Contributions from Foreign Entities,
Unions, Corporations, or Amounts in Excess of Monetary Limitations
in Support of Candidates Are Evaded, Whether the State or Federal
Authorities Have the Authority to Enforce Both Criminal and Civil
Violations:
Early in the history of this country, the Supreme Court had to face the
issue of enforcement of proper functioning of statutory provisions, both State and
Federal law, which are a part of the matters now before the court in this RICO
37
case. The court found in the landmark case of In re Coy, 8 S. Ct. 1263 (1888),
that where a statute requires an action by officials and those officials fail to
perform that action, they may be charged with a criminal penalty. In that instance,
the issue was whether or not a federal court was required to conform to a writ of
habeas corpus where the incarcerated person was charged with election
malfunctions involving document uttering and/or forgery. The Supreme Court
found that under such circumstances, the original conviction was sound, and the
incarceration would stand.
Here, it is clear that money-laundering is alleged to be the financing
vehicle for the true main objective of the RICO enterprise. That main objective is
domination of the election by seizure of all of the key posts whereby the
machinery of the election selects who runs the country, and who does not.
Therefore, the mechanism of the RICO and the money-laundering are inextricably
intertwined with the jurisdictional determination, whereby this case is properly
before the court. In other words, these plaintiffs have a right as RICO plaintiffs to
relief from the malfunctions of whoever caused the harm to the entire environment
created by the RICO enterprise.
But here, since the seizure of the functions of government are
effectively complete, and subject to determination only at trial, a final
determination of jurisdiction to act and for determination of relief, must await the
trial itself.
38
This is more evident simply because it now appears that the appeal
for equitable relief to correct voting inequities was denied when injunctive relief
to stop immediate and irreparable harm was denied, finding lack of standing for
correction of all matters. The fallacy in this result is there appears to be no one
else available to ever grant relief following this line of legal reasoning.
Accordingly, plaintiff appellants should be found to have standing to
sue and to obtain relief acting effectively as private attorneys general under the
umbrella of the RICO act. A declaratory judgement should be issued, to the effect
that a RICO enterprise exists for money-laundering and the approximately 9
different types of damages and harm corrected to place all plaintiffs and the
persons they seek to represent in a position of being made whole, forthwith
ensuring cessation of all aspects of the RICO operations.
The principle of law involved in the Coy case presumes that the State
or Federal authorities have the power to secure the governance rights of the
various components that make a society function. One of these rights is voters’
rights to choose their leaders, so that the Coy principle does not specifically allow
these plaintiffs to enforce a correct tabulation of votes or proper maintenance of
documents and systems by which a viable voting process functions.
In this case, however, it is demonstrated that the Maryland authorities
are indeed part of the problem, and a participant in RICO, and therefore where the
constituted authorities have failed, as here, the plaintiffs via the RICO entry point
39
have stepped into the breach. In other words, there is no one else to do this job, as
the Department of Justice, and FBI have been demonstrated to be complicit in the
failures to enforce the law.
2. As a Factual Matter, Massive Money-laundering Occurred, Resulting

in Violation of Civil RICO and the Creation of a RICO Enterprise,
with Principal Objectives of, (A) a Criminal Violation of the Voting
Mechanism for Maryland, and All 50 States, and (B) Damage and
Injury to All Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed this case originally under the theory that a RICO
enterprise existed all across Maryland, whereby a main source of unlawful
moneys were obtained and utilized throughout the election process to create and
finance the approximately 9 different mechanisms and means for seizure of the
election results.
The fact is that the mechanism to accomplish this RICO objective
was analyzed using official government election contributions data maintained by
the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Therefore, the information extracted
from these records is essentially unimpeachable and accurate as to the evidence
available to present to the court or a jury at an evidentiary hearing. This data was
obtained during the period after the initial complaint was filed, and presented to
the court as newly discovered evidence in support of plaintiffs/appellants’ motion
to alter/amend the judgement. By order of this Court (JA466-467), the newly
discovered evidence demonstrating money-laundering as reported in summaries of
the FEC records follow. This one page summary appearing in the appendix at
40
JA397 is reproduced hereafter for the convenience of the reader and also, most
importantly, to demonstrate the magnitude of the money-laundering actually in
existence across Maryland. Also, the Court should note that the money-laundering
itself is a two-way street into and out of Maryland and flowing across all 50 states.
This fact makes the actual existence of this money-laundering scheme a virtually
unstoppable force which may be focused by the Enterprise itself to financially
overwhelm any targeted candidate for office.
Thereby, the Enterprise has succeeded in its objective, which is the
seizure of all key elective posts, not just in Maryland, but in all 50 states.
The Court is requested to note the magnitude of just 32 persons
whose data has been gleaned from the FEC data, representing a part of the
approximately 4 million voters in Maryland.
3. Where the Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated the Existence of a RICO

Enterprise, Which Not Only Contains a Statutorily Defined Unlawful
Activity, but in Addition, That Activity Is Alleged to Be Unlawful
Election Conspiracies. The Judicial System must Have the Power to
Correct Itself by Stamping Our All Manipulation and Cheating of the
System Itself and All Components of That System, Not Just Part of
Them. Plaintiffs, by Their Very Presence in That System For One
Issue Should Have Standing to Demand the Court’s Full Equitable
Corrective Action for All Inextricably intertwined issues (Particularly
as Now When there Is Noone Else to Accomplish Those Corrections).
Therefore Plaintiffs Should Be Deemed to Have Jurisdiction for All
Purposes to Order Corrective Actions of Any and All Types:
There can be no question that the citizens in Maryland and
elsewhere have the right to go before the District Court as RICO Plaintiffs. This
41
gives them standing to cure and obtain relief for any related matter tending to cure
the problem for which they have standing to do so. Under Rule 23, such standing
to represent similarly situated plaintiffs to obtain relief is subject to proof of
damages for each such person. And damages are not limited to the exact same
type as the class representative who represents them at that initial stage of the
proceedings. Therefore, all such issues are properly and logically within the scope
of matters before the Court within reasonable metes and bounds of similarity.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, the Court should reverse the dismissal of
this case and remand all issues with instructions to the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland. The Court should find that it is beyond
reasonable question that a RICO enterprise exists and that partial summary
judgment for the plaintiffs finding the existence of a RICO enterprise should be
granted with instructions for the Court to conduct, in a reasonably expedient
manner that is within 120 days or less, a hearing on a preliminary injunction for
equitable relief with a protective waiver against destruction of evidence and the
conduct of discovery, and for the assignment of a new presiding US District Court
Judge because the current Judge has demonstrated bias, and that forthwith
discovery be granted expenses paid by the defendants on a pro rata basis
determined by the defendants.
42
And that further costs and attorneys fees for the litigation to date
shall be granted with a reasonable allowance for reimbursement of volunteers on a
basis consistent with the Laffey Rules for reimbursement of prevailing civil rights
plaintiffs.
The Court is hereby requested to hold that a declaratory judgment to
the effect that a RICO enterprise exists, and find that as a finding of fact.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter T. Charlton,
Walter T Charlton District of Columbia bar number 186940.

United States District Court for the District of Maryland 07638
11213 Angus Way,
Woodsboro Maryland 21798
Telephone # 410 571 8764
Email: charltonwt@comcast.net
43
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this brief contains 9,272 words at 14 point type
double spaced. Walter T. Charlton,
Walter T. Charlton,
Walter T Charlton District of Columbia bar number 186940.

United States District Court for the District of Maryland 07638
11213 Angus Way,
Woodsboro Maryland 21798
Telephone # 410 571 8764
Email: charltonwt@comcast.net
Counsel for Plaintiffs.
44

Gibson V Maryland CorrectedBrief As Filed 8-3-2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gibson V Maryland CorrectedBrief As Filed 8-3-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1369 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 50

United States Court Of Appeals

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CORRECTED BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

Counsel for Appellants

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1,

1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES ✔ NO

2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations? YES ✔ NO

3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or

12/01/2019 SCC -1-

6. Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding? YES ✔ NO

7. Is this a criminal case in which there was an organizational victim? YES ✔ NO

Walter T. Charlton e-SIGNATURE

All Plaintiffs to date.

-2- Print to PDF for Filing

Here Jurisdiction is Inextricably Intertwined with the Merits. . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.. . . . . . . . . 4

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Rule 28 (a)(4) (B(C)and (D) Timing Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Irregularities in the Voting Process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

History of the dismissal of this Alleged RICO Case by

Engineering Analysis of Laundered Money with

Standing to Sue Under F. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Comments upon Links to These Complex Jurisdictional

STANDARD OF REVIEW- THE SEVERAL STANDARDS

IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Summary of Table 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

VII. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

This case began as a RICO case, alleging money-laundering with the

change election results. About 9 different methodologies of fraud, including

fairness controls, machine manipulation, altered ballots, forgery of vote

proven the existence of money-laundering. Alleged and detailed in newly

discovered evidence are the methodologies used to effectuate the money-

the actual election results.

These plaintiffs alleged actual injuries to their person and property,

Therefore, as a matter of fact to be proven either in an accelerated

hearing for a preliminary injunction, or in an accelerated jury trial, which was

plaintiff/appellant is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the case. The

damages question as to each plaintiff appellant bringing this lawsuit is also

inextricably intertwined into the merits of this case.

Federal Court by demonstrating “that the defendants’ alleged misconduct proximately

Additionally, according to precedent set in In re Coy, 8 S. Ct. 1263

(1888), if a state or federal government fails to perform their affirmative duty to

enforce a law, whether intentionally or negligently, it is a violation of criminal law

Muilenberg, 729 N.W.2d 335 (2007)).

The only remaining issue as to jurisdiction centers around whether

these violations actually occurred. This is an issue inextricably intertwined with

the allegations of malfunction in the voting system in 9 different areas and

manipulation of voter data.

Here Jurisdiction is Inextricably Intertwined with the Merits1

cannot be separated, the ultimate resolution of the Court’s subject-matter

summary judgment principles, inquiring whether a genuine dispute exists over

finder’s determination of those facts. Other courts differ in their approach1

allow these plaintiffs to enforce a correct tabulation of votes or proper

maintenance of documents and systems by which a viable voting process

In this case, however, it is demonstrated that the Maryland authorities

the law, at least this aspect of the Election laws.

It should therefore be obvious that the Summary of Argument in this

case is a direct corollary to this Jurisdictional Statement.

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether the State of Maryland and All of the Agencies Therein

Election Law, Including Accuracy of Voters' Names, Addresses, and Eligibility