1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Pro Se Duane Gerald Davis, Sr. 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Owings Mills, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY

Duane Gerald Davis, Sr.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Plaintiff vs. THE UNITED STATES, THE State of Maryland, Governor Martin OMalley, Baltimore County Police Chief James W. Johnson, Baltimore City States Attorney Gregg L. Bernstein, and Baltimore County States Attorney Scott D. Schellenberger, in their official capacities and as individuals Defendants _______________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Pro Se, upon personal knowledge of the facts contained in this complaint and the contents of the documents referred to herein, and upon information and belief as to all matters

[Summary of pleading] - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

concerned, hereby brings this corruption and negligence protest action against all Defendants and the UNITED STATES. THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.1

NOW COMES, Duane Gerald Davis, Sr., Under Duress, All Rights, by Special Appearance, in accord with all of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Maryland Constitution and hereby makes this demand in the Nature of An Action for Writ of Mandamus, and request a hearing hereon, and as grounds hereto states the following: NATURE OF THE ACTION Plaintiff in proper person, hereby respectfully submits the following, which led to the theft of Plaintiffs property, as well as his identity. JURISDICTION & VENUE . At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been and is an individual residing in Maryland. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, as contained in this complaint, that Defendants have been and are individuals residing in Baltimore, Maryland.

Preamble to the US Constitution Bill of Rights, the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified

by the States December 15, 1791

32

[Summary of pleading] - 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, as contained in this complaint, that the City of Baltimore is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. Plaintiff is a citizen of Maryland who alleges that Defendants violated rights conferred upon him by the United States Constitution, Maryland State Constitution and other State and Local Laws. Plaintiff filed a civil claim against the Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, pursuant to 28 USC 1331 upon the raising of a federal question. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs claim.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Duane Gerald Davis, Sr. hereby incorporates by reference thereto the Corporate Surety Bonds of Baltimore County States Attorney Scott D. Schellenberger, Baltimore County Police Chief James W. Johnson, and Baltimore City States Attorney Gregg L. Bernstein, to this action required by the Maryland Constitution at Article 5, Section 12 and hereby makes an official claim against said bonds. Duane Gerald Davis, Sr. hereby incorporates by reference thereto the Sworn and Subscribed Oath of Office of Judge Susan Souder, Assistant Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Maryland, a copy of which is attached hereto, and any corporate surety bond for faithful performance to act within the bounds of the law and the discretionary dictates of her own conscience in favor of her fellow Maryland Bar members.

DEMAND IN THE NATURE OF AN ACTION FOR THE RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY

[Summary of pleading] - 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

That the Baltimore County Police Department by and through the Office of the States Attorney of Baltimore County are in unlawful possession of the personal property of Duane Gerald Davis, Sr. and are under a lawful duty to return said property undamaged and in the good and proper condition in which it was confiscated by a purported search warrant that was never served on Duane Gerald Davis, Sr. The property includes but is not limited to a 1999 Charcoal Grey Chevrolet Suburban; A Daily Diary from 1986 made of yellow legal papers; Black Legal Briefcase with legal material, as well as, Private Business Organizational and Tax Papers; a Video Camera; a Digital Camera; SD Cards; (9) Video Documentaries and Video Film, a book entitled The Minority Report by Duane Shorty Davis; and various keys. The estimated value of the above listed property is $250,000.00. Duane Gerald Davis, Sr. is lawfully entitled to repossession of said property, and that Scott D. Schellenberger is lawfully accountable to return the aforesaid property or the monetary value thereof.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Plaintiff incorporates the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution as reference herein and presents that he was unlawfully detained due to prejudice and discrimination alleged to have been demonstrated by the above named Defendants. Plaintiff was preparing a documentary pertaining to racism in the American judicial system. The Defendants were fully aware of the existence of this documentary, as well as were other public and elected officials in the White House, United States Congress, and in Maryland and Illinois. Chief Justice John
[Summary of pleading] - 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Roberts, of the United States Supreme Court went as far as instructing Plaintiff on how he should proceed with his case, in light of his pro se status. Plaintiff further incorporates a collection of public videos made by him and others, as evidence in this case and provides detailed information sufficient enough to support the allegations contained in this complaint.2 There are approximately 238 videos available for public review internationally. AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Plaintiff published a study entitled the Minority Report, which is the result of a social economic study that applies directly to the issue of racism in the American judicial system and relevant to the overall topic discussed. As a result of the aforementioned alleged illegal incarceration of Plaintiff, this personal and intellectual property belonging to Plaintiff is currently in the possession of the Baltimore County Police Department. States Attorney Shellenberger had full knowledge of the events detailed in this complaint since October of 2008, as he was the subject of one of 14 movies Plaintiff made while researching content for the documentary. AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
2

http://www.youtube.com/user/ShortysVoice.com
[Summary of pleading] - 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Plaintiff is missing, among other things, a total of 285 hours of incriminating videotape associated with this documentary, diary entries written in 1986 and 2008, during Plaintiffs direct knowledge of unlawful prison conditions and inmate discrimination, letters to President Barack OBama, the Washington, DC, Baltimore, and Chicago offices of the F.B.I., letters from Maryland Court Judges Holland, Bell, Pierson, as well as the United States Supreme Court.

AMENDMENT V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When Plaintiff was indicted for the action giving rise to this complaint, Mr. Shellenberger did not present the material confiscated as a result of a search warrant conducted on his residence, which was done to mislead the Grand Jury and obtain an indictment against Plaintiff. This evidence clearly shows the intent of Plaintiff, in relation to the actions precipitating his chosen manner of demonstrating his First Amendment right to free speech by demonstrating his displeasure with the Maryland Judiciary. The Plaintiffs right to Due Process was violated by Mr. Shellenbergers foregoing of conducting a Preliminary Hearing prior to the trial occurring, which is required by Maryland Rules of Procedure. Plaintiff immediately

[Summary of pleading] - 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

fired his attorney and motioned for the Court to permit him to represent himself in the proceedings, which is his Constitutional right. AMENDMENT VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

As Plaintiff has, and is, representing himself in these actions, he has the right to subpoena the Defendants and call them to testify before the Court, to produce all of the videos and written material in his possession belonging to Plaintiff. This would demonstrate that Defendants had prior knowledge of Plaintiffs actions and manner of expression, in relation to his right to free speech. In an action brought through the judicial process of Mandamus by William F. Brack against J. Bernard Wells, State's Attorney of Baltimore City, the plaintiff sought to compel the State's Attorney to present certain evidence to the grand jury. Generally, whether state's attorney does or does not institute a particular prosecution is a matter which rests in his discretion. Code 1939, art. 10, 33; Const. art. 5, 19. Mandamus does not lie to compel state's attorney to institute a particular prosecution unless discretion of state's attorney in such matter is grossly abused, or such duty is compelled by statute, or there is a clear showing that such duty exists. Code 1939, art. 10, 33; Const. art. 5, 9.

[Summary of pleading] - 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

The inquisitorial powers of the grand jury are broad, full and of a plenary character and are not limited to cases in which there has been a preliminary proceeding before a magistrate or to cases laid before them by the court or state's attorney, and the grand jury may investigate a case which state's attorney, in his discretion, has decided not to present to that body. Code 1939, art. 10, 33; Const. art. 5, 9. The Court further instructs that an individual who unsuccessfully had requested the state's attorney to present to grand jury a case involving alleged violation of criminal laws, and who also made a complaint before a magistrate and a warrant was refused, was entitled to an opportunity to present his complaint to the grand jury for whatever action that body desired to take. A citizen desiring to bring to grand jury's attention alleged violations of criminal laws should exhaust his remedy before the magistrate and state's attorney, and if relief cannot be had there, citizen then may ask foreman of grand jury for permission to appear before that body. By the Constitution of Maryland, Article 5, Section 9, the State's Attorney shall perform such duties as may be law be prescribed. By section 33 of Article 10 of the Code, that officer is required to prosecute and defend, on the part of the State, all cases in which the State may be interested. In such prosecutions of persons accused of crime, he must exercise a sound discretion to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. He must be trusted with broad official discretion to institute and prosecute criminal causes, subject generally to judicial control. The office is one not purely ministerial, but involves the exercise of learning and discretion 42 American Jurisprudence, p. 245. As a general rule, whether the State's Attorney does or does not institute a particular prosecution is a matter which rests in his discretion.

[Summary of pleading] - 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Unless that discretion is grossly abused or such duty compelled by statute or there is a clear showing that such duty exists, mandamus will not lie. 38 Corpus Juris, p. 623; Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 265, 34 P. 707; McLaughlin v. Burroughs, 90 Mich. 311, 51 N.W. 283; State v. Talty, 166 Mo. 529, 66 S.W. 361. Maryland law dictates that the adequate remedy to which a petitioner is entitled to is that of personally presenting his case to the grand jury of Baltimore City. Whether the petitioner should without formality present himself at the door of the grand jury room and ask to state his case or whether he should communicate with the foreman of the grand jury and ask for an opportunity to appear before that body is not for this Court to say. The members of the grand jury in their oath prescribed by the common law, in addition to other things, swore that they would diligently inquire and true presentment make of all such matters and things as shall be given them in charge or shall otherwise come to their knowledge. The inquisitorial powers of the grand jury are not limited to cases in which there has been a preliminary proceeding before a magistrate nor to cases laid before them by the Court or State's Attorney. Whatever may be the duties and powers of that important body in other jurisdictions, in Maryland those inquisitorial powers are broad, full and of a plenary character. The Court, speaking through Judge McSherry in the case of Blaney v. State, 74 Md. 153, 156, 21 A. 547, 548, said: However restricted the functions of grand juries may be elsewhere, we hold that in this state they have plenary inquisitorial powers, and may lawfully themselves, and upon their own motion, originate charges against offenders, though no preliminary proceedings have been had before a magistrate, and though neither the court nor the state's attorney has laid the matter before them.

[Summary of pleading] - 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

The peace, the government, and the dignity of the state, the well-being of society, and the security of the individual demand that this ancient and important attribute of a grand jury should not be narrowed or interfered with when legitimately exerted. In that same case and at the same reference is contained a very pertinent quotation as to the duties of the grand jury in language which cannot be improved upon here: To them is committed the preservation of the peace of the county; the care of bringing to light for examination, trial, and punishment, all violence, outrage, indecency, and terror; everything that may occasion danger, disturbance, or dismay to the citizen. They are watchmen, stationed by the laws to survey the conduct of their fellow-citizens, and inquire where and by whom public authority has been violated or the laws infringed. These broad inquisitorial powers of the grand jury in this State have been further affirmed in many other cases among which are: In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Md. 616, 621, 137 A. 370; Coblentz v. State, 164 Md. 558, 566, 166 A. 45, 88 A.L.R. 886; Hitzelberger v. State, 173 Md. 435, 440, 196 A.288. Under these broad inquisitorial powers the grand jury may, of course, investigate a case which the State's Attorney, in his discretion, has decided not to present to that body. Upon the proper functioning of the grand jury the lives, security, and property of the people largely depend in the case of In re Lester, Mayor, 1886, 77 Ga. 143, at page 148: It is the right of any citizen or any individual of lawful age to come forward and prosecute for offenses against the state, or when he does not wish to become the prosecutor, he may give information of the fact to the grand jury, or any member of the body, and in either case, it will become their duty to investigate the matter thus communicated to them, or made known to one of them, whose obligation it would be to lay his information before that body. And further in

[Summary of pleading] - 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

the case of State v. Stewart, 45 La.Ann. 1164, 14 So. at page 145, supra: It is complained by the defendant that one S. A. Morgan, the leading state witness, went without summons or request before the grand jury, and gave his own version of the case against defendant, and instituted this prosecution. The witness had the undoubted right to go before the grand jury voluntarily, and disclose his knowledge of the case. As a good citizen, it was his duty to do so. No one can be excused for withholding knowledge of a crime from the public until he is summoned to give his testimony of its commission. Hott v. Yarborough, 112 Tex. 179, 245 S.W. 676, supra. It seems, therefore, from the cases herein cited, which might not be all on that subject, that the right of a private person to appear before the grand jury to make a complaint has been affirmed in the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and Georgia and denied in the state of Pennsylvania and also denied in Tennessee where the witness was not under oath. The Illinois Court seems to hold that there is adequate remedy before a magistrate and redress must be first sought there. The Federal decisions are not controlling, as there is a Federal statute on the subject. The broad common law inquisitorial powers of the grand jury never have been curtailed by statute in this state but have been reaffirmed as set out in the opinion in this case. As stated in the opinion upon which this motion is based, this Court said in the case of Blaney v. State, supra, 74 Md. At page 156, 21 A. at page 548: However restricted the functions of grand juries may be elsewhere, we hold that in this state they have plenary inquisitorial powers, and may lawfully themselves, and upon their own motion, originate charges against offenders, though no preliminary proceedings have been had before a magistrate, and though neither the court nor the state's attorney has laid the matter before them. This Court further said in the

[Summary of pleading] - 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

case of In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Md. 616, at page 622, 137, A. 370, at page 372: Presentments are accusations of crime made by the grand jury from their own knowledge or from evidence furnished them by witnesses or one or more of their members. If the presentation of cases before the grand jury in Baltimore City is controlled entirely by the State's attorney as the appellant contends in his brief, the question naturally arises as to why there should be a grand jury. It has been the custom in many of the counties of this State for private persons to make complaints to the grand juries. In this State no action has been taken to do away with that important body.
CONCLUSION

While prosecutorial discretion is admittedly broad, the court has recognized that it is subject to some judicial oversight. What the court has said on the subject in Brack v. Wells, is worth repeating: By the Constitution of Maryland, Article 5, Section 9, the States Attorney shall perform such duties as may by law be prescribed. By Section [34] of Article 10 of the [current] Code, that officer is required to prosecute and defend, on the part of the State, all cases in which the State may be interested. In such prosecutions of persons accused of crime, he must exercise a sound discretion to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. He must be trusted with broad official discretion to institute and prosecute criminal causes, subject generally to judicial control. 184 Md. 86, 90, 40 A.2d 319, 321 (1944) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) While, as the court has recognized, that prosecutorial discretion is broad, see Evans v. State, 396 Md. 256, 298, 914 A.2d 25, 49 (2006)(States attorneys retain the broad discretion . . . in determining which cases to prosecute, which offenses to charge, and how to prosecute the cases they bring.); see also Beverly v. State, 349 Md. 106, 121, 707 A.2d 91, 98 (1998) (It is well-settled that the determination of which criminal charges, if any, to bring is a matter of prosecutorial

[Summary of pleading] - 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

discretion.); Sinclair v. State, 278 Md. 243, 252, 363 A.2d 468, 474 (1976) Because it is clear that the states attorneys in this State have very wide and largely unreviewable discretion as to whether or not to pursue the prosecution of criminal offenses, an independent investigation by the Grand Jury should be commenced to ensure that justice and fairness is upheld in this case.

Respectfully Submitted,

Duane G. Davis 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Windsor Mill, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188 21st day of January 2013.

AFFIDAVIT I, Duane G. Davis, state that I have read the Verified Complaint and that the same is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief this 8th day of August 2013.

Duane G. Davis 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Windsor Mill, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188

[Summary of pleading] - 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Duane G. Davis, Plaintiff in proper person in the above captioned matter do hereby solemnly affirm that the contents of the enclosed Complaint has been forwarded on to the defendants by US mail on the 8th day of August 2013., first class, postage prepaid.

Respectfully,

Duane G. Davis 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Windsor Mill, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188

Dated this [Date] ___________________________ [Attorneys' address] [Attorneys' names]

[Summary of pleading] - 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

[Summary of pleading] - 15