You are on page 1of 7

Maintaining Frederick’s Criminal Enterprise

by Patrick Allen ... patrickwilliamallen@comcast.net




Frederick County, Maryland, considered by many as the bucolic heart of the State, has a storied history of
corruption, driven by political backslapping and insider financial favors. But nothing compares to the scope of
blatant corruption that currently envelopes this county under the leadership of its good-ole-boy chief executive,
Blaine Young.

Mr. Young fancies himself as the brightest bulb in the box, but when the rest of the bulbs are broken, that doesn’t
say much. His street thug swagger allowed him to easily take over control of the county’s Republican microphone,
which in the end may prove to be fatal for the local Republican party during the 2014 election cycle.

Mr. Young, as the Board of County Commissioners President, has solidified his Gotti-like stranglehold on the
county by securing a guaranteed voting majority on the BoCC as well as “we’ll do as we’re told” panelist on the
Planning and Ethics administrative commissions.

Recent events demonstrate that Mr. Young’s reach, or growth of his criminal enterprise, appears to extend into the
County Attorney’s office, where Mr. John Mathias consistently rules in favor of controversial BoCC actions and
members of his staff are instructed to block any attempts to expose the corruption and illegal activities taking place.

A six count ethics complaint was filed with the county on February 17, 2014. The six counts contained in the
complaint included:

 Allegation / Charge 1 – Frederick County Privatization – The Oliver Porter recommended privatization of
Frederick County personnel and services.
 Allegation / Charge 2 – Sale of Montevue / Citizens – The sale of these facilities to a pre-determined buyer.
 Allegation / Charge 3 – Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records – The acquisition and use of
confidential courthouse records for the purposes of damaging a potential political opponent.
 Allegation / Charge 4 – Business / Development Community Quid Pro Quo – The acknowledgement by Mr.
Young that favors between himself and the business / development community will be honored.
 Allegation / Charge 5 – Planning Commission Appointment(s) : Political Quid Pro Quo – The
acknowledgement by Mr. Young that he fast-tracked specific appointees for the purposes of political gain
during the 2014 County Council election cycle.
 Allegation / Charge 6 – Supervisor / Subordinate Relations – The highly questionable relationship,
apparently adulterous, between Mr. Young and a senior county employee in the county’s budget office.


Along with the formal submission of the ethics complaint document, was a companion document which stipulated
that five of the six allegations / charges contained criminal offense implications, which under the Standard
Operating Procedures of the Frederick County Ethics Commission ( C-2 and E-1 ), must be held in the strictest of
confidence and referred to an external investigative entity… i.e., Maryland State Attorney General, Maryland Office
of the Special Prosecutor and the Maryland State’s Attorney.

Allegations / Charges 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 each contain criminal offense implications … and within the 20 page
complaint document, present sufficient cause and evidence for these charges to be referred to the appropriate
external investigative authority.

However, the exception to inclusion and transmittal of investigative materials should not extend to Frederick based
State’s Attorney, Charles Smith, given that Mr. Smith has publicly endorsed Mr. Blaine Young in the 2014 Charter
Government County Executive election cycle.

The disappointment ( holding back on words I would rather use ) is the fact that the Frederick County Attorney’s
office appears to be working in collusion with Blaine Young’s appointed Ethics Commission. Perhaps in an attempt
to deny the complaint, in total, possibly based on a punctuation error found somewhere in the document.

More than two months after the 20 page ethics complaint was filed, the Frederick County Attorney’s office sent
correspondence stating that the Ethics Commission needed more information. Specifically, they wanted to know if
there were additional witnesses regarding allegation / charge #3 ( Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records ).

First and foremost, the Frederick County Ethics Commission must function under the guidelines and rules of the
Commission’s own Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). And, in the SOP, it is clearly stated that allegations /
charges, such as items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 contained in the complaint document cannot be shared with the “subject”
(Blaine Young) and must be referred to an external investigative entity.

The balance of this document presents a bi-directional email conversation between the “complainant” and a
representative from the Frederick County Attorney’s office. According to the County Attorney’s office, the Ethics
Commission is not performing a criminal investigation.

However, when you read the conversational exchange, it is quite clear that the Ethics Commission, or possibly /
probably, the County Attorney’s office itself, is stonewalling and slow walking a judicial process for the purposes of
protecting the criminal enterprise of Commissioners President Blaine Young and a number of other elected officials
and county employees from investigation, indictment and prosecution of illegal activities.

__________________________________________

Date / Time : April 23, 2014 1:38 pm
From : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney
To : Patrick Allen, Complainant

Mr. Allen,

The Ethics Commission asked that I contact you with regard to the third charge made in your pending ethics complaint. That
charge alleges that one or more County Commissioners were engaged in the “unethical and/or illegal use of prestige of office”
“regarding the pursuit and/or acquisition of confidential county courthouse records for the purposes of political gain.” (complaint,
page 6) This charge cannot be pursued further without more information from you. Please provide the names and contact
information for any persons other than yourself who have personal knowledge of the effort to obtain confidential courthouse
records, the positions held by those persons, a description of each person’s involvement and a description of the actions taken
by each County Commissioner against whom this charge is being made. (The Ethics Commission is not asking that you identify
the “damaging information” about a political opponent referenced in the complaint.)

Once a complaint is received, the person who is the subject of the complaint has the right to be made aware of the complaint
and to receive a copy of the complaint (unless the Commission decides that a criminal investigation should be made). The
subject of the complaint has the right to be heard by the Commission before an adverse decision is made and to be represented
by an attorney. As a matter of fairness, the subject of the complaint has the right to examine any records relied upon by the
complainant and to question any witnesses identified by the complainant who provide information or testimony in connection
with the complaint. Action cannot be taken based on information provided anonymously, nor can a promise be made that the
identity of witnesses will be kept confidential from the subject of the complaint.

Please provide the requested information by no later than April 30.

__________________________________________

Date / Time : April 23, 2014 4:19 pm
From : Patrick Allen, Complainant
To : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney

Dear Linda Thall,

Before responding your request, I would like to get some clarification. According to the Ethics Commission Standard Operating
Procedures:

Based on language in the Ethics Commission SOP, if a complaint contains alleged criminal violation(s), the
“subject” will not be provided a copy of the complaint and the Commission will refer the matter to the Office of
the Attorney General, the State Prosecutor, or the State’s Attorney for a determination as to whether a criminal
investigation is warranted. Once a referral for possible criminal prosecution is made, the Commission will not act
on the complaint until the referral is resolved (SOP, E-1).

This section of the SOP appears to provide clear guidance to the Ethics Commission, insofar as if the allegation / charge
contains criminal offense implications, the Ethics Commission is bound to at least two procedural instructions:

1. The specific allegation / charge cannot be revealed to or shared with the "subject". In this case Blaine Young.

2. The specific allegation / charge must be referred directly to the State AG and / or Office of the State
Prosecutor (OSP). In essence, the Ethics Commission cannot pursue a judgment on the specific allegation /
charge until the referral has been resolved by the State AG and / or OSP.

Can you provide clarification as to why the Ethics Commission is raising one or more questions, regarding this specific allegation
/ charge, at this time?

Respectfully,

Patrick Allen

__________________________________________

Date / Time : April 24, 2014 8:45 am
From : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney
To : Patrick Allen, Complainant

Mr. Allen,

I cannot comment on the specifics at this time. Section V.D.1 of the Ethics Commission’s Standard Operating Procedures
require that the proceedings and activities of the Ethics Commission and staff in connection with a complaint be conducted in a
confidential manner.

__________________________________________

Date / Time : April 24, 2014 9:43 am
From : Patrick Allen, Complainant
To : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney

Dear Linda Thall,

As the "Complainant", I feel that there is an untoward secrecy being used to screen me from the ethics complaint process. In
your original comment (below), you infer that the Ethics Commission is allowed to discuss the complaint with the "subject"
(Blaine Young).

Regarding 5 of the 6 allegations / charges submitted in the 20 page Ethics Complaint document submitted by me, the Ethics
Commission SOP is very clear on the procedural actions available to the Ethics Commission when the allegation / charge
contains "criminal offense implications". Once again, I would like to restate language within the Ethics Commission SOP which
underlies my serious concerns regarding this matter and the request for additional information which should be safeguarded and
only made available to a legitimate and external investigative body, to wit:

Based on language in the Ethics Commission SOP, if a complaint contains alleged criminal violation(s), the
“subject” will not be provided a copy of the complaint and the Commission will refer the matter to the Office of
the Attorney General, the State Prosecutor, or the State’s Attorney for a determination as to whether a criminal
investigation is warranted. Once a referral for possible criminal prosecution is made, the Commission will not act
on the complaint until the referral is resolved (SOP, E-1).

Statements made between two individuals, one person to another, has been repeatedly recognized and upheld in the courts as
"direct evidence".

Recorded statements (handwritten or typed) contained in meeting notes, personal journals and / or personal diaries has been
repeatedly recognized and upheld in the courts as "circumstantial evidence".

According to language in the complaint document, specific to this allegation / charge, Mr. Young stated that he knew of
confidential courthouse records which contained information he wanted to use to politically damage Jan Gardner. (direct
evidence)

When asked by me, several times over the course of several weeks, "Are you making any progress on getting the courthouse
records", Mr. Young explicitly stated, "I'm working on it". (direct evidence)

That statement, alone, demonstrates an action. An action in this case which Mr. Young admits to undertaking and clearly meets
the criteria of "criminal offense implications".

The notes from these meetings are reflected in my meeting notebook. (circumstantial evidence)

So, while you state "I cannot comment on the specifics at this time", citing process / procedural confidentiality, I would argue that
as the Complainant, I should also be included in that circle of confidentiality. More specifically, I believe it is important for me to
know if this Ethics Commission is acting in the role of a criminal investigative body, in direct violation of the Frederick County
Ethics Commission SOP.

In addition, I would like to submit direct language from the Ethics Commission SOP, which directly supports my argument that 1)
The Ethics Commission itself is not a criminal investigative body, and 2) The allegation / charge contained in the complaint
(specifically this charge and others in the complaint document) cannot and must not be shared with the "subject", Blaine Young,
et.al.

The following governing text is taken directly from the Frederick County Ethics Commission SOP. C-2 specifically supports the
citation of E-1 cited in my letter to you, dated February 17, 2014.

C. Notice to the parties of the filing of the complaint

1. Except as provided in section C.2, upon receipt of a complaint or the initiation of a complaint by the
Commission, the Commission will notify the subject of the complaint that a complaint has been made and will
provide that person with a copy of the complaint.

2. If a referral for a possible criminal investigation is made under section E.1 before an investigation is started,
notice will not be given to the subject of the complaint until after the referral is resolved.

Respectfully,

Patrick Allen
__________________________________________

Date / Time : April 24, 2014 12:34 pm
From : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney
To : Patrick Allen, Complainant

Mr. Allen,

The Ethics Commission is not conducting a criminal investigation. Further, I understand that if a referral is made to the Attorney
General, the State Prosecutor or the State’s Attorney under Section V.E.1 of the SOP, the complaint is not to be shared with the
subject of the complaint. If there is no referral under Section V.E.1 or the referral is resolved, the notice requirement in Section
V.C.1 will apply.

As previously stated, I am not in a position to divulge any additional information at this time.







__________________________________________



IMPORTANT NOTE : If the Ethics Commission, according to Linda Thall, is not conducting a criminal investigation, then what
is the purpose of any questions they may have?

The 20 page complaint document contains sufficient cause and evidence to refer the allegations / charges to an external
investigative entity.


Date / Time : April 24, 2014 2:33 pm
From : Patrick Allen, Complainant
To : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney

Dear Linda Thall,

First, I'd like to thank you for this bi-directional dialogue ... to facilitate questions and clarifications. Although, I feel that we may
be at an impasse which needs to be resolved.

I get it that the Ethics Commission may not be conducting a criminal investigation, but the question has not been answered as to
whether they have been privileged to information in the ethics complaint, or whether the content of the ethics complaint has
remained within your office.

I'm sure you are aware of the palatable distrust in Frederick County which many citizens have regarding Mr. Blaine Young ...
and by extension ... the BoCC appointed Ethics and Planning Commission administrative panels. This distrust, for many
citizens, extends to Mr. Mathias, the Frederick County Attorney, as well.

I hope you can understand my reservations regarding naming one or more additional persons, who I consider confidential
sources, unless that information is provided directly to a trusted investigative body.

As demonstrated by Mr. Young's public comments directed at me (WFMD Radio, Frederick News-Post, The Tentacle blog site),
his ever-evolving and untruthful remarks have been made in an effort to publicly discredit me personally as the messenger ...
and I want to be sure that others and their reputations will be protect from this type of conduct.

I strongly believe that the information contained in the 20 page Ethics Complaint document, as well as comments made in this
bi-directional exchange, provides sufficient cause and evidence for the specified allegation / charge (#3) to be directly referred to
the appropriate external investigative entities.

I also believe that other allegations / charges (#1, #2, #4 and #6) provide equal sufficiency in both cause and evidence to be
directly referred to the appropriate external investigative entities as well.

Also, in your last comment(s), you refer to the State's Attorney. As noted in correspondence to you at an earlier date, Mr.
Charles Smith has publicly endorsed Mr. Blaine Young's political campaign for Charter Government County Executive, and to
that extent should be recused from any association with this matter as well as access to any evidential materials.

To wrap up where I began, I feel that we may be at an impasse which needs to be resolved.

Your advice to break this perceived logjam is appreciated.

Respectfully,

Patrick Allen

__________________________________________

Four Days of No Correspondence
__________________________________________


Date / Time : April 28, 2014 8:26 pm
From : Patrick Allen, Complainant
To : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney

Dear Linda Thall,

When our email exchange ended on April 24, 2014, I had provided what I believe is sufficient foundation to support the
numerous allegations / charges of illegal conduct by Frederick County BoCC President Blaine Young, et.al., cited, sourced and
evidenced in a 20 page ethics complaint document ... charges which contain "criminal offense implications" ... to be referred to
the Maryland State Attorney General and the Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor.

Our email exchanged ended with a request to you for your advice in breaking a perceived logjam in our positions ahead of the
imposed deadline of April 30, 2014. The last line in my email to you stated, "Your advice to break this perceived logjam is
appreciated".

I am concerned the Frederick County Ethics Commission will locally deny the 20 page ethics complaint based on politically
motivated and capricious thinking ... rather than the rule of law and governing guidelines contained in the Frederick County
Ethics Ordinance and the Frederick County Ethics Commission Standard Operating Procedures ... perhaps attempting to cite
"lack of evidence and / or specifics", or "lack of cooperation by the Complainant" ... each of which would be fabricated untruths.

These are serious times for Frederick County, given the fact the county faces a migration to a new and sovereign form of
government following the 2014 election cycle, and the allegations / charges levied against one or more BoCC members, county
employees, etc., demand to be taken seriously.

I encourage you to re-engage in our discussion and provide objective counsel to the Ethics Commission to ensure due process
for the citizens of Frederick County is observed.

Respectfully,

Patrick Allen

__________________________________________


Date / Time : April 29, 2014 10:51 am
From : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney
To : Patrick Allen, Complainant

Mr. Allen,

I believe that the Ethics Commission’s request, conveyed on April 23, was clear. The Commission simply wants to know
whether you have more information to support the allegation made in the third charge of the complaint that you submitted to the
Ethics Commission. If you have any additional facts that you want the Ethics Commission to consider in deciding how to
proceed on this portion of your complaint, you are being given the opportunity to make those facts known. If you do not believe
that additional facts are needed, the Ethics Commission will make its decision based on the information provided in the
complaint.

__________________________________________

Date / Time : April 29, 2014 11:34 am
From : Patrick Allen, Complainant
To : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney

Dear Linda Thall,

I have additional information, categorized as circumstantial, which would be of benefit to an external investigative
agency. As stated in my earlier correspondence, I strongly believe that the content within the complaint document
as well as comments exchanged between the two of us in this message thread provides the Ethics Commission
panel ample and sufficient - as direct and circumstantial - evidence to warrant referral to the MD State AG and MD
Office of the State Prosecutor without question or hesitation.

As an aside, I believe the Ethics Commission members, if they have not already, should be instructed on the legal
definitions of direct and circumstantial evidence and the extent to which allegations #1, 2, 3, 4 and possibly 6
contain direct and circumstantial evidence. Established case law could / should be cited in order to reinforce the
Commissioner's understanding ... followed by a reminder of the governing rules in the Ethics Commission Standard
Operating Procedures which provide unambiguous referral guidelines pertaining to ethics complaints containing
criminal offense implications filed against BoCC members.

Respectfully,

Patrick Allen

__________________________________________

Eight Days of No Correspondence
__________________________________________



Date / Time :May 7, 2014 1:53 pm
From : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney
To : Patrick Allen, Complainant

Mr. Allen,

I have been asked by the Ethics Commission to send you the following message:

The Ethics Commission understands your view and personal interpretation of the Ethics Ordinance.

The Ethics Commission neither appreciates nor agrees with your characterization of its process or intentions as being influenced
by "capricious and politically-motivated thinking". The Commission works diligently to review each complaint or request, no
matter how tenuous, and to apply consistent and fair rulings founded on an in-depth and seasoned understanding of the County
Ethics Ordinance and the Commission’s Standard Operating Procedures. This fair and non-biased application of standards is
critical to creating a fair and transparent review process for ALL citizens of Frederick county.

The Ethics Commission would like to know whether you will be providing the information previously requested.

__________________________________________

Date / Time : May 7, 2014 2:45 pm
From : Patrick Allen, Complainant
To : Linda Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney

Dear Linda Thall,

The Commissioners wrote, "The Ethics Commission understands your view and personal interpretation of the Ethics Ordinance."

It should be made clear to the panelists on the Frederick County Ethics Commission that statements provided by me are not
simply one person's view or personal interpretation. The legally-vetted Articles contained in the Frederick County Ethics
Ordinance and Standard Operating Procedures, which govern the operational functionality of the Ethics Commission panelists,
are not ambiguous in their interpretation as presented in the 20 page complaint document as well as accompanying email
exchanges with you as their legal adviser.

You wrote, "The Ethics Commission would like to know whether you will be providing the information previously requested."

As stipulated several times in our previous email exchanges, I do have additional information ... as direct or circumstantial
evidence as well as the name(s) of witness(es) to corroborate and add valuable insight regarding one or more counts specified
in the 20 page ethics complaint document ... specifically:

Count 3 – Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records. Unethical and / or illegal use of prestige of
office by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly other members
of the BoCC regarding the pursuit and / or acquisition of confidential county courthouse records for the purposes
of political gain.

Also, as stipulated several times in our previous email exchanges, the 20 page complaint document contains sufficient cause
and evidence (direct and circumstantial) regarding each count in the document to meet and / or exceed the threshold for counts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to be referred, without hesitation, to the Maryland State Attorney General and the Maryland Office of the State
Prosecutor.

The Ethics Commission's Standard Operating Procedures is very clear regarding conduct and / or activities which contain
"criminal offense implications".

It is puzzling to consider the Ethics Commission, as an administrative entity with very limited judicial flexibility, appears to be
attempting to act in a judicial manner which is outside the scope of defined responsibilities as written in the Frederick County
Ethics Ordinance and the Frederick County Ethics Commission Standard Operating Procedures.

Respectfully,

Patrick Allen
__________________________________________
Sources and References

20 Page Ethics Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/207567447/FredCo-Ethics-Violations-Complaint
Ethics Commission SOP Letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/207646067/Ethics-Commission-SOP-Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send Comments and Feedback to : patrickwilliamallen@comcast.net