Woodson Branche Notice Of Claims

NEAL M. JANEY ATTORNEY-AT-LAW Post Office Box 1054 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 3801 Canterbury Road Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Telephone: (410) 340-6616 Facsimile: (801) 757-8281

April 20, 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable George Nilson City Solicitor City Hall, Room 101 100 Holliday Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Re:

Notice of Claims Officer Mohamed Ali, II Officer Francis Hamilton Officer Steven Hatley Officer Valentine Nagovich, Jr. Officer Brian Shaffer

Dear Mr. Solicitor: A.

INTRODUCTION

This is a Notice of Claim on behalf of the police officers referenced above and other officers who are similarly situated. They are asserting claims against the JoAnn Woodson Branche, the Baltimore Police Department, police officials, the City of Baltimore and City officials arising out of apparent improper and illegal actions, practices and policies of Ms. Branche and others in handling BPD internal investigations, administrative disciplinary matters, trial boards and court litigation cases over several years. The nature and extent of those actions, practices and policies did not become known to the public until after Ms. Branche was fired by the BPD on April 14, 2009.

B.

CLAIMANTS

The officers named above acting not only for themselves but also as representatives of a class of officers similarly situated.

C.

REPRESENTATIVES

Neal M. Janey Attorney-At-Law P. O. Box 1054 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Telephone: 410-340-6616 Facsimile: 410-662-9644 and Robert L. Smith, Jr. Attorney-At-Law 10 North Calvert Street, Suite 204 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Telephone: 410-244-1222 Facsimile: 410-244-1333 D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

RESPONDENTS

JoAnn Woodson Branche Debbie Owens Frederick Bealefeld Charging Committee Members, BPD Trial Board Members, BPD Baltimore Police Department Members, agents, servants, employees and officials of the BPD Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, a Municipal Corporation Agents, servants, employees and officials of the City E.

DATES AND PLACES OF INCIDENTS

Beginning in 2006 when Ms. Branche was hired as an assistant city solicitor and assigned to be trial board counsel of the BPD up to and including the present in the City of Baltimore, Maryland.

F.

NATURE OF CLAIMS

Ms. Branche was hired in 2006 as an assistant city solicitor to handle as counsel one of the most sensitive and critical operations of any urban police department, namely, internal investigations, administrative disciplinary matters, trial boards and related court litigation. Upon information and belief, around the fall or winter of 2007, Ms. Brown was fired and terminated from payroll by the BPD for what were apparently improprieties and other acts of misconduct in handling her work. On the day she was fired and while being escorted out of Police Department headquarters, she declared that she was politically connected, her mother would be making some calls and she would return to her job in three weeks. She returned to work in about three weeks. Sometime in the spring of 2008, Ms. Branche was transferred from the payroll of the Baltimore Law Department, a City agency, to the payroll of the Baltimore Police Department, a state agency. In December 2008, she was promoted to the position of a civilian director of the BPD, the equivalent of a Major, a policymaking position, and given a $30,000.00 pay increase. Throughout her tenure, Ms. Branche abused her authority and, upon information and belief, engaged in a pattern and practice of improprieties and other acts of misconduct with respect to her work, namely, internal investigations, administrative disciplinary matters, trial boards and related court litigation cases involving the officers named herein and many others similarly situated apparently with the knowledge and acquiescence of her superiors and others, and with a reckless disregard for the statutory rights, constitutional rights and civil rights of the police officers whose lives and careers she was ruining because her superiors and others for political reasons and other reasons chose to look the other way and not perform the duties they owed to police officers and the citizens of Baltimore to train, oversee, supervise, manage, discipline and terminate her from employment as they were legally required to do. Among other things, upon information and belief, she back dated charging documents; made up and altered evidence; vindictively targeted officers for discipline and termination; selectively enforced general orders; selectively prosecuted cases; manipulated trial board schedules; made arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and politically motivated decisions about discipline; took arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and politically motivated actions and engaged in such practices regarding discipline; coerced settlements; leaked private and confidential information; used political connections to be hired and then reinstated after she was initially fired; and, engaged in other actions, practices, improprieties and acts of misconduct that have violated, currently violate and will continue for years to come

the statutory rights, constitutional rights, union contract rights and civil rights of police officers including actions and practices that discriminated against them on the basis of race, gender, color, age, sexual orientation and national origin. Officials and employees of the BPD and the City were negligent in hiring Ms. Branche and grossly negligent in rehiring her after she was first fired. Those officials and employees knew and should have known what she was doing, condoned and ratified what she was doing, failed to take corrective action and failed to take disciplinary action or terminate her from employment sooner. The actions, practices and policies of Ms. Branche and others were illegal and violated the rights of the officers, and were the direct and proximate causes of serious injuries and substantial damages to the officers. The claims asserted by Claimants include, but are not limited to: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. Provision) q. r. s. t. u.

Due Process Violations Equal Protection Violations Discrimination Civil Rights Violations Defamation False Light Invasion of Privacy Negligent Hiring Failure to Train Negligent Training Failure to Supervise Negligent Supervision Malicious Prosecution Selective Enforcement Selective Prosecution Violation of Sec. 210401, Violent Crime & Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14141 (Police Misconduct Violation of Sec. 809 (c), Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3789d Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d Violations of U.S. Department of Justice Regulations, 28 C.F.R., Part 42, Subpart C Concealment Civil Conspiracy

G.

DAMAGES AND RELIEF

Claimants and others similarly situated have suffered currently suffer and will continue to suffer in the future severe injuries and substantial damages for which they are entitled to compensation, punitive damages and other relief. With respect to relief, Claimants request the following: 1. That liability for the claims be accepted; 2. That Claimants be awarded or granted compensatory damages; 3. That Claimants be awarded or granted punitive damages; and, 4. That Claimants be awarded or granted any further damages and other relief deemed to be appropriate under the circumstances. Once liability has been accepted, Claimant are willing to enter into good faith negotiations with Respondents or their representatives to arrive at an appropriate settlement of their claims. H.

ATTACHMENTS

I.

CONCLUSION

None.

For the reasons stated, Claimants respectfully request the relief as set forth herein; otherwise, after 5 business days, they will proceed to file a lawsuit. J.

CONTACT

The lead contact person with respect to this Notice of Claim will be Neal M. Janey. He may be reached at 410-340-6616. Sincerely, /S/ Neal M. Janey Neal M. Janey