<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, July 22, 2013

henson case 

This story is too good to pass up.



I was googling for references to state attorney general opinions about McIntyre v Ohio,and I ran into the strange case of Julius Henson. Straight out of "The Wire", it's an episode of corrupt Baltimore politics, backstabbing and doubledealing for cash.

Henson has been fined a cool $ million by the feds for a corrupt robocall made on election day in 2010. That's a little high, but I guess they needed a fall guy. But that's not why I'm writing.

Henson was jailed for a month for violating Maryland's disclaimer statute.
That makes him only about the 4th man in history to go to jail over disclaimers.
There was a guy in Missouri in 1908 (Ex Parte Harrison), Dennis in Massachusetts in 1974, and maybe Doug Geutsloe in Florida last year. I'm not counting my friend Martin Schaffer in West Virginia - he was arrested but released the same night, and we got the charges dropped. [corrected typo]

The judge refused to let Henson out on bond during the appeal, so he's already served his month, and is doing three years probation, and is, so I hear, running for the state senate.

A jury aquitted him on three counts, stuff like voter fraud and race discrimination in voting, but convicted him of conspiracy to not use a disclaimer on his robocall.

By the way, the robocall was reprehensible,and I'm not defending it. My point is that Maryland's disclaimer statute is unconstitutional under Talley v California. Julius Henson and Manuel Talley have some things in common.

Henson was not well-represented in the appeal, and might have a case for post-conviction relief.

Below are some links to the opinion (pdf only) and some Baltimore Sun coverage.

This story is evolving as I add links. I have emailed the Sun and may end up becoming part of the story myself, too soon to say.

http://www.marylandjuice.com/2013/02/rumor-julius-henson-to-challenge-sen.html



www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/1046s12.pdf


May 30, 2013 - IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS. OF MARYLAND. No. 1046. September Term, 2012. JULIUS HENSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND.

http://afro.com/sections/news/baltimore/story.htm?storyid=78650

Does anybody have contact information for Henson or his lawyer, Smith?

http://www.afro.com/multimedia/photos/71596/juliushenson_robocalls.jpg

http://www.afro.com/sections/news/Baltimore/story.htm?storyid=71596

Court Documents Detail Plot of Ehrlich Election Staffers to Suppress Black Vote

Evidence Seized from Julius Henson Reflects a 6 Month Plot

During a two-hour period on Election Day, Nov. 2, more than 110,000 people received a call with the recording prior to voter polls closing.

http://www.afro.com/hosted/06192011/henson_indictment.pdf
the indictment

 Despite major losses for Democrats nationwide, O'Malley defeated Ehrlich 56%-42%, receiving just over one million votes.[41]  --wikipedia
so henson was actually correct - O'Malley had already won, and Black Democratis voters could save their time, and time = money, by skipping voting that day. Few downballot races were competitive. Of course, we only know that with hindsight. At the time, the election could have seemed to still be in play. I havent looked at the polling data from 2010.

Henson was owner of Politics Today, a consulting firm. "Sheee-ittt" - as that guy from the wire would say. O'Malley seems to be the guy Carcetti from the wire was based on.


Maryland Code, Election Law 13-401

Maryland Code > Election Law > ยง 13-401



Current as of: 2010

        (a)    (1)   Except as otherwise provided in this section, each item of campaign material shall contain, set apart from any other message, an authority line that states:
(i)   as to campaign material published or distributed by a campaign finance entity:
1.   the name and address of the treasurer of each campaign finance entity responsible for the campaign material; and
2.   as to each treasurer named under item 1 of this item, the name of each campaign finance entity for which the treasurer is acting; and
(ii)   as to campaign material published or distributed by any other person, the name and address of the person responsible for the campaign material.
(2)   The authority line may omit an address that is on file with the State Board or a local board.
(3)   If the campaign material is too small to include all the information specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection in a legible manner, the authority line need only contain the name and title of the treasurer or other person responsible for it.
(4)   The authority line for campaign material that is a commercial advertisement need only contain the information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection for one campaign finance entity or other person responsible for the advertisement.
(b)   Campaign material that is published or distributed in support of or in opposition to a candidate, but is not authorized by the candidate, shall include the following statement:
"This message has been authorized and paid for by (name of payor or any organization affiliated with the payor), (name and title of treasurer or president). This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate."
manuel talley pictures:
http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/32/0f05542577fa62ff369befb7cf352bd7/l.jpg

https://a1-images.myspacecdn.com/images03/22/36e5521f11934a39b1feb00a5decfba3/300x300.jpg

https://a1-images.myspacecdn.com/images03/22/36e5521f11934a39b1feb00a5decfba3/300x300.jpg

http://mi-cache.legacy.com/legacy/images/Cobrands/LSJ/Photos/CLS_Lobits_mcintyreV.eps_234049.jpg
it's small, but this is the first picture i've seen of margaret mcintyre.






nope. that's the wrong mcintyre.




A very short critique of the decision:

The relevant and controling cases are Talley and Mcintyre. The statute is facially unconstitutional, even if it could have sustained an as-applied challenge in the context of this fraudulent and also illegal robocall. A statute limited to robocalls could be upheld on voter privacy grounds, but the statute is far broader than that.
The court erred in thinking that Citizens United is controlling, because Citizens is only a case about speech by corporations. You have to figure that out from context; the opinion itself does not explain that is is limited to corporate speech. If it had been, it would have overruled cases like McIntyre, Talley, Tornillo, Wooley, Federation of the Blind, and so on, and we have reason to know that that is not the case.

This opinion was decided quite awhile ago, but only reported this month. Perhaps DC is backed up in its reporting, or perhaps it was decision first, opinion later; I'm not clear.
But by the time the case was reported, Henson was already out of jail. I do not know yet whether any further appeal is in progress.

I figured out why the name Henson seemed familiar.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-07-13/news/bal-julius-henson-released-from-jail-20120713_1_election-day-robocall-ehrlich-campaign-manager-julius-henson

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-06-13/news/bs-md-henson-sentencing-20120613_1_robocall-julius-henson-ehrlich-campaign

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/06/26/protesters-demand-julius-hensons-release-from-prison/

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/tag/julius-henson/

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/06/14/u-of-md-law-professor-defends-julius-henson-calls-for-reduced-sentence/

http://thedailyrecord.com/tag/julius-henson/

That's enough for tonight.
-30-






Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?