In the last segment, we explained why primaries — not general elections — often decide outcomes in Cecil County.

That raises an obvious next question:

Who can afford to compete in those primaries in the first place?

The answer helps explain why the same names, interests, and outcomes keep repeating — regardless of party labels.

Running for office isn’t free — even locally. Competitive campaigns require early money, time away from work, and organization long before most voters are paying attention.

Early money matters more than total money. Candidates who raise funds early can build visibility, discourage challengers, and shape the race before it truly begins.

Public campaign finance records show that most funding does not come from everyday residents, but from business owners, developers, utilities, professional firms, and political committees.

One local example is the Cecil Business Leaders for Better Government (CBL) PAC, which publicly reports receiving money from business and development interests and spending it to support preferred candidates.

Party labels don’t tell the whole story. In a county dominated by one party in general elections, candidates often adapt affiliations to remain viable, and donors support people rather than party platforms.

For many residents, the barriers to running are real — financial risk, workplace pressure, and fear of retaliation keep good people from ever entering the race.

This is not necessarily about corruption. It’s about structure — and structure shapes outcomes.

Next up: how institutions multiply this advantage

The post Segment 3A Who Can Afford to Compete? appeared first on Cecil County News.

Why So Many Elections Feel Decided Before November

Many voters in Cecil County believe the most important election is the general election in November. In practice, that is often not the case. For years, the real contest for power has occurred much earlier — during primary elections.

Cecil County has a long-standing Republican registration advantage. As a result, candidates who win the Republican primary frequently go on to win the general election, regardless of turnout or opposition later in the year.

A Real Example: The 2024 Republican Primary

The May 14, 2024 Republican primary offers a clear example of how power is often decided before November.

In the County Executive race, Republican Adam Streight defeated incumbent Danielle Hornberger in the primary, securing the party’s nomination. Given Cecil County’s consistent Republican advantage in general elections, the outcome of this primary effectively determined the general election result months in advance.

In Council District 5, the Republican primary was also closely contested, with Dawn Branch winning by a narrow margin. That intra-party contest — not the general election — was where voters had the greatest opportunity to influence who would represent them.

These races illustrate how, in Cecil County, the most consequential electoral decisions often happen during the primary, when turnout is lower and fewer voters are paying attention.

Closed Primaries and the Illusion of Choice

Maryland operates under a closed primary system, meaning only voters registered with a political party may vote in that party’s primary.

In a county where one party holds a strong registration advantage, closed primaries concentrate decision-making power into a smaller group of voters months before the general election.

Why This Matters to You

When leadership is effectively chosen during primaries, many voters unknowingly miss the most important part of the process. This helps explain why people feel disconnected or frustrated after general elections — the outcome was often already decided.

What Comes Next

If primaries decide who governs, the next question is simple: who can afford to compete there? In the next segment, we’ll examine how early campaign funding shapes local races — and why grassroots candidates often find themselves behind before the first vote is cast.

Editor’s Note

This reporting is based on public election results and documented election structures. No allegation of criminal wrongdoing is made.

The post Segment #3 — Elections, Primaries, and Why the Real Fight Happens Early appeared first on Cecil County News.

Segment #2 – How Influence Worked in Cecil County Politics

Cecil County News – Investigative Desk

This article is part of the ongoing investigative series, “Cecil County Under the Microscope,” which examines governance, political influence, and institutional accountability in Cecil County.

From Structure to Action

In the first segment of this series, we examined the origins of Cecil Business Leaders (CBL), where its funding came from, how it gained access to decision-makers, and how it helped shape public support for centralized county governance.

This segment focuses on how influence worked in practice, based on observable patterns in public records, elections, and governance structures—not on allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Shared Messaging and Countywide Reach

Across multiple election cycles, similar themes appeared repeatedly in campaign materials, public statements, and policy arguments aligned with CBL priorities.

These messages emphasized efficiency, economic growth, and running county government like a business.

Because these themes were carried through business marketing, public-facing communications, and political messaging, they reached voters across every district, not just during election season but continuously.

Why This Matters to You

Repeated messages influence how people think about what is possible and what is normal. When the same ideas appear over and over—from ads, meetings, and official statements—they can start to feel like common sense rather than persuasion. For taxpayers, this can shape support for policies long before votes are cast, often without clear discussion of who benefits most.

At-Large Voting and the Dilution of District Representation

Although Cecil County is divided into districts for representation, council members are elected at-large.

This means voters across the entire county cast ballots for all district seats, rather than districts selecting their own representatives.

In practice, at-large voting dilutes district-specific preferences and amplifies the impact of countywide influence.

Why This Matters to You

If you live in a specific district, at-large voting means your community does not truly choose its own representative. Even when most people in your area oppose a decision, countywide voting can override that local preference. Over time, this can make voters feel disconnected and unheard, even though the system—not apathy—is driving the outcome.

Business Influence and Public Resources

Businesses operate in every district and maintain daily contact with residents through marketing, services, and employment.

When businesses aligned with or influenced by CBL receive public benefits such as grants, favorable zoning decisions, or enterprise-zone designations, those advantages extend beyond economics.

These benefits can translate into sustained visibility and influence over public opinion, often supported by taxpayer-funded programs.

Why This Matters to You

Public grants, tax incentives, and zoning decisions are funded by taxpayers. When the same businesses benefiting from these policies also have the loudest voice in public messaging, ordinary residents can be crowded out of the conversation. This can affect how tax dollars are spent and who has consistent access to decision-makers.

What This Means for Taxpayers and Voters

Understanding how influence works helps explain why the same outcomes repeat over time.

These systems do not rely on any single election, candidate, or decision. They persist because they are structural.

Why This Matters to You

As a voter, understanding these dynamics gives you more power, not less. In a county where primary elections often decide outcomes, participation in primaries matters. Paying attention to how public money is used, who benefits from policies, and how decisions are made can help break cycles that feel inevitable. Change starts with understanding how the system actually works.

Editor’s Note

This reporting is based on public records, governance structures, and documented political activity. No allegation of criminal wrongdoing is made.

The post Segment #2 – How Influence Worked in Cecil County Politics appeared first on Cecil County News.

Cecil County News – Investigative Desk

This article is part of the ongoing investigative series, “Cecil County Under the Microscope,” which examines governance, political influence, and institutional accountability in Cecil County.

I. Why Cecil Business Leaders Matters

Before examining allegations of misconduct or ethical failure, it is necessary to understand how political influence was structured in Cecil County.

Cecil Business Leaders (CBL) emerged not merely as a civic association, but as an organized political force whose access, messaging, and resources positioned it to shape outcomes long before controversies arose.

II. Formation and Public Mission

CBL formed during a period of economic transition in Cecil County, publicly presenting itself as a pro-growth, pro-business organization.

Its stated mission emphasized efficiency, competitiveness, and modernization of county governance.

Public records and archived materials show that CBL sought legitimacy by framing its activities as civic engagement rather than partisan coordination.

III. Organizational Structure and Political Reality

While CBL was not itself an elected body, its leadership and supporters frequently overlapped with candidates, donors, and appointed officials.

This overlap created informal but persistent channels of influence that extended beyond traditional advocacy.

Such structures are not inherently unlawful, but they warrant scrutiny when transparency and accountability mechanisms are weak.

IV. Funding Streams and Financial Influence

CBL benefited from concentrated financial support drawn from aligned business interests.

Campaign finance disclosures and public filings indicate that this funding enabled sustained political engagement across multiple election cycles.

The significance of this funding lies not in illegality, but in the scale and consistency of access it facilitated.

IV-B. Charter Government and the Case for Concentrated Power

One of the most consequential structural changes in Cecil County governance was the adoption of charter government.

Charter government was publicly framed as a means of increasing efficiency, professionalism, and accountability by consolidating executive authority.

CBL played a visible role in fostering public support for this transition, advocating for centralized governance as a pro-business reform aligned with economic growth.

This advocacy helped shape the narrative presented to voters, emphasizing modernization while downplaying the risks inherent in concentrated power.

Centralized authority simplifies access for organized interests, reduces the number of decision-makers, and increases the impact of sustained political engagement.

Many residents supported charter government in good faith, believing it would improve governance. However, the long-term effect of such structural concentration is to magnify influence when safeguards fail.

V. Access to Power and Institutional Familiarity

CBL-aligned individuals consistently demonstrated access to county leadership, boards, and commissions.

This access was not limited to election cycles, but persisted through appointments and policy discussions.

The resulting institutional familiarity created an environment where certain voices were repeatedly heard, while others struggled to gain entry.

VI. Early Warning Signs

Even during CBL’s rise, some community members raised concerns about transparency and disproportionate influence.

These warnings did not allege criminal behavior, but questioned whether democratic balance was being eroded.

Such concerns were often dismissed at the time as resistance to change.

VII. Why This Foundation Matters

Understanding CBL’s origins, funding, and access is essential to evaluating later controversies examined in this series.

Power structures precede outcomes. Without examining how influence was built, later events cannot be fairly assessed.

The next segment will examine how this influence translated into coordinated political operations.

Editor’s Note

This reporting relies on public records, archived materials, and documented patterns of conduct.

No finding of criminal wrongdoing is asserted. Individuals and organizations referenced are invited to respond, and clarifications will be published.

The post Segment #1 — The Rise of Cecil Business Leaders (CBL): Origins, Funding, and Access appeared first on Cecil County News.

An Ongoing Investigative Series Examining Governance, Ethics, and Power in Cecil County

By Cecil County News Investigative Desk

This article inaugurates a new investigative series by Cecil County News examining a pattern of political conduct, institutional entanglements, and governance decisions that, taken together, raise serious ethical and potential criminal questions about how power has been exercised in Cecil County over the past two decades.

The reporting that follows is based on public records, court filings, election data, archived correspondence, and firsthand testimony. No allegation herein is presented as a finding of guilt. Rather, this series applies a journalistic standard: whether the documented facts, when viewed collectively, suggest reasonable grounds for public concern, further investigation, or official review.

At the center of this reporting is the Cecil Business Leaders organization (CBL), a political advocacy group that publicly described itself as pro-growth and pro-business. Former members, public officials, and community observers allege that CBL’s influence extended far beyond policy advocacy into coordinated election activity, control of public messaging, and retaliation against political dissent.

This series will proceed chronologically and thematically. Early segments will address the formation and rise of CBL, followed by its influence within county government, the public school system, and local media ecosystems. Later installments will examine judicial, redistricting, and procurement-related controversies, including claims of conflicts of interest and institutional self-protection.

Importantly, Cecil County News does not assert criminal culpability. However, where actions plausibly intersect with election law, public ethics statutes, or constitutional protections, those intersections will be clearly identified and analyzed.

Residents of Cecil County deserve transparency. They deserve to understand how decisions affecting taxes, schools, zoning, and elections were made, by whom, and under what incentives. This investigative series exists to present those facts in a structured, documented, and accessible manner.

Future weekly installments will focus on specific actors, documented events, and institutional mechanisms. Each article will stand on its own, while contributing to a broader evidentiary narrative. Readers are encouraged to review source documents as they are released alongside this reporting.

Editor’s Note: Individuals named in this series are referenced in relation to documented public actions, records, or statements. Responses and clarifications will be published when received.

The post Cecil County Under the Microscope appeared first on Cecil County News.

The post Bob Gatchel calls out conflict of interest. appeared first on Cecil County News.

On Tuesday September 7^th at the bi-weekly legislative hearing the Cecil County Council continued their long pattern of disregard for the law surrounding the upcoming Redistricting Commission. As detailed in previous articles, the Redistricting Commission, which is being formed to create a redistricting plan incorporating the 2020 U.S. Census data, has been beset by delays, political squabbling, and Council-created obstacles. Council President Bob Meffley has used, and continues to use, his position on the Council to circumvent the County Charter and influence the composition of the Redistricting Commission, thereby influencing the outcome. This Legislative Meeting was yet another example of Bob Meffley’s attempts to impose the will of the Cecil Business Leaders PAC over the will of the people. As his efforts to appease his cronies are exposed, Meffley’s actions become more obvious and more egregious. 

In accordance with the Open Meetings Act, the Council is required to post the agenda of the Legislative Meeting at least 24 hours in advance. The agenda must name the resolutions to be considered and provide drafts of those resolutions for the public to review. This gives the public the opportunity to not only understand what the Council is voting on, but also to allow the public ample opportunity to appear and comment on the legislation. The September 7^th Legislative Meeting did not list the resolution introducing the Redistricting Commission on the agenda in advance of the meeting. In addition to this resolution not being listed, there was also no draft of the resolution for the public to view. Since the Council failed to alert the public of their intent to propose the Redistricting Commission and failed to provide a draft of the resolution, the public was unable to effectively provide comment. 

Councilman Meffley’s violation of the Open Meetings Act, in the context of his previous actions, illustrate beyond doubt that the steps leading up to the current redistricting calamity can no longer be attributed to incompetence alone. The motives for Councilman Meffley’s failure to comply with the Open Meeting Act became immediately clear once the resolution naming the individuals to serve on the Redistricting Commission were read aloud. As explained in previous articles, the Council is mandated by the Charter to appoint one member to make the Commission an odd number, and they must select a chairman from the members of the Commission. Had the Council posted the resolution, the public would have seen that the Council replaced their appointed member at the last minute. Not only does this mean that the council made a material change to the proposed Commission without any notice to the public, but it also eliminated the opportunity of any member of the public to provide comments regarding this selection. 

As if blindsiding the public and shutting out the voices of County residents was not bad enough, Councilman Meffley’s most egregious action came by way of the individual who was selected. It was announced at the Legislative Meeting that the Council appointed member on the Redistricting Commission is going to be failed political candidate Carl Roberts. You may remember Roberts was selected by former County Executive Alan McCarthy to join his transition team in 2016. The same Alan McCarthy that County voters resoundingly rejected last election due to his unprecedented levels of corruption, tax and spend policies, and drunk driving charge. Roberts has also made several donations to candidates and organizations that Cecil County voters have rejected or voted out of office. In addition to Alan McCarthy, Carl Roberts made financial contributions to Martin O’Malley, Cecil Business Leaders PAC, Cecil County Democrat Central Committee, David Rudolph, and failed Gubernatorial candidate and radical Democrat Jain Ashwani. This is the discernment of the man Bob Meffley thought would make a beneficial addition to the Redistricting Commission. Not only are there serious doubts about the judgement of Carl Roberts, but also of the Council members who supported his appointment. 

It is not hard to believe that Bob Meffley was able to find support for Carl Roberts among other council members since Carl Roberts also made campaign contributions to Bill Coutz, Al Miller, and George Patchell. When voters are prevented from speaking, money will. It is unacceptable that the Republican Council would choose to hamstring the Republican efforts for a fair plan on the Redistricting Commission by tilting the balance in favor of the Cecil Business Leaders PAC. This is clearly a move to ensure the County Districts remain acceptable to the current council, and not in accordance with a genuine interpretation of the 2020 Census Data. It runs counter to what residents of Cecil County voted for, and it bypasses the provisions of the Charter that seek to make the Council a neutral part of the redistricting process. 

The violation of the Open Meetings Act and the silent replacement with Carl Roberts are only the most recent entries on Councilman Meffley’s long list of failures. His attempt to prejudice the Redistricting Commission and shut out public comment is made even more evident by the fact that at the same meeting where the redistricting resolution was introduced, he gaveled down and silenced the only person who stood up to speak out against it. The only way to let the Council know that we are paying attention and displeased by their actions is by holding them accountable at the next Legislative Meeting when they take the final vote on the Redistricting Commission Resolution. On September 21^st, residents of Cecil County will be given one last chance to voice their concerns. The Council has refused to hold themselves accountable to the laws of the Charter and the will of the people. It is now incumbent on all of us to show up to the September 21^st Legislative Session and make our voices heard. 

The post Cecil County Council Donors take over Redistricting Commission appeared first on Cecil County News.

                After an exhausting 2020 election cycle that left even the most ardent political spectators feeling fatigued and with the next election over a year away, few County residents are focused on the upcoming political happenings of 2022. Despite the seemingly distant events that will unfold in advance of County residents next visit to the polling booth, the County redistricting process is already underway, which will have a major impact on the 2022 race. As required by the Charter of Cecil County, the County Council is required to form a Redistricting Commission each year following the U.S. Census. The Redistricting Commission is responsible for submitting a plan that outlines residency districts, along with a report explaining it, no later than November 15^th of the year before the plan is to take effect. While redistricting is an inherently contentious process, this Redistricting Commission has been faced with last minute obstacles imposed upon them by the County Council, and Council President Bob Meffley in particular.

                In accordance with the County Charter, each party that earned at least 25% of the vote share for County Executive is entitled to nominate five members (one from each district in the county) to serve on the Redistricting Commission. As long as those nominees meet the eligibility requirements to serve, the County Council is required by the Charter to appoint the members selected. These names are to be submitted by the Central Committees of the qualifying parties (in this case, Democrats and Republicans) and confirmed by the Council no later than April 1^st. That date has come and gone, and while the Commission was established by the Council in March, the composition of the Commission has recently been thrown into question.

                On August 17^th, 2021, the Council proposed the resolution to appoint members to the Redistricting Commission, which will be voted on during the next legislative session on September 7^th. While the Democratic slate was full, the Republican slate had two noticeable absences for District 4 and District 5. Sources familiar with the matter have provided documents that show the circumstances surrounding those vacancies. The District 4 nominee lived outside of the district, making her ineligible for appointment. The District 5 nominee, however, was removed under the pretense that he was an elected official as a member of the Republican Central Committee and was therefore ineligible for appointment, because the Charter prohibits elected officials from serving on the Redistricting Commission.

                The grounds on which the District 5 nominee was blocked is legally dubious, and definitionally absurd. The Republican Central Committee, like all parties’ central committees are not a public body and are certainly not officers of the Cecil County Government. Members of the central committee are selected by the members of that party, not by the voting public. Furthermore, the County Charter doesn’t list any position in a political party as a public office, which is why the conduct, function, and members of the committees are not bound to the same laws as County Officials. Central committee members are party officers, not public officers. Therefore, a central committee member although “elected” by their respective party would not fit the definition of an elected official in the County Charter any more than a CEO elected by a board of directors, or a deacon elected by a congregation would. The provision in the County Charter is designed to prevent public officials from appointing themselves to positions that give them control over issues that affect their current office.

                Definitions of elected officials aside, the actions taken by Councilman Meffley appear to be political retribution rather than an honest, good-faith effort by our government to enforce a fair composition of the Redistricting Commission by following their best interpretation of the law. For one, other nominees listed on the resolution for appointment are also members of their party’s central committee. This means that Councilman Meffley is either targeting the District 5 nominee, or has failed to do basic due diligence on those nominated. Secondly, sources shared that the decision to disqualify both members were received on August 11^th. The Republican Central Committee was then given three days to appoint new members in advance of the legislative session where the appointments were to be confirmed. Not only is that an overly burdensome timeframe, but it also made it all but impossible to mediate the dispute over the District 5 nominee before a decision was needed.

                In light of the obvious double standard of barring one nominee from serving on the Commission on the grounds he is a central committee member and not others, sources share that the Council has removed the other nominees who currently sit on a central committee. However, the initial actions of Councilman Meffley are telling. The nominee from District 5, Vincent Sammons, is an outspoken anti-corruption advocate in the County. Many of Mr. Sammons targets are those with whom Bob Meffley has close ties. This incident, paired with past actions taken against Mr. Sammons by Councilman Meffley, reinforces the notion that Mr. Sammons removal from the list of nominees was politically motivated.

                Whether the one-sided actions taken by the Council were motivated by malevolence or are the results of incompetence, speculation can only answer. Regardless of intent, the actions taken are directly blocking eligible individuals from serving on the Commission in contravention of the Charter, and are indirectly disenfranchising Republicans who may not receive the representation on the Redistricting Commission that their party chose, potentially affecting the results of redistricting. Councilman Meffley’s actions have exposed the County to possible litigation, should the determination of the status of Mr. Sammons eligibility be taken to the courts. If pursued, the County’s limited resources will now be diverted to legal costs, and the work of the Redistricting Commission could be delayed. If not challenged, Councilman Meffley will have successfully blocked those within his own party from serving on the Commission and speaking up for voters throughout the redistricting process.

The post Last minute obstacles for the Redistricting Commission appeared first on Cecil County News.

Rising Sun, Maryland – Mary Beyer Halsey, 59, of Rising Sun, Maryland was sentenced today to two years in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release, U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur announced. Halsey previously pleads guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, receipt of a bribe by a bank official, and false statement in bank records, in connection with the straw purchase of a home in Rising Sun, Maryland, upon which Cecil Bank had foreclosed. U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow also ordered Halsey to forfeit interest in the Rising Sun property and to pay $300 in special assessments and restitution to the bank in the amount of $145,000. “Mary Beyer Halsey will now serve time in federal prison after she used her position as President and CEO of Cecil Bank for her personal benefit, causing a loss to the bank, which had already received federal taxpayer funds as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program,” said U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur. “Corrupt bank officials undermine the public’s trust in our financial system.” According to court documents, Halsey conspired with Daniel Whitehurst, an employee of a real estate development company that did business in Maryland, to defraud Cecil Bank and another bank to purchase a home through false pretenses, representations, and promises. Halsey agreed to help Whitehurst to obtain a line of credit from Cecil Bank, in exchange for Whitehurst agreeing to serve as the straw purchaser of 127 Ebenezer on behalf of Halsey. Halsey later participated in a loan committee meeting at Cecil Bank that considered and approved a $650,000 line for credit for Whitehurst and a $500,000 line of credit for his business partner.
Halsey admitted that at her request, Whitehurst visited 127 Ebenezer and provided Halsey with an estimate of the costs to update the house. Whitehurst determined that beyond replacing the kitchen subflooring at a cost of about $1,000, there were no significant repairs needed. A full appraisal on September 10, 2012, reflected a market value of $295,000. To support the below-market price that Halsey wanted to pay, Whitehurst included in the letter of intent a list of lower-priced home sales in the same area that was not comparable to 127 Ebenezer and therefore was not reflective of the property’s actual market value.
On the same day, Whitehurst e-mailed Cecil Bank his offer to purchase 127 Ebenezer for $145,000, during a meeting of the Cecil Bank Board of Directors, Halsey advised the Board that Whitehurst had made a purchase offer of $140,000 for the property, $5,000 less the actual offer. To support the below-market price of $140,000, Halsey falsely characterized the property as having “structural deficiencies [that] will require significant repairs.” Halsey did not disclose her personal interest in the property, nor Whitehurst’s role as her nominee to acquire the property on her behalf. The Board authorized Halsey to “negotiate the best price.” Thereafter, Whitehurst submitted a contract for him to purchase 127 Ebenezer from Cecil Bank for $150,000, which Halsey signed on August 17, 2012 on behalf of Cecil Bank.
On November 21, 2012, the settlement of 127 Ebenezer was held with Halsey representing Cecil Bank as the seller, and Whitehurst as the purported purchaser, selling the property to Whitehurst for $150,000. Both signed the HUD-1 form which falsely represented that Whitehurst had paid approximately $52,566 at settlement, when in fact, the down payment and all related closing costs were paid from the $75,000 Halsey had wired to Whitehurst’s bank account beforehand. From October 31, 2012 through March 29, 2013, Halsey transferred an additional $60,000 to Whitehurst to cover the cost of the upgrades to the house that they had previously discussed, as well as to reimburse Whitehurst for mortgage payments he made on the property.
In December 2012, in response to a question from a bank examiner for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond inquiring about the sale of the property to Whitehurst, Halsey falsely stated that she was “not totally familiar with [that] property” and that the bank had difficulty marketing the property and had not listed it with a realtor because of “issues with the county over the bonds outstanding.”
In April 2013, federal agents began interviewing employees and other borrowers about banking irregularities at Cecil Bank. Halsey never told the bank that she was the true purchaser of 127 Ebenezer, nor did the bank know that Halsey and Whitehurst had orchestrated the sale of the foreclosed property at the fraudulent price of $150,000, instead of the appraised pre-renovation price of $295,000.
As a result of Halsey’s misrepresentations and omissions, the bank lost approximately $145,000. This case was the product of a joint investigation by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General (FHFA-OIG), the Mid-Atlantic Region; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Inspector General (FDIC/OIG), New York Region; and the Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General (SBA/OIG).

The post FORMER CECIL BANK PRESIDENT SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR BANK FRAUD appeared first on Cecil County News.

This article follows up on an earlier story, Alan McCarthy’s Illegal Censorship of Constituents

To recap: it is illegal for elected public officials to censor their constituents and silence their voice on any public forum. In 2018, the ACLU settled a lawsuit with Governor Larry Hogan for deleting comments on his official Facebook page, and a federal court ruled that President Trump could not block individuals who post negative comments on his Twitter account. In 2019, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2014 that the comments section of a public official’s social media account is a public forum and discrimination against contrary opinions is not allowed.

Vincent S. Sammons of Rising Sun, MD, has recently filed a lawsuit against the Cecil County Government, naming Alan McCarthy, Alfred Wein, Jason Allison, Jennifer Lyall, Maggie Tome, Bob Meffley, Deborah Sniadowski, Brian Miller in both individual and official capacity as defendants.

The suit contends that the defendants named have purposely violated Mr. Sammons’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. These alleged violations occurred when Mr. Sammons was blocked from posting and commenting on the Facebook page, “Dr. Alan McCarthy, Cecil County Executive”; when Mr. Sammons video feed was blocked during a virtual county meeting held on Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and when Mr. Sammons’ email was blocked from contacting the county government by States Attorney Jason Allison.

Screenshots and other documentation have been provided to the court by Mr. Sammons’ attorney as evidence.

As many know, Vincent Sammons has been a resident of Cecil County for many years. He was once president of the Rising Sun Chamber of Commerce and is now the Chairman of the Cecil County Republican Central Committee. He is a self-made businessman and his name has become widely known for his social media presence and outspoken criticism of corruption in the County Government and special interest groups backing it (which has resulted in repeated harassment against him by the County and members of the Cecil Business Leaders PAC “CBL” over the years).

Another county resident, Rob Perkins of North East, sympathetic to this case, has started a fundraiser to assist with Mr. Sammons’ legal fees.

In an era where civilian controlled government has become threatened by increasingly powerful organizations and institutions and may soon cease to exist, it is the right and duty of the citizens to question and challenge the establishment and ensure what President Lincoln described as the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, continue to endure.

The full PDF formatted complaint can be viewed by clicking on the image of the complaint above.

The post Cecil County Government Sued For Constitutional Violations appeared first on Cecil County News.