BARBARA OSBORN KREAMER, * IN THE

Petitioner * CIRCUIT COURT

 FOR

V. * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY

MARYLAND STATE BOARD *

OF ELECTIONS, * Case No.: C-02-CV-18-000629

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

ANSWER TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Petitioner Barbara Osborn Kreamer pro se answers Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or in

the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and states:

1. The Petitioner, a former Delegate representing District 34, timely filed her candidacy
with the Maryland State Board of Elections for Maryland Senate District 34 on or about
Thursday, February 15, 2018.
2. An opponent, Mary-Dulany James, also a former delegate representing District 34, filed
her candidacy for the same office on or about Friday, February 23, 2018.
3. Petitioner filed with the Maryland State Board of Elections a challenge to her opponent’s
residence on Thursday, March 1, 2018.
4. Petitioner received verbal notice in a phone message from Jared DeMarinis that the
challenge was not accepted by the State Board and must be filed in a court of law.
5. Petitioner timely filed a challenge to her opponent’s residency on or about March 8,
2018.
6. The office of the Clerk of the Court issued a Summons on March 16, 2018.
7. An adult resident of Maryland not a party to the case timely accomplished service by
certified mail.
8. The Attorney General entered his appearance on April 12, 2018 and filed a Motion to
Dismiss or in the alternative for Summary Judgment on the same day along with a
supporting Memorandum.
9. The Court issued an Order for a one hour hearing scheduled for May 21, 2018 at 9:00
a.m.
10. The Petitioner erred in filing in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel whereas the statue,
Section 5-305 of the Md. Code Ann. Calls for a petition to be filed “with the circuit court
for that district or geographic area.”
11. Petitioner thought that since the Maryland State Board of Elections decides challenges to
residency in the administrative context that the appropriate court was the one in which the
administrative office at 251 West Street, Annapolis is located.
12. Petitioner was acting under pressure of time and was acting pro se.
13. This Honorable Court may move the matter to the appropriate court.
14. While the Respondent makes the point that the Petitioner failed to prosecute the case with
expedition, the Petitioner could not control the assignment of the case or its schedule.
15. The Respondent errs in writing that the Petition does not name the candidate whose
residency is in question. Paragraph 6 states “Petitioner is bringing this action before this
Honorable Court to challenge the residency of Mary-Dulany James.
16. Joinder of a party is a matter that can be accomplished by motion. Such a motion
accompanies this Answer. Therefore, lack of joinder in the initial filing does not
necessitate dismissal nor Summary Judgment.
17. Petitioner takes issue with the Respondent’s Statement of facts in its accompanying
Memorandum. First of all, it intervenes in the series of arguments. Secondly, it contains
omissions. Third, it adds facts not alleged to the assertions in the Petition and represents
them as alleged.
18. Petitioner is a registered voter and resident in Harford County; Respondent failed to note
as it had done in apparent support of Mary-Dulany James’ candidacy that Petitioner is
also a former member of the House of Delegates representing District 34.
19. Petitioner does not allege that Mary-Dulany James has remarried after divorcing her
husband. Senate President Thomas V. Miller alleged as cited in the Petition that Mary-
Dulany James is a wife, but he did not specify whose wife. Petitioner does not know
whether or not Mary-Dulany James is currently a wife. More to the point, the public
needs to know for certain where Mary-Dulany James resides because the law requires
that candidates for the General Assembly reside in the district, which they are running to
represent, for six months immediately preceding filing for office. One might reasonably
assume that a person does not reside with her ex-spouse, and Mary-Dulany James’ ex-
husband resides at 550 Old Bay Lane in Havre de Grace. One might reasonably assume
that a person resides with her current spouse. If her current spouse is her recent fiance’
John Zink, then Mary-Dulany James resides in Baltimore or Baltimore County and not
District 34.
20. A challenge having been filed timely, it is incumbent on the Court to resolve the question
of the challenged candidate’s residency, in contrast to domicile, in order to ensure the
public’s trust that the law of candidacy is being properly administered.
21. Ascertaining the facts of residency in contrast to domicile is an important question that
must be answered to maintain the trust of the citizenry; therefore, dismissal and Summary
 Judgment are not appropriate, and Petitioner urges the Court to dismiss Respondent’s
motions and let the matter proceed to a hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

Barbara Osborn Kreamer

Petitioner pro se

701 Beards Hill Road

Aberdeen, MD 21001-1756

410 272 3831

barbaraok@comcast .net

CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT on this ________ day of May, 2018, I mailed postage
prepaid a copy of the foregoing Answer to

Andrea W. Trento, Assistant Attorney General

200 St. Paul Place, 20th floor

Baltimore, MD 21202

_____________________________

Barbara Osborn Kreamer