---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christina Anderson <andersonchrissym@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway
To: "Akras, Thomas" <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov>
Cc: "Paige, Douglas" <Douglas.Paige@baltimorecity.gov>, "Davis, Nadine" <Nadine.Davis@baltimorecity.gov>, "bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us" <bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us>, Bill Ferguson <bill@billforbaltimore.com>, Brooke Lierman <brookefordelegate@gmail.com>, "brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us" <brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us>, "Kraft, James" <James.Kraft@baltimorecity.gov>, "Amoros, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Amoros@baltimorecity.gov>, "Smith, Alexandra" <Alexandra.Smith@baltimorecity.gov>, "liam.davis@baltimorecity.gov" <liam.davis@baltimorecity.gov>


Oh and in case you need further clarification on the 2014 reform legislation, here is precisely what I am talking about:

(VIII) THE BOARD SHALL: 8 1. STARTING ON JULY 1, 2015, DIGITIZE AND POST 9 ONLINE ALL RECORDS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW; AND

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hb/hb0831e.pdf

So the agency fails to comply with legislation for which they were granted an extension over a year ago and the burden is still placed on the citizens? This agency is not a corporation where we can pick and choose where we get to do business or shop. It is a public agency responsible for helping to maintain the health, safety and welfare of our city and that also means being transparent and following the law whether you want to or not.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Christina Anderson <andersonchrissym@gmail.com> wrote:
Tom,

Maybe I did not make myself clear enough in any of my previous dozen or so emails.

I have viewed this file (and others) several times in the last year, including this year, 2016. When were the order and substitution document filed? I have made several trips to the BLLC offices and have even documented what I have seen. In fact, one of the last visits I took a day off of work, without pay, I was told they couldn't find 2 of 6 files that I asked for. So please explain to me what the agency's reasoning for requiring individuals to come into the office and view files that may or may not be available is, especially when many questions can easily be answered by looking in your automated system.

Furthermore, several of my questions are likely to be left unanswered even by viewing the files (hence why I am asking.) Many of my questions are neither about the order nor about what is or is not subject to the order or its validity, though I’d bet the AG’s office would love to hear about the train wreck that preempted this investigation.

Having viewed the file myself, several times and documenting what I viewed, there was no correspondence or filings between June 20th 2014-December 21st 2014 (prior to the complaint filing) requesting an extension or hardship. Was this an oversight of the liquor board? Nor was there any subsequent correspondence from the licensee or his attorney(s) regarding any matters. Are you telling me that because of negligence of BLLC staff and their inability to retain important documentation in an organized manner that I need to take a day off of my job, without pay to come view this file for the sixth time? Or has everything just magically appeared?

I'm glad you guys are supposedly putting your SOP online but that does not mean that you shouldn't answer my question, especially when you (and any other staff members on this email) have had 14 days to respond to this question. So forgive me if I don't hold my breath on SOP manual, considering we were told that in January the LB would be publishing a database online for basic license information, but now halfway through the year, no one seems to have any idea about this mystery database. And let's not forget that this was a requirement of the 2014 liquor reform legislation and the agency was granted an extension until July 1, 2015 to comply. It's now June 29, 2016, 364 days after the fact and we have yet to see any actual progress. So I'll say it again: I'm not holding my breath and I don't believe you.


I am not debating the merits of whether this license should have existed at this point. I understand that is up to the AG now. I am asking you what this agency's STAFF did during the time between November 2013 and December 24, 2014. Please go back and re-read my previous email and answer the relevant questions.

Lastly, who is your direct supervisor?

Thanks,
Chrissy

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

As to this matter, I spoke with the Assistant Attorney General this past Friday regarding this matter and he stated that he is still reviewing it and will decide shortly as to its advice to provide to the agency. I say this because irregardless of the agency’s actions in issuing the license to the secured creditor, the sole issue now before the AG’s office has to do with the validity of the Baltimore County Court’s order to the Liquor Board to assign the license to the plaintiff in the case. The agency cannot simply say no  or disregard a valid court order – even if the license may have been issued in error.

This is the very issue that the Attorney General’s office is reviewing. Upon the completion of his review I will provide the information to you as to what the agencies next steps are.  Please note that as a reminder this establishment is not open and operating. In addition, due to the legal cloud concerning the license this license cannot currently transfer.  Indeed, if based upon the Assistant Attorney General’s assessment and follow-up if this license is to be terminated it shall be. As I have stated before, the agency is not precluded from terminating the license if it has no legal authority to issue it.

As to the substitute application, it is in the file. Upon request you can come down to the BLLC offices and review it and make copies. Attached to the application you will also find a copy of the Baltimore County Court Order. Lastly, the agency is in the process of finalizing its SOP handbook and manual explaining its book of business and the policies and procedures it has in place to perform its business. It will be publishing them on its website within the coming weeks.

If you have any more questions or concerns regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.

From: Christina Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:45 AM
To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas; Davis, Nadine; bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us; Bill Ferguson; Brooke Lierman; brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us; Kraft, James; Amoros, Jeffrey; Smith, Alexandra

Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Tom,
I am checking in as it has been two weeks and I have not received a response or acknowledgement of my previous email.

Thanks,
Chrissy

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Christina Anderson <andersonchrissym@gmail.com> wrote:
"To answer your question, the last time the BLLC inspected the location and found it open and operating was  on May 4, 2014. "


Tom, here is a direct quote from my previous e-mail:

When was the last successful inspection, in which the business was open and operating legally?

In case you are unable to locate this in your own records, I have transcribed some relevant information from the liquor board hearing on October 23, 2014.

Michelle (Executive Secretary):  We will go forward with a charge of rule 4.18, illegal conduct “No licensee shall commit or allow the commission on his premises of any act which shall be contrary to any federal, state or local statute, law or ordinance or against the public peace, safety, health,
welfare, quiet or morals” This occurred on May 7th, 2014, where a liquor board inspector observed the operation open and selling alcohol without a valid liquor license.

Gary Maslan (Attorney for Mr.Ramos): We will admit that violation.

So please, Tom, tell me who the inspector was on May 4th 2014 and how this license and establishment went from being legally operational, with a valid, unexpired liquor license between Sunday (5/4/2014) and Wednesday May 7th, 2014. I would also like to know how an inspector found them in compliance on this date when the corporate charter had been forfeited (and prior to that, not in good standing) since November 2013 and no valid trader's license. Either you and your records are wrong or this needs to be addressed with the employee as it is clear that someone, potentially many someones have not done their job and have lied about inspections and/or records.

I am not sure where you got the impression that I am concerned about current operations. This actually has almost nothing to do with the establishment itself as all of my questions have pertained specifically to liquor board records, procedure, policy and action. THE AG will rule on the license with regard to the court order, which is not relevant as I specifically asked about the liquor board's policy as it pertained to the license from JUNE 20th 2014 UNTIL DECEMBER 24th 2014, at which point it was not subject to any special consideration due to litigation. Unless of course, you are saying that because it had the potential to become part of a judgement the liquor board cannot act, which I think we all know to be untrue.

I have simplified my questions and concerns further for you, so there is no confusion on your part:


1. When was the last successful inspection in which the licensed establishment was legally operational?

2. The license was not operational legally or per a sworn affidavit by Mr.Ramos from 6/20/2014-12/24/2014 (the day Mr.Paniagua's complaint was filed with Baltimore County Circuit Court.) This is a total of 187 days. Did Mr.Ramos or an attorney ever request a hearing or extension of validity after a 90 day closure? If so, why is this not indicated in the file (which I have viewed several times, in person.)

3. Article 2B section 10-504(d) states: 2. 180 days after the holder of any license issued under the provisions of this article has closed the business or ceased active alcoholic beverages business operations of the business for which the license is held, the license shall expire unless:

i. An application for approval of a transfer to another location or an application for assignment to another person pursuant to § 10-503(d) of this subtitle has been approved or is then pending;
ii. An application pursuant to § 10-506 of this subtitle has been approved or is then pending; or
iii. A written request for a hardship extension, as provided in this subsection, is filed within the 180-day period.

So was there a pending application pursuant to 10-503(d) or 10-506 prior to 12/24/2014? Why was this not addressed by the liquor board in a timely manner?

4. Per BLLC records the Plaintiff, Jaime Paniagua was to submit a substitute application based on the order, which was issued November 10, 2015 and entered into Liquor Board records November 19, 2015, 209 days ago. Where is this application? I have viewed this file several times over the course of the last two years and have several photographs of the contents of this file, yet this application was not included.


5. What policies and requirements are in place for record keeping with regard to individual licensed establishments?


6. Questions about the liquor board's policy and operating procedure in general are not subject to the AG weighing in every time a question is asked regarding the subject matter. Please explain to me what part of my questions regarding the license between November 2013 and December 20th 2014 are subject to investigation by the AG's office and not a matter of public information?

Lastly, you have made this statement several times:

 As I have stated before, the agency is not precluded from terminating the license if it has no legal authority to issue it.

That statement is absurd and wrong. If the agency is not 'precluded' from terminating the license if it has no legal authority to issue it, why are we having this conversation? BLLC did not have the legal authority to approve renewal in 2014 due to several issues with the licensee's business, the lack of required permits and payment of debt/taxes, which just strengthens my argument that the BLLC did not do its job prior to litigation involving this license to begin with nor did they have authority to renew it in 2015 after the complaint was filed. Please show me where in state, federal or local law the liquor board is permitted to renew a license that is dead, non-operational and neither the licensee, corporation or establishment meet the normal yearly requirements of renewal (tax delinquency, etc...) just because it is pending potential litigation.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

Thank you for your input and timeline on the matter. I appreciate your attentiveness and follow-up.

To answer your question, the last time the BLLC inspected the location and found it open and operating was  on May 4, 2014.  As a license was issued in 2015 to this establishment, and this case was litigated, and a court order was issued, the AG must have the opportunity to weigh in and advise the agency on the next steps forward concerning the matter.

Please note that as a reminder this establishment is not open and operating. In addition, due to the legal cloud concerning the license this license cannot currently transfer. Indeed, if based upon the Assistant Attorney General’s assessment and follow-up if this license is to be terminated it shall be. As I have stated before, the agency is not precluded from terminating the license if it has no legal authority to issue it.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.

From: Christina Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 6:20 AM

To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas; Davis, Nadine; bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us; Bill Ferguson; Brooke Lierman; brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us; Kraft, James; Amoros, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Tom,

When was the last successful inspection, in which the business was open and operating legally? This question has nothing to do with any statement the AG could issue, so while I understand the sensitivity of attorney-client privilege, my emails have had multiple questions with regard to the liquor board's policies and actions regarding this license before it was subject to any court orders, which you have avoided answering and none of which should be subject to the Attorney General's opinion at this point.


If in October 2014 the establishment was closed and non-operational (as it had been for 126 days,) why then was the liquor license renewed for the 2015/16 year if the court order was not ISSUED until November 10, 2015, 193 days after the board renewed the 2015 license and was not even subject to litigation until the filing on December 24, 2014. Additionally, as I have well established for you, the license was renewed 189 days after liquor board inspectors observed the business closed and non-operational, 315 days after initial closure by the health department. On December 10, 2014, the health department marked 129 S Broadway as officially closed after 173 days of non-operation. That alone should have been sufficient evidence to extinguish the license as no hearing was ever held to reopen, transfer or grant a hardship. This all happened prior to the December 24 2014 complaint filing with Baltimore County Circuit Court. At this point the AG's decision is irrelevant to what I am asking as I want to know, again, why the license was renewed prior to litigation and why no one in this agency has been able to answer my questions.


This is not a matter of opinion of when it closed like many of these cases tend to be. There is a well documented trail of closures by city and state agencies. The liquor board should have known and done better.

Are you saying that if a license could ever become the subject of litigation that BLLC rules and liquor law no longer apply? If so, I think there is a case to be made that any license is subject to litigation and therefor the closure rule could never apply but as you should know, this is just simply untrue.


The AG's decision will not necessarily change the outcome but this is just further evidence that this agency has made a grave error and it needs to be addressed, again.


Here is a summary of dates that are relevant:

November 5, 2013 – Nico Ramos testifies in affidavit that Arcos forfeited corporate charter on this date.
May 7th, 2014 – Liquor Board inspectors find Arcos to be operating without valid liquor license (14/15 LYR).
June, 2014 – In the aforementioned affidavit, Ramos testifies that his business closed in June 2014.
June 20th, 2014 – Health Department closes Arcos.
June 30th, 2014 – Health Department closes Arcos again, for operating without clearance from HD, which included shutting down tavern operation.
October 23rd, 2014 – BLLC inspectors observe that the establishment is closed and non-operational.
October 23rd, 2014 – BLLC commissioners find licensee guilty of several violations. 125 days after health department closure.
December 10th, 2014 – Arcos is officially marked as permanently closed by the Baltimore City Health Department as they had not sought re-approval and had not been operational (legally) for 173 days.
December 24th, 2014  – Jaime Paniagua files complaint with Baltimore County Circuit Court, 187 days after the licensed establishment became non-operational.
July 14th, 2015 – Civil Non-Jury Trial is held for case # 03C14013932,  390 days after the licensed establishment became non-operational.
September 16th, 2015 – Writ of Garnishment is issued for the Arcos license, 454 days after the licensed establishment became non-operational.
November 13th, 2015 – Request for Order of Judgment Absolute-Writ of Garnishment is granted to Plaintiff and BLLC ordered to deliver the liquor license, 512 days after the licensed establishment became non-operational.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

The last time the establishment was inspected was on 10/23/2014. Inspector Martin found the establishment to be closed. A hardship extension concerning this establishment was neither requested nor granted.

As to the Attorney General matter, because these are confidential communications between the client (Liquor Board) and its attorney (Attorney General), I cannot disclose the substance of those communications. Such communications are protected by law. In matters such as these, I have been advised – by the Attorney General’s Office – that if a party would like to contact the specific Assistant Attorney General assigned to the BLLC they can contact the Attorney’s General’s Office in writing and make that request. At that point it is up to the Attorney General’s office to make the determination as to how to respond to the request.

Please note that as a reminder this establishment is not open and operating. In addition, due to the legal cloud concerning the license this license cannot currently transfer. Indeed, if based upon the Assistant Attorney General’s assessment and follow-up if this license is to be terminated it shall be. As I have stated before the agency is not precluded from terminating the license if it has no legal authority to issue it.  Lastly, please note that upon receiving and reviewing any information concerning this matter the agency will take steps to appropriately disclose such information from the AAG and execute its authority in lines with said advice.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.

From: Christina Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 9:19 AM

To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas; Davis, Nadine; bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us; Bill Ferguson; Brooke Lierman; brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us; Kraft, James; Amoros, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Tom,

I have questions from my previous email(s) that are still unanswered. The AG's decision (or lack of) should not limit your ability to answer the following questions:


1. When was the last liquor inspection performed for this establishment? (129 S Broadway k/a "Arcos", just so there is no confusion which license I am asking about.)


2. At what point was a hardship extension requested and/or granted?


Thanks,

Chrissy


On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

I communicated with the Assistant Attorney General (AAG)assigned to our agency concerning this matter earlier in the week. He is still reviewing the matter.

As of yet he has not issued a statement or decision regarding the case. The issue is a complex one as there is a Baltimore County Circuit Court order instructing the Liquor Board to act, regardless of the status of the license.

When the AAG has completed his assessment – which as of yet he has not done – I will communicate that information to all parties.

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.

From: Christina Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 12:13 PM

To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas; Davis, Nadine; bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us; Bill Ferguson; Brooke Lierman; brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us; Kraft, James; Amoros, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Tom,

What is the status of this case? Has the liquor board renewed the license? Has the AG issued a statement or decision?

I would like some additional information as we are now in June and this matter needs to be dealt with. Who from the AG's office is investigating this? Who can I contact?

If "The existence of a proper renewal application for the 2016-2017 license year does not preclude the agency from terminating the license if by law it is required to do so" is true, would this not also be true for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 license year? If that is the case, we should not be having this conversation as the license should not have been renewed and should have been terminated by the liquor board in the 2014-15 license year or the 2015-16 license year.

When was the last inspection of this establishment? When was a hardship extension filed and/or granted?



Thanks

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

I cannot give you a timeframe on when the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) will complete its analysis of the case file.

What I can say affirmatively is that documents were provided to the OAG last week upon their request concerning this matter and OAG is still reviewing them. Upon completion of the OAG’s review I will be able to provide you with more information concerning your inquiry.

Please note that the deadline for the renewal period has no effect on the question as to the validity of the license. The existence of a proper renewal application for the 2016-2017 license year does not preclude the agency from terminating the license if by law it is required to do so.

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.

From: Christina Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 11:55 AM

To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas; Davis, Nadine; bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us; Bill Ferguson; Brooke Lierman; brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us; Kraft, James; Amoros, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Tom,

Is there any update to this matter? Can I get an estimated time the AG's office will finalize it's decision? Who can I contact within that office?

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

As of today, the AG has not finalized its opinion to the agency on this matter. When it does I will most certainly get back with you on the status of the license at 129 South Broadway.

Please note that the upcoming deadline for the renewal period has no effect on the question as to the validity of the license. The existence of a proper renewal application for the 2016-2017 license year does not preclude the agency from terminating the license if by law it is required to do so.

I will refer the matter of the Renewal Application to Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis, could you please inform Ms. Anderson as to whether or not a renewal application has been filed for La Rumba located at 1654 East Pratt Street?

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.

From: Christina Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:36 AM

To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas; Davis, Nadine; bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us; Bill Ferguson; Brooke Lierman; brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us; Kraft, James; Amoros, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Tom and Doug,

Is there any update on the AG's investigation? Has a license renewal been filed for La Rumba?

Thanks,
Chrissy

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

Upon reviewing the file of the establishment t/a Arcos located at 129 South Broadway Street I requested to have a conversation with the Attorney General’s Office earlier this week.  Today I had that conversation concerning the various legal issues surrounding the case.

As per the Attorney General’s Office this matter is under review and upon clarification gained from an analysis of the legal issues involved this agency will address the issue of the validity of the license that has been issued to the secured creditor by way of a valid Baltimore County Circuit Court order. The Attorney General’s Office informed the agency that it will have to review the facts and circumstances concerning this matter and will respond to the agency in a timely manner.

The upcoming deadline for the renewal period has no effect on the question as to the validity of the license. The existence of a proper renewal application for the 2016-2017 license year does not preclude the agency from terminating the license if by law it is required to do so.

If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.

From: Christina Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:38 AM
To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas; Davis, Nadine; bill.ferguson@senate.state.md.us; Bill Ferguson; Brooke Lierman; brooke.lierman@house.state.md.us; Kraft, James; Amoros, Jeffrey
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Tom,

When can I expect a response to my questions? We are approaching the end of the renewal period and our various communities would like to know the status of this establishment/license and how the agency will be addressing the issues brought up in my previous e-mails.

Thanks,
Chrissy

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Christina Anderson <andersonchrissym@gmail.com> wrote:
Tom,

In addition to my concerns from my previous email, I'd also like to know how it is possible that the Arcos license was renewed (and without penalty) in previous years when they have not had a valid trader's license by name or by address since the expiration of the 2014 license, on April 30th, 2014. This is an awfully big "oversight" by the agency. When was the last inspection of the licensed establishment?



On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Christina Anderson <andersonchrissym@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tom,


I am fully aware of the case you speak of. Maybe I should have asked my question a little differently.

On June 20th, 2014 and June 30th, 2014, La Rumba was closed by the Health Department*. They were never given permission to reopen after the first closure. Per Patricia Vauls, director of Environmental Inspection Services at the Baltimore City Health Department, as of December 10th, 2014 Arcos was marked as permanently closed in their system and they were not given permission to reopen between this date and the prior closure.


While the Health Department is a separate agency from the Liquor Board, health code violations have an impact on a liquor license, particularly a tavern license. In order to operate as a tavern, Arcos would be required to have a permit from the health department, which they have not had for years. As of today, Arcos has been closed for 665 days. Please feel free to direct me to the part of 2B that would allow for this.


The case of Panaguia vs. Ramos did not reach litigation that could involve the license until December 24th, 2014, 187 days after closure. At no point during the closure or the last two years was a hardship extension requested or granted. The 2015, 2016 license had not been renewed, per BLLC staff and was on hold subject to a tax lien, as of February 4, 2016. And much like the 2014, 2015 year license, no hardship extension was requested or given.

(And in the case of Ramos vs. Reyes, nothing was filed or in litigation until 2015.)


Per Mr.Ramos’ signed affidavit (Daniel Reyes, et al., v. Nicolas Ramos, et al.,) the corporate charter was forfeited on November 5, 2013, making him ineligible to renew for the 2014-2015 year.* In the aforementioned affidavit, the licensee indicates that restaurant closed on or about June 2014 and the building in which the restaurant was located was sold at foreclosure on May 28, 2015.* For these reasons, the 2015-2016 license also could not be renewed as no hardship had been requested or granted.


So what I should have asked is how did the license become part of the lien or litigation in the lawsuit when by all standards, it had not existed and should not have existed for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 licensing years? Does the staff at this agency verify any information on renewal applications?


*I’ve attached relevant documentation supporting this.




I look forward to your timely response.

Thanks,
Chrissy Anderson

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Akras, Thomas <Thomas.Akras@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Ms. Anderson,

I'll have to take a look at the file and do some research. I believe there may have been some litigation in the Circuit Court that just ended concerning the Arcos case.

I'll try to get back to you mid-next week concerning your request.

If you have any other questions or concerns please don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks,

Thomas R. Akras, Esq.
Deputy Executive Secretary
Board of Liquor License Commissioners
City of Baltimore
231 East Baltimore Street
6th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-396-4385
Fax: 410-396-4382

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended for receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain legal or other confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited, and requested to delete this communication and its attachment(s) without making any copies thereof and to contact the sender of this e-mail immediately. Nothing contained in the body and/or header of this e-mail is intended as a signature or intended to bind the addressor or any person represented by the addressor to the terms of any agreement that may be the subject of this e-mail or its attachment(s), except where such intent is expressly indicated.


-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Nadine
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Akras, Thomas
Cc: Paige, Douglas
Subject: FW: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

Mr. Akras, could you please help Ms. Anderson. thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Chrissy Anderson [mailto:andersonchrissym@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:25 PM
To: Davis, Nadine
Cc: Paige, Douglas
Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway

How is it possible to renew Arcos when it hasn't been opened since May 2014 and the building was sold in foreclosure and turned into apartments?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Davis, Nadine <Nadine.Davis@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
>
> 129 S. BROADWAY, yes; 1654 E. PRATT-there's no record of payment for renewal processing fee for 2016 as of this date.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paige, Douglas
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:27 PM
> To: Christina Anderson
> Cc: Davis, Nadine
> Subject: Re: 1654 E Pratt St. & 129 S Broadway
>
> Ms. Davis,
>
> Please assist Ms. Anderson with this matter.  Thanks!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Christina Anderson <andersonchrissym@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> Has a renewal been filed for La Rumba (1654 E Pratt St.) or Arcos (129 S. Broadway)?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chrissy