Saturday, February 11, 2012
Ron Paul's Campaign Claims to be Ahead in Delegate Count in Race for GOP Nomination
Even though Ron Paul is the only remaining GOP candidate to not have won a state, his people are claiming that they are actually ahead in the delegate count. A most interesting interview by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.
Romney Narrowly Wins Maine; Ron Paul Misses Victory by Less Than 200 Votes
 |
| Mitt Romney |
Romney edged out Paul 39% to 36%, 2,190 votes to 1,996, with 5% of the vote stubbornly still out. Rick Santorum finished third with 18% and Newt Gingrich finished last with 6%.
Delegates are allocated proportionally in Maine, including by congressional district. Maine only has 14 delegates and it is expected that they will be split fairly evenly between Romney and Paul. Santorum may also get a delegate or two.
In 2008, Romney won Maine with over 50% of the vote. Romney's raw vote total dropped some 700 votes from 2008 to 2012, while Paul's more than doubled.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Local Attorney Paul Ogden to Seek Republican Nomination as Marion County Superior Court Judge
Dear Family, Friends, and Supporters,
Today I filed with the Secretary of State's Office to run for Marion County Superior Court judge in the May 2012 primary.
Growing up on a farm outside Madison, Indiana, I never thought my career path would lead to running for judge. One of five sons of a factory worker/small time farmer and a secretary, I certainly learned the value of hard work and dedication. There is nothing like stacking hay on a wagon in 95 degree heat to build a work ethic.
My brothers and I fortunately were the first generation in my family to have the chance to pursue education beyond high school. For me that included a year at Hanover College followed by three at Ball State University. At Ball State, I majored in political science and spent a semester interning in the Indiana State Senate. After graduating from Ball State, I went to Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. In law school, I served as editor of the school newspaper and president of the Student Bar Association.
After graduating from law school in 1987, I became a Deputy Attorney General, representing the then Indiana Department of Highways in eminent domain and employment matters. The work experience though that most impacted me though was when I began clerking with Judge Buchanan on the Indiana Court of Appeals. I spent 3 1/2 years at the Court doing legal research and writing draft legal opinions. The experience of writing judicial opinions and having the late Judge Paul H. Buchanan as a mentor was a life-changing experience.
After leaving the Court, I worked on my own as well as at a couple law firms, including the minority- owned Roberts & Bishop, where I still have many friends today. Along the way, I was general counsel for Midwest Title Insurance Company and led the development of a division regulating title insurance at the Indiana Department of Insurance. I have seen about everything there is to see in my 24 years plus of practicing law.
I have also been very politically involved. In 1986, I became a Republican precinct committeeman in Pike Township. I have also served as a Vice Ward Chairman, a Ward Chairman, President of the Pike Township GOP Club and have worked on a number of campaigns as well as run for office myself. I also have taught political science at both IUPUI and the University of Indianapolis. When I haven't been busy doing that, I've also done some writing, winning the First Place Award for "Issues Writing" from the Indiana Society of Professional Journalists several years ago for an article I wrote on grading ISTEP exams that appeared in the Indianapolis Monthly.
While I believe wholeheartedly in my Marion County Republican Party, I am disappointed that the power and authority of grass roots party workers has been virtually eliminated in favor of party bosses calling the shots. When I first started in 1986, party workers still had real influence and elected officials knew they had to stay in touch with those workers to be endorsed by the party. Slating conventions featured numerous races that had had multiple candidates eagerly seeking out the support of party workers.
A couple weeks ago, the Marion County GOP had a slating convention at which 16 of 17 races were uncontested. The only contested race was for Superior Court Judge. In that race, several Republican judicial candidates had withdrawn before slating with the exception of Judge Carol Orbison. Judge Orbison said during her speech to the convention that she was told a committee of power brokers had met before slating and decided she should not run for re-election. She did not heed that warning and was not slated, though she has filed to run in the primary. The fact is, party leaders now appoint the vast majority of those who vote at slating, people who just to show up and vote the way leadership wants them to vote. Candidates know party bosses have almost complete control over the endorsement process.
But when it comes to slating of judges, there is an additional problem. It is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct to pay slating fees, according to a 1992 opinion by the Judicial Qualifications Commission. The party chairmen claim that slating fees, which total at least $12,000, are "not mandatory." Yet since that 1992 opinion there has never been a judge slated who hasn't paid the fee. Retired judges all say the slating fee is mandatory. Nobody is being fooled with the claim that slating fees for judges are "voluntary."
I refuse to pay a slating fee in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. I also don't think party bosses, sitting in a room, should pick the Marion County judges. Party workers and the party electorate should be the ones putting those judges on the court.
Although we have many fine judges in Marion County, the current system undermines the independence and impartiality of the judges. As provided by the notes to the Code of Judicial Conduct, "judges and judicial candidates must, to the greatest extent possible, be free, and appear to be free, from political influence, and partisan interests." When partisan issues come before the court, judges, faced with the possibility of not being slated next time, are under an enormous pressure to rule the "right way," i.e. the way the party bosses want them to rule. No better example exists than the Peterson v. Borst case a few years ago in which every Republican judge voted for the plan passed by the Republican majority to redistrict the Indianapolis council and every Democratic judge voted against it. (To clarify, there were judges who abstained from the vote.)
Judges should not be players beholden to one side or another. They should be umpires with their decisions flowing from the constitutions, statutes and rules which judges are sworn to uphold. Ours is not a system in which the laws should apply differently based on who is standing before the tribunal Yet that sadly is too often the case. I promise that as a judge everyone will stand before me with equal footing. I do not care if one side is a big corporation represented by the most politically connected downtown law firm while the other side is a person too poor to afford an attorney. The law is the law is the law. If the law is with the pro se litigant, that person wins. Period.
The question has been asked by many people what happens to my blog Ogden on Politics. Having closely reviewed the Code of Judicial Conduct, I am aware that I am not permitted as a judicial candidate to make promises to support certain positions. Also, I cannot as a candidate take positions on issues that may possibly be before me as judge. I can talk about judicial philosophy, ideas for operating the courts more efficiently, and others matters relating to judicial administration. I can also talk about issues that are unlikely to come before me as a judge...but if they unexpectedly do, I need to, and will recuse, myself.
In short, I will continue my blog, but focus more on national issues and issues that are unlikely to be the sort that will land before the Marion County Superior Court. The posts will be a bit rarer as I will be busy campaigning.
Thanks to all of you who have given me encouragement as I have written Ogden on Politics and who will give me encouragement as I move forward with this professional challenge. I could not do it without you.
Sincerely,
Paul K. Ogden
Candidate for Marion County Superior Court Judge
Paid for and authorized by the Ogden for Judge Committee, Adam Lenkowsky, Chairman and Treasurer.
Today I filed with the Secretary of State's Office to run for Marion County Superior Court judge in the May 2012 primary.
Growing up on a farm outside Madison, Indiana, I never thought my career path would lead to running for judge. One of five sons of a factory worker/small time farmer and a secretary, I certainly learned the value of hard work and dedication. There is nothing like stacking hay on a wagon in 95 degree heat to build a work ethic.
My brothers and I fortunately were the first generation in my family to have the chance to pursue education beyond high school. For me that included a year at Hanover College followed by three at Ball State University. At Ball State, I majored in political science and spent a semester interning in the Indiana State Senate. After graduating from Ball State, I went to Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. In law school, I served as editor of the school newspaper and president of the Student Bar Association.
After graduating from law school in 1987, I became a Deputy Attorney General, representing the then Indiana Department of Highways in eminent domain and employment matters. The work experience though that most impacted me though was when I began clerking with Judge Buchanan on the Indiana Court of Appeals. I spent 3 1/2 years at the Court doing legal research and writing draft legal opinions. The experience of writing judicial opinions and having the late Judge Paul H. Buchanan as a mentor was a life-changing experience.
After leaving the Court, I worked on my own as well as at a couple law firms, including the minority- owned Roberts & Bishop, where I still have many friends today. Along the way, I was general counsel for Midwest Title Insurance Company and led the development of a division regulating title insurance at the Indiana Department of Insurance. I have seen about everything there is to see in my 24 years plus of practicing law.
I have also been very politically involved. In 1986, I became a Republican precinct committeeman in Pike Township. I have also served as a Vice Ward Chairman, a Ward Chairman, President of the Pike Township GOP Club and have worked on a number of campaigns as well as run for office myself. I also have taught political science at both IUPUI and the University of Indianapolis. When I haven't been busy doing that, I've also done some writing, winning the First Place Award for "Issues Writing" from the Indiana Society of Professional Journalists several years ago for an article I wrote on grading ISTEP exams that appeared in the Indianapolis Monthly.
While I believe wholeheartedly in my Marion County Republican Party, I am disappointed that the power and authority of grass roots party workers has been virtually eliminated in favor of party bosses calling the shots. When I first started in 1986, party workers still had real influence and elected officials knew they had to stay in touch with those workers to be endorsed by the party. Slating conventions featured numerous races that had had multiple candidates eagerly seeking out the support of party workers.
A couple weeks ago, the Marion County GOP had a slating convention at which 16 of 17 races were uncontested. The only contested race was for Superior Court Judge. In that race, several Republican judicial candidates had withdrawn before slating with the exception of Judge Carol Orbison. Judge Orbison said during her speech to the convention that she was told a committee of power brokers had met before slating and decided she should not run for re-election. She did not heed that warning and was not slated, though she has filed to run in the primary. The fact is, party leaders now appoint the vast majority of those who vote at slating, people who just to show up and vote the way leadership wants them to vote. Candidates know party bosses have almost complete control over the endorsement process.
But when it comes to slating of judges, there is an additional problem. It is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct to pay slating fees, according to a 1992 opinion by the Judicial Qualifications Commission. The party chairmen claim that slating fees, which total at least $12,000, are "not mandatory." Yet since that 1992 opinion there has never been a judge slated who hasn't paid the fee. Retired judges all say the slating fee is mandatory. Nobody is being fooled with the claim that slating fees for judges are "voluntary."
I refuse to pay a slating fee in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. I also don't think party bosses, sitting in a room, should pick the Marion County judges. Party workers and the party electorate should be the ones putting those judges on the court.
Although we have many fine judges in Marion County, the current system undermines the independence and impartiality of the judges. As provided by the notes to the Code of Judicial Conduct, "judges and judicial candidates must, to the greatest extent possible, be free, and appear to be free, from political influence, and partisan interests." When partisan issues come before the court, judges, faced with the possibility of not being slated next time, are under an enormous pressure to rule the "right way," i.e. the way the party bosses want them to rule. No better example exists than the Peterson v. Borst case a few years ago in which every Republican judge voted for the plan passed by the Republican majority to redistrict the Indianapolis council and every Democratic judge voted against it. (To clarify, there were judges who abstained from the vote.)
Judges should not be players beholden to one side or another. They should be umpires with their decisions flowing from the constitutions, statutes and rules which judges are sworn to uphold. Ours is not a system in which the laws should apply differently based on who is standing before the tribunal Yet that sadly is too often the case. I promise that as a judge everyone will stand before me with equal footing. I do not care if one side is a big corporation represented by the most politically connected downtown law firm while the other side is a person too poor to afford an attorney. The law is the law is the law. If the law is with the pro se litigant, that person wins. Period.
The question has been asked by many people what happens to my blog Ogden on Politics. Having closely reviewed the Code of Judicial Conduct, I am aware that I am not permitted as a judicial candidate to make promises to support certain positions. Also, I cannot as a candidate take positions on issues that may possibly be before me as judge. I can talk about judicial philosophy, ideas for operating the courts more efficiently, and others matters relating to judicial administration. I can also talk about issues that are unlikely to come before me as a judge...but if they unexpectedly do, I need to, and will recuse, myself.
In short, I will continue my blog, but focus more on national issues and issues that are unlikely to be the sort that will land before the Marion County Superior Court. The posts will be a bit rarer as I will be busy campaigning.
Thanks to all of you who have given me encouragement as I have written Ogden on Politics and who will give me encouragement as I move forward with this professional challenge. I could not do it without you.
Sincerely,
Paul K. Ogden
Candidate for Marion County Superior Court Judge
Paid for and authorized by the Ogden for Judge Committee, Adam Lenkowsky, Chairman and Treasurer.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Is Lugar Claiming A False Residence on His Federal and State Tax Forms?
 |
| Senator Richard Lugar |
So Lugar is willing to lie to the BMV saying he lives 3200 Highwoods Court residence. What other government agencies is he lying to? How about the tax agencies? Does Lugar pay Indiana income taxes? If so, does he put down the 3200 Highwoods Court address? Does he put down 3200 Highwoods Court on his Indiana tax form? Does he put it on his federal tax form? Does he not know those documents are signed under threat of perjury?
For the record, Virginia, where Lugar lives, has a top income tax rate of 5.75%. Indiana has a flat income tax rate of 3.4%. Not that that would be Lugar's motivation for reporting the 3200 Highwoods Court address on his tax returns. That motivation appears to be nothing more than arrogance and a belief he is above the law everyone else has to follow.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Fox News Reports Democrats Have Begun to Dig Into Expenses Associated with Lugar's Lack of Indiana Residence
Fox News reported on how Democrats have been digging into Sen. Richard Lugar's expense records. It seems when you don't have a residence in the State, we taxpayers have to spend a lot of money on travel and putting the Senator up in hotel rooms:
..The Indiana Democratic party has combed through records going all the way back to Lugar's first year in the Senate, 1977.
The hundreds of pages of itemized travel expenses were passed along to Fox News. Among the findings offered by the party is that the six-term US Senator has spend almost $50,000 in travel expenses just visiting his home state.
It's shameful that we have a Senior Senator who "visits" Indiana instead of lives here.
 |
| Lugar Spokesman David Wilkie |
..The Indiana Democratic party has combed through records going all the way back to Lugar's first year in the Senate, 1977.
The hundreds of pages of itemized travel expenses were passed along to Fox News. Among the findings offered by the party is that the six-term US Senator has spend almost $50,000 in travel expenses just visiting his home state.
The expenses are necessary, in part, because Lugar has no home in Indiana. The Indiana Senator lives in the Washington DC suburb of McLean, Virginia. So, virtually every time Lugar stays in Indiana there's an added cost."...
Another of the Indiana Democratic Party's findings puts a finer point on the issue. It says Lugar appears to have expensed 325 nights in Indiana over a 21-year period, from 1990 through 2011.
The suggestion is that Lugar's time in the state has been limited to less than a year over the course of two-plus decades. The Lugar campaign says that suggestion is completely false."(Senator Lugar) spends a quarter of the year, every year in the state," says campaign spokesman David Willkie. Willkie notes from February 1st of 2011 and 2012, Lugar has spent 89-days in Indiana. And while Lugar is not "domiciled" in Indiana, he does own a farm in the state which he still manages....The fact is we taxpayers put Sen. Lugar up in nice hotel rooms when he decides to come back to Indiana. Willkie does not point to any other place Lugar stays while in Indiana. Even Lugar has said he doesn't stay at the farm as it is "too rustic." So Willkie's reference to that is nothing more than a disingenuous diversion. If Lugar has spent more than 325 nights in Indiana over the last 21 years, Willkie he ought to be able to identify where the Senator was staying during that time.
It's shameful that we have a Senior Senator who "visits" Indiana instead of lives here.
Lugar Includes Phony Residence in Primary Filing; Senior Senator Exposes Republicans to Loss of the Seat Should He be Re-Elected
With all the fuss raised about Senator Richard Lugar voting using someone else's house as his Indiana "residence," a house he sold 35 year, one would think that smarter legal minds would have prevailed in his camp and the Senator would have identified property he or a family member actually own as his Indiana residence. Apparently Lugar's arrogance though overrode that legal advice. In filing for May's primary yesterday, Senator Lugar identified as his "complete residence address" 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis, Indiana 46222, a house he sold 35 years ago and is currently occupied by the Hughes family.
In a CNN interview, Lugar indicated he "maintained" a home in Indianapolis for "political purposes." Really? Does Lugar contribute to the mortgage at 3200 Highwoods Court? Does Lugar mow the grass? Does Lugar take out the garbage?
Actually Lugar hasn't stepped in the house for some 30 plus years. Yet he claims to "maintain" the house, signing documents under oath that he resides at that address, including absentee voter applications and other documents. Former Secretary of State Charlie White gets seven felonies filed against him for doing one time what Lugar does as a matter of course every time he votes. White is exactly correct. The voter fraud statutes do not get applied to popular people like Lugar and Evan Bayh. The Senators get a pass even though what they're doing by voting someplace where they clearly do not live, violates the same laws White was convicted of violating. The application of our criminal laws should not depend on whether a person is liked or not. But in this state shamefully it does.
In the form, Lugar declares that "I am a registered voter of Precinct 006 of Wayne (or of Ward 29 of the City or Town of Indianapolis), County of Marion, State of Indiana." That of course is 3200 Highwoods Court. Hopefully someone will challenge his and his wife's absentee ballot when they are received at that precinct in May.
Most importantly, Lugar has now opened up the Republican Party to a challenge that could cause the GOP to lose the seat. The Senate is exclusive determiner of the qualifications of its members. If Lugar wins the primary and goes on to win the general election, it is very possible the Democrats, particularly if they still have a majority in the Senate, will challenge Lugar's qualifications to represent Indiana. One of the qualifications in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution is that a Senator be a resident of the state he or she is going to represent. By arrogantly declaring 3200 Highwoods Court as his residence on a declaration of candidacy, a residence he clearly does not live at, Lugar has shut the door on claiming another, more appropriate address in Indiana as his residence.
Lugar's filing shows that he clearly believes he is above the law that others are required to follow. For that alone, he does not deserve to be re-elected.
 |
| Sen. Richard Lugar |
In a CNN interview, Lugar indicated he "maintained" a home in Indianapolis for "political purposes." Really? Does Lugar contribute to the mortgage at 3200 Highwoods Court? Does Lugar mow the grass? Does Lugar take out the garbage?
Actually Lugar hasn't stepped in the house for some 30 plus years. Yet he claims to "maintain" the house, signing documents under oath that he resides at that address, including absentee voter applications and other documents. Former Secretary of State Charlie White gets seven felonies filed against him for doing one time what Lugar does as a matter of course every time he votes. White is exactly correct. The voter fraud statutes do not get applied to popular people like Lugar and Evan Bayh. The Senators get a pass even though what they're doing by voting someplace where they clearly do not live, violates the same laws White was convicted of violating. The application of our criminal laws should not depend on whether a person is liked or not. But in this state shamefully it does.
In the form, Lugar declares that "I am a registered voter of Precinct 006 of Wayne (or of Ward 29 of the City or Town of Indianapolis), County of Marion, State of Indiana." That of course is 3200 Highwoods Court. Hopefully someone will challenge his and his wife's absentee ballot when they are received at that precinct in May.
Most importantly, Lugar has now opened up the Republican Party to a challenge that could cause the GOP to lose the seat. The Senate is exclusive determiner of the qualifications of its members. If Lugar wins the primary and goes on to win the general election, it is very possible the Democrats, particularly if they still have a majority in the Senate, will challenge Lugar's qualifications to represent Indiana. One of the qualifications in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution is that a Senator be a resident of the state he or she is going to represent. By arrogantly declaring 3200 Highwoods Court as his residence on a declaration of candidacy, a residence he clearly does not live at, Lugar has shut the door on claiming another, more appropriate address in Indiana as his residence.
Lugar's filing shows that he clearly believes he is above the law that others are required to follow. For that alone, he does not deserve to be re-elected.
Who Kidnapped and Brainwashed Jim Bopp?; Conservative Activist Endorses Pretend Conservative Mitt Romney
American Spectator has a story asking what happened to Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand who from the beginning has been a fervent supporter of Massachusetts liberal turned moderated turned pretend conservative Mitt Romney. Here is a paragraph from that column:
"But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison."
I had the exact same thoughts when I read the email yesterday from Terre Haute attorney and conservative activist James Bopp in which he endorses Mitt Romney as the conservative choice.
I first met Jim in 1995 when we both worked on the Rex Early for Governor race. Jim is a very personable guy, a person who has consistently stood for conservative causes, including being a strong supporter of the pro-life movement. I've watched Jim's legal career develop after that. Jim heads the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an outfit based in Terre Haute that takes on political free speech cases all over the country, a cause which is near and dear to my heart. One of the cases Jim took on involved representing me a decade ago in the Southern District in a successful effort to invalidate a statute prohibiting candidates from passing out literature with more than one candidate's name mentioned, unless that literature was previously filed with the county election board.
I should also mentioned that Jim actively supports anti-SLAPP legislation. SLAPP lawsuits that are those filed against private citizens to try to keep them from speaking out about public issues. The purpose of the lawsuit is not to win, but rather to drive up the legal costs for the private citizen so much so that he or she will give up and agree to not speak out anymore in settlement of the lawsuit. The tactic, often employed by well-funded corporations with deep pockets, is repugnant to Free Speech.
Jim recently received headlines for being on the winning side of the Citizen's United case. I'll have to disagree with Jim on that one. After reading that opinion, I thought it nothing more than an activist opinion that, based on a creative interpretation of the Constitution, inappropriately usurped legislative power substituting instead what the court thought the best policy was, the exact sort of thing we conservatives have for decades criticized liberal judges for doing...the same sort of judicial B.S. that led to Roe v. Wade. Nine times out of 10 though, Jim is on the right side on political free speech issues.
Back to the Bopp endorsement. This is from the email that went out to conservatives:
Et tu, Jim? Say it ain't so.
 |
| Terre Haute Attorney Jame Bopp |
"But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison."
I had the exact same thoughts when I read the email yesterday from Terre Haute attorney and conservative activist James Bopp in which he endorses Mitt Romney as the conservative choice.
I first met Jim in 1995 when we both worked on the Rex Early for Governor race. Jim is a very personable guy, a person who has consistently stood for conservative causes, including being a strong supporter of the pro-life movement. I've watched Jim's legal career develop after that. Jim heads the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an outfit based in Terre Haute that takes on political free speech cases all over the country, a cause which is near and dear to my heart. One of the cases Jim took on involved representing me a decade ago in the Southern District in a successful effort to invalidate a statute prohibiting candidates from passing out literature with more than one candidate's name mentioned, unless that literature was previously filed with the county election board.
I should also mentioned that Jim actively supports anti-SLAPP legislation. SLAPP lawsuits that are those filed against private citizens to try to keep them from speaking out about public issues. The purpose of the lawsuit is not to win, but rather to drive up the legal costs for the private citizen so much so that he or she will give up and agree to not speak out anymore in settlement of the lawsuit. The tactic, often employed by well-funded corporations with deep pockets, is repugnant to Free Speech.
Jim recently received headlines for being on the winning side of the Citizen's United case. I'll have to disagree with Jim on that one. After reading that opinion, I thought it nothing more than an activist opinion that, based on a creative interpretation of the Constitution, inappropriately usurped legislative power substituting instead what the court thought the best policy was, the exact sort of thing we conservatives have for decades criticized liberal judges for doing...the same sort of judicial B.S. that led to Roe v. Wade. Nine times out of 10 though, Jim is on the right side on political free speech issues.
Back to the Bopp endorsement. This is from the email that went out to conservatives:
My Fellow Conservatives,
Like all conservative Republicans, and most Americans, I believe
that the future of our country, and the preservation of our way of life,
depends on the defeat of President Barack Obama and his replacement with a
president who supports free enterprise, limited government, traditional family
values, and a strong national defense, based upon the principles of our United
States Constitution.
Because of my obligations with the Republican National Committee
and my belief that any of the major Republican presidential candidates would
advance our conservative principles, I have stayed neutral, hoping that one
candidate would emerge with the demonstrated ability and support to take on and
defeat President Obama. That candidate has now emerged and, as a result, it is
time to put aside our minor intra-family differences, to end the increasingly
divisive primary fight, and to unite to focus on achieving our shared goal of
defeating President Obama.
That candidate is Governor Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is a true conservative. One does not have to guess
what Mitt Romney would do in office. He served for four years as Governor
of Massachusetts and has a record that conservatives should be proud of.
As Governor, Romney fought for social conservative values. He
vetoed bills that would have authorized state funding of embryonic cloning,
would have changed the definition of human life from fertilization to
implantation and would have given young women the morning-after abortion pill
without a prescription. He promoted abstinence education in public schools.
When the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, he left no
stone unturned to set aside that ruling. And in contrast to the Obama
Administration’s war on the Catholic Church by mandating their institutions to
provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans,
Governor Romney vetoed a bill that would have required Catholic hospitals to
offer abortion-inducing drugs to potential rape victims.
Of course, it is true that Romney had a conversion to the pro-life
cause, not unlike other Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
We should not only embrace him as a result of this conversion, but also
recognize that he is a success story. But the best test of the sincerity of a
conversion is deeds, and Mitt Romney was “consistently pro-life” as Governor,
according to the President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
On the issues currently deemed the most important by the American
people, the economy and federal taxes and spending, Romney also has a
remarkable record. As a private investor in struggling businesses, Romney was
very successful in turning them around. As governor, he issued more than 800
vetoes and cut taxes 19 times. The result, in a state with an overwhelmingly
Democratic legislature, is that he closed a 3 billion dollar budget gap and
turned it into a 2 billion dollar rainy-day fund.
Mitt Romney’s success in the first five primary states, including
wins in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada, have revealed an emerging consensus
among Republican voters that he is the most electable – the most likely
Republican candidate to defeat Obama. Romney has the broadest support among all
elements of the Republican party electorate, has the most appeal to
independents and swing voters, and is, therefore, the most electable of all. It
is time, therefore, to celebrate the result and concentrate all our energy on
achieving a general election victory.
Et tu, Jim? Say it ain't so.
Santorum Stuns GOP Establishment With Three State Sweep; Scope of Romney Rebuke by GOP Electorate is Staggering
 |
| Rick Santorum |
MINNESOTA
Santorum won the Minnesota Caucus with 45% of the vote. Ron Paul was second with 27% of the vote while Romney finished third with 17% and Gingrich fourth with 11%.. Romney did not win a single county in Minnesota, a state he won in 2008 by a 41% to 22% margin over eventual GOP nominee John McCain.
MISSOURI
Although the Show-Me (I hate that nickname) State had a non-binding primary, i.e. a beauty contest, that didn't award any delegates, Missouri is still a signficant swing state with considerable population centers of St. Louis and Kansas City. Santorum won the state going away with 55%, the first GOP candidate to get a majority vote in a primary or caucus in 2012. Romney finished second with 25% and Paul at 12% brought up the rear. (Gingrich did not compete in Missouri). Santorum won every county in Missouri as well as the independent city of St. Louis.
 |
| Mitt Romney |
COLORADO
Polls leading up to the Colorado caucus consistently showed Romney with a double digit lead. Voters though had other ideas. Santorum won the state with 40% of the vote. Romney was second at 35%, Gingrich third at 13% and Paul at 12%. Again, this was a state Romney competed in during the 2008 election cycle and won, defeating McCain by a 41% to 22% margin.
COUNTY BREAKDOWN:
Here is an interesting tidbit. There were 265 counties involved in last nights primary/caucuses, including 64 in Colorado, 87 in Minnesota, and 114 in Missouri. Here is the scorecard when looking at how many counties each candidate won:
Santorum: 236
Romney: 16 (all in Colorado)
Paul; 4 (all in Minnesota)
Gingrich: 1 (in Minnesota)
Tie (Santorum-Romney in Colorado): 2
Tie (Santorum-Paul in Minnesota): 2
Undetermined: 4 (all in Colorado)
CONCLUSION:
Gingrich was not a factor in the three races last night as he spent his time leading up to those states spending his time and money in Florida which he lost handily to Romney. Santorum and Paul's strategy of bypassing Florida to work on the next round of states appears to have paid off, especially for Santorum, big time.
Rocky, i.e. Rick Santorum, showed how vulnerable Mitt Romney in a race where there is only one conservative. It appears that Romney desperately needs Santorum-Gingrich splitting the conservative vote in order to be the front runner.
WHAT TO EXPECT:
The Romney independent PAC will step up its assault on Santorum. Romney's way of winning this race appears to try to viciously savage anyone who dares challenge his right to the GOP throne. What should be alarming to his campaign though is that attacks on Santorum leading up to these three states did not seem to work and possibly backfired against Romney driving down his numbers. Since Santorum doesn't have the baggage Gingrich does, he's more difficult to attack than the ex-Speaker. Romney's message that Santorum is an insider while he's an outsider is not really a credible message for the former Massachusetts governor who has every GOP establishment figure supporting him.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Jurors Stunned When Charlie White Did Not Present a Defense; Jury Foreman Says Jury Probably Would Have Acquitted White if He Presented Evidence
 |
| Former Secretary of State Charlie White |
Jurors were stunned when the defense didn't call any witnesses in the voter fraud trial of Secretary of State Charlie White, the jury foreman told RTV6.
Speaking for the first time since White was convicted of six felony charges early Saturday, foreman Gregg Weidman said it was a shock when White's attorney, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, rested his case without calling any witnesses.
"I don't know if you saw the reaction when Mr. Brizzi said he wasn't going to call anybody, but I looked around the jury, and everybody's eyes were about this big, like, you have to be kidding," Weidman told RTV6's Derrik Thomas.
The case centered on White's residency. He said he lived at his ex-wife's house and registered to vote at that address. But prosecutors said he actually lived with his fiancee and now wife at a Fishers condo, which was outside his Fishers town council district.
Prosecutors presented voter registration documents, loan applications, emails and 600 pages of cellphone records and called several witnesses.
In the face of that evidence, Weidman said jurors wanted the defense to show them something to challenge the presentation.
"Most of us felt that if the ex-wife would have testified, or the new husband had said, 'Yeah, he was living in our basement,' that would have been very telling. It would have been nice to actually hear from the new wife, too," he said.
When asked if he believed the jury would have acquitted White based on such testimony, Weidman said, "I feel we probably would have."To see the rest of the article, click here.
Civil Discourse Now Discusses Best and Worst Presidents with Guests Mike Kole and Jeff Cox
Part 1 (Criteria for Rating Presidents)
Part 2 (Most Mediocre (Average) President)
Part 3 (Worst President)
Part 4(Best President)
Part 5 (Best President - continued)
Part 2 (Most Mediocre (Average) President)
Part 3 (Worst President)
Part 4(Best President)
Part 5 (Best President - continued)
Monday, February 6, 2012
Why Barack Obama Will Win Re-Election Against Likely GOP Nominee Mitt Romney
This time last year, I was fairly certain a Republican nominee would take out the unpopular President Barack Obama. Now I'm fairly certain that President Obama will win re-election. Here's why:
1) The Economy is Improving. The unemployment rate in January of 2012 was 8.3% down steadily from August 2011 9.1% and down greatly from the peak on Obama's watch, i.e. 10% in October, 2009. Further, we appear to have made it out of the double digit recession. GDP was at .4% in the first quarter of 2011, and then went to 1.3% for the second, 1.8% for the third, and no 2.8% for the fourth.
While I believe Presidents get far too much credit for a good economy and far too much criticism for a bad one, it is a political fact of life that Presidents get judged on how the economy does while in office. Obama is now running for re-election with a growing economy that is creating jobs. Likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney stumbled when asked about the improving economy, and suggested it would have improved more were it not for Obama's moves in office. That's not a winning message.
2) Obama is Much Better Suited to Appeal to Economic Populism than Romney. The last few years have seen the rise of two economic populist movements, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street (and its variations). Although the former hails from the right and the latter is from the left, they are not unrelated in their philosophy. Both hate the use of government to take money from Main Street and hand it to Wall Street. The Republicans though are on the verge of nominating Mr. Wall Street, a card carrying member of the 1% and a person who supported the corporate bailouts so despise by the Tea Party and Occupy groups. While Obama's supported those bailouts and he is hardly a "man of the people," when your opponent says he is not worried about poor, makes $10,000 bets, and says his making $374,372 to give eight speech is "not much money," it won't be hard for Obama to appeal to the populist sentiment that gave rise to the Tea Party and Occupy crowd.
3) Romney is Not Well Liked by His Own Party. There have been five state primaries/caucuses thus far. Romney has yet to hit 50% despite being much better financed and organized than his opponents. Repeatedly weak GOP challengers have risen above Romney in the polls, not because of those candidate's strengths, but because of their dislike for Romney. There has been a consistent formula for Republican presidential victories, i.e. building a coalition between fiscal and social conservatives. Romney is not trusted by social conservatives in the party given his sudden transformation on key issues and even fiscal conservatives have doubts about him because of Romneycare and his support of corporate bailouts. Romney is only actively supported by about a 1/3 of the electorate and that seems to be only because they're repeatedly told he is the best candidate to beat President Obama.
4) Obama is a Much More Skilled Politician. Romney is a gaffe machine, a person who apparently doesn't think bother to think before he talks. Romney is not trusted by much of the GOP electorate and is barely beating a very weak Republican field. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008, even though Clinton was herself a skillful politician and had far more money and better organization than the NonRomneys who are often beating Romney in the polls.
5) Romney Has Exploitable Baggage. While issues associated with Bain Capital, Romney's tax returns, and hefty speaking fees have only a modest impact in a Republican primary race, that all changes when Romney goes to the general election round. Expect the Democrats to dig up several persons whose lives have been negatively affected by Romney's decisions while leading Bain Capital. It doesn't matter if the strategy is fair or not, the fact is, coming off the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, people aren't going to like a Republican candidate who has the cold business sensibilities of Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life.
It is possible Romney could beat Obama in a general election. After all, the economy could dip sharply before the election propelling Romney. Or President Obama could reverse course from 2008 and run a disastrous political campaign. But while the window is open for a Romney victory, it's only cracked open a few inches.
 |
| President Barack Obama |
1) The Economy is Improving. The unemployment rate in January of 2012 was 8.3% down steadily from August 2011 9.1% and down greatly from the peak on Obama's watch, i.e. 10% in October, 2009. Further, we appear to have made it out of the double digit recession. GDP was at .4% in the first quarter of 2011, and then went to 1.3% for the second, 1.8% for the third, and no 2.8% for the fourth.
While I believe Presidents get far too much credit for a good economy and far too much criticism for a bad one, it is a political fact of life that Presidents get judged on how the economy does while in office. Obama is now running for re-election with a growing economy that is creating jobs. Likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney stumbled when asked about the improving economy, and suggested it would have improved more were it not for Obama's moves in office. That's not a winning message.
2) Obama is Much Better Suited to Appeal to Economic Populism than Romney. The last few years have seen the rise of two economic populist movements, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street (and its variations). Although the former hails from the right and the latter is from the left, they are not unrelated in their philosophy. Both hate the use of government to take money from Main Street and hand it to Wall Street. The Republicans though are on the verge of nominating Mr. Wall Street, a card carrying member of the 1% and a person who supported the corporate bailouts so despise by the Tea Party and Occupy groups. While Obama's supported those bailouts and he is hardly a "man of the people," when your opponent says he is not worried about poor, makes $10,000 bets, and says his making $374,372 to give eight speech is "not much money," it won't be hard for Obama to appeal to the populist sentiment that gave rise to the Tea Party and Occupy crowd.
 |
| Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney |
4) Obama is a Much More Skilled Politician. Romney is a gaffe machine, a person who apparently doesn't think bother to think before he talks. Romney is not trusted by much of the GOP electorate and is barely beating a very weak Republican field. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008, even though Clinton was herself a skillful politician and had far more money and better organization than the NonRomneys who are often beating Romney in the polls.
5) Romney Has Exploitable Baggage. While issues associated with Bain Capital, Romney's tax returns, and hefty speaking fees have only a modest impact in a Republican primary race, that all changes when Romney goes to the general election round. Expect the Democrats to dig up several persons whose lives have been negatively affected by Romney's decisions while leading Bain Capital. It doesn't matter if the strategy is fair or not, the fact is, coming off the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, people aren't going to like a Republican candidate who has the cold business sensibilities of Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life.
It is possible Romney could beat Obama in a general election. After all, the economy could dip sharply before the election propelling Romney. Or President Obama could reverse course from 2008 and run a disastrous political campaign. But while the window is open for a Romney victory, it's only cracked open a few inches.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Animal Rescure Groups Win Awards
Press Release:
“Ordinary People Doing Extraordinary Work” Win Cash in Rescue Rally
Six all-volunteer animal rescue groups from the Greater Indianapolis area were awarded cash prizes for their rescue of dogs and cats from Indianapolis Animal Care & Control between October 15, 2011 and January 15, 2012. Fourteen groups participated in the second Rescue Rally, sponsored by local animal welfare organization Move to ACT.
Winners and their prize totals were:
Pet Supplies Plus donated gift cards to the winners.
“Rescue Rally is possible because of the generous support of
many local businesses and individuals who care,” noted Warren Patitz of Move to ACT. “They recognize that
all-volunteer rescue groups use their donations responsibly to achieve results
for the animals.
For more information, contact:
***
See also: http://www.movetoact.org/
“Ordinary People Doing Extraordinary Work” Win Cash in Rescue Rally
Six all-volunteer animal rescue groups from the Greater Indianapolis area were awarded cash prizes for their rescue of dogs and cats from Indianapolis Animal Care & Control between October 15, 2011 and January 15, 2012. Fourteen groups participated in the second Rescue Rally, sponsored by local animal welfare organization Move to ACT.
Winners and their prize totals were:
1st Every
Dog Counts Rescue $2,300.00
2nd ARPO
1,550.00
3rd Mended
Hearts Rescue
1,400.00
4th Lucky
Dog Retreat 900.00
5th Flying
Herd Dog Rescue 800.00
6th Love
of Labs 450.00
Participants competed to see which could rescue the most
dogs, cats, special-needs animals, black dogs and cats, and animals who had
spent the most time at IACC. More than 250 homeless animals were pulled from
IACC by Rally participants, who found them foster or permanent homes.
Black animals were highlighted because they are often
overlooked by potential adopters. Fifty-five black dogs were rescued during the
Rally, with the largest number, 28, pulled by Every Dog Counts Rescue.
Physically challenged animals are also among the last to be
adopted, and each of the winners listed several among their rescues. Mended
Hearts Rescue claimed additional prize money for rescuing a sight-impaired dog,
as well as the most cats rescued.
“These groups are the lifeblood of the animal rescue effort.
They’re just ordinary people doing extraordinary, life-saving work.”
For more information, contact:
Carolene Bash
317-641-9300***
See also: http://www.movetoact.org/
Saturday, February 4, 2012
CNN Covers Lugar's Lack of Indiana Residency While Local Media Blackout Continues
Although the local media continues with the media blackout on the Lugar (lack of Indiana) residency story, it is started to be picked up by national news outlets. As reported by CNN:
 |
| Senator Richard Lugar |
The longtime senator told CNN he maintains a residence for “political purposes” in Indianapolis but doesn’t live at the physical address-staying in hotels around the state, instead.
Lugar pointed to a loophole in Indiana law that protects his residency status while he lives and works in the Washington, D.C. area.
According to the state’s constitution, an absent individual does not lose residence as long as he or she is away “on the business of the State of Indiana or the United States.”
The longtime senator listed his voting address as 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis but said his actual home is located in McLean, Virginia–a Washington suburb.
Brad King, co-director of the Indiana Election Division, said as long as an individual establishes residency before he or she leaves the state for work, the law permits that person to remain a resident, no matter how long that person is gone.
As for voting standards, King said voters must list a residence when they first register to vote, but they’re not required to show proof of residence.
If they move, they’re directed to indicate a change of address but, again, not required to prove the change.The rest of the story can be read here.
Lugar claims he "maintains a residence for 'political purposes' in Indianapolis?" Really? Where is that residence? The 3200 Highwoods Court, Indianapolis, Indiana address Lugar signs under is his residence when he goes to vote was sold 35 years ago and he hasn't stepped a foot in that house since then. It is unclear where exactly this "residence" is that Lugar claims to be "maintaining" in Indiana and if he is doing so, why doesn't he list that address as his residence instead of someone else's home?
King's comments, while correct, could be confusing as reported. First, you have residency as a qualification for U.S. Senate. The U.S. Constitution requires that you be a resident of the State you are elected. The Indiana Constitution and state says you don't lose that residence because of your service in public office. That means if Lugar spends 11 months out of the year in D.C. he is not considered a D.C. resident instead of an Indiana residence. That makes perfect sense. But you can lose your Indiana residence for another reason besides your service in D.C....namely that you give up that Indiana residence, which is what Lugar did when he sold the home and didn't establish any other residence. Lugar stays in hotel rooms when he comes to Indiana. Further, it should be noted that it is highly questionable that Indiana law can somehow supplement or change a federal constitutional qualification provision regarding residency to serve as U.S. Senator. Past court decisions have not allowed states to supplement federal constitutional qualification provisions such as a state providing for term limits for their members of Congress.
The second concept is voter fraud/perjury. King is right that a person only initially lists a residence when they register. However, the absentee ballot application Lugar repeatedly filled out to vote specifically requires him to identify his residence under penalties of perjury. And when Lugar voted, he had to affirm under oath he was still living at the address he registered using. Lugar has repeatedly signed under penalties of perjury that he lives at 3200 Highwoods Court in Indianapolis when he has voted. Lugar though knows perfectly well he hasn't lived at 3200 Highwoods Court in decades.
There is nothing in the law that gives Lugar a pass on voter fraud and perjury, allowing him to falsify his residence under oath. And there certainly is nothing that excuses his wife, Char, who has done the same thing. What White was convicted of is jaywalking compared to the criminal charges Lugar and his wife could easily be charged with but aren't being charged because they, unlike White, are popular and powerful.
It's great that the national media is starting to cover this story. It's shameful the Indianapolis Star and local television stations continue to be afraid to report a story, especially in light of the massive coverage given the White voter fraud charges.
Felony Convction Removal Statute Appears to Require White's Reinstatement as Secretary of State if His Class D Felonies are Entered as Misdemeanors
 |
| Charlie White |
(b) Any public officer convicted of a felony during the public officer's term of office shall:
(1) be removed from office by operation of law when:
(A) in a jury trial, a jury publicly announces a verdict against the person for a felony;
(B) in a bench trial, the court publicly announces a verdict against the person for a felony; or
(C) in a guilty plea hearing, the person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a felony; and
(2) not receive any salary or remuneration from the time the public officer is removed from office under subdivision (1).
(c) The subsequent reduction of a felony to a Class A misdemeanor under IC 35-50-2-7 or IC 35-38-1-1.5 after the:
(1) jury has announced its verdict against the person for a felony;That seems pretty clear-cut. But the statute continues on and that is where the law appears to favor White. Quoting now from paragraph (d) of that same statute:
(2) court has announced its verdict against the person for a felony; or
(3) person has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony;
does not affect the operation of subsection (b).
(d) If the conviction is:
(1) reversed;
(2) vacated;
(3) set aside;
(4) for a felony other than a felony arising out of an action taken in the public officer's official capacity, reduced to a Class A misdemeanor under IC 35-50-2-7 or IC 35-38-1-1.5; or
(5) not entered because the trial court did not accept the guilty plea;One important rule of statutory interpretation is that specific statutory provisions control over general. (d) is more specific than the more general (c) when it comes to the effect of a reduction of a conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor. So if (d) at all applies to White's situation, that one would apply instead of the more general (c).
and the public officer's term has not expired, the public officer shall be reinstated in office and receive any salary or other remuneration that the public officer would have received had the public officer not been removed from office.
It appears that the way the paragraphs operate is that (c) is intended to apply to felonies the elected official commits in the course of his job and (d) is intended to apply to felonies not committed in his official capacity. Regardless, specific still controls over general and paragraph (d) would seem to apply.
Looking at (d)(4), White was convicted for a felony other than a felony arising out of an action taken in the public officer's official capacity." His term has not expired. Therefore, if his convictions are reduced to misdemeanors by Judge Steve Nation, White is back in office. In fact the law requires that he be reinstated. Governor Daniels recognized that in his announcement appointing an interim Secretary of State.
My guess is that a deal will be struck that White will officially resign in exchange for the reduction of the felonies to misdemeanors. That would avoid his mandatory reinstatement but allow White to possibly keep his law license and avoid the stain of being a convicted felon.
Of course, it would have been easier for White if he had actually presented evidence at his trial and secured an acquittal, but that is water under the bridge.
Charlie White Convicted of Six Felony Charges; Why Did White's Counsel Abandon Winning Election Commission Strategy to Instead Not Present Exculpatory Evidence to the Jury?
Early this morning, Secretary of State Charlie White was convicted of six of the seven felony charges against him, including voter fraud and perjury. All six of the charges had as their factual basis that White was living at the condo he had purchased and not at his ex-wife Nicole's house. The seventh charge was a charge that had contradictory facts when compared to the other charges, namely that White had signed an affidavit to occupy the condo within 30 days when he closed (actually it is an "intent" to occupy) but was actually living at the ex-wife's house instead of the condo.
At trial, White's defense attorney, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, chose to employ the tactic of not putting on a defense at all. That is an old defense attorney trick to send the message to the jury that the defendant considers the prosecution's case is so weak that it does not even be justify a response. It is a tactic best used when the defendant really doesn't have any exculpatory evidence to present that might sway the jury. A good example would be a criminal case where the only witness is the defendant himself and you don't want to give away the defendant's 5th Amendment right not to testify.
What is mystifying is that White did have evidence to present, boatloads of evidence in fact. The factual issue - whether White was living in the condo instead of the ex-wife's house, was addressed in a proceeding before the Election Commission, headed by three individuals, including ex-Democratic Hamilton County Judge Buddy Pylitt. Commission members first heard the all-circumstantial case presented by Democrats which were based on documents White had executed which suggested the condo was his email address. For example, White signed a benefits package when he started working at a downtown law firm in which he used the condo address as his address. He also received some mail at the condo address.
At the Commission hearing, White, also through attorney Brizzi, matched the Democrats' circumstantial evidence, providing documents to the Commission showing White had also signed documents on which he used his ex-wife's address as his residence and also received mail at his ex-wife's address. But while the circumstantial cases were offsetting, White also had four witnesses - himself, his current wife, his ex-wife and her new husband that were available to offer direct evidence, i.e. testimony White was actually spending nights at the ex-wife's house. At the Commission, Brizzi called two of them, White's current wife and then fiance Michelle, who testified she did not want to live together before marriage, which had been delayed due to the statewide campaign, and that White was living at his ex-wife's house. The most powerful witness though was the ex-wife, Nicole, who confirmed they had an arrangement that White could stay at her and her husband's house so he could spend more time with their son, pending the nuptials and move into the condo. She also talked about White receiving mail at the address.
The Commission, in a unanimous vote, found the Democrats had failed to meet their burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence...a mere tipping of the scales) and decided as a matter of fact that White was living at the ex-wife's house and had yet not moved into the condo yet. On administrative appeal, Judge Louis Rosenberg accepted White had not yet moved into the condo and was living at the ex-wife's house, but said the ex-wife's house was a temporary living situation (because he was going to move into the condo) and thus the ex-wife's house couldn't qualify as a residence under Indiana law. In his ruling, Judge Rosenberg appears to have a missed another statute that deals with people with temporary living situations and which allows them to claim that temporary abode as a residence to vote.
But the living situation, as found by the Commission, would not have supported the six felony charges White was convicted of. Those charges were completely based on the fact that White was living in the condo. Yet when it came to the criminal trial, where the burden of proof was much higher for the prosecution (beyond a reasonable doubt), White didn't introduce any evidence or call any witnesses. Strange to say the least. Why abandon a strategy that had worked very well and one would have thought would have worked even better with a lay jury for which White just had to create reasonable doubt? In particular, why not call the ex-wife, Nicole, to testify? She alone could have created reasonable doubt. Since she had already testified under oath, it is unlikely she would have suddenly changed her story.
Plus, there was another option. After the prosecution restes, White's counsel could have moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the prosecution's case, even if completely true, was not enough to support the criminal charges. Although such motions are rarely granted, once the judge ruled against White, he could have then presented a case instead of relying on the jury to make the determination that the prosecution's case by itself did not support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately for White now, it is virtually impossible to get a conviction overturned based on insufficiency of the evidence. Also, the tactics employed by counsel cannot be raised in an effective assistance of counsel claim.
NOTE: My apologies for the headline. I inadvertently wrote "sex" when I meant "six" as in felony charges.
 |
| Former Secretary of State Charlie White |
At trial, White's defense attorney, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, chose to employ the tactic of not putting on a defense at all. That is an old defense attorney trick to send the message to the jury that the defendant considers the prosecution's case is so weak that it does not even be justify a response. It is a tactic best used when the defendant really doesn't have any exculpatory evidence to present that might sway the jury. A good example would be a criminal case where the only witness is the defendant himself and you don't want to give away the defendant's 5th Amendment right not to testify.
What is mystifying is that White did have evidence to present, boatloads of evidence in fact. The factual issue - whether White was living in the condo instead of the ex-wife's house, was addressed in a proceeding before the Election Commission, headed by three individuals, including ex-Democratic Hamilton County Judge Buddy Pylitt. Commission members first heard the all-circumstantial case presented by Democrats which were based on documents White had executed which suggested the condo was his email address. For example, White signed a benefits package when he started working at a downtown law firm in which he used the condo address as his address. He also received some mail at the condo address.
 |
| Carl Brizzi |
The Commission, in a unanimous vote, found the Democrats had failed to meet their burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence...a mere tipping of the scales) and decided as a matter of fact that White was living at the ex-wife's house and had yet not moved into the condo yet. On administrative appeal, Judge Louis Rosenberg accepted White had not yet moved into the condo and was living at the ex-wife's house, but said the ex-wife's house was a temporary living situation (because he was going to move into the condo) and thus the ex-wife's house couldn't qualify as a residence under Indiana law. In his ruling, Judge Rosenberg appears to have a missed another statute that deals with people with temporary living situations and which allows them to claim that temporary abode as a residence to vote.
But the living situation, as found by the Commission, would not have supported the six felony charges White was convicted of. Those charges were completely based on the fact that White was living in the condo. Yet when it came to the criminal trial, where the burden of proof was much higher for the prosecution (beyond a reasonable doubt), White didn't introduce any evidence or call any witnesses. Strange to say the least. Why abandon a strategy that had worked very well and one would have thought would have worked even better with a lay jury for which White just had to create reasonable doubt? In particular, why not call the ex-wife, Nicole, to testify? She alone could have created reasonable doubt. Since she had already testified under oath, it is unlikely she would have suddenly changed her story.
Plus, there was another option. After the prosecution restes, White's counsel could have moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the prosecution's case, even if completely true, was not enough to support the criminal charges. Although such motions are rarely granted, once the judge ruled against White, he could have then presented a case instead of relying on the jury to make the determination that the prosecution's case by itself did not support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately for White now, it is virtually impossible to get a conviction overturned based on insufficiency of the evidence. Also, the tactics employed by counsel cannot be raised in an effective assistance of counsel claim.
NOTE: My apologies for the headline. I inadvertently wrote "sex" when I meant "six" as in felony charges.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Former Congressman David McIntosh Appears Poised to Return to Congress
With Congressman Dan Burton exiting the race for 5th District, it appears that former Congressman David McIntosh becomes the front runner...or at least according to a survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates that was commissioned by the McIntosh campaign.
The survey dated January 31, 2012, the day Burton announced his retirement, shows Burton leading McIntosh 37% to 31%. The other major candidates, former Marion County Coroner John McGoff and former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks, clocked in at 11% and 7% respectively.
The survey suggests that once Burton is removed from the race, most of Burton's voters go to McIntosh by a 38% to 14% margin. Given McIntosh's conservative credentials as a former Congressman and 2000 gubernatorial candidate, that's not surprising. McGoff and Brooks are considered to be more moderate and reportedly voiced support for President Obama's bailout of the auto industry at a candidate forum, a position antithetical to the the position of tea party activists and many mainstream conservatives.
It appears that McGoff and Brooks' best hope is that state Senator Mike Delph enters the race and splits the conservative vote with McIntosh. Delph has solid credentials with the tea party crowd and would be a formidable candidate should he choose to run. However, the lateness of the Burton retirement announcement has left Delph at a decided disadvantage organizationally should he decide to enter the race.
 |
| Former Congressman David McIntosh |
The survey dated January 31, 2012, the day Burton announced his retirement, shows Burton leading McIntosh 37% to 31%. The other major candidates, former Marion County Coroner John McGoff and former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks, clocked in at 11% and 7% respectively.
The survey suggests that once Burton is removed from the race, most of Burton's voters go to McIntosh by a 38% to 14% margin. Given McIntosh's conservative credentials as a former Congressman and 2000 gubernatorial candidate, that's not surprising. McGoff and Brooks are considered to be more moderate and reportedly voiced support for President Obama's bailout of the auto industry at a candidate forum, a position antithetical to the the position of tea party activists and many mainstream conservatives.
It appears that McGoff and Brooks' best hope is that state Senator Mike Delph enters the race and splits the conservative vote with McIntosh. Delph has solid credentials with the tea party crowd and would be a formidable candidate should he choose to run. However, the lateness of the Burton retirement announcement has left Delph at a decided disadvantage organizationally should he decide to enter the race.
Marion County Judge Gives NFL Blanket Authority to Seize Any Property League Deems Infringing
Marion Superior Court has granted temporary restraining and seizure orders to the NFL, along with the New England Patriots and New York Giants, after they requested injunctions on Jan. 25.
The orders give the NFL and the two Super Bowl teams the authority to seize unlicensed merchandise without notice. Those caught selling items without proper trademarks face financial penalties and will have their merchandise confiscated.
“Previous trademark protection efforts during the Super Bowl period demonstrate that the professional infringers who ‘work’ the site of the game will defy or avoid temporary restraining orders and will continue to sell their counterfeit merchandise in any possible manner,” the NFL said in its suit. “The only effective way to combat this problem is to seize the goods at the point of sale.”
The restraining and seizure orders take effect at noon on Friday and last through Monday, the day after the game.
...
“Plaintiffs have shown that notice need not be given because vendors and manufacturers of counterfeit NFL merchandise have no business identity and cannot be identified, located or notified … and if so notified would flee with the counterfeit merchandise,” Judge Cynthia Ayers wrote in granting the orders.
...To see the rest of the article, click here.
The fact is federal and state law enforcement officials already have the power to treat selling and/or possession of infringing materials as a criminal offense and seize the property pursuant to an arrest. For a court to give the power to seize private property as a civil violation to a private entity whenever that entity feels it has been wronged, well that is quite remarkable and unlikely to be upheld if ever challenged. Of course when a lawsuit doesn't actually identify a defendant before an order is issued, it's really hard to take an appeal. Is there anything we won't do for the NFL?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Were Republican Slating Candidates Required to Sign Postdated, Notarized Withdrawal Forms?
I don't normally post unconfirmed rumors I receive, but this post is more a request for confirmation of the information I received. After all, demands made upon candidates in conjunction with slating are difficult to confirm as the candidates don't want to speak out lest they jeopardize their candidacies.
I was told today by a very well placed source that candidates at the Marion County GOP organization were required to sign post-dated, notarized Primary Candidate Withdraw Forms (CAN-10) that would be filed should a non-slated candidate try to file in the primary to run against the slate.
Supposedly the Marion County GOP House delegation refused to sign the form.
Looking at the form, I believe a notary who falsified the date the candidate was appearing to sign the form would probably be in jeopardy of losing his or her notary license.
Anyone who has information on this practice can contact me at this email: pogden297@comcast.net
I was told today by a very well placed source that candidates at the Marion County GOP organization were required to sign post-dated, notarized Primary Candidate Withdraw Forms (CAN-10) that would be filed should a non-slated candidate try to file in the primary to run against the slate.
Supposedly the Marion County GOP House delegation refused to sign the form.
Looking at the form, I believe a notary who falsified the date the candidate was appearing to sign the form would probably be in jeopardy of losing his or her notary license.
Anyone who has information on this practice can contact me at this email: pogden297@comcast.net
Ogden on Poliltics Endorses Richard Mourdock in Race Against Richard Lugar
After giving it some thought, Ogden on Politics has decided to endorse Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock in his race against incumbent U.S. Senator Richard Lugar.
While I have written several blog posts discussing Lugar's residency and his fraudulently using someone else's address as his own, I have not delved into the other issues in the U.S. Senate race. At the outset, let me highlight one of them - immigration - an issue on which my position is a lot closer to Lugar's than Mourdock. I believe an enforcement only approach is unrealistic. As an attorney, who has dealt with some immigration clients, I have seen how horribly broken the current naturalization process is. We need comprehensive immigration reform. We certainly don't need to punish law-abiding children of illegal immigrants who had nothing to do with their parents decision to enter our country illegally.
But on the other issues, Mourdock is the hands down winner in my book. Let me hit some of them.
 |
| State Senator Richard Mourdock |
While I have written several blog posts discussing Lugar's residency and his fraudulently using someone else's address as his own, I have not delved into the other issues in the U.S. Senate race. At the outset, let me highlight one of them - immigration - an issue on which my position is a lot closer to Lugar's than Mourdock. I believe an enforcement only approach is unrealistic. As an attorney, who has dealt with some immigration clients, I have seen how horribly broken the current naturalization process is. We need comprehensive immigration reform. We certainly don't need to punish law-abiding children of illegal immigrants who had nothing to do with their parents decision to enter our country illegally.
But on the other issues, Mourdock is the hands down winner in my book. Let me hit some of them.
 |
| Senator Richard Lugar |
- LUGAR IS NOT A RESIDENT OF INDIANA. Lugar has a million dollar home in Virginia. When Lugar comes to Indianapolis, he stays in hotels. He has no residence in Indiana and for the last 35 years has been using someone else's address for registration and voting, signing documents under oath that he lives at that address. What Charlie White is accused of doing is jaywalking compared to what Lugar admits to have been doing. If Lugar wants to run for Senator for Virgina, I'm fine with that. But he should not be using someone else's house, claiming it is his Indiana "residence."
- LUGAR SUPPORTED CORPORATE BAILOUTS. Lugar was 100% supportive of the corporate bailouts, preferring Wall Street over Main Street. Lugar supported the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Lugar supported Obama's $700 million TARP bailout of the financial industry which did nothing to avoid the recession. Meanwhile the financial industry executives rewarded themselves with bonuses paid for with our tax dollars.
- LUGAR SUPPORTS EARMARKS. Much of the problem with unnecessary spending would cease with ending the practice of "earmarks," burying pork barrel spending in the budget bill. Lugar is fine with the current system. Mourdock is not.
- LUGAR DOES NOT SUPPORT SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Lugar has supported gun control while in Congress, earning a D+ rating from the NRA and an F from the Gun Owners of America. Mourdock meanwhile earned an A from the NRA.
- LUGAR VOTES FOR LIBERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEES. Lugar takes the position that the U.S. Senate should not consider a nominee's judicial philosophy in deciding whether to confirm the nominee. As a result, Lugar has voted for every liberal, activist Supreme Court justice, including Obama's appointment of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He also voted for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee. I do not believe in unilateral disarmament when it comes to considering appointees to the federal judiciary. Democratic Senators are considering judicial philosophy and issues when deciding the fate of federal judicial appointees. Mourdock understands that Republican Senators should do the same.
- LUGAR HAS POOR CONSTITUENT SERVICES. A few years ago, I had the need to contact federal and state officials about a problem my uncle was having with the overzealous Corp of Engineers who had cited him for using a bulldozer to push some dirt to shore up a creek bed wall that was collapsing on his farm. The state officials were great. Very helpful. Then Sen. Bayh and then Congressman Baron Hill acknowledged the problem and tried to help. The Lugar staffer was terrible. He wouldn't even wait for me to outline the problem. He immediately assumed my uncle had done something he shouldn't have done and concluded my uncle should spend tens of thousands of dollars complying with the Corp's ridiculous requests, including that my uncle plant certain weeds in the creek bed, kill other weeds that were not desirable, and hire a plane to fly over the creek bed and photograph the area. I later called back Lugar's national office to complain about the staffer and was assured someone from Lugar's office would call me back to discuss it. At least two years have passed and I'm still waiting for that phone call. I don't know if Mourdock's constituent services will be better than Lugar's but most assuredly, they can't be any worse than Lugar's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)