Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Democrats' Case Against White Appears to Be Based Solely on Documents; Democrats Apparently Have No Witnesses Substantiating Improper Residency Claim

Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White
I am listening to Karen Celestino-Horseman, the Democratic attorney, questioning Charlie White who called him as her first witness.  Her entire case regarding residency appears to be based on documents, not any testimony.    For example, what is the address on a utility bill, what is his address on an insurance form, what is his address on a mortgage document, what is his address did he put on various federal forms as his residence.

Charlie White appears to be going to testify that he lived at his ex-wife and new husband's home  (which is where he changed his registration to) while his fiance lived in the condo he had bought.  I expect that the ex-wife and new husband will testify that way.

The Democrats' evidence at best proves some sort of legal violation for signing certain documents.  It doesn't show improper residency to run for Secretary of State or voter fraud, which of course isn't at issue in the case.  If they don't have a witness who will testify that Charlie White was living at the condo instead of the ex-wife's, which is exactly where he was registered, the Democrats' case before the Commission is not only in big trouble so is the prosecutors' case against White.


Cato said...

In absence of a witness, how did they get the documents in the record? Judicial notice? Who is testifying as to what the documents represent and implies? Smells like hearsay to me.

Cato said...

By the way, this White affair puts an end to any claim the Democrats may have that they wear white hats.

Trying to get someone thrown in jail for voting and running for office is pretty low.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Cato, it's really looking more and more like a political persecution. They are dealing with the same issues that the prosecutors have indicted CW on and the testimony is dripping with reasonable doubt.

They can consider hearsay in administative hearings. That issue about the authenticationof the documents came up though. They stipulated to a bunch of them. It was pretty lame evidence....there were utility bills for example that went to both addresses. Horseman tried to play gotcha on the ones that had the condo address. She comes across as very unlikeable and would not do well in front of a jury.

Cato said...

On a completely unrelated note, why do you link to Urban Indy? They're just looking for acolytes, and they delete any post with which they disagree.

That blog really isn't up to the standards of other blogs you reference.

Paul K. Ogden said...

I don't read Indy Urban that much. They've had some interesting posts. I don't monitor it to see what you're saying. I hope I'm not seen as endorsing any of them.