White was forced from office when a Hamilton Co. jury found him guilty of six of seven felony counts in February, 2012 after a special prosecutor brought charges against him arising from his supposed illegal registered voting address. White's criminal trial came after the Indiana Recount Commission unanimously ruled in 2011 that White satisfied residency requirements and had not committed vote fraud by using his ex-wife's home as his voting address, a decision that was later upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court.
It would seem rather odd if the Court of Appeals would deny oral argument for White's case, particularly in light of the public importance of the case. The Court recently granted a motion to hear oral argument in the Good Earth Natural Foods case against the Department of Metropolitan Development over the Whole Foods redevelopment project in Broad Ripple within three weeks of that case being fully briefed, which arguably was far less important than White's case. The Court heard oral argument in that case on October 1 and issued its final opinion on October 28, an opinion not for publication. By comparison, White's case was fully briefed on September 8, just 30 days after Good Earth's case was fully briefed. Court rules do not require that a party be afforded oral argument during an appeal.
4 comments:
I won't be voting, in large part, because of the Charlie White matter.
The Charlie White case is a clear message that voting and running for office is for them, not for you.
If you vote or run for anything without their blessing, you'd better make sure you didn't start or end any relationships that caused your life to be in flux, with your belongings spread between two houses, and you'd better make sure that your apartment rental and mortgage closings all line up, because if those aren't neat and tidy and you vote, anyway, you're going to the slammer.
After White, you're just much safer not voting. Is anything that occurs at that polling place really worth going to jail for?
Will the Appellate Court hear White's case? They might, to make it look good. Maybe.
Will they overturn White? Nobody on that "court" got there by being outside the System. The System wants White in jail. There's your answer.
Maybe the court will be so embarrassed by Indiana criminalizing voting that they'll do the right thing to restore Indiana's reputation, but on what grounds should we have any faith that they do the right thing?
White is f_ _ _ed. The PTB have decided he must not only lose the state office to which he was elected but also be stripped of his law license. They need the convictions to stick to take away his license to practice law and permanently discredit him. He won't get a fair hearing before any panel of judges in this state.
White is lucky that he has not ended up in jail on a trumped up charge. They are out to get him and he would be safer if he moves out of state. It has become dangerous to oppose the powerful in Indiana. We are no longer a state where the rule of law is important. We are a state ruled by insiders.
3:11 is correct. White would be safer if he moved out of state. If he moved far away, and if he could show a really strong intent to saty there, the Appellate Court might toss his convictions.
Maybe move to the Ninth Circuit and possibly intimate bringing a case against Indiana out there, as the Indiana law and kangaroo prosecution burdens some fundamental right for which jurisdiction could attach in the 9th.
Indiana can mumble something about "Indiana's law is overbroad and, the Prosecution did not show that Indiana's law is the least restrictive means of burdening a fundamental right. We vacate and order a new trial."
The Prosecution, seeing White in the Pacific Time Zone, never brings that new trial and leaves the prior verdict vacated.
White gets his civil rights back if he promises to stay a Dodgers ticket holder for the rest of his life.
Charlie goes away, and Indiana goes away.
Post a Comment