SOS's mom to sue for emotional distress

June 17, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Who knew there could be so much drama surrounding the Indiana secretary of state? Secretary Charlie White is fighting charges of voter fraud, both before the Indiana Recount Commission and in criminal court in Hamilton County. That there were possible issues with his voter registration before he was elected brought more attention that usual to the secretary of state election.

But now, things are just getting strange.

First, White accuses one of special prosecutor in his case of voting in the wrong place – the same thing White is accused of doing. He filed a complaint against that prosecutor last week. Now, White’s mom wants to sue Hamilton County because she suffered emotional distress during her son’s grand jury proceedings this year.

Excuse me, what? I’m not an attorney, which I’m sure is abundantly clear, but does she even have a leg to stand on? White’s mother’s suit claims one of the special prosecutors conduct was so outrageous and disturbing during the questioning of the mother that she has had nightmares and panic attacks that she now has to take medication for.

This voter fraud case is turning into a circus. What else can the White family accuse someone else of or who else is going to file a lawsuit?

All this hooplah, for lack of a better word, cannot be helping the credibility of that office. How is White able to perform as secretary of state when he’s got to balance lawsuits against him and those he’s filed? This is the man who is supposed to oversee state elections yet he’s got voter fraud charges hanging over him. I guess we’ll find out at the end of the month whether he did anything wrong and if he will be able to remain in office after the recount commission makes its decision. Then there’s the trial scheduled for August on the criminal charges he faces, including voter fraud.

What a strange year it’s been for Indiana’s secretary of state office.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • 5th amendment
    did not know right to take 5th amendment had been taken from White - everyone else has it and can use it repeatedly
    wonder if he knows it

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT