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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT