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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT