A Highland attorney is back on the ballot for a Lake Circuit judge opening after he received a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction that say the Indiana Election Commission shouldn’t have removed his name as a candidate for
the general election.
Marion Superior Judge Michael Keele on Sept. 13 and 23 granted both the restraining order and preliminary injunction putting
judicial prospect William I. Fine back on the Nov. 2 ballot. Fine is the Republican candidate for the seat being vacated at
year’s end once Lake Circuit Judge Lorenzo Arredondo retires. Merrillville Town Judge George Paras won the Democratic
primary in May. No Republican was on the primary ballot, so county party chair Kim Krull in June named Fine to fill that vacancy.
But some questioned his candidacy based on the party chair’s ability to name a candidate herself rather than conducting
a caucus as the party rules stipulate. On Sept. 2, the four-member Indiana Election Commission couldn’t reach a decision
and deadlocked with a 2-2 vote, meaning Fine was removed from the ballot unless a court action said otherwise.
At that hearing, Fine’s counsel wanted the commission to deny the challenge outright because they didn’t believe
the state board had jurisdiction to decide the matter because it was a party-rule issue. An attorney for Michael Lambert –
one of several people who are challenging how Fine was chosen – questioned the Republican Party rules and state statute
allowing that to happen without a party caucus.
Represented by Indianapolis attorney David Brooks, Fine appealed in Marion County where the state commission is based. Judge
Keele granted the order because absentee ballots needed to go out in mid-September and this litigation could put Fine in danger
of not being included on the ballot.
Specifically, Judge Keele noted in his TRO ruling that no basis in law exists to interpret state party rules in a way to
override a statute and that the election commission doesn’t have the subject matter jurisdiction to endorse state party
rules, let alone at the expense of a statutory grant of power to a county chair.
At the Sept. 23 hearing, Fine said that Judge Keele granted the preliminary injunction and planned to issue a written ruling
once the parties submitted their proposed findings.
Lambert – a Winfield Town Council at-large member who wanted a party caucus to give others a chance to be on the ballot
– filed a notice of appeal Sept. 17 and that remained pending as of IL deadline. That appellate case is Lambert
v. Fine, No. 49A04-1009-PL-00556.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.