Tuesday, June 16, 2015


xx aceb appeal


signed thomas allen schrader; filled out as thomas a schrader- NOT  tommy schrader


REVISITING DEMOCRACY -- THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2011 SCHRADER MATTER (PART 1): Before I can share the four election contestations of 2015, the Schrader matter needs to be reviewed. In 2011, the Allen County Democrats with the help of the Republican-controlled Allen County Election Board worked together to illegally remove Tommy Schrader from the ballot AND to illegally place George Guido on the November, 2011 general election ballot.
You see, the Dems actually had one legitimate and legal way of removing Schrader off the ballot. In 2011, he didn't use his legal name on his declaration of candidacy form. But instead of using that technicality--they chose to make up a convoluted story about how Schrader voluntarily moved to Wisconsin, willingly registered to vote there, and then cast a perfectly good and legal ballot in Wisconsin. Of course, a few things were left out. Like the truth.
So here is the truth of that matter--with evidence below (See Photo Album)---for everyone to confirm on their own. The truth is this:
Schrader was on the ballot and he should not have been pursuant to the same legal name requirement that should have prevented Terry Anderson, Mike Avila, and Tommy Schrader from being on the 2015 Democrat City Council At-Large primary race ballot. Now, I've never figured out why no one objected to his legal name issue in 2011, but my best guess is that others on the ballot in 2012 would have been wiped off the ballot for the same technicality, just as others could and may be wiped out in 2015. Another possibility--by itself or in tandem with the other reason--may be that no one ever thought Schrader would win his race. Afterall, he was a pauper who spent no money and no time campaigning. He just threw his name on the ballot.
In 2011, Tim Pape---the Carson Boxberger attorney on council and the guy who was the architect for the Harrison Square deal--was retiring from City Council. Although the reasons were never clearly discussed, my best guess is that he was losing money being on Council or that there was a conflict of interest at play that was a little too close to the surface. Whatever it was, Pape was out and the firm needed someone else in.
Now, at that time, there was also another Carson Boxberger employee on Council--Karen Goldner -- but she was beginning to be a problem in advocating her own agenda (gay rights) versus the agenda for the powers that be. Goldner was expendable on Council as she had served her true purpose--getting rid of Don Schmidt, who was one of the most outspoken members of City Council in opposition of the Harrison Square project in its early days. Goldner's intended replacement was young, eager-to-prove himself Bradley real estate agent, Russ Jehl. Pape's intended replacement was young, eager-to-prove himself, green-as-they-come Carson Boxberger associate, George Guido.
George Guido had the money, the manpower, and all the guidance he needed to run a successful campaign. At that time, in addition to being a Carson Boxberger employee, he was also a residential tenant of former ACDP Chair, Kevin Knuth. You see, Guido could have run one heck of a campaign OR Knuth could have spearheaded one heck of a campaign for Guido. But arrogance got in the way -- Guido didn't bother to campaign for the Primary.

schrader- part 2

REVISITING DEMOCRACY -- THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2011 SCHRADER MATTER (PART 2): Schrader's win caught everyone completely by surprise. Worse, with Schrader on November's ballot and Guido not on November's ballot--Carson Boxberger (Tom Henry's main legal squeeze) was not on the ballot, meaning they would have no one on Council influencing needed votes for future public-private partnerships, like Ash Brokerage (which Andy Boxberger admitted a few weeks ago at a City Council meeting that Carson Boxberger had been working on since at least 2012, if not longer). Even worse still, the I & M Light Lease Settlement was in play, negotiations would have the payouts begin in 2012. Now, I'm not sure who was panicking more -- Henry (and his various business associates) OR Carson Boxberger (who represents the City in some matters and represents private-public partnership investors in other matters). Regardless of whom, someone was clearly panicking.
Their knee jerk response was to challenge a transient homeless man and get him removed off the ballot by way of some trumped up BS. They began looking for ways to remove him off the ballot and the easiest way was to question his residency, since he was out of town at the time of the election and couldn't be found. Media was eager to track this guy down because he was a David v Goliath story--an underdog who didn't campaign won an election?!?!
And they were right. Schrader was out of town at the time of the elections. And yes, Schrader voted in the Green Bay, Wisconsin elections--erroneously. Here's what happened. A month before the elections Schrader went to Green Bay for vacation for a month. There was some event that takes place there that he goes to once every few years. He had managed to get into a financial position to be able to go in 2011 and he went.
His plan was go to Green Bay and stay for a month using his Social Security/Disability check and come back to Fort Wayne the following month--just as soon as his-then landlord forwarded him his monthly SS/D check. The landlord forwarded the check as agreed upon, but sent the check to the wrong address. Schrader's check was literally lost in the mail. With no money, the motel he was staying at threw him out. He sought refuge in a homeless shelter. The homeless shelter he went to "required" its residents to register to vote. This was done as part of a national campaign dedicated to making sure that the homeless retain their voting rights. The volunteer meant well. Technically, Wisconsin considered Schrader a resident because you only have to stay in Wisconsin for three days to be considered a resident. Yep, just 3 days. Schrader thought this sounded too good to be true, but he needed a place to stay. So he registered to vote in Wisconsin.
BUT to Schrader's credit he used his Indiana identification and clearly marked that he was an Indiana resident on his Wisconsin registration form. (Check out the photo album below containing Schrader's Wisconsin voter registration form.) Wisconsin accepted the form. Schrader was told he could vote. Schrader couldn't come back to Fort Wayne to vote--his check hadn't been reissued and resent yet. So, out of curiosity, boredom and stupidity, Schrader cast a ballot in Wisconsin's election. The interesting thing, however, is that the ballot wasn't counted and Wisconsin recognized that it was their mistake and not his--meaning no criminal charges were filed for what should have been an illegal vote cast.
Kevin Knuth found out this information from the help of his wife, who happened to work in and have access to such records via the Voter Registration Office (and still does). Knuth filed a complaint alleging a residency issue and set things in motion for the matter to be heard by the election board, who in 2011 was made up of Andy Boxberger (Democrat and member of the Carson Boxberger firm), Zach Klutz (one of Shine's right hand men, whose wife is the Auditor of Allen County and serves as the Secretary for County Council and County Commissioners), Liz Borgmann (elected as Clerk of Courts, whose position is mandated by state law), and Beth Dlug (not technically a member of the ACEB board, but does handle the day-to-day operations for ACEB).
Unlike · Comment · 

schrader part 3

REVISITING DEMOCRACY -- THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2011 SCHRADER MATTER (PART 3): The day of the ACEB meeting—which turned into a hearing without any proper notice, leaving Schrader totally unprepared to defend himself---Knuth never shows up. Despite Knuth as the challenging party not showing up, the ACEB decides to begin a hearing without him. Because Guido was publically acknowledged as a member of the Carson Boxberger law firm, Andy Boxberger recused himself and appointed as his proxy—his illegal proxy---Mark GiaQuinta of the Haller Colvin law firm. You see, Indiana statute prohibits an elected official from serving on the election board in any capacity. Mark GiaQuinta was an elected member of the FWCS school board and therefore, could not legally serve on the election board. But that didn’t stop him from doing so. Nor did it stop the rest of the election board from accepting his illegal appointment.
So keep in mind --- Schrader was not given any advance notice that the ACEB meeting was going to be turned into a hearing and so he was unprepared to be in a position to have to defend himself. Kevin Knuth, the person who launched the complaint challenging Schrader’s residency was not there to present his case or provide any evidence. (Note that in a court of law, if the Plaintiff fails to show up, the case automatically gets dismissed….which is exactly what should have happened in the Schrader matter.) And then some guy---another lawyer who should know better-- who isn’t supposed to be on the election board, gets appointed to the election board….and everyone on the election board is ok with that???
Are you following these procedural irregularities? wink emoticon The Democrats (Party Leadership) with the help of the Republican-controlled ACEB totally stacked the deck in their favor to illegally remove Schrader off the November, 2011 general election ballot….for a bogus claim that the ACEB didn’t even investigate until AFTER they held the hearing on Schrader. The ACEB contacted Wisconsin after the hearing and upon learning the truth---they contacted the Indiana Election Commission for guidance. And by guidance, I mean a way out of this mess that they created. Dale Simmons of the Indiana Election Commission told them what I had told them—that they didn’t have the right to remove Schrader from the ballot. (Ironically, if they would have gone with the statutory requirement that Schrader had to use his legal name on his Declaration of Candidacy paperwork, then they would have had some sort of legal standing to remove Schrader. But they didn’t.)
This means AFTER the ACEB essentially conducted a kangaroo-court “hearing” and then actually investigated the matter on its merits like they should have done in the beginning, they learned they were in the wrong….AND….. they were told they were in the wrong by the Indiana Election Commission. But what did they do about it? They let their ruling stand.

schrader part 4
Gina Burgess shared her album.
REVISITING DEMOCRACY -- THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2011 SCHRADER MATTER (PART 4): That’s right---despite the ACEB ruling illegally removing a candidate off the ballot---the ACEB let their ruling stand. But Schrader fought back and appealed the ruling via Schrader v ACEB. The Democrats (Party Leadership—then led by Mike Bynum) tried to intervene with the help of Attorney Jack Morris. They filed the case of Bynum v Schrader. The purpose of Schrader v ACEB was to overturn the election board’s ruling and get Schrader placed back on the ballot. The purpose of Bynum v Schrader was to get Schrader legally removed from the ballot and Guido legally placed on the ballot.
What no one counted on was someone like me taking the time to listen to Schrader, verify his information, and try to help him. Worse, what no one else counted on was that my BFF, Michelle Hill, would be married to the one postal carrier (out of hundreds of postal carriers servicing greater Fort Wayne), David Hill, who would be assigned to same mail route that Schrader lived on for seven years. Oops! With one signed affidavit, David Hill obliterated what was left of someone’s bogus “residency issue.” On June 1, 2011, Judge Felts correctly dismissed Bynum v Schrader and rescheduled the Schrader (at Schrader’s request---who was holding out hope that an attorney would step forward to help his case) for a later date.
However, before Schrader’s case even had a chance to be heard, the ACEB had already----completely on their own accord, which they had no right to do---printed ballots that had Guido’s name in place of Schrader’s name. Later, the ACEB mailed some of those ballots---potentially committing federal and state mail fraud.
By the time Judge Felts heard Schrader’s case, the point was moot. The Judge knew it. BUT, he couldn’t properly act on the matter. So he, with the help of the then-ACEB attorney (and current Chairman of the ACEB), Tom Hardin---a legal technicality was created to give Felts some form of leverage, no matter how small or how insignificant, so that Felts could dismiss Schrader v. ACEB. That technicality---a formal, non-defective summons was needed to provide notice that an administrative matter was being appealed. Notice was given, but it was given via email not postal mail. Despite previous electronic communications, originally initiated by Hardin, himself—suddenly out of the clear blue electronic communications were no longer being accepted?? An argument was raised that (1) no notice was needed since it was an appeal and that, alternatively, (2) since the media had publicized in print and television that there was an appeal and in some cases the date of the appeal, that a summons by publication had effectively been administered providing adequate notice. One news report by the News~Sentinel discussed the appeal and even contained a quote from Hardin. But the Judge turned a blind eye to that which was staring him squarely in the face.
To summarize – Schrader’s case was full of irregularities, many of them procedural matters (meeting v hearing, investigative authority v administrative authority, notice needed/notice given, to communicate electronically/not communicate electronically, what is a residency issue, etc)—Most of these procedural matters were either manipulated or outright manufactured for the benefit of the ACDP and/or the ACEB and condoned by the Courts via Judge Felts. Democrat Party Leadership and Republican Party Leadership worked hand-in-hand with the election board and the Circuit Court Judge. Some make the argument that the ACEB has the right to remove candidates off the ballot, but no one can make the legal argument that the ACEB has the right to place anyone on a ballot under these circumstances without first obtaining a court order, which was never obtained.
Below is a photo album of evidence on the matter:

Like · Comment · Share
  • Gina Burgess Email from the Indiana Election Commission stating: "I believe Ms. Dlug advised me that the board removed Mr. Schrader after the primary and, as I recall, I advised her that it was my view that they had no jurisdiction to do so after the primary...In my view, if the board's decision was appealed then the court should have reversed it because the board lacked jurisdiction to act." (Dale Simmons, Co-General Counsel, IEC)
  • Gina Burgess Attorney Al Hofer has been retained. Mr. Hofer is representing Mr. Schradr's interest as a citizen-candidate in being restored to the November ballot, from which he was improperly removed. Mr. Hofer is also representing my interest as a citizen-registered voter where the Indiana Open Door Laws are concerned. On Friday, an Appearance was filed as was a Motion to Correct Errors. Both documents were filed in the Allen Circuit Court. Its a matter of public record.
  • Gina Burgess Sadly, I don't want interesting....I want the Allen County Election Board to do its job....that is be impartial, fair, objective and above party politics and protect the integrity of the electoral process. They have no jurisdiction to remove Schrader from the ballot. ACEB only has the right to make a determination as to his eligibility. They know this...and they knew it back in May. Once they were told they did not have the authority, they should have come clean, admitted they made a mistake and let the Court handle the matter.
  • Gina Burgess I have more than enough proof to show that the initial Allen County Democrats challenge against Schrader is bogus. They challenged that he had not been a resident of Indiana for at least one year. ACEB's own records prove residency as far back as 1999. Schrader's former postal carrier signed an affidavit to the effect that Schrader had been a resident of Fort Wayne on his postal route for 6 or 7 years.
  • Gina Burgess Surprisingly, the Allen County Democrats did the right thing after ACEB made their determination-turned-illegal removal of Schrader....and that was filed a lawsuit based on ACEB's determination. Bynum v Schrader was filed to remove Schrader from the ballot pursuant to ACEB's determination finding (even though that finding was itself in violation of Indiana's Open Door Laws). The Dems did this because Schrader refused to voluntarily withdraw from the ballot pursuant to ACEB's determination and the Dems needed to create a ballot vacancy for which they could later fill. The Judge dismissed Bynum v Schrader and in doing so, the Judge failed to remove Schrader and failed to create a vacancy that the Dems could fill.
  • Gina Burgess Now, here's where it gets even more interesting....the Dems relied on ACEB when it came to substituting Guido for Schrader. ACEB accepted Guidos declaration even though no vacancy had been created on the ballot....a fact that ACEB KNEEEEEW before they accepted Guido's declaration.
  • Gina Burgess Is the ACEB incompetent or corrupt? Either way, I challenge them to do the right thing. Vacate their earlier decision as it was made improperly at a meeting-turned-hearing that violated Indiana's Open Door Laws and Schrader's 14th Amendment right to due process. Restore Schrader to the ballot, since they had no authority to remove him....and be done with this "silly" matter of attempted election tampering.
  • Jeff Pruitt The ACEB has been a farce for as long as I can remember. Good luck getting them to admit to anything. Pursuing it through the courts is your best bet. This will be yet another major embarrassment for the ACEB
  • Gina Burgess @ Jeff: I've been receiving messages to that effect from many others. If the ACEB has been this way for some time now, why is no one else trying to hold them accountable for their actions???? How is it that the ACEB is to the point that they mistake...See More
  • Jeff Pruitt ACEB members are party hacks through and through so nobody from either party is going to challenge them. If the candidate that was wronged had the resources to fight then this would be a different story. But when you combine party hacks, poor candidate, pitiful media and an apathetic public - well this is what you get I suppose.



AT-LARGE CONTESTATION -- RECUSAL OF JUDGE FELTS: I have not askd for Judge Felts recusal and I am not going to. The duty should be on the Judge to recuse himself in this case as a matter of Judicial Cannons. In cases where there is a prejudice or a bias or where a prejudice or bias could be reasonably construed, the Judge has a duty to recuse himself. As of this posting, that has not happened and I am not sure why.
Judge Felts is a member of the Allen County Republican Party. From February 14, 2008 to at least September 26, 2014, Judge Felts has donated an estimated $19,825 to the ACGOP in the form of membership pledges, contributions, and other benefits.
The legal counsel for the three of the Democratic candidates---Terry Anderson, Mike Avila, and Michelle Chambers -- is Adam Henry. Adam Henry is employed by the firm of Beers, Mallers, Backs & Salin, LLP. This law firm and its senior partner, Peter G. Mallers, have directly contributed to Judge Felts campaign.
ACEB member Tim Pape is employed by Carson Boxberger. Carson Boxberger has contributed directly to campaign of Judge Felts.
ACEB member (and Chairman) Tom Hardin is Judge Felts original campaign treasurer. This is the guy who helped get Felts elected to Circuit Court to begin with. Hardin remained Felts campaign treasurer until 2011. During his time has campaign treasurer for Felts, Hardin ran Felts campaign out of the Shine & Hardin law offices located at 2810 Beaver Avenue. This is the same address for Shine and Hardin's business, Main at Harrison, LLC--which is the leaseholder for GOP HQ. According to the AC GOP campaign finance reports of 2013 and 2014 (and perhaps earlier), the AC GOP is still receiving payments from Judge Felts out of that office.
ACEB member (and Clerk of Court) Liz Borgmann's husband, Dan Borgmann, donated directly to Judge Felts campaign.
The legal counsel for ACEB is Carrie Gutman. She has not contributed directly to Judge Felts campaign, but she has contributed to the AC GOP. Her contributions to the GOP help pay the lease at GOP HQ, which gets remitted to Main at Harrison, LLC, which is located at 2810 Beaver Avenue---the same place where contributions FROM Felts are going back to the GOP. (Btw, does anyone else see another issue here???)
The point here is that any reasonable person could see how a Judge who contributes so much to the GOP, who has payments being made on his behalf from the same place as the leaseholder to the GOP HQ, would be in a compromised position where he would tend to favor those who are part of the GOP, especially those who have contributed directly to his campaign or otherwise assisted in getting him elected. Bias and prejudice is not only a hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will, it can also be undue friendship (Hardin) and favoritism.
Unlike · Comment · 
  • You, David C Roach and 5 others like this.
  • Michelle Hill How can a local judge be unbiased if they are funded by one of the political parties? 
    RULE 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct:
    (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influen
    ce the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. 
    I am also disappointed to see that Judge Felts has received funds from law firms, such as Beers, Mallers, Backs, & Salin, LLC, when their employee, Adam Henry has been scheduled to defend the Defendants in election matters.frown emoticon
  • John Crawford Why is a Henry always involved? I so wish they would vote him an his family out of politics
    Unlike · Reply · 1 · June 3 at 2:01pm
  • David Christopher Roach OH- Gina Burgess thanks for the interesting reading information.. the more ALL OF US can know about the JUSTICE SYSTEM- the better we can know that its broken and needs reform- its all TOP DOWN - it is the proverbial wine press; and we are merely grapes; the only thing we can do is WINE.. .smile emoticon
  • Jacqueline Credo Dowdell It gives an appearance that the judge can be bias when connecting the dots. By Felts remaining on the case, he is basically saying even if after all the dot connection, it will not deter him from being fair and impartial as required by law. Lol...this is the circle of influence that kelty and others have battled against.
    Like · Reply · 1 · June 4 at 11:46am · Edited
  • Gina Burgess David Christopher Roach -- I've deleted one of your comments above as it was irrelevant. Please stay focused.
    Like · Reply · 1 · June 4 at 2:55am


AT-LARGE CONTESTATION -- THE ISSUES: The Contestation below basically focuses on the following issues:
1. That a candidate who fails to use their legal name on the Declaration of Candidacy form (CAN-42) cannot be placed on the ballot.
2. That a candidate who fails to completely disclose all the required information on the Statement of Economic Interest form (CAN-12) cannot be placed on the ballot.
3. That it is the candidate's responsibility to correctly complete these forms, which have to be completed under oath.
4. That it is the ACEB's responsibility to correct the above matters when the above matters come to their attention.
Unlike · Comment · 

AT-LARGE CONTESTATION -- ACEB DENIES HEARING AND LAW: On April 28, 2015, the ACEB responded with a four page letter. That letter basically said that the ACEB reviewed the matter, made sure that each ACEB Board member and each candidate listed in the complaint received a copy of the Complaint, and that because no evidence was submitted all allegations were unfounded.
Now, I had evidence. I made it clear that evidence would be presented at a hearing on the matter. (See page 1 of my Complaint below) The ACEB had already established in February's hearing on David Roach's candidate challenges that the ACEB would not accept electronic evidence. And for the record, I agree with that policy--its not the ACEB's job to print and review evidence. I have a 8" binder full of evidence---and was expecting to submit that for review at a public hearing on the matter. But the ACEB did not hold a hearing on the matter. Why?
Well, first the ACEB tried to convert my complaint about perjury into candidate challenges. By making this a candidate challenge, they could rely upon a technicality that the complaint wasn't filed within a timely manner. But ironically, there is a specific separate state election form for challenges and I specifically wasn't making a candidate challenge. They knew this...but they needed/wanted a reason to ignore my Complaint.
The second reason is the more humorous reason---most of the claims made in my Complaint were determined to be unfounded because I had presented no evidence. Folks -- first, you file a complaint, then you have a hearing on the complaint where evidence is submitted, and then you have a ruling on the complaint and its merits, usually by a preponderance of the evidence. At least that was the procedure and protocol established in February of this year.
The more important question here, however, is why? Why change protocol? My guess...and it is only that....a guess, is because one of the strongest claims made in my complaint has to do with the statutory requirement that candidates use their legal name (as it appears on their birth certificate) when filing their Declaration of Candidacy forms. This requirement is set forth in I.C. 3-5-7-4. Its pretty plain and pretty clear. So clear in fact that the 2015 Indiana Candidate Guide states "To determine a candidate’s 'legal name' for ballot placement purposes, the candidate’s legal name is the name shown on the candidate’s birth certificate." (Page 7, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1)
However, for reasons that defy logic--the ACEB responds to this matter by stating "IC 3-5-7-4 instructs that as to a candidate's legal name for purposes of placement on the ballot...We have not found nor do you cite any authority requiring that the legal name on the candidate's birth certificate be directly transcribed to any portion of the candidate's declaration of candidacy." Uhm, ok--so they cite the same authority I cited in my original claim and apparently didn't read the cite that they themselves cited???
This is the kind of "logic" that you just can't make up---here's the first page of the four page letter ACEB gave me on April 28th. Read the last paragraph about I.C. 3-5-7-4. (Also, ignore the reference to I.C. 3-5-75 as that is a red herring designed to distract from the real issue.)

AT-LARGE CONTESTATION – BACKGROUND: On April 7th, I filed a Complaint with the Allen County Election Board alerting them to 20+ candidates who filed defective reports, alleging that these candidates had filed these reports under oath, and may have committed perjury as a result of the filings. At that time, because it was a complaint and not a candidate challenge, I was not seeking the removal of any candidate. I was merely seeking an investigation by the ACEB into the matter and should any candidate be found to have perjured themselves to let that candidate voluntarily withdraw from the ballot. As part of their investigation, I asked the ACEB to compel the candidates in question to provide proof either confirming or denying the allegations. See below photo album entitled "Complaint to ACEB."
FROM THE INBOX – UPDATE ON CONTESTATIONS AND POSSIBLE VIOLALTIONS OF JUDICIAL CANNON?? As many of you are aware, the contestation in Woodburn has been resolved and Woodburn is having another primary---one where only Democrats will decide which Democratic Mayoral candidate will run for office. The contestation I have brought forth has been scheduled for Thursday, June 4th at 10:30 am before Judge Felts. The contestation Michelle Hill has brought forth was originally also scheduled for June 4th, but the other side requested a delay in the matter. So that contestation has been rescheduled for Monday, June 8th at 11 am. The contestation brought forth by David Roach was JUST assigned a Judge today, June 2nd. However, his contestation has still NOT BEEN SCHEDULED.
Folks—Roach, Hill and I all filed our contestations on the same date, May 19th. Pursuant to Indiana statute (I.C. 3-12-8-5 et seq), contestations are supposed to be scheduled within 20 days of being filed. Contestations had to be filed on or before May 19th. Indiana Trial Rules 6 determines how time is to be computed. This rule explains how the 20 days starts the day after filing and runs continuously, making no exceptions for weekends or holidays. [1] The last day the matter can be heard is Monday, June 8th. So this begs the question, why hasn’t this matter been scheduled????
A review of Judicial Cannons---the rules that guide judicial conduct---begins with a preamble that states “An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice….” [2] It then goes on to state various rules of conduct, including:
RULE 1.1: Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULE 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
RULE 2.1: Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office
The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over all of a judge's personal and extrajudicial activities.
RULE 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
RULE 2.3: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
David Roach – whether you like him, hate him, or can’t stand him or his mannerisms (and in all fairness, he can be a gigantic pain in the arse, especially with his flamboyant diatribes)—but doesn’t he deserve his day in Court?? The Indiana statute regarding contestations gives him that right. Yet, as of this posting, a day in Court has yet to materialize….with less than 6 days to get it scheduled, give notice to the other side, etc. By not having a day in Court scheduled until so late---if at all---his ability to present his case has been seriously hampered. For example, he can’t subpoena records that he needs until a Court date is set.
But folks---here’s where it gets real interesting. Whose really at fault? The Judge??? Felts did his job in recusing himself in the Roach matter. (Although one can reasonably question why didn’t he—a dues-paying member of the local Republican party who has donated nearly $20,000 to the ACGOP between 2008 and 2014---do that in all the Democratic contestations whose outcomes can impact Republican electoral strategy during the 2015 general election season??) Further, Felts also did his job in giving an Order to the Clerk of Court (who is a member of the ACEB) directing her to find a replacement judge on May 21st—two days after Roach filed his contestation. Matter of fact, Felts had to issue the Order a second time on June 1st, which caused Judge Boyer to be assigned to the matter on June 2nd—but for which no date or time has been set for the Contestation to be heard.
The Clerk of Court---an elected position---had to be told twice to do her job. Her not doing as she was originally Ordered may cost Roach his day in Court. And even if he gets his day in Court, he is now severally handicapped.

  • David Christopher Roach point of order- FLAMBOYANT typicall implys GAy in the tabloid and main stream media. I prefer the term - if it is to be used- as 'COLORFUL"- and yes- I'm a "royal pain"- its part of my nature. 
    and yes- love me; hate me; loathe me- - theres a big si
    gn carved on the supreme court building- "equal justice under law"- and on the North side( main street side of the allen county courthouse- there is also an inscription- a governmnet of the people by the people and answerable to the people.."- A Excerpt from President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address": 
    Ironic since just last week - we had the usual flag waving; paradeing; cemetery visiting; star spangled banner whistling- cookouts etc- HOOPLA- - all in honor of Military heroes and veterans . who- well- read this excerpt; then read the whole speech.
    It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- 
    and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
    SEEMS we can play the Death Knell for the USAUSA at least here in Allen county..Liberty and justice for all..... who can afford it..

    On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner referred to the most famous speech ever given by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called the Gettysburg Address a "monumental act." He said Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say…
  • David Christopher Roach Judge Felts recused himself from MY court hearings as they involve Mayor henry; whom the Mayor and the Judge have a political donor contributor recipient relationship.
    I cann ot see why Judge Levine has not also recused himself SUA SPONDE( on his onw)
    - due to Judge Levines close personal friendship; and political donor/contributor relationships with the Henry family and himself.. go check out this link:
    "re-elect Judge Stanley Levine" 
    cant find it? Imagine that- they must have deleted it?
    well- I screen shotted it for you. here are a pair of pages..

  • David Christopher Roach HMM- WHERE=DID= THIS FACEBOOK PAGE GO? I bet they thought i didnt think to screen shot everything of relevance? I guess they thought wrong.. heh heh heh 

CONTESTATION OF FORT WAYNE MAYORAL ELECTION -- TIMELINE OF EVENTS: On May 19, 2015, David Roach filed a Contestation of the Fort Wayne Mayoral Election (see below). Roach's contestation alleges possible voting machine malfunction and candidate ineligibility. This case is separate and distinct from the case of Roach v ACEB discussed below. Here is a timeline of events in this matter:
5/19/2015: Roach files Contestation. Indiana statute requires contestations to be heard no later than 20 days from the date filed. In this case, that date would be June 8th.
5/20/2015: Judge Felts recuses himself in this matter just like he did in the matter of Roach v ACEB.
5/21/2015: Judge Felts orders the Clerk of Court (and ACEB member Liz Borgmann) to assign a replacement judge.
5/28/2015: Attorney Adam Henry files a written appearance on behalf of Mayoral candidate Tom Henry. Adam Henry, a prominent local attorney with the firm of Beers, Mallers, Backs & Salin, is a relative of Tom Henry. Adam also serves on the World Baseball Academy Steering Committee (another Tim Ash---of Ash Brokerage fame-- project seeking Legacy Funds).
5/29/2015: Over a week has passed since Roach filed his Contestation and as of this date no replacement judge has been assigned. The matter has to be scheduled on or before June 8th and, to date, has not been scheduled. The Clerk of Court (and ACEB member Liz Borgmann) is responsible for getting a judge assigned. In the matter of Roach v ACEB, Felts ordered Borgmann to find a replacement judge on May 7th and by May 9th, a replacement judge had been secured. This, of course, begs the question--if finding a replacement Judge only takes 2 days in one case, why is it taking over a week in another case??
Unlike · Comment · 
  • David C Roach I just received the same form letter from Cathy Hawk- the ACEB atty- dated may 28th as well. lots of interesting connections there as well,
  • David C Roach I was just on mycase.in.gov- there is no record listed of MY case.. 
    02C01-1505-MI-000500 go check itout- this posted at @:25 AM, 
    May 31st 2015- sunday AM INTERESTING..
  • Douglas B Pritchett those who hold the power have crafted a way to keep those who seek access to power from achieving it. It's clear the legal hurdles in trying to run for office are huge and expensive to overcome. Plus, the selective enforcement of the many rules and regulations speaks volumes in how the outcome is affected by those in power.
    Like · Reply · 1 · May 31 at 7:59am
  • Jacqueline Credo Dowdell Liz borgman has been the clerk if the court for quite a few years supporting the republicans. Isn't there a term limit for clerk of the court?
  • Douglas B Pritchett She has always been a good person to work with. Yes, she was clerk for 2 terms, then held the auditor post for 2 terms, now, she's clerk again. Term limits do not prohibit running for or holding the office again, if there someone else has held the office between.
  • Jacqueline Credo Dowdell Thanks Douglas this is so true. I remember herr under her maiden name holding office for a number of years before the name borgman. This does explain how some things never change. Good person versus maintaining the status quo would better describe her.
    @douglas Ms lisa blosser was the clerk of the allen circuit and superior courts from 1994-2002, somewhere after the name became borgman.
ROACH v ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD – TIMELINE OF EVENTS: David Roach submitted a series of candidate challenges to the Allen County Election Board (ACEB) and the matter was heard on February 18th, 2015. All but one of Roach’s challenges were dismissed. The reason for more of the dismissals – the ACEB alleged that Roach lacked evidence supporting his claims. Roach did not submit any hard copy evidence when he filed his challenges on or before February 9th. However, he sent the ACEB a series of emails containing links to the evidence he was relying upon. During the ACEB’s hearing of February 18th, they pointedly rejected his electronic evidence. (For the record, I agree with the ACEB that Roach did not need to support evidence when he originally filed his challenges and I further I agree with the ACEB that they do not have a duty to accept or receive electronic links as evidence as its not for them to print all of that off.)
During the February 18th hearing – the ACEB established a precedent that was contradictory to precedent it had set in 2011 during the Schrader matter. This new precedent required the challenging party (Roach) to bear the burden of proving his claims. In 2011, the burden of proof was placed on the defending party (Schrader). Roach relied on the 2011 precendent and did not bring hard-copy proof with him to support his claims. (For the record, I agree with the ACEB that the burden of proof should be on the challenging party and not on the defending party—and they should stick to that precedent and not engage in shenanigans that establish faulty and confusing precendents like that which occurred in 2011. Neither election integrity, fairness, or justice is served by such flip-flopping. Further, its unfair to candidates and to the voting public when rules, processes, and procedures are not utilized in a consistent manner.)
On March 18th, Roach appealed the ACEB’s rulings. That appeal has set off a series of questionable events that hinge on abuse of power and process, as follows (and documented below with images of the actual filings)
3/18/2015: Roach files appeal against ACEB.
3/23/2015: ACEB requests a postponement (Motion for Enlargement of Time) until after the May 5th Primary. They request the matter be postponed until May 11th Judge Felts recuses himself from the matter.
4/7/2015: ACEB and Roach have to agree to a Judge. ACEB wants Judge Levine. Roach wants a Judge who did not accept any campaign contributions in their last election cycle – he makes a request for Judge Gull. Roach’s request is either ignored or Judge Gull refuses assignment. In any event, Judge Felts orders Clerk of Court (and ACEB member Liz Borgmann) to appoint a Judge. Borgmann complies with Judge Felts order and in doing so, honors the request of the ACEB and selects Judge Levine.
4/9/2015: Judge Levine is assigned to the case, accepts the assignment, and his first Order is to grant the ACEB’s request to postpone matter until AFTER the May 5th Primary election and schedules the matter for May 11th.
5/11/2015: ACEB files Motion to Dismiss Roach’s case. Why? Because the May 5th election is over and Roach’s claims are allegedly moot. Judge Levine schedules a hearing on the matter for June 18th, 2015 at 10 am.
So in summary – the ACEB dismisses Roach’s original challenges. Roach appeals. The ACEB seeks a postponement causing Judge Felts to recuse himself. But not before ordering a member of the ACEB to select another judge to take his place. That ACEB member selects the judge the ACEB had wanted. The ACEB-preferred Judge then grants the postponement being requested by the ACEB. Later, the ACEB requests the ACEB-preferred Judge to dismiss Roach’s complaint on the basis that the matter is moot because the May 5th election is over.
Does anyone else see a problem here??
Again, images of most of the documents involved in this matter to date are available below.
Unlike · Comment · 
  • You, David C RoachGrace Marie Strahm and 4 others like this.
  • Joseph Townsend I didn't support Judge Levine smile emoticon
  • James A Jim McCoy Jr. That's the syndicate that fixes the elections in Allen County at work
    Like · Reply · 2 · May 31 at 12:43am
  • David C Roach from what i can find online- im reasoning that Judge felts has recused himself from this and related matters due to campaign contributions that he made to the Mayor henry re-election campaign.( i sent you the screen shots, Gina Burgess.
    what i m appar
    ently NOT understanding is why Judge Levine is NOT Recusing himself SUA SPONDE - as he has close personal and political ties with Mayor Henry- who is a defendant in this matter; ANd due to campaing contributions received from Mayor Henry's family members. there is also a screen shot i have of Judge levines re-elect ion Fb page- where he is endorsec by Mayor Henry; and again- members of the Henry family.
    now you may ask- well all these Henry''s have a wide web of business and personal interests- so if one Henry makes a campaign contribution ; it has nothing to do with another henry family members campaign contributions or endorsements; or so on. Well as theu say- BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER- its one big pot of money. - a legal syndicate- carefully structured.
    I dont see why Judge levine would bother to open this can of worms. why not just wash his hands of this matter if one judge in the "batting order" is as good as any other? Well- I see grounds for an Allen County Election Boardelection law; etc complaint to be filed along those grounds- .
    I have pretty well checked out all relevant campaign finance reports; and other than the discrepancies ; and a very interesting Henry- ACEB ATTY cathy Hawk; and her law firm and campaing contribbutions and again - representing a JH Henry / Henry Holdings businesses- - AGAIN- ONE BIG POT- 
    we have a HENRY SYCOPHANT on both ends of this story= book ends of obstruction. the ACEB atty- cathy hawk- on the head end- who said- they cant get to this appeal until AFTER the primary- and its attendant nagging questions to be answered; the Allen County Election Board MEMBER atty TIM PAPE- who is a principle in the carson -box berger law firm- of whom has donated several thousands of cashin campaign conributions; and which receives a LOT of city govt Legal business.
    then we have Bruce Boxberger- who was Judge Levines campaign treasurer. 
    AND LASTLY- we have aJUDGE LEVINE - who is clearly in a conflict of sorts- one can question that a judge can keep the laws and politcal and personal matters COMPARTMENTALIZED- but again- why ?. If one Judge recuses himself SUA SPONDE- ( on his own- without being asked or requested)- then why isnt Judge Levine doing the same?
    Its not like theres any shortage of Judges that can handle this matter.. 
    anyway- the HENRY FAMILY ECONIOMIC INTERESTS are again-a wide and tangled and overlapping web- of contributions; business sent to eachother; spouses businesses; and then we have the illegal cherrymasters- which the mayors wife operated blatantly during the Mayors tenure as a city councilman- AND- the green frogs business interests as far as household income; etc..- AND the Mayors insurance license;a dn a plethora of again- brothers, wives; sons daughters; nephews- oh- of whome nephew ADAM HENRY has taken the role of FAMILY "CONSIGLIERE- much as in th emovie "the GOD FATHER"-. 
    Its a sordid tale of criminal acts ; interlocking directorates ( thats what brought down standard oil, for example among others)- a family monopoly of govt- and so on.
    if its not illegal in the strictly letter or spirit of the laws;it sure doesnt pass the smell test- as HAMLET SAID ( shakespeare)- "me thinks something stinks in Denmark.. "
  • Gina Burgess David C Roach -- Keep your comments relevent or they get deleted. I've deleted three comments because they were either inflammatory or non-relevant. This is EXACTLY why people do not take you serious. If you continue this course of action, I will be forced to unfriend you to prevent you from being a detriment to your own claims.
    Like · Reply · 1 · May 31 at 1:17am
Gina Burgess added 4 new photos to the album: Roach v ACEB - ACEB's Motion to Dismiss.
    Judge Levine granted ACEB's request to postpone matter until AFTER the May 2015 primary election and schedules matter for May 11th. However, right after the Primary election, the ACEB submits a Motion to Dismiss.
    Unlike · Comment · 

Gina Burgess added 5 new photos to the album: Roach v ACEB -- Judge Levine Assigned.
    Judge Levine is assigned to this matter and accepts his assignmet on April 9, 2015. His first Order is to grant the ACEB's request to delay the matter until AFTER the May 2015 primary.
    Unlike · Comment · 

    Judge Felts recuses himself from this matter on the same day (March 23, 2015) as the ACEB moves to postpone the matter until AFTER the May 2015 primary.
    Unlike · Comment · 

News Feed

Gina Burgess added 92 new photos to the album: Roach v ACEB.
    Filed 3/18/2015
    Unlike · Comment · 



No comments:

Post a Comment