Wednesday, June 10, 2015



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.. "


No comments:

Post a Comment