DAVID ROACH 4 MAYOR REPUBLICAN FORT WAYNE : RESPONSES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS 6-18/6-19

X show me the birth certificate; show me the tax records; show me the emails. what is the mayor hiding? why is he stonewalling the truth?

x
MOOTNESS REFUTED:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THIS MATTER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS **NOT*** MOOT.

Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's eligibility for the primary election is implicitly also a challenge to her eligibility for the general election, which has not yet taken place. Furthermore, Ellspermann is cross-appealing the Marion Superior Court's denial of her request for attorney's fees against Wyatt. The determination of the merits of Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's candidacy has a direct bearing on Ellspermann's ability to prevail on her cross-appeal. Thus, Wyatt's appeal is not moot.See Union Twp., 706 N.E.2d at 187

Wyatt v. Wheeler, 936 NE 2d 232 - Ind: Court of Appeals 2010
X
Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's eligibility for the primary election is implicitly also a challenge to her eligibility for the general election, which has not yet taken place.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here, Ellspermann asserts that Wyatt's appeal is moot because his original complaint to the IEC challenged only her eligibility for the primary election, and the primary election has occurred. We disagree. Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's eligibility for the primary election is implicitly also a challenge to her eligibility for the general election, which has not yet taken place. Furthermore, Ellspermann is cross-appealing the Marion Superior Court's denial of her request for attorney's fees against Wyatt. The determination of the merits of Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's candidacy has a direct bearing on Ellspermann's ability to prevail on her cross-appeal. Thus, Wyatt's appeal is not moot.See Union Twp., 706 N.E.2d at 187 (determining that an appeal was not moot because the appellee's counterclaim for costs and damages depended in part on considering the validity of the appellant's claim).

Having addressed Ellspermann's procedural claims, we turn to the merits of Wyatt's appeal.

IN THIS CASE- IT INVOLVES A FILING ERROR- THAT OF LISTING AN "R" OR A "D" on candidate filing forms; WHERE AS IN THE HENRY CASE- WE HAVE A WHOLLY INACCURATE/FRAUDULENT MIDDLE NAME FILED.
ILING ERROR: (IN THIS CASE accidentally put R instead of Dfor last primary filed..
also- bad faith, frivolous, groundless, award of attys fees.

We disagree with Ellspermann's reasoning. Although we are affirming the Marion Superior Court's judgment on the merits of Wyatt's claims, we have determined that his claims are not moot or barred by laches. Furthermore, Wyatt has presented a good faith and rational argument on the merits throughout this case. Indeed, Ellspermann concedes that, at the least, she made a "mistake" amounting to "harmless error" in filling out her declaration. Appellee's Br. p. 24. In addition, there is no evidence that Wyatt is pursuing this action to harass or maliciously injure Ellspermann. For these reasons, Wyatt's petition for judicial review was not frivolous. See Grubnich v. Renner, 746 N.E.2d 111, 119 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied (affirming a trial court's denial of attorney's fees because the legal issues were complex and the Court could not "impute frivolous conduct" to the appellant). In addition, based on the governing statute and Ellspermann's acknowledgement that she made a "mistake" in filling out the form, we cannot conclude that a reasonable attorney would consider Wyatt's claim to be unworthy of litigation, even if the claim is ultimately without merit. Consequently, Wyatt's litigation of his petition for judicial review after the primary election was not unreasonable. See id. at 119-120 (concluding that the appellant's argument was not unreasonable even though the appellant may have misinterpreted the law). Thus, the Marion Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ellspermann's request for attorney's fees.

On a related subject, Ellspermann asks this Court to order Wyatt to pay her appellate attorney's fees. Pursuant to the governing rule, "The Court may assess damages if an appeal, petition, or motion, or response, is frivolous or in bad faith. Damages shall be in the Court's discretion and may include attorneys' fees." Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E). We will assess appellate damages only against an appellant who in bad faith maintains a wholly frivolous appeal. Harness v. Schmitt 924 N.E.2d 162, 168 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). A strong showing is required to justify an award of appellate damages, and the sanction is not imposed to punish mere lack of merit, but something more egregious. Id.

243 *243 Here, we have found that Wyatt's appeal is without merit and have affirmed the Marion Superior Court's judgment, but we cannot conclude that this appeal is frivolous or that Wyatt has maintained this appeal in bad faith. Consequently, we deny Ellspermann's request for appellate attorney's fees. See id. at 169 (declining to award appellate attorney's fees to an appellee because the appellant's claims were not "utterly devoid of all plausibility").

For these reasons, we affirm the Marion Superior Court's judgment in all respects.

Affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.

X

X
COURT HAS A DUTY TO ASSURE QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES:
The State has a legitimate interest in the qualifications of candidates

The State has a legitimate interest in the qualifications of candidates, see e.g., Meeks v. Tallahatchie County (1987), Miss., 513 So.2d 563, 568; and the same is true about their subsequent disqualifications. Indiana Code Section 3-8-1-5(3)(B) is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective of disqualification because it regulates elected officials based upon their general characteristics, an area in which, as noted above, the public considers trustworthiness to be a relevant and basic qualification of persons who serve the citizens as elected officials.
X
X
defense vs "bad faith, frivolous, and groundless " litigation:
I certify and attest that I have done all due diligence and have acted in good faith; in deadly seriousness; and with very good grounds on this matter.
I have met all standards laid out in following legal citation; so as to meet defensible mitigation vs claims; etc by opposing attorneys..- Gutman and Henry representing their clients.

oh- did i mention im a pauper?

BAD FAITH/ETC DEFENSE.

i HEREBY CERTIFY I HAVE DONE ALL REASONABLE COLLEGE GRADUATE LEVEL RESEARCH AND DUE DILIGENCE IN PREPARING AND FILING THIS CONTESTMENT; AND aceb APPEAL( VERIFIED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.
WHITTINGTON:

http://www.smithlaw.bz/the-law-against-frivolity.html

The Court in Whittington summarized the requirements of Rule 11 as follows:

1. An attorney must READ every paper before signing it.

2. He must make a reasonable pre-filing investigation of the FACTS.

3. He must research the LAW, unless he is certain he knows it.

4. The law as applied to the facts must REASONABLY WARRANT the legal positions and steps he takes. If existing law does not warrant these positions, a plausible argument for the extension of the law to the facts of the case is required.

5. It must be demonstrated, as the basis of pre-filing investigation and research, that there is a REASONABLE BASIS to name each defendant named, and to support each claim asserted. The shotgun complaint or answer, filed in the hope that discovery will produce the justification for it, is improper.

6. The adequacy of an attorney's investigation, research and legal analysis will be evaluated by the court under an OBJECTIVE STANDARD, namely, whether the attorney acted as a reasonably competent attorney admitted to federal practice. Except as to improper purpose, subjective good faith is not a defense to Rule 11 sanctions. A pure heart but an empty head is of no avail.

7. The attorney must CONTINUALLY RE-EVALUATE his positions and abandon them if they are no longer reasonably warranted.

8. An attorney must not have an IMPROPER PURPOSE, such as harassment or intimidation, in naming any defendant, asserting any legal position or taking any legal step.

9. If an attorney violates Rule 11 the imposition of some sanction is MANDATORY, although the nature and extent of the sanction is discretionary with the district court.(42)

Footnotes

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS-

Henry's CAN-12 is PERJURED and Henry MUST be disqualified
Henry's CAN-42 IS PERJURED and Henry MUST be disqualified

subsequently- his CFA reports are illegal due to the fact that HENRYIS DISQUALIFIED; his paperwork is perjured and fraudulent; and as such- HENRY MUST be charged with election law crimes.

x
x
xX
politics news flash..another Vexing Election Question
MAYOR HENRY HAS 2 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS; ON 2 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES ; OF WHICH HIS NAME AND HIS SPOUSES NAME APPEAR ON BOTH.
so- voter registration; residency fraud?
see posts below:
audit/examine the mycase, in.gov civil court system for that
1929 Jessie in the north highlands addition, across from the new Franklin park. location location location..
Investment? rental? or future historical womens baseball museum?
the former owner was a Fort Wayne Daisy - Dottie from "a league of their own"
x
http://wane.com/2015/04/08/candidate-complaints-call-for-withdrawals/
x
to read an related articles; posts; "rants and screeds"; humor satire parody irony; or even serious issues- RELATED TO ONE MANS ADVENTURE THROUGH THE LOCAL ELECTION CYCLE- from start to bitter end.. :
http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/
x
x
aka "fear and loathing on the campaign trail 2015 (mayors race)
x
X "I'M NOT HARVEY DENT" (I am the Bat-man)
HELP ME TAKE A "DENT" OUT OF CRIME...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT:

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.

X
and that 2015 DEMOCRAT MAYORAL candidates Thomas C. (Christopher/Charles/Cobblepott?) "Tom"
Henry ; Thomas Meyer "Tom" Cook, and Richard "Rick" Stevenson- failed to do so.
As did Republican Mayoral candidate William "Bill" Collins"
X
as did city council at large candidates Thomas Allen "Tommy" Schrader;
Kevin R Brown; and Daniel "Dan" Lobdell
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ORIGINAL VERIFIED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACEB HEARING OF FEB 18TH, 2015
COMPLETE TEXT HERE- LINK:
DOCKET 02C01-1503-MI-000256
http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/2015/06/2015-election-contestment-evidence-aceb.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DOCKET 02C01-1505-MI-000500
http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/2015/06/2015-mayoral-democrat-primary.html
xxxxxxx

i AM A "PAUPER"- i DONT HAVE ANY MONEY FOR FILING ENDLESS REAMS OF PAPERS OR ENDLESS PHOTOCOPY CHARGES.
turbo jet printers, barrels of ink; printer paper by the pallette.

PRINTOUT? DIGITAL IMAGE- ITS ALL THE SAME in the 21st century of STEM technology..
electrons and the google- are FREE, and infinite..
so- welcome to the 21st century, court system. JUDICIAL SYSTEM-
stuck in the 19th century-
no personal electronic recording devises permitted- cam corders; pocket audio; tablet computers, smart phones, etc..etc- for civil court
trials..
wuuuhhh??

x

x
the other 90+ pages:
ORIGINAL VERIFIED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACEB HEARING OF FEB 18TH, 2015
COMPLETE TEXT HERE- LINK:
DOCKET 02C01-1503-MI-000256
http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/2015/06/2015-election-contestment-evidence-aceb.html

XXXXXX
many people are asking me:
WHY BOTHER? YOU LOST, MOVE ON.
the point is I filled out all my election /candidate/"job application" paperwork. No one questioned me; or filed any challenges or complaints.
I have been "filling out applications for political office/govt"- for a LONG TIME by now.
I have also read election laws several times so I know instinctively when some thing is incorrect; and can eventually find the supporting Indiana Statute.
This New law about CAN-12 "Statement of Economic Interests"- seems like its "frivolous"; annoying; what have you- BUT- It has some real TEETH.
due credit to my Nemesis- the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette; Editors and publishers- for writing several articles about this new law.. I studied the article then examined the law; and proceeded with this exercise in "making the new law; taking it for a high speed run".

I am also annoyed at these low grade politicians getting elected and re-elected. Politicians with dubious backgrounds, petty Felonies; spousal/domestic abuse; total incapability to to the job; or lack of qualifications- such as higher education; or long time participation or intellectual curiosity and study.
AND especially INCUMBENT POLITICIANS WHO I PERSONALLY KNOW FOR A FACT HAVE ENGAGED IN RICO/RACKETEERING; RUNNING ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN STATE LICENSED BUSINESSES UNDER THE COPS NOSES; OR AIDED AND ABETTED BY SAME..
dont get me wrong- I' m not some MORALITY CAPED CRUSADER- Its that pesky principle that no one is above the laws; there should be one standard of enforcement of laws for everyone- rich or poor; high or low..
either enforce the laws; enforce the laws the community deems most important; or change or repeal those laws which are clearly being held in contempt by the citizens. example: prohibition; and vice laws..

When i see known criminals and racketeers holding political office; and know it for a fact; well- that offends my sensibilities and my sense of Justice.

Or when they are just plain dumbasses who couldnt fill out some simpleton minimum wage job( must pass drug screen/test); because they cant even fill out a simple 3 page application process for elected political office..

so- to those who say all this is in bad faith; is frivolous, or groundless; I want to refer you to this google scholar citation:

"The State has a legitimate interest in the qualifications of candidates

The State has a legitimate interest in the qualifications of candidates, see e.g., Meeks v. Tallahatchie County (1987), Miss., 513 So.2d 563, 568; and the same is true about their subsequent disqualifications. Indiana Code Section 3-8-1-5(3)(B) is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective of disqualification because it regulates elected officials based upon their general characteristics, an area in which, as noted above, the public considers trustworthiness to be a relevant and basic qualification of persons who serve the citizens as elected officials.
X
x
and this: Im not a judge; nor would i necessarily want to be- but If our elected politicians at least tried to uphold THESE HIGH STANDARDS- it would be a good start:

Matter of Drury, 602 NE 2d 1000 - Ind: Supreme Court 1992
JUDGES AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS
*1011 The requirement that judges report their financial transactions is designed to protect the litigants and lawyers who appear before such judges. Statements of Economic Interests alert parties to the potential prejudices of judges, thereby creating a checks and balances system which promotes an objective judiciary and enhances the perception of fairness in the courts. Failure to correctly report financial transactions as required is more than a bureaucratic misstep: it is a breach of the system by which we, as judges, maintain our honesty.
x
X
HERE COME DE JUDGE

1] Jud. Canon 5 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE HIS EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH HIS JUDICIAL DUTIES.

C. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES.

(1) A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, exploit his judicial position, or involve him in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which he serves.

(4) Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except as follows:

(c) a judge or a member of his family residing in his household may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan only if the donor is not a party or other person whose interests have come or are likely to come before him, and, if its value exceeds $100, the judge reports it in the same manner as he reports compensation in Canon 6C.

[2] Jud. Canon 3 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.

The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all his other activities. His judicial duties include all the duties of his office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:

C. DISQUALIFICATION.

(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... .

[3] Jud. Canon 1 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective without any limitation upon the Supreme Court in the exercise of its power of general superintendence, whether statutory or inherent, in areas not delineated in the Code.

[4] Jud. Canon 2 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES.

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

SEE LINK:
http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/2015/06/money-shot-loser-pays-defense.html
TEXT BELOW SCROLL- WHITTINGTON-
DEFENSE TO ALLEGED " BAD FAITH/FRIVOLOUS/GROUNDLESS LITIGATIONS"

A LOT OF PEOPLE TRY TO PUT ME DOWN; Haters; Bullies; Bigots; crooked politicians; evil tabloid newspaper editors and publishers, and so on.
BUT I have high standards. I HAVE NEVER COMMITTED ANY FELONIES.

and i try to maintain integrity in everything i do. Just like the Boy Scout 12 point code of conduct

so when High priced attorneys representing special interests; or their corrupt family business syndicates; I take offense to their ascribing
"bad faith, groundless accusations; frivolous litigation" or other bad motives to my actions.

yES Im a "humorist"; a writer, the court jester; the village idiot savant;
and observer and commentator of lifes absurdities; or a comedian, or comic, or a prankster; or a joker- I love to laugh, and i love to make others laugh- with me, but hey- sometimes AT me- but for the right reasons.
Im not stupid, Im smart. Im just wired a bit different. like everyone we all have our own aptitudes and abilities, and skills and interests and knowledge of different things.

I know how to find information; and pass it on; in my own way. Im not a lawyer, I ve read the laws a little-
so I expect to be crushed in these final court hearings. but that doesnt mean imwrong; it means i right- or else why would the MAYOR; THE ACEB; THE DEMOCRAT PARTY; DEMOCRAT LAWYERS be all
"LAWYERED UP" as the saying goes?
WHY IS THE MAYOR STONEWALLING SO HARD? OBSTRUCTING EFFORTS TO FIND THE TRUTH? why not just say "hey- I made a mistake- .MAN UP- "; and just let the citizens have their informed choices- without FRAUD OR DECEPTION OR LEGAL MANUVERING TO SUBVERT THE PROCESS. oh-I forgot - theres hundreds of millions of dollars of "graft"; contracts; projects; etc at stake.. OOPS- SO ITS ALL ABOUT THE "BENJAMINS"?
and not good government; we the people; all those lofty princilpes we were teught in grade school and high school civis classes? Wel_ i attended every civics and government and history and politics and economics class.

I may be a petty scofflaw; an outlaw; an average american with a few tickets; summons, fines and yes- jail time- for what? just trying to live my life without hurting anyone or causing any property damage;
and enjoying the joys of life- smoking, drinking, gambling, frolicking; singing, dancing, conversation, goofing off. etc.
Im a US NAVY VETERAN WITH A MEDAL. i PUT IN MORE TIME IN THE NAVY THAN THE LAST 3 OR 4 PRESIDENTS.. and plenty of senators and Congressmen. we now have a bunch of snotty spoiled crooked just stupid and ignorant men of low character in office. EVERYWHERE! It makes me sick.
I go to church with my mother.
BUT-when I see the sorts of low corrupt people absolutely wrecking our city state and nation; well- thats why i run for office; and thats why i intend to hound this crooked incumbent mayor out on the street- preferably with a felony- any felony will do- so
long as it befits him and his criminal spouse.. and family of racketeers..

I would vote for a steaming pile of dog ( ahem) Manure before i would reelect this mayor. its not personal- its politics. I dont care what anyone does in ther own private lives; but if you were/are a criminal; elected office is no place.

If i dont get satisfaction of victory or prevail in my endeavors here; i will simply vote the crooks out of office..
ESPECIALLY IF THEY CANT EVEN FILL OUT A SIMPLE 3 PAGE "APPLICATION" CORRECTLY. pass a drug test? i doubt it- they are always passing laws, or doing things that people ask- what the heck are they smoking? and some say- AND PASS SOME MY WAY.
I can pass any drub test- My hair is my time line- ive been clean from weed for years by now.. here- take a snip; and test it..

OKAy- back to the matter at hand-
I just wanted to clear up the BAD FAITH, FRIVOLOUS, AND GROUNDLESS ISSUE

I dont associate with low people and I dont tolerate those who do.
lawyers; politicians ; used car salesmen; you know them when you see them..
X
THE LAST SPEECH I WANT TO hear and see is THE MAYOR RESIGNING; LIKE RICHARD NIXON before boarding the chopper out of town..forever.
HOPEFULLY HE WILL TELL US HIS MIDDLE NAME BY SHOWING US HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE. AND END THIS LIE
x

x
BEST WAY TO MAKE A MOCKERY OF RACKETEERING- IS TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED WITH THE FWPD..
X

X caption- your under arrest mayor. your joking right? we dont joke about things like RICO. come with us..
Xxxxxx

JUDGE Stanley Abram Levine:

IN THE MATTER OF
02C01-1503-MI-000256
JUDGE STANLEY ABRAM LEVINE- MUST DISQUALIFY HIMSELF; SUA SPONDE; ASAP.
I ALSO HEREBY RESPECTFULLY THE DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE STANLEY ABRAM LEVINE
- AS I REASONABLE QUESTION THE JUDGES IMPARTIALITY IN THIS MATTER DUE TO CLOSE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL TIES AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; AMONG WHICH IS AN ILLEGAL UNDISCLOSED $2500 UNITEMIZED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.

Denise Strunk

Jun 18 (1 day ago)

to me

Mr. Roach –

Attached is the most recent Order from Judge Boyer in response to your Motion to Disqualify. The hearing next week on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. will take place as previously scheduled.

Sincerely,

Denise A. Strunk

Court Reporter for Judge Nancy E. Boyer

Allen County Courthouse

Allen Superior Court, Civil Division

715 South Calhoun Street, Room 325

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

260-449-7634 Office

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CIRCUIT AND SUPERIOR COURTS

38^TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA

IN RE: THE MATTER OF ) CAUSE NUMBER: 02C01-1505-MI-500

THE ELECTION CONTESTATION OF )

)

DAVID CHRISTOPHER ROACH, )

Petitioner, )

)

TOM COOK, )

THOMAS HENRY )

RICHARD (RICK) STEVENSON and )

THE ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, )

Respondents. )

)

ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The Court, having reviewed David Roach’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Nancy Eshcoff Boyer, DENIES the Motion as it relates to Judge Boyer. (Court to notify.)

DATED: June 18, 2015 __ _____

NANCY ESHCOFF BOYER, SPECIAL JUDGE

ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT

Please be advised that cellphones, cameras, and other personal electronic devices are not permitted in the Allen County Courthouse. You should leave them in your car or at home. Licensed attorneys may apply for an identification card that authorizes the possession of electronic devices. For information regarding an identification card, call 260-449-3412.

NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY: COURT:

PROOF OF NOTICE UNDER TRIAL RULE 72(D)

A copy of the entry was served either by mail to the address of record, deposited in the attorney’s distribution box, or personally distributed to the following persons:

David C. Roach 4936 Innsbruck Drive Fort Wayne, IN 46835 (pro se)	Attorney Carrie Hawk Gutman Courthouse Box #8 (Allen County Election Board)	Attorney Adam Henry Courthouse Box #90 (Thomas C. Henry)
Tom Cook 3112 Lafayette Street Fort Wayne, IN 46806	Richard Stevenson 4100 Abbott Street Fort Wayne, IN 46806

Court Packet – 2

DATE OF NOTICE: June 18, 2015

INITIALS OF PERSON WHO NOTIFIED PARTIES: das COURT

X
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1.
IN THE MATTER OF
02C01-1503-MI-000256
JUDGE STANLEY ABRAM LEVINE- MUST DISQUALIFY HIMSELF; SUA SPONDE; ASAP.
I ALSO HEREBY RESPECTFULLY THE DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE STANLEY ABRAM LEVINE
- AS I REASONABLE QUESTION THE JUDGES IMPARTIALITY IN THIS MATTER DUE TO CLOSE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL TIES AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; AMONG WHICH IS AN ILLEGAL UNDISCLOSED $2500 UNITEMIZED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.

IN THE MATTER OF
02C01-1505-MI-000500
JUDGE NANCY ESCHOFF- BOYER MUST DISQUALIFY HERSELF- FOR FILING A FALSE/FICTITIOUS/FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGN FINANCE STATEMENT- CFA- as per warning at bottom of page- s filing such statement is a class D felony- Perjury.

I ALSO HEREBY RESPECTFULLY THE DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE
NANCY ESCHOFF BOYER
AS I REASONABLE QUESTION THE JUDGES IMPARTIALITY IN THIS MATTER-
DUE TO AN ILLEGALLY FILLED OUT AND FILED AND SIGNED UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY- that of reporting ZERO DOLLARS RAISED AND SPENT. THAT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY; and raises questions of the potential appearance of impropriety of said CFA-

scroll down -

IN THE MATTER OF
02C01-1503-MI-000256
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
02C01-1505-MI-000500

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD ATTORNEY- CARRIE HAWK GUTMAN RECUSE DISQUALIFY HERSELF FROM BOTH MATTERS BECAUSE AS EITHER AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ACEB; OR A CONTRACTOR TO THE ACEB-
HER LAW FIRM HAS MADE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MAYORS ELECTION CAMPAIGNS( GILMORE HAYNIE JR)-
AND- HER LAW FIRM REPRESENTS VARIOUS BUSINESS INTEREST OWNED BY THE HENRY SYNDICATE OF FAMILY BUSINESSES.
X
X

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JUDGE LEVINE SHOULD RECUSE/DISQUALIFY
HIMSELF SUA SPONDE- per judicIal canon
Who needs the headaches? wash your hands of this and pass the buck..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

13- FURTHERMORE- SPECIAL JUDGE LEVINE SHOULD RECUSE
DISQUALIFY
HIMSELF SUA SPONDE
"C. DISQUALIFICATION.

(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... ."

Jud. Canon 1 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

[4] Jud. Canon 2 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES.

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

1. due to his close personal and political ties to the Henry family and "THOMAS Charles HENRY"; -campaign contributions from a Henry family member who is also a business secretary/corporate officer/partner with "Thomas Charles Henry".

2- due to an illegal $2500 dollar "unitemized campaign contribution"- from a clearly undisclosed source- far above and beyond the legal limit for
unitemized campaign contributions. I would not characterize this as a "bribe"; but I would characterize this as 25X $100 DOLLAR BILLS IN AN UNDISCLOSED, UNITEMIZED , ENVELOPE.

3- Judicial Canons require the scrupulous avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. I think Recusal would allow the Judge to wash his hands of this and any talk of "conspiracy" by the voters in future elections.
x
Matter of Drury, 602 NE 2d 1000 - Ind: Supreme Court 1992
JUDGES AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS
*1011 The requirement that judges report their financial transactions is designed to protect the litigants and lawyers who appear before such judges. Statements of Economic Interests alert parties to the potential prejudices of judges, thereby creating a checks and balances system which promotes an objective judiciary and enhances the perception of fairness in the courts. Failure to correctly report financial transactions as required is more than a bureaucratic misstep: it is a breach of the system by which we, as judges, maintain our honesty.
x
X
HERE COME DE JUDGE

1] Jud. Canon 5 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE HIS EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH HIS JUDICIAL DUTIES.

C. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES.

(4) Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except as follows:

[2] Jud. Canon 3 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.

C. DISQUALIFICATION.

(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... .

[3] Jud. Canon 1 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

[4] Jud. Canon 2 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES.

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

X
x
anything over 100 bucks must be reported.. a 2500 dollar unitemized campaign contribution would surely fall in to this category?
(c) a judge or a member of his family residing in his household may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan only if the donor is not a party or other person whose interests have come or are likely to come before him, and, if its value exceeds $100, the judge reports it in the same manner as he reports compensation in Canon 6C.
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
EVIDENCE: SCREEN SHOTS OF JUDGE LEVINE DOCUMENTING "CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIMSELF AND HENRY FAMILY MEMBERS/ BUSINESS SYNDICATE

"QUOTE"- "MAYOR HENRY IS ALSO A SUPPORTER".
well- what about me? I reasonably question Judge Levines impartiality in this matter.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"quote"- see post: Nice photo of Judge Levine and Jerome "Jerry" Henry jr- SUPPORTER AND PRESIDENT OF MIDWEST PIPE AND STEEL- A HENRY FAMILY SYNDICATE BUSINESS- AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS- Midwest pipe and steel; ; AND INDIVIDUALLY.
approx. 10%- 1000 dollars- 400 dollars and 500 dollars campaign contributions..
the Mayors brother- "- that would be Mayor Thomas "Tom" (Charles? Christopher? Cobblepott?) C. Henry.

due to the personal and politically close relationship between the Henry family- and Mayor Henry;
I reasonably question Judge Levines impartiality in this matter.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

JUDGE LEVINE ALSO HAS A CLOSE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH RESPONDENT RICHARD "RICK" STEVENSON- Wayne Township Trustee.
I reasonably question Judge Levines impartiality in this matter.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NAMES AND PHOTOS OF PAST FORT WAYNE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SERVED ON CITY COUNCIL WHEN JUDGE LEVINE WAS CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY; MAYOR HENRY WAS 3RD DISTRICT COUNCILMAN AT THE TIME UNTIL HE WAS DEFEATED BY PRESENT 3RD DISTRICT COUNCILMAN THOMAS FRANCIS "TOM" DIDIER.

xXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
UNITEMIZED 2500 DOLLAR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION- WHAT IS THE SOURCE? WHO IS IT FROM? ILLEGAL DUE TO CFA REPORTING LAWS..
JUDGE LEVINE IS A LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE; AND A ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOC. ADMITTED MEMBER. AND HE DOESNT KNOW ELECTION LAWS; CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE LAWS? HMMM i FIND THAT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE..
I REASONABLE QUESTION THIS UNITEMIZED CONTRIBUTION.
X

X
X
LEVINE CFA 2014

X
LEVINE CFA- MIDWEST PIPE AND STEEL- A HENRY FAMILY SYNDICATE BUSINESS-MAYOR HENRY'S BROTHER

X
x JUDGE LEVINE CFA- DIRECT CONTRIBUTION FROM MAYORS BROTHER- HENRY FAMILY BUSINESS SYNDICATE
X

X

X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
JUDGE LEVINE APPROVES AN EXPANSION OF TIME FOR ACEB ATTY UNTIL MAY11TH- 6 DAYS--AFTER-- PRIMARY ELECTION
instead of denying it- and requiring ACEB to appoint a "substitute/proxy atty for expediency; aka- before the primary election.THIS SEEMS INAPPROPRIATE TO ME. I REASONABLY QUESTION THIS ACTION. BY JUDGE LEVINE
X

X
ACTION APPROVING EXPANSION OF TIME PAST MAY5TH PRIMARY ELECTION DATE BY JUDGE LEVINE

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION BY GILMORE HAYNIE; PRINCIPLE OF HAYNIE HAWK ETC- OF WHICH CARRIE HAWK GUTMAN IS EMPLOYED AND WHO ALSO ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD MEMBER ATTY.
CONTRIBUTION TO HENRY REELECTION CAMPAIGN- RESPONDENT THOMAS C. CHARLES/CHRISTOPHER/ TOM HENRY
THE HENRY FAMILY BUSINESS SYNDICATE HAS SEVERAL LEGAL INTERESTS REPRESENTED BY THIS LAW FIRM; TO BE POSTED further down in this post.

XXXXXXXXXXXX
EVIDENCE THIS FACEBOOK PAGE AND DATE NOTED- IS JUDGE LEVINES RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN SOCIAL-MEDIA PAGE.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ENDORSEMENT BY MAYOR THOMAS C. HENRY- left column.. Supported and endorsed by respondent of which Judge Levine is to preside over this matter.
I reasonably question Judge Levines impartiality.
x

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THIS photo/posting below: IS ILLEGAL- KNOWN AS EITHER "electioneering/politicking"; or "ghost=employment" .If FWPD Deputy Chief/FW city councilman at-large Martin A "Marty" Bender" had appeared in this photo with Judge Levine in civilian clothing; it would be legal. Judge Levine is a law school graduate admitted to the Indiana Bar to practice Law. I reasonably question Judge Levines judgement in permitting this illegal photo on this campaign social media web site..
congresswoman Jill Long was skewered politically for campaign literature in which she appeared with several uniformed law enforcement officers- ( 1990's)-how I know this is illegal. I have also filed several ACEB compaints- on file at ACEB- with respect to this same issue- most recently vs GOP candidate for sheriff David "Dave" Gladieux.
x

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THIS POST OF PHOTO'S IS ALSO ILLEGAL UNDER THE SAME AFOREMENTIONED ELECTION LAWS- Sheriff Fries and Deputy Sheriff Gladieux- should not have appeared in a 2nd party campaign photo; in campaign literature/campaign social media sites.
X

X
by way of example- THIS PHOTO- is likely LEGAL- as its not 'POSED"; AND SO FAR AS I KNOW- HAS NOT APPEARED IN CAMPAIGN LITERATURE.
I may be wrong- this MAY be from a MaYor Thomas C. Henry social media campaign page post..or he's getting arrested.. for illegal gambling/RICO at his spouses bar. tee hee.
X

X
THOMAS CHRISTOPHER/CHARLES HENRY ARE BUSINESS PARTNERS
AND BROTHERS ( NATURALLY)
CAMPAIGN CASH IS FUNGIBLE
X
hmm- where did judgE levines re-election facebook page go? all those pretty pictures? dont worry - i saved them for you your honor, and the HENRYS.

X

JUDGE BOYER MUST RECUSE/DISQUALIFY HERSELF DUE TO ILLEGALLY COMPLETED/REPORTED CFA-4 REPORT/ PERJURY.
I HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN LOCAL POLITICS AND HAVE PERSONALLY FILED AND REPORTED OVER A DOZEN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
none have been questioned. I raise and spend very little- typically less than $200 (two hundred dollars), definitely less than $500 (five hundred dollars)

since 2010; after winning democrat party nomination for sheriff; and 2014- I started reporting 100- 200 dollars of "unitemized expenses"- as based on personal experience- that despite campaigning primarily via INTERNET/SOCIAL MEDIA- I still spend/expend money/resources- electricyt; internet provider; some telephone calls; office spade; and so on- Items the IRS AND IND. DEPT. OF REVENUE would itemize as home office expenses.

therefore I REASONABLY QUESTION THE ZERO DOLLARS RAISED AND EXPENDED FOR JUDGE BOYERS ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
SEE FORM HERE: 1 OF 2

X X JUDGE BOYER CFA- 2 OF 2

X signed and sworn/affirmed/attested.. read "warning" at bottom of form with respect to improper/fraudulent/ perjury filed CFA's.
I REASONABLY QUESTION THIS CFA. AND JUDGE BOYERS CFA INFORMATION AS WRONGLY FILED.
PER:
Matter of Drury, 602 NE 2d 1000 - Ind: Supreme Court 1992
JUDGES AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS
*1011 The requirement that judges report their financial transactions is designed to protect the litigants and lawyers who appear before such judges. Statements of Economic Interests alert parties to the potential prejudices of judges, thereby creating a checks and balances system which promotes an objective judiciary and enhances the perception of fairness in the courts. Failure to correctly report financial transactions as required is more than a bureaucratic misstep: it is a breach of the system by which we, as judges, maintain our honesty.
x
X
HERE COME DE JUDGE

1] Jud. Canon 5 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE HIS EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH HIS JUDICIAL DUTIES.

C. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES.

(4) Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except as follows:

[2] Jud. Canon 3 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.

C. DISQUALIFICATION.

(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... .

[3] Jud. Canon 1 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

[4] Jud. Canon 2 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES.

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CARRIE HAWK GUTMAN:
X

X
DAVID HAWK- REPRESENTS VARIOUS FORT WAYNE GOVERNMENT INTERESTS- INCLUDING THE CITY UTILITIES/HUNTERTOWN LEGAL ISSUE.
X
MS HAWK-GUTMAN
SERVES ON PARK BOARD WITH A HENRY FAMILY BUSINESS SYNDICATE MEMBER

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION BY GILMORE HAYNIE; PRINCIPLE OF HAYNIE HAWK ETC- OF WHICH CARRIE HAWK GUTMAN IS EMPLOYED AND WHO ALSO ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD MEMBER ATTY.

CONTRIBUTION TO HENRY REELECTION CAMPAIGN- RESPONDENT THOMAS C. CHARLES/CHRISTOPHER/ TOM HENRY

THE HENRY FAMILY BUSINESS SYNDICATE HAS SEVERAL LEGAL INTERESTS REPRESENTED BY THIS LAW FIRM; TO BE POSTED further down in this post.

x

6-18-2015 TUESDAY- 10- 10- 45 AM

CARRIE HAWK GUTMAN STATED TUESDAY IN COURT- THAT GILMORE HAYNIE WAS DECEASED; AND SOMETHING ABOUT

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM A DEAD MAN?
WELL- IT WOULDNT BE THE FIRST TIME HERE IN ALLEN COUNTY NOW WOULD IT?

AT LEAST HERE- THE DEAD DONT VOTE OR SIGN NOMINATING PETITIONS..

WRITE A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION?
SIGNED i. m.a zombie?
WTF mr ZOMBIE?
x

X
HENRY HOLDINGS- LAW FIRM MEMBER IS AN INCORPORATOR.
"Corporations are people too my friend- Mitt Romney"
X

X
HENRY HOLDINGS-
A BUSINESS REPRESENTED BY THE LAW FIRM HAWK HAYNIE; ETC;
IS ALSO AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MAYOR HENRY CAMPAIGN NOTE:GALLANT GROUP- ( MAYOR THOMAS CHARLES HENRY'S BUSINESS.)
X

X
represented by hawk haynie etc..
jh speciality
john henry
a tom henry campaign contributor/supplier
x

Xx
ROACH VS ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD
CANDIDATE CHALLENGES( With new evidence- or formatted in proper lawyerly "pro forma"
02C01-1503-MI-000256

CONTESTATION:
02C01-1505-MI-000500
X
X
DUE CREDIT- ACEB CROSSED ALL THE "T"S AND DOTTED ALL THE "I'S
. I RECEIVED A VERY THOROUGH REPORT IN THE MAIL WITH RESPECT TO THE VOTING MACHINES IN THE 6 PRECINCTS IN QUESTION.
so- good work; on this aspect of the contestment.
an essay-Ladies- in praise of our election board staff and workers- will be forthcoming soon..(ok-sometime soon)( it will sing your unsung praises.)
x

x
Based on the preceding statement; and the STATES INTEREST IN ASSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION SYSTEM-

i respectfully request the court
to consider my new evidence presented; and original evidence in the proper legalese pro forma format.
find in my favor; uphold my original ACEB candidate challenges per Feb 18th 2015;
disqualify HENRY for ++AT LEAST 3 COUNTS++ ( one per form)AT A MINIMUM OF perjury;
AND FORWARD THESE CHARGES TO THE ALLEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR FOR PROCESSING..

AND THAT THE COURT UPHOLD MY VERIFIED PETITION FOR CONTESTMENT PER CONDITIONS AND PARAGRAPHS AS STATED..

i WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES FOR THEIR TIME AND PATIENCE AND FORBEARANCE AND JUSTICE IN THESE MATTERS.

I have done my due diligence in searching public records and obtaining those records that are easily accessible to average voters.

Those records that require exhaustive research at the ACEB office; the Clerk of the courts office; or at unaffordable expenses at 1 DOLLAR PER PAGE- for a "pauper"- either have been already provided; or are available via electronic EMAIL; or other methods.

Any other evidence in question; or minutiae of court procedures; etc- i apologize- im not a bar admitted law school graduate. I am a college graduate with another degree in IT- information technology.

I ask the court to NOT DISMISS THIS ACEB APPEAL; NOR MY ELECTION CONTESTMENT; and to regard this as a good faith, legal, valid, well grounded; and not frivolous filings.
I am registered active voter; a resident and citizen of Indiana; and pay taxes; there for "I am the State". We all are.
as such- we have a duty to search for justice and to seek the truth..
The State has a legitimate interest in the qualifications of candidates

The State has a legitimate interest in the qualifications of candidates, see e.g., Meeks v. Tallahatchie County (1987), Miss., 513 So.2d 563, 568; and the same is true about their subsequent disqualifications. Indiana Code Section 3-8-1-5(3)(B) is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective of disqualification because it regulates elected officials based upon their general characteristics, an area in which, as noted above, the public considers trustworthiness to be a relevant and basic qualification of persons who serve the citizens as elected officials.
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND CASE EXCERPTS:
http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/2015/06/election-laws-legal-research-google.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BAD FAITH/ETC DEFENSE.

i HEREBY CERTIFY I HAVE DONE ALL REASONABLE COLLEGE GRADUATE LEVEL RESEARCH AND DUE DILIGENCE IN PREPARING AND FILING THIS CONTESTMENT; AND aceb APPEAL( VERIFIED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.
WHITTINGTON:

http://www.smithlaw.bz/the-law-against-frivolity.html

The Court in Whittington summarized the requirements of Rule 11 as follows:

1. An attorney must READ every paper before signing it.

2. He must make a reasonable pre-filing investigation of the FACTS.

3. He must research the LAW, unless he is certain he knows it.

7. The attorney must CONTINUALLY RE-EVALUATE his positions and abandon them if they are no longer reasonably warranted.

8. An attorney must not have an IMPROPER PURPOSE, such as harassment or intimidation, in naming any defendant, asserting any legal position or taking any legal step.

9. If an attorney violates Rule 11 the imposition of some sanction is MANDATORY, although the nature and extent of the sanction is discretionary with the district court.(42)

Footnotes

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

x
ROACH VS ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD
CANDIDATE CHALLENGES( With new evidence- or formatted in proper lawyerly pro forma
02C01-1503-MI-000256

CONTESTATION:
02C01-1505-MI-000500

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
TIMELINE:

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.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
ROACH VS ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD
CANDIDATE CHALLENGES( With new evidence- or formatted in proper lawyerly pro forma
02C01-1503-MI-000256

CONTESTATION:
02C01-1505-MI-000500

COPY OF APPEAL FILED:
http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/2015/06/2015-election-contestment-evidence-aceb.html

XXXXX

NARRATIVE:
on or about feb 3rd- I was at the ACEB office and Voters Registration .

I asked the staff at each respective office if I could audit/examine the there If i could examine the other candidates election filing paperwork; and Voters registration records.

I observed the following items.

1- Mayor Henry's("HENRY") voting record in the 2014 primary election had a discrepancy/error. of an undetermined nature. He did not Vote as a Democrat in the 2014 primary election.
State law requires a candidate who runs in a subsequent election to obtain a letter from that respective party chairman.
That letter is improperly filed; and as such, Henry's candidacy must be disqualified.

xxxxx

2. ACVR( Allen County Voters Registration)-records indicate Henry was born in Marion County, Indianapolis; dob 11-08-1951
Voter registered as Thomas C. Henry

3. Internet search of Henry's father's Obituary (Jerome Henry)- shows his mothers name as Marganelle Applegate Henry.

4. All ACVR records other than above noted items seemed to be in order, to average citizen.

5. I then proceeded to ACEB offices to audit/examine Henry's Election filing paperwork..

State law IC 3-8-9 requires a CAN-12 "Statement of Economic Interest" to be filed first- before any other election paperwork is to be permitted to be filed. This is a relatively new law-enacted in 2014- .
The CAN-12 form shall be filled out completely and per form instructions- a penalty of Perjury for fraud, or inaccuracies.

Henry's CAN-12 Form is incomplete; and as such. Henry's Candidacy must be disqualified. and perjury charges assessed.

6. I next examined/audited Henry's Can 42 form. Henry's full legal birth name is inaccurate; according to the statements of several city staff; city council members; and others.

Per state law; for a 3rd party to obtain a copy of another citizens Birth certificate; other than through court order; is not permitted. I have repeatedly asked Henry at various venues; forums and other occasions to provide to the public a copy of his birth certificate; to prove or disprove the fact as to his true legal birth name; as listed on his Can-42 form..
In fact- after seeing this obvious (to me) error, I proceeded to City Hall; and inquired as to this information. I further more filed a public information request with the city ; submitted the proper form; and was informed this information was unavailable to me.

X

page 7-
http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2015_Candidate_Guide_Final.pdf

7. Per CAN-42 form information; with an inaccurate/ "fraudulent" birth name listed first at top of form ; and subsequent "request for ballot placement name" at bottom of form as simply "THOMAS C. HENRY";
HENRY MUST BE DISQUALIFIED- as "THOMAS CHRISTOPHER HENRY"; AND "THOMAS CHARLES HENRY" are 2 entirely different individuals.
One- is the SNM( so named male)- Thomas C. Henry- mayor; etc;

and the other Thomas C Henry is a "fraudulent. fictitious made up person"; and as such- is disqualified as Democrat nominee..

Which is it? Will the Real Thomas C. Henry please stand up?
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/3/5/7/3-5-7-4

LEGAL NAME TO BE USED ON LINE ONE OF CAN-42

(a) For purposes of placement of a candidate's name on the ballot, a candidate's legal name is determined under this section.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a candidate's legal name is considered to be the name shown on the candidate's birth certificate. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/3/5/7/3-5-7-4#sthash.gkFXVePA.dpuf

'DESIGNATIONS( HOW CANDIDATE WANTS NAME TO APPEAR ON BALLOT ON MICROVOTE MACHINE
IC 3-5-7-5
Designations used on ballotSec. 5. (a) A candidate may use on the ballot any combination of designations permitted by this section.
(b) A candidate may not use on the ballot a designation other than a designation permitted by this section.
(c) Subject to subsections (d) and (e), a candidate may use designations on the ballot as follows:
(1) The first designation that a candidate uses on the ballot may be one (1) of the following:
(A) The candidate's legal given name.
(B) The initial of the candidate's legal given name.
(C) The candidate's legal middle name.
(D) The initial of the candidate's legal middle name.
(E) The candidate's nickname.
(2) After the designation used under subdivision (1), a candidate may use any of the following designations if not used under subdivision (1):
(A) The candidate's legal middle name.
(B) The initial of the candidate's legal middle name.
(C) The candidate's nickname.
(D) The candidate's legal surname.
(3) After a designation used under subdivision (2), a candidate may use the following if not used under subdivision (1) or (2):
(A) The candidate's nickname.
(B) The candidate's legal surname.
(4) After a designation used under subdivision (3), a candidate may use the candidate's legal surname on the ballot if not used under subdivision (2) or (3).
(5) After a candidate's legal surname, a candidate may use any of the following designations:
(A) Sr.
(B) Jr.
(C) A numerical designation such as "II" or "III".
(d) A candidate may use a nickname on the ballot only if the nickname satisfies the following:
(1) The nickname is a name by which the candidate is commonly known.
(2) The nickname does not exceed twenty (20) characters.
(3) The nickname complies with subsection (e).
(4) Unless the candidate uses the nickname as the first designation under subsection (c)(1), the nickname must appear in parentheses.
(e) A candidate may not use a:
(1) title or degree as a designation; or
(2) designation that implies a title or degree.
As added by P.L.202-1999, SEC.1. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/3/5/7/3-5-7-4#sthash.gkFXVePA.dpuf

PERJURY CHARGES SHOULD BE DULY FILED PER STATE LAW.

This ERROR/FRAUDULENT FILING cannot be dismissed as simply a "scriveners error". State Law requires election paperwork to be signed and turned in and received by an Allen CountyElection Board Staffer- who is authorized to witness;Notarize election documents.

Given the Fact that Henry has a Nephew who acts as a personal
CONSIGLIERE -
definition: Consigliere (Italian consigliere "counselor",; consigliere is an adviser or counselor to the boss, with the additional responsibility of representing the boss in important meetings

The consigliere is a close, trusted friend and confidant,an elder statesman.

By the very nature of the job, a consigliere is one of the few in the family who can argue with the boss, and is often tasked with challenging the boss when needed to ensure subsequent plans are foolproof.

In Italian, consigliere means "adviser" or "counselor" and is still a common title for example for members of city councils in Italy and Switzerland. It is derived from Latin consiliarius (advisor) andconsilium (advice).

BAR ADMITTED LAWYER; employed by a prominent respected law firm of noted repute; and active in local politics for decades-

Any average Voter would infer that Henry would have his nephew- the family syndicate consigliere- examine Henrys filings for full error free completion; so as to prevent so-called "bad faith; frivolous, or groundless Election related challenges; appeals; complaints, and contestments from being successfully filed.
In other words- checking ; examining and auditing Henry's paperwork to assure the public that all t's are crossed; and all I's are dotted.

This did not happen, evidently. It appears to me- that HENRY had some errand boy; some inexperienced associate or staffer submit his election paperwork for him ; which is contrary to state law- requiring election paperwork to be filed and signed and notarized/time/date stamped in PERSON.

In fact- i would submit to the court that this was irresponsible. that the Mayor failed to read what he had signed.

Some things; you just have to do yourself. this is one of them.

if this was a job application for any of the dozens of minimum wage jogs here in

Fort Wayne; His application would be rejected for employment, as incomplete and inaccurate.

and as such- Henry should be disqualified.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

8. HENRY'S CAN 12 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS:
here is a representative diagram/flowchart of all the HENRY FAMILY SYNDICATE BUSINESSES- ONE BIG POT ( cash is fungible)
actually- this is a diagram of an actual late 2000's Las Vegas corruption scheme/scandal known as FBI G-Sting involving a Las Vegas Nightclub owner named Galardi; and the web of small time petty govt crooks involved in this corruption scandal..
BUT- THIS IS ABOUT HOW COMPLEX THE HENRY FAMILY ECONOMIC INTERESTS ARE- 17 kids; god knows how many grand kids and so on..
YOU GET THE PICTURE..
X

x

HENRY'S CAN 12 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS:
per evidence submitted at ACEB feb 18th meeting- electronically; via E-MAIL( COMPLETE EMAIL RECORDS AVAILABLE OF PUBLIC RECORDS INVESTIGATION AND EVIDENCE FOUND; AND TRANSMITTED VIA GOOGLE "G-MAIL"- to ACEB members; director, asst director; and ACEB atty- CAN BE SUBMITTED UPON REQUEST)
AND additional evidence submitted on ACEB Appeal

Clearly show CAN-12 Form is incomplete; inaccurate; and fraudulent.
and as such- Henrys candidacy must be disqualified- per state law.

and PERJURY CHARGES SHOULD BE FILED.

HENRY'S VALID INSURANCE LICENSE- VALID UNTIL 11-30-2015
GALLANT INSURANCE CLOSED/ MAY NO LONGER BE IN BUSINESS- PHONE DISCONNECTED NOT BBB ACCREDITED
SEARCHED BBB REPORT- FEB 2015

XXX

x
we pretty well know by now of THOMAS C.( CHARLES/CHRISTOPHER/COBBLEPOTT) "Tom" Henry 's business dealings..
THE MAYORS SPOUSE:
CINDY HENRY- CONTINUED:
x

x
INCRIMINATING FACEBOOK POST BY DAVID C. (CHRISTOPHER) ROACH
POSTED TO CINDY HENRY/ RACKETEER/ POLITICAL OPERATIVE/ INSURANCE AGENT SECRETARY
X
AUGUST 6TH, 2014 IS THAT ENOUGH PROOF OF A WRONG; FRAUDULENT; INCOMPLETE CAN-12 ECONOMIC INTEREST STATEMENT?
X

X
omitted from can 12 form- statement of economic interest- PERJURY.

X
NOTE THIS EMAIL ADDRESS:
TCHENRY1975@COMCAST .NET

THIS IS THE SAME E-MAIL AS THE MAYORS SPOUSES INDIANA DEMOCRAT PARTY E-MAIL. COMMINGLING OF BUSINESS AND POLITICS? IS THE MAYORS SPOUSE THE MAYORS ACTING INSURANCE SECRETARY? IS THE MAYOR SELLING INSURANCE ON THE SIDE?
that would explain his interEst in all these local insurance businesses- oh say ASH BROKERAGE? or just a coincidence? ( nothing is ever "just a co-incidence)..

xX
LIKE I WAS SAYING: RECALL THAT EMAIL ADDRESS?
tchenry1975@comcast.net? cindy henry?
x
and tom henry? thomas christopher henry? thomas charles henry? the insurance salesman/ mayor?
x

x
top half of above post:
x

x

GREEN FROG ATC LICENSE RENEWAL:
X

x
SPOUSES 2014 ECONOMIC INTERESTS
X

X
NOTE THE DATES OF SELLING/ BUYERS- AUGUST 2014
SOUNDS LIKE AN OMITTED/FRAUDULENT CAN 1R FILING TO ME. PERJURY? YES..

X
NOPE- HASNT SOLD IT- SAME COMPANY-LLC
WHAT ARE THE HENRY S HIDING?
X

X
CINDY HENRY S&H LLC- NOT THE NEW KIDS? SO WHO DOES OWN THE GREEN FROG? IS THIS JUST ANOTHER DECEPTION?
X

X
WHATS THIS? TWO!! HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITHTHE MAYORS AND HIS WIFES NAMES ON IT? SO WHAT IS THE PROPER RESIDENCE ?
X

XX
AND TO MENTION:
02F-055175
FORT WAYNE POLICE REPORT ON THE GREEN FROG-
BY ME for illegal cherry master machines
x

x
RATTING OUT CINDY HENRYS AND HER ELECTED OFFICIALS ILLEGAL GAMBLING RACKET- AKA ILLEGAL CHERRYMASTERS.
THIS IS THE FIRST INCH OF A LEGAL JOURNEY THAT WILL TAKE 1000 MILES BY THE INVESTIGATORS AND THE COURTS..
WHY A RAT? KARMA BABY. THATS IT.
X

XX
9. HENRY HAS DELIBERATELY, repeatedly and steadfastly failed to provide his and his spouses 2014 tax records/Returns- IRS; and Indiana Dept of Revenue-
which would most accurately and completely prove or disprove Henry's and his spouses true and complete and Sworn and Signed Under Indiana and Federal perjury statutes.

Granted- these are not required to be filed until April 15th; however these have not been attached as addendums to any amended; or otherwise FULL COMPLETE AND TRUTHFUL statement of economic interest.

XX
CINDY S HENRY- SPOUSE OF THOMAS C. (CHRISTOPHER/CHARLES)" TOM HENRY
ECONOMIC INTERESTS:
X

10- As Henry's Can-42; Can-12 are fraudulent; perjured; inaccurate; incomplete; any subsequent campaign related fundraising is also null and void and as such illegal.

11- THOMAS CHRISTOPHER HENRY AKA "THOMAS C. HENRY"- won the 2015 Democrat Primary for Mayor of Fort Wayne;

NOT "THOMAS C. HENRY" AKA THOMAS CHARLES HENRY PER CAN 42 FILING..

12- http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2015_Candidate_Guide_Final.pdf

page 7 is very concise and simple to understand with respect to state laws as to true; legal birth cnames as compared to how a candidate wants their name to appear on the ballot.

by way of personal example- I have had my BALLOT NAME/NICKNAME listed as "Fort Waynes Most Wanted"- in 1999; or 2003- I dont recall precisely right now; and i dont care to look it up.

Nick name of "Mr Roachclip" in 2007; and in 2010- I had D.C."Legalize Marijuana" Roach.
the ACEB nor any voter failed to challenge my candidate filings /ballot placement. I to the best of my present recollection- used my full true; legal birth name on all CAN 42 PAPERWORK FILINGS ON LINE ONE.

THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS-

Henry's CAN-12 is PERJURED and Henry MUST be disqualified
Henry's CAN-42 IS PERJURED and Henry MUST be disqualified

subsequently- his CFA reports are illegal due to the fact that HENRYIS DISQUALIFIED; his paperwork is perjured and fraudulent; and as such- HENRY MUST be charged with election law crimes.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

HENRY'S CAN-12- STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST- MUST BE FILLED OUT AND FILED FIRST:
INCOMPLETE/INACCURATE/FRAUDULENT/FICTITIOUS/ PERJURY CHARGES APPLY:
X

X
PAGE 2- HENRY'S CAN 12:
X

X
THE NEXT FOR TO FILL OUT/FILE OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS THE CAN-42- DECLARATION FOR CANDIDACY
X
HENRY'S FULL LEGAL BIRTH NAME - MIDDLE NAME - IS IN FACT "CHARLES"; ==NOT== "CHRISTOPHER"
THEREFORE-
THOMAS "CHRISTOPHER" HENRY- "THOMAS C. HENRY"
A NON- EXISTENT ; FICTITIOUS/FRAUDULENT NON-PERSON WON THE 2015 DEMOCRAT PRIMARY FOR FORT WAYNE MAYOR
NOT
THE CURRENT DEMOCRAT INCUMBENT MAYOR THOMAS "CHARLES" HENRY- AS APPEARS AS HIS FULL TRUE LEGAL GIVEN NAME AS IT APPEARS ON HIS MARION COUNTY BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
HENRY - THOMAS CHARLES HENRY- WAS BORN TO JEROME FRANCIS AND MARGANELLE (APPLEGATE) HENRY ON NOVEMBER 8TH, 1951
X
I do not have that document- henrys birth certificate - as he has repeatedly and deliberately fefused to provide a copy voluntarily- through his office or after repeated requests as several forums and venues.
as a "non- family member; or not a member of the courts; or law enforcement- I, or other ordinary citizens are not able to access this document per state laws, and marion county indiana vital records rulea
s and laws..
X
I have asked several city councilmen; and several city hall employees and researched on-line newspaper resources. THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWS the Mayors middle name to be "Charles"-
THOMAS C. (CHARLES) "TOM" HENRY-
I was mocked at a inner city ministers forum- where I and the mayor got into a pointed discussion about this matter. He chided me ( as had the Allen County Election Board, for that matter ) - questioning the validity and credibility of my information obtained from a WIKIPEDIA entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Henry
I reminded the Mayor; and the (ACEB previously) that one- wikipedia is a accurate source foe most common information about politicians as they have staff who write the entries; that the wikipedia entry was footnoted by the WAYNEDALE NEWS- a media source he writes city public information articles for on a regular basis- so the editors and publishers would know the mayors TRUE COMPLETE FULL BIRTH NAME- FIRST MIDDLE AND LAST NAME.
X

X
YET HENRY HAPPILY WRITES A FREQUENT COLUMN FOR THIS "DISCREDITED TABLOID NEWS SMALL TOWN PAPER"
HMM-FLIP- MEET FLOP
X
X

X

IF THE MAYOR - HENRY- WOULD SIMPLY AND EASILY PRODUCE HIS TRUE COPY OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE- NOTARIZED ; WE CAN PUT THIS ISSUE TO BED.
This reminds me of newly announced Presidential candidate DONALD TRUMP'S "birther conspiracy"- about President OBAMA'S birth certificate.
I would think the VOTERS would like some transparency; openness and accessibility from MAYOR HENRY on this issue than to see it dismissed by the courts on a lawyer s lawyerism or technicality.
THIS SMACKS OF ARGUING "WHAT 'IS' IS- OR ISNT".
Indiana Code- is clear about what the law- the intent and the letter of the law clearly states:
that just as in filling out any other JOB APPLICATION; one that must contain certain legal requirements- one of which is that the true complete and accurate birth name as it appears on their birth certificate
must be filled out and appear on line 1.

THERE IS A SEPARATE FIELD TO BE FILLED OUT- on the bottom of the page- for how that candidates name is to appear on the ballot- how they want it to be presented..
Int his case Thomas C Henry ( but is it christopher or charles? or COBBLEPOTT- to use "absurdism- as SCOTUS JUSTICE ANTON SCALIA IS FOND OF USING TO make A POINT..)
x

X
I KNOW THIS LAW AND ITS INTENT- as i have run for office and dabbled in politics since 1991. I was removed from the ballot recently for having the "nickname" of "legalize marijuana" appear on the last line of this form- how i wanted it to appear on the ballot.

XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THIS MATTER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS **NOT*** MOOT.

Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's eligibility for the primary election is implicitly also a challenge to her eligibility for the general election, which has not yet taken place. Furthermore, Ellspermann is cross-appealing the Marion Superior Court's denial of her request for attorney's fees against Wyatt. The determination of the merits of Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's candidacy has a direct bearing on Ellspermann's ability to prevail on her cross-appeal. Thus, Wyatt's appeal is not moot.See Union Twp., 706 N.E.2d at 187

Wyatt v. Wheeler, 936 NE 2d 232 - Ind: Court of Appeals 2010
X
Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's eligibility for the primary election is implicitly also a challenge to her eligibility for the general election, which has not yet taken place.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here, Ellspermann asserts that Wyatt's appeal is moot because his original complaint to the IEC challenged only her eligibility for the primary election, and the primary election has occurred. We disagree. Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's eligibility for the primary election is implicitly also a challenge to her eligibility for the general election, which has not yet taken place. Furthermore, Ellspermann is cross-appealing the Marion Superior Court's denial of her request for attorney's fees against Wyatt. The determination of the merits of Wyatt's challenge to Ellspermann's candidacy has a direct bearing on Ellspermann's ability to prevail on her cross-appeal. Thus, Wyatt's appeal is not moot.See Union Twp., 706 N.E.2d at 187 (determining that an appeal was not moot because the appellee's counterclaim for costs and damages depended in part on considering the validity of the appellant's claim).

Having addressed Ellspermann's procedural claims, we turn to the merits of Wyatt's appeal.

For these reasons, we affirm the Marion Superior Court's judgment in all respects.

Affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.

13- FURTHERMORE- SPECIAL JUDGE LEVINE SHOULD RECUSE
DISQUALIFY
HIMSELF SUA SPONDE
"C. DISQUALIFICATION.

(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... ."

Jud. Canon 1 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

[4] Jud. Canon 2 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES.

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

1] Jud. Canon 5 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE HIS EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH HIS JUDICIAL DUTIES.

C. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES.

(4) Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except as follows:

[2] Jud. Canon 3 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.

C. DISQUALIFICATION.

(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... .

[3] Jud. Canon 1 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

[4] Jud. Canon 2 provides in relevant part:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES.

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

X
X
LEVINE CFA 2014

X
LEVINE CFA- MIDWEST PIPE AND STEEL- A HENRY FAMILY SYNDICATE BUSINESS-MAYOR HENRY'S BROTHER

X
x JUDGE LEVINE CFA- DIRECT CONTRIBUTION FROM MAYORS BROTHER- HENRY FAMILY BUSINESS SYNDICATE
X

X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
JUDGE LEVINE APPROVES AN EXPANSION OF TIME FOR ACEB ATTY UNTIL MAY11TH- 6 DAYS--AFTER-- PRIMARY ELECTION
instead of denying it- and requiring ACEB to appoint a "substitute/proxy atty for expediency; aka- before the primary election.THIS SEEMS INAPPROPRIATE TO ME. I REASONABLY QUESTION THIS ACTION. BY JUDGE LEVINE
X

X
ACTION APPROVING EXPANSION OF TIME PAST MAY 5TH PRIMARY ELECTION DATE BY JUDGE LEVINE

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THIS photo/posting below: IS ILLEGAL- KNOWN AS EITHER "electioneering/politicking"; or "ghost=employment" .If FWPD Deputy Chief/FW city councilman at-large Martin A "Marty" Bender" had appeared in this photo with Judge Levine in civilian clothing; it would be legal. Judge Levine is a law school graduate admitted to the Indiana Bar to practice Law. I reasonably question Judge Levines judgement in permitting this illegal photo on this campaign social media web site..
congresswoman Jill Long was skewered politically for campaign literature in which she appeared with several uniformed law enforcement officers- ( 1990's)-how I know this is illegal. I have also filed several ACEB compaints- on file at ACEB- with respect to this same issue- most recently vs GOP candidate for sheriff David "Dave" Gladieux.
x

X
http://www.businesspeople.com/Uploads/Cover/DSC_9120_160315.jpg
x

x
JUDGE BOYER MUST RECUSE/DISQUALIFY HERSELF DUE TO ILLEGALLY COMPLETED/REPORTED CFA-4 REPORT/ PERJURY.
I HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN LOCAL POLITICS AND HAVE PERSONALLY FILED AND REPORTED OVER A DOZEN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.
none have been questioned. I raise and spend very little- typically less than $200 (two hundred dollars), definitely less than $500 (five hundred dollars)

since 2010; after winning democrat party nomination for sheriff; and 2014- I started reporting 100- 200 dollars of "unitemized expenses"- as based on personal experience- that despite campaigning primarily via INTERNET/SOCIAL MEDIA- I still spend/expend money/resources- electricyt; internet provider; some telephone calls; office spade; and so on- Items the IRS AND IND. DEPT. OF REVENUE would itemize as home office expenses.

therefore I REASONABLY QUESTION THE ZERO DOLLARS RAISED AND EXPENDED FOR JUDGE BOYERS ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
SEE FORM HERE: 1 OF 2

X X JUDGE BOYER CFA- 2 OF 2

X signed and sworn/affirmed/attested.. read "warning" at bottom of form with respect to improper/fraudulent/ perjury filed CFA's.
I REASONABLY QUESTION THIS CFA. AND JUDGE BOYERS CFA INFORMATION AS WRONGLY FILED.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

TIM PAPE FAILED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE HEARING SUA SPONDE - DESPITE HIS FIRM AND HIMSELF BEING WHALE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE HENRY FOR MAYOR CAMPAIGNS..
X

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MICROVOTE MACHINE RELATED CONCERNS/ISSUES AS TO CERTIFICATION:

MICROVOTE SYSTEMS
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
AS TO THE VOTING MACHINE ISSUE-
There are several recent Court cases- concerning MICROVOTE MACHINES-SOFTWAFE; HARDWARE; AND FIRMWARE- as being "uncertified"; obsolete out of date.
These are readily accessible and of Interest to the Aceb- IF THEY ARE NOT INTIMATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THESE MICROVOTE COURT RULINGS ALREADY.

I would respectfully request the ACEB- to provide the following information to the Court; and the Voters :
1- to prove that the ACEB Microvote systems machines are all valid; certified and properly calibrated.
2- show that these vital delicate "computer systems/electronic devices"- are properly stored in a temperature/humidity climate controlled storage facility- and not in a "POLE BARN" where temperature extremes; humidity extremes; insects; etc- are unable to cause GLITCHES in these delicate electronic machines per standards listed by Microvote; and so on.

3- respectfulLy request the ACEB provide the court and voters- an audit of the machines in question at the precincts in question- are certified by an authorized Microvote service technician; to assure the voters there was no machine malfunctions; and if there was- to call a special election in those precincts.

4- respectfullY request the ACEB to provide to the court and the voters- proof the precinct workers were properly trained to work the pols in question as to the required operations of the Microvote machines and proper procedures..

5- respectfully request the ACEB provide to the court and the voters- the Poll books of the Precincts in question- to prove the assertion that "no one voted in these precincts May 5th, 2015"

6- 6 precincts of an arbitrary 60 precincts is 10% error, 30 precincts- is 20%.
this is unacceptable. PITIFUL LOW TURNOUT; obsolete Microvote machines ; various court cases about deceritifications..

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TOM COOK MISC: EVIDENCE/PERJURY
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
TOM COOK
FACEBOOK POSTS RE: HIS ECONOMIC INTERESTS/BUSINESS; CHARITY
"HELPING THE NEEDY"

ARTURO LOPEZ LIVES HERE- 3112 Lafayette street

(not TOM COOK)

TOM COOK CLAIMS TO LIVE HERE:

3112 S LAFAYETTE ST.

GOOGLE SEARCH indicates: Arturo Lopez lives here.
which is true? what is the living arrangement? lease? rent? in-kind?
Other?

THE ALLEN COUNTY ELECTION BOARD WAS NEGLIGENT IN VERIFYING TOM COOKS CLAIMED RESIDENCE- WITH NO PROOF.
TO CAST A PROVISIONAL BALLOT; A VOTER MUST PRESENT VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF PROOF.
I used d the analogy at the hearing of FEB 18TH- of documents required to vote- per the new state id law( people vs rokita)
or the wayne township trustees office to receive assistance; or food stamps or unemployment or welfare..

but to be a politician; well- just step up sign your name here you go? WTF?

HERES THE VARIOUS REAL ESTATE; RESIDENCY STATE LAWS:
( Indiana code: title 32)

We have to hold Transients; Homeless; Derelicts; Bums; etc to some standard.

GOOGLE MAPS STREET VIEW SEARCH RESULTS OF 3112 S LAFAYETTE:

GOOGLE MAPS STREET VIEW
TOM COOKS ALLEGED RESIDENCE. HEY! is that TOM COOK ON THE PORCH? HI TOM! nope- not him..

AN ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH A GOOGLE SEARCH OF TOM COOK AND "HELPING THE NEEDY"- CONFLICTS/CONTRADICTS MR COOKS STATEMENTS OF RESIDENCE OF 3112 S LAFAYETTE ST.

TOM COOK- PRESIDENT 3112 S LAFAYETTE ST; AND BBB REPORT:

BBB REPORT- TOM COOK; "HELPING THE NEEDY"

GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS- TOM COOK AND "HELPING THE NEEDY

phone numbers associated with "HELPING THE NEEDY"- ALSO TOM COOK FOR MAYOR WEB PAGE PHONE NUMBER-
COMMINGLING BOGUS BUSINESS WITH A SLEAZY BUSINESS ( POLITICS.LOL.)

GOOGLE SEARCH RESULT:
ADDRESS LISTED ASSOCIATED WITH "HELPING THE NEEDY"-
(see photo above- Arturo Lopez lives here)

TOM COOK;S ALLEGED BUSINESS ADDRESS OF TOM COOK'S ALLEGED BUSINESS- ALLEN COUNTY PATI( Public Access Property Tax Information) internet

TAXPAYER NAME: JESSE COLLINS

AERIAL VIEW OF SAME: TOM COOK'S ALLEGED BUSINESS

P.A.T.I. RECORDS OF TOM COOK'S ALLEGED BUSINESS

TOM COOK'S ALLEGED BUSINESS ADDRESS- VIA GOOGLE MAPS:

TOM COOK'S ALLEGED BUSINESS- GOOGLE STREET VIEW

TOM COOKS ALLEGED BUSINESS- GOOGLE STREET VIEW FROM FRONT DOOR LOOKING EAST. HANNA AND BUCHANAN ST.S

TOM COOK'S ALLEGED BUSINESS VIA GOOGLE SEARCH RESULT:

BE SURE TO READ "BUSINESS REVIEW". Priceless!

TOM COOK
MYCASE.IN.GOV

X

DANIEL P LOBDELL
sure doesnt like wearing his seatbelt..

XXXXX

DANIEL P LOBDELL
CLASS D FELONY NOT EXPUNGED.
CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM BALLOT BY ACEB FEB 18TH, 2015; AND NOT ALLOWED TO RUN FOR FTW CITY COUNCIL AT-LARGE.
ILLEGAL/NEGLIGENT ACTION BY ACEB?

MYCASE.IN.GOV

DOCKET NUMBER:
02D05-1108-FD-001083

08-17-2011 (3RD ENTRY FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE:
CLASS D FELONY DECIDED

XXXX

MY CASE.IN.GOV: DANIEL P LOBDELL
PAGE ONE-

KEVIN BROWN - PERJURY OF CAN 12- STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST FORM

KEVIN R BROWN
MYCASE.IN.GOV
BATTERY-SPOUSE (A)

TOMMY SCHRADER- MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES

TOMMY SCHRADER- STUFF A SOCK IN IT..

THOMAS A SCHRADER THOMAS ALLEN "TOMMY" SCHRADER.

MYCASE.IN.GOV

TOMMY SCHRADER IS A FRAUDULENT ALIAS/AKA/ NAME. ITS CLEARLY NOT HIS LEGAL NAME; AND HE GOES BY WHATEVERS CONVENIENT DEPENDING ON WHERE HE IS OR LIVES..
HES A FRAUD. THERES T
HAT WORD AGAIN
BECAUSE HES TRYING TO HIDE HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY

= FULL LEGAL NAME NAME LISTED AS IT APPEARS ON

COURT RECORDS AND OTHER IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS..IDENTIFICATION.

TOMMY SCHRADER THOMAS A SCHRADER- WISCONSIN VOTERS REGISTRATION
X

NOT "TOMMY SCHRADER" (AKA)

X

TOMMY SCHRADER'S DRUNK AND DISORDERLY KICKED OUT OF GOP HQ; AND GIVEN RIDE HOME BY FWPD TO MOTEL ON COLISEUM BLVD- THE OLD MOTEL 6
X
NOT COLUMBIA AVENUE- WHERE HE CLAIMS A MAILING ADDRESS

X
TOMMY SCHRADER WAS ARRESTED HERE:
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BACKGROUND/HISTORY/PRECEDENT- ACEB THOMAS ALLEN "TOMMY" SCHRADER ACEB BALLOT REMOVAL-

NARRATIVE:

X
TOMMY SCHRADER/THOMAS A SCHRADER - RELATED ISSUES CROSS REFERENCED WITH GINA BURGESS CONTESTATION FILING
X

X
X

X
6

XX

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
TOMMY SCHRADER ACEB ISSUES/EVIDENCE

HERES THE VARIOUS REAL ESTATE; RESIDENCY STATE LAWS:
( Indiana code: title 32)

We have to hold Transients; Homeless; Derelicts; Bums; etc to some standard.
x

Tommy Schrader' s motel room. or is it apartment?

x
GINA BURGESS- ADDITIONAL /MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://wane.com/2015/04/08/candidate-complaints-call-for-withdrawals/

I AGREE.

"FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WANE) – The Allen County Election Board is reviewing new complaints filed against 27 candidates in the Fort Wayne municipal primary. Gina Burgess, who is also running for city council at-large on the Democratic ticket, filed the 40 allegations on Tuesday.

“Most of these mistakes are things people have taken for granted, but there’s actual legal statute out there [that dictates it],” Burgess said. “Minor things or not, they’re still legally required things.”

Burgess’s complaints include saying candidates didn’t use their correct name on filing forms, didn’t appropriately show they are in good standing with their political party and didn’t disclose all their economic interests. In her complaint, she said “evidence would be presented at a hearing on the matter” and she requested that “candidates listed be compelled to produce documents either [to] confirm or refute the allegations.”

“People are not reporting their business interests, not reporting their spouse’s employment and not reporting their spouse’s business interests,” Burgess said. “The standard is what [the name is] on your birth certificate is what you have to have on your CAN-42 form. When I started looking at the seriousness of the mistakes by the incumbents, I thought, ‘Wow! Something needs to be done here. We’re getting further and further down a slippery slope.'”

Burgess is asking for the Election Board to hold a hearing and for candidates in violation to withdraw from the race, or face a potential perjury charge, which is a Class D Felony.

“This is about principle and procedures and I think things will change for the better in the future, but that change has to start somewhere,” Burgess said. “Politically, this will be painful for me because I made people mad on both sides of the aisle. I did this non-partisan.”

But, Burgess said the Allen County Election Board mishandled complaints filed within that deadline by Democratic mayoral candidate David Roach. The board held a hearing on February 18 in which it did take one candidate off the ballot and dismissed the rest of the complaints. Roach is now appealing in court. On Facebook, Burgess wrote to the board, “if you are willing to engage and settle the matter of Roach v ACEB before the primary” then she would drop her complaints against the 27 candidates.

“I’m willing to withdraw them even though they are valid because I believe the Election Board will be more vigilant in the future, but this other case needs to stop being in legal limbo and needs to move on,” Burgess said.

Downs was at the hearing for Roach’s complaints and said he thinks the board did take them seriously.

“[Roach] did himself some damage by saying he looked for evidence and couldn’t find any, but you should keep looking. I can make that same claim about anybody, and that’s not a credible reason to investigate,” Downs said.

Burgess argues that the Election Board is picking and choosing when to investigate complaints or not and that its members need to be consistent. Downs said that there has to be a credible reason for the board to launch an investigation beyond the documents that are filed with the board.

“Someone saying I don’t think you’ve listed all your economic interests is not a credible reason. I can say that about anybody. There has to be a reason to investigate and simply saying there is one is not one,” Downs said.

Click here to see the Indiana Code referenced in this story.

Tom Hardin, a member of the Election Board, said they received Burgess’s complaints and he and his fellow members are reviewing them. He didn’t know when or if a hearing would be held. The board’s next regular meeting is April 15.

The primary election is May 5.

GINA BURGESS ELECTION ==COMPLAINT== ENUMERATING THE FAILINGS OF OUR SORRY LOT OF CANDIDATES; AND OUR OVERWORKED ACEB WHODONT HAVE THE RESOURCES OR TIME TO ASSURE ALL THE POLITICIAN WANNABES CAN PROPERLY FILL OUT AN APPLICATION

you know-local govt jobs. now hiring, no qualifications, no experience, no drug test required.. every bum, transient, homeless, convict, criminal, drunk stoner, wiofe beater, out of work dude or woman; lined up down the hallway; and out the door into the lobby.
likeTHIS YEAR.. DO DROWN OUT THE GOOD CANDIDATES, AND DILUTE THE POOL.( or pollute?)
X

THOMAS C. ( CHRISTOPHER? CHARLES? COBBLEPOTT?) "TOM" HENRY....( humor)

X
and the rest of the careless perjurers who cant even fill out a most basic 3 page "job application"; let alone a REAL JOB APPLICATION- Big box retail; fast food; corner convenience store; etc..
ever read the disclaimer/warning at the bottom of THOSE applications? you get the complete credit/background personality profile AND a drug test; AND you're AT WILL and minumum wage..
x

X
x
SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTS SINCE 6-18-2015:

ROACH v ACEB—THE APPEAL: This matter is finally taking place this morning at 10 am I Judge Levine’s chambers. Well, sort of---the pending matter isn’t the Appeal, but rather a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. For the record, I haven’t talked a lot about the remaining election Contestations because it puts a lot of added pressure on the litigants in those matters, especially the pro se Petitioners (i.e. the individuals that filed the Contestation). For the most part, I’m waiting for these Contestations to conclude before discussing their significance, in my opinion, as well as their outcomes. Roach v ACEB is not a Contestation, however, it is an appeal of an administrative hearing—specifically the February hearing held by the ACEB to discuss candidate challenges.

In that matter of Roach v ACEB---all I can say is wow, wow and WOOOW. (shaking head) First, Tim Pape as a member of the ACEB should have recused himself in all of Roach’s claims, but most especially those involving Mayor Henry. Why? Because Pape is the managing partner of the law firm of Carson Boxberger, that law firm contributes significantly to Henry’s campaign, and receives a significant share of the legal work regarding municipal contracts. There is simply no way that Pape could remain reasonably objective in this matter. With Pape not recusing himself, the entire process was tainted where Roach was concerned.

Second, during the February hearing on the Challenges raised against multiple Mayoral (4) and City Council At-Large (3) candidates---only one candidate lawyered up and that was Mayor Henry. Not only did he lawyer up, but he had two lawyers representing him.

Third, the ACEB changed their process without any advance notice---going from an investigative agency in the years leading up to and including 2014 (Kelty, 2007; Scheibenberger, 2010; Schrader, 2011; me, 2012; Haigh, 2014) and then suddenly in 2015 become a non-investigative/administrative agency. Not only that, but they shifted the burden of proof required from the Challengee (Schrader, 2011) back to the Challenger. (Now, in all fairness, I agree with the premise that the proof should be on the Challenger, but I don’t agree with changing policy and not advertising that policy change.) The ACEB activities get a lil hinkier in how they handle evidence---just this year alone!! In February, they required Roach, as the Challenger, to have physical evidence with him at a hearing. He had provided the ACEB with electronic evidence, but the ACEB rejected that. Because Roach “didn’t have” evidence, the ACEB rejected and dismissed all but one of his Challenges. In April, I filed a Complaint noting several candidate errors and omissions and told the ACEB that I would have evidence to present at a hearing. The ACEB denied me a hearing because I provided them with no pre-hearing evidence. Huh???

Fourth, at the February hearing—all parties were sworn in under oath, under penalties of perjury. In the matter of Roach v Kevin Brown---the ACEB never required Brown to address the CAN-12 irregularities that Roach was challenging. Those matters were completely ignored and then dismissed—for lack of evidence. Are you getting this---they ignored the matter completely, never even addressed it themselves, but yet they dismissed it for “lack of evidence”?? In the matter of Roach v Rick Stevenson—Roach raised the issue of Stevenson’s marriage, which Stevenson denied. The ACEB ruled that Stevenson’s sworn testimony under oath was all that was needed. But then the ACEB turned around and in Roach v Tommy Schrader---Roach presented verbal testimony as to Schrader’s name, Schrader never showed up to defend himself, and the ACEB had been involved in litigation in 2011 and either knew or should have known that Schrader’s legal name was Thomas and not Tommy. But they dismissed the matter for “lack of evidence”?? Perhaps the cream of the crop irony is in the matter of Roach v Tom Cook---Cook admits his business interests under oath. His CAN-12 form shows that he failed to list these business interests as the form requires. But the ACEB still dismisses the matter. Why?? Yep, “lack of evidence.” No offense, but has the ACEB collectively lost its mind?

And then there’s the matter of Roach v Mayor Henry --- Its unclear what Henry’s legal name is. Various sources show the Mayor’s name as either Thomas Charles or Thomas Christopher or my personal favorite---thanks to geneology sites like Ancestor.com, which rely on information obtained from libraries with geneology departments (our very own ACPL)---which lists the Mayor as Tc C Henry. Henry won’t produce a birth certificate despite being asked several times. No offense---it’s a birth certificate. What is the big deal?? Produce it and get it over with already. My guess is the Mayor has two middle names. Hey, he’s Catholic and was born in the 50’s when Catholic parents gave both a middle name and a “Christening” name. (To those born after the 50’s, that is now known as your Confirmation name.)

The bigger issue, to me anyways, is the CAN-12 form. The CAN-12 form is the Statement of Economic Interest in which the Mayor and his spouse are expected to lists all their income and business interests. When candidates run for office in one year, they have to list their income and business interests from the previous year—meaning 2015 candidates have to release information from 2014. In 2014, the Mayor’s wife owned and operated the Green Frog. And how do we know this?? Because in the middle of 2014, her family hosted a huge, well-publicized media bonanza celebrating her “retirement from the Green Frog” (of which the public was invited and many of you have Facebook pics of) and its transition to “new owners.” The ironic thing is---the Mayor’s wife still owns the real estate on which the Green Frog is located, so even though the business entity known as the Green Frog has been transferred---a different company owned by the Mayor’s wife collects rent payments from the Green Frog. The Mayor himself owns an insurance company, Gallant Group, and he failed to report that. (But to Mayor Henry’s credit, at least he remembered to list his income from being the Mayor of Fort Wayne---unlike nearly all of Fort Wayne City Council or the current Mayor of Woodburn. Oops?!!)

Putting aside all the above ACEB-related irregularities—its time to focus on the judicial procedural irregularities. And no folks, you just can’t make this stuff up. This matter was FINALLY scheduled for today, June 18th , but before it got to this point, there has been quite the flurry of pre-litigation activity.

This is an appeal of the Allen County Election Board’s decision of February 18th---a decision made and delayed for 4 months!! Judge Felts recused himself in the matter, meaning that Roach and the ACEB had to agree on an attorney. They couldn’t agree on one. So after Judge Felts order the Clerk of Court (twice…not once, but TWICE) to select a judge in the matter, she selected recently re-elected Judge Levine. (Bear in mind that the Clerk of Court is a member of the ACEB.)

The ACEB requested a Continuance. The Continuance was granted and the matter was scheduled for after the election on May 11. Then after the May 5th Primary, the ACEB moved to have the Appeal dismissed. Why? Because the elections were already had and the point of the appeals was moot. What?!?!? A person is on the ballot who flat out did not report all of their economic interests, may not have accurately reported their legal name, and the point is moot? I don’t think so. Not in the interest of true justice anyways.

Like · Comment · Share

2 people like this.
Cathy J Cross How did that all work out?

8 hrs · Like
Gina Burgess Cathy J Cross -- I wasn't able to attend and I haven't discussed the matter with David Christopher Roach yet, but my understanding is that he first tried to get Judge Levine to recuse himself. In my opinion, that was probably a good move because Roach's key opponent was Henry and Henry supported Levine. However, Roach waited until the last minute to try to disqualify the Judge and that's a move I don't understand. Judge Levine didn't recuse himself. Roach then tried to disqualify ACEB's attorney Carrie Hawk Gutman. And I have no idea why or on what grounds?? He was unsuccessful in that attempt as well.

Then the hearing proceeded to the ACEB's Motion to Dismiss. The original basis for the Motion was supposedly because the point was moot, the elections were held. My understanding is Roach tried to raise the argument that it was incorrect or wrong or unfair or ??? of the ACEB to do so because it was the ACEB who postponed the matter until after the election. ACEB/Judge Levine---not sure who??-- offered a counter argument that Roach could have responded to the Motion for Enlargement of Time that caused the delay and he failed to do so. (Ironically, in my opinion, even if Roach would have raised that issue, the Court would have still delayed the matter by way of a hearing on Roach's Motion objecting to the Requested Enlargement of Time---and then the delay would have been Roach's fault.)

At some point, the matter turned to ACEB's Motion to Dismiss. In addition to the premise that the point was moot, elections had been had, the ACEB raised the issue of how Roach didn't offer anything into evidence at the original hearing. And I don't really know or understand what happened at that point---what the argumets and counter-arguments to this issue were.Michelle Hill -- You attended this matter, Do you remember what the arguments and counter-arguments were to Roach's not presenting evidence at the original ACEB hearing? He presented evidence electronically and the ACEB rejected that evidence. Was that matter brought up? If so, how did the Court respond to that point? Also, prior to 2015, the ACEB's policy and procedures were that the burden of proof was on the party being challenged and not the challenging party. Was that brought up? If so, how did the Court respond to that issue?

7 hrs · Like · 1
Michelle Hill There wasn't any discussion of how the ACEB's role at the February hearing had changed from an investigative role in 2011, into an administrative role in 2015. All that was mentioned was that he had sent the evidence via email and it was not accepted. Roach said that regardless of any evidence (that he had sent via email for the hearing but had presented with his appeal), one of his reasons for the challenge was to call to notice to the ACEB of the problems with the forms of those candidates. The judge focused on the fact that the challenge of only one of those candidates was not moot. And when Roach attempted to discuss that candidate, the judge started the whole concept of the fact that the matter was not his jurisdiction. Roach countered that comment with the question of "why are we in this court room if this is not your jurisdiction?"
Although he did mention the fact that the original schedule for a hearing on his appeal was going to be before the election, it was pushed past the election day. I really thought he should have continued to focus on that, but the judge only wanted to focus on the fact that Roach could have denied the ACEB's motion for continuance in an answer to their motion. And also that the challenge had to do with the primary election. Roach countered that the fact that since the candidate that was not moot had a defective CAN-42 -and a CAN-12 his remaining on the ballot would affect the General election.

6 hrs · Like

9 hrs · Like
David Christopher Roach I gave Judge levine a copy of my "respectfully request recusal/disqualification that I reasonably question the judge due to his long personal social and political ties to the henry family; and campaing contributions; in addition to an "illegal 2500 dollar unitemized contribution" on his 2014 CFA..
I could see the slow boil ready to POP.. which was not my intent. I admit- gave him the opportunity to recuse himself, instead of an outright request. need less to say - he didnt recuse/disqualify.
It wasnt until later that maybe he is getting pressure due to last years flpa bout some "inappropriate remakrs he made about some woman- which i had forgotten at the time; and didnt bring up; and if i did- I wouldnt have anyway..
so- after pssing off the judge with my opening "pawn takes king; checkmate in one move"; i was pretty well toast..
BUT I did put up what I thought was a pretty spirited defense. made carrie gutman admit "her law firm gave a campaign contribution from a dead man". I said- oh- right- im sorry i had heard that Gilmore haynie sr or jr had recently died..
she asked me what businesses etc her firm represented- i recited at least 3- plenty.

I think Judge levine ruled in the ACEB woman atty 's favor- due to the local "authority rules thing" around this town.. shes the ACEB atty so shes right..
I asked the judge on about 3 or 4 items we were debating- about the mayors paperwork.
the game has been rigged ever since FEB 7TH- HARPER VS HENRY. there will be no deviations nor exceptions or anything to change that..
Judge Levine made some commment about how i was trying to "overturn the election results and the election"( implying some sort of ROACH INSPIRED COUP D'ETAT")- to which i replied NO your Honor- these candidates who cant fill out their paperwork right did it to themselves. im just (?) playing by the rules by pointing these out..

58 mins · Like
David Christopher Roach the ACEB atty talked a bit about the ACEB "rules change" of process .We cant have money being spent by our "limited govt" on things such as investigating sworn election law complaints by informed citizens, voters, or candidates after all. we must make amateur citizens who arent lawyers investigate things they may not even have public records access to- and then act as their own prosecutors in pursuing these complaints..in civil court vs professional hired guns( lawyers) who do this for a living every day- and get tossed into the SHARK TANK; to try to swim or sink.. - incumbent politicians..
Theres a law about requiring people to show up for summon's- failure to do so is a misdemeanor- technically; and legally.
tommy schrader- for example..
He can get anywhere like INDY tisign up for congress( whos his driver? does he take the greyhound for the day? what?)- or find out if he won an election while on VACAY in GREEN BAY-
No one has ever said publicly- such as the media; or anyone else to fact check- the fact he is not related to the shcrader "tube and lube" in 930 east by new haven; NOR related to schrader auction and real estate.
BUT let ROACH GET A TICKET FOR JAYWALKING - ITS FRONT PAGE NEWS..
I thought that was what the government was for? WHAT IS OUR LOCAL GOVT AND COURTS FOR? other than swiftly and surely locking up black men who commit crimes clogging the courts; filling our prisons disrupting their families lives? the evening news; local tabloid papers- front page; lead story- BLACK IS THE NEW ORANGE- as in Perp walk the blackman in the Orange jumpsuit across the news cast or front pages.

go look up if any of these political election related articles about all the activities I and my colleagues have been up to to try to get justice and correct this fraudulent paperwork by the mayor. why wnt he just man up and admit hes wrong /maed a mistkae- other than it was ROACH who NAILED IT.. cant have that. cant let ROACH WIN- anything.. NO SIREE JIM BOB.. why it might cause a rift in the space time continuum resulting in the annihilation of the universe as we know it.. or an alternative reality from a change in the time line. Hurry up Marty! we dont have much time.. Doc- why do we always have to cut these things so close? ( oops- humorous "side-bar")

43 mins · Like
David Christopher Roach ACEB atty Gutman fast tracked/way layed this who le appeal- "due to pressing matters expansion of time until may 11th; which judge levine approved.. I asked why the ACEB didnt have a proxy lawyer; or anyoe else who could fill in ASAP= she said wel l == I == should have gotten an injunction. Excuse me? how is that? why cant our ACEB just follow the rules? I filed my appeal by march 18th- they had 6 weeks until the primary- AND ONE WEEK AFTER THAT- which ATTY GUTMAN then filed a motion to dismiss.- so
their intent was to not even give me my day in court; so to speak.. and now they say its MOOT, its dismissed "with prejudice"( yeah- against me..lol)- which means this is closed and cant be reopened.
so- fast tracked to the side track then pushed OFF THE TRACKS..- 123..

26 mins · Like
Cathy J Cross I was sent a summons, and I did not appear. I was told without a subpoena, I was not required to appear, only was required to be notified it was happening.

23 mins · Like
David Christopher Roach there was consnsderable banter about whether emailed evidence- sent electronically via GOOGLE GMAIL- in the 21st century was admissible- they were acting like the evidence then submitted in the ACEB appeal didnt exist; nor did the original source emails; researched by me with public records...
and over and over- about the Can -12 form being fraudulent/incomplete; kicking the 3rd leg of the stool invalidating ;disqualifying the mayor.
( i was "sniped" by the judge for calling "Mayor Henry either just "the Mayor; or "Henry"
AND raised a hypotietical conumdrum- that if the mayor; oops-Mayor Henry's statement of candidacy was filed out on the top of the page as
"Thomas Christopher Henry" and the bottom of the page had ballot placement as "Thomas C. Henry";but we find out later the Mayors oops Mayor Henrys real name isTHOMAS CHARLES HENRY; then which Thomas C Henry won the election?
a fictional person; entirely made up like Randall Stevens in the shawshank redemption? I asked theJudge if he had ever seen it as this was an analogy( including a crooked warden.loll) -
what do we do then? Thomas Christopher Henry IS NOT Thomas Charles Henry; but they are both Thomas C Henry. one is real, but one is fictitious and cant be elected..
About that time, Judge Levine was sitting with his head in his hands ; like that famous painting; or home alone poster- "the scream"- I could almost hear him in a Mel Brooks voice saying "OY VEY- MY HEAD ACHES.."
I SAID- I am right, your honor, THEN QUICKLY SAID-WELL- i DONT WANT TO SOUND ARROGANT OR COCKY- BUT i AM..RIGHT.

so I was thinking- if i just photocopy all the mayors original documents- his voting record; the botched chairmans letter; the botched candidate filing papers; the botched statement of economic interest; and a copy of a couple news paper articles; would that be the elegantly simple thing? Gina recently said something about simple is sometimes better..-
the thing thats annoying is these laweyers and judges all have all the same files and papers i do- and know what they asy and know the MAYOR or his LACKEY DOG FLUNKY BOTCHED IT
AND I--AM-- RIGHT--
well they would have to accept the "evidence" of law that the MAYOR oops mayor henry botched his paperwork and his candidacy; and cant legally run and must be disqualified?

12 mins · Like
David Christopher Roach ACEB A tty Gutman raised a case- white and someone else- about "the courts are reluctant to overturn election results- which i correctly corrected her and said- why yes m'aam- they are in the case you cited; but that case applies to GENERAL ELECTIONS; and not primary elections which are run by the parties to nominate candidates in the primary not to elect the general election candidates; so that is Moot..; and if its fraudulent due to paperwork errors; well I made my point- the same issues apply.
( i watched her say under breath like DAMN! ) PRICELESS..
Then I retorted that a case involving Ellspermann ( our present lady lt gov)- Wyatt- that case said this matter wasnt moot- because the same paperwork submitted in the primary couldnt be redone; or amended- and so it all carried out to the general election- which is what it says.. one long timeline- not 2 separate elections.

My voice was loud enough and didnt waver; and i pretty much said just what i was going to say; and played the game plan i had ; and still got beat..
I used the line "Im a Pauper, your honor" several times - about i didnt have extra cash to buy a turbojet printer, a barrel of ink, or a pallet of paper to print out pages ; but can i send it to you via email?
Judge Levine is even more of a luddite than me- he said he didnt use email. or so he said..

Im waiting for the transcript- Im going to request transcripts of everything and try to get the court to waiver their usual dollar a page because well "Im a Pauper".. may as well.

[Message clipped] View entire message

David Roach dcroach60@gmail.com

4:27 PM (1 minute ago)

to nancy.boyer, Denise, Carrie, AMHenry

MAYOR HENRY
( atty rep for Mayor Henry- Adam Henry)

SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE! to prove full legal birth name christopher? charles? cobblepott?
SHOW ME THE TAX RETURNS! to prove Statement of economic interests

SHOW ME TH E EMAILS! to prove no use of official email; govt resources for campaign
SHOW ME RUSTY YORKS COP CAR VEHICLE RECORDS- to prove hes not using an official govt vehicle to campaign for council.

you stated to WFFT demetrious lewis in a TV interview at your "official campaign HQ openind- that you would have a "transparent, open and accessiible administration.
PROVE IT-

do the above..

in the 06- 19-2015 journal gazette MAYOR HENRY RAILED ABOUT OBSTRUCTIONISTS-
like the Mayor is obstruction the justice and the truth

AND what about the taxes and other legal consequences of your and your spouses illegal gambling RICO cherry masters while YOU were elected 3rd district councilman?
from about 1995- to 2005 or so?

YOURE GOING TO LOOK GOOD IN THAT ORANGE JUMPSUIT- I GUARANTEE IT..

DAVID CHRISTOPHER ROACH;

BORN IN SANTA BARBARA CALIFORNIA..

about 54 years ago..

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

David Roach dcroach60@gmail.com

4:27 PM (1 minute ago)

to nancy.boyer, Denise, Carrie, AMHenry

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forwa

show me the birth certificate; show me the tax records; show me the emails. what is the mayor hiding? why is he stonewalling the truth?

DAVID ROACH 4 MAYOR REPUBLICAN FORT WAYNE

Monday, June 15, 2015

RESPONSES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS 6-18/6-19

Denise Strunk

David Roach dcroach60@gmail.com

David Roach dcroach60@gmail.com

No comments:

Post a Comment

Monday, June 15, 2015

RESPONSES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS 6-18/6-19

Denise Strunk

David Roach <dcroach60@gmail.com>

David Roach <dcroach60@gmail.com>

No comments:

Post a Comment

David Roach dcroach60@gmail.com

David Roach dcroach60@gmail.com