Sunday, August 31, 2014

Attorney General's Position In Charlie White Appeal Poses Greatest Threat To Voter Disenfranchisement

When the Indiana Recount Commission unanimously agreed that Charlie White had legally registered to vote prior to the 2010 election at which he was elected the state's Secretary of State, Attorney General Greg Zoeller's office made compelling arguments to the state's Supreme Court defending the Commission's conclusions that White was legally registered to vote in successfully convincing the high court to overturn Marion Co. Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg's contrary conclusions. Now the Attorney General has done a 180-degree turn and is arguing to the Indiana Court of Appeals that a Hamilton Co. trial court did not err in finding White guilty of multiple felony charges, including vote fraud. In essence, the Attorney General is arguing that the standard for proving vote fraud in a civil proceeding is much higher than the standard it believes Indiana courts should apply in determining a voter's criminal liability for vote fraud.

The entire criminal case against White focused on the prosecution's argument that White had committed perjury and vote fraud by registering to vote and casting a single ballot in one primary election in May, 2010 using the Fishers address of his former wife on Broad Leaf Lane instead of a new condominium he purchased in 2010 on Overview Drive. White had given up an apartment he rented following his divorce from his first wife with the plan of moving into the Overview Drive condominium once he and his second wife were married. White's then-fiancee' moved into the condominium with her children in early 2010 a few months prior to their marriage on Memorial Day weekend. White claimed he did not make the Overview Drive his permanent residence until after the couple was married. White says that he spent many nights sleeping in the finished basement of his ex-wife's house where his son lived and other places while he was busy traveling the state campaigning for the Republican nomination for secretary of state. In September, 2010, White changed his voter registration to the Overview Drive condominium in accordance with Indiana law

The prosecution argued that White committed vote fraud and perjury by claiming the Broad Leaf residence rather than the Overview Drive residence as his residence when he registered and voted using that address in the May, 2010 primary election. During the appeal of the civil case seeking White's removal as Secretary of State, the Attorney General flatly asserted in the brief it filed with the Supreme Court that White was legally registered to vote at the Broad Leaf residence and did not commit vote fraud by casting a ballot using that residence in the May, 2010 primary election. The Attorney General criticized the Marion Circuit Court's conclusions to the contrary as "fail[ing] in its obligation to abide this Court's tripartite command to liberally construe election statutes to effectuate their purpose of securing free and equal elections, uphold the will of the electorate, and prevent disenfranchisement."

In the Recount Commission case, the Attorney General contended that White's residence at Broad Leaf was a legally permissible "nontraditional residence" under Indiana's Election Code. “He was also properly registered at the Broad Leaf house," the Attorney General argued. Continuing, he explained that White "had abandoned all other residences to which he could return." "Broad Leaf was also the home of his immediate family because his son lived there." "Generally, Broad Leaf was a 'nontraditional residence,' which election law defines as not fixed or permanent. He intended to live there until he was married and moved to the Overview Drive Condominium." The Attorney General observed that the question of where White was registered to vote and when he voted using that address are "both technical and formal." To find that White's voter registration and ballot casting using the Broad Leaf residence amounted to fraud was a "an absurd and arguably unconstitutional result" that "the legislature could not have intended."
The Indiana Code defines a person’s residence as “where the person has the person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence; and to which the person has , whenever absent, the intention of returning.” Additionally, the code provides standards to assist in the determination of the person’s residency. A person’s residence may be established by their origin or birth, intent and conduct to implement the intent, or operation of law. A person does not have residence in more than one precinct. Once a person obtains residency in a precinct, they retain residency there until they abandon the residency by 1) having the intent to abandon the residence, 2) having the intent to abandon the residency, and 3) effectuates that intent by actually establishing a residence in a new precinct. These provisions codify much of this Court’s discussion of residency and domicile in State Election Board v. Bayh . . . 
Other statutory provisions create rebuttable presumptions assisting in determining a person’s residence. . . White had abandoned all other residences to which he could return or intend to return. . .For example, the place where a person’s immediate family resides is the person’s residence. White’s only immediate family was his son, who lived at the Broad Leaf house. The Commission properly found that this qualified White to declare the Broad Leaf house on his voter registration . . . 
The Election Code provides for a person to have a “nontraditional residence” which may be the best description of White’s living arrangements . . . an individual with a nontraditional residence whose residence is within a precinct, but is not fixed or permanent, resides in that precinct  . . .White intended that Broad Leaf house to be his principal residence from the time he abandoned the Pintail Lane  apartment and until he was married and moved into the Overview Drive condominium with his then-fiancee. He had his mail forwarded to the Broad Leaf house, lived in the finished basement, had 24-hour access to the house through a key and a security code. He changed his driver’s license to reflect the Broad Leaf address. Whether a traditional or nontraditional residence, the Commission’s factual determination that the Broad Leaf house was White’s residence from June 1, 2009 to June 1, 2010, is not arbitrary or capricious and the trial court erred in reversing. The Commission’s determination finds support in this Court’s jurisprudence as well. (citations omitted)
At trial, the jury was instructed to rely solely on White's "true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence; and to which the person has , whenever absent, the intention of returning” as the definition of residence for both his voter registration and ballot casting. In his reply brief in White's appeal of his criminal convictions, the Attorney General concedes the existence of statutory and case law defining the varying legal standards that are to be applied in determining a person's residence as argued by White. Nonetheless, he argued that the narrow instruction the trial court provided to the jury in White's case was "accurate, broadly applicable, and could be understood by the jurors." A more detailed instruction that would have allowed the jurors to consider the varying standards would have only "confused" the jurors he argues, and it was an objection White's attorney, Carl Brizzi, had failed to preserve for appeal the Attorney General argues. The convictions based on the jury instruction on the narrow definition of residence can only be overturned if the appellate court finds that the trial court committed fundamental error because of Brizzi's failure to preserve his objection to the jury instruction.

Similarly, the Attorney General is dismissive of White's claims that jurors were incorrectly instructed on the application of the vote fraud statutes, which make it a crime to fraudulently complete voter registration applications or cast ballots fraudulently. Jurors were instructed that the applicable statutes applied to a single voter registration application or a single ballot despite the fact the statute was written in the plural to apply to "applications" or "ballots." The Attorney General's brief in the Recount Commission case emphasized the fact there was no question that White was entitled to register to vote in Hamilton County and was in fact a registered voter at all applicable times in that country. Yet the Attorney General claims it would be absurd to think the legislature only meant to prosecute people for vote fraud if they completed more than one voter registration application or cast more than one ballot.

The overriding purpose of the voter registration laws is to ensure the constitutional principle of one man, one vote. How can you convict White of two felony counts of vote fraud and two felony counts of perjury for registering in a precinct in the same town within the same county and casting a single ballot in one election when the Attorney General concedes he was a legally registered voter of that town and county entitled to cast a vote on the basis that he should have registered and voted in a different precinct than he was registered and voted? Does that not fly in the face of the Attorney General's previous argument that our election laws are to be "liberally construed" to "prevent disenfranchisement"? Is that the form of vote fraud the legislature intended that persons could be prosecuted for when they enacted those laws? I think not. Lest we forget that the Marion Co. Election Board determined that former Sen. Richard Lugar had illegally registered and cast ballots repeatedly from an address at which he had no legal claim for arguing was his legal residence for 35 years. Was he prosecuted? Absolutely not. In fact, this same Attorney General actually defended Lugar's clearly illegal voter registration as legal.

Other arguments proffered by the Attorney General in his brief are equally as concerning. White was found guilty of felony perjury for listing the Broad Leaf address instead of the Overview Drive address on the marriage license application he completed for the Hamilton Co. Clerk's Office. The Attorney General agrees that White was a resident of Hamilton Co. when he completed the marriage license application but that he made a material misrepresentation on the application by listing the Broad Leaf address as his residence. The Attorney General cites no cases in support of its argument that a person's address on a marriage license application can be the basis for finding a person guilty of perjury but chides White for not providing any cited cases for the proposition that his county of residence was the material information requested, not a more exacting, "true, fixed and permanent" address at which he resided. I venture to guess that many unmarried persons shacking up prior to their marriage use different addresses on their marriage license application, none of whom are ever prosecuted for having done so.

The marriage application also asks for your place of birth. Undocumented aliens are allowed to marry in Indiana despite their illegal status; however, it would not surprise me if some of them misrepresent their place of birth, which the license also requests, due to the misapprehension that their license application will be turned down if they were born outside the country and aren't either a lawful permanent resident or legally visiting the country. The primary purpose of the marriage license application is to establish that applicants are who they represent themselves to be, and that they are legally eligible to marry. Logic would dictate to me that the use of aliases, misrepresentations of dates of birth and one's marital status are the only material misrepresentations that lawmakers contemplated could serve as the basis for a criminal charge arising out of the completion of a marriage license application.

Another felony conviction White is appealing is a theft conviction regarding the fact that he drew a paycheck as a Fishers town council member during a several month period after he had moved out of the district from which he was elected to serve before he resigned from the council. White was elected at-large by all residents of Fishers, although he represented a geographically-defined district. Although White returned the salary he earned during the months he continued to draw after he moved out of his district, the attorney for the Fisher's town council argued that he was under no obligation to return it. White had continued attending meetings and otherwise fulfilling his statutory duties. The town council never exercised its authority under state law to remove him from office, and nobody initiated a quo warranto action seeking a judicial determination that he was not eligible to hold the office to which he had been elected and duly sworn in. White relies on case law that holds that a person holding office under color of law is a de facto elected official entitled to exercise his duties and receive compensation for his services even if later determined to be ineligible to hold office. The acts of a de facto elected official cannot be voided on the basis that a person was later determined to be ineligible to hold office.

This exact scenario has played out on multiple occasions in Indiana and elsewhere. No elected official has ever been charged and convicted of theft in Indiana on this basis prior to White's conviction. The Attorney General is correct in citing a state statute providing that a person is deemed to have vacated his office as a town council member when he ceases to be a resident of the district from which he was elected to serve. The Attorney General argues that White's office was vacant the day he moved out of the district because he forfeited the office under operation of law, and that he committed theft by continuing to draw his salary from that day forward. The Attorney General argues that a resolution of the town council declaring White's seat vacant or quo warranto action are merely alternative and not exclusive remedies that could have been undertaken to remove White from office.

Was Patrice Abduallah prosecuted for theft after he drew his $15,000 a year salary as an Indianapolis City-County Councilor for more than three and a half years before he resigned his office after this blog reported that he didn't reside in his district? Was he prosecuted for completing a voter application and casting a ballot from a home in which he did not reside? No on both counts. A city council member in Mitchell, who didn't even live within the municipal boundaries of the city let alone the district to which he was elected, successfully sued and won back the salary that had been withheld from him on the theory that he was a de facto council member until legally removed from office. I don't recall the Attorney General stepping in to argue otherwise in that case. Taking the Attorney General's argument at face value, Brownsburg town council member Rob Kendall, who has been accused of violating the state constitution's prohibition against holding more than one lucrative office at the same time, could be charged with theft because he continued drawing his town council salary after he accepted appointment to another lucrative office. That's because he would have been deemed to have vacated his town council seat the moment he became ineligible to serve as town council member after he began holding a subsequent lucrative office. It seems to me a civil, not a criminal remedy, has always been the rule in Indiana until White's case.

White's appeal raises a number of other issues that I've not discussed, including ineffective counsel by his attorney, Carl Brizzi, at trial, and prosecutorial misconduct. Despite acknowledging that Brizzi made prejudicial statements suggesting White's guilt during voir dire, failed to raise numerous objections and preserve issues for appeal, mistakenly failed to enter stipulated documents into the record because he was unaware stipulated evidence still had to be formally proffered at trial, and failed to offer any defense, including exculpatory evidence, the Attorney General argues that White was not the victim of ineffective counsel. In the Recount Commission case, the Attorney General argued there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's conclusion that White resided at Broad Leaf, even if as a "nontraditional residence." In the criminal case, the Attorney General argues that there wasn't sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to conclude White had intended to reside at Broad Leaf instead of Overview. Could that be due to the fact that his attorney neglected to offer the evidence that allowed the Commission to reach a different conclusion?

It is beyond me why the powers that be in this state cannot see beyond their hatred of Charlie White to see the long-term legal ramifications of allowing White's convictions to stand. The ACLU of Indiana gets all worked up about a law requiring voters to furnish a photo identification when they appear in person to vote on election day but is silent when those same voter registration laws are strictly applied to criminally prosecute a person who nobody questions was legally eligible to register and cast a vote in the town where he was residing in Indiana. The ACLU of Indiana gets all worked up about a state law that prevents same-sex couples from being allowed to be issued a marriage license legally recognizing their marriage in Indiana but is silent when someone legally entitled to marry in this state is prosecuted for a felony simply because the person listed one address in the same town instead of another address on his marriage application when nobody argues with the fact that the person had resided at both residences within that same county at different times. If White were black, gay, Jewish or Muslim instead of being a white male Christian, do you think the ACLU would have remained silent. I think not. Civil libertarians and fair-minded persons in the rest of Indiana's legal community should be ashamed of themselves for the absence they've taken from the outrageous and politically-driven prosecution of Charlie White.


Paul K. Ogden said...

As I recall, Zoeller's official opinion on Lugar never addresses precisely Lugar's situation where he sells a residence and then continues to claim residency at that home for the purpose of voting. He instead talks in generalities about residency and in the context of a Senator not losing his residency (actually the word is "inhabitant" in the Constitution)when he moves to Washington, DC to serve the State. I don't think his opinion was at all about voting.

Gary R. Welsh said...

You're wrong, Paul. He said that the home Lugar sold the year following his election to the U.S. Senate could continue to be used as his residence in Indiana even though he had abandoned any intent of returning to that residence once he sold it. His opinion was provided by Lugar's attorneys to the Marion Co. Election Board to support his argument that he could legally register to vote and cast ballots using that address despite the fact that he stopped living there in 1979 even when he returned home while the Senate was in recess. We even uncovered an old election board opinion crafted by Gordon Durnil which said Lugar could continue using that home as his voting address despite the fact that he no longer owned it. After the election board ruled his voter registration unlawful, he re-registered using the address of the house on his farm. That's exactly what Birch and Evan Bayh did to claim a voting residence in Indiana despite not having any actual fixed residence in Indiana at which they resided when they were in Indiana.

local landlord said...

Even though I often thought Charlie White behaved like a horse’s ass I don’t think he violated the spirit of any Indiana law. We do have ethically challenged politicians in Indiana. And we have ineffective counsel. And terrible Judges. This matter ought to be put behind us if anyone has any sense. Charlie White made everybody smile that such a buffoon could rise to such a political office, and he really opened our eyes to the bad lawyering skills of Carl Brizzi, and his case further challenged educated men and women to believe in the skills of our judiciary. But he was no criminal, and the suggestion he intentionally broke a law in voting truly reflects badly on our State judicial system, already a laughing stock.

Anonymous said...

The truth is Charlie White never lived at his ex-wife's home after he moved out in 2008 and divorced her. He never slept in the basement. The people that know are not talking and their original story and testimony to the Grand Jury has never been challenged in open court. Why? Because Brizzi found out they lied for him and would face perjury charges and jail time. Brizzi protected the wives, the White family at large and their son. The truth is Charlie lied. They all lied to the public and to the court. Brizzi found out and tried to minimize the damage by listing the family as defense witnesses so the prosecutors waited for the defense to present a case and call them up but Brizzi never mounted a defense and thus the family was not called to testify. White has turned on Brizzi as a way of getting out of this mess. There was a way out of this many years ago but not now because they have all lied so much.

Gary R. Welsh said...

The truth is that Brizzi represented Charlie's wife, Michelle, in the Recount Commission case. He reviewed her testimony in advance and advised her to testify to facts at the Recount Commission, which she did, as did Charlie's ex-wife. He waited until the week of the trial to talk to her again about her testimony. When she said that Charlie didn't "live there, live there" in reference to his ex-wife's home, Brizzi jumped on that as an excuse after the fact not to put her on the witness stand. He knew that she meant Charlie had not moved back in with her in hopes of reconciling. The Recount Commission accepted the plausibility of their testimony, which stood up under cross-examination by Democratic attorneys and members of the Recount Commission. If Brizzi didn't believe Michelle, he didn't believe her when he allowed her to testify at the Recount Commission. I watched him testify at the PC hearing. I observed his facial expressions and demeanor and observed a man being less than candid about why he made the trial decisions he made.

Charlie White said...

Lol. Wishful thinking of whatever buddy of CB is speaking for him. And btw, you even got the original year wrong! This is what happens when someone who is completely unprepared for trail and forgets about the law and does not interview witnesses does...panics at the last minute and blames everyone else. Michelle was asked only ONE question and said "lived there, live there in THAT SENSE and that I was not over there hanging out and eating dinner to reconcile with my former wife. (most of my dinners were at political events anyway) Carl asked an awkward question that made michelle think I went back to reconcile with my former wife. They like to act like an email from CB asking if I had scotch or bourbon (which I don't) the night bf proved cb came over the night bf trial and had a mtg with Michelle. I mean, who asks if someone has scotch or bourbon the night before the trial? Bopp actually did a REAL interview before the recount commission and said she did just fine. Btw, I hope this person knows the law bc it sounds a little like anon. Does not. Btw, remember CB is the guy who claims on the stand he has done hundreds of jury trials and this is the first one he lost. Really? Oh, btw, did CB "find" his email account he seems not know where it went in his deposition? I was shocked we were handing him his own emails and assumed he would read his own...I hope he did not delete his account. Btw, since we are all talking about "living, living", was brizzi " living w/ Durham and later in Hamilton Proper in Hamilton County with his fiancé at the time while he was still Marion County Prosecutor? I have a lot more I could say why don't u come out of hiding :) CW

Anonymous said...

Mr. White,

You should know there are Hoosiers out there who know you are innocent. The fact the media has treated you as a pariah and Dick Lugar, Mitch Daniels, and Evan Bayh are all guilty of far worse things than you have ever been accused of. I know this has been hard for you and your family. But people need you to stand strong and tell the real stories of the bi partisan cabal that is destroying this state. They can't silence the truth!

Anonymous said...

I doubt anyone will overturn 6 convictions after a judge has already denied White's appeal once. These judges, afterall, have to work with each other long after White disappears.

Someone else wrote that there was a solution to all this years ago. The first was that White, running for the job that oversees elections, should have known how to fill out a change of address form. The second comes from the GOP rumor mill that White was promised a job somewhere else if he stepped aside to allow the charges to be dropped. Don't know if that's true but it sounds like something that would be arranged. Sad he didn't take it. By now he probably would have been a shoe in for the next round of elections.

Charlie White said...

To Anon. 4:38pm.
LOL! I never once heard this! So if I didn't take the oath or step aside they would drop the charges!? I think there are some folks putting a pretty good 20/20 hindsight spin on that. I would like to know the name of the person who "offered" me this! Btw, are u trying to tell me an R insider had the power to "make" the 3 prosecutors and the dirty cop they picked to back off? I didn't realize they were the prosecutors "boss"?! Does this mean it's political and the guy "living" in Carmel and voting in Marion county could make it all end :) ? Seriously, this whole dropping the charges rumor NEVER happened...a lot of people asked me about it and presumed that... But when I said there was no such offer, they were a little speechless. All I know are the people who told my bud before the grand jury was even filed for that there would be a grand jury and that I would be indicted 3 months before the grand jury even met...oh and several specific threats against me and my happy I spent thousands of hours away from loved ones to help these folks attain power in the first place.

I know the law anon. 438 pm. Do you? One past sitting Secretary of State was sued over a residency issue and ridiculed and he won...and IC 3-5-5 was based in part on his case... You ought to read Hogsett's 2007 masters thesis...lays out the law very well... Just wish prosecutors had read it instead of winging it and picking their dirty ISP buddy to lie in his police report. I am sorry to hear you seem to have my future and my families future all figured out.

Btw, do you know who is in charge of the Indiana election commission, the agency with the real power (hint: it's NOT the the law...not PR)

Anonymous said...

If that really is Charlie White writing in response then he contradicts himself when he writes,"LOL! I never once heard this!" about the accusation that a job was offered if he resigned from SOS. He later writes in the same post:"Seriously, this whole dropping the charges rumor NEVER happened...a lot of people asked me about it and presumed that... But when I said there was no such offer, they were a little speechless."

So if this really is White posting then he needs to check his own memory. Perhaps this is why he got into trouble. He can't keep his story straight.

It's true that other officials have had suspicious residency issues. Namely, the former Governor who also appointed and had final approval of the Purdue board that later hired him. But if they all do it then why go after White? Why go after one of their own? Regardless, you can't break the law just because others break the law. Some of us learned that in preschool.

If that really is Charlie White writing these posts is it wise to accuse an ISP trooper of being a "dirty cop"?

Charlie White said...

Anon 8:07: As to 1st point, have you ever heard of "sarcasm"? ISP Hansard is a dirty cop, hand selected by the same dirty prosecutor who picked his man-child to join the trophy hunt. I have his ridiculous deposition we took last year. We have a lot more info about the pre-Carter era ISP and its not pretty (glad Doug demoted some of the dirtbags). My point all along is that the residency standards in IC 3-5-5 and the legal standards in Bayh, Evrard, Croop v. Walton, Bruns and Culbertson cases need to be used for everyone, rich, poor, republican or democrat. You don't trash all the law we have been using for years for one person and replace it with bombastic rhetoric and legally undefined words along with the roaring applause of "groupthink" media that just want to be entertained...those three prosecutors would be laughed out of the Indiana Election Commission if they tried to make the same arguments on a candidacy contest. No one is above the law, but no one should be put "below" it either.

Anonymous said...

Mr. White, if that is you, your sarcasm in lost on any intelligent reader. You seem to be living, or at least behaving, in an irrational state of mind.

If you have proof of illegal activity on the part of law enforcement you have a moral and ethical responsibility to report it. If you have proof of any crime against you or any citizen you have a moral and ethical responsibility as a citizen to report it. I fear, however, that whatever information you think you have you are keeping to use against those individuals for your own personal gain either in court or in the public/media domain. To do this makes you no better than your accusers and much worse. They at least charged you with crimes in public and were forced to give you a fair hearing. Whether or not you chose a good lawyer or a bad layer is a matter of debate and will be decided by the outcome of your appeal.

In your responses on this page you have challenged others to as to whether or not they know the law. It seems appropriate to remind other readers that the Indiana State Supreme Court took away your own license to practice law. If one does a little digging on you one finds that your convictions and convoluted personal life are the tip of the iceberg. Stories abound about your drunkenness in public, failed law practice before politics, and failure to pass the state bar for your license to practice law.

If one digs further your recent blog and twitter account reveal further shortcomings. Accusing Gov. Pence of campaign violations while excusing yourself of any involvement because your were just 20 years old and their is no one to call or report it to anyway is a flimsy defense. And what are these cryptic messages on twitter and your blog about knowing much more about others, etc.? If you have knowledge of a crime you are bound by common decency to report it. On one final note, the Star and other papers implied that you are re-inventing yourself as some sort of citizen advocate and your twitter background is of Christian Bale, the actor in a Batman costume. Do you see yourself as some kind of vigilante for justice? You have six felony conviction with pending appeals. Perhaps you should re-think your intent with all of this.

Gary R. Welsh said...

In fairness to Charlie, he has filed a federal civil rights complaint, which maintains that he was prosecuted as a class of one in applying Indiana's voter registration laws. I know that most politicians in this state who speak candidly about Charlie's situation agree that he got treated differently than everyone else, and while they agree he was treated unfairly, most are afraid to speak up about their true feelings for fear of retribution.

Anonymous said...

Must be nice to kick someone like Charlie White who was an easy target when I knew him and no doubt remains so. It should be noted that Mr White only engaged in this thread when an allusion was made to mass perjury by his family members. Whether the anon poster speaks the truth or not I do not know. What I do know is that whoever anon is they hit a nerve which is why Charlie has apparently responded. To what end did it serve anon other than to give your wittle ego a boost?

Charlie, if that is, in fact, you. Don't respond to this thread again and just let things be adjuciated. People like anon aren't worth crawling into the gutter. You do seem distraught with your responses. No reasonable person could blame you for being distraught after what the last few years has brought you. Just walk away. Loyalty in politics is a one way street that you've found out the hard way. Enjoy the rest of your days in peace. Pax tecum.

Charlie White said...

Anon. 7:05. You should reveal your identity to might explain some things. Anon 705 presumes that the law got into the jury's hands..a monkey can lie about the law by replacing it with rhetoric and secure convictions...especially something as contextual as domicile. If you get convicted, the IDC had to suspend me for now...they did not judge the merits...I just appreciate the fact they stayed other proceedings until my appeal is done.
First, I passed the bar on the first the letter and was sworn in October of 1995. My divorce law practice did not "fail". Two people I loved very much died within a few months of each other (1 of them I witnessed), and my parents had a tough divorce...all at the same time. After an attorney had a stroke before a hearing we had, I decided I simply could not do divorce and child custody cases anymore, I wanted to do something different, and I had too much empathy for these folks and could not just "turn it off" like others could. As for calling someone to report something...if you see a "normal" crime, typically cops will do something. Crime for politicians and white collar folks, however, you will find that the calls get directed to non-law enforcement so they can fix, cover up and send "messages" to the caller to be quiet. Later in life I tried to call about various things and the phenomenon happened almost every time. A political bigwig has already made a comment about "locking me up" last week...nice...thought we had 1st amendment rights. I will be gracious and not mention their name..for now...unless I hear another threat like that again. I have said on Twitter ISP Doug carter demoted many of the worst people at ISP and am happy about that even though there is more work to do. The pre-Doug carter ISP is another story. I have the deposition and the documents from dirty ISP Hansard. The worst thing for the bad guys is that I became friends with others, including a former ISP anti- public corruption commander who also did internal investigations...during the Carraway and Whitesell era , who also worked with FBI and US Marsahll office. I have plenty of info put together...but I am working off my schedule..not yours anon 7:05. As to "public drunkenness", besides all the hundreds of people I know at the same events, I guess on any given night years ago you could've locked the whole room up...but I wasn't "known" for that. . If you tell me your name Anon, , I can share my recollections of u and of your friends. As to "convoluted" comment: Anyone who really knew my life then would not call it "convoluted" unless they are a judgmental person who thinks they are "perfect", we did everything we could for the best interest of my son and my then fiancé's my own inconvenience. If u tell me your name I will tell you which of your associates have REAL personal marital issues. I identify with Christopher Nolan's adaptation of Bruce Wayne (as well as teddy Roosevelt's life) when the trilogy started in 2005 because Bale's portrayal of how he dealt with personal loss on a daily basis as a child and then later in life. Since I am out of politics, I can be more candid and detailed in the future on how personal loss, not power or money, was source of my motivation, anger, my sense of empathy and the sort of ethos I wanted to rebuild in the party. I am sure is wil spark some discussion.