« Ethanol and Social-Host Liability--Posner's Replies to Comments | Main | Advertising and Product Information-Becker »

11/04/2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef013482fe0d0c970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notice:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Pierre Q. Pullins Unsucessful Congressional Candidate 7th District Indiana

My Thoughts on the Voter I.D. Case from Indiana(Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the 2006 Congressional Election for the Seventh District in Indiana, Election Fraud,the Media in Indianapolis and Judicial Misconduct.

This is my view.

I believe that the State of Indiana deliberately misled the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in presenting their argument for the Indiana's Voter I.D. law. I don't believe that U.S.Rep.Julia M. Carson received 29,305 votes in the 2006 primary and I don't believe she received more votes than her (black) Republican challenger in the November 2006 general election. I also believe that the Indianapolis Star (Gannett) and the African-American oriented "newspaper", the Indianapolis Recorder "newspaper",which is run by State Representative Carolene Mays-D;(and you know what she's doing with that newspaper)ran a voter supression scheme against me in April of 2006 when both newspaper's deliberately left out the felonious backgrounds of two Democrats running in that primary race. At the time I ran for Congress in 2006, the court file concerning my son had been missing for about a year, and it is still missing! Doris Anne Sadler -R, was the Clerk of the Marion Superior Court at that time, and she was running the elections was also responsible for my court file. In May, 2005, the then presiding judge of the Marion Superior Court, Judge Cale Bradford, recused himself and the entire Marion Superior Court from hearing my case because I sued him and several judges in federal court in Indianapolis. (Pullins v. Gooden, et al 1:05-cv-746-SEB-VSS)My court file was supposed to be sent over to the Indiana Supreme Court to be reassigned to another judge in another county. The court file never made it over to the Supreme Court. I believe Supreme Court officials-and Chief Justice Randall Shepard-know this. From the case activity report, we can see that on 9/28/06 Judge Bradford made a false entry into the court recorder: "OTHER 05/16/02 CAUSE DISPOSED BY BENCH TRIAL CASE STATUS IS CHANGED FROM OPEN TO DISPOSED." Then days later on October 3, 2006, the Marion County Prosecutor, Carl Brizzi (who I sued in 2005 along with Bradford and others) threw an unecessary child support enforcement action at me. That was coordinated. Later, in November or December of 2006, Bradford swore Brizzi in as Prosecutor after he barely won the election for the Marion County Prosecutor. That office hold supeona power over the Legislature which is located in Indianapolis.

The Voter I.D. Case

The State of Indiana should have went further in its argument in support of Indiana's Voter I.D. law. The State of Indiana should have cited the election of U.S. Representative Julia M. Carson as proof that the law did not negatively affect turnout in that race. In 2004, a presidential election year with voters still hot about 2000, Julia M. Carson scored 30,915 votes-with only one other person running against her- in the primary and then went on garner 121,303 votes in the 2004 general election. Now in 2006, with the strictest voter I.D. law in the nation, a non-presidential election year (less people should be voting), four other persons running against her (a five-way race), howls about her health and with Doris Anne Sadler (Clerk hiding my court file along with Judge Cale Bradford) running the election; and the Marion County Democratic Party Chairman, Ed Treacy, angry that persons showed up to challenge Carson, she does 29,305 votes! That's near presidential primary election strength. The reason the State of Indiana didn't use those results to bolster their argument in support of the voter I.D. law, is because I believe they (Sec of State Rokita and A.G. Carter)know those election results are not true. Period. Respectfully to Judge Evans, he should compare Carson's 2006 election results with the 2002 election result, non-presidential years. Both results are nearly identical. Oh, and we had missing voting machine cards in the 2006 general election. Now, if these results were used in their argument, would the Seventh Circuit vote have been 3-0? If so, would the Supreme Court have granted cert.?Who knows? Maybe not. What would the Democrats have said? What will the State of Indiana say when one of the Supreme Court Justices ask, "What about the election numbers in the 2006 Congressional race in which Julia Carson seemed to do so well?" They better have an answer.

The Media

The news media in Indianapolis is the best argument for not giving the industry a federal media shield law. Both the Indianapolis Star and Indianapolis Recorder routinely feed the public disinformation in order to affect that ballot box. It is horrible. I watch daily how the Indianapolis Star promotes certain individuals in the paper. But I wonder if what the Indianapolis Recorder did was a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In April, 2006 State Representative Carolene Mays' "newspaper" deliberately did not tell its readers that two convicted felons were running in that primary race. Since the Recorder is geared toward the black community, was that a suppression scheme by her and the Marion County Democratic Party to supress votes for me among the African American community using disinformation? Is that legal? I don't think so. I believe it violates the 1965 Voting Rights Acts.

The Judiciary in Indianapolis

It is probably the most dishonorable group of judges this side of the Mississippi River. Case in point: I sued the Indianapolis Recorder starting in October, 2006. I sought leave to amend my complaint when it donned on me what really occured-not just libel days before an election, but voter supression schemes and illegal campaign ads. The Court in January, 2007 relieved the Recorder of having to respond until they received an amended complaint. For nearly a year, there was action. I did not file an amended complaint and neither the Court (Judge Gerald Zore) nor the Recorder (Barnes and Thornburg) moved for dismissal of the suit. In September, 2007 I contacted the FEC about an illegal campaign ad that appeared in the Indianapolis Recoder in late April, 2006 in which a group calling itself the "Concerned Clergy Inc." placed an ad expressly endorsing Julia Carson for federal elected office and others for other positions and judgeships. The also carried no disclaimer! It was this summer's Supreme Court ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life; or wahtever, that caused me to go back and look at that paper all over again. Once the Federal Election Commission placed the ad under review, MUR 5938, the Recorder immediately moved for dismissal under the Indiana Retraction Statute I.C. 34-15-4-2 and Indiana's Anti-SLAPP law I.C 34-7-7-1. As most of you in the legal community already know, a motion to dismiss under 34-7-7 is to be treated as a motion for summary judgment. In a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party has thirty (30) days to respond. Under I.C. 34-7-7-3 or -4, one of those sections, the trial judge is supposed to set out a schedule not to exceed 180 days etc. Since I am a pro se litigant, the Court and the Defendants' attorney, Jan M. Carroll took liberties with me that they would not have with another member of the bar. It appears that the Court would hand the orders to the Defendant's attorney, then Defendant's attorney would then send my the order in a plain white envelope, no return address and the metered dated missing. This happened and I had less than ten (10) days to respond to their motion to dismiss and respond to the hearing on Friday October 26, 2007. From the time the Recorder filed their motion to dismiss which appears on October 3, 2007 (who knows), the whole process took less than twenty three days to get it dismissed.That's error on its face! With that case wrapped up, Jan Carroll was free to accompany her husband, U.S. District Court Judge John Daniel Tinder to Washington D.C. to watch the Judiciary Committee vote on his nomination which to place on or about November 3, 2007. Now, I have to file a motion to correct and go through the appellate process.

The U.S. Attorney In Indianapolis

She quit. The aforementioned paragraphs is why. But Susan Brooks didn't go work for a prestigeous lawfirm making several hundreds of thousnands of dollars a years. The Governor (Mitch Daniels) got her a job over at Ivy Tech Community College as the general counsel- with a "role that is to be defined" Brooks quits fifteen months before her term is over. Is this so she didn't have to initiate any investigations or prosecutions? I think it was the exact reason she quit. I believe they got her job to thwart a prosecution. The acting U.S. Attorney, Tim Morrision, is not going to do anything. They all know each other and protect each other. Oh, and remember Judge Cale Bradford, the judge that did something with my court file and made false entries into the court record? the Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, appointed him to an appellate position. So he's now on the Appeals Court of Indiana-the place where my appeal is headed! And not a word of this in the Indianapolis Star.

In Summary, not one judge in this town-state or federal should be appointed to any appellate or federal judgeship until this matter is investigated. By the justice department and the Congress

Respectfully Submitted,

Pierre Pullins
Indianapolis, Indiana
November, 2007

Anders Bergman

In Sweden it is unlawful to let a guest drive off if intoxicated, you would be an accomplice to driving under the influence

Jon

Professors,

Might I suggest a possible topic? In the debate going on between Professor Mankiw's op-ed on health care in the US and some of the rebuttals to it, much of the debate focused on life expectancy as being a way to measure health care outcomes.

This seems to be an inadequate unit of measurement, as life expectancy will be impacted in substantive ways by cultural and behavioral differences, and not just the provision of health care.

Yet in a lot of the arguments used against Prof Mankiw, life expectancy was the primary measurement used to criticize US health care policy with.

It would be an interesting blog topic to discuss the difficulties with measuring health care outcomes specifically, or measurinng the results of public policy in general, given how many variables are in play.

Anonymous


thanks for your post.perhaps you will like ed hardy

Anonymous

مركز تحميل

Anonymous

thanks
بنت الزلفي

Anonymous

Thanks For Your post.
Abercrombie|

Anonymous

Links London
i'm glad to see this post

Anonymous

tiffany

Anonymous

tiffany

Anonymous

العاب
___
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

Anonymous

ÿßÿ®ÿ±ÿßÿ¨
___
دليل

Anonymous

العاب
___
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

Anonymous

You site gives people fresh views. But we know all about cloths that need help getting stain out of.
I am from Bahrain and now teach English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "From quilts, comforter sets, total bedding and selection of comforter sets."

Thank you so much for your future answers :p. Malinda.

Anonymous

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

Anonymous

thanks for your
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

Anonymous

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Anonymous

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Anonymous

I want to say - thank you for this!

Anonymous

I want to say - thank you for this!

Anonymous

Great site. Good info.

Anonymous

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Anonymous

دردشة برق


دردشة الخليج

Anonymous

Great. Now i can say thank you!

Anonymous

bEWwg1 Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31