CORRUPTION IN INDIANAPOLIS COURTS: VAWA USED AS POLITICAL TAKEDOWN
To the surprise of no one, the judicial election process in Indianapolis / Marion County was found by the federal 7th Circuit court to be unconstitutional (Common Cause v. Secretary of State, 1:12-CV-1603). My case is a stellar example of the corruption that has grown under a system in which judges are slated by the political parties [i.e., appointed in exchange for a five-figure slating fee] and presented on the ballot to voters as the winner before the election occurs.
My journey began when I participated in the grassroots uprising in response to out-of-control property taxes in 2007. As retribution for my campaigning against various politicians, my now-ex wife was aided in making false and exaggerated domestic violence charges which in turn aided her divorce petition. I have thus been alienated from my 10 year old daughter for the last six years.
I will never forget the sound of the police handcuffs ratcheting shut behind me and the feel of the cold metal on my wrists. My only thought as I sat in the police cruiser for over an hour in full view of all the neighbors, followed by the paddy wagon ride to the arrestee processing center, was: How am I going to protect my daughter from my wife’s abuse?
I was dumbfounded: I was being arrested in my own home! Even now, years later, it still seems surreal: after months of my desperately trying to hold my marriage together in the face of constant brinkmanship and provocations, and my wife getting us evicted and daring me to report her abuse of our child to CPS, and finally attempting to get my then-four-year-old daughter to authorities while the red marks were still fresh on her body, I was arrested and charged with felony domestic battery.
(
This audio/video is taken from the full audio/video exhibit of my then-wife verbally and physically abusing our then-four-year-old daughter. I submitted this exhibit to three different courts and child protective services, and judges have rejected this evidence and have given my ex-wife full custody while limiting, and then eliminating, any time with my daughter. The photos are (1) the police photo taken at the time of my arrest by the police, and (2) the photo taken by the prosecutor to fake injury for the judge.
VAWABUSE: THE 80% RULE
Even one instance of domestic violence is too many. Women are the primary instigators of domestic violence, while men are the primary victims of DV arrests – and there’s no excuse. The fastest growing domestic violence statistic is women who make exaggerated, and even outright false, accusations against men in order to further their divorce, asset retention and child custody proceedings. Divorce lawyers refer to DV charges as the “silver bullet” against fathers which ensure that mothers get the money, the house, and the kids.
Men are arrested in about 80% of DV incidents [SAVE Services, “Unequal Justice in the Criminal Justice System,” www.saveservices.org]; women instigate over 70% of domestic violence incidents [Harvard University study, published in American Journal of Public Health, “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence”]; mothers get child custody and child support funds more than 80% of the time [U.S. Census Bureau, “Custody Breakdown by Sex,” www.census.gov]; and about 80% of divorces are filed by women [U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Census Bureau, et. al.].
I was ensnared in legal quicksand in which women have an array of private and public resources at their disposal and men are guilty until proven innocent. I’ve learned the hard way that there are powerful monetary and political interests aligned against fathers and strong incentives to create and perpetuate the epidemic of fatherless children.
THE ONE PERCENT
The process of electing judges in Indianapolis, Indiana is amazingly unconstitutional. A federal judge recently ruled on what we’ve known for a long time. For example, the judge on my case “won” his election in 2014 with ONE PERCENT of the vote. 1.25 percent, to be exact; he received 81,420 votes from 650,472 registered voters. In all fairness, less than one-quarter of voters bothered to go to the polls, which bumps his “victory” total to 5% of votes cast. After the initial judge on my case recused citing conflict of interest, my current judge clearly stated his bias against me as a pro se litigant at my first hearing, and even refused my exhibit documenting my ex-wife’s abuse of our child. I appealed his ruling, and the Appellate Court declared that he “abused his discretion,” and that his ruling was “erroneous, internally inconsistent and in contravention of statutory authority,” and reversed and remanded. The judge’s response was to have my ex-wife make up “facts” which contradicted the actual facts, and the Appellate Court mysteriously reversed itself on my second appeal by violating its own rules (specifically regarding the court’s own record) – coincidentally in the judge’s election year. I was consistently blocked from being named a Precinct Committeeman in an open slot, and the judge then won with one percent of the vote. And, my second judge and my first judge, both of whom recused from my case citing violations of Indiana’s judicial ethics code, conduct joint political fundraisers together, and my now-third judge, also coincidentally a Democrat, ruled in the case that legislators’ emails on State-owned equipment are not subject to open records laws.
