-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Man removed by PD for carrying at St. Joe County polls
- Thread starter bobcoop06
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
GREAT quote from Clay:
"The Right to Vote, and the right to Keep and Bear Arms are not mutually exclusive."
Like the quote but don't particularly care for the way they phrased the first sentence of the opening paragraph.
Made it sound like Clay was trying to bring a gun into the polls for some nefarious reason. Typical media BS.
Made it sound like Clay was trying to bring a gun into the polls for some nefarious reason. Typical media BS.
Like the quote but don't particularly care for the way they phrased the first sentence of the opening paragraph.
Made it sound like Clay was trying to bring a gun into the polls for some nefarious reason. Typical media BS.
Better than the other articles "Man tests Indiana gun law at polling place" bs
I always have my gun with me...
How do you test something that is lawful?
GuyRelford
Master
Yes.
Guy-
Without disclosing anything about this case, strategy, or anything sensitive...why does one pursue this course of action? Maybe because the prosecutor will not take action?
I am shamelessly and unapologetically stealing this.. lol
SirRealism
Master
- Nov 17, 2008
- 1,779
- 38
Dang, you weren't kidding. Plagiarist.
GuyRelford
Master
Here is our filing. Of course the formatting is all fouled up because it's a cut-and-paste (I don't know why that happens), but you get the idea.
VERIFIEDPETITION REQUESTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A
SPECIALPROSECUTOR
Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger, bycounsel, pursuant to Ind. Code §33-39-1-6(b)(2), hereby petitions a judge ofthe Circuit or Superior Court of St. Joseph County, Indiana, for the appointmentof a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether violations of Indiana law have beencommitted by employees and/or agents of the St. Joseph County PoliceDepartment, the St. Joseph County Election Board, the St. Joseph County FireDepartment, the Warren Township Fire Department, the St. Joseph County Clerk’sOffice, and/or other persons yet to be identified, for the reasons set forthbelow.
I. Petitioner
Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger(“Petitioner”), is a citizen of the United States and a resident of St. JosephCounty, Indiana. Petitioner isregistered to vote in St. Joseph County, Indiana. He has been married for eight years and hasthree children.
Petitioner is currently a studentcompleting his second year of a Master of Divinity degree in Chaplain Studiesat Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He recently served six and one half years inthe United States Marine Corps, reaching the rank of Captain before beinghonorably discharged in July of 2009. Hecompleted a tour of Iraq in 2005. Petitioner was commissioned an Ensign in theUnited States Navy in March of 2011 under the Chaplain Candidate Program.
Petitioner possesses a valid Licenseto Carry Handgun issued by the Superintendant of the Indiana State Police infull compliance with Ind. Code §35-47-2-3. Petitioner has devoted considerable time andeffort in studying both Indiana and federal laws as they relate to theownership and possession of firearms.
II. FactualBackground.
On May 8, 2012, primary electionswere conducted in St. Joseph County and overseen by the St. Joseph CountyElection Board. At approximately 9:40a.m. on May 8, 2012, Petitioner arrived at his designated polling station, theWarren Township Fire Station #2, located at 59330 Crumstown Highway, NorthLiberty, IN, 46554. At the time thatPetitioner arrived at the polling station, and consistent with his dailypractice, Petitioner had in his possession a legally-owned handgun in aretention holster on his belt. He alsohad in his possession his valid Indiana License to Carry Handgun.
Petitionerentered the “chute” of the polling station and handed his valid Indiana driver’slicense to a St. Joseph County poll worker who is currently unidentified. The poll worker accepted the Petitioner’s driver’slicense and began to look up Petitioner’s name in the roll of registeredvoters.
St.Joseph County Police Officer T. Vanoverbergh (who is also reportedly employed bythe St. Joseph County Fire Department and/or the Warren Township FireDepartment) approached Petitioner and informed him that he “could not have agun in the building.” Petitioner inquired as to the authority thatOfficer Vanoverbergh was relying upon to make that statement. Officer Vanoverberghrespondedwith various and conflicting answers, including: a) “It’s against my policy because I’m incharge here;” b) “It’s against Warren Township policy to havea gun in a fire station;” c) “Federal law prohibits guns in pollingplaces;” d) “It’s illegal to ‘opencarry’ in Indiana;” e) “State law prohibitsguns in fire stations;” and f) “State law prohibits guns at polling places.”
Officer Vanoverbergh then orderedPetitioner to leave the polling station and Petitioner complied by walkingoutside the building. Petitionerrequested Officer Vanoverbergh to call a supervisor. Officer Vanoverbergh then informed Petitionerthat other members of the St. Joseph County Police Department were already inroute to the polling station at the request of Officer Vanoverbergh.
Thereafter, St. Joseph County PoliceOfficer Banicki arrived and informed Petitioner that the reasons that OfficerVanoverbergh had refused to allow Petitioner to vote were valid and that Petitionercould not vote while in possession of a firearm. Officer Banicki also informed Petitioner thatif Petitioner persisted in his attempts to vote without relinquishing hisfirearm, Banicki would “revoke your permit on the spot, confiscate your handgunand force you to appeal that decision in Indianapolis.”
Another member of the St. JosephCounty Fire Department then approached with a laptop computer and stated thathe was attempting to identify a law that Petitioner was violating by notconcealing his handgun and/or possessing a firearm at a polling place and/or possessinga firearm at a fire station. No such lawwas identified by that individual.
Sgt. K. Glueckert of the St. JosephCounty Police Department then arrived and took possession of Petitioner’s Licenseto Carry Handgun and Indiana driver’s license. Sgt. Glueckert eventually received word, reportedly from an attorney atthe St. Joseph County Election Board, that Ind. Code §35-47-2 prohibited Petitionerfrom carrying a firearm in a polling station. Petitioner knew that said statute was entirely inapplicable to thecircumstances, but complied with the various orders that he not enter thepolling station to vote.[1]
Later in the day, Petitionerconfirmed that Ind. Code §35-47-2 did not prevent him from carrying a firearmat a polling station or a fire station and returned to the polling station atapproximately 5:40 p.m. in another attempt to exercise his legal right to vote. As Petitioner approached the building, thepoll inspector, Mr. Gus Tillman, was standing at the door, blocking the wayinside the polling station. Petitioner statedto Mr. Tillman, “I’d like to vote tonight. Will you let me do that?” Mr.Tillman responded, “I cannot let you come in. I had the election board call me. I cannot let you come in.”
Afew minutes later, Officer Chuck Flanagan of the St. Joseph County Police Departmentarrived and approached Petitioner. OfficerFlanagan informed Petitioner that he could not vote while carrying ahandgun. At that point, Petitioner again left thepremises, having again been prevented from exercising his legal right to vote.
Basedupon statements made at the scene and in media interviews by OfficerVanoverbergh and others, the St. Joseph County Clerk’s Office and the St.Joseph County Election Board were involved in the decision to deny Petitioner’sright to vote on May 8, 2012.
III. Overview of Legal Issues.
AnIndiana citizen’s right to vote is guaranteed by Article II, Section 2 of theConstitution of the State of Indiana:
Failure to receive vote of legal voter
Sec.9. A person who knowingly fails toreceive the vote of a legal voter at an election commits a Class D felony.
Ind.Code §3-14-3-9 (emphasis added).
Voter intimidation
Sec. 21.5. A person who knowingly orintentionally intimidates, threatens, orcoerces an individual for:
(1)voting or attempting to vote;
(2) urging or aiding another individualto vote or attempt to vote; or
(3) exercisingany power or duty under this title concerning registration or voting;
commits voter intimidation, a Class D felony.
Ind.Code §3-14-3-9 (emphasis added).
Inaddition, contrary to the assertions of the various individuals from St. JosephCounty, there is absolutely no State, Federal or local authority that preventedPetitioner from possessing a legally-owned and legally-carried handgun while atthe polling station. Subsequentstatements to the media indicate that those individuals now admit that fact.
Indeed,any local ordinance and/or regulation adopted or enforced by St. Joseph Countyis void and unenforceable under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act, Ind. Code §35-47-11.1-1,et seq., which prohibits politicalsubdivisions (such as St. Joseph County) from regulating firearms – includingthe carrying of firearms.[2]
Asa result, there was no valid legal justification for any of the St. JosephCounty authorities present at the polling station to interfere withPetitioner’s legal right to vote. Similarly, those authorities had no legal justification for conditioningPetitioner’s right to vote on the involuntary relinquishment of his legal rightto carry a firearm.[3] YetPetitioner was threatened with arrest and/or the revocation of his IndianaLicense to Carry Handgun and he was intimidated into leaving the pollingstation without exercising his Constitutionally-protected right to vote.
Importantly,to the extent that the St. Joseph County Election Board has created a newqualification for the right to vote in St. Joseph County (the relinquishment ofthe Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms), any such qualification isinconsistent with federal law, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42U.S.C. §1973C(a), et seq., whichmandates a very specific procedure for the adoption of new legal restrictionson the qualification to vote.
IV. TheNeed for a Special Prosecutor
Thismatter involves the actions of various governmental employees of St. JosephCounty, including the St. Joseph County Police Department. In addition, the officials present at thepolling station on May 8, 2012, made several telephone calls outside thepresence of Petitioner during their investigation into whether Petitioner couldbe charged with a crime and/or denied the right to vote. As stated, infra at p. 4, n.1, Petitioner does not know with certainty whetherthe St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office was contacted during thisinvestigation and/or whether the prosecutor’s office was involved in thedecision to deny Petitioner his Constitutionally-protected right to vote. If the prosecutor’s office was involved, itclearly creates an actual conflict of interest in investigating and/orprosecuting this matter.
Asstated in Ind. Code §33-39-1-6(b)(2), a judge of the circuit or superior courtmay appoint a special prosecutor “if a person files a verified petitionrequesting the appointment of a special prosecutor,” and the court, afternotice is given to the prosecuting attorney and an evidentiary hearing isconducted, “finds by clear and convincing evidence that the appointment isnecessary to avoid an actual conflict of interest.” Id.
The prosecutingattorney may also agree that a special prosecutor is needed. See Ind.Code §33-39-1-6(b)(1)(B).
In this matter, if itis revealed at an evidentiary hearing that the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’sOffice participated in the interference with Petitioner’s legal right to vote,a clear conflict of interest would exist. As such, consistent with Ind. Code §33-39-1-6, a Special Prosecutor wouldbe needed in order to avoid an actual conflict of interest and/or theappearance of impropriety in the investigation and/or prosecution of thismatter.
GuyA. Relford
Attorneyfor Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger
AttorneyNo. 6450-49
The Law Offices of Guy A. Relford
4181 First Flight Circle
Zionsville, IN 46077
(317) 450-8252
(317) 873-9193 (facsimile)
grelford@global-lit.com
ClayC. Edinger, having first been duly sworn upon his oath, under penalties forperjury, hereby verifies and affirms that the factual statements contained inthe foregoing Verified Petition Requesting the Appointment of a SpecialProsecutor are true, based on knowledge and belief.
ClayC. Edinger
State of Indiana )
) SS:
County of St.Joseph )
Clay C. Edingerpersonallyappeared before me, , a duly authorized Notary Public for theState of Indiana, on this 11th day of May, 2012, and verified the foregoing VerifiedPetition Requesting the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor, after having beenduly sworn upon his oath.
NotaryPublic
SEAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifiesthat the foregoing Verified Petition for the Appointment of a SpecialProsecutor was served this 11th day of May, 2012, by hand delivery,upon Michael Dvorak, Prosecutor, 60th Judicial Circuit (St. Joseph County),Indiana, 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, IN 46601
GuyA. Relford
[1] Petitioner was detained for a total of ninety (90)minutes while the authorities present were investigating whether he could bearrested for possessing his firearm on the premises and/or whether he could bedenied his right to vote. It ispresently unknown with certainty by Petitioner whether the officials present atthe polling station contacted the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office duringtheir inquiry; however, it is reasonable to speculate that they did andPetitioner submits that it is necessary to investigate whether such contactoccurred and – if it did – whether that contact and/or any involvement by theSt. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office in the decision to deny Petitioner’slegal right to vote constitutes an actual conflict of interest.
[2] Although Ind. Code §35-47-11.1-4 contains variousexceptions to the general prohibition of the regulation of firearms bypolitical subdivisions, none of those exceptions apply to a fire station or a pollingplace. Petitioner was in possession of acopy of the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act at the polling station on May 8,2012, and showed that copy to Officer Vanoverbergh and others, but it wasignored.
[3] Petitioner’s right to possess a firearm is protectedunder both the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution andArticle I, Section 32 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. That right is also specifically codified byIndiana law under Ind. Code §35-41-2-1, etseq.
STATEOF INDIANA ) IN THE ST. JOSEPH CIRCUIT/SUPERIORCOURT ) SS:
COUNTY OF ST.JOSEPH ) CAUSE NO.
IN RE: Potential violations of Ind. Code §3-14-3-4,
IN RE: Potential violations of Ind. Code §3-14-3-4,
Ind. Code§3-14-3-9 and/or Ind. Code §3-14-3-21.5
by individualsemployed by
THE ST. JOSEPHCOUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT;
THE ST. JOSEPHCOUNTY ELECTION BOARD;
THE ST. JOSEPHCOUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT;
THE WARRENTOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT;
THE ST. JOSEPHCOUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE;
and/or other personsyet to be identified.
VERIFIEDPETITION REQUESTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A
SPECIALPROSECUTOR
Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger, bycounsel, pursuant to Ind. Code §33-39-1-6(b)(2), hereby petitions a judge ofthe Circuit or Superior Court of St. Joseph County, Indiana, for the appointmentof a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether violations of Indiana law have beencommitted by employees and/or agents of the St. Joseph County PoliceDepartment, the St. Joseph County Election Board, the St. Joseph County FireDepartment, the Warren Township Fire Department, the St. Joseph County Clerk’sOffice, and/or other persons yet to be identified, for the reasons set forthbelow.
I. Petitioner
Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger(“Petitioner”), is a citizen of the United States and a resident of St. JosephCounty, Indiana. Petitioner isregistered to vote in St. Joseph County, Indiana. He has been married for eight years and hasthree children.
Petitioner is currently a studentcompleting his second year of a Master of Divinity degree in Chaplain Studiesat Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He recently served six and one half years inthe United States Marine Corps, reaching the rank of Captain before beinghonorably discharged in July of 2009. Hecompleted a tour of Iraq in 2005. Petitioner was commissioned an Ensign in theUnited States Navy in March of 2011 under the Chaplain Candidate Program.
Petitioner possesses a valid Licenseto Carry Handgun issued by the Superintendant of the Indiana State Police infull compliance with Ind. Code §35-47-2-3. Petitioner has devoted considerable time andeffort in studying both Indiana and federal laws as they relate to theownership and possession of firearms.
II. FactualBackground.
On May 8, 2012, primary electionswere conducted in St. Joseph County and overseen by the St. Joseph CountyElection Board. At approximately 9:40a.m. on May 8, 2012, Petitioner arrived at his designated polling station, theWarren Township Fire Station #2, located at 59330 Crumstown Highway, NorthLiberty, IN, 46554. At the time thatPetitioner arrived at the polling station, and consistent with his dailypractice, Petitioner had in his possession a legally-owned handgun in aretention holster on his belt. He alsohad in his possession his valid Indiana License to Carry Handgun.
Petitionerentered the “chute” of the polling station and handed his valid Indiana driver’slicense to a St. Joseph County poll worker who is currently unidentified. The poll worker accepted the Petitioner’s driver’slicense and began to look up Petitioner’s name in the roll of registeredvoters.
St.Joseph County Police Officer T. Vanoverbergh (who is also reportedly employed bythe St. Joseph County Fire Department and/or the Warren Township FireDepartment) approached Petitioner and informed him that he “could not have agun in the building.” Petitioner inquired as to the authority thatOfficer Vanoverbergh was relying upon to make that statement. Officer Vanoverberghrespondedwith various and conflicting answers, including: a) “It’s against my policy because I’m incharge here;” b) “It’s against Warren Township policy to havea gun in a fire station;” c) “Federal law prohibits guns in pollingplaces;” d) “It’s illegal to ‘opencarry’ in Indiana;” e) “State law prohibitsguns in fire stations;” and f) “State law prohibits guns at polling places.”
Officer Vanoverbergh then orderedPetitioner to leave the polling station and Petitioner complied by walkingoutside the building. Petitionerrequested Officer Vanoverbergh to call a supervisor. Officer Vanoverbergh then informed Petitionerthat other members of the St. Joseph County Police Department were already inroute to the polling station at the request of Officer Vanoverbergh.
Thereafter, St. Joseph County PoliceOfficer Banicki arrived and informed Petitioner that the reasons that OfficerVanoverbergh had refused to allow Petitioner to vote were valid and that Petitionercould not vote while in possession of a firearm. Officer Banicki also informed Petitioner thatif Petitioner persisted in his attempts to vote without relinquishing hisfirearm, Banicki would “revoke your permit on the spot, confiscate your handgunand force you to appeal that decision in Indianapolis.”
Another member of the St. JosephCounty Fire Department then approached with a laptop computer and stated thathe was attempting to identify a law that Petitioner was violating by notconcealing his handgun and/or possessing a firearm at a polling place and/or possessinga firearm at a fire station. No such lawwas identified by that individual.
Sgt. K. Glueckert of the St. JosephCounty Police Department then arrived and took possession of Petitioner’s Licenseto Carry Handgun and Indiana driver’s license. Sgt. Glueckert eventually received word, reportedly from an attorney atthe St. Joseph County Election Board, that Ind. Code §35-47-2 prohibited Petitionerfrom carrying a firearm in a polling station. Petitioner knew that said statute was entirely inapplicable to thecircumstances, but complied with the various orders that he not enter thepolling station to vote.[1]
Later in the day, Petitionerconfirmed that Ind. Code §35-47-2 did not prevent him from carrying a firearmat a polling station or a fire station and returned to the polling station atapproximately 5:40 p.m. in another attempt to exercise his legal right to vote. As Petitioner approached the building, thepoll inspector, Mr. Gus Tillman, was standing at the door, blocking the wayinside the polling station. Petitioner statedto Mr. Tillman, “I’d like to vote tonight. Will you let me do that?” Mr.Tillman responded, “I cannot let you come in. I had the election board call me. I cannot let you come in.”
Afew minutes later, Officer Chuck Flanagan of the St. Joseph County Police Departmentarrived and approached Petitioner. OfficerFlanagan informed Petitioner that he could not vote while carrying ahandgun. At that point, Petitioner again left thepremises, having again been prevented from exercising his legal right to vote.
Basedupon statements made at the scene and in media interviews by OfficerVanoverbergh and others, the St. Joseph County Clerk’s Office and the St.Joseph County Election Board were involved in the decision to deny Petitioner’sright to vote on May 8, 2012.
III. Overview of Legal Issues.
AnIndiana citizen’s right to vote is guaranteed by Article II, Section 2 of theConstitution of the State of Indiana:
Section2. (a) A citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen (18) years ofage and who has been a resident of a precinct thirty (30) days immediatelypreceding an election may vote in that precinct at the election.
(b) A citizen may not be disenfranchised under subsection (a), if the citizenis entitled to vote in a precinct under subsection (c) or federal law.
In addition, Indiana law definesseveral crimes relating to the interference with a person’s right to vote:
Obstruction of,interference with, or injury of voter or election officer
Sec. 4. (a) Aperson who:
(1) knowinglyobstructs or interferes with an election officer in the discharge of theofficer's duty; or
(2) knowingly obstructs or interferes with avoter within the chute;
commits a ClassD felony.
Ind.Code §3-14-3-4 (emphasis added).
Failure to receive vote of legal voter
Sec.9. A person who knowingly fails toreceive the vote of a legal voter at an election commits a Class D felony.
Ind.Code §3-14-3-9 (emphasis added).
Voter intimidation
Sec. 21.5. A person who knowingly orintentionally intimidates, threatens, orcoerces an individual for:
(1)voting or attempting to vote;
(2) urging or aiding another individualto vote or attempt to vote; or
(3) exercisingany power or duty under this title concerning registration or voting;
commits voter intimidation, a Class D felony.
Ind.Code §3-14-3-9 (emphasis added).
Inaddition, contrary to the assertions of the various individuals from St. JosephCounty, there is absolutely no State, Federal or local authority that preventedPetitioner from possessing a legally-owned and legally-carried handgun while atthe polling station. Subsequentstatements to the media indicate that those individuals now admit that fact.
Indeed,any local ordinance and/or regulation adopted or enforced by St. Joseph Countyis void and unenforceable under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act, Ind. Code §35-47-11.1-1,et seq., which prohibits politicalsubdivisions (such as St. Joseph County) from regulating firearms – includingthe carrying of firearms.[2]
Asa result, there was no valid legal justification for any of the St. JosephCounty authorities present at the polling station to interfere withPetitioner’s legal right to vote. Similarly, those authorities had no legal justification for conditioningPetitioner’s right to vote on the involuntary relinquishment of his legal rightto carry a firearm.[3] YetPetitioner was threatened with arrest and/or the revocation of his IndianaLicense to Carry Handgun and he was intimidated into leaving the pollingstation without exercising his Constitutionally-protected right to vote.
Importantly,to the extent that the St. Joseph County Election Board has created a newqualification for the right to vote in St. Joseph County (the relinquishment ofthe Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms), any such qualification isinconsistent with federal law, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42U.S.C. §1973C(a), et seq., whichmandates a very specific procedure for the adoption of new legal restrictionson the qualification to vote.
IV. TheNeed for a Special Prosecutor
Thismatter involves the actions of various governmental employees of St. JosephCounty, including the St. Joseph County Police Department. In addition, the officials present at thepolling station on May 8, 2012, made several telephone calls outside thepresence of Petitioner during their investigation into whether Petitioner couldbe charged with a crime and/or denied the right to vote. As stated, infra at p. 4, n.1, Petitioner does not know with certainty whetherthe St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office was contacted during thisinvestigation and/or whether the prosecutor’s office was involved in thedecision to deny Petitioner his Constitutionally-protected right to vote. If the prosecutor’s office was involved, itclearly creates an actual conflict of interest in investigating and/orprosecuting this matter.
Asstated in Ind. Code §33-39-1-6(b)(2), a judge of the circuit or superior courtmay appoint a special prosecutor “if a person files a verified petitionrequesting the appointment of a special prosecutor,” and the court, afternotice is given to the prosecuting attorney and an evidentiary hearing isconducted, “finds by clear and convincing evidence that the appointment isnecessary to avoid an actual conflict of interest.” Id.
The prosecutingattorney may also agree that a special prosecutor is needed. See Ind.Code §33-39-1-6(b)(1)(B).
In this matter, if itis revealed at an evidentiary hearing that the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’sOffice participated in the interference with Petitioner’s legal right to vote,a clear conflict of interest would exist. As such, consistent with Ind. Code §33-39-1-6, a Special Prosecutor wouldbe needed in order to avoid an actual conflict of interest and/or theappearance of impropriety in the investigation and/or prosecution of thismatter.
GuyA. Relford
Attorneyfor Petitioner, Clay C. Edinger
AttorneyNo. 6450-49
The Law Offices of Guy A. Relford
4181 First Flight Circle
Zionsville, IN 46077
(317) 450-8252
(317) 873-9193 (facsimile)
grelford@global-lit.com
VERIFICATION
ClayC. Edinger, having first been duly sworn upon his oath, under penalties forperjury, hereby verifies and affirms that the factual statements contained inthe foregoing Verified Petition Requesting the Appointment of a SpecialProsecutor are true, based on knowledge and belief.
ClayC. Edinger
State of Indiana )
) SS:
County of St.Joseph )
Clay C. Edingerpersonallyappeared before me, , a duly authorized Notary Public for theState of Indiana, on this 11th day of May, 2012, and verified the foregoing VerifiedPetition Requesting the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor, after having beenduly sworn upon his oath.
NotaryPublic
SEAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifiesthat the foregoing Verified Petition for the Appointment of a SpecialProsecutor was served this 11th day of May, 2012, by hand delivery,upon Michael Dvorak, Prosecutor, 60th Judicial Circuit (St. Joseph County),Indiana, 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, IN 46601
GuyA. Relford
[1] Petitioner was detained for a total of ninety (90)minutes while the authorities present were investigating whether he could bearrested for possessing his firearm on the premises and/or whether he could bedenied his right to vote. It ispresently unknown with certainty by Petitioner whether the officials present atthe polling station contacted the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office duringtheir inquiry; however, it is reasonable to speculate that they did andPetitioner submits that it is necessary to investigate whether such contactoccurred and – if it did – whether that contact and/or any involvement by theSt. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office in the decision to deny Petitioner’slegal right to vote constitutes an actual conflict of interest.
[2] Although Ind. Code §35-47-11.1-4 contains variousexceptions to the general prohibition of the regulation of firearms bypolitical subdivisions, none of those exceptions apply to a fire station or a pollingplace. Petitioner was in possession of acopy of the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act at the polling station on May 8,2012, and showed that copy to Officer Vanoverbergh and others, but it wasignored.
[3] Petitioner’s right to possess a firearm is protectedunder both the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution andArticle I, Section 32 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. That right is also specifically codified byIndiana law under Ind. Code §35-41-2-1, etseq.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Did Clay get kicked out of the zoo or something?
exactly. if my brother intended to make a scene, he would have carried his 6 inch stainless gp100 on his hip or an AR slung over his back. as it stands, he carried his most subdued, every day carry gun, in a manner completely without ostentation.
Site Supporter
Members online
- 2tonic
- bwframe
- indyblue
- Magyars
- rhamersley
- TheSpookyCat
- INgunowner
- Rio
- MrSmitty
- dweezil
- Ingomike
- Jeffforpresident
- Riflemen14
- FN USA
- Mark-DuCo
- red_zr24x4
- sixGuns
- GasTube138
- archer_advice
- 257robertsimp
- pharmboy
- flightsimmer
- shawnfox12
- rwilken50
- indiucky
- wtburnette
- Indianajeff
- Lwright
- tonto
- Tactically Fat
- Cavman
- b.sauls24
- 1775usmarine
- DCR
- HKFaninCarmel
- Kirk Freeman
- kotaoz
- markiemark
- CCPLuvr
- brchixwing
- jrogier62
- Ta6point6
- KLB
- NyleRN
- slims2002
- 06ackley
- JayCo
- bobzilla
- 510picker
- mkgr22