Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Senator Lugar's Defense for Alleged Voter Fraud Flimsy As Certified Fraud Examiner Digs Deeper

Fraud Investigator Greg Wright
It's been nearly two weeks since Certified Fraud Examiner and Indianapolis resident Greg Wright filed an Election Fraud and Accessibility Grievance Form with the Secretary of State asking if Senator and Mrs. Lugar had a "legal right" to vote from an address they no longer own.  (See original story here.) 

Wright has yet to receive a response from any public official regarding the complaint; however, he is continuing in his quest for accountability and plans to follow-up on his complaint and possibly add to it as soon as he receives additional records that he has requested from various state agencies.

To date, Wright has received a nearly 30-year-old letter, dated August 30, 1982, addressed to Senator Lugar and signed by former Indiana Attorney General Linley Pearson, which Lugar has reportedly used in defense of his actions.  The letter was apparently in response to Lugar's inquiry about "what a person serving as a United States Senator from Indiana must do to maintain his residence, for voting purposes in Indiana."

After citing Article II, Section I of the Indiana Constitution, which states that "Every citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen (18) years or more, who has been a resident of the precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding such election, shall be entitled to vote in the precinct where he or she may reside," Pearson offered an informal opinion on Lugar's question of maintaining a legal residence in Indiana.

Dear Senator Lugar:

...It is obvious that a United States Senator for Indiana, or a United States Representative, in performing his or her duties in that capacity, is acting 'on business of this state or of the United States.'  The constitutional and statutory provisions set out above make it clear that such a person's absence from the state, occasioned by his or her service in the United States Congress, does not cause such a person to lose whatever residence for voting purposes that person has established before his or her departure for Congress.

If such a person was entitled to vote in this state prior to departing for service in Congress, whatever residence that person possessed for voting purposes prior to such departure remains his or her residence.  There is no requirement that such a person maintain a house, apartment, or any fixed physical location.  Such a person's voting residence is completely protected by the Constitutional and statutory provisions set out above.

I am therefore of the opinion that a United States Senator from Indiana, or a member of the United States House of Representatives from Indiana, is to be deemed a resident, for voting purposes, of the precinct in which such person maintained his or her residence, and in which such person voted, prior to departing for service in the Congress of the United States.
So, what does Greg Wright think of this official response and does it really provide the protection that Lugar would like for us to believe it does?

"I've been told by an attorney that this 'opinion' is advisory and does not have any standing beyond what it might say," commented Wright.
Richard Lugar with Tricky Dick Nixon

"I see nothing in the Indiana Constitution or statutory law that says you can vote from an address at which you can't even say you have an intent to return to that address since you don't even own it or rent it, or have another close family member residing there.  According to the current property owner, Senator Lugar has not legal interest in the property," said Wright.

"My understanding is that people serving in the military either vote from their military base, or they vote at their parents or spouse's residence back home, a place they can at least receive mail."

After consulting with expert attorneys, Wright is confident that his legal position is correct.

After reading the letter from former Attorney General Linley Pearson, I also came away with the perception that Pearson was basing his opinion on assumptions that the Lugars still had an interest in or a connection to the property from which they were registered to vote, which has absolutely not been the case for the past three decades.  At the very least, I doubt Pearson would condone the fact that Lugar and his wife would continue to claim residence at a house they haven't owned in three decades.

Does Lugar's so-called exemption apply to his wife, who is not a U.S. Senator?  She has also been claiming residence at the bogus address for the last thirty years.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, as also noted in Pearson's letter to Lugar states that "No person shall be deemed to have lost his residence in the State by reason of his absence, either on business of this state or of the United States."

The Lugars didn't lose their residence because he held office as a U.S. Senator; they sold it, which means they had no legitimate reason to claim it for voting purposes.  If Charlie White committed voter fraud, then why should Lugar get a free pass?

And what about Lugar's driver's license?  Are he and his wife driving using Indiana or Virginia licenses?  What addresses are they using at the BMV?  Have they broken BMV laws too?

Those answers and the ramifications of such will be forthcoming.  In the meantime, why is the media silent on Lugar's obvious dishonesty?

Will voters ultimately be forced to take up this legal issue since government officials seem to be shirking their duties?  Could a 30-year-old vague and informal opinion eventually be trumped by the justices at the Indiana Supreme Court level?  Time will tell.

 I predict this story will not fade away anytime soon.  If you don't believe me, just ask a guy named Charlie White.


guy77money said...

Lets not forget about Evan Bayh who is no longer a senator and is voting in Indiana and lives with his wife and two kids in their million dollar residence out Washington way.

Anonymous said...

Indiana just mentioned here: /