My Favorite Punching Bag

Our esteemed statewide shame joke of an attorney attorney general Curtis Hill, as both of my readers know, is rather far down my list of esteemed attorneys in this state. (Indeed, I hold the state's best defender of child molesters in higher regard than Curtis Hill, but I digress).

As has been discussed on this blog previously, Curtis Hill is in some hot water with the Indiana Attorney Ethics and Disciplinary Commission for his grabassery. He was charged with ethical violations and has responded, to which the Ethics Commission replied that our jackass attorney general believes that, because he is an elected official, there are "layers of accountability" for him and the disciplinary commission is not the proper mechanism to hold him accountable (see the entirety here).

Pure bullshit.

This is a guy who has spent his entire career throwing the proverbial book at defendants who did not have the resources to defend themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the type of prosecutor who overcharged on spurious grounds, threatening life in prison for a dime bag of weed or something, just to convince defendants to give up their constitutional right to see the evidence and confront witnesses against them.

This is just the kind of "justice for me but not for thee" attitude that I see all too often among our political elites. They can take that attitude and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, if you ask me. If I have to answer to the damn ethics commission, I don't think it's too much to ask that the elected chief attorney of the state answer as well.

Best quote from the disciplinary commission: "What [Curtis Hill's] motion boils down to is that the respondent seeks special and favorable treatment by the Court that no other lawyer would ever obtain. He seeks this Court, in essence, to declare that he is a lawyer whose conduct is above the Rules of Professional Conduct simply because he is the Attorney General. This Commission can think of nothing that would deepen the mistrust of the judicial system, diminish the esteem of the Supreme Court, and prejudice the administration of justice more than if the Court were to grant [Curtis Hill's] motion."

That sound you just heard? That was the mic being dropped.

About that Curtis Hill

Not only is he a creepy groper, drug warrior, and the worst kind of attorney (prosecutor), he also wastes our money on stupid partisan snipe hunts:

Last month, judge Sarah Evans Barker approved a consent decree reached by plaintiffs Common Cause Indiana and the Indianapolis NAACP and the defendant, the Marion County Election Board.

In a filing Tuesday, the attorney general argued that the consent decree cannot replace an election board's legal requirement to decide unanimously to create in-person early voting sites.

 For those following at home, the backdrop to this is that state law requires unanimity among the members of a county election board in order to open up new voting sites. The Marion County election board has consistently lacked such unanimity, as the Republican members of such board have repeatedly and consistently refused to agree to open new voting sites . . . seemingly part of the ongoing project to protect against voter fraud discourage voting.

Anyway, the county election board got sued. They eventually settled and agreed to put new voting sites in. Of course, Mr. AG had to come along and do anything he could to help his team distract from his own problems.

Marion County’s decision to open additional voting centers is being contested by Attorney General Curtis Hill, but the Marion County Election Board disputes his assertion that the agreement to offer more early voting sites is contrary to Indiana law or that the board lacked a unanimous vote.

A consent decree settling a lawsuit over access to early voting was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in mid-July in Common Cause Indiana et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 1:17-cv-1388.

Hill, on behalf of the state, is challenging the consent decree that opens additional satellite voting centers in Marion County for the 2018 general election. He filed a motion Tuesday asking the federal court to withdraw the agreement. The board last month announced six early-voting sites around Indianapolis would be open in time for November’s mid-term election.

OK. What is Mr. Hill's reasoning for bringing a lawsuit, paid for by the taxpayers of Indiana, whose general purpose is to prevent those same taxpayers from being able to vote (without waiting in line for what tends to be, by most estimates, "forever")?

Hill’s office also argued “it is not in the public interest for a federal court to enter, enforce, and monitor a consent decree that dictates the operation of state-run elections.” Further, the AG’s office said the public interest is “jeopardized by the removal of (Defendant Election Board’s) minority leverage in the political process.”

You know, the candor of that is quite surprising. What is the AG talking about when he mentions "minority leverage in the political process?" Well, that's just what was mentioned above: Republicans wanted to make sure that voting remained inconvenient in Indianapolis, presumably to drive down turnout of what is viewed as a "liberal" electorate. You will note that polling places in rural locales far outnumber, on a per-capita basis, those in liberal urban locales.

Anyway, as to the two objections, I will let the Article III Judge Sarah Evans Barker have the honors:

The State argues that the consent decree is contrary both to state law as well as the public interest. Neither objection has merit.

That is nice judge speak for, "Get the hell out of my courtroom you clown." However, at least we can rest assured that, at least for a few minutes, AG Hill wasn't ass-grabbing all over downtown, as is rumored to be his style.

 

Jackassery Loves Company

So, I see that Jim Bopp (the nice man who gave us Citizens United and Bush v. Gore) has decided to put his cloven-hoof stamp on the Curtis Hill matter.

A few quotes, first from the Indiana Lawyer:

Supporters of embattled Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill have created a nonprofit to raise money for his legal defense amid allegations the Republican drunkenly groped a state lawmaker and three legislative staffers.

Indiana attorney James Bopp Jr. and former Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Linda Chezem said Monday that the nonprofit accepts tax-deductible donations for paying Hill’s legal bills. 

OK. That quote is more or less factual. Given my thoughts on Jackass Curtis Hill, I think the next quote is money:

Hill’s backers say he has been treated unfairly. 

I wonder how many of Hill's prosecutorial targets feel that his investigations into them were unfair.

By way of contrast or additional information (take your pick), here is how the Indianapolis Star covered the story:

 Jim Bopp, a high-powered Republican attorney, announced Monday the creation of Fairness for Curtis Hill, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization formed to collect tax deductible funds for Hill's defense.  

Some tax and campaign finance experts, however, questioned whether the new fund could even operate as a charitable nonprofit under the law. Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at Notre Dame, said a 501(c)(3) charity can't benefit one person. Usually defending public officials from allegations also isn't considered charitable, he said.

Get ready for the AM Radio/Conservative Victim Complex . . . THE IRS IS TARGETING US BECAUSE WE'RE breaking the law CONSERVATIVES!!

Bopp, who is best known for representing Citizens United in a U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned restrictions on political spending by corporations, nonprofits and labor unions, said contributions to the fund will be tax exempt and will come strictly from private individuals and entities, not taxpayers.

Well, I suppose that's good news -- I don't have to pay to defend Attorney General Hands McGee.

But the contributions will also be secret, he said. The source of donations to the defense fund do not have to be disclosed publicly, unlike contributions to political campaigns.

Well, I certainly can't see anything untoward about allowing wealthy people to make undisclosed donations to high-powered political figures!

So, in sum, we have two of the most repulsive figures in Indiana politics (and unfortunately in the Indiana legal community) teaming up to provide "process" for the powerful . . . how much of this "process" has Jim Bopp or Curtis Hill ever secured for the poor, downtrodden, among us? To ask the question is to answer it.

So many jackasses, so little time

Now that Mike Pence has re-joined the D.C. swamp (and Brandt Hershman has quit the legislature to go work as a lobbyist) it's time to re-think who the most contemptible person in Indiana politics is. Jim Lucas (he of "constitutional carry" fame) is always a tempting target . . . Lord knows we in Indianapolis need a guy from Seymour telling us how to control urban violence, but I digress.

As the one regular reader of this blog can probably tell you, the undisputed, heavyweight champion of Hoosier Jackassery has been none other than Attorney General Curtis Hill, that aging drug and culture warrior who makes affluent racist white people feel good because, by gum, there's a black guy that agrees with their insatiable desire to lock up minorities.

Now, for those who haven't read the now-infamous memo about his ass-grabbing ways, it's right here. The Indiana Lawyer describes the allegations as follows:

Reports that Hill groped and/or behaved inappropriately toward four women — including Democratic State Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon — came to light Tuesday when a confidential memo created at the request of state legislative leaders was leaked to the media. The memo, which was prepared by Indianapolis law firm Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, records Reardon’s account of a drunken Hill sliding his hands down her back and under her clothes before grabbing her bare buttocks at an end-of-session legislative party in March. Though the memo says Hill repeated this conduct a second time, Reardon penned a column on Friday saying she was able to recoil before Hill could grope her a second time.

Personally, with the exception of the allegation about him reaching into a woman's pants to grab her butt, I think the rest of the allegations are fairly minor, by comparison (particularly when "by comparison" means "by comparison to the President of the United States"). I tend to view Mr. Hill's drunken actions as in line with a privileged man who rarely imbibes.

Note to self, if you're going to drink, drink often and learn how to handle your booze.

I do note, with a hint of irony, Curtis Hill's reaction to this firestorm:

“I now stand falsely accused of some of the same crimes I spent 28 years prosecuting,” the statement said. “Yet without a thorough investigation — without the right to face my accusers and review the evidence against me — I am convicted by public officials demanding my resignation. I believed that the standard in this country is that you are innocent until proven guilty – not guilty until proven innocent.”

The rumor mill has told me that Curtis Hill represented the absolute worst, most vile features of prosecutors everywhere: depriving the accused of due process by threatening to "charge up" in order to get them to plead guilty. Apparently leaning on people accused of misconduct is A-OK so long as you're Mr. Tough Guy Prosecutor but "you are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent" when the accusation is against you, right Mr. Hill?

As I've made clear, this jackass can't go soon enough, and it really has very little to do with his rare-drunken pervy/handsy ways. Just take your stuffed suit back to where you came from Mr. Hill; go back to putting people in jail for possessing marijuana, if your former constituents will have you. Just please, please, quit besmirching my profession. We can do that just fine ourselves without your noxious self doing so.

Remember the Clerk?

Remember the Clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage license to same-sex couples due to her sincere religious conviction that same-sex marriage was an abomination? That happened in Indiana as well:

A southern Indiana deputy clerk who was fired after she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple lost her civil-rights lawsuit against the county clerk. Her suit claimed religious discrimination on the basis of her avowed Christian belief that same-sex marriage is “against God’s law,” which is “above legal law.”

Harrison County deputy clerk Linda G. Summers refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple that came to the courthouse in Corydon on Dec. 8, 2014. 

Now, I know that Indiana's hired Jackass-in-Chief was not yet in office at the time, so I can only wonder what his thoughts were on this refusal to perform a public obligation for which one is paid and accepted employment due to religious belief. 

I bring that up in light of this recent headline. Some notable quotes:

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is hitting back at three county prosecutors who have declined to defend the state in its most recent abortion-related lawsuit, saying the prosecutors have no authority to determine how the case proceeds.

Hill released a statement Thursday morning criticizing the Marion, Monroe and Lake County prosecutors’ Wednesday announcement that they would not defend the state in a complaint filed against Senate Enrolled Act 340, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Dept. of Health, et al., 1:18-cv-1219. The law, set to take effect July 1, would require abortion providers such as PPINK to report “all abortion complications” and to submit to annual inspections, a requirement not placed on other outpatient settings or hospitals.

* * * * * * * * *

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said the state’s unsuccessful defense of these laws has cost the state nearly $300,000 in legal fees pad to the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and has diverted other resources away from prosecutors’ offices. Curry, Chris Gaal of Monroe County and Bernard Carter of Lake County are named as defendants in the SEA 340 complaint because PPINK has clinics in their counties.The prosecutors are Democrats. Hill is a Republican.

“We are tired of being drawn into the annual act of legislative futility to pass abortion-related bills, which inevitably results in lawsuits at taxpayer expense,” Curry said in a Wednesday statement. 

So, to be clear, the Indiana State Legislature has repeatedly passed laws that any first-year law student would rightly conclude are unconstitutional. Then, after the State of Indiana attempts to enforce those laws, the ACLU sues the State of Indiana and wins. Following the win, the ACLU is then entitled to its attorney fees. Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Lake Co. have determined that they do not believe they will prevail in the present suit and do not want to expose themselves to liability for the ACLU's attorney fees. 

Indiana's Republican Attorney General Curtis Hill (who no doubt casts himself as "fiscally conservative" and a "constitutional conservative") demands that these communities shoulder the burden of these needlessly provoked culture wars. 

Awesome.