taking down words

Prior Restraint: Judge Prevents DCS Critic From Speaking Out On Camera

The Department of Child Services will do anything -- even obtaining a possibly unconstitutional restraining order against a local television station -- to prevent its critics from speaking out.

It is, after all, an election year, and we wouldn't want Jim "Maverick" Payne making the Guv look bad, would we?

A disabled veteran and single father of four, McGaha, 37, said he thinks the court and Department of Child Services are out to get him because he stood up to workers he contends have treated him and his four children unfairly.

After the TV segment aired, Honk For Kids asked the station, WXIN (Channel 59), why McGaha's face had been blurred and was told of the restraining order. That was the first that anyone, including McGaha, had heard about the judge's action.

Gavin Maliska, news director at WXIN, said station officials discussed challenging the order, which was issued the day the segment was to air, but decided McGaha's contributions weren't essential to the story.

"It came down to principle versus practical," he said. "If it would have affected what we were trying to do with the story, we probably would have had a different outcome."

Maliska said the court order was sought by the guardian ad litem who represents McGaha's children in a Child in Need of Services case in Fountain County.

The guardian ad litem, Covington attorney Sue White, did not return calls from The Indianapolis Star, and the court would not release a copy of the order. Bailiff Dianne Cotten said it was part of the confidential records of the CHINS case and could not be made public.

However, a copy obtained by The Star showed that Henderson barred WXIN "from broadcasting any portion of an interview involving Mark McGaha and his minor children until such time as the guardian ad litem and/or court has an opportunity to review" the report.

The order said the injunction was issued to protect the best interests of the children. Karlson said that does not provide the constitutional standard for such an order.

"I see no basis on which a prior restraint could have been imposed," he said. "He has an absolute right to complain about his treatment by the court or any other government agency."

McGaha could appeal the judge's ruling, Karlson said, "but it's basically a moot point" because the opportunity to air his complaints on TV has passed.

"I don't know what's more outrageous: the judge ordering this and not knowing it violates the Constitution, or knowing and still issuing the injunction," Karlson said.

James W. Payne, who heads DCS, said he could not talk about the specifics of McGaha's case. He said DCS has no control over the judge's actions and that parents who have a beef with the agency or court have a number of avenues to have their concerns addressed.

McGaha's children have been in foster care for more than a year. He said they were removed based on allegations he had missed "a couple doctor appointments" for his children, two of whom have ongoing medical problems.

"That was taken care of long before they (DCS) ever got involved," said McGaha, who lives in Lafayette. "After that, I did everything they said, but they kept coming after me."

Do You See What I See? Waltz Residency Case On The Docket This Week

If you aren't tired of all things political after Tuesday's special election in the Seventh Congressional District, Wednesday's meeting of the Indiana Election Commission should be a real doozy. The Star's "Behind Closed Doors" column reminds us of one of the more entertaining items on the docket:

A challenge to the residency status of state Sen. Brent Waltz will be heard this week at a meeting of the Indiana Election Commission.

Mike Beeles, who will square off against Waltz in the May 6 primary election for the Senate District 36 Republican nomination, filed a challenge with the Election Commission last month claiming that Waltz does not live in a Greenwood condominium listed as his official residence.

Waltz, vying for his second term at the Statehouse, says he has lived in the condo in the 300 block of Elmead Court in northern Johnson County since 2003.

Less than a week after Beeles filed his challenge with the state, a Johnson County magistrate awarded Waltz a restraining order against Beeles after Waltz claimed that Beeles was stalking him.

The magistrate ruled that stalking had occurred and that Beeles -- who admitted to standing on a stepladder and taking photos of Waltz's condo -- represented a credible threat to Waltz's safety.

Beeles, who lives about a block from Waltz's condo, was ordered to stay away from Waltz's residence and place of work and not have contact with Waltz for 90 days.

The Election Commission meeting will be at 1 p.m. Wednesday at the Indiana Government Center South, Conference Room 14, 402 W. Washington St., Indianapolis.

Also on the agenda: Thomas Cook, of Blue Indiana fame, will do his best to keep John McCain off the ballot. If the rumor mill is any indication, the Republicans are getting worried about their case.

Sixth Amendment: Guv To Help Launch Out-Of-County Jury Program?

Here's a little something fun to chew on this evening:

There's plenty of action at the Statehouse this week as the General Assembly debates property taxes and other issues, but Gov. Mitch Daniels plans to spend his Tuesday morning reporting for jury duty.

Spokeswoman Jane Jankowski says Daniels was notified earlier that he was a potential juror in Marion County. He found out Monday that his number was called, so he'll report to the City-County Building on Tuesday morning.

Marion County has implemented a new get-tough policy to deter people from skipping out on jury duty. The county's no-show rate for potential jurors remains at just below 50 percent.

Right, but does the Guv even live in Marion County these days?

Someone To Watch Over You: Waltz To Take Action Against Beeles

State Rep. Jon Elrod thinks being videotaped on the House floor is bad? Check this out:

A senator running for re-election plans to file a restraining order against his opponent for stalking.

State Senator Brent Waltz is a republican from Greenwood.

His opponent Mike Beeles says Waltz does not live in the district. He's filed a complaint with the Indiana Election Commission and gathered some evidence of his own.

State Senator Brent Waltz says he felt like he was being followed.

He said our news gathering partner, The Johnson County Daily Journal, confirmed his suspicions Friday.

"Apparently the gentleman who said he was going to run against me has admitted yesterday to stalking me," Waltz said.

Republican Opponent Mike Beeles filed a challenge with the Election Committee that Waltz does not live in the district he serves.

Beeles told the paper he's gathered evidence by following Waltz at night about five times over a two month period.

"Including taking a ladder to my second story window climbing it looking in my windows and taking pictures of my house," Waltz said.

Beeles said the pictures inside of Waltz's Greenwood condo prove the place is empty.

"I've been told that I am in full compliance with the law. I live there. I pay my taxes there, I voted there 8 times," Waltz said.

Waltz will file a restraining order against Beeles on Tuesday.

"Admittedly that a public official has less right to privacy than an average citizen but clearly committing a felony, which is what Mr. Beeles has admitted to doing, is over the line," Waltz said.

Beeles said he was not stalking, just seeking the truth.

Waltz said his job at the Capital does not mean he can be an easy target, "I have a gun permit and I know how to use it. But at the same time, you just have to take care of yourself. You need to watch out. There are some very strange people in this world, and apparently one of them is trying to run against me."

Under Arrest: IMPD Sting Catches A Predator, Um, Public Defender

This isn't political, but seriously, guy, have you never watched Dateline NBC? More to the point, what the hell is wrong with you? Go to a bar. Solicit sex from women close to your age. Hell, solicit sex from women 10 years younger than you. But you're a criminal lawyer, man. Re-read the statute and leave the 15-year-olds alone.

(Note: This is one of those stories that non-parents gloss over while parents, especially of little girls, become irate.)

A man who works as a Marion County public defender was arrested Sunday for allegedly soliciting an underage girl he met over the Internet.

Ryan Snyder, 29, 3700 block of Knickerboker Place, was arrested on initial charges of dissemination of matter harmful to a child and child solicitation after police say he used the Internet to set up a sexual encounter with a detective posing as a 15-year-old girl, according to a police report.

Snyder also sent the undercover officer an explicit photo of male genitalia, police said.

Indiana Supreme Court records show Snyder earned his law license in 2005 and currently works for the Marion County Public Defender's Office.

The arrest was part of a sting conducted by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's vice unit.

WedgeWhacked To Death: SJR7 Exits Stage Right, Show Will Go On

Put this in your hate-pipe and smoke it, Eric Miller:

Supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages likely will have to wait at least another four years after a key House leader decided he won't consider legislation that passed the Senate.

Conservative activists and lawmakers expressed frustration Friday with the decision by Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, not to hear Senate Joint Resolution 7, the legislation that included the constitutional ban.

Pelath's decision did not come as a surprise because earlier this session, he refused to hear a House version of the legislation in his Rules Committee. His decision not to hear the Senate version of the proposal, however, is significant because it likely wipes out a decision by the General Assembly in 2005 to pass the measure.

In order to amend the constitution, two consecutively elected legislatures must pass the measure, and voters must approve it in a general election.

We have more important things to deal with than making gay marriage super-duper-extra-double illegal, kids. Let it go.

Moving Forward: Terry Record Faces May Trial For DUI Causing Death

In case you were wondering what had happened to Terry Record and his DUI case:

A Marion Superior Court judge has delayed until May the trial for a former state attorney accused of driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana before a fatal wreck.

Terry Record, 27, will go on trial May 12. Judge Grant Hawkins said during a pretrial conference today that his schedule conflicted with the expected four-day trial that had been set for March 10, and Record's attorney also planned to ask for a delay.

Record is accused of drinking heavily at a strip club before the crash in May 2007. He hit a truck driven by Jimmy R. Cash, 46, who died at the scene.

Each of Records' two most serious charges carries a potential penalty of six to 20 years in prison. His case is being handled by a special prosecutor because Record at one time worked in the Marion County prosecutor's office. He was fired after the crash by the Indiana State Department of Health.

Fight The Good Fight: Matt Kelty Case Will Head To Trial In August

Prepare thyself for trial, Matt Kelty.

They plan to appeal the decision, but lawyers for former Republican mayoral candidate Matt Kelty could not persuade an Allen Superior Court judge to dismiss felony charges of perjury and filing fraudulent campaign finance reports against their client.

Kelty's trial is scheduled to start Aug. 18 and last up to two weeks. A grand jury indicted him in August on seven felony and two misdemeanor charges. The perjury charges stem from accusations he lied to a grand jury about who funded a public opinion poll favorable to him.

In a hearing Friday, Judge Kenneth Scheibenberger swatted down the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass by Kelty's lawyers, who attempted to get the case dismissed by challenging Indiana's campaign-finance laws. "Some of the issues you raise will be decided on by a jury and not me," Scheibenberger told Indianapolis attorneys Larry Mackey and Jason Barclay.

Kelty sat stoically in the courtroom awaiting Scheibenberger's decision, keeping his eyes on the bench. Afterward, he shook hands and gave hugs to supporters and family who flooded the courtroom.

Mackey said he planned to file an appeal with Scheibenberger and the Indiana Appellate Court in 10 to 14 days. Scheibenberger would have to allow the appellate court to review the decision, Mackey said. Though he indicated such an appeal would "disrupt" the proceedings, he did not know if it would delay the trial.

"We'll be asking for an appeal but also getting ready for the trial," Mackey said.

Take This WedgeWhack! And Shove It: It's Time To Deep-Six SJR7

Sheila Suess Kennedy strikes back at the pander bears in the Indiana Senate who think the constitutional marriage amendment should be at the top of the legislative priority list this session:

SJR 7 is opposed by Indiana's largest employers, by many clergymen and religious organizations, by university professors, by dozens of professional organizations and, in recent polls, by a majority of Indiana citizens. So what compelling justifications are offered for cluttering the Indiana Constitution with this confusing and discriminatory language?

Basically, proponents say gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because some religions teach that homosexuality is immoral. (Of course, all religions teach that rape and murder are immoral, but Indiana allows rapists and murderers to marry. Go figure.)

They say marriage and sex are for procreation (although we allow sterile folks to marry).

Most of all, they insist that recognizing gay unions will undermine families and the institution of marriage. (Similar claims were made about interracial marriage, and about allowing women to own property and vote.)

Let's at least be honest. This isn't an effort to protect families; it is an effort to privilege some families at the expense of others. SJR 7 is not about religion or morality; it is about whose religion, whose morality.

This also is not about our senators responding to some groundswell of public opinion. This is an issue rapidly losing its salience with most voters, who are understandably more concerned about taxes, crime, access to health care and other bread-and-butter and quality-of-life issues. To the extent the Senate is responding to public pressure, it is pressure coming from a small but highly vocal constituency.

We can only hope that when SJR7 arrives in the Indiana House, our representatives give it the priority it deserves -- and bury this bad bill whose time has thankfully passed.

Zirkle Time: Crazy Is As Crazy Chats With The South Bend Tribune

In case you were worried about having a nutterball or two to kick around this election season, give a big ol' round of applause to Tony Zirkle, the Playboy-shredding Second District wingnut who advocated the return of the guillotine during the 2006 cycle. (He ultimately lost to Count Chocula in the primary, but not before getting a surprising 30 percent of the vote.)

The South Bend Tribune reports:

South Bend attorney Tony Zirkle will run for Congress this year -- his second attempt at the job.

Zirkle, a Republican, ran for the Republican nomination in the 2006 primary but lost to then-U.S. Rep. Chris Chocola, the incumbent.

Chocola was defeated in the general election later that year by Democrat Joe Donnelly, who now represents Indiana's 2nd District.

Eliminating pornography and prostitution was a centerpiece of Zirkle's 2006 campaign, and he gained attention by shredding a copy of Playboy magazine featuring Marilyn Monroe on the cover.

But perhaps his most memorable suggestion was bringing back the guillotine to punish child sex offenders.

"There was a lot of misunderstanding about what I said about the guillotine," Zirkle said Wednesday by phone. "If you look at my original press release, I said I was attempting to stimulate debate."

That's not to say he's pulling back those comments. Zirkle said Wednesday that although he's not in favor of capital punishment except in the most extreme cases, the guillotine is a fast way of executing someone.

"It's not very pretty," he said, "but if you want to execute someone as painlessly as possible, that may be the most efficient way to do it."

Zirkle said he would focus on eliminating pornography and prostitution in the upcoming campaign, which he plans to start in earnest in a couple of weeks. At the moment, he's tied down with some litigation, he said.

Zirkle said, in essence, that pornography is prostitution, as the actors and models get paid, in essence, for sex.

"If I go to the corner and I pay $20 for a prostitute down on South Michigan Street, that gets you thrown in prison," he said. "How does a video camera make the same act, when you're charging more money, automatically legal?"

Zirkle's campaign message in a nutshell: "I'm not necessarily for bringing back the guillotine, but if we're going to have capital punishment, I'm all for whacking people's heads off, which is not to say that I in any way support whacking off in general if it involves porn, which I believe is the equivalent of a $20 blowjob down on South Michigan Street."

Perhaps he should just combine all his issues and lobby for the institution of the death penalty for anyone who buys the latest issue of "Barely Legal."