Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana: What would it take for me to stop supporting Matt Kelty?

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

What would it take for me to stop supporting Matt Kelty?

Numerous people asked me today what it would take for me to stop supporting Matt Kelty and I think this is a fair question. I believe that Matt Kelty is an honest person and I really do not believe that these charges have any merit.

That being said, if it were proven to me that Matt Kelty actually committed perjury, then I would not support him.

I know that Bill Clinton committed perjury on National TV and got away with it; however, that does not make it right.

I do NOT believe that Matt Kelty committed perjury; however, if it were proven that he did commit perjury then I would not support him.

Mike Sylvester

21 comments:

Anonymous said...: I keep looking at the Allen County Republican party website to see if anything changes and as of 6:30AM this morning, there is nothing new. The only article is from 7/30/07 and almost looks like a form letter saying that they are "behind" Matt Kelty. Just how they are "behind" him is the REAL question...

Also another quick point about perjury.. If you are using the very literal interpretation.. You could get almost anyone on this if they don't repeat a previous statement verbatim as long as you can convince the jury that you are right. I will need to see the final transcripts if they ever become available.; 15 August, 2007 06:27
Anonymous said...: I don't understand - an independent jury convicted him of perjury. Did they not also release what items that were said that were considered perjury ? What more does it take ?; 15 August, 2007 06:43
Anonymous said...: Carol says,

WHOA WHOA WHOA...

Let's clarify something here please:

Matt Kelty has not been CONVICTED of anything!!! Let's stop using the word "convicted" ok? Let's stop saying he's "guilty" please until there is a trial and he is proven guilty.

The election board cleared Matt Kelty of any campaign wrongdoing regarding these loans.

Someone with a little power disagreed with that and filed a complaint with Karen Richards (she's a spineless crook). Karen Richards hires or gets hired an outside DEMOCRAT prosecutor who hand-picks his own grand jury, others who agree with him, and they sit down and try to determine if they should PRESS CHARGES based on testimonies or evidence they find.

An "indictment" is basically someone "pressing charges". It is not a conviction or proof of guilt.

Get yourself educated folks. Shame on you.; 15 August, 2007 08:06
barranda said...: This actually is a good question, and probably a consistent response from you Mike. I take it from your answer that you would continue to support him with a Felony conviction on campaign finance reporting. When this was first reported, I believe, you posted that it was your opinion that Kelty violated the spirit of the law, at least. I take your position to mean that the violation is not uncommon, and not a big deal.

The perjury count is a different story. This appears to relate to the failure to disclose Don Willis as a contributer of the zogby poll; only reporting Rost. Without looking at the transcripts, since he was charged with perjury, he must have maintained that he didn't commission the poll, and he only knew Rost as a contributor. Unfortunately, he gave an interview to Mitch Harper a couple months ago, where he used the terms "they" and "we" in regards to how he was contacted regarding the results of the poll.

Nevertheless, the fact is, we do not know the contents of Kelty's testimony. All we know is that the grand jury found the probability that the crimes were committed. That said, the grand jury indicts at a significantly high rate. Under the law Kelty is innocent until proven guilty. If certain individuals are not willing to accept that personally, they should at least wait until they can review the testimony for themselves. To assume somebody is guilty because of the results from a non-adversarial grand jury process is...well, you know what happens when you assume.; 15 August, 2007 08:12
Doug said...: A grand jury indictment means that a panel of citizens found that there was enough evidence of a crime to charge Kelty. It's a much lower burden than "beyond a reasonable doubt." But, it's not nothing.

And Bill Clinton didn't perjure himself on national television. He lied. Perjury requires a material misstatement of fact to be made under oath. The television appearances weren't under oath. (And, it's a very open question as to whether Clinton's misstatements under oath were material to the proceedings for which he was under oath.); 15 August, 2007 08:38
Anonymous said...: A grand jury indictment is as close to nothing as you can get. Thus, the infamous ham sandwich cliche ("a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich"). Think about it this way: you get to present all your evidence, the other side can't challenge it, and they get to present no evidence. It would have been shocking if there would have been no indictment.; 15 August, 2007 09:05
Bob G. said...: Being "behind" someone is fine (as long as the person they're behind is not standing at a precipice)!

As for Karen Richards...well, let's just say they are rumors, and there are RUMORS.
(but I never said that)

Personally, I feel Kelty didn't do anything different from SO MANY other political hopefuls...someone just decided to break his chops because he's not part of "the club", as it were.

B.G.; 15 August, 2007 10:25
Jennifer Jeffrey said...: If someone firmly believes what they say is the truth, has something else pointed out and then changes the answer, is it perjury?; 15 August, 2007 10:30
Craig said...: Q: What's the easiest way to spot a Libertarian in Indiana?

A: They're the ones voicing unquestioning support for Republicans.

What a joke; 15 August, 2007 11:54
Anonymous said...: The guy was walked away in cuffs to a squad car. Does not mean that he is quilty obviously, but certainly looked like a little more than "nothing". Carol, Karen Richards should sue you for defamation for calling her a crook. That is reprehensible. I am sorry that Karen had to do her job.; 15 August, 2007 12:00
Robert Enders said...: Craig,
Last year we all voted for Hayhurst in the congressional race. Most of us voted for Taviano for sheriff. Remember last year when Mike would come on this blog and bash Souder week after week? I even designed these little buttons that have a yellow ribbon and say "Bring Mark Souder Home" on them.; 15 August, 2007 12:33
Jennifer Jeffrey said...: The fact that we support some Republican ideals should not be a surprise to anyone. There are also some Democrat ideals we support.

Fiscal conservatism and government which stays out of everyone's personal lives is what we stand for.

Unfortunately the media and others are harping on Republicans lately and many of us have come out to stand up against witch hunts. When Tom Henry and other Democrats start harping on raising taxes to pay for social services we will definitively be railing against those ideas.

Stay tuned. We have plenty of current government to gripe about, not just Republicans. We have plenty of suggestions on how to fix the system and make government what it is suppoed to be.; 15 August, 2007 12:45
Anonymous said...: What a Zoo! This is called "Progress" in Fort Wayne, Indiana!

We probably ought to check out how everyone is using the US Postal Service because there are Federal crimes associated with that! In fact lets just get a group of lawyers together in the middle of town and see how many infractions we can come up with. I bet you we can do pretty good!; 15 August, 2007 12:49
Anonymous said...: "Fiscal conservatism and government which stays out of everyone's personal lives is what we stand for. "

So how would an overzealous Catholic with questionable financial disclosure skills fit THAT particular set of criteria? Unbelievable.; 15 August, 2007 13:38
Jeff Pruitt said...: Witch Hunt?!?

Give me a break. Are you actually suggesting that this should NOT have been investigated? One can support Matt without resorting to baseless accusations...; 15 August, 2007 15:52
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous" Please keep the religious comments to yourself in the future. Mr. Kelty's religion has nothing to do with this.; 15 August, 2007 21:52
Jennifer Jeffrey said...: Ah Jeff,

So glad we get along.

It seems like a witch hunt in some respects. Yes.

Of course people should be investigated if it warrants....we are talking, however, about election experts who cleared him and it should have been dropped.

Had there been any other prosecutor, investigator, etc.. I probably wouldn't have been so upset by the appearance of corruption that there is now on every side.; 16 August, 2007 00:02
F6's Editor said...: if any body is still following this thread go over and read my blog.; 16 August, 2007 03:10
Jeff Pruitt said...: Jen,

Election "experts" that cleared him? I'm sorry but that is simply laughable. Were you present for that hearing? The two Republican "experts" only asked 1 question between the two of them. That "hearing" was the biggest sham I have EVER witnessed - EVER. And just so we put the blame on everyone that deserves it, Mr Downs' presentation was incoherent and the entire hearing was disorganized.

I honestly can't believe that anyone - especially a Libertarian - would think that partisan hearings are likely to produce just results.

The election board does not rule on guilt or innocence. We have a legal system for a reason and it's so that partisans don't get the final say...; 16 August, 2007 21:34
Anonymous said...: Again Jennifer,

What corruption are you referring to? These are strong terms and you should be more responsible as the Chairman of the Libertarian party or nobody will take you seriously.

Please tell us what corruption.

Matt Kelty has brought these problems on himself. The campaign laws are clear. Disclose who in the HECK is backing your campaign, period. He didnt. Nobody's fault but his. No sinister plot, no corruption, just Matt Kelty's free choice.; 16 August, 2007 22:16
David C Roach said...: Karen Richards IS (in my opinion)either a crook, incompent, or ignorant, (or all 3)
why? Cherrymasters! illegal racketeering by the operators, and criminal conduct of some kind by those law enforcement officials ansd other parties responsible for keeping tabs on this sort of law-breaking on a mass scale.
I notice there was nothing done about cherrymasters by MS. richards until Governor daniels pulled the plug on the 92 counties worth of illegal gambling/raketeeering; but has not finished the job by going after the criminally guilty- racketeers; and police/politicians/prosecutors.
that is why I frequently refer to Ms. richards derisively as "bimbo Lawyer Barbie" or the "Allen county Prostituter"(because justice is auctioned off to the highest bidder.)
I have no malice against Ms. Richards. she does a fine job of prosecuting skateboarders, pot smokers, coke heads (no comment), social drinkers, litterbugs, and other "mickey mouse misdemeanors " which keep the courts buzzing with cash, and the jail head counts up.
the city and county cooperate splendidly- the city cops round em up. the courts convict them, and the jail houses them, and the rest of the parasites/scavengers pick the bones clean.

and Matt Kelty brought this all on himself, by trying to outwit the system. He seems smart enough. WTF was he thinking? why not just be open , honest, and straightforward in reporting his finances, instead of gambling on some hare-brained scheme put outhere by the Right-to-life cult of kool-aid drinkers.

The Democrats have been the "cubs fans" for years. let the GOP "wait till next year. giggle!
(and fire the manager?); 21 August, 2007 17:44