Trial continued for last of Goshen School Board candidates involved in mailer scheme
GOSHEN — One candidate accused of fraudulent filing in the 2022 Goshen Community Schools election race may yet be going to trial for the charges.
Andrea M. Johnson's jury trial scheduled for May 12, was continued in Elkhart County Superior Court 3 on Wednesday. Of the five individuals charged in the election fraud scandal, Johnson is the only one to not plead guilty. Johnson is also the only one who has not previously held public office.
Sitting Goshen School Board members, at the time, Roger Nafziger, Jose Elizalde, Allan Kauffman and Mario Garber, along with candidate Johnson first faced election fraud charges from the Elkhart County Election Board due to improperly tracking funds after a mailer was released from their election campaigns back in October 2022.
During an Elkhart County Election Board hearing April 27, 2023, Kauffman, who also happened to be Elizalde's campaign chairman, said he was approached by retired school teacher Sue Neeb because of concerns she had about 2022 Primary Election school board candidates Rob Roeder, Ryan Glick and Linda Hartman. At the time, Kauffman would not offer the name of the former educator for the same reasons the educator wished to remain anonymous.
The teacher told Kauffman she was concerned about the future of local education should Purple for Parents-endorsed candidates Roeder, Glick, and Hartman gain elected office. At the time, Kauffman said the teacher wished to remain anonymous to prevent backlash to her husband's business. The teacher helped gather funds summing up to $11,770, which Kauffman distributed them between the four election candidates, whose campaign finance committees paid Maple Leaf Printing for the cost of the mailer.
The campaigns listed Kauffman as the donor on campaign finance forms, which the election board later discovered was technically untrue as they were gathered by Neeb. Per election law, any person who donates more than $100 toward a campaign should be listed on finance forms.
The Elkhart County Election Board found that Neeb had collected funds from a total of 32 individuals and, while she did keep some records, election law dictates that donors offer name, address, occupation, date, and dollar amount for all donations — and Neeb did not collect all of the necessary information.
Back in December 2022, during election board proceedings, Johnson said she was concerned from the beginning that she'd made a mistake in her first-ever campaign and went to the clerk on several occasions with questions.
'I actually filed my very first report late because I was in my car going over things and didn't realize it had to be in 'by noon,' so it was in at like 12:30 or something like that,' she said. 'I went back in and checked again and then I was told that there were no other forms until the end of the year when everything would be closed out. It's my fault that I did not look. I just had no idea that there was an amount that I would have to file before the end of the year and so I apologize.'
She added that when she learned about the CFA-11 form, she emailed it late at night before the election along with a letter explaining, in hopes that she wouldn't be in violation.
She also told the board that she didn't know the funds weren't Kauffman's. As a newbie to campaigning, she said she was just happy to be included but made it clear to the group that she didn't have the money to help fund the mailer with the others, and was told that Kauffman would cover it and she believed the funds came directly from him.
Election board members ultimately issued penalties to nearly 40 people involved in the election campaign finance fraud in April 2023, ranging from $150 to $250, following months of proceedings. Neeb was fined $2,000, while the candidates were referred to the prosecutor's office for formal proceedings.
Each of the accused faced a charge of filing a fraudulent report, a Level 6 felony, and accepting a contribution made in another's name, a Class B misdemeanor. Kauffman had the same charges but had five counts of the Class B misdemeanor instead of the one.
Nafziger, Elizalde and Garber, remain sitting school board members although all were sentenced within the last year, having pleaded guilty to Count 1 — filing a fraudulent report, a Level 6 felony. Their second counts of accepting a contribution made in another's name, a Class B misdemeanor were dismissed, and their felony charges were treated as misdemeanors per the plea agreements. The same plea deal was offered to all but Kauffman; The deal offered to the other members of the election fraud scandal was to plead guilty to the felony and be sentenced to 365 days at the Elkhart County Jail, suspended on reporting probation, with probation to be terminated after one weekend of a community-oriented work program.
Former Goshen mayor Allan Kauffman resigned from the school board in February 2024, citing health concerns. The health concerns were also a contributing factor to his sentence. Despite being categorized by the state as the ringleader of the controversy, Kauffman pleaded guilty in open court on Friday and was sentenced on all counts without a plea deal. He was sentenced on Count 1, filing a fraudulent report, a Level 6 felony, to one year at the Elkhart County Correctional Facility suspended on reporting probation; Counts 2 through 6, all reckless contribution to a campaign, a Class B misdemeanor, to 180 days at the Elkhart County Jail suspended on one year of reporting probation, all to be served concurrently.
On Wednesday, Johnson's attorney told the court that they're still in discovery, with new and additional information received, they're not yet ready to go to trial over the matter. Her attorney, Phillip Miller said the defense team is also considering taking deposition from Kauffman, but could not do so until his case was resolved. Last Friday, he was sentenced. The state said they are also still in the discovery process.
Elkhart County Circuit Court Judge Teresa Cataldo agreed to continue the jury trial. A status conference is scheduled for Aug. 13.
DANIEL STARCHER
A man accused of stealing a car out of Michigan pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in Elkhart Circuit Court on Wednesday.
Police attempted to perform a traffic stop at C.R. 17 and Beck Drive on the stolen blue Ford F-150 at 2:03 p.m. Feb. 26 that fled the scene.
While fleeing, the truck was struck after disregarding a lighted red signal at the intersection of C.R. 17 and Beck Drive.
The vehicle was determined to be stolen out of Three Rivers, Michigan, after the owner left the truck running at a gas station. Police claimed Daniel Starcher, who was also involved in the crash, had stolen it and brought it home to pick up his dog before the crash.
Starcher admitted to stealing the truck.
Starcher pleaded guilty on Wednesday to Count 2, resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony. For his plea, Count 1, auto theft, a Level 6 felony, will be dismissed.
Sentencing is scheduled for May 28.
CRISTIAN A. ANDRADE-PALACIOS
A man pleaded guilty to a drunk driving crash that resulted in multiple injuries during Wednesday's court proceedings in Elkhart County Circuit Court.
Elkhart County deputies responded to the call for a crash at 4:14 p.m. June 17, 2023, where a 2014 Mercedes Benz driven by Cristian A. Andrade-Palacios had struck a 2020 Jeep Wrangler.
Police say Lillian Coffman had been driving southeast on Ind. 119 east of C.R. 9 in the Jeep when Andrade-Palacios in the Mercedes entered oncoming traffic to pass a vehicle in front of him heading north and caused a head-on collision with Coffman's vehicle.
Witnesses said traffic was slowed due to a tractor on the road.
Coffman suffered several fractures to her hand and remained without proper use of her hand into at least January 2024, was unable to write or type properly, and that gripping the steering wheel was also difficult.
In addition, an infant in Andrade-Palacios' vehicle suffered a broken leg that required surgery.
After the crash, police conducted field sobriety tests on him and Andrade-Palacios' consented to a blood test showing a 0.214 blood alcohol content. Andrade-Palacios' said he'd had three or four beers prior to the drive that lead up to the crash.
Andrade-Palacios pleaded guilty to both counts of causing serious bodily injury while operating a vehicle while intoxicated, both Level 5 felonies. Sentence is scheduled for May 28.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas death row inmate dies in prison of unknown causes
Arkansas death row inmate Latavious Johnson died of unknown causes at the Varner SuperMax prison on Friday afternoon, according to the state's department of corrections. He was in his 40s. The Arkansas Department of Corrections did not provide Johnson's cause of death and declined to comment further. Johnson had received a life sentence for the murder of his father, Johnnie Johnson, in 2000. Johnson was sentenced to death for the 2012 murder of a prison guard, Barbara Ester. Johnson had fatally stabbed Ester with a shank three times and punctured her heart, court records show. She had been investigating whether he had obtained a pair of unauthorized gym shoes in the prison. Johnson expressed remorse for his actions in a statement his lawyers provided to police, court records show. 'I should have just gave the shoes up, just said to hell with it, asked someone to send me some money and order me some more,' Johnson told a police investigator in an interview after the killing, according to court records. 'It's too late for all that now.' A corrections facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas is named after Ester. ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Two Courts Uphold UPEPA Fee Awards After Voluntary Dismissals
The UPEPA is weathering appellate decisions just fine so far. The Uniform Public Express Protection Act (UPEPA) in just a few years has become the most ubiquitous body of Anti-SLAPP law in the world. Like most other Anti-SLAPP laws, the UPEPA provides for a special motion to cause the dismissal at an early stage of meritless litigation which infringes upon a person's free speech and related rights. If the defendant in such a case wins the special motion and the offending cause of action is dismissed, then the defendant who brought the special motion must be awarded their attorney fees, expenses and costs in relation to the special motion. This provides a powerful deterrent to such meritless litigation being brought against them in the first place. But what if, after the UPEPA special motion is brought, the plaintiff who brought the offending cause of action decides not to contest the special motion but instead just voluntarily dismisses it? In that instance, can the defendant who went to the trouble of preparing and filing the UPEPA special motion still be awarded attorney fees for their trouble? The answer to this question was recently answered by two courts in different states (New Jersey and Kentucky) on two consecutive days, and which reached the same conclusion. We'll examine the opinions of those courts now. These opinions are Satz v. Keset Starr, 2025 WL 1522032 ( May 29, 2025), and Johnson v. Kearney, 2025 WL 1536078 ( May 30, 2025). In the Satz case in New Jersey, the defendants circulated a flyer that advocated that the plaintiff get a religious divorce. The flyer contained an unfavorable photo of the plaintiff and suggested a protest outside of the home of the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff sued the defendants for a variety of things related to the flyer and asked for $30 million in damages. When the plaintiff moved for default judgment, the defendants responded to the motion with request that the case be dismissed under the UPEPA. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion and that same day the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The defendants then moved to reopen the case for the purpose of assessing fees, costs and expenses under the UPEPA. The trial court, however, refused to consider the defendants' request on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff filed his action was either frivolous or intended to harass the defendants. The defendants appealed this ruling. Now turning to the Johnson case in Kentucky, where two candidates in the 2024 Republican primary for state attorney were squabbling over an endorsement by the local Fraternal Order of Police. Ultimately, one candidate sued the other, and the other candidate (the defendant) filed a UPEPA special motion to dismiss. Concluding that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith, the trial judge encouraged the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice to refiling. The plaintiff did dismiss the complaint and the judge refused to award the defendant fees, costs and expenses because the case had been dismissed. The defendant appealed this ruling. The courts in both Satz and Johnson reached the same conclusion in the same way. Both courts determined that the outcome could be determined by interpreting the plain text of the UPEPA without the need to reference external sources. The statutory interpretation of the UPEPA in these cases was very straightforward: First, the UPEPA provides that a voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action does not affect the moving party's right to seek attorney fees, costs and expenses; Second, the UPEPA deems a party's voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action ― while a UPEPA special motion is pending ― to establish that the moving party prevailed on special motion; and Third, the UPEPA states that the award of such attorney fees, costs and expenses is mandatory where the moving party has prevailed on the special motion. Therefore, where a cause of action has been voluntarily dismissed while a UPEPA cause of action is pending, the moving party is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses despite the voluntarily dismissal. This was the ultimate ruling of both courts, which reversed the trial court and remanded the cases for the calculation of the attorney fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to the respective moving parties in each case. The Satz opinion additionally noted that one reason for this outcome was to keep a party who brought an offending cause of action from simply dismissing the cause of action and then possibly re-asserting it later. This would defeat the purpose of the UPEPA to free the defendant from having to further litigate the cause of action. The Johnson opinion commented on the fact that "good faith" by the party who filed the cause of action is not any defense to the UPEPA's mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses ― it doesn't matter at all why that party brought the cause of action, only that it infringes upon protect rights. ANALYSIS Both of these appellate courts arrived at the result desired by the UPEPA drafting committee when we were writing the Act: In the event of a voluntary dismissal after a special motion has been brought, the moving party will still be entitled to mandatory attorney fees, costs and expenses. There was considerable debate within the UPEPA drafting committee over this outcome, mostly due to something called the innocent violator. Basically, the drafting committee realized that the cases which infringe upon protected expression could be divided into two categories. The first category is the classic SLAPP case which is intended to harass, punish, or retaliate, etc., against the speaker for the purpose of making them shut up. Recall that the acronym SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The 'Strategic' part of this is that the action would intended ― specifically designed ― to cause harm to the speaker by forcing them to incur legal costs in defense. This wrongful intent characterizes this first category of cases infringing protected expression. The second category is exactly the opposite of the first: The second category is where the plaintiff who brought the cause of action had no intent to misuse the cause of action, but instead stumbled into an infringement of public expression because their counsel was lazy or careless, or the public expression issue was very technical and not easy to spot. This is the aforementioned innocent violator. The drafting committee recognized that an innocent violator should be treated differently than somebody who intentionally brought abusive litigation. But how should that treatment differ? There were suggestions that a warning letter should be sent before the special motion was brought, that the innocent violator should be allowed to dismiss or reframe the infringing cause of action without penalty, or that attorney fees should not be assessed against an innocent violator. In their opinions, the Satz and Johnson courts discuss these things as well (although whether the plaintiffs in those cases could be characterized as innocent violators is somewhat dubious). What was the solution? The idea of a warning letter ― similar to that required before a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is brought ― seemed like a good one. But there were at least two problems with this solution. First, it would be a complete waste of time to have a warning letter sent to the first (abusive) category of violators, who at any rate didn't deserve a warning. Second, if a warning letter was sent and the action thereafter voluntarily dismissed before the filing of the special motion, then the defendant (speaker) compensated for the legal fees for having the letter written and such letters can be quite costly. Thus, the warning letter idea was rejected. The next idea, being that the plaintiff should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss the infringing cause of action after the special motion was filed, was similarly rejected. Preparing and filing the special motion is costly, and if the plaintiff was simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss without any penalty, then the defendant could not be compensated for having to prepare and file the special motion. This was also a bad idea for the reason that a first category plaintiff engaged in abusive litigation could simply later re-file the same cause of action and cause the defendant the same trouble all over again. So this idea was rejected too. The third idea was to not assess attorney's fees against an innocent violator. While this sounds at first like a good idea, it is actually a terrible one. The problem here is the UPEPA would first have to define what an innocent violation was, and that would draw into question the plaintiff's intent. The parties would then have to litigate the plaintiff's intent, which would tremendously exacerbate the very litigation that the UPEPA was supposed to have quickly and efficiently gotten rid of in the first place. That idea was quickly axed. Where the UPEPA ended up is accurately described in the Satz and Johnson opinions: The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the cause of action that is the subject of the special motion, but that voluntary dismissal is treated as a resolution of the special motion in favor of the speaker and thus entitles the speaker to the mandatory award of attorney fees. This is a suitable middle-ground solution. By voluntarily dismissing the special motion, the plaintiff cuts off the attorney fees incurred by the speaker at the special motion ― the speaker could not, for instance, ask for attorney fees to file a reply brief (since no opposition brief was filed) or to attend the hearing on the special motion (which is no longer necessary). For those who would suggest that this outcome is harsh for an innocent violator, the bottom line is that if somebody is going to litigate in an area which might implicate protected expression issues, then they should be particularly careful. One who has stumbled into a violation of protected expression will not be rewarded by a 'get out of jail' card for their carelessness. This is basically what the Satz and Johnson opinions conclude and in this respect they are both right on target.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal court hears challenge to Confederate monuments funded by taxpayers in Florida
Confederate monuments are once again at the center of legal and public debate in Jacksonville, this time inside a federal courtroom. Former attorney Earl Johnson Jr. is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to revive his 2021 lawsuit, which aims to stop the city and state from using public funds to preserve Confederate tributes on taxpayer-owned property. Johnson, who is the son of a civil rights attorney who once represented Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., argues that public symbols honoring the Confederacy are not just relics, but represent government-backed white supremacy that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< 'The purpose of this court in terms of my case is to lay out the ground rules – where does the state stand? Where does the city stand, as it relates to Confederate monuments?' Johnson said. The lawsuit, originally dismissed last year due to lack of standing, lists Mayor Donna Deegan and more than 30 Confederate-related memorials, plaques, and names statewide. Outside the federal courthouse on Hogan Street, demonstrators rallied in support of the case. Protesters held signs and chanted calls for change, saying the monuments inflict ongoing harm, particularly on Jacksonville's Black residents. 'These are modern-day 'whites only' signs,' Johnson said. 'They tell me, as a Black man, that I'm not worthy — that I'm a second-class citizen.' [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] Kelly Frazier with the Northside Coalition of Jacksonville joined the rally and said the monuments are more than just statues. 'They're symbols of hate. They're shrines to rebellion that fought to keep our ancestors in chains,' Frazier said. A courtroom sketch captured a look inside the federal hearing. [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter] Activists say the fight goes beyond removing statues, calling instead for a broader reckoning with the legacy of racial injustice in public spaces. A decision from the appeals court could take weeks or months. Action News Jax reached out to Mayor Donna Deegan's office for comment. A spokesperson responded, 'We decline to comment on the pending lawsuit.' Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
