INDIANAPOLIS (Legal Newsline) - An Indiana politician who lost his seat after witnesses said he announced his membership in a neo-Nazi group and unleashed a racist and anti-Semitic tirade at a meeting of county officials also lost his bid to regain his position through the courts.
In a July 28 opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a lawsuit by Thomas A. DeCola, saying his appeal brief was impossible to understand and he had waived all legal arguments to proceed.
DeCola was elected to the Starke County Council in November 2018. The following month, he attended the Association of Indiana Counties conference in Indianapolis, where witnesses and a police report said he approached a table and told the people there he was “an active member of the Aryan Brotherhood.”
Using an offensive term for African-Americans, he said Blacks and Jews “were no longer going to be allowed in Starke County” and said he had tortured and abused them in “an underground bunker.”
DeCola’s term began Jan. 1, and at the first meeting of the County Council on Jan. 22, members approved a motion to investigate DeCola’s behavior. On Feb. 18, the Council renewed its discussion. DeCola didn’t deny the allegations but said his “best response is to follow the rules of procedure and that is all he has to say.”
The Council president repeatedly asked DeCola if he wanted another hearing but he didn’t request one. Then the Council voted 5-1 to expel DeCola from the body.
DeCola sued the Council in state court in April 2019, and after more than a year of pretrial litigation, the court dismissed his complaint in December 2020. DeCola represented himself at the trial court and on appeal, which the appeals court noted probably hurt his chances. Self-represented or pro se litigants “are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of a failure to do so.”
In this case, DeCola filed an appeals brief citing “the `magic language’ doctrine” and “the common-sense merit-based approach of plenary logic and determinative discretionary process” and accused the trial judge of acting “for the sole purpose of damaging [him] politically.”
“This excerpt and like statements leave DeCola’s brief incomprehensible,” the appeals court said. "Even though DeCola cites opinions of this court and our Indiana Supreme Court, he does not explain how those opinions support his contentions on appeal, as required by Appellate Rule 46.”
“Consequently, we hold DeCola waived all arguments on appeal,” the court concluded.