Archive for January, 2010

Celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. by standing up to injustice

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

Martin Luther King. Jr.  Letter from a Birmingham jail. 

Does the processing of Bryan J. Brown’s file through the Indiana Board of Law Examiners and Indiana Supreme Court document an injustice?

Merely consider the High Court’s usual and standard custom in measuring out “justice” against bar applicants and recently admitted attorneys (who, unlike me, lied to the Bar Examiners during processing).  New attorneys (unlike me, who has beeen practicing since 1996)  while involved in indecent exposure, child molestation and even downloading kiddie porn.  Chief Justice Randall Sheperd ruled all of the cases presented herein. 

For the record, I must admit that I am a pro-life activist who was arrested a dozen times — and only convicted of misdemeanors once or twice — a full 18 years ago.  My processes through the Indiana system, as set forth in the federal complaint, focused upon my pro-life beliefs and theological perspectives – especially as it affects my view of governance.

What if Brown had used children as sex objects rather than attempting to save children from the ravenous abortion industry?

Or what if Brown had recently exposed himself in public instead of engaging in public acts of civil disobedience 18 years ago?

Or what if Brown had been caught downloading kiddie porn while in the midst of applying to become an Indiana attorney instead of writing letters urging the kommissars handing his case to respect the state and federall constitutions to which they swore an oath?

Well now, that would be a different kettle of Hoosier fish.  Read on to appreciate just how different.

Here are some of the Indiana cases that were placed before the High Court — to absolutely no avail.

(more…)

Celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. — just a postmodern heretic himself

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

We continue MLK week here at the ArchAngel Institute.  That brave man was hounded by the FBI and persecuted for his Christian ideology. Even killed for it.   Had they the ability, they surely would have handed him over to the same process to which I was subjected.  Psychologists and psychiatrists are the “clergy” of the postmodern state.  Just as the Pilgrims had their witch trials for heretics, the postmodern state has its “extremists” trials.  I was subjected to one and my legal career burned at the stake under the stern gaze of a cadre of Indiana’s high priests and priestesses of political correctness, — JLAP’s Tim Sudrovech and Terri Harrell.

Because I am openly Christian in my expression and because I refused to recant from my pro-life convictions they had me tied to the stake — all the while refusing (numerous requests) to even meet with me or look me in the eye.  (It is easier to dehumanize the intended sacrifice that way.)

It pretty much began with Dr. Stephen Ross’ report, which went so far as to offer the authorities a “rewrite” if it did not include all necessary to “process me” as they wished.   Ross bound me to the stake with the following, which was subsequently rejected as shallow and unsupportable by all of the subsequent psychologists and psychiatrists to whom I went –  even the two government affiliated professionals:

44.    [The Ross] report identified Plaintiff as a pro-life person with a traditional Christian worldview and constitutional, conservative political perspective who intended to advance the pro-life and Christian cause through the ArchAngel Institute. 

45,   In that April 23 report Dr. Ross concluded that Plaintiff “appears to have moral integrity.”

(more…)

Celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. — it is good he did not try to get into the Indiana bar

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

We pause this weekend to celebrate a milestone in peaceful, Christian civil disobedience.  That milestone is the life and work of MLK.  Lest anyone accuse me of being an opportunist, realize that I shared much of this at my June 1 hearing before the Board of Law Examiners, and previously on this site here and also in one of my most creative writing exercises – the one that communicated my one and only discussion with the Kansas AG who fired me as deputy attorney general and consumer chief, June, 2007 and then again on that same blog, here.  I also made use  of MLK in my own jailhouse letter to Judge Patrick Kelly (in 1991) that the Indiana authorities have recently used to deny me licensure based upon my religiously-based political ideals.  Here.

Thus I am not just trotting MLK out at this time to make some points against the Indiana Supreme Court and its minions. 

Speaking of that collection of postmodern jurists, this is from my December 8-filed federal petition:

153.  Dr. Bowman informed Plaintiff that he placed his values and morals higher than legal obligations and by so doing shared much in common with early church, including being at odds with the state.  That Plaintiff’s conservative political and Roman Catholic views were the primary focus of Dr. Bowman’s interviews are evident throughout Dr. Bowman’s final report and are used to support her conclusion that Plaintiff suffered from Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified.

154,  Dr. Bowman’s report stated that:

“Like many people of faith of past millennia, he firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God’s laws above human laws.”  Id.;  “He considers his [former protest activities] an integral part of his Roman Catholic Christian faith and considers his actions morally right.”  Bowman report at p.4;

155.  Upon information and belief this report influenced the final Board of Law Examiner’s final report stating that:

“He testified [as] to his obligation to disobey laws that contradicted his religious beliefs under certain circumstances. [He further] indicated that he would not obey certain court orders and judgments  that he believed to be unjust.  [It is the policy of the  Indiana court]  that a member of the Indiana bar must obey Indiana law and federal law, even when doing so violates an attorney’s conscience, and that an avowed willingness not to do so is disqualifying.”  Board report at pp.29-30.

** end of excerpts from federal complaint

It is clear from Dr. Elizabeth Bowman’s report that she strongly disliked me — as do most pro-abortion and anti-Catholic ideologues.    Still, she did seem to understand that my views were as old as Western Civilization itself and for that reason had some historic justification.  What is far more difficult to understand — and even frightening — is how three of the allegedly “top tier” attorneys in the State of Indiana  (to be named in subsequent posts), as well as seven others on the Board, as well as Indiana Supreme Court Justice Randall Shepard could NOT realize that the above paragraph flies directly in the face of the following excerpts from America’s best known jailhouse missive:

(more…)

Brown v Indiana Supreme Court: Much of the socio-political context involves Kansas

Friday, January 15th, 2010

 Frank Avila (a great pro-life gentleman who took the Culture of Death’s best left hook from 827 Webster Street almost 30 years ago and got back up to fight on with zeal) took me out to lunch today.  As we dined on the 13th floor of a local window garden an old classmate of Frank’s dropped by and was  introduced. As fate would have it he was an attorney.  An elder attorney of quite some stature about the Fort, in fact.  A Democrat attorney — who had read my federal pleadings.

As soon as I said “licensed in Kansas but not Indiana” he said “you must be the one suing the State in federal court.”

His analysis:  “they really did you wrong …. they should not let politics into the admission process in this State.”

It would appear that word is getting around the legal community.  He is right on the mark.  The argument can be made that it was politics and not law that primarily caused my application to be delayed, and delayed, and delayed and then finally denied — with the order that I not even ask again until 2014.

(Now, you might wonder what adverse order would befall an attorney caught lying in the application process, or caught in indecent exposure in the same process, or caught covering up downloading kiddie porn while in the application process.   Would they get the same rough treatment as this pro-life dissident?  Stay tuned, you will be amazed!)

Here is part one in a multi-part series that will help document why my political activity in Kansas could leak over to the Indiana Board of Law Examiners’ “help” desk — if the proper constitutional bulwark (such as those protecting Marxists) were ignored.    (Click here for the beginning of a five post series on how well Marxists — unlike Christian activists (at least in Indiana) are protected through the application process.) (more…)

Brown v Indiana Supreme Court: Some of the socio-political context involves Senator Sam Brownback

Friday, January 15th, 2010

This post continues the series began in the previous post.  The red font is from a Midwest blogger who is attempting to discuss Kansas politics while showing some telltale signs of being an outsider.  My comments (Bryan’s) are in blue. 

Thesis:  The State of Indiana’s refusal to license me to practice law, despite my recent clearance by the National Board of Law Examiners, despite my clearance by Missouri in 2006, despite my acceptance into the bar of the United States Supreme Court in 2000, despite my approval by Montana and Kansas in 1996 and despite the fact that I have had a Kansas license since 1996 with no disciplinary action found to lie against me and despite four years as one of the most senior law enforcement officials (Deputy AG) in Kansas (2003-2007) reveals this:  INDIANA DOES NOT WANT ME — for seemingly political reasons.

Senator Sam is one of those reasons … (more…)

Brown v Indiana Supreme Court: Much of the socio-political context involves Phill Kline

Friday, January 15th, 2010

This post continues the series that began in the two previous posts of similar title.  The red font is from a Midwest blogger discussing Kansas politics from the perspective of the abortion industry

My comments (Bryan’s) are in blue

“But name recognition cuts both ways. Everyone in Kansas knows about Brownback’s hard right edge, particularly around women’s issues, and that may not be a boon in a state whose voters are rapidly wearying of abortion-related demagoguery. The last statewide politician who emphasized his radical anti-choice ideology didn’t do his political prospects any favors. Phil Kline gained notoriety for using his powers as attorney general to paw through women’s confidential abortion records in quest of some unspecified wrongdoing (the women were largely patients of Dr. Tiller). When the extent of his extremism became clear, Kline was rewarded for his bullying doggedness with a double-digit loss to a Democrat in the 2006 election cycle.”

I was on deck when ship Kline capsized.  The National Democrat party and the abortion industry poured millions of dollars into Kansas to sink Kline.  I was one of Kline’s right hand men — one of six Deputy Attorney Generals.  I had ran his Consumer Protection & Antitrust Division, overseeing 20,000 inquiries, 5000 investigations and a good 400 enforcement actions over that time period.  The Left hated me …

(more…)

Missing in Action: The Rule of Law

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

My Indiana experience with the Board of Law Examiners and Indiana Supreme Court convinces me that Paul Craig Roberts is sadly right on the money with his analysis that follows.  I have bolded in red those sentences  best supporting what I will soon begin posting to this site:

By Paul Craig Roberts 

What is the greatest human achievement? Many would answer in terms of some architectural or engineering feat: The Great Pyramids, skyscrapers, a bridge span, or sending men to the moon. Others might say the subduing of some deadly disease or Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.

The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English-speaking peoples the most free in the world.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.

As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book The Tyranny of Good Intentions, (2000), the protective features of law in the U.S. were eroded in the twentieth centuryby prosecutorial abuse and by setting aside law in order to better pursue criminals. By the time of our second edition (2008), law as a shield of the people no longer existed. Respect for the Constitution and rule of law had given way to executive branch claims that during time of war government is not constrained by law or Constitution.

{NOTE from Bryan: In my case it is political correctness that has trumped the Constitution.  Stay tuned.}

Government lawyers told President Bush that he did not have to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits the government from spying on citizens without a warrant, thus destroying the right to privacy. The U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the President did not have to obey U.S. law prohibiting torture or the Geneva Conventions. Habeas corpus protection, a Constitutional right, was stripped from U.S. citizens. Medieval dungeons, torture, and the windowless cells of Stalin’s Lubyanka Prison reappeared under American government auspices.

The American people’s elected representatives in Congress endorsed the executive branch’s overthrow of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Law schools and bar associations were essentially silent in the face of his overthrow of mankind’s greatest achievement.

{NOTE:  In my case it is a whole Board of Law Examiners,  including some that consider themselves, even hold themselves out to be, constitutional experts.  You will not believe what they countenanced.}

 Some parts of the federal judiciary voted with the executive branch; other parts made a feeble resistance. Today in the name of “the war on terror,” the executive branch does whatever it wants. There is no accountability.

The First Amendment has been abridged and may soon be criminalized. Protests against, and criticisms of, the U.S. government’s illegal invasions of Muslim countries and war crimes against civilian populations have been construed by executive branch officials as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” As American citizens have been imprisoned for giving aid to Muslim charities that the executive branch has decreed, without proof in a court of law, to be under the control of “terrorists,” any form of opposition to the government’s wars and criminal actions can also be construed as aiding terrorists and be cause for arrest and indefinite detention.

One Obama appointee, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, advocates that the U.S. government create a cadre of covert agents to infiltrate anti-war groups and groups opposed to U.S. government policies in order to provoke them into actions or statements for which they can be discredited and even arrested.

Sunstein defines those who criticize the government’s increasingly lawless behavior as extremists,” which, to the general public, sounds much like “terrorists.”In essence, Sunstein wants to generalize the F.B.I.’s practice of infiltrating dissidents and organizing them around a “terrorist plot”in order to arrest them. That this proposal comes from a Harvard Law School professor demonstrates the collapse of respect for law among American law professors themselves, ranging from John Yoo at Berkeley, the advocate of torture, to Sunstein at Harvard, a totalitarian who advocates war on the First Amendment.

The U.S. Department of State has taken up Sunstein’s idea. Last month Eva Golinger reported in the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, that the State Department plans to organize youth in “Twitter Revolutions” to destabilize countries and bring about regime change in order to achieve more American puppet states, such as the ones in Egypt, Jordan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states, Britain and Western and Eastern Europe.

The First Amendment is being closed down. Its place is being taken by propaganda in behalf of whatever government does.As Stratton and I wrote in the second edition of our book documenting the destruction of law in the United States:

“Never in its history have the American people faced such danger to their constitutional protections as they face today from those in the government who hold the reins of power and from elements of the legal profession and the federal judiciary that support ‘energy in the executive.‘ An assertive executive backed by an aggressive U.S. Department of Justice (sic) and unobstructed by a supine Congress and an intimidated corporate media has demonstrated an ability to ignore statutory law and public opinion. The precedents that have been set during the opening years of the twenty-first century bode ill for the future of American liberty.”

{British material redacted}

In contrast, insouciant Americansare content for their government to behave illegally. A majority supports torture despite its illegality, and a McClatchy-Ipsos poll found that 51 percent of Americans agree that “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.” 

As our Founding Fathers warned, fools who give up liberty for security will have neither.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.

INTERVIEW WITH A RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED POLITICAL DISSIDENT

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Listen to Redeemer Radio, AM 1450 in Fort Wayne, at 9 am Saturday mornings for Dr. Matt Bunson’s show Faithworks.  I (Brown) was recently interviewed for 30 minutes by Dr. Bunson — he is a very fine interviewer.    NE Indiana is fortunate to have such a resource and fortunate to have Redeemer Radio and Dr. Bunson both.

Update:  The interview aired January  9 at 9 am.  Redeemer radio can be heard on the Net at this site:  http://www.redeemerradio.com/.

Working on a way to post a link to the interview, stay tuned.

Justice Hoosier Style

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

This site will soon start posting information on political corruption among the Indiana judiciary.

It is a manifestation of the change in morality that has brought America to a postmodern experiment in social collapse.

To prepare for this series read the series on “to serve and protect” that starts here.

Brown v. Indiana Supreme Court: Epiphany edition

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

For general release on Epiphany, January 6, 2010

ADVANCE PRESS COPY Contact: Bryan J. Brown archangelinstitute@gmail.com // 800.399.4620

Human Rights Activist Bryan J. Brown alleges religious and political discrimination

SHORT VERSION ArchAngel Institute Executive Director Bryan J. Brown recently filed a federal action against the Indiana Supreme Court and others alleging that he was subjected to unconstitutional processing through their application program due to his pro-life identity and adherence to Natural Law jurisprudence. Brown, a Kansas licensed attorney in good standing since 1996, is also a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court and was found of sufficient good moral character and mental fitness to be admitted to any state bar by the National Board of Law Examiners in 2006. Missouri invited Brown to sit for their bar exam in 2006.

The Supreme Court of Indiana, through its Board of Law Examiners, refused to acknowledge this National finding and instead ran Brown through a full mental health assessment, after which they denied him entrance in a five sentence order that cites no facts and cites no case law. Brown documents a troubling process fixated upon his religious, political and pro-life perspectives. Brown notes that it was clear through the processing of my case that the Indiana authorities were demanding that I recant from my allegiance to the Higher Laws concept that defines Christian political science. This I refused to do. For this faithful recalcitrance they have punished me in various and sundry ways, culminating in an order that I not even seek admission to the Indiana bar again until 2014, a full seven years from my previous petition.” More details on this case can be found at www.archangelinstitute.org

LONG VERSION (more…)