“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily won without bloodshed, if you will not fight when victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.  There may even be a worst case:  You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” Winston Churchill

I was a captive of the far left for 362 days.  The federal complaint tells that story … here is some of it:

Initial complaint, paras 29- 31

29.  The Board of Law Examiners (“BLE”) ordered Plaintiff to report to Tim Sudrovech of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program at the conclusion of Plaintiff’s first hearing before the Board on January 25, 2008.

30.  That order effectively transferred the Plaintiff into the JLAP program, where he would remain until JLAP returned him back to the BLE with the January 22, 2009 filing of Tim Sudrovech’s recommendations.

31.  Plaintiff was under a duty to be absolutely and totally candid in all matters, including all psychological or psychiatric examinations, pursuant to the laws governing bar admission.  A finding that Plaintiff was less than honest, open and ruthlessly candid in this process could result in denial.  Plaintiff was thus completely open, honest and candid in all matters detailed herein.

***

Stan Hazlett is the head law dog in Kansas when it comes to disciplining attorneys.  He reports directly to the highly political  Kansas Supreme Court and does a fine job, in my estimation, of being pulled in many directions at once yet still exuding respect for the Rule of Law.

I hear a sermon from Stan every few years, incident to gaining Continuing Legal Education Credits, about the absolute necessity of total, brutal openness when dealing with his office and “internal affairs” in general.   (As an aside, and foreshadowing for a later post, Stan told me that he had never heard of a bar ordering a psych exam, and was floored when I told him of the religious questions I was asked on the MMPI-2 incident to bar admission in Indiana.)

The “be candid” rule  is in the model rules, and is especially pressed upon those petitioning for entrance into a state bar. One of the worst things an attorney under investigation can do is hide any fact, no matter how seemingly inconsequential.  “Bare all and stand naked before your inquisitors” is the basic rule in such settings – metaphorically speaking.

And thus I was sent, on January 25, 2008 the Feast Day of St. Paul, into a full psychological review ordered by the Board of Law Examiners.  I had met with them for a short spell that day – which happened to be my birthday.  (They failed to wish me a Happy Birthday, but then I do not think that would have been sincere had they done so.)

I stayed under investigation by JLAP until Dr. Elizabeth Bowman drafted her report – on December 24, 2008.   She spent  Christmas Eve — a month after our last session — scheduled be her on Thanksgiving eve– writing a report designed (so it seemed) to ensure that I would not be licensed to practice law in Indiana.  (A report not filed until after December 29 — so why the Christmas eve date?)

That hypothesis will make more sense once the reader understands who Dr. Elizabeth Bowman is and the major cause that defines her very life.  More on that later, but if you just cannot wait then google (“elizabeth bowman” eewc.com)

That December 24 authored report was the result of my candid response to hours of questions probing my religion and my politics, as will be detailed in subsequent posts in this series.

Most important to the question of date was this exchange on the core belief that we Christians celebrate on December 25:

Complaint, paragraphs 147 – 150.

147.  After ordering Plaintiff to recount his family history in detail Dr. Bowman announced that his pro-life zeal was a byproduct of his emotional response to the premature birth of his younger twin brothers, stating  “They must have looked like skinned rat terriers, and having been put in the position of caregiver for them in your early adolescence later caused you to identify with fetuses in the pro-life movement.”

148.  Plaintiff disagreed with Dr. Bowman’s analysis, countering that he was pro-life due to the fact that Mary, soon after the Holy Spirit overcame her, visited Elizabeth, who announced that John the Baptist leapt in her womb.  Plaintiff informed Dr. Bowman that this event caused him to conclude that John had personality late in the second trimester and that Jesus was in Mary’s womb as a distinct person at conception.

149.   Dr. Bowman then challenged Plaintiff to realize and appreciate that others interpreted that scripture quite differently, holding that Elizabeth merely read too much into a flutter in her abdomen.  Plaintiff informed the state-mandated psychiatrist that he was Roman Catholic and that his Church instructed him in the proper interpretation of that scripture and that the pro-life ramifications of it were his “truth,” regardless of how others interpreted it.

150.   Dr. Bowman recorded in her final report that Plaintiff had offended her and devalued  her faith with such responses, rendering it basis for an allegation of narcissism and that then supported her ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff suffered from Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified.

***

Dr. Bowman sent her finished report to Tim Sudrovech, the state social worker that the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, JLAP, assigned to “handle” me by the BLE.

Sudrovech’s final report did little more than quote and comment on the Bowman report.  He added little to it and did not add anything of his own rather than opinion.  He had nothing much to add, having refused to meet with me even once over the 362 days, despite my many requests for a meeting.

Most social workers could have written his report in an hour or two.

Sudrovech took three weeks.  He then mailed his two page report, which carried Bowman’s report with it as an attachment, to the BLE.  He mailed it on January 21. They received it and stamped it in bright red ink on January 22, 2009.

To quote a professor from a school everybit as anti-Christian as Indiana University, this date constituted a “slap across my big, fat fundamentalist face.”  (Prof Paul Mirecki disrespecting Christians at KU, click here for details.)

My 362 days had started on my birthday, the feast of St. Paul, hit a high point on December 24, and then ended on the anniversary of the fateful Roe v. Wade decision.

These dates back up the litigation’s basic claim that it brings to bar a series of acts that evidence “bias, animus and invidious discriminatory intent marshaled against Plaintiff in response to  his pro-life beliefs arising out of his traditional Christian worldview and constitutional, conservative political perspective.”

This entry was posted on Monday, December 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm and is filed under Brown v. Bowman, Michael. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.