“It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men. “  H.L. Mencken

As set forth in the federal complaint, two significant Rule changes were signed into law, effective January 1, 2010, by Chief Judge Randall T. Shepard.  If my case documents at least some concerns, then these Rule changes should set off fire alarms in every law office and law dean’s office, left or right, in the State of Indiana – and even beyond.  These Rule changes are available online, having been signed into law on September 15, 2009.  In a nutshell, the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program and their hand picked, small community of  acceptable providers (which I allege to be nothing much more than a storefront office for some of the most radical elements of the political correctness movement) will be granted ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY on January 1 and be allowed to file anything on any bar applicant that they deem relevant into a national data bank.  Old Tail gunner Joe lacked such power back when he was allegedly blacklisting.  JLAP’s Tim Sudrovech and Terry Harrell are poised to blackball and blacklist me (Brown) and any who they also deem far too politically incorrect to be entrusted with a law license.Thus the Plaintiff in Brown v. Bowman filed this motion yesterday:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

BRYAN J. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.  No. 1:09-CV-346RL

DR. ELIZABETH BOWMAN,

TERRY HARRELL,

individually and in her official capacity as Executive Director of

the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program,

TIM SUDROVECH, individually, and in his official capacity as Clinical Director of )

the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program,

DR. STEVEN ROSS,

JOHN DOES and JANE ROES, co-conspirators,

And RANDALL SHEPARD, in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme )

Court,

Defendants.

_____________________________________ )

Bryan J. Brown, pro per, does hereby movethis Honorable Court for an order, issued on January 4, 2010, pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 65(b), maintaining the status quo ante as to the out-of-state promulgation of the records challenged in the instant action. Plaintiff requests a twenty day duration on this order, said order to end, if not stipulated to by Defendants or renewed by the Court, at close of business on Friday, January 29, 2010.

Points, Authorities and Argument

Plaintiff brings the following to bar through his verified complaint:

On September 15, 2009 the Indiana Supreme Court did amend the rules governing the reporting of Law Examiner investigations and investigative outcomes as of January 1, 2010.

The grant of communicating the Bar Examiner’s well hidden work is expanded to allow the Bar Examiners to deliver, to a “national bank operated by or on the behalf of the National Conference of Bar Examiners” extensive reports on the investigation of bar applicants in Indiana, including the reports of JLAP and the reports of their small cadre of hand-picked expert witnesses.

Prior to this change in the law the Bar Examiners were limited in what they could place in the national bank, said limitation not allowing reports such JLAP’s and their small cadre of hand-picked expert witnesses.

Upon information and belief this change evinces a common plan to send Defendants’ allegedly error- and religious intolerance- filled reports into the national bank in a bid to keep Plaintiff and future persons similarly situated to Plaintiff from successfully petitioning any future state bars.

Such promulgation of Defendants’ reports or reports based upon Defendants’ reports will visit grave harm upon Plaintiff.

Plaintiff, in the following excerpts from his complaint, seeks equitable relief:

Plaintiff seeks … (b) equitable relief recalling government reports built upon unconstitutional and tortuous acts and practices and quarantining all reports arising from said unconstitutional and fraudulently obtained reports, and … (d) an injunction prohibiting Defendants from … promulgating reports predicated upon unconstitutional acts and fraud and directing Defendants to develop and implement training and protocols which comport with constitutional requirements and protect the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

e. Equitably relieve Plaintiff of the inequitable burdens now placed upon him and that are threatened to come upon him and others after January 1, 2010 through the promulgation of the Bowman, Sudrovech and Ross reports and absolute immunization of any and all who issue secret reports, written or oral, to the government authorities determining who can be admitted to the Indiana bar .

This motion, brought pursuant to Rule 65(b) and served upon all Defendants on or about December 17, 2009, specifically seeks an order that maintains the status quo anteas to the out-of-state promulgation of the reports of the psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman, the psychologist Steve Ross and the social worker Tim Sudrovech that are adverse to Plaintiff and any who are similarly situated.

This motion is timely because the law governing the promulgation of such reports was amended on September 15, 2009 to allow such releases beginning January 1, 2010. See Exhibit A, attached hereto (pages 1, 4, 5, 16, 17 and 23 only). The same rule change that allows the State to promulgate such reports also changes the law governing the ability to hold the report producers and report promulgators responsible for their work product. Good faith immunity, which does not protect those working for merely ideological reason or out of animus, gives way to absolute immunity on January 1, 2010. Thus those who place, author, call-in or otherwise make and promote such reports regarding bar applicants – even if due to racism, sexism, invidious discriminatory intent, ideological hatred or the most base motives known to humankind, will be shielded from any civil repercussion for their actions in the same manner as the judiciary.

Plaintiff reasonably believes that the reports he challenges in the instant litigation are slated to be uploaded into the national bank of the Bar Examiners on January 4, 2010 or soon thereafter as authorized by the September 15, 2009 changes to Rule 19, Confidentiality, Section 3(c). This Rule was quite limited before said change; it did not previously allow reports such as those challenged herein to be placed in the national data bank of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. Plaintiff reasonably believes that this promulgation of the JLAP-ordered and JLAP-authored reports will visit harm of an irreparable nature upon his ability to successfully petition any other state bars in the future.

This far reaching change in the rules of admission renders all of the “property of the Supreme Court of Indiana,” (i.e., everything in Plaintiff’s file) open to be uploaded to this national database, for the section that previously allowed only the most generic of information will now allow, after January 1, 2010, the filing of any “information relating to a bar application.” This can include such allegedly discriminatory documents as the notes of social workers serving as self-appointed and uneducated psychiatric analysts, anonymous “tips” from ideological foes, allegations not subjected to the rigors of due process and, in the case at bar, the contents of a secret file that was refused the Plaintiff in the face of a Board of Law Examiner’s subpoena seeking the same. (See verified complaint at ¶¶ 204-05)

Since January 1 is a holiday, January 4, 2010 is the earliest date that the State of Indiana could promulgate these allegedly biased, discriminatory, secret and fraudulent reports. This TRO should issue, holding these records in abeyance until after the Court can consider Defendant’s responsive pleadings and review arguments for a preliminary injunction, if such will be necessary.

Plaintiff argues that such a release of those reports challenged on fraud and constitutional theories in the instant litigation would constitute a “ringing of the bell” that simply cannot be unrung. This is especially true if the Bowman report is released without the Plaintiff’s response to the same, or his wife’s response to the same, or Dr. Flueckiger and Dr. Alexys’ reports refuting the Bowman report. Upon information and belief the State has no intent of placing those documents defending Plaintiff’s mental health in the national bank, but only those documents intended to visit harm upon Plaintiff — and thus the need for absolute immunity for those authoring and promulgating the reports.

Such a sea-change in the State of Indiana’s ability to blackball and blacklist bar applicants (hypothetically speaking) through JLAP should be subject to briefing prior to enactment if a pre-enforcement challenge is filed.

This litigation is just such a pre-enforcement challenge.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an order staying the operation of the amended Rule 19, section 3 as to all citizens, or, in the alternative, just as it would affect the reports of Bryan J. Brown that are challenged in the instant litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

This entry was posted on Friday, December 18th, 2009 at 9:36 am and is filed under Brown v. Bowman, Raising the bar. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.