NOTICE — seeking public interest firms interested in appealing.  Please see link at end for overview of issues via briefing and oral argument recordings.

The Honorable Richard Cudahy authored the opinion for the panel on February 2, Groundhog Day, refusing to apply the generous exemptions to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that the Seventh Circuit had trail blazed for more than two decades.  The message sent to the Indiana Supreme Court was “do what thou wilt” to bar applicants who are politically incorrect and refusing to bow to the political orthodoxy (and even religious orthodoxy) demanded by the government.

Decision linked here.

The precedent cases ignored in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion (not even mentioned, in fact) are found in the reply brief.  See especially the line of cases flowing out of Nesses v. Shepard , 68 F.3d 1003 (7thCir.1995)

Now, I do not want to be open to the further criticism of being Newt-like, and so ….

Congratulations to Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller (acting through Deputy Attorney General Francis Barrow) for winning one for Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP), government attorney and JLAP director Terry Harrell, and JLAP social worker Tim Sudrovech   in Brown v. Bowman.

Honorable mention goes to Stephen Brandenburg and Sharon Stanzione for their legal work on behalf of the government’s chosen psychologist (read O’Brien you 1984 fans) Stephen Ross.  Also to be mentioned, Andrew Palmison and Mark Baeverstad for their legal work on behalf of a JLAP insider, the psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman (history buffs read Thomas de Torquemada).

As the Seventh Circuit’s decision documents, I came up against a shadow system in the Indiana bar seemingly designed to rid that august body of its unwanted.  I was, in a word, aborted — my attempt at adding an Indiana license to my Kansas license cut to shreds — along with my reputation and my career at law.  (I had been Deputy Attorney General myself for four years under the much hated Phil Kline, likely one the many reasons I was marked for a forced law license abortion — alongside my six years as a constitutional litigator for the Left’s enemy, the American Family Association and my graduation from the much-hated Regent University and my former work — in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s, as an Operation Rescue operative.)

And then there is the ArchAngel Institute.  Unwanted?  More like marked for termination.

As my reply brief depicts in bold headings, I was therefore thrown into a lions’ den designed to consume, among others, the politically incorrect.  I may have been the first such Christian victim —  I assure you that I will not be the last if this coliseum is not closed down.  (Anyone thrown to Sudrovech, Harrell, Ross or Bowman would do well to contact me immediately for advice — your law license or judicial position is in a precarious situation.)

The Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ostensibly serves impaired attorneys — I was impaired by my Christian worldview that had showed itself in an adulthood dedicated to Christian activism.  And so off to The Party I was sent for an unsuccessful mind-scrubbing:

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ***  Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

George Orwell, 1984

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/man-loses-challenge-to-denial-of-admission-to-indiana-bar/PARAMS/article/28075

There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”

George Orwell, 1984

Appellate briefing here:  http://www.archangelinstitute.org/category/archangels/michael-archangels/brown-v-bowman/

by TZ

I forget the details but a few years ago a state passed a law declaring that π (PI), the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle was exactly 3.14 to make calculations easier.  I think it was a joke, but it illustrates that law can’t change fundamental reality, only contradict it.  3.14 is a rational number according to mathematics.  Of course π is a transcendental number, an “irrational number”, and although the law always should strive to be rational it ought not try to do so in this sense.

The intractable problem with man creating law is that he is fallible, and we need courts and wise judges to resolve the contradictions and ambiguities. There are some statutes that says “you can’t” and “you must” in nearby text.  This is normal and isn’t merely a problem with the fall, but with our finite minds.  A worse problem is that power corrupts man, producing some very rational, consistent, clear, but evil laws.

Were we in Wonderland, the Queen would simply add this contradiction to one of the six impossible things before breakfast and declare both valid at the same time.

In this real world, are we to accept irrationality, insanity, to be a feature of Man’s law? What if some contractor only delivered 3.14 times the diameter of a planned circular swimming pool? Or if the law said 2+2=5?

What Catholics mean by “God’s Law” can be two things.  (more…)

by TZ

This is from “A Man for All Seasons”, but it is the central point:

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

In the previous post I noted Martin Luther King Jr. was a big proponent of the natural law because that is the only way law can protect the weak.  If law becomes merely “Man’s Law”, it will become the law as defined by the rich and powerful, and as the Occupy movement is protesting, the 1% will not hold themselves to account, but find every petty violation they can think of to oppress those that aren’t part of the oligarchy. The petty violations make them “convicts” with an arrest record.  William K Black (author of “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One) has pointed to blatant fraud, Karl Denninger (author of “Leverage”). Both constantly ask “Where are the Handcuffs?” for those who looted the system in the big banks and wall street

It is even worse than that. (more…)

By TZ (building off of http://www.archangelinstitute.org/saint-thomas-more-and-civil-rights-part-i/ )

I have little in common with the gay community, except that they are human beings with human rights. I would not stand shoulder to shoulder with someone who wishes to do lewd acts in public. But I must stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone defending their human rights. Under the natural law. God’s law.  My Christian friends might object: “But it is a grave sin”.  My response comes from the scene just earlier in “A Man for All Seasons” which was the reason for the original quote and this was not about some third party but the man that would ultimately betray him and be responsible for being found guilty and his execution:

Margaret: Father, that man’s bad.
Sir Thomas: There’s no law against that.
Roper: There is: God’s law.
Sir Thomas: Then God can arrest him.

Such things are a matter for the confessional, not the constable.  What they do in private that doesn’t cause public disruption is none of the state’s business as their home is their castle.  Even civil disobedience and the disruption is often because people aren’t being left alone except when the defense by the law and authorities ought to be protecting them.

Almost. A man’s home is his castle in 49 states and where the Magna Carta  still prevails.  The exception in (more…)

I missed a fine resource that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals posts on its fine website.

Here is the court’s recording of my oral argument:  oralarg

Heard by the Honorable Judges Michael Kanne, Diane Sykes and Richard Cudahy on October 20, 2011.

We await a decision while praying for nothing but the apolitical application of the laws of this nation.  Please join us in that unadorned prayer for justice.

Why did I argue my own case?

Here is a post answering that question:  http://www.archangelinstitute.org/i-am-exhibit-a-a-defense-of-my-pro-se-status-before-the-united-states-court-of-appeals/

This post kicks off a series on the briefing now pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Bryan J. Brown v.  the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (in the persons of JLAP Executive Director Terry Harrell, JLAP Clinical Director Tim Sudrovech, Indianapolis-based psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman and Fort Wayne-based psychologist Stephen Ross).

This series is presented in the public interest.  Click here for more on that concept as it relates to this pending case. 

Pursuant to the rules of The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals the Appellant (that is, the one who files the appeal) has to file a timely brief of no more than 14,000 words with an appendix that includes the decision on appeal.

This I did, filing in early July.   The timing could not have been better, as that I began my research and writing when my adjunct classes (teaching ethics) at the University of St. Francis ended in May and filed my reply brief the week classes started up again.  (What an irony – teaching ethics while fighting a finding that I lack the same – or something similar – to such a degree that I cannot be an Indiana attorney.)

In my opening Appellant brief I argued (in a nutshell) (more…)

See the previous post in this series for the background on what follows …

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Defendants-on-appeal (Terry Harrell and Tim Sudrovech of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program,  psychologist Stephen Ross and psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman)  to file a joint brief. 

In their jointly-prepared brief (filed mid-August) the Defendants argued (in a nutshell) (more…)

The one who appeals gets to bat last in the federal appellate system  — most all systems, in fact.  The final brief (called a reply brief)  is optional – I did not have to file one.  Yet Appellants usually do, for the Appellees almost always get something wrong in their brief.  Under the rules the reply brief can be no more than 7,000 words.  For those counting,  that is 21,000 words for the Appellant (who is disagreeing with the district court judge) and only 14,000 for the Appellees – but then the appellees enjoy the distinct advantage of having already prevailed below.  When you add the weight of the federal district court’s opinion in the mix, then the odds are decidedly against the Appellant.

I’ll take the odds where they landed.

The reply brief does not have to conform to the many rules that govern the initial brief and the responsive brief. It is often more relaxed and even conversational in tone.  Especially the ones that I write.  ( I have written many.)

The reply brief in Brown v. Bowman opens with (more…)

Aux. Bishop James Conley has known me (Bryan) since 1991.  He is one of my spiritual advisers and has been for 18 years now.  He explains our shared background in this clip which he prepared for our December 8 banquet, before he knew for certain that the federal litigation would be filed.  He prepared a similar — actually even  more glowing — recommendation as to my good moral character and fitness and sent it to the Indiana Board of Law Examiners last June.  Here it is. They ignored it.