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/

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.

The font in dark colors in this post was first displayed here in November, 2009 – more than 18 months ago.  In the past day one of the largest states in our Union has ordained same sex marriage and the President of our less-than-perfect Union has won the first round in federal court in a case that questions whether we can be forced to buy the rope used to hang us.  (i.e. taxpayer funded Planned Parenthood).

Our Christian and pro-life leaders are being tested most in this hour.  Will they lead us as emboldened believers in all that is right and true, looking in Faith toward a Commander beyond the here and now (see, i.e., Joshua 5) or will they shrink back to hand wringing, mere talking and fund raising?  (And especially fund raising — mammon has its benefits.)

National Right to Life and its state affiliates have taken the  lead on the pro-life issue.  Will they soon issue a post like this one calling the masses to arise in peaceful, prayerful protest as did the rescue movement of the 1980′s?  Or will they rather ask us all to reach deep into our wallets to ensure that salaries remain uninterrupted through this economic downturn caused by a contraception-induced Demographic Crisis that the mainstream pro-life groups rarely — if ever — discuss? 

Could it be that I am not an Indiana attorney today — or offered a hand of fellowship by mainstream, “respected”  pro-life groups — because I am willing to post questions like those above?  And the Institute is willing to present on the Demographic Crisis — as we did all last summer — and hand out copies of Humana Vitae while so doing?  And promote the Manhattan Declaration (here) and show Demographic Bomb (here) and openly teach the truth about the Pill (here).

Yes, that could be it.  The Church is the answer.  All else is sinking sand — and sinking fast.

Now to the rerun ….

The lengthy story in red that follows was in the Washington Times this morning … and then mysteriously removed.

This (click here, later) scaled down story replaced it.

Here is the one that went down the Orwellian memory hole, with bold highlights:

Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues

More than 150 leaders across a spectrum of conservative
Christianity on Friday released a 4,700-word document vowing
civil disobedience if (more…)

This explanation of the suit that will soon be appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals  was first posted on December 9, 2009.  More details at the Michael tab above and in the posts below.  More will be posted over the next several days.

The ArchAngel Institute’s Executive Director filed a federal lawsuit on December 8, 2009 setting forth fifteen claims under the Federal Constitution and four claims under the State Constitution against the Supreme Court of Indiana, Terry Harrell and Tim Sudrovech of the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program and two of the doctors that said program mandated that the Plaintiff turn himself over to,  Dr. Steven Ross and Dr. Elizabeth Bowman.

The plaintiff, Bryan J. Brown, was admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1996, where he yet enjoys good standing. He was passed for character and fitness in Montana in 1996, before the United States Supreme Court in 2000, by Missouri in 2006 and by the National Board of Law Examiners in 2006.

Brown was remanded from the Indiana Board of Law Examiners into the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program on January 25, 2008 (the Feast day of St. Paul) and subjected to that agency’s machinations until they remanded him back to the Indiana Board of Law Examiners on January 22, 2009 (the anniversary of Roe v. Wade).

Brown’s lawsuit is focused upon damages visited upon him, the Federal constitution and the Indiana constitution during those 362 days, as well as damages ongoing and damages threatened in the future.

This website will present regular and ongoing commentary on this lawsuit as the principal, principled project of the ArchAngel Michael Division in the months to follow.

That which follows in red is from the federal complaint:

INTRODUCTION OF CAUSES OF ACTION

1. This litigation, at core, alleges a conspiracy to discriminate against Plaintiff in the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program that culminated in the filing of fraudulent reports obtained through unconstitutional means with the Board of Law Examiners that influenced said governmental body to Plaintiff’s detriment.
2. The Indiana Supreme Court created JLAP.  Admission and Discipline Rule 31, Section 2.  The Board of Law Examines has authority to refer persons to JLAP “for assessment or treatment.”  Admission and Discipline Rule 31, Section 8(c).
3. JLAP and the Board are distinct entities that do not share offices, mission statements, personnel or immunities.
4. The currently named Defendants (other than the Chief Judge) are alleged to have been purposely and knowingly involved in acts taken under the color of law and through close affiliation with  JLAP,  along with other Doe Defendants (who may or may not be affiliated with JLAP) in which an end goal was commonly pursued because of, and not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon Plaintiff’s free speech, free exercise, due process and/or equal protection rights under the federal and state constitutions as well as general statutory and common law protections afforded Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff does not ask this Honorable Court to reverse or even review the ultimate outcome of his bid to become a licensed Indiana attorney.  As precedent makes clear, that case will be heard, if at all, by the United States Supreme Court.  This court simply lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to relieve the instant Plaintiff of the order that he not be admitted to the Indiana bar and not even seek admission again until 2014.
6. This suit is not focused upon the inaction of the Indiana Supreme Court or the action of the Indiana Board of Law Examiners.  This suit is instead focused upon the actions of the staff of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program and the small cadre of hand-picked providers with whom they collaborate.  As such this case has applicability far beyond bar admission issues.
7. The actions alleged herein and the remedies sought herein are not the type that can be brought to the United States Supreme Court in an action seeking a reversal of the  Indiana Supreme Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s admission to its bar.  If the claims brought herein are not heard by this Honorable Court, the claims brought herein are unlikely to be heard in any court of law.
8. Plaintiff had communicated his intent to bring this litigation long before the Indiana Supreme Court issued its five sentence, law-free ruling on his 31 month application to add Indiana to the list of multiple jurisdictions that had found him of sufficient moral character and mental fitness to practice law.
9. Plaintiff had intended to bring this litigation whether Indiana found him possessed of such moral character and mental fitness or not.   Thus the fact that Indiana did not should not enter into the calculus of whether this case is rightly before the court.
10. What this Honorable Court is asked to consider in this litigation is whether JLAP, by charter, is involved in processing judges and attorneys through mental health assessments and treatments in difficult personal situations without due regard for the constitutional norms that define the American legal order.
11. This suit brings to the bar the actions of some of the small cadre of hand-picked experts that JLAP assigns to work its cases.  While JLAP may not be paying the monies directly to such mental health professionals, JLAP clearly mandates, as demonstrated infra, that such hand picked experts – and only such hand picked experts – will be the ones reviewing JLAP’s “assignees.”  JLAP furthermore dictates the significant terms of the sessions they supervise through mandatory pre-briefings that go so far as to dictate what terms and findings are not to appear in final reports.  (And, by extrapolation, what terms and finding are to appear in the final reports.)
12. The allegations contained herein cut a window into a process that (thanks to public shame and confidentiality rules) is seldom open to review by the public.  Plaintiff brings this action for the good of his profession and all of those who will follow him into the JLAP system because Plaintiff:  (1) has suffered much through the processing described herein; (2) believes, with Justice Louis D. Brandeis. that “Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant;” (3) is a twelve year licensed attorney fully dedicated the following: “As a public citizen  a lawyer should seek the improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of the service rendered by the legal system.”  Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble; and finally, (4) [Plaintiff] perceives a duty to bring this litigation since he is under a “responsibility to assure that the regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar.” Id.

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?  Call (260) 423-1771 or 800.399.4620 or email archangelinstitute@gmail.com