The utter hypocrisy of America’s Left never ceases to amaze me.  It was this hypocrisy that drove me to file a federal civil rights claim against the government bureaucrats who ran me through one heck of a gauntlet during my bid to be licensed as an Indiana attorney.

On Groundhog Day my search for justice suffered yet another setback.  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals  affirmed Judge Theresa Springmann’s decision that I had no federal case to bring.  Not because I cannot make a claim under the First Amendment, but because any claim that I can make could be heard only by the Indiana Supreme Court – the very court that I all allege to have conspired against me.

I entered the federal court on December 8, 2009 alleging that bureaucrats of the Indiana judiciary and their agents  acted out of “collusion and out of biases, invidious discriminatory intent and animus” when they  targeted me  for law license denial “because of [my]  pro-life beliefs arising out of [my] traditional Christian worldview and constitutional, conservative political perspective.”  Verified complaint here

The past is prologue in my situation:  I was licensed to practice law by the State of Kansas in 1996.  Montana certified me for good moral character and mental fitness in the same year.  Five years later I was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  Six years after that the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) certified me as to good moral character and mental fitness to practice law for all states who use that apolitical and professional licensing authority.  (Indiana is one of the few states that does not use the NCBE, preferring to instead maintain its “old boy network”.)

In 2006, the State of Missouri certified me as possessing the requisite good moral character and mental fitness to practice law.  More to the point, I had then been practicing law for eleven years, winning First and Fourteenth Amendment cases in federal appellate courts the nation over and serving as the Chief of the Kansas Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division under Attorney General Phil Kline.

Enter 2008 and my return to the great state of Indiana after a seventeen year absence.  I was remanded to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program – a substance abuse / mental health unit – due to my civil disobedience some eighteen years earlier.  I was questioned about my commitment to my faith, my political views and my opinion on the abortion industry, psychotherapy and biblical passages among other more mundane and esoteric issues.

These intrusive official inquiries brought on a predictable result from this seasoned constitutional litigator and lifelong champion of First Amendment freedoms.  The Indiana judicial system resisted and resented my requests for an independent, apolitical review of my bar application processing and cried foul when I documented inquires focused upon my views, my beliefs, my religion and my politics.  All are detailed in a sworn affidavit that I have now filed with numerous court systems.

Fifty years ago it was the Left who were being shut out of law licensure.  Theological inquiries were often used to uncover the Marxists, who refused to affirm the existence of a Law Giver.  The SCOTUS put an end to such lines of questions with its 1971 Baird v. Arizona decision, mandating that “views and beliefs are immune from bar association inquisitions designed to lay a foundation for barring an applicant from the practice of law.” 

Yet views and beliefs were front and center in the processing of my license.  I am not licensed to practice law in the Indiana courts this day because I hold to the legal philosophy of our Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr, the Catholic Bishops and most all Americans.

Here is the reason the Indiana authorities gave, at the end of two years of processing, to deny me a license and demand that I not even ask for one again for five years:

“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.” 

In other words, unlike a Marxist I pledge my ultimate allegiance to the power even higher than the state.  And that simply cannot be tolerated, no matter how well I practiced law on my Kansas license from 1996 – 2008.

Despite the Baird Court’s command that religion and politics not be the gravamen for bar denial, on February 2 the federal appellate court setting over Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin (and directly under the SCOTUS) determined, in Pilate-like fashion,  that I had no constitutional concerns that could be heard by the federal court.  I now have the choice to end my legal struggle against the utter hypocrisy of the Left or to soldier on against very long odds with almost no resources at hand.

I have drawn inspiration from our nation’s Founders most all of my life.   The inspiration that seems to best apply in this situation is “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”  Prayers for wisdom, Providence’s leading, safe harbor and a just end are much appreciated.

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

SO WHY WAS I DENIED GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND MENTAL FITNESS CERTIFICATION?  Because I have a loyalty higher than the State. Because I, like Martin Luther King, Jr., like the Founding Fathers and like most of the Catholic Bishops hold out civil disobedience as a principle of governance.  I told statists that I obeyed, in the final analysis, a power higher than them — and they damned me for holding to that American, and very Christian, belief.

Consider these excerpts from the official record found in the federal complaint:

The above seems to track with the following teaching of Party Boss O’Brien in Orwell’s seminal work:

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/

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 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) that the Honorable federal  judge Theresa Springmann wrongly dismissed my case.  I argue that the federal court should review my civil rights claim – alleging that I was discriminated against due to my pro-life and biblical perspectives as a Catholic faithful to Church teachings –  and that the Defendants have no viable argument as to immunity.

Anne helped me on the brief (which explains the lack of typos). I had no other aid (or underwriters).  My law school professor for the class “federal courts” (Craig Stern) reviewed it and commented “Very good work by the way, Bryan!” 

An overview of my opening brief (the summary statement)  follows.  The actual brief (followed by Judge Springmann’s decision dismissing my case)  is posted here:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/64031269/Appellants-briefandcourtbelowdecision-112164

Summary of the Argument follows in red:

The present appeal places two issues before this Honorable Court: The width of Rooker-Feldman abstention and the reach of expert witness immunity. 

Both issues are supported with a well-developed factual record due to the presence of a verified complaint, supplemental affidavit and Dr. Bowman’s answer. 

Appellant argues that Rooker-Feldman does not reach this case due, inter alia, to the fact that he does not seek redress for harm caused by a state court judgment. 

Appellant additionally argues that the District Court erred in extending expert witness immunity to nontestifying, nonwitnesses in circumstances far removed from the crucible of judicial process.  

For those wanting more to chew on, here is the Plaintiff’s opening appellate brief with the Honorable Theresa Springmann’s decision attached afterwards:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64031269/Appellants-briefandcourtbelowdecision-112164

Here it is without attachments:    http://www.scribd.com/doc/63853163/Appellants-brief-112164

Those wanting a more soundbyte driving presentation of the opening brief click here: http://www.archangelinstitute.org/press-release-appellants-brief-is-filed-in-brown-v-bowman-et-al/

The next post in this series presents the Defendants’ response to my opening brief.  CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE NEXT BRIEF

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) that the Honorable federal  judge Theresa Springmann rightly dismissed the case.  They noted that the Indiana court system processed Brown and then the United States Supreme Court did not grant him a review of his case  — so all is now said and done.   Brown cannot be heard to complain of any civil rights violations in the federal court system according to the legal technicalities called “jurisdiction” and “immunity”. 

An overview of that brief follows.  The brief is posted here:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/63933086/appellees-brief112164

Defendants/Appellees filed their brief in August  with the following major points  (this is their abbreviated outline)

1.  Brown’s claims under Section 1983 were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2. Drs. Ross and Bowman are entitled to absolute immunity as witnesses/consultants in quasi-judicial proceedings.
3. Defendants Harrell and Sudrovech are entitled to immunity under {a statute} and quasi-judicial immunity.  

The Defendants’ Summary of the Argument reads as follows:

1.  The district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Brown’s constitutional claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  The doctrine survives to ensure that state-court losers do not get a second opportunity for review in the federal district courts.  Brown’s claims of a conspiracy to discriminate against him were previously reviewed by the Indiana Supreme Court and were a part of the final decision to deny his admission the Indiana state bar.  This Court’s previous precedent in bar application challenges mirrors the present litigation and requires the dismissal of Brown’s claims.  Brown’s careful pleading does not materially distinguish the claims in this matter from the claims raised by Marc Feldman and Edward Hickey in The District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman.  If Appellant is not claiming the denial of his certification for admission as an injury, Appellant has failed to show any injury 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  [sic]
2. The district court correctly held that Defendants Bowman and Ross had witness immunity.  Drs. Ross and Bowman are entitled to absolute immunity as witnesses/consultants in quasi-judicial proceedings.  The witness immunity doctrine applies under the functional approach.  Drs. Ross and Bowman are intimately associated with the Bar Admission process.  Absent absolute immunity, a realistic prospect of continuing harassment by disappointed applicants exists.  Also, the bar admission process contains adequate safeguards to protect the applicant’s constitutional rights.
3. Dismissal of the complaint was proper as to Defendants Harrell and Sudrovech because they were entitled to immunity under the Indiana Admission and Discipline Rules.  The Rules provide that JLAP staff members are not subject to civil suit for official acts done in good faith.  These Defendants are also entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because their functions were undertaken pursuant to directives of a judicial officer.

For those wanting more to chew on, here is the government Defendants’ collective brief seeking to have District Court judge Theresa Springmann’s March 31, 2011 ruling upheld on appeal:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/63933086/appellees-brief112164

CLICK HERE FOR THE REPLY BRIEF IN THIS SERIES OF THREE BRIEFS

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 a table of contents that many will find more than vaguely familiar, and then onto a table of cases that includes some of the great ones from the days of processing communist bar applicants.  My argument on reply starts off with “This is a case of government corruption.”  I am talking political correctness.

It is the most readable brief of the three in this series.  Anne was very much involved in helping me smooth this one out.  Read it right here:    http://www.scribd.com/doc/63853640/Appellants-reply-brf-112164

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 they are forced to take part in
“anti-life acts” or bless gay marriages.

Called the “Manhattan Declaration,” the six-page,
single-spaced document was drafted by Prison Fellowship
founder Charles Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton
University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic, and
included a bevy of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox bishops,
archbishops and cardinals as signatories along with dozens
of clergy and laity.

Archbishop of Washington Donald W. Wuerl is one of the
signatories.

“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that
civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes
required,” says the document which cited civil rights icon
Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his
beliefs.

“Because we honor justice and the common good,” it states,
“we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel
our institutions to participate in abortions,
embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or euthanasia
or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule
purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships,
treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from
proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and
immorality and marriage and the family.”

When pressed to say what sorts of civil disobedience the
writers were proposing, its originators were vague on the
details at Friday’s news conference during which the
document was released.

“We certainly hope it doesn’t come to that,” said Mr.
George, who added that he has represented a West Virginia
resident who has refused to pay a portion of her state
income tax that funds abortions. “However, we see case after
case of challenges to religious liberty,” such as compelling
pharmacists to carry abortifacient drugs or health care
workers to assist in abortions, he added.

“When the limits of conscience are reached and you cannot
comply, it’s better to suffer a wrong than to do it,” he
said.

There are at least 224 million Christians in the United
States, according to the Web site Adherents.com.

The document, which was drafted over the summer, is being
released at a time of high stress for many of the groups
that signed it. The Archdiocese of Washington is under fire
for saying it will not comply with a pending D.C. law that
would force the Catholic Church to give health benefits or
adoption services to same-sex couples.

Archbishop Wuerl, who attended the news conference, said it
was a “joy” to welcome the religious leaders at the news
conference and emphasized that their task “is to change
human hearts. That is how society is changed.”

Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, one of the signers,
said people’s consciences must be formed first.

“The institution of marriage is at risk of being redefined
at its very essence,” he said. “Justice demands that we not
remain silent in face of these threats.”

However, he twice dodged a reporter’s question about whether
it would be a mortal sin for a politician to vote for a
national health care bill that obligates taxpayers to pay
for abortions.

Several speakers said the document was moral, not political,
in nature and that the bulk of it defines three core issues:
life, marriage and religious liberty.

“This is truly a matter of the heart,” said the Rev. Robert
Sirico, founder of the Michigan-based Acton Institute. “To
portray it as something other is to mischaracterize our
intentions.”

But the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of
Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, said the document was very political.

“I am optimistic that the people in the pews will not heed
their leaders’ misguided call to action,” he said. “Polls
show that most churchgoers do not want to see their faith
politicized. But I am also well aware that religious leaders
have vast lobbying power that cannot be ignored.”

The document does portray a gloomy picture of the current
political situation, citing the “pro-abortion ideology
[that] prevails today in our government.“

It adds, “The present administration is led and staffed by
those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal
development and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer
expense. Majorities in both houses [of Congress] hold
pro-abortion views.”

The first 148 signatures include Southern Baptists,
Anglicans, the Orthodox Church of America (OCA), members of
Reformed, evangelical, Hispanic Protestant, Church of God in
Christ, Antiochian Orthodox and Evangelical Free Church
traditions plus the executives of numerous parachurch
ministries.

There were only a handful of Presbyterians, United
Methodists and Pentecostals, and no apparent signatories
from Seventh-day Adventist, Messianic Jewish and Episcopal
churches.

Here at the ArchAngel Institute we have been foreshadowing this battle for more than two years now.  {Update:  Now 3 1/2  years} In fact, our Executive Director, Bryan J. Brown, is shoulder deep in this battle.  {Update: now neck deep} Come to our December 8 banquet to hear much about this.  {Update:  that was 2009}  Also check out our category “Refuse, resist or rebel” for more on this subject, including Church teaching.  {Update:  the battle is coming to you … or at least your children/grandchildren.   Not much time left to hit the snooze button or pretend this is just an “issue.”}

Who is ready to wake up to the real battle raging in our midst? Who is ready to realize that this is not the “marriage issue” or the “abortion issue” but rather national apostacy from the Faith Once Delivered?  Who is ready to reconsider where Humana Vitae leads and the voice of authority that it represents?  Click here for that post.

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