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/

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix has become one of the first Roman Catholic bishops in the nation to openly defy the Obama administration over new rules forcing employers to include access to contraceptives and sterilization procedures in health-insurance coverage.

Although the Catholic Church itself is exempt from the proposed regulations, Olmsted believes the federal government’s decision is an attack on religious liberty. He is encouraging church members to actively oppose it.

Rob DeFrancesco, spokesman for the Phoenix Diocese, said that even though the diocese, its parishes and its schools will likely all be exempt from the rule, the bishop is concerned about “many other organizations,” such as charities and hospitals, that are Catholic in belief but may not fall under the diocese’s administrative umbrella.
“This is an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the church in the United States directly and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty,” Olmsted wrote in the letter, which is expected to be read this weekend at Catholic Masses.Olmsted, who was not available for comment, was among a handful of bishops to release letters late this week expressing opposition to the mandate. The Phoenix bishop went further than some others by saying Catholics should not comply with the law.

Several others made their concerns clear, including the bishop of Pittsburgh, David Zubik, who in a column on the diocese website said the message from the administration to churches was: “To hell with you.”

The rule is scheduled to take effect in 18 months.

The messages from bishops signaled a new front in the battle over government imposition of rules that churches believe affect religious freedom.

Several church leaders have been engaged in the dispute since the rules first were announced last August, but now, numerous bishops are preparing letters to be read at Masses on Sunday encouraging church members to become more active in opposing the rules.

The Roman Catholic Church is the only significant denomination opposed to contraception.

At issue is a proposal by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require health-insurance plans to cover certain women’s health services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or a deductible.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, said last week that the move will provide greater access to the full range of preventive services for women. She said the administration believes it was a compromise between religious values and women’s health.

The U.S. bishops claim the decision impinges on religious freedom protected by the First Amendment.

The church has taught that birth control is “intrinsically wrong” since 1968, around the time the pill came into widespread use.

According to the government, the mandate will include exceptions for certain religious employers, such as churches and church-governing groups.

But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argues that the mandate violates conscience protections for other Catholic organizations and individuals who are covered under the First Amendment. In the past, exemptions were available for almost any organization that claimed following a government mandate would violate its religious beliefs.

It is not a new fight. In the past year, several Catholic charitable organizations in Illinois and Massachusetts have dropped foster care and adoption services because they would be required to consider gay couples as potential parents.

On the other side of the coin, Catholic Healthcare West changed its name to Dignity Healthcare and ended its affiliation with the Catholic Church, mainly because church regulations impeded the company’s growth — especially when seeking mergers with non-Catholic hospital groups that did not want to abide by Catholic regulations.

Bishop: Law is ‘unjust’

According to Catholic News Service, bishops in nine of the nation’s 195 dioceses are preparing letters to be read at Masses on Sunday encouraging churchgoers to lobby against the measure. Several others, including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and retired Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, have written or spoken against the mandate.

Of the group that has gone public so far, Olmsted appears to be the only one who has said specifically that Catholics should defy the law, according to the Catholic news agency.

“Unless the rule is overturned,” Olmsted wrote, “we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health coverage for our employees.”

Olmsted added, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

***

The Catholic Church has taken a consistent stand against the use of outside means of birth control, arguing that sexual activity must remain open to the possibility of children.

According to the Rev. Jan Olav Flaaten, a Lutheran who is director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, most religious groups are not concerned that the government routinely overreaches in church-state relations. He said he could think of no other group that had issues with contraception.

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.  The first meaning is the set of rules you must follow to get to heaven.  They are specific to Catholics, and only binding to the extent that a particular Catholic wishes to have a high or low place in heaven, avoid hell, and/or avoid a long period in purgatory.

The other meaning is the “Natural Law”, as the section in Thomas Aquinas Summa on the law goes into detail about.  It is the law derived from right reason as to what the government needs to do to promote and keep the peace among men in civil society.  What the king, not the church should do and be limited to.

Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail says:

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.

Segregation wasn’t unjust because of some Bible verse, or progressive idea, it contradicted reality – distorting it.

Man can write whatever caprice and whim into the civil code, and it need not be logical, rational, or sensible.  But only laws which fall within the proper authority of the government, and are consistent with reality are just and valid.  They may not even be prudent.  But they cannot be nonsensical.

I believe the Civil Rights movement has failed, and that Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream has become at best a caricature, at worst a nightmare. What he wanted was the natural law to shred Jim Crow, segregation, and discrimination, so that people of character and ability would all be treated equally in the sense of being proportional to their character and ability.

That is what he was arguing for. That is what the natural law requires.  Treat equal things equally.  Treat unequal things proportionately and justly.  Treat access to government especially the courts as sacrosanct and never to be denied anyone, and do justice to all.

The counterfeit which has appeared instead has many of the narrow effects of what a just law would have provided to minorities, but by twisting the law so that the results end up looking correct.  A carnival mirror that you look at twisted lines through so they appear straight.  But it is cheating like looking in the Teacher’s answer book without doing the work to solve the problem.  Things like the dignity of real work aren’t required for the reward.  Real character is not rewarded more than bad character, often it is penalized.

The worst evils of “man’s law” were simply shifted so that instead of justice – which requires giving what is deserved for one’s actions – many are given hush money, others are still discriminated against and in even worse ways but using more subtle means (See “The New Jim Crow“).

St. Augustine wrote about “The City of Man” v.s. “The City of God”, and to an extent that is what Natural Law, the Higher Law, God’s Law is about. If Man’s Law is irrational and unjust, what would the law in the City of God be? And ought we not obey the law from right reason instead of robotically following the errant programming of Man’s law into a system crash?  When it says to segregate?  When it isn’t enforced for abused unpopular minorities?

In this world, in civil society, to follow natural law – God’s law – is to reject irrational and unjust provisions, fighting against them directly first and foremost by exposing them, but ultimately by not obeying them, but obeying what reason and a well formed conscience dictate.

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. At least I can go to a local credit union. I can escape from some of the 1% in the crony capital marketplace. I can’t escape the civil and criminal justice system. Clarence Thomas recounts in his book how in the pre-civil-rights south he was told the police could arrest him and he would go to prison on some charge they made up and no one would defend him.  The civil rights movement went beyond people of color to women and the gay community, and although I disagree with the irrational gender feminism, I remember my Mother worked (before she married and had me) and she was the smartest person in the office but paid far less than “the idiots that would mess up her files”.  Gays could be beaten and the cops would do nothing – assuming the cops weren’t the ones doing the beating – nor would prosecutors.  That needed to change too.

What that comes down to is that everyone needs access to the courts, and needs to have their cases considered by the merits of the case, not who the plaintiff or defendant are, nor what they may have done or do in their personal lives, nor by their appearance.  Judges hate pro-se defendents or even lawyers who defend themselves (which might be foolish, but at least they know the courtroom procedure).  If I can’t find a lawyer to defend me, can I even fight an unjust speeding ticket?  Cut off access to lawyers, you cut off access to the courts and the law.    If it is serious enough, and you truly can’t afford it, there are overworked public defenders.  Otherwise if you aren’t in the 1% you will have to suffer economic destruction even if you are innocent.  Or if it is a civil matter, and not one of these “off the shelf” class action things like asbestos, maybe a lawyer will take your case on contingency or maybe not at all.  And if he doesn’t like or approve of you, will he really be able to defend you?

That was what Thomas More was about.  He was a judge.  And completely and totally honest.  He would rule against the wealthy when they did wrong, but against the poor when they had no case.  It was purely based upon the letter of the law.  Those thick but valid laws of men.

When the King decided to invade the territory of the church and redefine marriage (in this case it was Divorce, and complicated as the Pope already granted one annulment).  But civil authority had adopted the idea of legitimate and illegitimate children in the same way they took over the definition of marriage, so the law itself was bastardized.

Because Thomas More was known to never compromise, and to be totally honest, the King wanted him to declare his Marriage valid by taking an oath.  His approval would have told all of England that the Marriage was founded with the proper authority.  Instead he remained silent as he honestly did not consider it valid – he did not speak against it for the law said to do so would be treason, so he found a third way.  He was eventually incarcerated in the Tower of London.  They found false witnesses and he lost both the case and his head.  But the legitimacy of the law itself was executed, stating “I die the king’s good servant, and God’s first“.  So when the sovereign, a capricious and evil king or judge, makes an evil decision, who do you serve?

And he was among the 1%, but not one of them.  He did not abuse his position or claim privilege.  Nor did he seek to use the law to impose his ideas, to lead a legal revolution.  Just remain silent.  There were rights starting with the Magna Carta which was already a few hundred years old at the time.

Stay tuned for post #2 in this series …

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 Indiana, as their state supreme court recently ruled that you cannot resist or defend yourself against an unlawful arrest.

“Cut down all the laws to get to the devil”.

Everyone should now be afraid.  This does more damage to the exclusionary rule than if it was overturned.  If a stop, detention, search, and/or arrest itself  is unlawful, then resisting it is lawful and the charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and battery on a police officer are thrown out as part of the whole.  Now the unlawful search and arrest that precipitates such defenses will allow all the charges created by the defense to stand.  I’m not sure what or where the recourse is to occur.  A deputy annoyed that he might have to pay child support because I talked his girlfriend out of aborting their child can find something, break down my door and if I resist at all – or he thinks I do or can get me to react (youtube has many examples) – I would be guilty of resisting arrest or battery and guilty until proven innocent as it would not matter that he had no warrant or cause to break down my door and accost me.  Or I have to find an attorney and use some unspecified or generic procedure to get …  justice?  compensation? … for the unlawful activity and transcend some new, unknown and possibly infinitely high barrier to be declared innocent of resisting arrest even if every other charge is immediately thrown out.

Yes, everyone.  Maybe the Bible belt extends  into Indiana.  A few years ago, there was a case that made it to the Supreme Court on the Texas Sodomy law. In that case the policeman was invited in and practically led to the bedroom where the act was going on right in front of him making it hard to ignore.  Today some not so good old boy deputies can now simply bust in with Tasers, claim they resisted, and while they are recuperating and serving their sentences, maybe they can afford a lawyer – assuming they can find one in the Bible belt who will take their case, and go in front of a Bible-belt judge, and be heard, and maybe prevail.   Even in the buckle of the Bible belt, judges there would likely throw out everything if not actually sanction the behavior because they breached the stonewall of the castle doctrine.   Perhaps Texas and similar states can learn from Indiana that Man’s Law is better than reason and the Magna Carta.

Today, even with the thicket of laws designed to protect and constrain police there are dozens of abuses in the news across the US daily.  I would like a stronger barrier, not a weaker one.  There have even been moves to erode Miranda and the exclusionary rule.  I worry now that it might come down to a confession beaten out of a suspect will be admissible, but the convict is reassured that he can then take the police to court  for the beating, but not to expect that beating to invalidate any evidence or a confession.

We will see as this develops if the unpopular minorities on any side can “stand upright in the winds that would blow then“.  Pro-lifers  at least are at the edge or in the majority.   10% is overstating it but the LGBTQ (i.e., gay) community will never win democratically.  “Yes, I’d give the Devil“, or anyone from the LGBTQ community, petty criminals, people of color, the disabled, and everyone in their minority status, the “benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!“.

I will not support any action or power that I would not want my greatest earthly opponent to manage or decide.   I will support rules that might limit what I could do if I were in power, but that would limit my enemies equally.  I think Thomas More would too – and the Law itself protected him for a long time until the man who violated “God’s Law – God can arrest him” betrayed him.  Had the laws been thicker and stronger he would not have been executed.

The Occupy movement recognizes the enemy is the 1% that would control, oppress, and not do justice.  Progressives and Christians need to recognize that injustice, oppression, and discrimination are our common enemy, and the state itself, especially the courts which are often the only means of redress short of revolution, needs to make it harder to do injustice to anyone, allow anyone to combat oppression, and get fair treatment to end discrimination.  The scenes of police brutality now used against Occupy are familiar to pro-lifers – but no one spoke up when they were the ones being brutalized.

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