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.

For those following the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case and the previous denial of admission in Brown v. Board.  (See Michael tab above and overview post below for details) ….

Here is the number one reason why Bryan J. Brown (admitted to Kansas bar since 1996, admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court since 2001) is not licensed to practice law in Indiana,  according to the State Board of Law Examiners of Indiana ….

“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.”  Board report at pp.29-30.

Seems difficult to square with the writings of the Founding Fathers, no?

Fourty years ago it was communists who were being kept out of the state bars.

Here is what Justice Hugo Black has to say about that Red Scare “culture war” …

our docket and those of the Courts of Appeals have been filled for years with litigation involving inquisitions about beliefs and associations and refusals to let people practice law and hold public or even private jobs solely because public authorities have been suspicious of their ideas. [ ] Usually these denials of employment have not been based on any overt acts of misconduct or lawlessness, and the litigation has continued to raise serious questions of alleged violations of the First Amendment and other guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, , 401 U.S. 1, 3-4 (1971)

Now that they are doing the same to Christians …. will  there be an outcry?

Stay tuned for more in our series “Raising the Bar”

Related posts gathered here  … on my “testimony” that caused the Indiana Supreme Court to ban me from even moving my admission again for five years ….  and this post has more detail on the glaring double standard at work in Indiana.

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

When the State assumes military powers inside its own borders it is called martial law.

When that State is apostate that martial law can quickly become a persecution of the Christian church.

Click here for a possible foreshadowing. (parental warning: links to profane language in comment section)

Click here for a more nuanced explanation of this seeming call for an internal military force. (It could be that Senator Obama did not intend to sound like a German Chancellor from the 1930′s.)

Even if the above example is not a good one, it remains true that when the Church refuses to obey its Lord, and instead chooses to obey Mammon, then the goose stepping soldiers are at the door.

Some have said, “Its the Economy, Stupid.”

Wrong!

Its the Culture, Pilgrims.

And if the culture goes bad, well then ….

Matthew 5:13

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.

Wise words from one of the Founders of our Republic seem most appropriate in this dire hour …

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson

I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Thomas Jefferson

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Thomas Jefferson

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson