“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

Martin Luther King. Jr.  Letter from a Birmingham jail. 

Does the processing of Bryan J. Brown’s file through the Indiana Board of Law Examiners and Indiana Supreme Court document an injustice?

Merely consider the High Court’s usual and standard custom in measuring out “justice” against bar applicants and recently admitted attorneys (who, unlike me, lied to the Bar Examiners during processing).  New attorneys (unlike me, who has beeen practicing since 1996)  while involved in indecent exposure, child molestation and even downloading kiddie porn.  Chief Justice Randall Sheperd ruled all of the cases presented herein. 

For the record, I must admit that I am a pro-life activist who was arrested a dozen times — and only convicted of misdemeanors once or twice — a full 18 years ago.  My processes through the Indiana system, as set forth in the federal complaint, focused upon my pro-life beliefs and theological perspectives – especially as it affects my view of governance.

What if Brown had used children as sex objects rather than attempting to save children from the ravenous abortion industry?

Or what if Brown had recently exposed himself in public instead of engaging in public acts of civil disobedience 18 years ago?

Or what if Brown had been caught downloading kiddie porn while in the midst of applying to become an Indiana attorney instead of writing letters urging the kommissars handing his case to respect the state and federall constitutions to which they swore an oath?

Well now, that would be a different kettle of Hoosier fish.  Read on to appreciate just how different.

Here are some of the Indiana cases that were placed before the High Court — to absolutely no avail.

(more…)

My Indiana experience with the Board of Law Examiners and Indiana Supreme Court convinces me that Paul Craig Roberts is sadly right on the money with his analysis that follows.  I have bolded in red those sentences  best supporting what I will soon begin posting to this site:

By Paul Craig Roberts 

What is the greatest human achievement? Many would answer in terms of some architectural or engineering feat: The Great Pyramids, skyscrapers, a bridge span, or sending men to the moon. Others might say the subduing of some deadly disease or Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.

The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English-speaking peoples the most free in the world.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.

As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book The Tyranny of Good Intentions, (2000), the protective features of law in the U.S. were eroded in the twentieth centuryby prosecutorial abuse and by setting aside law in order to better pursue criminals. By the time of our second edition (2008), law as a shield of the people no longer existed. Respect for the Constitution and rule of law had given way to executive branch claims that during time of war government is not constrained by law or Constitution.

{NOTE from Bryan: In my case it is political correctness that has trumped the Constitution.  Stay tuned.}

Government lawyers told President Bush that he did not have to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits the government from spying on citizens without a warrant, thus destroying the right to privacy. The U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the President did not have to obey U.S. law prohibiting torture or the Geneva Conventions. Habeas corpus protection, a Constitutional right, was stripped from U.S. citizens. Medieval dungeons, torture, and the windowless cells of Stalin’s Lubyanka Prison reappeared under American government auspices.

The American people’s elected representatives in Congress endorsed the executive branch’s overthrow of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Law schools and bar associations were essentially silent in the face of his overthrow of mankind’s greatest achievement.

{NOTE:  In my case it is a whole Board of Law Examiners,  including some that consider themselves, even hold themselves out to be, constitutional experts.  You will not believe what they countenanced.}

 Some parts of the federal judiciary voted with the executive branch; other parts made a feeble resistance. Today in the name of “the war on terror,” the executive branch does whatever it wants. There is no accountability.

The First Amendment has been abridged and may soon be criminalized. Protests against, and criticisms of, the U.S. government’s illegal invasions of Muslim countries and war crimes against civilian populations have been construed by executive branch officials as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” As American citizens have been imprisoned for giving aid to Muslim charities that the executive branch has decreed, without proof in a court of law, to be under the control of “terrorists,” any form of opposition to the government’s wars and criminal actions can also be construed as aiding terrorists and be cause for arrest and indefinite detention.

One Obama appointee, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, advocates that the U.S. government create a cadre of covert agents to infiltrate anti-war groups and groups opposed to U.S. government policies in order to provoke them into actions or statements for which they can be discredited and even arrested.

Sunstein defines those who criticize the government’s increasingly lawless behavior as “extremists,” which, to the general public, sounds much like “terrorists.”In essence, Sunstein wants to generalize the F.B.I.’s practice of infiltrating dissidents and organizing them around a “terrorist plot”in order to arrest them. That this proposal comes from a Harvard Law School professor demonstrates the collapse of respect for law among American law professors themselves, ranging from John Yoo at Berkeley, the advocate of torture, to Sunstein at Harvard, a totalitarian who advocates war on the First Amendment.

The U.S. Department of State has taken up Sunstein’s idea. Last month Eva Golinger reported in the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, that the State Department plans to organize youth in “Twitter Revolutions” to destabilize countries and bring about regime change in order to achieve more American puppet states, such as the ones in Egypt, Jordan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states, Britain and Western and Eastern Europe.

The First Amendment is being closed down. Its place is being taken by propaganda in behalf of whatever government does.As Stratton and I wrote in the second edition of our book documenting the destruction of law in the United States:

“Never in its history have the American people faced such danger to their constitutional protections as they face today from those in the government who hold the reins of power and from elements of the legal profession and the federal judiciary that support ‘energy in the executive.‘ An assertive executive backed by an aggressive U.S. Department of Justice (sic) and unobstructed by a supine Congress and an intimidated corporate media has demonstrated an ability to ignore statutory law and public opinion. The precedents that have been set during the opening years of the twenty-first century bode ill for the future of American liberty.”

{British material redacted}

In contrast, insouciant Americansare content for their government to behave illegally. A majority supports torture despite its illegality, and a McClatchy-Ipsos poll found that 51 percent of Americans agree that “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.” 

As our Founding Fathers warned, fools who give up liberty for security will have neither.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.

This site will soon start posting information on political corruption among the Indiana judiciary.

It is a manifestation of the change in morality that has brought America to a postmodern experiment in social collapse.

To prepare for this series read the series on “to serve and protect” that starts here.

“It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men. “  H.L. Mencken

(more…)

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.org

The ArchAngel Institute celebrated this special day in all three divisions.

The Raphael Division, with very much help from Mike and Cathy Butler at Diskey Sign, lit up the southern wall of the Institute with nine beautiful classic Christian art representations.  Drive by the Institute after dark to see this fine work of public art that is our response to Pope Benedict XVI’s call here.  More details to follow.  This post shows one of the works of art now gracing the building.

The Gabriel Division communicated our Executive Director’s long climb toward the Indiana bar and thanked so many who have meant so much to us at our first ever banquet tonight.  Terry Clancy and the crew helped us put on a first rate first effort.  Many, many thanks to those who braved the weather to attend — you are special friends, one and all!

The Michael Division entered federal court at 2:00 pm today and filed a lawsuit against the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, Dr. Steven Ross and Chief Judge of the Indiana Supreme Court Randall Shepard seeking to have three laws enjoined for due process reasons and documenting a psychological waterboarding that is alleged to have violated both the federal and state constitutions in many, many ways.

The federal lawsuit brings 27 separate legal claims, most of them sounding in constitutional law.  More on it later.

Tonight we close with these fine quotes from President Harry S. Truman that seem to sum up today’s filing …

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

“When even one American — who has done nothing wrong — is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril.”  Harry S. Truman.

THE ARCHANGEL INSTITUTE : BUILDING THE CULTURE OF LIFE ON THE RUINS OF THE CULTURE OF DEATH –  AND NOT WITH OUR MINDS SHUT OR MOUTHS CLOSED!

This series foreshadows the main topic of our December 8 banquet.

How does one become an attorney?

Law school, yes.

The bar exam, usually.

But in between those two come this:  a finding that one has “the right stuff.”

What is that right stuff?  Good moral character and mental fitness sufficient to be an attorney.

Long ago county courts determined who could practice before them.  It was a ready recipe for an old boys network at the law.

States then took it over, running it out of the supreme court of each state.

It proved a ready recipe for stability — which meant that avant-garde lawyers did not fare so well.

Like Marxists.  Many cases in the 1950’s – 1970’s dealt with the United States Supreme Court rebuking state courts for not granting law licenses to those who once were active in the Communist Party.

Can’t keep Marxists out of the state bar due to what they advocate.

Indiana came up with this guideline to ensure that politics did not rule bar admission:

“Our primary responsibility in admission and discipline matters is to protect the public against incompetent and unscrupulous professionals.” In re Lee, 262 Ind. 439, 441, 317 N.E.2d 444, 445 (1974)

Note that this is supposed to leave no room for ideological foul play.  Back when it was the communists who were the ones often deemed politically incorrect the system bent over backwards to ensure that they got in, regardless of how communist they were — just as long as they were willing to take an oath to the serve and protect the state and federal constitutions.

The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) published lofty legal sentiments such as these back when those floodgates were being opened:

Bar admission cannot evince ‘an intent to penalize political beliefs.’ Konigsberg v. State Bar, 1957

However wayward or unorthodox a man’s political beliefs may be, he may not be kept out or drummed out of the Bar or any other profession on that account.  (Justices Marshall and Brennan arguing in a dissent from 1971 that the states should not erect any barriers to the legal profession based upon ideology  — even if advocating the violent overthrow of the US Govt one day in the future)

And so the Indiana Supreme Court, as previously noted, allegedly rendered their process apolitical back in the early 70’s by issuing this edict: “Our primary responsibility in admission and discipline matters is to protect the public against incompetent and unscrupulous professionals.” In re Lee, 262 Ind. 439, 441, 317 N.E.2d 444, 445 (1974)

Ah yes, the myth of neutrality.

It disarmed the profession, and the neo-Marxists entered.  Some as criminal defense attorneys, some as constitutional law attorneys, some as community organizers.

And some as leaders in the profession manning — and womanning — the gates where others sought to enter after them.

Some who were anti-Marxists.

Would the myth of neutrality hold the door open for even them?

More to come in this series. Much more, in fact.

If you like this post you would love our December 8 banquet.

See the previous post for the first in this series.

All that is in red below is from the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”).  This case was the culmination of a series of challenges brought by alleged communists in the 1950-1970 era that broke down the walls keeping them out of the state bars.

It is ironic.  At our nation’s founding one could not hold office or testify in court without belief in the Almighty.  It is widely held that such beleif was necessary to become an attorney in any of the first 48 states as the time of their birth.

We were a moral and religious people.  Were.

By 1971 one could be an atheist advocating the overthrow of the United States Constitution by violence and force and, if willing to stand mute when asked your views, become an attorney.  And from there … well the sky is the limit in America.   Maybe even the POTUS.

The red font is the ever so elite and sophisticated SCOTUS releasing  Marxist hounds upon America.  Blue font are highlights that are quite pertinent to issues now being handled by the ArchAngel Institute.  Comments in {brackets} and italic black font are food for thought for our December 8 banquet.  If you enjoy this series then you will love our banquet.  Here are instructions if you wish to join us at table and help advance the thoughts and actions of  The ArchAngel Institute. We welcome all persons of good will who are concerned about perserving our constitutional order and our Christian heritage (not necesarily in that order).

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

MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join.  {i.e. the far left side of the aisle at that time}

This is one of two cases now before us from two different States in which applicants have been denied admission to practice law solely because they refused to answer questions about their personal beliefs or their affiliations with organizations that advocate certain ideas about government. Sharp conflicts and close divisions have arisen in this Court concerning the power of  States to refuse to permit applicants to practice law in cases where bar examiners have been suspicious about applicants’ loyalties and their views on Communism and revolution. This has been an increasingly divisive and bitter issue for some years, especially since Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin stirred up anti-Communist feelings and fears by his “investigations” in the early 1950’s.  {Few SCOTUS decisions are this openly political.}

One applicant named Raphael Konigsberg was denied admission in California, and this Court reversed. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U. S. 252 (1957). The State nevertheless denied him admission a second time, and this Court then affirmed by a 5-to-4 decision. 366 U. S. 366 U.S. 36 (1961). An applicant named Rudolph Schware was denied admission in New Mexico, and this Court reversed, with five Justices agreeing on one opinion, three Justices on another opinion, and one not participating. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232 (1957). In another case, an applicant named George Anastaplo was denied admission in Illinois on grounds similar to those involved in Konigsberg and Schware, and the denial was affirmed by a 5-to-4 margin. In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82 (1961). See also In re Summers, 325 U. S. 561 (1945). With sharp divisions in this Court, 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.  {i.e., due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment and possibly privacy under the 9th, since this is the far left writing}

The foregoing cases and others contain thousands of pages of confusing formulas, refined reasonings, and puzzling holdings that touch on the same suspicions and fears about citizenship and loyalty. However we have concluded the best way to handle this case is to narrate its simple facts and then relate them to the 45 words that make up the First Amendment.

These are the facts.

The petitioner, Sara Baird, [**facts of her good academic record and citizenship excerpted**]  was asked to state whether she had ever been a member of the Communist Party or any organization “that advocates overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence.” When she refused to answer this question, the Committee declined to process her application further or recommend her admission to the bar. The Arizona Supreme Court then denied her petition for an order to the Committee to show cause why she should not be admitted to practice law. We granted certiorari. 394 U.S. 957.

***

That [45 word] Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, forbids any

“law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . .”

Mr. Justice Roberts, in referring to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion, said:

“Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts, — freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.”

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303-304 (1940).

See also Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 160-161 (1939); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 319 U. S. 642 (1943). And we have made it clear that:

“This conjunction of liberties is not peculiar to religious activity and institutions alone. The First Amendment gives freedom of mind the same security as freedom of conscience.”

Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 323 U. S. 531 (1945). The protection of the First Amendment also extends to the right of association. As we said in Schneider v. Smith, 390 U. S. 17, 390 U. S. 25 (1968):

“The First Amendment’s ban against Congress ‘abridging’ freedom of speech, the right peaceably to assemble and to petition, and the ‘associational freedom’ . . . that goes with those rights create a preserve where the views of the individual are made inviolate.”

See also Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 364 U. S. 485-487 (1960); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958).

The First Amendment’s protection of association prohibits a State from excluding a person from a profession or punishing him solely because he is a member of a particular political organization or because he holds certain beliefs. United Statesv. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 389 U. S. 266 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 385 U. S. 607 (1967). Similarly, when a State attempts to make inquiries about a person’s beliefs or associations, its power is limited by the First Amendment. Broad and sweeping state inquiries into these protected areas, as Arizona has engaged in here, discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution. Shelton v. Tucker, supra; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U. S. 539 (1963); Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958).

When a State seeks to inquire about an individual’s beliefs and associations, a heavy burden lies upon it to show that the inquiry is necessary to protect a legitimate state interest. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, supra, at 372 U. S. 546. Of course, Arizona has a legitimate interest in determining whether petitioner has the qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of law. But, here, petitioner has already supplied the Committee with extensive personal and professional information to assist its determination. By her answers to questions other than No. 25, and her listing of former employers, law school professors, and other references, she has made available to the Committee the information relevant to her fitness to practice law.  And whatever justification may be offered, a State may not inquire about a man’s views or associations solely for the purpose of withholding a right or benefit because of what he believes.

Much has been written about the application of the First Amendment to cases where penalties have been imposed on people because of their beliefs. Some of what has been written is reconcilable with what we have said here, and some of it is not. Without detailed reference to all prior cases, it is sufficient to say we hold that views and beliefs are immune from bar association inquisitions designed to lay a foundation for barring an applicant from the practice of law. Clearly Arizona has engaged in such questioning here.

The practice of law is not a matter of grace, but of right for one who is qualified by his learning and his moral character. See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, supra, and Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867). This record is wholly barren of one word, sentence, or paragraph that tends to show this lady is not morally and professionally fit to serve honorably and well as a member of the legal profession. It was error not to process her application and not to admit her to the Arizona Bar. The judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

{And so Ms. Baird became an attorney in the State of Arizona without ever having to discuss her alleged communist views about the violent overthrow of our constitutional order.}

Given this ruling, can one be refused admission for being a pro-life Christian who affirms what the Church has taught about its role in judging man’s law since the days of the Roman Coliseum?

If you reflexively say “no” then you need to come to our December 8 banquet. If you sadly answer “yes” they you are reading the Zeitgeist correctly, friend. Come to our banquet to hear more about the chilly, early winds of a potentially new Kristallnacht that are blowing through our social order.

THEIR OFFICIAL LOGO. M FOR MAN, b for boy. Very Sick

Representing the Unpopular Client

This article appears in the Fall 2001 edition of Liberties, the newsletter of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

By Denise Lieberman  ACLU/EM Legal Director

                  When people learn that I am an ACLU lawyer I am often asked how I come to grips with our defense of morally reprehensible groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Many cannot reconcile their belief in freedom of speech with their repugnance towards the client. I respond that we don’t advocate the client’s viewpoints, but the broader legal issue. The ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party, represented a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society of Krishna Consciousness. Yet the ACLU has never advocated Christianity or Krishna beliefs, socialism or arms trading. What the ACLU has advocated is freedom of speech and the protection of civil liberties. While most people understand this on an intellectual level, many have difficulty internalizing our representation on a personal level, and a good number condemn it altogether. 

                  There are mixed messages about the representation of unpopular clients. We think itís a good idea in theory, but tend to pass judgment when the actual clients become too distasteful for our sensibilities. Retaliation often befalls attorneys who undertake unpopular causes. Anthony Griffin was terminated from his role as general counsel for the NAACP after he served as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU representing the KKK against efforts by the state of Texas to compel the group to turn over its membership list. An entire website, called the ACLU Rage Page, has been dedicated to condemning ACLU lawyers for the Massachusetts affiliateís representation of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) last year. After the ACLUís litigation locally to remove a government-sponsored crËche in Florissant several years ago, the public response was so threatening that a new security system had to be installed in our St. Louis office and the FBI were called to monitor our safety.

                  Why? People associate lawyers with their clients. We see this in many ACLU cases, — our stance defending the offensive and the politically incorrect from burdensome censorship laws,  [I.E. expanding access to the most vile pornography]

defending the religiously and politically outcast, advocating in opposition to the death penalty for those convicted of ghastly crimes,  fighting for expanded rights for gays and lesbians, [I.E., the normalization of that, along with adotions and marriage]

and fighting laws enacted to restrict offensive material on the internet.  [I.E., porno once again -- it is big business and great for destroying a stable moral order]

In St. Louis, the ACLU affiliate has been accused of being anti-police for defending a police officerís right to speak out about racism on the police force and for our efforts to combat racial profiling; and for being anti-Christian for our litigation to remove nativity scenes from government buildings, and for being anti-safe schools for defending students’ free speech rights.

NOT A BAD ARTICLE, DENISE.

NOW, IF YOU THINK THA T “Retaliation often befalls attorneys who undertake unpopular causes” YOU SHOULD EXPERIENCE SOMETIME THE RETALIATION THAT CAN BEFALL AN ATTORNEY WHO TAKES ON THE CULTURE OF DEATH DIRECTLY.

I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING QUITE LIKE IT, AS THAT ACLU ATTORNEYS ARE NEVER AS REJECTED IN THE CORRIDORS OF POWER AND SMOKEFILLED BACK ROOMS AS ARE PRO-LIFE ATTORNEYS.

MORE DETAILS TO FOLLOW ….

Need a brochure for our Dec 8 program?  Page down and print or email us and we will send you one:  archangelinstitute@gmail.com

Call us if questions:  423-1771

Representing the Unpopular Client

This article appears in the Fall 2001 edition of Liberties, the newsletter of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

By Denise Lieberman  ACLU/EM Legal Director

(Her copy in black and red, AI Exec Director’s comments in blue)

During a McCarthy-era American Bar Association convention, the ABA declared that any attorney representing a person associated with the Communist party was unworthy of membership in the bar, and even demanded that lawyers take loyalty oaths.

For the record, all attorneys must take oaths. This is a hold over from the days of yore, when oaths meant something due to honor and the nearly universal belief in a Divine Lawgiver.  The oath in Indiana, as in most states, ends with “So help me God.”

Some in the legal profession now demand oaths of Christians that will cause them to have to choose between Faith or compromise.

Subsequently, when the civil rights movement highlighted that racial and political minorities were denied equal access to the courts, the bar promulgated rules stating that a lawyer’s representation does not constitute endorsement of a client. But the concept is better applied in theory than in practice. Despite the bar’s response that an advocate does not vouch for the justness of a client’s cause but only for its legal merit, lawyers frequently consider the impact their association with the unpopular client will have on their law practice, and generally it is only public interest organizations like the ACLU that can take on unpopular clients without risking their livelihood, and even groups like the ACLU face many repercussions from these cases.

Actually the guiding principle in the profession is less about whether the client is unpopular and more about whether the client has access to mammon. Of course, unpopular people tend to be people with little money, and popular people tend to be people with much money.  The Golden Rule.

But without organizations like the ACLU and lawyers willing to take on these causes many of civil liberties cases would not be taken at all.

Not ture.  As long as 42 USC 1983, a federal statute, allows for fee shifting under 42 USC 1988, and as long as other federal and state statutes ensure that civil rights attorneys are paid you will find attoreys willing to sue for valid civil rights claims.

A legal system that affirms rights for all of its citizens but then effectively denies the unpopular the ability to assert those rights is unjust and counterproductive to the ideals of justice.

RIGHT ON SISTER!  Now, what happens when a legal system denies the unpopular the ability to become attorneys in the first place?   Is that not the best path to ensuring that those like them end up without representation?  Had Blacks been kept out of the state bars then civil rights litigation would not have been as successful, as that Brown v. Board of Topeka was a team of Black attorneys.  So, what if pro-lifer and conservative Christians could be culled out and kept out of the state bars?  No more Scalias  or Thomas  or Alitos — a dream come true for the Left.

The inevitable, but unfortunate, result is a compromise of . . . constitutional rights.  … And who we consider unpopular is but a reflection of societal bias and the existing flaws of the justice system. The mainstream litigant is not rejected as an unpopular client; it is those whose actions, speech, viewpoints or agendas are outside the mainstream. It is not those with resources; it is the poor. And, it is disproportionately people of color. It is precisely those we reject as unpopular clients who are most likely to face bias and suffer injustice in our imperfect legal system. … The protection of civil rights and civil liberties will be achieved only through representation of the unpopular client.

RIGHT ON ONCE AGAIN! And so who will stand up for the unpopular bar applicant who is denied admission due to his religion, or political views, or belief in Higher Laws doctrine?

THE ARCHANGEL INSTITUTE WILL.