By TZ:  This was originally a comment to an earlier post about the Bishops being worried about what amounts to government persecution. I was asked to make it a guest post so I have revised it.

At the root is the problem that the Bishops have conceded their power to the state.

Examples: A priest is not free to conduct a nuptial mass without a license from the state. So who does or does not define marriage? That is not new. The government has taken over charity in the form of welfare. Instead of drawing the line, the Bishops have long ago decided take the money, then when the strings of the web become visible, complain about the control – do their health care facilities have to provide contraceptives or abortion? Do their social work agencies have to allow homosexuals? Courts have said “public schools” are Government schools, so what should be a matter of subsidiarity is defined by Washington DC, not the local school board. They may have hoped “The Great Society” would be moral and more efficient being large and central, but you find none of those duties in traditional texts about the government role such as Aquinas section on law from the Summa. Or Tocqueville pointing out all the volunteer organizations, neither government nor business, taking care of such needs in early America.

The relatively new lack of separation of church and state is that 100 years ago the (Federal) government was (more…)

This post kicks off a series on the briefing now pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Bryan J. Brown v.  the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (in the persons of JLAP Executive Director Terry Harrell, JLAP Clinical Director Tim Sudrovech, Indianapolis-based psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman and Fort Wayne-based psychologist Stephen Ross).

This series is presented in the public interest.  Click here for more on that concept as it relates to this pending case. 

Pursuant to the rules of The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals the Appellant (that is, the one who files the appeal) has to file a timely brief of no more than 14,000 words with an appendix that includes the decision on appeal.

This I did, filing in early July.   The timing could not have been better, as that I began my research and writing when my adjunct classes (teaching ethics) at the University of St. Francis ended in May and filed my reply brief the week classes started up again.  (What an irony – teaching ethics while fighting a finding that I lack the same – or something similar – to such a degree that I cannot be an Indiana attorney.)

In my opening Appellant brief I argued (in a nutshell) (more…)

See the previous post in this series for the background on what follows …

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Defendants-on-appeal (Terry Harrell and Tim Sudrovech of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program,  psychologist Stephen Ross and psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman)  to file a joint brief. 

In their jointly-prepared brief (filed mid-August) the Defendants argued (in a nutshell) (more…)

The one who appeals gets to bat last in the federal appellate system  — most all systems, in fact.  The final brief (called a reply brief)  is optional – I did not have to file one.  Yet Appellants usually do, for the Appellees almost always get something wrong in their brief.  Under the rules the reply brief can be no more than 7,000 words.  For those counting,  that is 21,000 words for the Appellant (who is disagreeing with the district court judge) and only 14,000 for the Appellees – but then the appellees enjoy the distinct advantage of having already prevailed below.  When you add the weight of the federal district court’s opinion in the mix, then the odds are decidedly against the Appellant.

I’ll take the odds where they landed.

The reply brief does not have to conform to the many rules that govern the initial brief and the responsive brief. It is often more relaxed and even conversational in tone.  Especially the ones that I write.  ( I have written many.)

The reply brief in Brown v. Bowman opens with (more…)

Aux. Bishop James Conley has known me (Bryan) since 1991.  He is one of my spiritual advisers and has been for 18 years now.  He explains our shared background in this clip which he prepared for our December 8 banquet, before he knew for certain that the federal litigation would be filed.  He prepared a similar — actually even  more glowing — recommendation as to my good moral character and fitness and sent it to the Indiana Board of Law Examiners last June.  Here it is. They ignored it.

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.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, KulturKampf is

The name given to the political struggle for the rights and self-government of the Catholic Church, carried out chiefly in Prussia and afterwards in Baden, Hesse, and Bavaria. The contest was waged with great vigour from 1871 to 1877; from 1878 to 1891 it gradually calmed down. On one side stood the government, the Liberals, and the majority of the Conservatives; on the other, the bishops, the priests, and the bulk of the Catholic people.

The word is, in essence, culture war and it is well demonstrated in the latest gantlet thrown down by the apparatchiks in the Obama Administration.  (Read Kathleen Sebelius, former Kansas Governor.)

I speak of the recent announcement that the government of the glorious Father/Motherland, the federal power represented by the war eagle, will require its harem of private insurers to extend contraceptive services to all Americans – and thus require all Americans to pay for those same contraceptive services.

The plan is brilliant, and crassly calculated to blitzkrieg the ideological foes of the ruling elite by dividing and conquering their enemies.

The Bishops, you see, must stand up for the ancient teaching handed down from the early Church on contraception.   At least I think they must.

This is tricky ground.

Most Protestants view chemical sterility as their freedom in Christ and the practice of contraception as merely good stewardship over the family.  Indeed, when I was a student at Fort Wayne Bible College it was said that all pastoral and missions majors were told, in their last year of study, that they had a duty to practice contraception so as to not constitute a burden upon their “sending church” by birthing too many children.

Natural law is not taught in such Bible Colleges.  Neither is the theology of the body.  That explains more than some of the ongoing fracturing of the Church.

Not that Catholics are all that good on either of the above, statistically speaking.

It is no secret that many rank and file Catholics contracept rather than obey the teaching of Humana Vitae.

And so see how brilliant this move to mandate contraception is?  It will divide the Protestants from the Catholics and separate rank and file Catholics from their clergy.  The Catholic Bishops are asked to either stand up now and defend the ancient teachings — maybe all alone — or shrink back from the battle in the interest of a false unity that will only lead to more compromises and less Christian living down the road.

With most pro-life groups focusing on surgical abortion (a dying technology) while ignoring contraception (or even teaching it is acceptable), the Bishops cannot count on much solidarity from that zealous quarter.

Sun Tzu (a great Chinese military strategist of ancient times) advised generals to carefully choose their battlefields.   Evangelical Protestants and Catholic Bishops have been making much progress the past twenty years on a unity born of necessity, a unity mandated by the belief that we just might, someday soon, share the same civil disobedience foxhole.  The time of civil disobedience is fast approaching, and the cultural elites see it coming on the horizon.   Thus they have run ahead to claim the ground upon which the first skirmishes will take place.  They have chosen a battle  over the forced funding of contraception – with the hope, on the part of such coalitions as Democrat leadership, Planned Parenthood, RINOs and other assorted enemies of the Church – that upon this unholy ground the Evangelical/Catholic coalition will fracture and the hope that upon this unholy ground most Catholic Bishops will lose the rank and file.

I fear that their nepharious strategy is sound (that is, will prove effective toward the goal), as nepharious strategies usually are.  (Consider the source.)

And so I must ask:  Are America’s Catholic Bishops prepared to pay the price that all pagan governments have demanded of the Church?  (Or rather abandon Humana Vitae, as the “progressives” have urged for the past 43 years.)

More posts on this subject:

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/christian-civil-disobedience-time-to-think-about-it/

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/archbishop-charles-chaput-sees-a-bad-moon-on-the-rise-initial-post/

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/how-do-we-preach-jesus-in-this-post-modern-world-creeds-post-29/

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/gathering-storm-clouds-on-the-horizon/

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/happy-postmodern-mothers-day-the-pill-turns-50/

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/thanks-be-to-god-the-catholic-hierarchy-is-not-silent/

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/pro-life-is-not-enough-post-1-klusendorf-does-colombo/

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

Our empire’s self-destructive war against our collective future targets our own unborn, spends the inheritance of our great grandchildren, involves us in elective wars of aggression that spread vile hatred for generations to come and ruins the environment of our “enemies” for a million plus years.  (Here and here)

God help us …  We must stop the madness.  We have butchered our own little ones like this for so long we no longer know right from wrong.