This post continues the “heresy trial” category.  Saint (make that Sir for nonCatholic readers) Thomas More’s feast day is June 22 — in other words, today we recall his death for refusing to swear an oath to the King that violated More’s religiously-informed conscience.

He has long been an inspiration to me.  I purposely watched A Man for All Season with my then-fiancee the evening that now-Auxiliary Bishop James Conley received me into the Roman Catholic fold.

As I explained my religious worldview to the Board of Law Inquisitors, as they asked me to do (click here), I cited three role models that formed my understanding of my obligations to the law as a Christian.  Number one, my father, John R.  Brown.  Number two, Paul the Apostle.  And number three … (quoting from the official transcript)

“… My third role model is St. Thomas More, through him I learned to [love] the true law, to give even the devil the benefit of the law, to never ignore the foundations of your social order, and to be ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for principle if asked of you.”

I then explained my view of oath-taking, having previously reviewed the oath that all Indiana attorneys must take and the historic foundations of that oath.  (It is an oath to do justice and uphold the constitutional order.)

I closed this portion on the heresy trial with the following offer (more…)

If so, then you are seeking this post

http://www.archangelinstitute.org/a-post-modern-heresy-trial-post-2-what-my-inquisitors-most-wanted-to-hear/).

Many readers likely find it difficult to believe that my religious perspectives are the primary reason I am not an Indiana licensed attorney at this time.  I understand.  I find it, er, shall we say escatological.  Especially when one considers that child molesters — numerous — have been given two years out, and those who out and out lie to the Bar Inquisitors get less than a year out.

What did I do that justifies a five year ban after almost three years of processing?

Stay tuned, it is all going to come out.  There is much more that I have not yet blogged about, including an amazing statement that justifies crack heads getting in the Indiana bar ahead of me. Why?  Because they do not take issue with the Hoosier mental health Ministry of State Security.

But I get ahead of myself.  This post looks back on the last post — in which I shared my faith and how it informs my conscience in the face of unconstitutional governance.

Charlotte Westerhaus and her comrades on the Indiana Board of Bar Inquisitors do not want attorneys in the Indiana bar that stand on their religious consciences to question the constitutionality of orders or laws.  My case makes that crystal clear.   More on that lies ahead. 

I merely pause here to remind the reader of  the final order of the Indiana Board of Law Examiners — now endorsed by Indiana Supreme Court and ignored by the United States Supreme Court.

There is much talk these days of “litmus tests” for Supreme Court Justices.  I borrowed from our [potential] collective  future — eschatology again  – to demonstrate that Indiana has now adopted a litmus tests for attorneys.

Here is how it starts:   Send the politically incorrect (and unwanted) to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) for “processing”.  I am telling that story in numbered posts on this site.

Then, after his weltanschauungis thoroughly probed, prodded and catalogued by JLAP’s small stable of hand picked hatchet men (and women), set your sites on the enemy’s weakest flank.

Here is Charlotte Westerhaus boring in on mine  — which she read right out of JLAP’s mental health report equating my Roman Catholic faith with Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified:

MY QUESTION’S DIRECT … “DO YOU FIRMLY BELIEVE YOU’RE OBLIGATED AS A CHRISTIAN TO PUT OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S LAW ABOVE HUMAN LAW?”

Since the applicant is under oath AND under Divine mandate to answer such questions (click here) the resulting explanation should approximate this right here.

Then, for the coup d’ grace,  give the religious bar applicant (more…)

My former captor, Judge Patrick Kelly (RIP)

I am taking off from this post and this post to continue with the rest of my story as to the June 1, 2009 hearing before the Indiana Board of Law Examiners that led to my effective seven year ban from the practice of law in Indiana — for being too religious.

I simply do not know how to read the record any other way.  Well, to be fair, I should say too religious in a pro-life fashion.  Had I been New Age,  or for Gay Rights, or for any other quasi-religious cause celeb on the Left, I doubt very much that I would be effectively banned from lawyering in Indiana (except for myself, which I am pretty much doing full time).

Remember, cases show that child molesters have repeatedly drawn two years sentences.  Mine, after more than two years of delay, was a five year ban.

Due to my politically incorrect, religious attitude.

I had noted here that I should have just used Martin Luther King on the Board of Law Inquisitors.  I actually did just that — repeatedly.

Here are more pages from the official transcript of my heresy trial, Chief Inquisitor Charlotte Westerhaus on deck.  I gave her my head in a basket when I (more…)

My processing through the Indiana Board of Law Examiners affords quite a study in postmodern justice.  One that I plan to continue to explore in depth on this website.

This series (Psycho-Justice) will layout the way in which the Indiana authorities used mental health agents to deny my bid for admission to their bar.  It is truly a study in the Orwellian use of psychologist Dr. Stephen Ross and psychiatrist Dr. Elizabeth Bowman by government agents Terry Harrell and Tim Sudrovech of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.  (JLAP is an euphemism for the Hoosier thought police.)

Another series (A post modern heresy trial) on this site recounts my June 1, 2009 hearing before the Indiana Board of Law Examiners.  In order to keep these two major threads untangled I am using alphas to demark the psycho-study and numerals to demark the hearing. 

Both threads take off from here, so hang on tight:

Professor Charles Rice submitted two glowing reviews of my character to the Indiana authorities and I dropped his name at my June 1 hearing.  (His glowing review, couple with more than 65 others, did me no good before the Indiana authorities, in part due to statist (even anti-Christ?)  thinking like this.)   After receiving a copy of my petition for Certiorrari that was received at the United States Supreme Court on Ash Wednesday, Charlie called me up and let me know that he did not think the High Court would take my case.

“Maybe if you were a bomb throwing Leftist,” he said, “but the way those petitions are thrown around and out the door you don’t stand a chance.”  

Consider that dramatic foreshadowing.  I did when he called.

Professor Rice was referencing such cases (hit the links for a briefing) as Konigsberg v. State Bar, 1957 and Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, (1971). 

My situation is most on point with one of the first Leftist cases, that being Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232(1957).  In fact, the Schware facts are strikingly similar to the facts animating my case.  I will explore that in greater detail in the next posts to come.

For those just tuning in, I am a human rights activist who is unapologetic in my adherence to (more…)

Consider how Jesus  Christ handled the opposition during his final week in this passage from Luke 20:

 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came on him with the elders, 2 And spoke to him, saying, Tell us, by what authority do you these things? or who is he that gave you this authority? 3 And he answered and said to them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: 4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? 5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed you him not? 6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they could not tell from where it was. 8 And Jesus said to them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

And so, when all three of the Inquisitors, led by the Grand Inquisitor Charlotte Westerhaus, looked at me and flat out said:

“MY QUESTION’S DIRECT … DO YOU FIRMLY BELIEVE YOU’RE OBLIGATED AS A CHRISTIAN TO PUT OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S LAW ABOVE HUMAN LAW?”

I should have replied as follows: (more…)

12″ But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13  This will result in your being witnesses to them. 14  But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15  For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16  You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17  All men will hate you because of me. 18  But not a hair of your head will perish. 19By standing firm you will gain life.

The Gospel of Saint Luke at chapter 21

This post continues where #3 left off.  (Click here) and is the continuation of the official trial transcript found here.

The Indiana Board of Law Examiners had let me know before my June 1, 2009 hearing that they had questions about my views on the judiciary and American law, so I was tipped off that the subject would likely surface.  (more…)

ATLANTA (AP) – Former President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday called the divide among Republicans and Democrats in Washington “unprecedented,” and said President Barack Obama should hold private meetings with GOP leaders to make sure the gap doesn’t grow.

Former-Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker, a Republican from Tennessee, added that “collegiality is virtually nonexistent in the Senate now.”

“You’ve got to have a decent respect for the other person’s point of view. There’s a fair chance he’s right. And it appears that doesn’t exist now,” Baker said. “The idea of the benefit of the doubt appears to be missing.”

The two said the bipartisan victories in the 1970s are a stark contrast from the hostility over health care and other issues that now engulfs the two parties and frustrates voters.

“The hard partisanship and division that now exists is unprecedented,” Carter said.

The Senate???   Ex-Pres, you should have been at my (more…)

(This post takes off from the previous two on the same topic. If you have not read the partial transcript from my June 1, 2009 hearing before Bar Examiners Charlotte Westerhaus, John Laramore and Leslie Shively then click here to get caught up: http://www.archangelinstitute.org/a-post-modern-heresy-trial-post-2-what-my-inquisitors-most-wanted-to-hear/ the post before that is deep background on how I came to stand before a very powerful committee of the Indiana Supreme Court last summer.)

Christians are duty bound to respond truthfully when asked the reason for their hope.  Our Lord and Saviour warned us against denying Him before men.  The indwelling Holy Spirit will fight any temption to so deny the Risen King of kings.   So … just ask a Christian who is Lord.  He or she will respond (more…)

A portion of my five hour trial before the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, or, as they are better recognized in a historical context, Postmodern Inquisitors, is included in the appendix of my petition for a writ of certiorarinow pending before the United States Supreme Court. In the previous post I set forth the big picture introduction.  In the previous post entitled “Meet the Inquisitors” I introduced the players in the drama that is to follow, including Charlotte Westerhaus.

And so now, with no further adieu …. after introductions were made here is what I was asked to address …

Shades of Judge Robert Bork’s hearing before the Senate, no?

Yes, I have been “borked.”  And, to quote Justice Clarence Thomas, subjected to a high tech lynching.

Why?  Because I affirmed the Natural Law — before the government’s psychologist (when asked to deny it on a psych exam and in session), before the government’s psychiatrist (again, blatantly offered the opportunity to deny my Faith) and finally on June 1 in the above inquisition.  (Click here for an affidavit on how mental health was used “Soviet style” by agent Tim Sudrovech and his appointed “contractors” against this religiously-motivated political dissident)

What is the Natural Law?  See the category on the right or merely read what follows from a great American conservative:

A great deal of loose talk about natural law has occurred in very recent years. It was objected to Judge Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court that Bork did not believe in natural law; and when Judge Thomas was interrogated for that bench, the objection was raised that he did believe in natural law. These protestations came mostly from the same group of senators. Clearly a good many public men and women nowadays have only vague notions of what is signified by this term natural law. 

Objectively speaking, natural law, as a term of politics and jurisprudence, may be defined as a loosely knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority superior to the state.

(A word of caution …. do not read that last sentence aloud if any of Indiana’s Board of Law Examiners are within earshot, for they have ruled such views as “disqualifying” as to admission to the Indiana bar.  Chief Judge Randall Shepard rubber stamped their written opinion stating that conclusion of law.) 

More to come so check back often …