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

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.

Jan. 25, 2012 

“The Bell is Tolling”

By Most Rev. James D. Conley, S.T.L., Apostolic Administrator

“Any man’s death diminishes me,” wrote John Donne in 1624, “for I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”

The bell is tolling for religious liberty in America. All of us should listen well.

On Friday, Jan. 20, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that most religious institutions – including Catholic hospitals, schools and social service agencies – would not be exempted from a federal government requirement that employee health plans must provide free contraceptives. This is a critical issue for us that must not be ignored.

The announcement was a death knell for religious liberty in the United States. Many recall that in August, HHS announced the obligation of contraceptive coverage in private insurance plans, and a narrow religious exemption which will cover, in fact, only some churches – and almost no other religious entities.

Many recall the outrage of religious leaders over this plan. Many recall that the Catholic Church, among others, pleaded with the federal government to reconsider. The pleas fell on deaf ears.

Moving forward with the plan, and in a weak attempt to provide concession to religious institutions, HHS announced that nonprofit groups would be given a year to “adapt” before being required to provide contraceptive coverage. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebellius stated that “this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

Let’s be clear. This decision does nothing to respect religious freedom. Without change, Catholic institutions will soon be legally required to provide services which violate a fundamental principle of our religious beliefs. If plans go unchanged, the Catholic Church, acting through our Catholic institutions, will no longer have legal protection for the free exercise of religion.

Secretary Sebellius is wrong; this is not a year to “adapt.” The Catholic Church will not adapt by violating fundamental elements of our faith. Instead of adapting, this is a year to unify, and to fight injustice and flagrant disregard for the institutional protection of our religious practice.

The recent decision by HHS should make clear for all Catholics that under the proposed health care plan, the freedom to practice our religious faith is in jeopardy. Catholic groups who claimed that this health care plan, with its narrow “conscience clauses” and “religious exemptions,” would respect Catholic teaching must face the facts.  Compromising with pro-choice, pro-contraceptive political agendas can have dangerous consequences. The bell tolls for our religious freedom.

Catholics must take the lead in restoring our Constitutional religious freedom. We need to work in all reasonable ways to convince the Department of Health and Human Services to reverse its policy; the Church will continue to lobby for this change. If that fails, which it may, we need to work with Congress to protect basic religious liberty.

There is an answer to this attack on our religious freedom. The “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” now before Congress, is more important than ever before. All Catholics need to support its passage. All Christians should join us by praying for a return to justice and by visiting www.usccb.org/conscience to begin contacting their representatives.

For many Christian denominations, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity has just concluded. Unity has never been more important. Certainly, there is disagreement among Christians about the legitimacy of contraception. But there should be no disagreement among Christians about religious freedom. Each of us has an interest in defending liberty. Now is the time. The bell tolls for us all.

Most Rev. James D. Conley, S.T.L., is Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Denver.

Ron Paul is also against assassinating doctors (or whomever) who perform abortions.

You are probably saying to yourself, “Well, Duh!”. So are the other candidates…

I don’t think the other candidates are.

What if one of the hundreds of “number 2 in Al Queda” insurgents happens to be an abortionist, and runs into an abortion clinic somewhere on that other side of the world where we are sending predator drones with hellfire missiles.

Whether or not he has killed tens of thousands of innocent babies in their mother’s wombs might be irrelevant to whether he is a terrorist, but what would the other candidates do? Probably blow up the building and/or assassinate the guy. Even if he was an American citizen on US soil.

Of course a million innocents perish in our homegrown Abortion Holocaust each year, but war is hard and creates hard choices, like not to bomb the rails to Auschwitz because there were other, more important targets. Maybe back then we thought “The Final Solution” was an internal German political matter and they had courts who could rule and MPs and the rest of the political and judicial system and maybe just needed time to come around and realize the mistake. But sending the Luftwaffe, Buzz Bombs and V2s to crater London was serious! Serious enough to firebomb Dresden which some peaceniks disagreed was necessary.

Iranian scientists who have not yet shed any blood either on a battlefield or innocent can be assassinated. Muslim preachers who merely speak from a pulpit and not on the battlefield and their children can be assassinated. Large buildings with many people including innocent women and children can be blown up on suspicion – and another missile to blow up the firemen and paramedics trying to rescue the wounded. That is what the rest of the field call for and will do.

The others claim the power to do such things, to assassinate anyone – even American citizens – without review by signing a death warrant, to torture, to violate international law and treaties, to shred the constitution, trash the rule of law, immunity from any recourse. If you read carefully the “unitary executive” presidential power they claim to have like Bush then Obama has, it is more than sufficient to end abortion within a few days of taking office. Yet they are very clear they won’t use their power for that purpose, though I’m curious as to their reasoning.

There is no comparison between a thousand deaths from terrorism and a million from abortion.

Any president has the constitutional power to pardon any person who took it upon themselves to assassinate someone who even are a threat to innocent life, e.g. Scott Roeder. I don’t think Ron Paul, who would pardon large numbers of nonviolent offenders, would.

Someone should ask the candidates in the upcoming debates or on the campaign trail about this.

The video like the post is intended to be ironic or satire.

I (Bryan) have been more than impressed by his analysis and writing.

And I am in dire need of a sabbatical from beating my head against this Wall.

So I have thrown the keys to this gateway to TZ.  I do not plan to post again until the Seventh Circuit rules.

I plan to work on my new column for the News Sentinel, among other projects.   Most will post on Facebook (Arch Angel Institute), some on Linkedin (Bryan J. Brown).

Thanks to those who have regularly read me out these past four plus years.  You deserve a change.  TZ is a change in the positive direction, so please lend him your gaze.

Peace Be With Y’all.

“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”

I wonder if 40 years hence if there will be anyone to honor on “Life Day”. In this battle, every leader is highly imperfect. Moses broke the 5th commandment. David committed adultery then murder. Elijah despaired moments after his great victory. Peter thrice denied Jesus.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Is honored for his role in slaying a grave evil in our country. He was a sinner. If reports are true, a grave sinner. But I think if asked he would have admitted and repented if he had not already done so. He also saw the evil of the Vietnam war and spoke against it.

Sometimes God will raise up a Wilberforce or Peter Damien, but most often leaves it to the crackpots filled with anointing of the spirit and on fire to light the way and come against the darkness.

He simply spoke clearly and uncompromisingly against the public evil of his day.

Before discussing if it is worthy of a national holiday, how many would be willing to go to jail today? To march into riot police with water cannon? To declare a pet policy of your allies as evil?

Today we have the greater evil of the culture of death. I would worry more about following and even exceeding his example of nonviolent civil disobedience, and when we are no longer in his shadow, having gained our victory, we can discuss shortcomings.

Keep your eyes on the prize.

Don’t worry about minutiae, but end funding for abortion, encumber it with reasonable laws (e.g. that it should be like a hospital operating theater, not a slaughterhouse), ban euthanasia, require ultrasound and written consent and a waiting period. There is so much to do.

He wanted men to judge people on the content of their character. God will do so, so the more important question is how we will measure up.