amendedpetition.24128

7/25/2019 amendedpetition.24128

1/87

1Applicant 24128 Amended Petition for Review

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

NO. ______________________________

APPLICANT 24128 PETITIONER

v.

INDIANA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS RESPONDENTS

AMENDED PETITION

OF DENIED APPLICANT UNDER ADM. & DISC. RULE 14, 2

(CHARACTER AND FITNESS REVIEW)


2/87


Jurisdictional statement

The Indiana Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter pursuant to Adm. &

Disc. Rule 14, Section 2 as that appeal to the Court was timely.

Abbreviated Summary of the Applicants Argument (Standard of Review)

Fundamental constitutional guarantees are absolute and outside the discretionof any court to ignore or deny.

Branan v. State, 316 N.E.2d 406, 408 (Ind.App.1974).

Overarching Issue as to errors of law

Did the Indiana Board of Law Examiners look with such an evil eye as toward awhistleblowers ideology while working an unequalhand toward minority-viewpoint and

rights of conscience while processing Petitioners bar application against an allegedly

arbitrary standard lacking in fundamental fairness as to violate the Due Process and

Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Free Exercise and

Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment as well as Rules of the Indiana Supreme

Court, and the Indiana Bill of Rights at Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, or 12?

Overarching Issue as to errors of fact

Did Applicants Original Filing with this Court (in affidavit form) and filing with the Board

of Law Examiners on May 15, 2015, and this filing, all of which counter the facts as posited

by the Examiners in their Final Report, create controversies of fact allowing this Court to

enter into a de novoreview of Petitioners entire file? Petitioner especially directs the Court

to the following sections of the Examiners Final Report, in which material error can clearly

be shown: Paragraphs 6, 9, 10, 51, 61, 65, fn.19, 89, 97. Petitioner also directs the Court to

the following paragraphs communicating scandalous and unsupported allegations: 66, 71,

90, 116, 120. Petitioner also directs the Court to the following paragraphs demonstratingretaliation as a motive: Fn. 5, 101.

Abbreviated Summary of the Applicants Argument (Statement)

After failing to recognize aprima faciacase of good moral character and fitness fully

meeting the burden of Rule 12 2, the Examiners processed the application in a fashion

which was:


3/87


(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not inaccordance with law;(2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;(3) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short ofstatutory right;

(4) Without observance of procedure required by law; and/or(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence.

The Examiners July 17, 2015 filing continues this mode of processing, as is revealed by

factual and legal analysis herein.

Abbreviated Statement of the Case

Application filed November 13, 2013. Applicant reviewed by character and fitness member

January 8, 2014. Applicant appeared before Board as ordered, February 13, 2014. Applicant

approved for and passed bar exam, sat February 25 & 26, 2014, notified he passed April 27,2014. Applicant then requested to tender psychological report to Board on May 20, 2014.

Applicant refused and raised constitutional, prudential and financial objections. Board

denied admission pursuant to Rule 12 6, September 22, 2014. Applicant filed for hearing

pursuant to Rule 12 7, October 21, 2014. Board noticed matter for Rule 12 8 processing

November 26, 2014. Board attempted to re-animate denied application January 20, 2015

and invited Applicant to tender psychological report under more favorable financial terms.

Applicant refused and raised constitutional and prudential objections. Board set for Rule 12

9 hearing three weeks out. Applicant moved for continuance March 10, 2015. Board set

for April 27, 2015 hearing, which was had. Applicant filed proposed findings May 14, 2015.Board counsel filed proposed findings June 9, 2015. Board filed Final Report denying

certification and recommending lifelong ban on re-application on July 17, 2015. Petition to

this Court filed August 13, 2015; Amended petition allowed to be filed by September 2,

2015.

Abbreviated Conclusion

Wherefore Applicant prays this Honorable Court adjudicates his application pursuant tothe proper standards and adjudicates his Application in the fashion that most advances

justice and the betterment of the State of Indiana.

The Hearing Panels Final Report of the Proceedings and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law and Recommendation as to Bar Applicant 24128 and the Board of Law Examiners

final decision entered July 17, 2015 is attached hereto.


4/87


Table of Contents

STATEMENT: Supreme Court Jurisdiction .................................................................................................. 9

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Constitutional Issues) ................................................................................ 10

STATEMENT: Constitutional Issues .......................................................................................................... 10

VIOLATION OF LAW ALLEGED (Indiana Constitution) .................................................................... 10

Section 1. Inherent rights ..................................................................................................................... 10

Section 2. Right to worship .................................................................................................................. 10

Section 3. Freedom of religious opinions ............................................................................................ 11

Section 4. Freedom of religion ............................................................................................................. 11

Section 5. No religious test for office .................................................................................................. 11

Section 9. Freedom of thought and speech .......................................................................................... 12

Section 12. Openness of the courts, Speedy trial ................................................................................. 12

VIOLATION OF LAW ALLEGED (Federal Constitution) .................................................................... 13

First Amendment .................................................................................................................................. 13

Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) ......................................................................................... 13

Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process) ................................................................................................ 13

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Board of Law Examiners) ......................................................................... 14

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Scope) ........................................................................................................ 14

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Findings of Fact) ....................................................................................... 14

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Conclusion) ............................................................................................... 15

STATEMENT: Of the Case ......................................................................................................................... 15

January/February 2014: Off-the-record hearings result in clearance to sit for bar exam .................... 15

Regarded as mentally ill and responding like a constitutionalist ......................................................... 16

Official stonewalling or reasonable delay? .......................................................................................... 16

Of pretexts and botched investigations ................................................................................................ 17

A dialectical design .............................................................................................................................. 17

Dramatic foreshadowing ...................................................................................................................... 18

ADDRESSING: My Allegations of Factual Error by the Examiners .......................................................... 18

[BLE heading] Facts Relating to the Applicants Prior Applications..................................................... 19

Communication rebranded as conduct ................................................................................................. 20

[BLE heading] Facts Relating to the Applicants Third and Most Recent Application......................... 21

And now a note from our sponsor (psych eval letter) .......................................................................... 23


5/87


Miracle on South Meridian? Resurrecting a dead application (live to delay another day?) ............... 26

[BLE heading] Assessment of the Applicants Efforts in Carrying His Burden to Demonstrate that He

Possesses the Requisite Character and Fitness under Rule 12 ................................................................. 27

A shotgun approach to leveling allegations that include how I think .................................................. 28

A secularist creed that brokers no dissent ............................................................................................ 28

After 20 months the Board is finally able to acknowledge that I have alleged fraud on the court ...... 29

Denying Professor Patrick Baude his due ............................................................................................ 31

Demanding due process and the operation of Rule 12 without any right to it?............................... 32

Logical fallacy issue spotting exercise ................................................................................................. 33

Character and fitness evaluations do not count if they like me ........................................................... 34

[BLE] CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .............................................................................................................. 35

Out comes the shotgun to sing its song again ...................................................................................... 36

More shotgun: 00 Buckshot ................................................................................................................ 36

Selectively editing Matter of Burns ..................................................................................................... 37

No abuse of process and no contempt of court .................................................................................... 38

Shotgunned again: Dragons breath rounds........................................................................................ 39

Professor Baude and Roger Waters get the last word (on the facts) .................................................... 41

ADDRESSING: Is There a Standard of Review Specific to Admission Cases? ......................................... 42

This Court should analyze a bar applicants petition against the case law applicable to licensed

attorneys ................................................................................................................................................... 43

ADDRESSING: Allegations of the Examiners Against Petitioner.............................................................. 44

The Examiners err in alleging that Applicant is wrongly focused on 2009 ............................................. 44

The Examiners err in alleging that Applicant is wrongly concerned about religious questions .............. 44

The Examiners err in positing that Applicants communications are disqualifying ................................ 45

Judge me under Kansas law for impolitic speech ................................................................................ 45

The Examiners err in positing that appearance by counsel on April 27, 2015 was disqualifying ........... 46

The Examiners err in claiming Applicant abused the discovery process he was invited to utilize ......... 47

The Board did it first ............................................................................................................................ 47

I am not a perjurer and I did not engage in unauthorized practice with that woman.................... 48

Board counsel actually deemed some of my discovery right on the mark ........................................... 49

The Examiners err in claiming Applicant abused the litigation process he was required to utilize ........ 49

I had very good reason to call Michael Witte as a witness, and very good reason to release him ...... 50

The Examiners erred in not striking a scathing and spurious attack on Applicants character............... 52

Board counsel decided to become a fact witness three weeks ahead of the hearing ........................... 52


6/87


I was threatened with a bad result if I worked up my case (whistleblowers curse)............................ 53

The Examiners err in positing that traffic infractions can justify denial and banishment ....................... 53

No one seemed to care until last month? ............................................................................................. 53

Infractions are not crimes ..................................................................................................................... 54

Mr. Eddingfield, were you disciplined for driving unrestrained? ........................................................ 55

I am trying to be funny, here, please work with me ............................................................................. 55

Non seat belt wearers of the world UNITE! (You have nothing to lose but your restraints) .............. 56

The Examiners err in positing that Applicant does not feel like he should abide by the rules

governing all other lawyers 95 .............................................................................................................. 56

I feltlike I had been pretty clear on the issue, but I wrote back since the BLE asked me to. .......... 57

I feellike the record is pretty clear -- and I was correct on this one ................................................ 57

The Examiners err in positing that Applicants conduct and his contemptuous behavior [and]

Applicants conduct and his numerous written filings with the Board granted the Board sufficient

cause to Seek additional information respecting his mental and emotional stability 122.................... 58

My bat swings at no man (or woman) .................................................................................................. 58

$25 a ticket, but $4500 in psychological evals if your average exceeds one a year over four years ... 58

ADDRESSING: Applicants Allegations of Fraud on This Court............................................................. 59

Possible Fraud on the Court: The Government errs in refusing to hold a hearing on the Bowman

Answer ..................................................................................................................................................... 59

The high cost of blowing the whistle ................................................................................................... 60

Possible Fraud on the Court: The Government errs by selective presentation of the Bowman report ... 60

Possible Fraud on the Court: The Government errs by failing to open their records as to the MissouriSupreme Court Report.............................................................................................................................. 62

Denying once again that I blew off a meeting with the Examiners 18 year ago.................................. 62

Enter 2007I had no idea the BLE viewed me as a fugitive from justice .......................................... 62

The Missouri Supreme Courts questions............................................................................................ 63

The Board has stipulated to a violation of Rule 8 ................................................................................ 64

Thus the Board now shoulders an obligation as to the Missouri Supreme Court ................................ 64

I have no Rule 8 allegations lodged against me. (Yet who has the C&F problem?) ........................... 65

Possible Fraud on the Court: The Government erred by failing to give up its crusade against Applicant

24128 when he filed his Proposed Findings on May 15, 2015 ................................................................ 66

ADDRESSING: Applicants Allegations of Rule 12 errors in the Final Report of the Examiners............. 66

Missing the Point: The Board erred when failing to recognize prima facie case under Adm & Disc. Rule

12, Sections 2 & 3 .................................................................................................................................... 66

Missing the Point: The Board errs in treating the burden of proof as a ploy to place an applicant ever on

the defensive............................................................................................................................................. 67


7/87


A riddle that needs to be solved about those facts which the BLE will NOT acknowledge ............... 67

Missing the Point: The Board errs when mandating off-the-record meetings that are subsequently the

grist for allegations of fact beyond appellate review ............................................................................... 68

Missing the Point: The Board errs in demanding the tender of psychological reports without a good

cause shown ............................................................................................................................................. 69

Missing the Point: The Board errs in its belief that none of its actions need to conform to the demandsof due process, the constitutions or the rules of this court as long as its Final decision does. 100 ....... 70

Missing the Point: The Board errs in punishing applicants based upon their viewpoint toward

overreaching governance ......................................................................................................................... 70

Complainers need not apply ................................................................................................................. 71

A chance to render a case of first impression? ..................................................................................... 71

Missing the Point: The Board errs in believing that it can deny and banish based upon an Applicants

manner of thinking. 66................................................................................................................... 72

The Board does not like the way I think of my Professional Calling .................................................. 73

The Board does not like the way I think about the Myers-Briggs test ................................................. 73

The Board does not like the way I think about JLAP .......................................................................... 73

Imagine theres no constitution, it isnt hard to do ......................................................................... 74

Missing the Point: The Board errs in continuing to deny Applicant based upon a lack of insight .......... 75

Insight the BLE knows it when it doesnt see it?............................................................................ 75

ADDRESSING: Applicants Allegations of Evidentiary errors by the Examiners..................................... 76

Missing the Particulars: The Panel erred in quashing the subpoenas of Bowman, Ross, and Sudrovech

.................................................................................................................................................................. 76

Missing the Particulars: The Panel erred in building upon hearsay to support its decision to punish me

for having filed civil rights litigation ....................................................................................................... 77

Ross unsworn letter in, my sworn affidavit out hard to make sense of that one.............................. 78

Missing the Particulars: The Panel erred in building upon conclusory evidence to justify its refusal to

certify and recommended life time banishment ....................................................................................... 78

Show me the EVIDENCE!................................................................................................................... 79

Missing the Particulars: The Panel erred in building upon immaterial and irrelevant evidence to justify

its refusal to certify and recommended life time banishment .................................................................. 79

Show me the PROBATIVE EVIDENCE ............................................................................................ 79

Missing the Particulars: The Panel erred by committing logical fallacies throughout their Final Report

.................................................................................................................................................................. 80

Check out those impressive minor premises! (Not) ............................................................................. 80

The Undistributed Middle .................................................................................................................... 80

I think, therefore I am confused ........................................................................................................... 81


8/87


Begging the Question ........................................................................................................................... 82

Irrelevant Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 82

Equivocation: (Confusing (accidentally or deliberately) the meaning of a word or phrase) ............... 82

Against the Man ................................................................................................................................... 83

Mr. Rocchio as an Example ................................................................................................................. 83

Applying the Rocchio Rule? ................................................................................................................ 84

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 85

Praying for Justice ................................................................................................................................ 86

ses

Aylett v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 54 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1995) ...................................................... 82

Baker v. Keisker 142 N.E.2d 432, 434 (1957) ............................................................................................. 67

Baskin v. Bogan, 12 F.Supp.3d 1144 (S.D.Ind.2014) .................................................................................. 13Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). ................................................................................ 23

Boyle v. State, 97 Ind. 322, 332 (1884) ....................................................................................................... 82

Branan v. State, 316 N.E.2d 406, 408 (Ind.App.1974). ............................................................................... 10

Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 962 (Ind. 2014).................................................................................... 72

Brown v. Bowman, 668 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir.), cert dend 133 S.Ct. 176 (2012).................................. 75

Cardinal Ritter High Sch., Inc. v. Bullock, 17 N.E.3d 281, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) ................................ 11

Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983) ....... 86

City Chapel Evangelical Free Inc. v. City of S. Bend ex rel. Dep't of Redevelopment, 744 N.E.2d 443,

450 (Ind. 2001) ......................................................................................................................................... 11

City of Fort Wayne v. Parrish, 32 N.E.3d 275, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) ................................................... 55

Clark v. Clark, 578 N.E.2d 747, 74849 (Ind.App1991) ............................................................................. 85

Epperson v. State of Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1968). .............................................................................. 11

Faulkner v. Markkay of Indiana, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 798, (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) ............................................. 78

Finney v. Johnson, 179 N.E.2d 718 (1962) ................................................................................................. 68

Grand Victoria Casino & Resort, LP v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 789 N.E.2d 1041, 1048 (Ind. T.C.

2003) ........................................................................................................................................................ 82

Highler v. State, 854 N.E.2d 823, 829 (Ind. 2006)(................................................................................... 13

In re Arnold, 56 P.3d 259, 268 (Kan.2002) ................................................................................................. 46

In re Conn, 715 N.E.2d 379 (1999) .............................................................................................................. 35

In re Dixon, 994 N.E.2d 1129, 1138 (Ind. 2013) ......................................................................................... 26

In re Fogle, 221 N.E.2d 675 (1966). ............................................................................................................ 47In re Lee, 317N.E.2d 444, 445 (Ind.1974) ................................................................................................... 18

In re Ogden, 10 N.E.3d 499, 501 (Ind. 2014) .............................................................................................. 46

In re Raquet, 870 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2007) .................................................................................................. 84

In re Rocchio, 943 N.E.2d 797, 801 (Ind.2011) ........................................................................................... 84

Indiana Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Jones, 691 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998 .................... 12

Johnston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co., 667 N.E.2d 802, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) ............................. 78

Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal, 353 U.S. 252, 263 (1957) .......................................................................... 76


9/87


Koval v. Simon Telelect, Inc., 693 N.E.2d 1299 (1998).............................................................................. 32

Love v. Rehfus, 946 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. 2011) ............................................................................................... 72

Matter of Burns, 657 N.E.2d 738, 740 (Ind. 1995) ...................................................................................... 38

Matter of Garringer, 626 N.E.2d 809, 810 (Ind. 1994) ................................................................................ 14

Matter of Jones, 727 N.E.2d 711 (Ind.2000)................................................................................................ 84

Matter of Lucas, 672 N.E.2d 934 (1996) ..................................................................................................... 35

Matter of Staggs, 894 N.E.2d 535 (2008) .................................................................................................... 35Matthies v. First Presbyterian Church of Greensburg Indiana, Inc., 28 N.E.3d 1109, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App.

2015) ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

Muse v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Workers of Am., 2002 WL 449791 (S.D. Ind.

Jan. 29, 2002) ........................................................................................................................................... 39

Nahmias Realty, Inc. v. Cohen, 484 N.E.2d 617, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)................................................ 79

Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134 (Ind.App.2012) ................................................................................ 12

Ohio Valley Gas, Inc. v. Blackburn, 445 N.E.2d 1378, 1383 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) .................................... 10

Oliver-Pullins v. Associated Material Handling Indus., Inc., No. 1:03CV0099-JDT-WTL, (U.D.C.,

S.D.Ind.) ................................................................................................................................................... 38

Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Traina, 486 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind.1986) ....................................................... 14Palin v. Indiana State Pers. Dep't, 698 N.E.2d 347, 350-54 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) ....................................... 82

Petition of Kalamara, 232 Ind. 535, 539 (1953) .......................................................................................... 75

Petition of McDonald, 171 N.E.2d 691, 692-93 (1961)............................................................................... 14

Petition of Webster, 171 N.E.2d 694, 695 (1961) ........................................................................................ 14

Pigg v. State, 929 N.E.2d 799, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) ............................................................................ 12

Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 961 (Ind. 1993) .................................................................................... 12, 73

Rosencranz v. Tidrington, 155 N.E. 705, 706 (1927), ................................................................................ 43

S.T. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 632, 635 (Ind.2002) ............................................................................................. 53

Sollers Pointe Co. v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 790 N.E.2d 185, 191 (Ind. T.C. 2003) ............................. 79

State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Superior Court of Marion Cnty., 463 N.E.2d 273, 275 (Ind. 1984) ................... 38

State ex rel. Ind. State Bar Ass'n v. Diaz, 838 N.E.2d 433, 438 (Ind.2005) ................................................ 14

State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Ass'n v. United Fin. Sys. Corp., 926 N.E.2d 8, 14 (Ind. 2010) ................... 44

State ex rel. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm'n v. Farmer, 978 N.E.2d 409, 412 (Ind. 2012) .. 14

Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702, 738 (2010) ............... 67

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) .................................................................................................... 11

Ward v. Tipton Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 937 F. Supp. 791, 802 (S.D. Ind. 1996)(.......................................... 37

Whitaker v. Becker, 960 N.E.2d 111, 115 (Ind.2012) ................................................................................. 49

Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119-20 (Ind. T.C. 1998) ........... 79

Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363, 1368 (Ind. 1996) ........................................................................... 72

Wright v. Steers, 179 N.E.2d 721, rehearing denied 180 N.E.2d 539 (1962).............................................. 68

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) .................................................................................................. 18

STATEMENT: Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Adm. & Disc. Rule 14, Section 2.Any applicant aggrieved by the final action of the State Board of LawExaminers in refusing to recommend to the Supreme Court of Indiana the admission of the applicant to practice lawin Indiana for any reason other than the failure to pass any examination as set forth in section (1) may file apetition [setting] forth specifically the reasons, in fact or law, assigned as error in the Board's


10/87


determination. The Court may order further consideration of the application, [ ]. The Court shall enter suchorder as in its judgment is proper, which shall thereupon become final.

Petitioner timely filed per this Rule. This Court graciously allowed the instant Amended Petition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Constitutional Issues)

While the function of appellate review does not encompass a calculated search of the record to

discover constitutional error; nevertheless, once constitutional error is discovered while examiningthe transcript or is brought to the Court's attention, it cannot be ignored. Fundamental constitutionalguarantees are absolute and outside the discretion of any court to ignore or deny.

Branan v. State, 316 N.E.2d 406, 408 (Ind.App.1974). As the Boards Final Report notes,Applicant

cite[d] the following provisions of the Indiana Constitution: Art 1 2, 3, 5, 12 in his draft Conclusions

of Laws. Final Report, p.36, n.23. According to this Court, it would be error for this Court to ignore or

deny these constitutionalclaims. The following claims are advanced against the Board of Law

Examiners in this Petition.

STATEMENT: Constitutional Issues

Board of Law Examiners (BLE) Final Report of the Proceedings and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law and Recommendation as to Bar Applicant 24128 are herein referenced as Final Report [#].

Citations to Applicants responseresponding to the Final Report are herein reference as App.F.P. [#].

Citation to ApplicantsMay 15, 2015-filed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Recommendations is

either Proposed Finding (as Examiners reference the document in their Final Report), or Exh. K.

VIOLATION OF LAW ALLEGED (Indiana Constitution)

Section 1. Inherent rights

WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain

inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; SeeKirtley v. State, 84

N.E.2d 712, 714 (1949) ([T]he personal liberty clause, Art. 1, 1 of the Constitution of Indiana [includes

the concept of] Liberty [which means] not only freedom from servitude and restraint, but embraces the

right of every one to be free in the use of their powers in the pursuit of happiness in such calling as they

may choose subject only to the restraints necessary to secure the common welfare.); SeealsoOhio

Valley Gas, Inc. v. Blackburn, 445 N.E.2d 1378, 1383 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)(The privilege of contracting

is both a liberty and a property right. It is protected by both the federal and state constitutions.)

CLAIM: The BLE has negatively impacted Petitionersright to pursue Petitionersprofession without undueinterference by the State in the form of due process violations and unreasonable bureaucratic hurdles.

FACTS: Proposed Findings, aka Exh K, Exh H, 13, App.F.P. 70 & footnote, infra.

Section 2. Right to worship

All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of

their own consciences. SeeMatthies v. First Presbyterian Church of Greensburg Indiana, Inc., 28 N.E.3d

1109, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)(The fundamental right to religious freedom, including the freedom to

believe and the freedom to act, is protected by the United States and Indiana Constitutions. The trial


11/87


court's basis for granting summary judgment was that it was foreclosed by the First Amendment from

considering the issues at hand because to address such issues would have required the trial court to

interpret and apply religious doctrine or ecclesiastical law.)

CLAIM: The BLE invaded the fundamental right to religious freedom by inquiring into, weighing, and then

deeming suspect Petitioners religious beliefs and adherence to ecclesiastical law.

FACTS: Exh B, Character and Fitness evaluation of Magistrate Lori Morgan, Exh. F, Original Action affidavit, pp

37-49, Exh K, pp 6-8.

Section 3. Freedom of religious opinions

No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or

interfere with the rights of conscience. City Chapel Evangelical Free Inc. v. City of S. Bend ex rel. Dep't

of Redevelopment, 744 N.E.2d 443, 450 (Ind. 2001) (From the literal text of Sections 2 and 3, the

discussions at the Constitutional Convention, and the surrounding circumstances, we conclude that the

framers and ratifiers of the Indiana Constitution's religious liberty clauses did not intend to afford only

narrow protection for a person's internal thoughts and private practices of religion and conscience The

inclusion of the phrase in any case whatever demonstrates the framers' and ratifiers' intent to provide

unrestrained protection for the articulated values.)CLAIM: The BLE violated rights of conscience by refusing to allow Applicant to stand on his right to resist an

ultra vires order to pay for a psych eval as a condition precedent to bar applicant processing. CLAIM: The BLE

also violated Applicantsright or conscience in 2014 by continuing to build up the Ross/Bowman/Sudrovech

inquisitions.

FACTS: Exh B, Character and Fitness evaluation of Magistrate Lori Morgan, Exh. F, Original Action affidavit, pp

37-49, Exh K, pp 6-8; Final Report: 11 & footnote, 13, 70 & footnote, 88 & footnote, 121 & footnote

Section 4. Freedom of religion

No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person

shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against

his consent. Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religioustheory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of nonreligion; and

it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the

militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion,

and between religion and nonreligion. Epperson v. State of Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1968). See also

Cardinal Ritter High Sch., Inc. v. Bullock, 17 N.E.3d 281, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)([C]ases [that] deal

directly with matters of faith and creed [likely implicate] rights under either the United States Constitution

or the Indiana Constitution.)

CLAIM: By mandating a secularist outlook on the law that brokers no competition from a Higher Laws confession

the BLE has violated the freedom of religion clause. Through the Morgan report and its questions in February 2014

the BLE maintained this violation of the wall of separation as to Applicant 24128.CLAIM: By treating Applicant as suspect and in need of mental health review due to his creed the BLE violated

this clause of the Indiana Constitution.

FACTS: passim; Exb H

Section 5. No religious test for office

No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for any office of trust or profit. Torcaso v. Watkins,

367 U.S. 488 (1961)(First Amendment makes it impossible for government, state or federal, to restore the


12/87


historically and constitutionally discredited policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths.) City Chapel

Evangelical Free Inc. v. City of S. Bend ex rel. Dep't of Redevelopment, 744 N.E.2d 443, 446 (Ind. 2001)

(We observe further that Article 1, Section 5 of the Indiana Constitution (No religious test shall be

required as a qualification for any office of trust or profit) is similar but not identical to its federal

counterpart)

CLAIM: In 2009, and again in 2014, Applicant was subjected to a test oath Seeking statement that he would

confess his religion to be subordinate to the State.

FACTS: Exh.F pp 38-41, Exh.K, p 21; Exh H; Final Order: 11, 13, 70 & footnote, 121 & footnote

Section 9. Freedom of thought and speech

No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to

speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be

responsible. Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 961 (Ind. 1993) [Section] 9 has substantive content: that

popular comment on public concerns should not be restrained. Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134

(Ind.App.2012), transfer denied970 N.E.2d 665.(Indiana Constitution more jealously protects freedom

of speech guarantees than does the United States Constitution.)

CLAIM: Viewpoint and ideological discrimination in the context of government licensure, a case of firstimpression under the Indiana constitution.

FACTS: Exh. H, Exh.K, 113& 88 & footnote, infra.

CLAIM: Retaliation for speech on matters of public interest communicated privately to a government body.

FACTS: 113, 88 & footnote, infra.

Section 12. Openness of the courts, Speedy trial

All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation,

shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase;

completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay. SeeIndiana Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. v.

Jones, 691 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(Although Jones was able to testify and cross-examine the witnesses, such exercise was meaningless. The ALJ essentially ignored any evidence which

tended to show that the allegations of abuse had not occurred. Jones, in essence, was not provided with an

evidentiary hearing to determine whether her license should be revoked. A hearing upon a license

revocation is meaningless unless the respondent is permitted to challenge the underlying allegations of

abuse.); Pigg v. State, 929 N.E.2d 799, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)(The Due Process Clause of the United

States Constitution and the Due Course of Law Clause of the Indiana Constitution prohibit state action

which deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without the process' or course of law that is due,

that is, a fair proceeding which entitles litigants to a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claim.)

CLAIM: Requirement to tender estimated $4500 in psychological evaluation or BLE would not process application

a violation of Rule 12 1

FACTS: Final Report 37, 39, 53; Exh K, pp. 13-14

CLAIM: Burdenas a means to limit candidate from holding BLE to due process violates Rule 12 2

FACTS: Final Report 91; Exh I, p. 2, 5(g&h); Exh K, pp. 28-29

CLAIM: Use of ad hoc insight a violation since found nowhere in Rule 12 2

FACTS: Final Report 12, 65, fn.17; Exh I, p. 2, 5(i)

CLAIM: Refusal to limit inquiry into jurisprudence to violent overthrow violation of Rule 12 3

FACTS: Final Report 98, pp. 39-40 (conspicuously absent); Exh K, pp. 21-23
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2027168102&pubNum=0000578&originatingDoc=N3E4AEFB080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=notesOfDecisions&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29&transitionType=NotesOfDecisionItemhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2027168102&pubNum=0000578&originatingDoc=N3E4AEFB080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=notesOfDecisions&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29&transitionType=NotesOfDecisionItemhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2028162876&pubNum=0000578&originatingDoc=N3E4AEFB080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=notesOfDecisions&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29&transitionType=NotesOfDecisionItemhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2028162876&pubNum=0000578&originatingDoc=N3E4AEFB080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=notesOfDecisions&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29&transitionType=NotesOfDecisionItemhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2028162876&pubNum=0000578&originatingDoc=N3E4AEFB080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=notesOfDecisions&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29&transitionType=NotesOfDecisionItemhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2027168102&pubNum=0000578&originatingDoc=N3E4AEFB080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=notesOfDecisions&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29&transitionType=NotesOfDecisionItemhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2027168102&pubNum=0000578&originatingDoc=N3E4AEFB080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=notesOfDecisions&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29&transitionType=NotesOfDecisionItem


13/87


CLAIM: Failure to maintain character and fitness evaluators in every county violation of Rule 12 4

FACTS: Final Report 71, 97, 100; Exh K, pp. 6, 30

CLAIM: Reversal of processing, moving from Rule 12 7 back to Rule 12 5

FACTS: Final Report 49; Exh I, p. 2, 5(e&f); Exh K, pp. 31-32

CLAIM: The use of off-the-record hearings is a violation of due process using Rule 12 5

FACTS: Final Report 3, 8, 11, 28; Exh K, pp. 28-29CLAIM: Use of ad hoc conditional denial found nowhere in Rule 12 6

FACTS: Final Report 39; Exh K, pp. 30 - 31

CLAIM: Refusal to promptly set and hold a hearing when tendered request under Rule 12 7

FACTS: Final Report 41; Exh K, pp. 33 - 35

CLAIM: Quashing of subpoenas prior to April 27, 2015 hearing violation of Rule 12 9

FACTS: Final Report 83, 92; Exh I, p. 3, 6-10

CLAIM: Limine denial and orders prior to April 27, 2015 hearing violation of Rule 12 9

FACTS: Final Report 86, 94-95, fn.21;

CLAIM: Refusal to notify Petitioner of areas of concern per (b) violation of Rule 12 9

FACTS: Exh I, p. 2, 5(a&b); Exh K, pp. 32-33

CLAIM: Denial of relevant and material witnesses a violation of Rule 12 9

FACTS: Final Report fn.5; 83, passim as to Bowman; Exh I, p. 6

CLAIM: Disqualifying applicant as lacking honesty, trustworthiness or fitness without credible evidence

FACTS: Final Report 116, 120; Exh K, pp. 2-5, 1620

CLAIM: Injury to property and reputation without a remedy

FACTS: Final Report 22, 34, 116, 120, passim; Exh I, p. 7, 9(a&b); Exh K, pp. 25-26

CLAIM: Ten months to Rule 12 7 hearing request and then additional ten months to 12 9(h) report inordinate

amount of processing time

FACTS: Final Report 41, and pages 2 -3, footnote to Appeal 513-14;

VIOLATION OF LAW ALLEGED (Federal Constitution)

First Amendment: SeeArt 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9supra

Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection)SeeArt 1, 12supra; See also Highler v. State, 854 N.E.2d

823, 829 (Ind. 2006)(Georgia v. McCollum,505 U.S. 42, 59, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33

(1992)[Mandates that,]In our heterogeneous society policy as well as constitutional considerations

militate against the divisive assumptionas a per se rulethat justice in a court of law may turn upon the

pigmentation of skin, the accident of birth, or the choice of religion.)

CLAIM: The Indiana system elevates gender over religion for protection, and religion is treated as a

second class characteristic by the BLE.

FACTS: See: Final Report 11 & footnote, 70 & footnote, 99, 121 & footnote,

Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process) SeeArt 1, 4, 5, 12supra; See alsoBaskin v. Bogan,12

F.Supp.3d 1144(S.D.Ind.2014), affirmed766 F.3d 648,cert, dend.(Because they are so important, an

individual's fundamental rights, protected by due process, may not be submitted to vote.)

CLAIM: Examiners vote on bar admission for candidates, rendering the process a mere popularity

contest.
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2033680522&pubNum=0007903&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2033680522&pubNum=0007903&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2033680522&pubNum=0007903&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2033680522&pubNum=0007903&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2034279290&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2034279290&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2034279290&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2033680522&pubNum=0007903&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2033680522&pubNum=0007903&originatingDoc=N7567ABA080A111DB8132CD13D2280436&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)


14/87


FACTS: Final Report 96, Exh K, pp 11, 28-29.

Seegenerally for all constitutional claims: Exh.H, Exh.F, Exh.K, Exh.I, Exh.D, This Petition, infra,

seriatim.

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Board of Law Examiners)

The general rule is well established that this court will not disturb the decision of administrative

boards unless the action of such boards is shown to be arbitrary or capricious or void because ofother illegality. [ ] Although the Board of Law Examiners is appointed by this court, we Seeno

reason why this court should adopt a different rule with regard to the administrative function

imposed upon it.

Petition of McDonald, 171 N.E.2d 691, 692-93 (1961) ; See alsoPetition of Webster, 171 N.E.2d 694,

695 (1961) (There is no evidence of an arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the board which

would authorize us to review or reverse the action of the State Board of Law Examiners.) In the final

lines ofMcDonald this Court set the trip line for its review lightly: There is no showing or contention made

to the court that the decision of the Board as herein presented was either arbitrary or capricious and therefore it is

the opinion of this court that the decision of the Board must be affirmed.241 Ind. at 242 (emphasis added).

Herein Petitioner raises the contention that the decisions of the Board (both the denial and the lifetime

ban) are themselves both arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner also posits evidence of animus, and

advances a claim under the class of one Equal Protection analysis.

Petitioner furthermore, contends that many of the decisions and orders of the Board on the path to their

Final Report were arbitrary or capricious.

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Scope)

In reviewing these constitutional claims and allegations of arbitrary and capricious government processing

this Court should review the entire record: This Court's review in disciplinary cases is de novo,and we

examine all matters presented.Matter of Garringer, 626 N.E.2d 809, 810 (Ind. 1994)

STANDARD OF REVIEW (Findings of Fact)

Court examines the Commission's claims considering the evidence in light of the Commission'sburden of proof. See State ex rel. Ind. State Bar Ass'n v. Diaz,838 N.E.2d 433, 438 (Ind.2005)[The burden of proof in attorney discipline cases and judicial discipline cases is clear andconvincing evidence. See Admis. Disc. R. 23, 14(h); Admis. Disc. R. 25(VIII)(K)(6).]

State ex rel. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm'n v. Farmer, 978 N.E.2d 409, 412 (Ind. 2012)

Clear and convincing evidence is defined as an intermediate standard of proof greater than a

preponderance of the evidence and less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires the existence of

a fact to be highly probable.Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Traina, 486 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind.1986).
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986100541&pubNum=578&originatingDoc=I109f12fdd46b11d98ac8f235252e36df&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986100541&pubNum=578&originatingDoc=I109f12fdd46b11d98ac8f235252e36df&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)


15/87


STANDARD OF REVIEW (Conclusion)

Thus while undertaking de novoreview on the entire record against the clear and convincing

evidentiary standard, with a special emphasis upon review of any designated violations of fundamental

constitutional guarantees, this Court should apply, in the main, its own precedent regarding attorney

discipline (and the Indiana constitution) to determine and issue such order as in its judgment is proper,

which shall thereupon become final. Rule 14, 2.

STATEMENT: Of the Case

This petition by Applicant 24128 asks the Court to review the record of his third application to join the

Indiana bar. His first was in 1996, which was abandoned when he was certified by the State of Kansas and

accepted into its bar in September of that year. His second attempt was in 2007, one year after the Missouri

Supreme Court approved him to sit for their bar exam after the National Conference of Bar Examiners

found him of sufficient character and fitness.1 Applicant 24128, after 29 months of processing by the BLE,

was denied certification and ordered to not again apply to the Indiana bar until Fall, 2013. This petition is

the result of the denial of that third (2013) application.

January/February 2014: Off-the-record hearings result in clearance to sit for bar exam

The November 2013-filed application resulted in a personal interview with a Magistrate Judge in which

inquiry was made of how Petitioner would resolve conflicts between his beliefs and law. The Magistrate

Lori K. Morgan found herself unable to recommend certifying Petitioner, instead deferring to the full Board

with recommendation that the Board inquire into [a]matter of concern that arose during the application

process in 2008, [that being Applicants] fitness to practice law in Indiana and concerns over his willingness

to obey state and federal law even when doing so violates his conscience. The Magistrates line of inquiry

was followed by a more thorough probing of Petitioners belief system in an informal hearing before the

nearly full Board in which Applicant was asked to discuss his religious views and how they impacted his

jurisprudence. In both meetings the reviewers yet focused upon the 2007-09 application, in which Applicant

had been asked whether he would choose Gods law over mans law (on the record) and denied certification,

at least in part, due to his theocentric jurisprudence, with no analysis of constitutional law, civil rights law

or Adm. & Disc. Rule 12 3.

1According to the Examiners, Applicant should be banished from the Indiana courts for, inter alia, offering tosubmit to an evaluation by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. 71. At the risk of doubling his banishmentto two lifetimes, Applicant re-proposes said offer in the hope that such calibration might prove salubrious.


16/87


17/87


The Examiners, more than ten months after their Rule 12 6 denial, and more than sixteen months

after they had notified Applicant that he passed the February, 2014 exam, and more than 20 months after

the application was filed, finally authored a document (their first such published justification, not counting

the evaluation of Magistrate Morgan) allegedly justifying their reasons for denial, in which they also seek

an order banishing Applicant from re-applying for life.Of pretexts and botched investigations

Applicant argues that the July 17, 2015 document is a pretext covering up a botched bar applicant

investigation (as revealed by the States discovery) and retaliation against a whistleblower seeking to reform

a system that lacks due process safeguards. (Seeapplication, cover letter, Bowman and Sudrovech reports.)

Applicant further notes that the tone and desired resul t of the Boards Final Report may constitute stand-

alone evidence of animus, and especially so in light of the history of discipline and paucity of substantial

allegations therein, as well as the seeming retaliation for bringing civil rights litigation and arguing like an

attorney. (See, e.g.,fn 5, & 101, Final Report.)

So far all has been written in the third person, which has the benefit of sounding lawyerly but the

drawback of plodding along. First person is much quicker, and it is my preference, as the attorneyapro

sePetitioner. While the old adage may be true, this arrangement has this one great advantagethe Court

can judge whether the Examiners negative evaluation of my lawyering skill is valid. I am writing all if

this without the benefit of counsel or legal advice. It is all my work product, just as Exh K is, and, truth be

told, everything in most all of my files with the Board other than the petition for cert in Brown v. Bowman,

which Professor Charles Rice and Walter Weber (D.C. bar) had a hand in after I roughed it out.

A dialectical design

So from this point forward pro sePetitioner will prove up the facts by citation to the record, lay out the

relevant law to rebut allegations against him, demonstrate allegations of fraud on this Court, and posit that

the Board has erred. At the end of all of that he will sum all up in a conclusion that will hopefully move

this Honorable Court to docket this case for a written opinion using the Indiana Constitution to enlarge the

Hoosier States Bill of Rights to protect future bar license applicants, and, by analogy, any persons of

conscience or of a politically dissenting nature who find themselves in a bureaucratic struggle withgovernment agents unwilling to be held to their own obligations to obey the law. I should add that I believe

this Honorable Court is herein faced with a series of reputation-shredding errors by a government agency

that should be remedied through a remuneration in keeping with the Founders intent in Article I. Section

12.


18/87


I have drafted this Petition to allow a meaningful and substantive review of the entire past 20 months

with only three documents at hand: My Proposed Findings (thesis, the Board has erred); The Examiners

Final Report (antithesis, the Applicant lacks character and fitness); and this document (synthesis, analyzing

thesis in light of antithesis while responding to the allegations and contradictions throughout antithesis).2

Dramatic foreshadowingThe Examiners Final Report threw pretty much everything and the kitchen sink at the wall. Its 122

paragraphs are rife with factual inaccuracies, misstatements of the record and arguments that completely

ignore settled law. Most of the cases cited are inapposite, and the Rules are cited but not actually employed.

It is picture perfect example of obscurum per obscurius,and quite the test of my powers to discriminate

between that which could bebriefed and that which mustbe briefed.

ADDRESSING: My Allegations of Factual Error by the Examiners

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) the Court located (in the use of an otherwise impartial

law) a fact pattern demonstrating that the law had been applied and administered by public authority with

an evil eye and an unequal hand. This was so glaring as to result in unjust and illegal discriminations

between persons in similar circumstances. Such being the case, the Yick WoCourt remedied a denial of

equaljustice.Id.(emphasis added). Since foreign attorneys petitioning to enter the Indiana bar are

guaranteed equal treatment by In re Lee, 317N.E.2d 444, 445 (Ind.1974) (we cannot accept one standard

of integrity of the advantaged and another of the disadvantaged, anymore than we can apply varying

standards of professional competence for initial admission to the bar of this state),processing before theIndiana Board of Law Examiners should parallel the Disciplinary Counsels processing of cases against

attorneys. (And it is certainly true that inequality should not be countenanced as between applicants.)

Strict adherence to the impartially administered rule of law is the sure and certain guardrail to ensure no

more Yick Wos. The BLE has not so operated, as the factual and legal errors set forth herein attest. See

alsoExh K, Petitioners Proposed Findings presenting arguments from the Record at bar.

2My report and Board counsels report were both due June 11, 2015. Irushed and filed mine on May 15, so thatthe Board might be able to read it and reconsider the path they had chosen. I had hoped that by so clearly layingout my case against their processing of my application they might grant me a license and forestall the need for thisdocument. They instead doubled down, recommending the maximum sentence available to them: denial andlifetime banishment from reapplication. It is a sentence that will, if upheld, likely affect me for life, as that it isunlikely that I will able to join any state bar (in addition to Kansas) under such a sentence given the reputationaldamage which it visits upon me.


19/87


FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Admit

[BLE heading] Facts Relating to the Applicants Prior Applications

2. Admit

3.

Admit. This recital fails to cite to Character and Fitness evaluator Kelly Huebner. See Exh. A

242-244

4. Deny. I have consistently argued this finding was in error in 2009, and have subsequently

discovered evidence supporting that claim. Seepost-hearing motion #6, Section C; See alsoMissouri

Report, infra.

5. Admit

6.

Deny. The NCBE did clear me as to character and fitness, as did Missouri, to the best of my

understanding. I was invited to sit for the Missouri bar examination, without any reservation as tocharacter and fitness communicated to me the year before I applied to Indiana for the second time (in

2007). This is one of the paragraphs that I have flagged as containing material error.

7. Admit in general only. A 55-year old applicant with my life history would generate more pages in

response to the BLE-mandated application than a 25-year old fresh from law school. This recital fails to

cite to Character and Fitness evaluator the Honorable Nancy Boyer. See Exh. A 251252 RecReform

8. Admit in general, but pleaseseearguments against Boards policy of citing off-the-record

meetings as evidence to justify subsequent decisions in a manner insulated from meaningful appellate

review infra. (Recommending reform BLE procedures; hereinafter RecReform.)

9. Deny. This is one of the paragraphs that I have flagged as containing material error. Dr. Ross

report should be allowed to speak for itself, for professionals who reviewed it have told me it is quite

strange. No one else who has interviewed me, psychologist or psychiatrist, came up with the same

hypothetical as Ross3which was utilized to send me deeper into psych processing:

Mr. Brown presents himself in a manner that indicates immediate familiarity with the others.Furthermore, his emotional expressiveness and mood variability suggest to me thepossibility of a sub-clinical bipolar disorder of a hypomanic type. The fervor [ ] in which he represents himself vis a vis

others and the intensity of his interpersonal style suggests a sub-clinical level of a bipolar disorder whichwould warrant further consideration by a psychiatrist. I do not believe that the aforementionedproblems should preclude Mr. Brown from taking the bar exam. He has a unique style of

3Such a result is quite common in the science of ad hoc psych evals: John Ioannidis,professor of healthresearch and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerlyawaited by the scientific community. Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers publishedin the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and forfields like social psychology it is just devastating, he said.http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results
https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis?tab=publicationshttps://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis?tab=publicationshttp://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-resultshttp://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-resultshttp://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-resultshttps://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis?tab=publications


20/87


interpersonal interaction which does not necessarily rise to the level of not allowing him to take the bar.He appears to have moral integrity but an idiosyncratic style which may be indicative of a subclinicalbipolar illness. Further inquiry is warranted.

10. Deny. This is one of the paragraphs that I have flagged as containing material error. Dr. Rosss

only bold statement in his 2008 report was that I be cleared to sit for the exam; he found me to have good

moral character and sufficient fitness. Drs. Alexy, Sass, Flueckiger and Bowman all interviewed me after

Ross, and all rejected his possibility of a sub-clinical bipolar disorder of a hypomanic type theory, based

entirely upon my communications to him, as devoid of merit. As Bowman pointed out, people do not just

come down with bipolar at the tender age of 48. A fine question for Dr. Ross is whether he was directed

to so find, to come up with some reason to remand to a psychiatrist. That is one of the questions I have

oft asked -- the answer may reveal fraud on this Court.

11. Deny. Nowhere does the previous record contain the words vehemently resisted, raising the

question of who is attempting to edit the Boards 2009 report to testify via the Boards 2015 Final Report.Given that a majority of the current Board members (including two of three of the signatories to the

Panels instantreport) were not even on the Board in Spring, 2008, and Board counsel was not active in

the file at that time (to the best of my knowledge), the vehemently resisted is hearsay at best, and

possibly evidence of animus. I was present, and will merely direct the Court to the correspondence file,

where no evidence of vehement resistance is found. The choice of those words likelyreveals what the

author/s thinks of those who dare question the State.

Communication rebranded as conduct

12. Deny. The Board witnessed no behavior. I was before the Board once in 2007 and again in

2009. Nothing in the record fairly supports the charge that my communication then was antagonistic and

threatening.4That is the 2015 author taking great literary license with the 2009 report rather than being

content to merely quote the language of the 2009 Board. No objective evidence supports the allegation

that I ignored and abused the 2009 hearing process. I did indeed write my character and fitness

evaluator a letter asking her, politely, if she might need to recuse for cause. That May 1, 2009 letter is

found in the record at B7-2B. It was far from demonizing as the Board alleges,5but it was questioning

4 I recommend a review of the June 1, 2009 transcript, from which quotes are pulled and distorted in the 2009Order, as well as in the Final Report. The most constitutionally significant (abusive) exchange during thathearing began when Iwas asked by an Examiner, during my Rule 12 9 hearing, ifI fi rmly beli eve that I amobligated as a Christian to put obedience to Gods law above human law? C138. I answered in the affirmativeand was disqualified as unfit for so doing. I have refused to recant, and am yet deemed unfit..5 This unsupported charge of demonizing as a pseudonym for self-defense is an example of a label-makinggovernment commission that neither plays nice nor fights fair.


21/87


her objectivity, which seemingly violates the Boards belief thatbar applicants enjoy no rights under the

state or federal constitutions while being processed.Seeburden argument, infra.

13. Admit that the 2009 Board was biased against those who question the government, as is the 2015

Board. Note communication which the Board dislikes (i.e. whistleblowing as to constitutional and due

process violations) is deemed to constitute conduct. Note reliance on insight as a disqualifier for baradmission. See analysis, infra. RecReform

14. Admit that the Board denied me a law license based upon, in the main, my religiously-informed

political science (jurisprudence) and ordered me to not apply again for five years in an unsigned final

report that contained no analysis against constitutional provisions, not one citation to case law, no citation

to a statute, and not even a citation to any of the criteria of Rule 12, 2. As the Board states,see11,

lack of insight into conduct (i.e. challenging the Board as to constitutional and/or due process issues)

is independently sufficient to [find applicant] lacks the requisite good moral character for admission to

thisbar. (Emphasis added.) The 2015 Board remains as committed to enforcing this non-Rule 12, 2

term against core political speech as did the 2009 Board. Seeanalysis, infra.

15. Admit in general only, noting that I did not then fully understand the fraud perpetrated upon the

Court; Seeanalysis infra.

16. Admit

17. Admit. Note the Examiners use of the term processing of his application, which they later in the

Final Report cite as evidence of my abusive language. (I.e.,it is not abusive when they do it.)

18.

Admit. Note that the Court had no idea, nor did I, as to the fraud that would be admitted in the

Bowman report filed with the federal court in February, 2010. Admit case dismissed on jurisdictional

question, not on the merits. Could have refiled in state court, elected not to. The Ross letter is, without a

doubt, hearsay. Seeanalysis infra

19. Admit attempt to facilitate briefing intended to bring fraud to the Courts attention.

20. Admit

21. Admit

[BLE heading] Facts Relating to the Applicants Third and Most Recent Application

22. Admit

23. Admit, note size concerns already discussed,supra. See A001. Note duty of candor owed to

process, thus causing applicants to rightly err on disclosure, not restraint. Note that more than some of the


22/87


pages in my file were put there by opposing counsel, including parts of the record that I thought

unnecessary.6

24a. Admit, as directed to do, repeatedly, by the Boards Executive Director. The Board took no issue

with anything I wrote in my February 14, 2014 letter, including my recounting of what I was asked at the

off-the-record meeting. I also asked to be judged under Indiana case law dealing with admissions, whichI cited to the Examiners to render that more likely to happen. (None of those directly on-point cases

(some as to merits, all as to discipline) are in the Final Report.)

24b. For reasons unknown, the Examiners have failed to include any reference to the Rule 12, Section 4

process in their factual account.7 RecReform

24c. The Board likewise fails to mention Magistrate Lori Morgans character and fitness report. It is

found at Exh B. I recommend the Court review it, both due to its agreement with the character and fitness

reports of Boyer (2007) and Huebner (1996) and its reliance upon ideology to non recommend.

25. Admit. Seeanalysis of due process concerns as to the Boards use of off-the-record hearings,infra

26. Admit. Note no written justification for this failure to recognize aprima faciacase of character

and fitness. None would be written for more than a year, until the Final Report eighteen months later.

RecReform

27. Deny. Please seerepeated assurances from Board that I have been given the total file in this

matter. Note even accusations of wrongdoing on my part for asking again after being told I have my

entire file. That file, which is the record in this matter, contains no minutes or attendance tallies or any

record at all from this off-the-record meeting, or any other such meetings, and thus I must flag this note as

to attendance as either hearsay (the Board testifying once again) or evidence that the Board has not yet

tendered to me the total and entire file as it repeatedly claims.

28. Admit in general only. When the Board President informed me, on February 13, that I was cleared

to sit for the bar examination twelve days ahead, but not certified as to character and fitness, I informed

6 In similar fashion it was the BLE that helped supersize my 2007-09 application by including my Indiana 1996,

Kansas 1996 and Missouri 2005 submissionsall quite duplicative, none requested by me, none included this timearound. After mandating their inclusion in 2009, the Board then argued that my file was massive and led this Courtto reject for that reason alone. SeeNovember 16, 2009 order.7On January 8, 2014 I met with Allen County Magistrate Lori K. Morgan. Her report of that meeting is a crucialpiece of evidence, and, in fact, the only writi ng of the Boardaddressing my character and fitness prior to the July17, 2015 final report. The Morgan report can be read at Exh.B. My letter to Magistrate Morgan recounting ourmeeting, which she did not discount, is at C211. My recounting of the curious way in which I came to beinterviewed by an Allen County Magistrate (when Section 4 calls for the county of my choice) is recounted here:Exh.K, pp. 68.


23/87


her that I would have to consider this option before committing and would let her know. I wrote the

February 14 letter to communicate to the Board my choice to go forward and to address some of the

questions put to me in the off-the-record meeting of February 13. The Board did not deny that my

recounting of the February 13 meeting was accurate, including the question of whether I could agree that

the 2009 Board operated in good faith. Also note the flagging of my use of the term agents. The Boardprefers representatives. Failure to abide by the Boards preferences on such matters is counted as

evidence of a lack of insight, as are allegations of due process violations. The colored outside the lines

quote flagged by the Board is actually on C030. I stand behind my analysis of Board of Education v.

Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). It is directly on-point with the Boards dedication to pledges of allegiance

and demonstrations of loyalty to insight.

29. Admit, note email is revealing as to my motivation.

30 Admit that I updated the Board, as directed to do, repeatedly, by the Boards Executive Director.

31. Admit that I used that update to further the work begun on February 14 of putting the questions

that I was asked during the off-the-record hearing into the record.

32. Admit

33. Admit

And now a note from our sponsor (psych eval letter)

34. Deny. Sent to my counsel three weeks after I was informed that I had passed the exam, Executive

Director Bradley Skolniks letter read:

[O]n May 20, 2014 the Board met to consider Mr. Browns pending application for admission tothe bar upon examination. After careful and deli berate consideration, the Board voted to requestthat Mr. Brown obtain updated psychological testing from one of the followinglicensed clinicalpsychologists at [a firm owned and operated by one of the three, a psychologist who has served onthe State Board of Psychology with Dr. Stephen Ross the past decade.] The psychological testingshould consist of a battery of measures comparable to pri or assessmentsMr. Brown hasundergone, testing the applicants personality and curr ent functioning. Mr. Brown will berequired to sign a release all owing the Board access to the raw testing dataand the testingpsychologist to have access to the applicants filings with the Board.

Emphasis added. I note that I hold my entire and total record and no document records the Boards

alleged careful and deliberate consideration culminating in a vote and then a request that was, in fact,

a demand. Seerequest analysis at Exh F., p 65; Seevoting analysis at Exh K.

35. Admit

36. Deny, it was no request. My response included:

Please realize that if this request communicates a legally binding condition precedent then itconstitutes a bar to my admission to the practice of law in Indiana. I simply do not have the


24/87


financial resources project cost in excess of $4000 appeal to [BLE] to held find anaffordable path to certification . I humbly submit that my pending application amply documentsmy good moral character and fitness, precluding the need for further psychological testing [youhave] no grounds on which to [order] supplemental testingI respectfully submit that a battery ofadditional psychological testing of such an intrusive and subjectivist manner is not warranted in thecontext of the bar admission of a licensed practitioner lacking any felony arrests (ever) or anymisdemeanor convictions (nor even arrests) in the past 22 years. As for the question of my

current functioning, please See[bar application] .I stand prepared to take the Oath of attorneys(without exception or caveat) I have never been disciplined in my nearly 18 years of practice .[dedication to] full candor [pledged and explained] I remain hopeful that I can add an Indianalicense to my recent Masters degree and thus escape the reputational fall-out and economichardships currently impacting my family and career at law. [Emphasis added]

37. Admit

38. Admit, recommend the letter to the Court as the best explanation of where this application stood

one year ago. Note that Timothy J. Sudrovech, MA,LCSW,LCAC,is a social worker who works for the

Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP), a government agency, making him a government

agent. This Courts agent who really didpre- and post- brief the government-mandated psychologist and

government-mandated psychiatrist. Exh E Appeal 293, 35, Appeal 298 55, Appeal 308 101,

Appeal 309 -316, Appeal 325 165.

39. Admit that my third application to join this Courts bar was denied eleven months ago, on

September 22, 2014, in a letter that could have issued in response to my letter of June 23, 2014. Further

admit that the Board did not follow Rule 12, 6 and instead issued what can only be called an ultra vires

conditional denial. Seeanalysis at Exh. K.

40. Admit;SeeExh. F.

41. Admit. I had to file that request for hearing without the benefit of any statement of the Board on

my character and fitness, as is per Board policy, and without the benefit of a review of the Morgan report,

which the Board refused to tender until 13 months after the fact. SeeExh. K. RecReform

42. Admit

43. Admit. The Board eventually responded to my request for information as to its seemingly

nonstandard processing: It is not the role of the Board to educate any applicant on the policies and

procedures of the Board of Law Examiners. Exh. E Appeal 371 RecReform

44a.Admit in general only. I never admitted that the evidence was not in dispute, for I realized that the

Board had focused very narrowly on its request and had ignored all else in my file, including the

Bowman answer and my allegation of fraud on this Court. I was concerned that the Board planned to

send the Section 8 up with a narrow question of its ability to so request and an even narrower record.

Those concerns were detailed in my October filing with this Court, where I predicted that the Board may


25/87


so attempt to stall my application with procedural questions rather than substantive reviewwhich the

Board was refusing to do without a report from a psychologist of its own choosing, pre-briefing, post-

briefing, while my family paid the estimated $4500 costas it did five years earlier.

44b. Note that the BLE never questioned my $4500 estimate. Neither did the BLE offer to help my

family pay that amount in 2014. When the BLE finally did offer to pay that in 2015, incident to an ultraviresact of reversing the processing of my application, it refused to answer logically compelling questions

to why the offer of a grant was not forthcoming in 2014, or 2008, when I clearly requested such

assistance and was ignored. These questions of funding are in my January 22 and February 12, 2015

letters, which the Board focuses uponnot to answer the reasonable questions asked therein, but to

accuse me of seditious conduct for asking such questions. See infra.

45. Admit that I delivered said letter when the Board failed to work with me to build a stipulated

record pursuant to Rule 12, Section 8, and that it included the allegation that the Board was refusing to

investigate my application. I did not know (at that time) that the Board was suffering under the erroneous

belief that I had committed perjury in the June 1, 2009 hearing and was also liable for the unauthorized

practice of law. When the Board finally, in March, sixteen months after I filed my application and six

months after denial, finally deemed it best to have me formally respond to such spurious allegations I did

so, dispositively. See Exh. E, Appeal 064 and Exh E, Appeal 233. (I posit these constitute evidence of a

botched investigation.)

46. Deny in part. I had actually reported on a significant lack of financial resources in April, 2014 (C

058), reporting before the Board ordered me into an estimated $4500 psych eval that my family was in an

economic crisis due to my lack of work and graduate school expenses. I notified the Board six months

earlier, Please realize that if this request communicates a legally binding condition precedent then it

constitutes a bar to my admission to the practice of law in Indiana. The Board ignored that reality for 90

days and denied me for failing to comply with its $4500, I-say-ultra vires, unconstitutional, and privacy

invasive request. (And thus unlawful, and thus one that created no duty to obey.)

47. Admit t

Documents

amendedpetition.24128