armed
dangerous
armed
left arm, right arm.
armed with section 1, which substantively protects life, liberty, property, and privacy, if only weakly. cite to abortion case, as well as the declaration of independence,
armed with section 11, under which the curtilage of the home is a core value, and items to be seized must be specifically identified, as well as the 4th amendment.
armed with section 16, which requires penalties to be proportional, as well as the 8th amendment, Timbs v Indiana.
armed with section 9, which protects my right to speak truth to power without fear of retaliation/ Price v State, as well as the first amendment (Hess v Indiana?) armed with the sincere belief
armed with section 12, which protects due course of law in hearings, including the use of no less stringent standard than clear and convincing evidence, rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is inapplicable here in a quasi-criminal proceeding which authorizes the continuing invasion of my land
armed with the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, right to an administrative hearing. armed with the doctrine of unclean hands, which prevents the county from seeking injunctive relief after wrongful acts. armed with the doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree, which suggests that the privacy invasions following Chip Jefferson's trespass were unlawful. armed with a policy of deterring the use of witnesses who had committed perjury.
armed with at least an inkling of a sense that Chip Jefferson's attempts to negotiate the case while trespassing on my driveway were likely a prohibited ex parte contact. Ms. Gupta made no attempt to enter the property herself, but as Jefferson's employer's counsel of record in the case, was responsible for preventing both the ex parte contact and the trespass. she may be an accessory or a conspirator or cotortfeasor or something. ruling out, arguendo, any criminal prosecution, she might have tortious or ethical liability.
my letter was an attempt to resolve these concerns by offering her the option to leave me alone.
in the unlikely event 6y788gh78 the cat just wrote that!
what i said i might do:
come at her in ways she's not expecting.
what i meant: that i would again run for center township board, again make a sign that says Robbin Stewart for Township Board again have the county tell me i couldn't (even a single sign much less 101 as required by statute), settling up the lawsuit against the county clerk.
I can caption that lawsuit stewart v stewart, leading with the chair of the county elections board Nolita Stewart, or i can lead with Kate Sweeny Bell if that's it, the county clerk who file-stamps every one of Gupta's filings.
Sarah Taylor was the county clerk, a nice lady, is now remembered, if at all, for stewart v taylor, which showed that Taylor had violated Stewart's First Amendment rights under McIntyre when his (my) sign was taken down. Candice Marendt, less nice, is remembered if at all for Ogden v Marendt, which showed that Marendt had violated Ogden's First Amendment rights under McIntyre. Does Gupta want Bell to be known for violating Stewart's rights under McIntyre? That is the actual "threat" the letter contained: that her litigation could harm not just her own reputation but others including the leader of the county party currently serving as clerk. Maybe also Matthew Gutwein who as opposing counsel in majors v abell neglected to let the indiana supreme court know the district court was asking it a certified question about the indiana constitution. he had promised judge mckinney that he would prepare the paperwork to send over the certified question, but never did. A result was that this important question of Indiana law remains unresolved many years later.
This might have been unethical, in terms on duty of honesty to the tribunal. I did not see it as rising to the level that I was required to report it, and generally I refrain from reporting opposing counsel when possible.
Now, I do not believe that Gutwein, who then served as president of HH until recently stepping down. sicked HH on me on purpose over my role in Majors. What I do believe is that it creates an appearance of impropriety for gutwein's crew to sue me 57 times.
My letter attempted to alert Gupta that she might be creating a problem for both Gutwein and herself in ways she might not have been aware of. This was an attempt, in part, to get her to read the files, which I was not sure she had done. If she read the files she should note the lack of juridiuction in that an adminstrative hearing had been requested but not held.
What I did: I read an article in the Indiana Lawyer that an indy lawyer had filed suit to declare marion county's method of not having judicial elections, while 87 of the rural white counties get to elect their judges, violates the constitutions. As a person who had run for judge in Marion County (I got 25,000 votes in 2000), I had standing, and offered to join his lawsuit, which he declined. We had a good discussion about the nuts and bolts of his lawsuit. I followed up with some research so that I would be able to file an amicus if the case developed, and shared that research with the lawyer.
So I had a heightened awareness of the problems with the makeup of the unelected marion county environmental court. I want to make clear that I was satisfied with the neutrality of the magistrate. I still want to have the option of supporting her opponent at the election.
So I did not attack the courthouse with drones or artillery or tanks. Instead I attack with legal arguments, and not always the ones she would be expecting.
dangerous in that i have a tendency to file counterclaims and crossclaims in these cases, as i did against a previous lawyer and inspector.
previously as a prosecutor she had enjoyed immunity from suit. here, she is masking her quasi-criminal action as a civil action. this has tactical advantages such as an easier standard of proof, clear and convincing rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
but it also has tactical disadvantages she may not have fully explored. if she is sued for civil rights claims she gets qualified immunity except as to clearly established rights such as those involved here. but might implicate her employers via monell.
for a trespass claim she does not have immunity, but might find some relief in the indiana tort claims act. her employer might be liable under respondeat superior.
even if she ultimate prevails on all counterclaims, there are costs to having been sued. mutual assured destruction. honor among thieves.
the letter simply explained that if she persists in suing me, i was likely to sue her back, and while i might not win, she was unlikely to enjoy it. but all she had to do was leave me alone. lawyers call letters like this 'hardening the target.' the letter used metaphor and simile to make a few points. at no point in the letter did i make any physical threats. i used strong language. it was a dire situation. she was trying to put me in harms way. as things have turned out, i have survived, so far. Ms Gupta'[s attack on my farm was not just a physical invasion, but was an attack on my mental health. I manage stress by avoiding caffiene, not having a job or an alarm clock, not scheduling anything before noon, trying to raise my own vegetables, not for their dollar value, but as a soothing calming activity. It continues to irk me that one branch of HH is willing to treat me for the harm to my mental health, which is caused by another branch of HH causing me crisis inducing levels of stress.
i've been attacked in my home by raymond byrd, by dennis d washington jr.
I said that she had not encountered an opponent like me . That is tautologically true - we are each a unique snowflake. But I am also probably an atypical defendant. It ain't my first rodeo. I've been through this 50 times, when I was indigent and unwell, and unable to defend myself, but able to look for patterns of injustice.
I've been to law school twice, and then studied state constitutional law with Justice Boehm. I'm a former partner in Tavel & Stewart Public Interest Law Firm. I've run for judge, county clerk, state representative. My mother worked for a branch of the state department during the Korean conflict (she was a spook) and then was an effective lobbyist as executive director of the new castle county civil association. I picked up some of her lobbying and intel skills, if not her politeness and tact.
I'm mostly an ivory tower academic, but I also have a few street smarts. I've been living here in the hood for ten years, with neighbors like Monster, Honkey, Mighty, Richie Rich, Unc, Scrappy, Papa Smurf, and so forth. The code of the streets, to my limited understanding of it, prohibits me from filing a complaint against Gupta or anyone else, but does not prohibit me from attempting to weaponize my duty of candor, and talk about this stuff here and now
Normally I keep to myself, but I needed help so I turned to the community. I had intended this as mutual aid in the spirit of the barn raisings we do back home, but instead I attracted thieves drug addicts and troublemakers.
Jordan brought Michelle. Michelle brought Zach and Mike Caito, Rachel, and Mighty.
Jordan and Mighty are in prison. Mike went to rehab. Carlos is back in jail. The other Carlos, the fat roofer who had been in the mexican army, is reported dead. That Carlos tipped off the cops who arrested Jordan, who thinks I narced on him, so now he threatens my life. Carlos's motives were to create a diversion while his guys stole the shingles. Michelle was in the hospital following a car crash, and is now in hiding. Honesty Rady, who was bitten by Rachel's dog that also bit me twice, is reported dead, of overdose. Her mother is in Atlanta but still writes me often usually to borrow money. So i need to warm up the car so i can go to the bank but first coffee. Honesty was a witness to Richie Rich saying he would shoot me in the head tomorrow, but now she is dead. It's about a year later. Tomorrow was Mighty's dog's name. Mighty was partnered with Michelle in robbing me until they split up due to his violence against her. Mighty is Dennis D Washington Jr. who is now in prison doing 3 years on unrelated crimes. Mighty assaulted Michelle 4 times which is why I got involved. Vegas and Gary were shot to death near here. Vegas had been working for me that week. Gary was part of the crew that had helped me take down the burned garage that was the subject of a code enforcement case, the other half of the possible double jeopardy in this case.
I'm not saying Gupta shot Vegas; it's not that kind of causation. But there may be but-for causation. If she had dropped the case, the robbery/murder might not have happened.
My friend Vegas got killed. My enemy Carlos got killed. The reports that TJ had been killed are unconfirmed. Gary's dead. Honesty is dead.
I've been assaulted in my home (mighty, raymond) had my credit cards stolen checks forged computers stolen tampered with, smashed up. The bank wont call the cops to report the stolen credit card charges. The prosecutors office wont talk to me. So noone is pulling the videotapes to find out if it was Mighty or an accomplice using the stolen card. I got bitten by a dog twice, a bull mastiff, think Cujo.
My internet cable took about 4 months to fix. I am disabled, and spend most of my time here in bed. The internet is essential for me. I can work about 20 minutes a day but more than that would cause pain. There is some light work I can do, such as at my former job washing dishes two shifts a week at the woodstock club, but heavy lifting is out out the question.
Our cat got killed. Our dog got stolen or just wandered off. Michelle turned out to be a liar, embezzler and thief. It's been a stressful year for me.
All of this swirl of street people, in between bulldozers, has been stressful. The judge may have meant well, but this whole thing has been deeply disruptive.
When
while i never file frivolous counterclaims, my threshold for filing a counterclaim is much lower than for a filing a new lawsuit.
here one could assert some sort of trespass claim against
dangerous in that those previous counterclaims had been marked closed by the court staff, without ever a notice of dismissal, which interferes in the right to appeal. perhaps a status conference is appropriate. perhaps this would be unclean hands or a poisonous tree.
that sort of thing.
I was not planning to bring a knife to a gun fight, as they say. No true Scotsman goes out without the skean dhu strapped to his ankle, but I am willing to abide by the local rules of court which discourage that sort of thing. I did not arrive at court with a bazooka, but with a lawyer. When I said I was armed and dangerous, I referred to being armed with legal arguments. When I referred to being dangerous, I meant that I would try not only to win my case, but try to change the rules of the game, seeking to affect all of her caseload, not just my case.
armed with the taking clauses of the state constitution and the 5th amendment. (recent town of kinikic something case), which require compensation when the government invades my land, takes my volcano ovens ($60,000) my drill press ($650) my volvos ($9000), my trailer ($4000) and 100 other items.
armed with the right to trial by jury under sections 19 and 20.
dangerous
dangerous in that I will try, however feebly, to challenge their pattern of takings without due compensation
dangerous in that if i succeed in getting a jury trial, that could set a precedent and interfere with their scheme of denying jury trials to hoosiers.
dangerous in that i am stubborn, not easily cowed threatened or bullied, and willing to go before the disciplinary commission if that's what it takes to expose Gupta's misconduct.
dangerous in that i will try to expose their scheme of only offering hearings to people who have made a written nonwaiver of their rights, but are never told they must do so.
dangerous in that i will try to expose their scheme of denying counsel to those who are unable to effectively represent themselves, creating a Potempkin version of a fair trial. My position here is that, while unlike Gideon there is no right to appointed counsel for the indigent, the court has the power, if not the funds, to appoint counsel when it would be unjust not to do so, and it is or would be error to say that the court is prohibited from appointing counsel.
I would go a step further and urge that litigants must be told of their right to move, however pointlessly, for appointed counsel. This rule is a policy request rather than a legal demand as of right.
Further it would be helpful if non represented parties were offered a list of attorneys who practice in that court, since 99% of Indiana lawyers do not practice in that court. I have spoken to a dozen law firms or lawyers and been told they don't do those cases. When I went to the Indy bar referral service and specifically asked for named of lawyers who practiced in that courtroom, I was given the names of one lawyer who had never been in that courtroom, and another who was not even in indiana. I had a lawyer at one point, but he understandably left the case after bailiffs brandished guns at him.
dangerous in that i will try to expose their scheme
dangerous in that
