RESPONSE:
I assume I began drafting it 2 or 3 hours before it was sent.
I moved to Indianapolis in 1994. I got a job and bought a house. I cut my grass by hand once a year and was not hassled by Health and Hospital (H H) under the Goldsmith administration. Circa 1998 my father died, triggering an inheritance under my grandfather's will or trust. The movie Dark Waters is about occupational cancer at my father's employers.
I put about 10% of that into buying four acres of vacant lots at the county surplus sale. It is a lifelong ambition of mine to do a bit of organic farming. I also wanted to make the properties available for community gardens and pocket parks.
At the sale the county transferred the properties via quit claim deed. But in what might have been bad faith or just lack of communication, the county, via its alter ego HH did not quit its claims, but imposed a regulatory burden far in excess of the fair market value of the property (as determined by the sale.) That amounted to a taking under state constitution and the 5th amendment. They wanted the properties mowed on a weekly basis. That is, their regulations prohibited any plant taller than 12 inches, whether tomatoes, marigolds, day lillies, trees, hay, etc. Further, any time any trash or debris was illegally dumped on my land, instead of helping find the perpetrator, they would blame me, the victim. The compliance costs, if I had somehow been able to keep the land, would have been 2 million. The current market value of the land is 1 million.
They started sending threatening letters. I had some correspondence with an inspector Kennedy. But more threatening letters kept arriving. I started avoiding these letters, concerned about my mental health. The letters seemed to me an injustice, but not one I was able to fix.
When the pile was 50 letters high, I decided that I was being irresponsible and should open and read them so I did. The pressure of 50 separate threats that I would be sued for trying to grow some vegetables triggered a nervous breakdown. The letters were not the only factor, but were a major factor. For about a month I was not myself. I was diagnosed with major depression by the Marion County Health and Hospital corporation. One branch was treating me for injuries caused by another branch. During this period, I was unable to manage my finances and lost the 80,000 I had inherited when the Converse company went bankrupt. For the next 20 years I lived in poverty. Mostly I supported myself by doing medical studies.
The commission seems concerned that in my letter I was threatening violence. Let me point out that this has been going on for over 20 years, and I haven't gotten violent about it yet. Things got tense a few years ago when an inspector broke into my house without a warrant, and after that they sent and armed officer with her. This is another incident of what I consider to be unclean hands and fruit of the poisonous tree, barring the relief she sought.
I spent the next several years, 2001-2005 being dragged into court about being unable to mow my farm weekly. Weed liens were assessed, and the county took back its properties, and sold them to the next round of suckers. After being sued 50 times, I noticed a few recurring patterns. The right to a trial by jury {mention that case name about the cash) was not being observed. Of course there is is no federal jury right here, but sections 19 and 20 of the state constitution are best read as providing for a jury trial as to at least some aspects of these cases.
I suspect that is the law. I have not had the resources to take that point to the court of appeals. Personally, I would go further, I think there is an ethical duty for the state, if they are going to bring a case against somebody, to inform them of their right to invoke trial by jury, and their right to an administrative hearing. I am not claiming that as a matter of law. I filed a continuing notice that I did not waive my right to an administrative hearing. It is and has been my contention that this notice is legally sufficient and does not need to be refiled 58 times. Because of the notice, I have a sincere belief the court lacked jurisdiction, due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and therefore that the current clean and lien order is unlawful, if not unlawful for other reasons as well.
Jurisdiction is not just a legal matter. I suspect that by deliberately proceeding in the case after learning the facts that establish the lack of jurisdiction, Ms. Gupta acted unethically. My letter was an attempt to deter her from doing so. 1 - 2 pm friday afternoon 2/13.
In 2001 I noticed I wasn't happy with the way the medication I was being given affected my reaction to the events of 9/11. Since then I have dealt with my tendency to experience major depressive episodes when exposed to intolerable levels of stress, by carefully adopting a low stress lifestyle. I don't set an alarm. I don't have a job, unless I happen to find one I like. I had been working two days a week washing dishes at woodstock county club because it is good physical therapy for my bad back. In 2015 I was in a car wreck and am partially disabled. Currently I spend about 20 hours a day in bed. I can do physical work for about 20 minutes a day. I experience chronic back pain, which can make me cranky. When I wrote to her suggesting she "leave me the fuck alone", I was sincere. I could see a possible mutual assured destruction where her recklessness would result in us both being harmed. It was a concise emphatic method of suggesting she refrain from a half dozen ethical errors. I was frustrated with a suspicion that she would ignore me and charge on recklessly, as she did. It is not a term I use lightly or casually.
I had a second episode of major depression in 2005. Circa 2011 I was able to buy a property at 4015 E Washington St. I paid $7500 for a vacant shack. It was zoned c-5, so it was a suitable place for my recycling company. It serves as my law office, church, and sometimes residence.
The next year I got a tax bill for $13,000. That upset me deeply. It had taken me three years to save up the 7500 to buy the house and now it seemed I would lose it. I did not have 13,000 to pay it with. The house went to auction. No one bid. I was billed about $400 for the auction expenses, which I am still owed. HH had sued the bank, the former owners, but had not named me, so I was able to get the $13,000 taken off the tax bill. That was an example of another way in which HH fails to uphold due course of law. They only notify the legal owner of record, but do not notify people with an equitable interest, such as a tenant in possession, or a bank with a mortgage.
They had not given notice to me so I did not owe the 13,000, but later they did not give notice to justin michelle dusty or dawn when they came to physically invade my property. That might or might not have been tortious or unethical. What I am trying to do here is spot the issues, rather than reach an ultimate conclusion.
A next reason that I was denied due course of law is that HH is actually the state, the government, is engaged in a quasi-criminal proceeding in which a preponderence of evidence standard has no place. I have a right to a day in court, a fair and impartial hearing. When the wrong standard is knowingly used, this makes it no longer due course of law, but a show trial, a Potempkin trial. I lost on this point at trial but preserved it for appeal and assert it now, not as a matter of law, but as an ethical issue. I contend that it is unethical for Gupta and HH to use any standard less than clear and convincing.
including what prompted you to write it
At the time of the February letter, I was concerned that HH employees would try to enter my property without a warrant, or with a defective warrant. it has happened before. From HH's perspective, they have the right to wander around snooping at my property, unless i provide a written notice to refrain from trespassing. the letter was my written notice. so when chip jefferson invaded my property to conduct an ex parte negotiation with me, he was trespassing.
While Gupta herself did not come onto my property, she my have failed to inform Jefferson and others not to do so. I am unclear what the right terminology here is perhaps joint tortfeasor, coconspirator, accessory. I did not trust my lawyer, Adam, to send a No Trespassing notice in time, and indeed he did not.
So what prompted me to write it was the need to send a no trespassing notice. Unfortunately I made the mistake of sending an early draft while in an emotional state.
I am normally pretty stoic about what I consider a lifetime of unethical abuse by HH. But in this case some of my actual feelings spilled out.
INTERROGATORY 2: Identify all persons who were aware you intended to send the email before it was transmitted.
INTERROGATORY 2: Identify all persons who were aware you intended to send the email before it was transmitted.
No one. It was sent impulsively. Several days later I sent a copy to Adam, saying something like I think I've made a mistake. He wrote "This is concerning." I wrote "I agree." We had several meetings about it, and discussed drafts of letters to Ms. Gupta. I am under the impression he did send a letter. When we arrived at court and were ambushed by bailiffs with guns, he was understandably upset and withdrew from the case shortly thereafter. Of course I have no complaint against him. This put me back in the position of being without counsel. The court denied my motion to appoint counsel.
I am constrained from being able to represent myself when my letters are misperceived as true threats. After the disciplinary complaint was filed and my counsel withdrew I took no further action to represent myself, out of caution, except when ordered to appear at trial. At trial, I won 1 of the 2 trials, but lost the other trial when some of my dispositive motions were denied on the basis of having not been submitted earlier, such as at the pretrial conference that was never held.
Explain what you intended to convey by the statement “You may choose to consider me armed and dangerous.”
The subject is "you". The verb is "choose". It is a statement about her mental state, and what her assumptions are. It is emphatically not a claim that I am armed and dangerous.
I am armed by the Indiana constitution with a right to trial by jury that I suspected she was going to try to interfere with.
I am armed by the Indiana constitution with a right to free and open elections, which is violated when the white republican counties get to elect their judges, but Marion County (and Lake and Portage) are not.
I am armed by the Indiana constitution, section 12, with a right to due course of law, which is violated when plaintiff tries to use a preponderence of the evidence standard instead of the proper clear and convincing evidence standard.
I am armed by section 11, which protects houses persons papers and effects against unwarranted entry and unreasonable seizures. I reasonably suspected she was conspiring to unreasonably seize my land, which is what indeed happened. She seized my 4 volcano ovens, with a replacement price of $120,000. She seized my forsythia bushes. My late mother and I used to enjoy the coming of spring in March with the yellow flowers of the forsythia. I spent $500 at the auction where I bought them. She calls them weeds.
She seized Dusty's mechanics tools and his jounals and notebooks, without notice to him. She seized my trailers, including the one where Michelle worked out of with electricity. She is literally a homewrecker.
I am armed with the 5th Amendment, and the state constitution, which require compensation when private property is taken by government.
I am armed with the rules of civil procedure, which allow me to file counterclaims against Health and Hospital, and crossclaims against her personally.
Previously she was a prosecutor, and enjoyed prosecutorial immunity. Now, as a wolf dressed in sheeps' clothing, she is using the civil format, and is no longer personally immune. So for example when she conspired with Jefferson in his trespass, she can be sued.
I was armed with the mysterious disappearance of the crossclaims and counterclaims I had filed. If I had said in my letter This wold comes as a wolf, would that have been taken as a true threat, or as a Scalia quote?
I was armed with Stewart v Taylor, knowing the county now had the same liability as it has when I sued them and won. At the time of the letter, I knew that if Ms. Gupta would not back down, I could outflank her by suing the county clerk to try win more money than the $10,000 in liens I have paid so far. Stewart v Taylor settled for $7,000, based on a misunderstanding of whether the county would respect the ruling and end its unconstitutional censorship. It hasn't. A similar but more recent suit, Mulholland, settled for $70,000.
The current county clerk is not a lawyer, and does not have the same set of ethical responsibilities Gupta has. But the clerk is advised by a lawyer, who is acting unethically since Stewart v Taylor clearly establishes the rights at stake.
I am armed with the concept of double jeopardy, since a different city agency had already resolved a case with overlapping issues. Marion County does not get a second bite at the apple by pretending to be a separate party.
I am armed and dangerous in that my sometimes roommate Brian is a youtuber, with a total hit rate above 2 million views. If Gupta were to persist in what I regarded as her unethical unconscionable activities, she might attract unwanted attention and scrutiny. United Breaks Guitars is a book on this topic.
The pen is mighter than the sword. When I talked in the letter about character assassination, I referred to unfavorable publicity. I was not talking about coming after her with a bazooka or drone.
I am armed with an 800 year tradition of common law protection of private property. So when Jefferson, personifying HH came onto my property without a warrant
to have an ex parte negotiation of the case, after I had written to counsel giving them notice to not trespass, this was tortious and unethical. The ex parte discussion is a separate way in which Ms. Gupta violated due course of law and the Indiana ethics rules.
My lettter which began 'a man's home is his castle' properly invoked this legacy.
I am armed with an understanding that when a witness falsely testifies under oath (here, the false claim that the trailer didn't have electricity) it would be unethical to call that same witness again in a later phase of the case.
I am armed with section 1 of the Indiana Bill of Rights, which borrows the idea from the declaration that the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights, rather than autocratically to micromanange private property decisions. It would be a danger to their scheme if they had to identify actual victims in their cases.
While the letter was little more than idle boasting, and I am not as much of a danger as I want to be, the danger is that I will upset her scheme.
I am armed with the understanding that as the prevailing party of the 12/12 hearing I can move for costs. I think it comes to $63 so far.
Here's what I think is the scheme over at HH. They go around looking for trouble, looking for easy victims. People who are poor or disabled physically or mentally or lack formal english skills. Sometimes the elderly or infirm or underage or out of town. Anything that gives them a tactical advantage - someone who is less likely to fight back. This pool of victims is then added to by an anonymous swat line, where people can call in complaints if their neighbors are the wrong color or culture, or if there is a landlord tenant dispute, or an infinite number of improper purposes.
Here, for example. the henchman of the guy who bought the house next to mine and trying to force me to sell, calls in complaints in a scheme to force me to sell out to him, which is working, but strikes me as improper. It became more improper when he, the caretaker, said he would shoot me in the head the next time something happened. See, it seems likely he instigated the whole HH fiasco, but the quality of life in this microneighborhood has gone way down as result of Gupta's war on me. We have way more vandalism, petty theft, trespassing, and so forth. I'll mention as well that he had made no effort to communicate his concerns to me, but instead uses HH to stir things up, and that HH never communicated his concerns to me, so I learned about them a year later while doing some research for the case. There is something about this arrangement I find concerning. It enables collusive bad faith lawsuits.
=
Explain what you intended to convey by the phrase “Fail to heed this suggestion at your own peril.” I used the term peril in the sense it is used in this passage from rule 22: I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself;
So first, this is purple prose, terrible writing, embarrassing to me as a writer, but one thing it is not is a true threat.
I was outraged by her conduct, anxious and panicking about her threats against me. I felt she could be placing her job in peril - one countermeasure I have not yet been able to implement is a planned letter writing campaign to "fire gupta." The secretary I had hired to oversee this project, Michelle, turned out to be an embezzler and liar, so the letters never got written. But that was the plan. But more than that, I felt she was placing her reputation as a professional on the line. Suing another lawyer without talking to them first about it was uncivil and got my dander up. Planning to proceed in the absence of juridiction was unlawful. Planning to procede under a a defective inadequate standard of review was unethical. Squashing jury rights, if that's what happened, would be serious misconduct, as was enabling Jefferson's ex parte contact as well as his trespassing.
Conspiring with my neighbor at 4001 EW Washington to force me out of my home with threats of gunplay is pretty seriously unethical.
As outlined above, I have been watching HH lawyers for over 20 years. Certain patterns of misconduct reoccur. The events alleged in Talevski, and the events alleged in the newspaper expose during the pandemic bout corruption at SCA, suggest that the ethical problems in the legal staff of the marion county health and hospital corporation go far beyond the issues raised in my own case. The danger is that maybe the disciplinary commission, or state authorities, or federal authorities, will notice there are patterns of misconduct and make changes which will frustrate HH's goals of running roughshod over private property. So that's the danger and the peril; that the jig could be up. The odds of my winning a major re-alignment were small but nonzero. The balance of risk versus benefit counseled strongly in favor of leaving me alone as I had asked.
A reasonable response would have been to dismiss without prejudice, schedule an administrative hearing, and find an inspector who would actually talk to me instead of either stalking me, committing crimes against me, and threatening me. The second inspector, minutes before perjuring herself under oath, said to me, "You can't come after me. I'm a professional." I disagree. Exactly because Gupta is a professional, and has a professional responsibility to train and supervise her minion, I can come after her, not with artillery, but by finding a way to bring this matter to the attention of the disciplinary commission or her supervisors and use publicity and ethics against her. I would like to get the inspector fired for her misconduct. I would like to get Ms. Gupta censured for participating in that misconduct. I would settle for getting Gupta fired. Then the inspector can tell me again how I can't come after her. But I have to do this in a way that doesn't get me labeled as a narc or snitch, since that would be likely to get me killed. The people who rob me on a regular basis here have a very low opinion of informers and tend to respond violently. So the letter was an attempt to thread that needle.
5
Describe whether you considered how the recipient might interpret the tone and content of your email before sending it.
No. The letter, the early draft of it, was sent rashly and impulsively, motivated by emotion, anxiety, fear.
INTERROGATORY 6: State whether you believe the email was consistent with professional conduct expected of a licensed attorney and explain your answer.
Nope. It's a problematic letter. While it is not the Declaration of War you folks seems to want to read it as, it was unduly rude, and subject to being misconstrued, as it has been.
On another hand, it's not like I was an ambulance chaser seeking to intrude in someone else's affair. Ms. Gupta was on a direct collision course with me. Her bulldozers were already fired up and pointed in my direction. She was planning the rape of my law office, business, church and home. Rape here in the sense of a physical invasion of land, not canola oil. It would be reasonable to expect me to respond.
As I have stated, one main reason I have been refraining from the practice of law is that I have a serious writer's block, and have trouble meeting deadlines. My duty of competence requires me to refrain from taking on a case when I might not be up to it. But here, I did not take on the case, it was thrust upon me. Time was of the essence.
1. In a criminal case, defendant's counsel has extra leeway to make any arguments that might help the client; they have a duty to zealously advocate. Similarly, as the pro se defendant in this quasi-criminal matter, given the degree of provocation, I should be allowed some leeway to respond.
I am aware that the letter lacked context. When I sent it, I sent it from the perspective of someone steeped in satyagraha and ahisma. My legal mentors are Gandhi and Thurgood Marshall. I've been practicing nonviolence since 1970. Like my late father, I'm a registered conscientious objector. I attended Naropa University and worked for the family of the Dalai Lama. I'm a cripple, an old man with a bad back. I'm snarky and speak with nuance and innuendo.
None of that comes across by email. Normally I would have taken this first draft and used it as source material for a more polite second draft followed by a proofread considered third draft. I mistakenly thought I was running out of time. So I would say that this letter is not representative of my work, but is an example of how I struggle with deadlines, which is why I generally refrain from practicing law, at least as a solo, recognizing that I have challenges as to competence. So it was very important to me that I had met Mr. Dulik, and was somewhat satisfied with his competence, and we were planning to do a series of political speech cases together - I just needed some help resolving this environmental court case before we could get started. So when we were met with gunplay, it did not just deprive me of a lawyer in this case, but for the whole series of cases which are in my wheelhouse, where my specialized subject matter knowledge helps overcome my weaknesses as to procedure.
Currently we are in another round of elections in which 3-9-3-2.5 continues to distort the political marketplace, preventing free and equal elections in Indiana. If Ms. Gupta had respected the confidentiality of the letter, it is likely 2.5 would be enjoined by now.
(check bjdee for if he posted the voter id video)
Identify any legal authority, ethical rule, or professional standard you relied upon in deciding to send the email.
1. Legal Authorities: for the proposition that a man's home is his castle I cite common law and case law. this proposition is also supported by caselaw under the 4th and 5th amendments.
2. For the proposition that a case requires jurisdiction I refer you to first semester of civil procedure. world wide volkswagon, international shoe that sort of thing. the international shoe building is now the city museum, a must see if you ever get to st louis.
For the proposition that jurisdiction requires exhaustion of remedies, look it up. For the proposition that the right to an administrative hearing requires a written non-waiver, see HH's own rules. The dispute is whether the written notice of non waiver needs to be filed just at least once, or whether it needed to be filed 58 times. My source on that is just common sense and common law.
3. And I guess another part of that dispute is whether the lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, or whether I waived it by not raising it at the pretrial conference that never happened.
4. 5 Double jeopardy: 5th Amendment plus Indiana bill of rights. Metropolitan Development had had a case against me about the burned garage, which we resolved. The issues in the case overlap, and the parties are either identical or in privity.
6. For the principle that this case lacks a victim, and therefore lacks a legitimate state interest, Art. I section 1, as recently interpreted by the state supreme court in that abortion case. See also Declaration of Independence, John Locke Two Treatiises on Government.
7. For the principle that Ms. Gupta should not be conspiring with the old man on the corner to force me out of my home so his boss can buy it cheap, I cite to ScoobyDoo Where are You?
8, 9 For the principle that taking my property without compensation is problematic under the 5th amendment and state constitutions, see Takings by professor Epstein. I also rode with him in an elevator once. Knick v Township of Scott (2019) is a recent takings doctrine case.
10, For the principle that if Gupta insists on suing me, I can do an end run around her by suing Ms, Bell, the clerk whose name was on the lawsuit she filed against me, Stewart v Taylor. Also Ogden v Marendt, Mulholland v Board. 303 LLC, Talley v California.
What I did not expect when I sent the letter is that I could end up not just getting ready to sue her, but I am now running against her. I am the republican candidate for marion county clerk. I won the primary when no one filed against me. When I have talked about opposing Ms. Gupta and her team, I mean with the soapbox and the ballot box, not the ammo box.
(what were the 18 things?)
11, for the principle that if gupta sued me, she would be creating an appearance of impropriety, majors v abell, the state case.
[long story omitted here, add details later?]
12 for the principle that HH should not be skimming medicaid funds to subsidize its edifice complex, dunno. for the principle that hh should not have killed hundreds of republicans to funnel federal funds into marion county. should not have tortured talevski.
ok source for possible ethiccs violations related to torture and death of mr talevshi, HH v Talevski. _ S Ct. _.
13, 14 Source for argument that the seizure and fine are excessive: Timbs v Indiana, also state constitution paralell is it section 16?
so there were a few more to add later. for now move on.
INTERROGATORY 8: Describe your reaction upon learning that the email had been reported to the court or disciplinary authorities.
Surprise. I had expected that Ms. Gupta would have respected that the communication was confidential settlement negotiation, was attorney attorney confidential communication and was confidential attorney work product.
Ms. Gupta's way of letting us know she had had breached the confidentiality of the letter was when three bailiffs displayed their guns to us. I am not sure if brandished is the right word here. I felt threatened but don't recall if they were pointed right at us or just displayed.
While that's just another day for me, I was upset that my lawyer had been menaced at the same time. He is soft and not used to that sort of thing, especially in the courtroom. As I have said, I bear him no illwill for feeling he needed to withdraw from the case and lose me as a client. I regret that this happened to him.
Without my lawyer, I was then unable to effectively defend myself from Ms. Gupta's continued bullying, what I would subjectively consider abuse of process. I am told the continuing clean and lien order she has against me is the only one of its kind in the state. This raises an appearance of impropriety concern.
I have approached about 10 law offices seeking representation and been given the brushoff each time.
Ms. Gupta chose to report the letter. She was probably justified in doing so out of concerns for court security, which is an exception to the rules of confidentiality. She might have been genuinely alarmed, or might have been feigning alarm as cynical ploy to get a tactical advantage in the case. I don't know her well enough to assess which is more likely.
I am not trying to minimize the court's genuine security concerns. Apparently there has been a recent incident of an Indiana judge being killed. And there was an incident at Justice Kavenaugh's house where a stalker turned himself in.
My letter was not intended to communicate a true threat that I was on my way to physically attack her. I'm a coward, and she can probably take me. And if I ever did feel the need to try to assault someone physically, the element of surprise would be essential, so I would be unlikely to send them an email first.
INTERROGATORY 9: State whether you took any steps to retract, clarify, or apologize for the email, and if so, describe those steps, if any, please state:
the date of the retraction, clarification, or apology;
the means used to communicate the retraction, clarification, or apology;
the substance of the retraction, clarification, or apology; and
the location of the retraction, clarification, or apology.
After the letter had been sent, I had several meetings with Adam Dulik in which we agreed such a letter would be good idea. We rejected the first draft of a letter from me as still too argumentative. He said that he was sending a letter but I do not think I ever got a copy. In my letter to her I suggested we meet for coffee and iron out our differences. This was sincere. She hasn't responded. We have not spoken except at trial. I lack the social skills to make another attempt. Mr. Dulik's representation of me was disrupted when bailiffs ambushed him.
INTERROGATORY 10: Describe your mental and emotional state at the time you sent the email.
Anxious, panicked, stressed, tired, a sense of learned helplessness. A hint of rightous indignation.
One of the challenges in my life is that I've been having trouble providing a safe home for Tommy and our dog Poseidon. HH had been threatening to take our home away. He was able to get himself public housing in Kokomo. I go see them now and then. We are looking around for a place we can live together again. The night I sent the letter was he first time I had seen him since he had had a mental health crisis. I was probably somewhat distraught and upset at the time.
My concern was not just that she was threatening to smash up my garden and wreck my home, but that doing so would cause me to have an acute episode of major depression which could be life-threatening.
She did follow through on her threats to smash up my garden and wreck my home. The bulldozers have been here three times so far and can come whenever they want. And as a result I have been under constant severe stress, which has had a toll on my mental health. I cry often. I snap at people. I spend most of my time in bed in nervous prostration. Or maybe I'm just lazy. It's hard for me to focus and take care of basic life tasks, much less run a solo law practice. So the letter is, between the lines, a cry for help. She was trying to kill me, and was oblivious to it. I wanted her to stop. I expressed it poorly.
INTERROGATORY 11: State whether you were aware that your statements could cause fear, alarm, or disruption to court proceedings. No.
INTERROGATORY 12: Describe any changes you made to your communications or behavior in court proceedings following the judicial reprimand.
I took no further role in my own defense, except to show up for trial when ordered to. I believed that I had a conflict that prevented me from representing myself. So at the pretrial conference that never happened, I had no representation. At trial I did reasonably well. I forgot to contest the court's jurisdiction, but was able to impeach the witness and show they had not proved their case. At the second trial I moved for trial by jury which was denied. I moved for appointed counsel which was denied. I objected to the standard of proof. Since this was a quasi-judicial action to authorize the invasion of my land, far more than a preponderence is needed to justify such an order. That was denied. I moved to exclude the testimony of the witness, arguing that her perjury at the prior hearing, where she falsely and maliciously stated that there was no electricity in the trailer made it fundamentally unfair. That was denied.
To belabor the point again, I think that when Ms. Gupta relied on a witness who had given false testimony in an earlier stage of my case, this was unethical. The trial was fundamentally unfair for this reason.
I tried to explain chip jeffferson's ex parte trespass, and how that made the trial fruit of the poisonous tree and unclean hands, but that was denied. Again, I think Ms, Gupta's participation in Mr Jefferson's trespass and ex parte negotiation session was unethical and fundamentally unfair and renders the court order problematic. If I had a lawyer, I would be bringing some kind of writ of prohibition to the court of appeals, since I suspect the trial court is acting without jurisdiction and has exceeded its authority and abused its discretion.
I do not feel comfortable trying to bring an application for a writ on a pro se basis. I do not want to be seen as a nuisance filer. I am like most of the HH defendants: this case would be easy if both sides had equal lawyers, tending to promote justice, but what usually happens instead is one side will have no lawyer at all, even if they lack the ability to represent themselves effectively, while the other side has lawyers paid for by taxpayers. I was impressed at the impartiality of the judge at my actual trial, but I have noticed that when courts are set up with an inherent bias like this, they can be prone to regulatory capture and no longer be a neutral magistrate.
Regardless of what happens to me, I want to bring to the court's attention that there is a representation problem in the environmental court of marion county. as a defendant in that court, who wants a lawyer and can afford a lawyer, I cannot find a list of lawyers who practice there. Without a lawyer, I have little hope of fair trial. Without a lawyer, it is hard for me to file counterclaims against HH and crossclaims against Ms Gupta, so those are not yet filed, yet I want to avoid laches or other untimeliness. I guess I'm waiting for how this case works out before I decide what to do next below.
INTERROGATORY 13: Identify any training, counseling, or assistance you sought after the incident related to communication, professionalism, or stress management.
You have, I think, access to the list of CLE ethics courses I have taken over the past year. I have met numerous times with my pastor, Dr Eddie Smith Senior. I continued to attend weekly jlap meetings until I was asked not to.
But the real answer is that for assistance I turned to my neighbors. As a cripple, and with Tommy gone, I was unable to clean up the yard without help. Where I live at in the Tuxedo Park neighborhood is high crime and high poverty. Typically in the years I've lived here I mostly keep to myself and keep a low profile, with a revolving cast of roommates. But I was somewhat desperate, so when Jordan Dennison stopped by and asked if I had any work I first said Oh it's you get lost. But then I said Hey wait, I have this court order to clean up my yard and I need some help. So that's how I met Michelle, a forger embezzler liar and tweeker. I spent the next year in an elder abuse situation as she stole cash cars checkbooks bank cards my passport whatever she could. Jordan and his friends focused more on my tools. I probably lost $15000 in tools. Jordan went to jail on armed robbery warrants. He sends me hate mail from prison. he thinks I ratted him out. Michelle replaced Jordan with several other guys including Mighty. Mighty assaulted and stole from Michelle, then assaulted and stole from me. Mighty is Dennis Dwight Washington Jr. He is doing three years for robbery and career criminal type stuff. My left ear still doesn't work right from where he hit me. A swat team came to get him out of my basement but they let him go, so now he thinks Michelle ratted him out so he plans to kill her.
They didn't file reports or generate a case number, so the bank refuses to investigate. Michelle is back on the lam now, who knows where. I visited her in the hospital after she was in a car wreck and had a broken spleen. Vegas was one of the guys who was helping me. He was murdered a few blocks from here, Gary Cox, who was with him and was killed, was one of the guys who had helped me with the garage. Perry is my buddy on the next block who has been shot three times. When Jordan and Michelle arrived, Jovina and Carlos took off in Michelle's car, stealing it and then wrecking it. I'm told Carlos died in jail of an overdose. That Carlos is not to be mixed up with the Carlos who had been in the mexican army and helped us bandage up Honesty Rader when she was bitten by Scrappy the staffordshire. Honesty died of an overdose after she got out of jail. Scrappy bit me twice, but the wounds have healed by now. Carlos is dead. One rumor said overdose, the other said gunfire. He was a thief and had ratted out Jordan. Not to be confused with the third Carlos, Jordan's henchman from jail who came and harrassed us. I could go on, but the point is that my stress management system was to hang out with a very different set that I am used to. It's been a crucible. By now, I have most of them off my property again. Still a lot of drama and stealing and vandalism, but its been calming down.
We got a new roof on and the furnace working. We still have a bit of a hobo problem. Three dogs in the house is too may, but the three cats are handling the rodent problem we had for a while. I'm coping. I'll adjust. I've been working with Grok and other AI programs to update my skill set.
INTERROGATORY 14: If you deny that your email contained threatening language, describe in detail how a reasonable recipient should interpret the statement “You may choose to consider me armed and dangerous.”
See discussion above. What I have denied is that there was a true threat. I have not denied threatening language. Forewarned is forearmed. I suppose based on my background I tend to avoid sports metaphors and use military metaphors more often. An armed society is a polite society.. Robert Heinlein. A person, for example a bailiff, may be armed, as well as dangerous. but that should not imply hostile intent. A fundamental aspect of American democracy is that we are all armed with the right to bear arms. Heller, McDonald and Bruen have been an unexpected civil rights movement I would not have predicted. I represented Indiana sportsmen on the Indiana Trails Committee circa 2000 during the O'Bannon administration; I can promote gun rights while not owning a gun myself.
The sentence is about her, not about me. The use of "may" indicates conditionality; she may or may not choose to think one thing or the other. the implication is: you may consider me armed and dangerous, but you'd be wrong.
I want to be dangerous to her scheme to deny jury trials in her cases. I want to be dangerous to her scheme to try to pose a quasi-criminal action as a mere civil case between private parties.
I want to be dangerous to her scheme of multiple jeopardy.
I want to be dangerous to her pocketbook if she conspires to trespass against me.
I want to be dangerous to her reputation with the HH board and the Mayor and the Governor, if she persists in being an unethical wrongdoer.
I want to be dangerous to her budget, at a time when the federal budget is unbalanced.
I want to be dangerous enough to incentivize her to leave me alone, very alone, or at least come correct.
I want to be dangerous enough that she will think twice before the next time she sues a cranky old lawyer without properly introducing herself. That's what a reasonable person should think I meant.
I have never had any intention of going after her physically. If for no other reason than that she is female. Who do you take me for?
INTERROGATORY 15: If you deny that your email could reasonably be perceived as threatening, identify all facts supporting that position and explain why court safety measures were implemented following your communication.
I have not denied that it could be perceived as threatening. I have stated that in context it is not best seen as a crude physical threat, but rather referred to a series of legal disputes between the parties.
