this one's just a back up copy. 

INTERROGATORY 20: If you deny that the email lacked a legitimate legal purpose, describe the legal objective you intended to accomplish by sending the email and explain how the language used advanced that objective.

RESPONSE:

The email had a legitimate legal purpose. It was  a cease and desist letter, formally advising, via counsel, Mr. Jefferson and other HH employees not to trespass on my property without a warrant. 

So when he did  so trespass, for the purpose of an ex parte negotiation in which he would offer to settle the case in formally, he was trespassing. Time was of the essence. I did not know when Jefferson would arrive, or who. I did not fully trust Mr. Dulik to send a No Trespassing notice to opposing counsel - he never did so. 

Jefferson's trespass was significant. It established unclean hands as a defense to injunction, so that the later warranted invasions were fruit of the poisonous tree and likely violated the 4th amendment and section 11. And if those are violated, sections 1 and 12 come into play as well.  

The letter, I think, established a legal duty for her to inform Jefferson and any others who intended to enter 4015. We do not yet know factually whether she informed Jefferson. 

If she shirked this duty, that itself might have been unethical. 

But here it seems like a cascade, because she then invaded my home based on lack of jurisdiction, unclean hands, involvement in trespassing, involvement in a likely violation of the 4th and 5th and 7th 8th  amendments. The lack of notice to others than me suggests due process and due course of law concerns. 

So who could be arguing that the letter was not legally effective, and why? I don't understand the question. The letter was rushed, off in tone, uncivil, emotional rather than rational. But it was legally effective to communicate the no trespassing message to Jefferson via counsel.  And if I hadn't written they would claim that I had waived my right to be free from Jefferson's trespass by not writing. So indisputably the letter had a proper legal purpose, one that if chilled would implicate values involving the right to petition for redress of grievances under both constitutions, see button v naacp. k. v florida bar assoc. allows some regulation. 

But the letter had other purposes as well. It was to encourage her to not just being suing on autopilot or due to some algorithm. I wanted her to be sure she had read the files, which contain barriers to jurisdiction, unresolved counterclaims, various legal land mines that could make this a nonroutine case.   I wanted her to understand that by not dismissing she was risking serious ethical violations. She did not heed my warnings. I didn't think she would. If I used some emphatic language, I was frustrated by feeling I would not be able to get her attention as to certain matters: the right to an administrative hearing, without which she lacked jurisdiction. the right to a jury trial as to matters of law (as of 1851), the section 11 right to have the items to be seized specifically described, the right to compensation for takings, the right to be free of excess fines, and so forth.

I ended up getting far more attention than I wanted, but she has soldiered on, committing the kind of ethical violations I tried to confidentially warn her about.

So a purpose of the letter was to ask her to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, schedule an administrative hearing, and have an inspector actually talk to me for once. Because otherwise she would be acting without jurisdiction, which might open her up to personal liability of some sort.

INTERROGATORY 21: Identify any rule, statute, or legal authority that you believe justified the tone and content of your email.

I do not believe the tone was justified. The content was justified by the following authorities:

A man's home is his castle. Coke, 16 something. Indiana, 1963.

The concept that a court should not proceed without jurisdiction is rooted in the 14th amendment idea of due process, while the Indiana equivalent is article 1 section 12 due course of law. Similarly as to the issue of whether notice was adequate; that is a due process and due course of law concern.

The concept that one should generally refrain from being a homewrecker is deeply rooted in common law as well as Indiana culture.

The taking clauses of both constitutions are implicated as well as 8th Amendment proportionality. Similarly is it section 16 which requires proportionality. Here the county has so far in this continuing case imposed $10,000 in fines or fees, on an $7,500 shack, which is my business, zoned c-5, my church, my law office, and my home. I did not raise the various religious sections of the indiana bill of rights, but one could. Similarly I have not filed counterclaims under RLUPIA or RFRA, but that would probably be an option. It could reasonably be argued that this fine is excessive and disproportionate.

It could reasonably be argued that it is, or could be, unethical for a government lawyer to seek an excessive fine. Both constitutions contain a double jeopardy clause.

Ms. Gupta's failure to supervise ex parte contacts by the staff might or not be constitutional in nature but derive from the Indiana Rules of Professional Responsibility. I have not set out specific sections I suspected her of planning to violate, or at least raise issues as to. Instead I've tried to set out facts, so the commission can apply your rules. I'm not trying to prove or resolve these concerns, but report my reasonable suspicions or probable cause to the commission, so you can do your own investigation. The context of the letter was that I was concerned Ms. Gupta was about to commit a whole slew of ethical violations, and I wanted to head those off at the pass. I failed, but I tried.

INTERROGATORY 22: If you deny knowing that your email could cause fear or disruption, describe your understanding of professional communication standards at the time the email was sent.

The amount of disruption that I hoped to cause was that she would let Jefferson and others know to not trespass. This failed but I tried. I also sought to have her nonsuit, dismissing without prejudice so she could hold a proper hearing, or we could explore alternative dispute resolution, or even talk to each other for the first time. This failed but I tried. The amount of disruption that I intended was to get her to communicate more directly, such as email or the efiling system, instead of needless delay via service of process via the sheriff. This failed but I tried. Ms. Gupta's lawsuit has caused fear and disruption in our neighborhood. I was trying to fend that off. I failed but I tried. Previously, I have mostly suffered in silence. I have video of me watching bulldozers smash up my back yard a few years ago. I recognize the profound sadness this caused. Another observer might not notice it. That was the sort of incident I wanted to prevent.

The mail was intended for one specific person, as a caution, to try to prevent a series of ethical wrongdoings. You ask, describe your understanding of professional communication standards at the time the email was sent. I do not recall what my understanding was at that moment, and I'd rather not speculate.

INTERROGATORY 23: State whether you would consider similar language appropriate if directed toward a judge, court staff, or opposing counsel today, and explain your answer.

Nope.

INTERROGATORY 24: Identify all facts, witnesses, and documents you intend to rely upon to defend your conduct in this disciplinary proceeding.

Documents:

1. Indiana lawyer article.

2. video of 4015 bulldozer

3. voter ID videotapes.

if you think it relevant, we could get the transcripts of the hearings.

The facts are as above and as explained in previous filings. If you have specific questions about the facts, I'm not trying to hide.

[certifications would go here]