25 years ago today I and one of the members of the US National Ice Skating Team embarked upon a 100 mile ride around Marion County. It was at about this moment that day when I passed through the intersection of Indian Lake Road at Sunnyside on the far Northeast side of Indianapolis. More accurately I rode into the intersection when I was promptly struck by a truck traveling at about 40 miles per hour. The grill to the truck was collapsed, the hood crinkled, the windshield knocked in and the top of the cab crushed. All effects of my body hugging the vehicle and coming to a halt on the camper shell on the back.
The subconscious brain does not process negative actions. Take for instance the trees and utility poles along highways that are mangled from being struck by motor vehicles although wide swaths of open ground exist between them with no tire tracks. This is because the drivers usually look and the obstruction while thinking “I don't want to hit that tree/pole”. But the subconscious produces positive actions – “hit that tree/pole” – because that is what it heard in the moment of panic. It takes the conscious mind to implant the negative actions. Most often though these are negative thoughts about “can't do” actions. To achieve success re-frame your thoughts as I have done. Think always of what you want to achieve, choose the positive option. Seek equanimity. If your car veers off the roadway think “I want to go into that open space” rather than “I don't want to hit that tree” and you are more likely to get what you want. Success can and will be yours if you know how to grab it. If you are feeling overwhelmed by life's “negative” results then maybe it is time for the old you to die and give rise to a new, more positive you. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The effects on my body were equally crushing. A shattered left tibula, broken fibula, a back filled with shards of glass[plus some in my ear canal], lacerations across my scalp, a deep gash across my buttocks, and bruising throughout. I was confined to an intensive care hospital bed for 10 days before surgery could be performed on my leg. It would be another week before I was released from the hospital.
I have little recollection of those 17 days or the time prior to the impact. I can recall my best friend being there at midnight when I awoke. She had remained by my side throughout the evening waiting to tell me goodbye. She had a flight booked earlier that day to her new home but she stayed behind to see if I would live. I am told that the doctors said that if I had not been an elite athlete that the impact would have killed me. If I lived through the night then I was expected to survive. But alas, I did live through the night and still survive to this day. Thus, I was alive but the critical question is – Did I live?
The person who left the hospital that mid-June was not the same person who entered the hospital 2 ½ weeks earlier. For a dozen years it had been my sole aim in life to become a professional cyclist and participate in the major world tours. The continuation of the journey to that ultimate goal was snapped away in an instant. Over the next few months as I hobbled around on crutches and endured never ending pain I began to idealize suicide. Wearing a sock on that leg felt like the flesh was been burned. If I kept my leg bent I felt pain. If I stood I felt pain. If I laid down I felt pain. The pain gradually subsided until about five years ago when it had virtually been eliminated.
While still on crutches my town-home was raided by a street gang commonly known as the Indianapolis Police Department. I had my crutches yanked from me, was knocked to the floor, threatened with guns pointed at my face, and had my home torn apart for three hours by cops “doing a sweep to secure the residence” or as I call it retaliation for holding a protest at the city-county building over the attempted murder of Fred Sanders by this gang. Ultimately, two cops would testify to finding an item of contraband in three locations, simultaneously. So my sell-out attorney tells me that I am facing 20 years in prison, the amount of time I had been alive. Thus, I took the plea. In reality I was facing a maximum of 31 months but sometimes attorneys lie.
As the end of my parole term approached in December 1993 I married the sister of a high school friend of mine. I knew that being married and raising children would give me new purpose in life; something for which to live; something to keep me out of trouble. Just three years later the world was bestowed with the gift of my son. After three more years his mother left us to fend for ourselves which we did admirably. Fortunately she came to embrace her parental responsibilities before he was too old to experience significant feelings of abandonment. Although I nearly solely nurtured and provided for our son during that two year period, being that I was male Justice Steve David decided that I would be reduced to a visitor in the life of my son with no legal say in his upbringing. Instead my resolve to be actively involved in my son's daily life was still fulfilled by me.
As a consequence of the divorce I was left without a home, my businesses liquidated, no assets, and saddled with various debts. Having not been an employee, having my businesses gone, and being a convicted felon presented some challenges to earning. But I reverted back to what I had done in the past – mow lawns, paint houses, and do various day labour jobs. At the same time I would study matters of child custody.
It was the study of and dedication to changing the way child custody decisions are made that has led me to where I am today. Of course it was more than that also. It was the traits which are not taught in school, that children are not encouraged to develop, that society does not condone. It was in a sense that I am God. That I can and will do anything that I want.
Though in a sense I died 25 years ago today, I was sent to prison, I was bankrupted by a divorce, and my son was taken from me but I was resurrected and am now someone who has achieved great success. This was not through blind luck but rather through a determination for self-determination while understanding the positive manner in which the brain functions.
EDIT: It has been suggested that I point out that if you have read this and haven't come to the conclusion that your current state of upheaval is not an abyss from which you cannot surface then re-read it.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Saturday, May 31, 2014
25 Years ago today I Died
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part V The Factual Allegations: Attorney Jennifer Bonesteel
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Response to Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law Paragraphs 18-24 Jennifer Bonesteel
18] There is not enough information in this paragraph for me to either deny or confirm. An Indiana resident has not been identified in this paragraph. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
State of Indiana
v.
Stuart Showalter
In charging an act of wrongdoing it is a principle of law that the alleged facts support the conclusion. In common parlance this is the reasons for the charge. It may be more formally known as the factual basis or in criminal law – probable cause. In this and the next few postings I respond to the particular factual allegations as put forth by Mr. Witte in his Verified Petition. Today I continue with the section related to Jennifer Bonesteel an Indianapolis family law attorney. Each numbered paragraph corresponds directly to the allegations in the Verified Petition.
19] There is not enough information in this paragraph for me to either deny or confirm. An Indiana resident has not been identified in this paragraph.
20] I see nothing here alleging an utterance in any form by myself, the person named in the petition as the defendant, indicating that I claimed to be an attorney or engaged in the practice of law. It is neither within my control nor my responsibility to control the cognitive perceptions of other people.
21] I have only met with Bonesteel once.
22] I never recall hearing anyone say I attended law school. Knowledge of one attending law school, while it may be incorrect, does not rationally equate to being admitted to the practice of law in Indiana. A trained lawyer should not make such a presumption without proper evidence.
23] By Witte's own uncertain admission I stated that I was NOT an attorney or “words to that effect.” I am uncertain as to the appropriate method to dissuade someone from the false belief that I am something other than by saying I am NOT that something.
24] Yes, I may have asked Bonesteel a simple question about her availability or willingness to accept Mr. Scarberry as a client, although I do not recall doing so and thus can neither confirm nor deny this statement.
In short what Witte has alleged in this section relating to Jennifer Bonesteel is that some mystery client hired her to advocate his or her position in court and that I had been “assisting” this parent. Further, that I said something to the effect of “I am not an attorney” to Bonesteel which Witte interprets as me claiming to be an attorney. As you read his Petition you will see that Mr. Witte's allegations surrounding Jennifer Bonesteel center on his claim of her unfounded and directly contradicted belief that I was an attorney. The email that I have from Bonesteel responsive to these allegations clearly states in her words that “[Mr. Showalter] did not try to impose upon my judgment and on at least one occasion [Mr. Showalter] refused to give [client] legal advice.” You can try to figure out the logical processes of Witte's brain to make the connection there but I caution you to not dedicate too much effort or become obsessed with trying to solve that conundrum.
Just as Witte alleged in regards to Craig Scarberry he now alleges that this phantom client was represented by an attorney also – this time Bonesteel. Like ACLU attorney Ken Falk, Jennifer Bonesteel's competence and integrity have been impugned by Witte through implication. This is because the purpose of a requirement for specific legal training, the Bar exam, and a law license is to protect the public from the potential affects of lay opinion about matters of such vital legal interest such as the custody of children or potential incarceration. Witte, in effect, is alleging that thus far Falk and Bonesteel either lack the competence or integrity to protect their clients' interests from my inquisitiveness about their legal strategies. The count for parents that I am assisting with Child Custody Life Coaching who are represented by attorneys is now two for two.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
VI - The Factual Allegations: Angela Sims
VII - The Factual Allegations: Advertising
VIII - The Factual Allegations: Suppositions
IX - Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
X - Who has recommended me and what I recommend
XI - The Charges
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part IV The Factual Allegations: ACLU Ken Falk
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Response to Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law Paragraphs 13-17 Ken Falk
13] It is true that while Craig Scarberry was seeking out assistance to appeal a child custody order I did assist him. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
State of Indiana
v.
Stuart Showalter
In charging an act of wrongdoing it is a principle of law that the alleged facts support the conclusion. In common parlance this is the reasons for the charge. It may be more formally known as the factual basis or in criminal law – probable cause. In this an the next few postings I respond to the particular factual allegations as put forth by Mr. Witte in his Verified Petition. Today I begin with the section related to Ken Falk, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. Each numbered paragraph corresponds directly to the allegations in the Verified Petition.
14] It is true that I include a statement on my website that I assisted Craig Scarberry while he was going through an appeal of a custody order.
15] This is also a true statement. I was contacted by Scarberry after he was referred to me by the Office of the Governor of Indiana. I provided assistance by directing Mr. Scarberry to the Indiana Supreme Court's self-service website, providing a copy of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure to him and persuading Ken Falk to represent Mr. Scarberry in the appeal. An additional portion of my assistance to Scarberry included trying to calm his anxiety and comfort him in letting him know that the system has safeguards in place but he must patiently allow those to function. At Falk's request I did meet with him, an intern of his, and Mr. Scarberry at the ACLU of Indiana offices. At the conclusion of our meeting Mr. Falk asked if either Craig or I had any thoughts or questions. I asked Falk if he had considered seeking a Stay pending the outcome of the appeal. He indicated that he had not. I expressed that I thought it would be appropriate because permanence and stability is preferred in child custody placement and being that the order being appealed said that Mr. Scarberry lost custody of his children because he chose to be agnostic it was clear that it would be reversed on constitutional grounds. Here is what I wrote on the subject in my 11 March 2011 blog posting:
Upon reviewing the Order I felt that this case clearly justified the issuance of a Stay pending a ruling by the panel of the Court of Appeals. My basis for this was that it is policy of the State of Indiana to provide permanence and stability in custody matters related to children. Since it was likely that the lower court judgment would be reversed and the children returned to the previous Shared Parenting arrangement I felt that it was in the best interest of the children to return them to that immediately.
I wrote a brief on the matter and submitted it to Ken Falk, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, for him to do with as he pleased. Falk is the lead counsel on the Scarberry Appeal.
Falk filed a Motion to Stay with the Court of Appeals. Porcaro did not object or file any response to that motion. The Court of Appeals granted the Stay on 11 February 2011. A Stay is an order that in effect says that the order being appealed in a way doesn't exist and the parties should proceed as though it was never issued.
16] It is true that I not only typed/drafted a document but that it contained my original writing. However, Mr Witte's presumption as to my state of mind when writing it or transmitting it to Attorney Falk is incorrect. As I told Ken, “I wrote a brief that I will send to you and you can look at it, ignore it, or do whatever you want to with it.” I disagree that it is a legal document unless it is used in a legal proceeding or as precedent to a potential proceeding such as writing a contract.
17] These statements are true in their entirety. I am aware of the prohibition and did not write that document on behalf of Scarberry. I did not use the document but created it for my enjoyment and for Falk to do with as he pleased. I also did not draft substantive legal documents for Scarberry. While these statements may appear to convey the idea or imply that I had prepared the document on Scarberry's behalf the truth is that I prepared it for my own enjoyment and forwarded it to Falk for his consideration if he so chose.
In short what Witte has alleged in this section relating to Ken Falk while representing Craig Scarberry on appeal is that I helped secure that representation, that I put forth the idea to Falk about seeking a stay – which was granted – and that I wrote a brief supporting the petition for a stay and submitted to Falk to do with as he pleased. Then I helped Craig to continue to be a parent while thinking of the long-term parent-child relationships regardless of what is going on in the court's.
As Scarberry sees it, “Without Stuart's reassurance, guidance, and motivation I don't think I would be able to continue through Christine's constant litigation and still be an effective parent to my children.” When he called Ken Falk to thank him for getting his children back Falk told Scarberry to thank Stuart because it was he who broached the idea of a stay.
Keeping in mind that the Indiana Supreme Court has yet to choose to define the practice of law in its rules we are left to determine this on our own based upon the reasonable person standard. Thus, it becomes would a reasonable person conclude that asking a lawyer to represent someone, asking the lawyer if he had considered a particular type of filing, writing down your thoughts about the case and giving them to the lawyer, and not getting paid for any of it would constitute engaging in the practice of an attorney for which lay people should be barred. Finally, that those activities as applied to Mr Scarberry's case created a harm which requires direct governmental intervention to prohibit.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
V - The Factual Allegations: Jennifer Bonesteel
VI - The Factual Allegations: Angela Sims
VII - The Factual Allegations: Advertising
VIII - The Factual Allegations: Suppositions
IX - Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
X - Who has recommended me and what I recommend
XI - The Charges
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Demand Respect to Show Respect for Yourself - Why I still Avoid the Indy 500
Maintaining and properly balancing familial relationships is built upon respect. Whether it be conflict between spouses or those similarly situated, or within the parent-child relationships I have observed an underlying connection. What I have observed is a lack of respect. While the outward signs may be one individual displaying lack of respect for another I contend that this symptom is a result of the precursor being lack of respect for one's self.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Nowhere do I see this more than in the parent-child relationships involving our current youth. Those parents who vociferously bemoan the terse treatment of them by their children, I believe, have induced the relaxation of respect shown to parents. It is the parents though that are not respecting themselves by demanding respect. It is not the lack of authoritarian demands on children like those exercised by previous generations that compelled obedience through fear but, rather, it is parents' failure to demand respect in their daily interactions. The parent who complains ad nausea about employment conditions, other interpersonal relations, the failures of a service provider, or being slighted in social situations but refuses to extricate himself or herself from the offending situation is broadcasting a message that he or she does not deserve respect. It should then be no surprise when the child doesn't show respect for the parent.
It is my firmly held belief that a person cannot have respect taken away from them. Instead, it is ceded, and at enormous costs. It is at this time of year that I am reminded of what it means to demand respect for one's self and why I command and get respect. In 2011 I was shown extreme disrespect by an employee of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and its management. I wrote about that in 2011 and again in 2013.
I had been attending the Indianapolis 500 since 1978, also attended each of the USGP's , some of the MotoGP events, and on numerous other days during those events. But it only took one incident of disrespect shown to me to not return. As parents it is this level of respect for yourself which you must also demand through your actions.
Respect is about giving a person the autonomy to make a choice. Thus, when an individual is denied the opportunities to make choices that are afforded to others then that person is denied respect. Management of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway has chosen not to admit me to the track if I arrive on a bicycle and I, therefore, have chosen to exercise my right to chose not to return unless I get an apology. Other disrespectful situations I previously mentioned were employment conditions, other interpersonal relations, service providers, and social situations.
If you allow yourself to be wed to your job either through attachment to benefits, a debt burden,or lack of savings then you have set yourself up to be disrespected. If you do not feel that you can walk away from your employment at this moment then you are removing options from your life with is denying respect to yourself.
In personal relationships there is a careful balance that must be maintained as the option of terminating the relationship doesn't always exist. Here, I am thinking of disowning your children which we just don't do. But, it is within our control to exercise discretion about the dynamics of those relationships. Particularly I am referencing inducements and rewards. Parents who allow children to “run their lives” by giving into incessant demands, bowing to manipulation such as saying “I get to do this at my mom's/dad's house” or something similar, or caving to a temper-tantrum and not showing respect for themselves. A child's requests to a parent should be controlled by a clearly defined and followed by a system of procedures or not be entertained.
The level of dissatisfaction that people feel and express about service providers/retailers yet still engage in commerce with them astounds me. It took one incident by an employee of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway for me to terminate a 35 year financial relationship. I have tossed a cell-phone out the car window when I couldn't get a signal within the “coverage area” then immediately moved on to a new carrier because I was denied the choice of making a call when I chose to given the terms of our contract. To be shown respect by someone seeking your money should be the highest standard for engaging in commerce with that entity.
Finally, in social situations respect takes on the tone of acceptable decorum such as the manner in which individuals are treated. Incidents that come to mind include being berated, attacked with derogatory terms, denied participation based upon an arbitrary standard, or physically attacked as a means of suppressing behaviour. These all are linked by the element of choice. It is within our power, or should be, to choose whether we allow ourselves to be exposed to these situations. If we have somehow interlocked ourselves to the situation and 'just have to take it' then we are not showing respect for ourselves.
I know at the end of each day that I am respected by everyone I interact with because I have respect for myself. If you are feeling disrespected then consider adopting some of these practices into your life. Having respect for yourself first leads others to also have respect for you.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Should Indiana Attorneys be presumed more competent than pro se litigants?
I have dedicated my life to seeking ways to minimize parental conflict in child custody proceedings and reduce negative outcomes for children. To that end I coach parents to help them focus on their well-being, that of their children, and ultimately the long-term parent-child relationships. Thus, I read every child custody decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals or Supreme Court which helps me understand the aggravating and mitigating factors of parental hostility. Reading and studying these decisions is equally a hobby as much as it is educational. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
As I am currently engaged in this accusation against me of unauthorized practice of law -- which cites the "public interest" -- it truly piques my interest when I see the ongoing admonitions by the reviewing courts of attorney's incompetence and failure to follow the rules while pro se litigants do so without reproach. Today I provide a brief account of this from a ruling handed down yesterday.
There two incompetent attorneys, John Andrew Goodridge and Steven L. Bohleber both of Evansville, Indiana, were instructed to follow the rules by the Court in this footnote.
We note both Father’s and Mother’s “Statement of Facts” section in each respective brief fails to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(6)(c) (“The statement shall be in narrative form and shall not be a witness by witness summary of the testimony.”). Father’s fact section contains an excerpt from the decree of dissolution on page 1, and is followed by eighteen pages of verbatim transcript excerpts from the final hearing without narration or context other than to identify the speakers for each section of quoted testimony. Mother’s Statement of Facts includes the same excerpt from the decree of dissolution followed by six and a half pages of quoted testimony, and also fails to provide narration or context other than to identify each speaker.
Further, Father’s discussion section fails to cite authority, statutes, the appendix, or other part of the record in making his argument, and contains nine additional pages of excerpts from the transcript without context or analysis–indeed, twenty-seven of the thirty-three pages of Father’s brief is comprised almost exclusively of transcript excerpts. Citations to the record are required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). The few citations to the record contained within Father’s “Statement of the Case” (as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(5)) are inaccurate and do not align with the record. The failure to comply with our appellate rules may subject an argument to waiver or forfeiture. Richard v. Richard, 812 N.E.2d 222, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We are not required to search the record on appeal or make a party’s case for him. Vandenburgh v. Vandenburgh, 916 N.E.2d 723, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). At a minimum, the failure to comply with the rules makes our review of the issue more difficult. However, we prefer to resolve cases on the merits. Howell v. Hawk, 750 N.E.2d 452, 457 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We remind counsel to comply with our rules in the future.
Yet Indianapolis father and pro se litigant Brian Moore not only complied with the rules but was successful, in part, on his recently decided appeal as this decision indicates.
Enough said!
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part III My Preliminary Statement
On 13 May 2014 G. Michael Witte, Attorney No. 1949-15 filed a Verified Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law against yours truly. In this series of postings I will present to you some information about Mr. Witte, why Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David denied my motion to reinstate a felony charge against myself, what Indiana judge recently said I am smarter than most attorneys, and why attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera complained. More significantly though I will demonstrate how Mr. Witte and his ilk are attempting to harm children and deprive parents of opportunities to amicably and efficiently resolve their child custody disputes consistent with the policies of the State of Indiana.
Response to Petition to Enjoin the Unauthorized Practice of Law Preliminary Statement
The hallmark of a free society is the security of personal liberties and freedom from government intrusion into the private workings of one's life. Essential to liberty is the freedom of exchange of information. Corresponding to this which is also essential to the stability of a free society is the rule of law. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
State of Indiana
v.
Stuart Showalter
Consider if you please this quote and the corresponding commentary from What is the Rule of Law by the ABA Division for Public Education
“[N]either laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.”
—U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003)
Judge Wood’s comments highlight the need for, first, an open and transparent system of making laws and, second, laws that are applied predictably and uniformly. Openness and transparency are essential. If people are unable to know and understand what the law is, they cannot be expected to follow it. At the same time, people deserve to know why a particular law has been passed and why they are being asked to obey it.
The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.
The foundation of our democratic republic is based upon the concept that government emanates from the people. Thus, it follows that government serves the people rather than people serving the government and consequently the people are the ultimate masters. It is then the people that have created the rule of law[fn1] and its administration is in their name. This includes petitioning the legislative bodies in support or opposition to existing or proposed laws. Additionally, it embodies respect for the inherent authority of the courts which shall provide a fair and just adjudication for the parties who appear before them whether they be individuals or the collective society through the state. It is to these ends that I am a member of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the Libertarian Party of Indiana of which I actively participate in both in an attempt to ensure limited government intrusion upon the liberties of the citizenry. Likewise for nearly 10 years I have written and proposed legislation, consulted with legislators, attended meetings and provided input to rule writing committees for the courts, and have testified on proposals before both. Child custody legislation that I wrote has been passed into law while ideas that I presented have been adopted into the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. The day after receiving this Petition to which I respond I provided testimony and my 14,000 word report presenting my novel ideas about how to increase child support to children while reducing conflict and litigation among parents.
Consistently I have espoused the virtues and necessity of liberty and respect for the rule of law which, to some people, may appear as competing forces but to me are complimentary. Often times this is difficult for parents engaged in child custody disputes to understand. The emotionally charged atmosphere around the right to raise one's child as one sees fit can evoke a visceral rejection of the court's authority. What often goes unrealized by a parent is that the authority of the court may prevent the other, their perceived adversary, from exercising his or her conflicting parenting wishes through the underlying goal of doing what is in the child's best interest.
A person who can help enlighten parents to this concept reduces hostilities and conflicts, mitigates the extent of litigation, and, ultimately, benefits the children caught between the two competing forces – adversarial parents. As someone who once stood on the precipice of rejecting the authority of the court or reluctantly acquiescing to what I felt was its improper child custody order, who then chose to accept the authority of the court and ultimately cease litigation, I feel qualified – rather compelled – to assist others in coming to the same realization, often without financial remuneration. The well-being of children, as I have seen through my son, demands it while the public policy of the State of Indiana encourages it[fn2].
It is then that when a litigator who is personally enriched by hostile litigation dips into the public till to attack such a benevolent actor that I reserve my most vociferous condemnation which is forthcoming herein. Such endeavors and discretionary public subordination should be reserved for an offense of public harm rather than as a means of fulfilling the private interest of a sole attorney. I, however, do realize that this proscription is countervailing to the status quo as imposed by a legal cartel and doing so brings forth a rebuke such as this formal undertaking. As Emile Durkheim expressed in his philosophy of sociological constructs: when an individual diverges from the norm of society based upon an individual moral code the group will express a strong condemnation or sanction.
While I have no objection to a restraint from practicing law, as I have already imposed one upon myself, I do take issue with and hereby respond to allegations which are false or impertinent, and charges which are ambiguous or lack enough clarity as to inform one so charged, or others who may be potentially subjected to such, as what acts are expected of him in negation or the appositive. This is precisely what Judge Wood referenced in stating that the law must not be arbitrary. The rule of law is not a government of men but a government of laws which while used to compel compliance by the ruled are equally applicable to restrain those who rule so that their rule and judgments are not arbitrary or unjust.
As I know nearly all of you Justices in some personal capacity I extricate such relation there from our relation here and express my confidence that you are likewise capably restrained administrators of law. I welcome the opportunity for this exchange to be a spark to igniting a clear and distinguishable rule as to what constitutes the practice of law. The American Bar Association proposed defining the practice of law[fn3] but this was not adopted into Rule 24 by the Indiana Supreme Court's rule making committee.
For all of these reasons and more which will be further espoused in the corresponding paragraphs I do hereby tender the following response to each individually numbered paragraph one through thirty-six (1-36) by corresponding numbered paragraphs. Adjudication on the merits or lack thereof by all members so empaneled is hereby welcomed.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
IV - The Factual Allegations: ACLU Ken Falk
V - The Factual Allegations: Jennifer Bonesteel
VI - The Factual Allegations: Angela Sims
VII - The Factual Allegations: Advertising
VIII - The Factual Allegations: Suppositions
IX - Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
X - Who has recommended me and what I recommend
XI - The Charges
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to contribute any information about this matter or participate in the Response then please contact me.
Notes
1] The World Justice Project has proposed a working definition of the rule of law that comprises four principles: 1. A system of self-government in which all persons, including the government, are accountable under the law; 2. A system based on fair, publicized, broadly understood and stable laws; 3. A fair, robust, and accessible legal process in which rights and responsibilities based in law are evenly enforced; and 4. Diverse, competent, and independent lawyers and judges
2] It is the policy of this state to recognize the importance of family and children in our society [IC 31-10-2-1(1)], recognize the responsibility of the state to enhance the viability of children and family in our society [IC 31-10-2-1(2)], strengthen family life by assisting parents to fulfill their parental obligations [IC 31-10-2-1(4)], and provide a judicial procedure that, ensures fair hearings [IC 31-10-2-1(10(A)], recognizes and enforces the legal rights of children and their parents [IC 31-10-2-1(10(B)], and holds them accountable [IC 31-10-2-1(10(C)].
3] Section 2. Practice of Law Defined. (a) General Definition. The practice of law is ministering to the legal needs of another person for consideration given. This includes but is not limited to the following provided to another person: (1) Advice on a legal right; (2) Negotiation or settlement of a legal right; (3) Representation in a legal proceeding; (4) Selection, preparation or completion of a legal document;
(5) Management of a law practice; or (6) Any other conduct determined to be the practice of law by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
