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

State of Indiana
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.

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.
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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

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.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2014 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

No comments: