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 5 - 12 Advertising as an Attorney
5] True * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 some upcoming postings I respond to the particular factual allegations as put forth by Mr. Witte in his Verified Petition. Today I move on to the vaguely veiled general accusations that I am engaging in the unauthorized practice of law which in this first part relates to advertising as an attorney. Each numbered paragraph corresponds directly to the allegations in the Verified Petition.
6] The link shown is to a page on my website. I have attached a copy of this page, as of 03 June 2014, hereto as Exhibit A.
7] This paragraph ends with “and be just a phone call away . . . .” What Witte omits by text and context is the remainder of the sentence “. . . even in the middle of the night, when your emotions or anxiety overwhelms you.” which relates to the purpose of providing emotional or spiritual support of life coaching. I have tightened the language on this page in an attempt to remove possible interpretation by readers that I may be acting in place of an attorney.
8] This paragraph is directed to attorneys who wish to direct me in assisting them and specifically contradicts Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36.
9] Similar to ¶8 this paragraph is directed to parents represented by attorneys and is intended to convey the importance of the long-term parent-child relationship. While attorneys may speak in “legaleze” which their clients may not understand I either translate to layman's terms or let the attorney know that the client appears bewildered. This specifically contradicts Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36.
10] This paragraph refers to a section of the website that was not placed under my “services” as it was far from complete, should have had privacy settings limiting it to “administrators” only and when complete will be directed primarily toward assisting attorneys not experienced with appeals or helping them or their clients find competent appellate counsel. The privacy settings on this page were changed on 15 May 2014 to remove this page from public view. The page Client Portal was also open to public viewing although it should have been accessible only to current clients and has been changed.
11] This paragraph contains a portion of the page referenced in paragraph 10. Specifically, it notes Mr. Showalter's “appellate team” which includes himself, a clerk that can assist with formatting, house counsel, and outside attorneys who specialize in appeals. This paragraph describes work to be done by attorneys or under the direction of attorneys and specifically contradicts Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36.
12] This is an otiose statement as it does not support Witte's allegations in ¶¶33-36. I could just have easily said that I can perform most of the acts necessary to build a space shuttle – tightening screws, connecting wires, applying glue, welding, etc -- while leaving the most complex actions to those specifically trained for them.
In short what Witte has alleged in this section relating to advertising is that I am promoting that I am an attorney. Yet nowhere on my website do I indicate that I am an attorney. Quite to the contrary I specifically state on my client contract:
By signing this agreement, I, _______________________, acknowledge that I have been advised by and am aware that Stuart Showalter and his associates are not attorneys, mental health professionals, physicians, financial planners or securities dealers and are not providing specific advice as a substitute for that provided by those professionals unless those professionals specifically acknowledge their discipline.
Just as Witte alleged in regards to Jennifer Bonesteel and her phantom client, that when I say I am “not” something that I must be that, he makes the same logical fallacy here. His conclusions that I am engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by assisting parents to manage their lifestyle while going through a custody proceeding or helping them find an attorney is misplaced. Very few attorneys would agree that their practice is to try to find an attorney for clients who come to them for assistance. Using Witte logic it would be like a Wal-Mart greeter directing you to go to Target when you ask where something is located.
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 helping settle a person's anxiety, preparing them physically and mentally for court appearances, improving their parental behaviours, and helping to find legal counsel if needed would constitute engaging in the practice of an attorney for which lay people should be barred.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
VIII - The Factual Allegations: Suppositions
IX - Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
X - The Charges
XI - Who has recommended me and my Conclusions
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. 
Friday, June 6, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part VII The Factual Allegations: Advertising that I am an Attorney
Monday, June 2, 2014
Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Indiana - Part VI The Factual Allegations: Judge Angela Sims
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 25 - 30 Angela Sims
25] 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 some upcoming postings I respond to the particular factual allegations as put forth by Mr. Witte in his Verified Petition. Today I conclude the responses to allegations involving particular attorneys with the section related to Angela Sims a former Anderson, Indiana family law attorney who is now judge of the Madison Circuit Court. Each numbered paragraph corresponds directly to the allegations in the Verified Petition.
26] 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.
27] I do recall meeting with Sims one time although I do not recollect the substance of the conversation and therefore can neither confirm nor deny the substance of this paragraph. This meeting may have occurred in the year 2011. An Indiana resident has not been identified in this paragraph.
28] 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.
29] I have never drafted a legal document for Angela Sims or a client of hers on my own initiative.
30] I have no knowledge of the extent or content of conversations between Sims and her client. Therefore, I can neither confirm nor deny the substance of this paragraph.
In short what Witte has alleged in this section relating to Angela Sims is that some phantom hired her to advocate his or her position in court and that this parent wanted me to assist Sims. What Witte doesn't directly state but implies is that Sims wasn't capable of deciding what to do on her own or convince her client of her expertise in law. However, I found Sims to be quite capable of formulating case strategy and advising the client and feel she handled family law well. In fact, I was impressed with Sims enough to recommend to a party seeking representation that he choose her. A conflict of interest however prevented that. I don't claim that Sims, any other attorney that I recommend, or any judge has a mind pervaded by child custody law, decisions, or process. Sims, like many judicial officers, may occasionally err.
In Paternity of DT [Ind. Ct. App. 2014] the panel included in it's opinion that “the trial court clearly erred” and “[a]ccordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this decision” which was because Sims lacked jurisdiction to enter the child custody order. Maybe this phantom client of Sims saw in her at the time the same thing that the Appellant in DT saw, that Sims apparently is not fully knowledgeable on child custody procedure. This is why judges often take matters “under advisement” and then render a decision after researching the law. In this case there was a commissioner on the case also and Sims may just have signed off on his conclusions.
Just as Witte alleged in regards to Craig Scarberry and some other phantom client he now alleges that this second phantom client was represented by an attorney also – this time Judge Angela Sims. Witte alleges that the public need demands that I be enjoined from questioning the legal strategies of Indiana attorneys because, like Sims, all attorneys must know more about child custody law than me but don't have sense enough to use discretion and make legal determinations of their own. Instead there must be something about my personality where I impose my will upon these attorneys and they all dutifully comply with my legal advice to the detriment of their clients. Witte in effect has maligned the field of attorneys as being incompetent. As some of my postings show there are incompetent attorneys but Sims, Falk, and others that I have worked with should not be inclusively demeaned by Witte's blanket indictment of attorney incompetence. Plus, apparently it is also best, according to Witte, that children be yo-yoed between parents consistent with appellate outcomes. Now the count for parents, whether named or phantoms, that I am assisting with Child Custody Life Coaching who are represented by attorneys making the legal decisions is three for three.
While the Indiana Supreme Court has yet to choose to define the practice of law in its rules based upon what attorney Bonesteel had to say in response it must include a non-attorney providing legal advice directly to a client or imposing his beliefs upon the attorney. But again, just as with Falk and Bonesteel I didn't impose my will upon Sims and I am confident in her competence to make rational legal decisions regardless of what I have to say.
By the way, if I was asked for my opinion in the Paternity of DT case I would have told Sims that she lacked jurisdiction. It's just one of those things I've picked up on while reading every child custody decision for at least the past five years.
Upcoming segments in this series will include
VII - The Factual Allegations: Advertising
VIII - The Factual Allegations: Suppositions
IX - Interview with the Complainant: Attorney Vanessa Lopez Aguilera
X - The Charges
XI - Who has recommended me and my Conclusions
XII - The Response Filed
If you would like to also 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.
