Monday, May 30, 2011

Justice David - Spitting on the Graves of Soldiers

The irony of a US Army Colonel declaring one of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent statutory law void in Indiana cannot be avoided. On 12 May 2011 Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steve David declared that Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution are no longer applicable in the State of Indiana.

Justice David held, "that [sic] Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law." The essence of the Second and Fourth amendments are to ensure that the government does not unlawfully intrude into the private residences of citizens. Indiana has recognized this in its Indiana Constitution adopted in 1851 and statutory law recodified in 1976.

On a day when we should be honouring the men and women who have sacrificed their personal freedoms, families and lives in defense of our freedoms Justice David instead has decided that we can no longer enjoy the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of our homes, person or personal affects.

As unbelievable as it is Justice David has elevated law enforcement officers to a special class of persons immune from legal restraint. Under the statutory and constitutional law specifically recognized in Indiana which Justice David has now declared void a woman could have felt safe in her home. But now, a drunk police officer acting outside the scope of his duties or not while on duty may break into a home and rape a woman without fear of physical restraint since Justice David has ruled she may no longer use force against an unlawful violation by a police officer. Justice David held, "As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance. "

What has Justice David declared her relief now to be? "[P]olice department internal review and disciplinary procedure," and "civil remedies". In other words, a victim may make a complaint to the officers employer or file a lawsuit seeking monetary damages. I am sure our Founding Fathers would have been proud of this "soldier".

You can read more about how Justice Steve David Usurps Legislative Authority and that
I warned you about Supreme Court Justice Steve David.

To help remove Justice Steve David from the Indiana Supreme Court please click here and vote NO on the Justice David retention question on the November 2012 ballot.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

2011 Indianapolis Motor Speedway - Indy 500

As I sit here watching the 2011 Formula Grand Prix of Monaco I am quite disappointed that I am unable to attend the IZOD 100 Years of Indy 500 Celebration. I have been going to the Indianapolis 500 since 1977 at age 8. From those early days when the Indianapolis 500 was a city-wide event and it seems everyone knew someone who was involved in the race I have noticed a decline in the significance, importance, excitement and ultimately attendance at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

Being a Formula 1 fan I could not have been more excited than when F1 came to Indy. I bought tickets for my son and I immediately, spending $600 for us to comfortably sit in box seats across from the Ferrari pit. It was well worth the expense to fold up the two extra seats and spread out a bit while we watched my favourite event across from my favourite team.

Inclusive of F1, MotoGP, NASCAR, all IRL events and the various auxiliary races at IMS I believe I have likely attended close to 100 races at the IMS and other tracks. Unfortunately this year marks the end of the Indianapolis 500 and the IRL unless I receive a personal apology.

What prompted the termination of my involvement with the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the Indy Racing League was the extreme disrespect shown to me by employees and the track administration this year. It was Thursday 19 May, 2011 when Wendy Evans and the other "Yellow Shirts" at Gate 7 denied admittance to me because I had ridden a bicycle to the track.

This year I had specifically purchased a "fixie" bike to ride from the Boone County Courthouse in Lebanon, Indiana to the IMS each day. I first arrived on 12 May, the day after my bicycle arrived, and watched the track activity for a short period of time.

Here is a brief rundown of the various policies on bicycles at the IMS from the most permissive to most restrictive as I was told by the various people working the Safety Patrol, many of whom recognize and even know me by name. It should be labeled some type of Top Ten list.

1) You can ride your bike anywhere on the grounds;
2) You can ride anywhere except the Pagoda Plaza, you have to walk it through there;
3) You can only ride your bike on the roads inside the track;
4) You can't have your bike in the Pagoda Plaza, take it out the back gate of the garages;
5) You can ride in but have to lock it at the bike rack;
6) You have to walk your bike, can't ride it on the grounds;
7) You have to walk your bike but can't take it in the Pagoda Plaza;
8) You can walk it in but have to lock it at the bike rack;
9) You can't bring your bike into the IMS grounds; and
10) You can't have a bike on IMS property, this includes the fence surrounding the grounds.

What I have to ask and I am sure you are wondering is: what EXACTLY is the bicycle policy for the IMS? That is the question I went to the Administration Building and asked but was told that apparently there isn't a written one but they know bicycles are not allowed for safety reasons.

As you can see in this photo of my bicycle locked at the "Bicycle Parking Only" bike rack bicycles clearly are not allowed at the IMS and any explicit or implied statement to the contrary is completely unintentional. I suppose that sign and bike rack are for decorative purposes only just as are the dock and "Yacht Parking Only" sign along the lake in the infield golf course.

On 17 May I listened to Paul Paige and had quite a lengthy conversation with him about some of the problems that have led to the decline of the Indy 500 and the IMS and what we can do about it. Overall, I believe it is much too "corporate" now. The biggest problem I have is that I can predict with 100% accuracy who the winning engine builder, chassis maker and tire supplier will be for the 2011 Indianapolis 500 motorcar race. Yet, when I first started attending I had no clue.

It's not that over the years while I have gotten to know more drivers, team owners, chief mechanics, race strategists and the entire network of crew members but it's because there is only one engine builder, one chassis maker and one tire supplier for this competition between cars. As Paul Paige said, the excitement has been taken out of it.

Now, the current and recent administration has also taken "the event" out of it. What type of person pays $250 to attend a "Snake Pit Ball" and celebrates in a tent? Certainly not the type of person who was in the "Snake Pit" back in the 1970's. Everything is so sanitary and compartmentalized now. There are a series of specialized events to inspire attendance rather than an event that draws a crowd.

The extreme disrespect shown to me at Gate 7 on the 19th, when I was told, "Just get out!" was the crowning moment which leads to my perception that the Indianapolis 500 and the IMS no longer exists. For my son at least, I have arranged for a Speedway Police Department officer to take him into the facility so he may watch the race and not break his streak of attending since he started going with me when he was age 3.

I get told "Just get out!" because I arrived on a bicycle and told the Safety Patrol to call their Command Center. That is unacceptable. That was exactly what I had been told to do by the administration if "anyone gives you any trouble about bringing your bike in." I am not some drunk though. But it shouldn't matter who the person trying to enter the grounds is, they should all be treated with respect.

I find it overwhelmingly interesting as to what is considered safe and tolerated by the Safety Patrol: drunks, people pulling wagons around so loaded down that it appears the are moving out West, these collapsible aluminum and canvas "chairs" that are practically a living room suite now, coolers the size of an S10 and whatever else that is not a bicycle which people can shove into a vehicle and parade around the grounds. Yet I, in an IZOD suit jacket along with my bicycle am not allowed at the track. Yes, I do wear a suit, jacket or am otherwise dressed in fashionable clothing while at the track.

Just for background though here is a bit about who I am. I am a child-custody advisor and political activist. I have met and am recognized by nearly every member of the Indiana General Assembly, state officials, policy makers, attorneys and judges. I am well-recognized at the track. Anywhere I go in that facility people know me and greet me. Not just all of those I mentioned previously. It's numerous fans, clients of mine, other politicians I know, media personalities or those who simply mistake me for someone else or are curious as to who I am. I am a person who never meets a stranger.

The one interesting "qualification" that I have is being a former professional cyclist who had been invited to the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado while I was in high school and have also raced with Lance Armstrong. One could assume I know how to ride a bicycle and even walk it alongside me.

Some of the highlights for my son include attending a cookout with Scott Dixon, his family and a few friends, about a dozen people total the day after the race one year; being recognized by Eddie Cheever as he sat with Tony George on a golf cart in the team bus lot. Eddie introduced my son to Tony.

It shouldn't matter that I started attending 34 years ago, that I have brought many people with me, that it is on the agenda of fans from throughout the country to see me at the track or that so many of the participants know me. Every customer should be treated with respect.

I was invited to a wedding of a crew member at the track yesterday and I went. Sadly, unless I get a personal apology, that will be the last time I go to the IMS, attend an IRL event or wear IZOD clothing.

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

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.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Comments due on Amended Proposed Indiana Parenting Time Coordination Rules

The Domestic Relations Committee and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee held a joint session on Friday 20 May 2011 to review public comment and amend the proposed parenting time coordination rules. The proposed PTC Rules were amended Friday based upon comments received by the Committee thus far. The public may still provide input until Thursday 26 May 2011.

The schedule is going to be strictly adhered to. The Supreme Court would like to have the Rules by July 1 to allow for time to send to WestLaw for publication effective 01 January 2012. The proposed rules will be sent to the Board of Directors of the Indiana Judicial Conference prior to the submission to the Indiana Supreme Court.

I have included as much of the comments and changes as I was able to from listening to the discussion. I make no claim that my following quotes are completely accurate.

The first change that the Committee noted was that all references to "both parties" or "both parents" have been changed to "the parties" and "either parent" is being changed to "a party". The purpose for this was to include all people that may be affected by the Parenting Coordinator's recommendations which may include subsequent spouses/partners, grandparents or other persons significantly involved in the lives of the children.

Much of the public comments received thus far have related to the qualifications for a PTC. The Committee has added commentary to Rule 2 as follows:
When the degree of conflict between the parties is so extreme that the appointment of a Parenting Coordinator is appropriate, the success or benefit to the family is directly related to the training and experience of the Parenting Coordinator. The cause of the conflict between the parties will vary with each individual case. The causation could include, but is not limited to, cases where domestic violence is persistent, or when one party is chemically dependent or mentally ill. The purpose of the rule is to create uniformity throughout the state in the appointment of qualified Parenting Coordinators. Requiring compliance with education standards and continuing education is necessary to maintain the degree of expertise required to identify the family's needs.

There had been significant concern expressed that there were existing PC who were effectively working with families who would have to be removed by the proposed qualifications. There was also concern as to whether some of the smaller communities had enough existing PC who meet the qualifications. In response rule 1.6 was added which reads;
"These rules apply to all parenting coordinator appointments made after the effective date of the adoption of these rules and do not modify existing parenting coordination orders. These rules do not limit a parties' right to file for modification under existing Indiana law."

In conceding to the wishes expressed in the public comments the Committee changed "shall" in Rule 2.3 to "should". Rule 2.4 was changed so that a PTC will not be required to have more education than mediators. The Committee felt that it was important to get these new rules in place and that they could later be amended to require greater educational requirements for Parenting Coordinators but that to do so now may jeopardize passage of the rules.

There was also acknowledgment that the commission does not currently have the manpower to check the qualifications of everyone.

There was extensive discussion about mandating PTC and the costs to the parties and what the threshold should be, whether it be consent, costs or best interest of the child. Judge Fee, the Chair of the DRC, believe that judges should be allowed to require parties participate in PTC. Some of the members felt that it should only be used by consent of the parties.

Although judges can order parents to high conflict classes or alternative measures they have not been able to order parents to PTC. There are currently cases before the Indiana Court of Appeals challenging orders to PTC. A decision last year has led to some confusion among judges about their authority to mandate PTC.

The 15 November 2010 decision is being read two different ways. 1) That the Court of Appeals said that Mother consented at the trial level so therefore it was not imposed upon the parties without consent and consent is still required; 2) That the Father in this case did not consent and since the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court that is interpreted as the court does not need the consent of both parties. However, I content that when the Father did not object at the trial court level or, in the alternative, later join Mother on the appeal then he did consent. Thus consent is still required.

Some public comment related to the term of the Parenting Coordinator and the six-month rule. Commentary was added to Rule 3 which includes, "This time period is necessary in order to give the Parenting Coordinator and the parents sufficient opportunity to become acquainted and to give the process a chance. The appointment is intended as a non-adversarial child-focused dispute resolution process."

Another major concern was the financial costs and who would be responsible or how the costs would be apportioned. Some of the commentary to Rule 3 reads, "The costs related to the appointment of the Parenting Coordinator be established through a private agreement between the parties and the Parenting Coordinator. The Parenting Coordinator may accept or establish a sliding fee scale based on the parties' respective incomes. The court also has the discretion to apportion the fee between the parties.

There has been concern that once PTC is effected that the parties lose access to the court. Commentary to Rule 4 has been added which reads;
The court does not relinquish its decision-making powers with the appointment of a Parenting Coordinator. The Parenting Coordinator may not unilaterally modify an existing order or parenting plan. Amy modification or major change recommended by the Parenting Coordinator and agreed to by the parties should be submitted to the court as set forth in Rule 7 below.

The PTC coordination process will still require the consent of the parents before it can be ordered.

Rule 4.10 was also amended and now reads;
If any of the Parenting Coordinator's recommendations are not accepted by one or all of the parties, a Parenting Coordinator may file and submit a written report to the court, the parties and the parties counsel. The written report shall include an explanation as to how the recommended change is expected to benefit the family as a whole.

The Committee also noted a distinction between mediation and PTC in the commentary to Rule 4;
There are similarities between a mediator and a parenting coordinator. The mediator's role is to assist the parties in identifying issues, reducing misunderstanding and finding points of agreements. The issues are finite. The Parenting Coordinator has a similar role, only the issues are infinite. The scope of the Parenting Coordinator's duties far exceeds that of a mediator.

I will be recommending a change to Rule 5.7 which currently reads;
The Parenting Coordinator shall be alert to the reasonable suspicion of any acts of child abuse or neglect, or of domestic violence directed at the other party, a current partner, or a child. The Parenting Coordinator should adhere to any protection orders, and take whatever measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of the parties, a child and the Parenting Coordinator."

What I propose is;
The Parenting Coordinator shall be alert to the reasonable suspicion of any acts of child abuse or neglect, or of domestic violence between the parents or directed at another party, including a parent, a current partner, or a child. The Parenting Coordinator should adhere to any protection orders, and take whatever measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of the parties, a child and the Parenting Coordinator."

Mutual Domestic Violence is present in a very large portion of DV cases. Mutual DV has a significant impact on a family dynamic and a child just as unilateral DV does. I feel that it is important to acknowledge this specifically even though failing to do so should not limit a Parenting Coordinator from being alert to it.

The Rule 6.7 of the Draft version has been removed.

Rule 7 was basically rewritten in whole as follows;

7.1 A written agreement which seeks to modify a court order, signed by the parties and the parenting coordinator shall be filed with the court within 20 days, with copies of the report provided to the parties and their counsel. The report shall indicate disputed recommendations, if any. There shall be no ex parte communication with the court.

7.2 A parenting coordinator's recommendations, which are not agreed to by the parties, may be submitted as a written report to the court for consideration. Copies of the document submitted shall be provided to the parties, their counsel and the parenting coordinator. The written report shall include an explanation as to how the recommended change is expected to benefit the family as a whole.

7.3 Any party may file with the court and serve on the Parenting Coordinator and other parties an objection to the Parenting Coordinator's report within ten (10) days after the report is filed with the court or within another time as the court may direct.

7.4 Responses to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on the Parenting Coordinator and other parties within ten (10) days after the objection is served.

7.5 The court upon receipt of a report and recommendations may take any of the following three actions.

7.5.1 Approve the recommendation

7.5.2 Reject the recommendations in whole or in part.

7.5.3 Take no immediate action upon the recommendation.

These proposed rules should provided a major step in assisting parents who are unable to overcome their personal differences which are detrimental to the children. Input from the public is needed and is highly valued by the Committee. I cannot stress enough that the Committee does listen to what the public has to say. You may make comment through the form provided here through 26 May 2011. If you would like to make comment to me instead I will blend that into my comments. Please do so by 3:00 pm on the last day, 26 May 2011.

Comments are due no later than 26 May 2011!!!

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Justice Steve David Usurps Legislative Authority

As public discussion and outrage increase over the Barnes v State of Indiana case decided by the Indiana Supreme Court on 12 May 2011 there seems to be as much inaccurate information as there is accurate with all peppered by opinion. I didn't write about this until I warned you about Supreme Court (in)Justice Steve David published on Friday 20 May 2011.

In that I wrote about my experiences with Steve David as the Boone Circuit Court Judge and my failed attempts to prevent his ascent to the Supreme Court although I had warned people about his totalitarian and activism disposition.

Today I examine more closely the ruling and specifically how he has usurped legislative authority.

I am a strong advocate of the rule of law. Although I often disagree with laws and find many to be repugnant to my sense of morals or simple logic I participate in the process. I vote in every election, I write letters to the editor, I provide testimony to state policy makers and bodies, I engage in lively discussions on FaceBook and elsewhere to rally others to act, and I write this blawg.

I revere our United States Constitution and Indiana Constitution and the powers they restrict government from engaging in and the manner in which powers are delegated. Much as a theologian holds the Bible or spouses may embrace and hold sacred their marriage I find solace in those finely crafted instruments.

The three branches of government should wield an equal amount of power and each be embodied with the power and authority to ensure that no other abuses or exceeds the powers specifically granted by the respective constitutions.

Legislators [The Legislative Branch] are to write the laws. The Governor or President [The Executive Branch] are the first line of defense in that each possesses the power to veto a law and are also given the discretion of enforcement. The Judges and Justices [The Judicial Branch] are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the legislators and police have complied with our constitutions.

Additionally, there is the Prosecutor. Although an entity of the Executive the prosecutor does act in a quasi-judicial manner. In criminal matters he is cloaked with the sole authority as whether to pursue a charge brought by the police or one he initiates himself. It is not his mandate to seek a conviction, but rather, it is his duty to seek justice. He represents the people in a role as an advocate to seek a conviction but also to ensure restraint in that the people do not obtain a wrongful conviction. Thus, he is a mini-judge between the people and the defendant.

The Barnes v State decision arose from the arrest of Barnes after he resisted a police entry into his home after he retreated there following a conversation in a parking lot. The police had been called to Barnes' residence by his wife. When they arrived Barnes was walking away from the residence with some belonging. The wife then appear, tossed more of Barnes' belongings out, made some comments and went into the house. Barnes followed. This is when the police attempted entry.

At issue is whether Barnes had a right to resist an unlawful entry by the police.

Although Barnes' wife had appeared briefly and observed the police she did not summon them for further assistance at that time. The argument in favour of a warrantless entry is exigent circumstances. It is well-settled that police may enter upon reasonable belief that a person is in eminent danger or that evidence is likely to be destroyed before a warrant can be obtained.

The Court did not get to the issue of whether the entry by police was unlawful as Barnes contended. There is legitimate concerns from both sides of the issue as to what is the balancing test. Barnes wife appear outside as he was leaving and did not seek additional assistance by the police such as asking for his arrest or that they ensure that he does not return. But he did return to the residence which alters the dynamic of the situation. Could the conflict in the residence escalate to the point where one of the parties becomes endangered.

This issue was not address in the opinion because (in)Justice David determined that regardless of whether the entry by the police was lawful; "Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers‘ entry into Barnes‘s apartment."

That finding by the Court is not extremely disturbing from the standpoint of a judicial interpretation of constitutional or common law as both must be applied based upon fact sensitive issue and the intent of the constitutional provisions.

What is extremely appalling though is that Justice David usurps the authority of the legislature who specifically crafted language to allow citizens to use deadly force against an unlawful entry into their home.

I.C. 35-41-3-2 first adopted in 1976 and last amended in 2006 provides this protection under section (b) which reads:

A person:
        (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
        (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

This decision should have been decided much more narrowly consistent with constitutional protections and in-line with the particular circumstances of the case such as Justices Rucker and Dickson applied in their dissents. However, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller sought an expanded and more broad application which (in)Justice David went beyond.

Knowing Steve David for over ten years and being one of the judges whom I have sued I was keenly aware of his judicial activism, abuse of power and propensity to support a totalitarian rule of law while using the bench for his personal gain.

What David has now done is giving special powers to a limited class of people based upon their employment status. In this opinion David made no distinction as to police acting in the scope of their employment or upon their cognizable duties and those acting in a personal capacity. Although the decision includes numerous references to the underlying action, being the entry into Barnes domicile in an attempt to place him under arrest the decision hinges upon the entry into the home not the arrest.

Therein (in)Justice David has now made such a broad ruling that by the status of being employed as a law enforcement officer, but not acting in such a capacity, a police officer may break into a home for whatever nefarious reason and it shall be unlawful to resist be it rape, robbery or a random search for evidence of a crime.

Even the countries we consider to be some of the most notorious human rights violators do not cloak their police with such privileges.

(in)Justice David MUST be removed from the Indiana Supreme Court. To help accomplish this I ask that you please attend the STAND UP for your Fourth Amendment rights rally at the Indiana State House on Wednesday 25 May 2011, Like the Remove Justice Steve H David in 2012 Facebook group, Vote NO to retain Justice David in the November 2012 election and tell all your friends about this or pass along this post.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Friday, May 20, 2011

I warned you about Supreme Court Justice Steve David

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steve David has gained much notoriety recently based upon his decision in the case of Barnes v State of Indiana. Many people seem alarmed by this decision but it does not surprise me at all. When I first heard of it my comment was, "Well I know Dickson will have dissented". Then I went into my bullet point soliloquy about how this was predictable and that I had warned people, including Governor Daniels, that this is the type of decision that I fully expected from Steve David.

I first became aware of Steve David over 10 years ago when he was the Boone County Circuit Court judge. He had ordered the return of a toddler to parents over the objections of the Child Protect Services case manager. Soon after, the child was dead; having been struck by a vehicle while wandering through a parking lot unsupervised.

This was just the beginning of my knowledge about or encounters with Steve David. In the work I do I am often able to review juvenile case files and family law cases. Who accepted a plea agreement for 10 years probation and no jail time for a man who had sex with a child? Who placed three adolescent girls in the custody of a convicted child molestor instead of with their mother? Who dismissed a lawsuit seeking access to the records of the detention of a child at the Boone County Jail and had alleged a sexual assault? Judge Steve David in all of those.

More alarming though is when a Western Boone High School student brought sexual assault allegations to me Steve David placed a No Contact Order on her barring her from disclosing more information to me. When it was discovered that she was leaving information for me at my house a No Contact Order was placed against me by Judge David which barred me from receiving information from the girl.

I warned the public about Judge David though. While facing a concocted felony charge in the court where David presided I invited the public to come see the evidence of corruption by David and Boone County Prosecutor Todd Meyer exposed at my trial. However, I never have exposed this evidence which is kept in a vault far from Lebanon, Indiana. The reason for that -- I never got a trial.

On 17 August 2005 Meyer took one of the fliers about my trial, that were being distributed around Boone County, to David. That day my 33 subpoenas, including three police officers to testify in my favor, were quashed and my trial date vacated. Two days later a building where some of the evidence against David was being stored was burnt to the ground in an arson fire. Although the evidence survived the fire, the State Fire Marshall would not allow items to be retrieved from the burn site until a specified time. The building was razed prior to that specified time. Fortunately that crime scene tape was crossed and the evidence retrieved prior to the building being razed.

For the next year and a half I tried to get a trial so a jury could see and hear the evidence. As trial dates would approach David would sua sponte [on his own] reset the trial date. Eventually, the prosecutor from the third county assigned to the case made a motion to dismiss. I argued against the motion and filed a Motion to Reinstate the charge contending I had the right to a trial by jury and the case had not been properly disposed. Yes, I am the guy who filed to be recharged with a felony after the charge was dismissed. I do have documents that demonstrate that the Probable Cause Affidavit contained false statements, that the prosecutor assisted in it and that Judge David, according to one of the special prosecutors assigned to the case, was culpable in the alleged crime.

Also during 2005 I became aware of a child-sex ring operating in Boone County. Former assistant principal of Western Boone High School, Jerry Taylor, suddenly resigned after an alleged victim filed a complaint with Boone County Prosecutor Todd Meyer stating that Taylor had sexually assaulted her. I have a recording of Taylor admitting to the crime which was provided to prosecutor Meyer yet Taylor was never charged but instead was allowed to quietly leave the community and now works at another school. One of the statements made by Taylor in that recording was that he would get Judge David to send children to the Henry County Youth Center as a sort of extra form of punishment. Parents have told me that their children were sent there if the child or the parent had refused Taylor's sexual advances.

I had also received complaints from young girls or parents about what they considered inappropriate sexual activity at the Indiana United Methodist's Childrens Home in Lebanon. In 2008 one employee, Stephanie Rogers, was charged and convicted of having sexual relations with a female child, age 15, who resided there.

In 2005-2006 I placed signs in the windows of my home about Judge David being corrupt and inviting people to come see the trial. During the Summer of 2006 I added an additional sign, more particularly a sign that read, "Child Sex Ring Evidence - Guess Who's Involved". Immediately the Thorntown Council President Gary Jones had Marshall Jeff Woodard cite me for violating the town's ordinance prohibiting unapproved signs. In September of 2008 Gary Jones' son Caleb, who was 19 years of age at the time, was arrested and charged with battery following an incident in which he cut his mom with a knife after she refused to let him shower at the same time as his younger sister.

Boone County Superior Court II Judge Rebecca McClure heard the sign case. She is the judge who would not allow me to attend the trial of Delisa Draper in December 2007 related to the 2005 arson fire. Ultimately McClure found that Thorntown's sign ordinance was constitutional and that I had violated it. I do have documentation where McClure admits to being involved in the cover-up of child-molestations.

There was also the year that I went to the Boone County Lincoln Day Dinner and was escorted out by 4 Lebanon Police Department Officers. The excuse was that they did not have room to accommodate me. Coincidentally, or not so, Delisa Draper a victim of the 19 August 2005 fire who was charged in connection with it was asked to leave. I have attended numerous other Lincoln Day Dinners and political events throughout the state and never have I been asked or told to leave any of those.

Although I have been a child advocate for years and participated in numerous child-related events both as a participant and volunteer never have I seen Judge David participate in any. For someone who claims to be such an advocate for children you would expect to see him at least once volunteering in a hands-on activity. It seems that only his name appears.

Just to top it off, staff in the court house have relayed stories to me about his dictatorial practices and the tirades he would go into with them. There are numerous other "stories" from courthouse staff, police, lawyers and more about him that I don't have recorded so I won't bother mentioning them. Overall though, they paint a picture of someone who abuses his power and authority.

Today, more information came out about the Barnes v State of Indiana case following a meeting between Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and members of Campaign for Liberty and the public. Zoeller was asked why he sought this opinion from the State Supreme Court. His response was that he had to follow the wishes of the prosecutor. He was then specifically asked if he had the discretion whether to pursue transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. He reluctantly replied that he did.

Zoeller released a press statement following the meeting in which he stated that he did not seek a broad interpretation that would allow the Fourth Amendment violations to stand and that the citizens could not resist such violations. However, a reading of the brief indicates that Zoeller did seek a broad ruling and clearly laid the seeds for the ruling made by Justice David. The brief will soon be made public.

A recall page for Steve David has already been started on FaceBook. I encourage you to join. I think it is also needed for Zoeller as he has not been forthright in his explanation that he did not seek a broad ruling that expanded police powers well beyond what is constitutionally acceptable. Justice Dickson's dissent was correct and was narrowly tailored to accomplish the legitimate police purpose.

I have made it no secret in the past that Steve David was a climber who violated the rights of litigants in the courtroom and operated in a corrupt manner. To this day I will still say that he is corrupt, has taken under-the-table payments to fix at least one case, and has violated his oath of office.

But I leave it up to you to decide. If you were a public figure seeking to ascend in your field and I had very publicly made those allegations would you sue me for defamation or seek an injunction to require the removal of such statements? Judge David never has nor has he disputed my claims. Judge David dismissed a lawsuit seeking access to the public records, by statute, about a girl who was detained at the Boone County Jail and who had alleged to me that she had been sexually assaulted. He then placed a No Contact Order on her and then one on me which barred her from sending information to me or me from receiving it. Why would a judge not want a child having access to a child advocate? I alleged that at my trial I would reveal "evidence of corruption" by Judge David and Prosecutor Meyer but David would not allow me to have a trial and dismissed the charge, over my objection. If there was nothing to hide, why hide?

If I was a judge and a criminal defendant alleged he would produce evidence that I was involved in corruption, I'd say bring it on. But maybe that is just because I am not corrupt!

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Happy Mother's Day to Mothers

Today is Mother's Day. Established by Anna Marie Jarvis in 1905 as a way of honouring her mother, Ann Jarvis, who died on May 9, 1905. The elder Jarvis had pioneered attempts at establishing a “Mother's Friendship Day” to reunite families who had been divided during the War Between the States. The holiday was declared official by the state of West Virginia in 1910, and the rest of states followed quickly.

Like most other holidays I believe Mother's day has been trivialized and can be added to the ever growing list of commercial events rather than a day set aside to reflect upon the contributions of the people or person it was intended to honour. I still wonder each year what attaching stickers of the characters of the latest popular animated children's program to coloured eggs has to do with Jesus.

Jarvis also opposed the commercialization of Mother's Day which had become rampant within 10 years. She saw the purchase of greeting cards as a means for those who were too lazy to write a personal letter. Jarvis was arrested in 1948 for disturbing the peace while protesting against the commercialization of Mother's Day, and she finally said that she "...wished she would have never started the day because it became so out of control ..."

I am dismayed by the far-reaching stretch that card makers and others are attempting to make to sell more products. Apparently it is becoming common to provide your grandmother, aunt, sister or practically any female who has given birth with a Mother's Day greeting card. It should really come as no surprise though.

Since the 1970's motherhood has been trivialized through the feminist movement which sought to limit women's choices. Being a stay-at-home mother and providing the necessary, intimate care to your children was projected as caving in to the demands of a male-dominated society and was no longer acceptable. The myth that children could be reared just as effectively in institutionalized settings was projected.

Women who chose child-rearing of their own children were failing to meet “their needs”. Instead they were programmed to forgo early childhood and pursue additional institutionalized education for the purpose of entering the job market as a career woman. Many bought into it which – with what they lacked in parenting skills and commitment – they made up for in denial.

Grandmothers, aunts, sisters and practically any other person are now the ones who are raising many children in our contemporary society while birth mothers abandon their obligation in search of other pursuits. We often hear about how society has failed our children or it takes a village to raise them. Your children are not mine or my neighbors though, they are yours and if they are failed or need to be raised by a village it is because of two people – their mother and father – who should have raised them but failed. Still, all too often mothers and fathers are willing to shirk their responsibility and hand their children over to a stranger to raise.

For all those mothers who made personal sacrifices to provide their children with the important elements in their lives – regular routines, rituals, consistency and the sense that you know and care about them – you are the ones deserving of the rewards of parenthood and the accolades of Mother's Day.

For all those who laconically pass their children off to be raised in an institution or by a nanny, you should give it up. You are no more a mother than the “family” dog. You should have had a parakeet instead. That way you could just throw a towel over its cage and quiet it whenever you are too busy or just not interested enough to tend to its needs. Finding a babysitter or having to take your car to be detailed to clean up after the children is not the type of "sacrifice" that a true parent makes for their children.

Instead of you pseudo mothers lining your dresser top or some other acquisition with the impersonal cards and flowers you received for Mother's Day, you should bag that stuff now while the nanny clears the dinner table and prepares the children for bed. Put that bag in the hand of your child as you send her off in the morning to the primary caregiver and enclose a note that says this: “Thanks for picking up where I have failed. You deserve these Mother's Day praises more than me.

Better yet don't bother. You have already rationalized your abuse and neglect of the child you chose to have. Why would I possibly think you would owe up to it and accept that you are only a mother through biology. Tell your husband to bang the nanny tonight. At least that way “your” next child will have a better chance of getting raised by his mother.

If you need assistance in building a relationship with your child then please contact my scheduler to arrange an appointment with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.