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

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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: