REQUEST FOR AMICI

(Supporting Petition for Certiorari)

When: Due to my error in formatting, the initial brief was not fully accepted. I am
conditionally perfected. I have an opportunity to redeem myself in sixty days, which I
assure the readers, as God is my witness, I will do, on Friday, April 8, 2016. As fate and the
rules would have it (and I called legal clerk Mr. travers to ensure this was the case) all is now
on hold awaiting my next filing. At that time the clock begins to run. Thus any amici
received after Wednesday, April 13 (allowing my brief to clear the anthrax screen) but
before Tuesday, May 10, 2016 will be timely.
Why: A fair Question: Is it worth the effort? (See end)
Please read the petition, posted here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert
aka http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw
Appendix is posted here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/Appendix-brown-complete-120pages
aka http://tinyurl.com/h93pukd
Follows an overview of the issues animating the controversy (all from the pending petition):
Overview
This is a whistleblower case in the professional licensure context. The Indiana Board of Law
Examiners (hereinafter BLE), through pretense and the cynical misuse of mental health
resources have punished a socio-political dissident by denying him good character and/or mental
fitness certification and having him banished from court for life. Why? For, in the main,
petitioning the government for a redress of constitutional grievances
QUESTION ONE PRESENTED:
Does a state violate the federal constitution when it denies a law license (and forever
bans from re-application) through issuance of an order devoid of findings of fact and
conclusions of law in response to an application from an applicant in good standing from
another state (and approved to practice in the denying states federal district court as
well as this Court) who has no disciplinary history and who passed both the denying
states bar examination and required ethics examination?
QUESTION TWO PRESENTED:
Does a state violate the federal constitution when holding the practice of law to be a
privilege contingent upon an attorneys pledging of loyalty to the state uber alles,
repudiation of sincerely held beliefs, cessation of petitioning the government for a
redress of grievances and acquiescence to ultra vires orders.
QUESTION THREE PRESENTED:
Does a state violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when retaliating against a
licensure applicant for failing to comply with coercive orders demanding the tender of
self-funded psychological testing from government-designated private practitioners as
a predicate for character and fitness evaluation when said orders are predicated upon
the government regarding the applicant in need of mental health evaluations due to the
Bryan J. Brown call for amici

(260) 515-8511 // bryanjbrownlaw@gmail.com

labeling of his court-filed allegations of government corruption as conduct and behavior?

The following expands upon the above, again excerpts from my brief. If you do not have the
brief in printed booklet form, and would like to, call or email me and I will mail one out.
QUESTION ONE Highlight (from petitioner)
Petitioner has never been disciplined as an attorney nor allowed his law license to lapse. Petitioner
submitted an application to the Indiana Supreme Court (hereinafter ISC) in November, 2013.
Twenty-three months later, after allowing the Applicant to sit for its bar examination, the ISC denied
Petitioner (nee Applicant 24128) admission, ordering him to never again apply in a one page order
that adopted no findings of fact and set forth no conclusions of law.
QUESTION TWO highlight:
In the afterglow from that inquisition the magistrate found she could not certify Applicant due to
concerns over his willingness to obey state and federal law even when doing so violates his
conscience. The magistrate was therein quoting directly from the BLEs 2009 report rejecting
Petitioner. Like the 2009 Panel, the magistrate firmly believed that Petitioners beliefs called his
fitness to practice law into question. App.8-9
QUESTION THREE highlight:
Petitioner filed his third official ADA complaint in response to Board counsels accusations. The
Indiana Supreme Courts federally-mandated ADA coordinator, aka Board counsel, then
investigated herself and weighed Petitioners complaint in her balances.
Unsurprisingly, she concluded Petitioner failed to make a prima facia claim under the
retaliation prong. She failed to consider the regarded as analysis. Since Petitioner had declined a
private, off the record meeting with Board counsel, and since, given the totality of the circumstances
a meeting with none other than her would be acceptable to the government, Board counsel (whose
words were the subject of the complaint) summarily and sua sponte dismissed the ADA complaint
without the need of further review or appellate activity.
She signed the dismissal of the complaint as ADA Coordinator and copied the Board President,
Executive Director and her supervisors all the way up to (but not including) Indiana Supreme Court
Judges. None copied took exception to the due process her investigation had rendered. App.120
UNNECESSARY BACKGROUND (to understand in full)
Petitioner previously warned that the Indiana Supreme Court had allowed the BLE to misuse psychological
resources and decree an Edict of Non-Toleration, as is set forth in this petition for certiorari, the result of the
2007-09 bar application processing:

http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh

That petition was not granted. While it was pending the instant Petitioner filed a civil rights action
against the state and private agents whom the Bar Examiners had used to discriminate against Applicant
24128. That petitioner for certiorari is found here: http://tinyurl.com/h46f8zh
That petition was not granted either.
A robust attempt to utilize the raw inquisitional power granted the BLE, as documented in the above
two previous attempts, is well-displayed at bar.
With or without the unnecessary background (for a full understanding), the following highlights
(excerpts) shed light on the currently pending petition seeking certiorari:

Bryan J. Brown call for amici

(260) 515-8511 // bryanjbrownlaw@gmail.com

Areas in which Amici could be helpful (other than the obvious revealed
by the questions presented):

Rights of conscience for license seekers (any profession)

Loyalty testing and/or ideological acid tests as a predicate for government
benefits/licensure.
Limited recourse bar applicants have when facing unconstitutional
processing (Rooker-Feldman and standing, for example)
Whistleblower protection as against government agencies (including right to
petition for a redress of grievances, Noerr-Pennington doctrine.)
Class of one EP claims in the professional licensure context
Due process in the face of off-the-record hearings, evidentiary nonstandards
and other anomalies briefed.
Arbitrary and capriciousness in the licensure context (see Star Chamber)
Misuse of governmental authority, to wit, purging records and violating
policies, see esp App 120 and compare to ISC policy on ADA appeals:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/4213.htm
Government misuse of mental health services in most any fashion
Mental health labeling as social control (see work of Dr. Thomas Szasz)
Outsourcing of government investigations to private agencies neither
trained in nor responsible to the constitutions.
The Department of Justices investigation and subsequent civil action
adverse to the Louisiana bar examiners for quite similar actions. See App.
86-93 (http://www.ada.gov/louisiana-bar-lof.pdf)
Damages for reputation and time as a result of unconstitutional government
processing.
Review of law review and professional literature on the character and fitness
testing and how it tends to become politicized.
An academic resource to consult:
Patrick L. Baude, An Essay on the Regulation of the Legal Profession and the Future of Lawyers'
Characters, 68 IND. L.J. 647 (1993) (Former President of Indiana Board of Law Examiners revealing
grave misgivings about the politicization of character and fitness evaluations.)
http://tinyurl.com/zyss8r7

If none of these hit the mark, email me, I can probably come up with a
few more
Rule 37. Brief for an Amicus Curiae

1. An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its
attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve
this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored. An amicus curiae brief may be filed only by an
attorney admitted to practice before this Court as provided in Rule 5.

2. (a) An amicus curiae brief submitted before the Court's consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari,
motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, may be

Bryan J. Brown call for amici

(260) 515-8511 // bryanjbrownlaw@gmail.com

filed if accompanied by the written consent of all parties, or if the Court grants leave to file under
subparagraph 2(b) of this Rule. An amicus curiae brief in support of a petitioner or appellant shall be filed
within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket or a response is called for by the Court, whichever is
later, and that time will not be extended.

FINALLY:
Is it worth the effort?
I have very good reason to believe that big changes are underway at the Ind S.Ct under the
rule of the new Chief Justice Loretta Rush. More details on her upon request, but see her
opinion here: http://tinyurl.com/hspojr9
Since 2009 Indiana has gained three new justices, and one more will be seated at the end of
May. Each of these four is likely more constitutionally attuned than the long-serving judge
whom they replaced. A springtime in the Hoosier judiciary, if you will.
If I am correct, then the court is likely to allow amici, and is, in fact, desirous that my petition
be heard. (Did they not set me up very well with their order, see question one, supra?)
One reason I so believe is due to this big shake up at the Ind S.Ct. announced March 10, 2016
: Could it be that some colored far outside due process lines are now on the bubble
awaiting re-assignment?
http://tinyurl.com/j2v3ac8
More details of why I believe the Ind S.Ct. is likely to agree to
amici briefing as to my pending petition available upon request.
Recent stories in news cycle of interest and/or online relevant resources
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/state_bars_may_probe_applicants_behavior_but
_not_mental_health_status/ (best article on this no free longer on line, see ABA Would Ease Mental
Health Screening for New Lawyers Karen Sloan, The National Law Journal August 3, 2015

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/is_grievance_filed_over_lawyers_blog_post_a_lightwei
ght_defamation_claim/?
utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/persecution_of_christians_in_america_its_not_just_over
_there.html
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texas-attorney-general-faces-ethics-investigation-for-same-sex-marriage-fal
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/12/milo-twitter-embarking-on-a-war-against-conservative-points-of-view/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article60064956.html (Christian conservatives
pivotal in the South, and feeling under siege)

http://tinyurl.com/h2vbflk (The Troubling Rise of the Legal Profession's Good Moral Character,
Swisher)
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/misuse.htm (Misuse of Psychological Tests in Forensic Settings:
Some Horrible Examples)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/us/kathleen-kane-pennsylvania-attorney-general-fights-for-her-politicallife.html?_r=0

Bryan J. Brown call for amici

(260) 515-8511 // bryanjbrownlaw@gmail.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry
http://constitution.com/obamas-latest-communist-push/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/obama-has-sentenced-whistleblowers-to-31-timesthe-jail-time-of-all-prior-u-s-presidents-combined.html
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/police-whistleblower-sent-home-told-to-seepsychiatrist/story-e6freon6-1225785521391
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_sad_fate_of_americas_whistleblowers_20151019
End Notes: This report available with hyperlinks, merely email
bryanjbrownlaw@gmail.com. Potential friends of the court needing counsel or
counsel seeking friends of the court can call me (260) 515-8511 for aid. A brief
need not be finished via perfect binding and thus can be produced at a local Fed
Ex for less than one might expect. Call me for any details. Thank you for reading
and considering this.

Bryan J. Brown call for amici

(260) 515-8511 // bryanjbrownlaw@gmail.com