INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, IN RE BAR APPLICANT NO. 24128 SUPREME COURT NO. 94800-0910-BL-446 APPLICANT'S REPLY TO BOARD'S RESPONSE COMES NOW, Petitioner Bryan J. Brown, pro se, filing this reply to the Board of Law Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Admission of Regrets, Apology and Plea for Equitable Consideration. (Applicant only last week received the Board? filing and confirmation from the Court that the initial motion was filed with the Court): 1. Applicant did indeed err when typing vo digits of the previous case number, striking nines rather than zeros. Applicant's error in reading the “S” as a “S” in the case number is consistent in the case file, as that it was an error predicated upon the Applicant's initial lack of understanding of standard case numbering in this process, as well as the difficulty in distinguishing a “5” from an “S” in the elerk’s handwriting. Applicant did not error as to the last three digits as the Board alleges in paragraph one, to wit, Applicant did not use the number 466 as the Board reports, but rather the correct number of 446. The Board likewise erred -- itself transposing numbers in its response to the Applicant's filing, 2. Applicant has tendered a replacement cover page to the clerk with the “599” replaced by "S00" in order to cure this typographical error. 3. Beyond concerns as to typographical form, the substance of the Board’s recent filing demonstrates an ongoing problem that has plagued this application from the beginning, said problem being the difficulty in communicating jurisprudential and foundational concepts that are crucial to understanding this applicant’s character structure and moral comerstone, Thismatter was not helped by the Board’s mistyping of the paragraph lifted (out of context) from the Applicant’s previous motion -- a typographical error by the Board which affected syntax. 4, In light of concerns about the leading role played by the recently terminated Executive Director in my application process, I will endeavor to communicate these philosophical and jurisprudential concems anew. I will also set forth how the post-processing evidence of potential bias, animus and/or discriminatory intent on the part of the former Executive Director (Linda L, Loepker) could have adversely affected the processing of my file. 5. Several documents tendered to the former Executive Director raised my concer of potential religious discrimination, including, but not limited to: The questions put to me by Dr. Steve Ross (ostensibly due to his pre-briefing by government agents), his report commenting upon my religious motivation, the questions and report of Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, the syllogism rendering my Catholic faith the cause of the government's concern found in the Bowman and Sudrovech reports, Examiner Charlotte Westerhaus’ direct inquiry into my allegiance to man’s law given my theology (see initial inquiry from hearing transcript), which was itself.a direct result of the following sentence from page 4 of the Bowman report: “Like many people of faith of past millennia, [Brown] firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws.” 6. My penultimate concern — and the reason that I attached Church documents to the motion now under consideration -- is located in the final paragraphs of the Board of Law Examiner's September 25, 2009 0} ‘The Applicant now has obtained an order vacating the federal district court judgment requiring him to pay $61,000. He no longer is under that legal obligation, But he made clear to the Hearing Panel that we would not pay that judgment even if collection efforts were made because he could not provide financial support to the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, who were providers of abortions. He testified at the hearing to his obligation to disobey laws that contradicted his ' This is the only paragraph that directly disqualifies me from the practice of law in Indiana ~and that due to my religious opinions on abortion and my duties to God.religious beliefs under certain circumstances. While he spent several years using the federal courts to vindicate his clients’ rights, at the same time he flouted a judgment against himself and indicated that he would not obey certain court, orders and judgments that he believed to be unjust. The Hearing Panel believes. that a member of the Indiana bar must obey Indiana and federal law, even when doing so violates an attorney's conscience, and that an avowed willingness not to do so is disqualifying. 7. The above paragraph finds all attorneys who hold to the Natural Law suspect. As one such attorney, [ assure this Court that I certainly plan to hold the same views on this matter in 2014 that [hold today. I believe the evidence demonstrates that the former Executive Director of the Board of Law Examiners had something to do with the religious focus to my file processing, including the drafting of the above paragraph. For that reason I perceive the need and ‘opportunity to bring these matters to the attention of this Honorable Court in this hour. 8. The Bar Examiners question this plea for equitable relief due to my framing of it as a prayer for executive clemency. My appeal to the King’s mercy arises out of my patrimony asa ‘twelfth generation American, My progenitor on this continent fled a monarch bent on denying Catholics the right to be Catholic. In that instance the government descended from King Henry VIII. In this instance the government appears to be channeling the same spirit. Anti-Catholic sentiment is not uncommon in our American experience ~ for example, the New York Constitution of 1775 (which remained the law of that that Land deep into the 1800°s) read as follows: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign ing, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as ci One only need research the history of the Ku Klux Klan (and its modern descendants) in the State of Indiana to find similar sentiments publicly expressed. My cultural heritage and culturalidentity is informed by and formed by this historic antipathy to my chosen faith tradition ~ the Faith of my Fathers 9. The above-quoted paragraph from the Board of Law Examiners appears to state the same proposition as the above stated clause from the New York Constitution, albeit in a fashion that currently strikes only at me and not (at least not yet) all applicants seeking an Indiana law license who hold to a “higher laws” construct. 10. Because it remains my belief that I faced much faith-based hostility in the processing of my file, and because I was able to uncover evidence supporting that allegation only after my file ‘was closed, I have brought this motion in equity seeking review against the allegation of a “secretive” faith-based hostility. 11, The Examiners accuse my pleading of launching a “collateral attack” upon their September 25, 2009, thirty-one page, legal citation-free, unsigned order denying me the “right” to practice law in this state. (An order that may have been authored by Linda L. Loepker.) This Honorable Court, they argue, upheld their order on November 16, 2009 (the International Day of ‘Toleration), and thus this discussion is completed and need not be had again — at least until my religious beliefs are again subjected to Board review (and potential disapproval) in 2014. 12, Were [not able to cite to post-processing evidence of bias, animus or similar sentiment on the part of the former IBLE Executive Director this would be correct. But that evidence allows me and this Honorable Court an opportunity to revisit this discussion. My equity-framed appeal to this Honorable Court is pled in an admittedly unique fashion that brings to the Courts attention post-processing allegations of bias that are seemingly corroborated by the recent removal of the Executive Director of the Board of Law Examiners from office. My prayer for a review of my file in light of this new evidence is filed with a prayer that the following aspirational language of Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard will guide this Honorable Court in a reconsideration of my application to practice law in Indiana:[SJerious-minded members of the judiciary, people who mean business about the oaths they take, know that the public needs more than justice that is dished out according to party affiliation, The publie expects that judges will hear facts and apply law and do justice regardless of who you are, or what you're worth, or what party you belong to. Good judges do as much as human beings can fo make good on that expectation. How can I resolve this case in a way that’s fair and impartial, consistent with the laws? What's the just outcome without respect to person or position? “Counsel, Computers, Compensation, and a Few Words About Dimpled Chads” State of the Judiciary, January 22, 2001 http://www.in.sov/judiciary/supreme/stjud/2001 pdf 14. The gravamen of my claims now awaiting the filing of a notice of appeal (due by May 20) in federal court focus only upon a subset of my concerns as to the processing of my application. As this Court likely realizes, one of the cases employed to send that litigation toward the Seventh wit Court of Appeals for appellate review frames out the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Justice John Paul Stevens filed a brief dissent in Rooker. Many commentators believe that Stevens? thirty year old dissent has now become the opinion of most on the federal bench, 15, Justice Stevens set the scene for a discussion of the federal constitution and bar applicant screening with this opening statement: There are many crafts in which the State performs a licensing function. That function is important, not only to those seeking access to a gainful occupation, but to the members of the public served by the profession as well. State-created rules governing the grant or denial of licenses must comply with constitutional standards, and must be administered in accordance with due process of law. Given these acknowledged constitutional limitations on action by the State, it should be beyond question that a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over an individual's lawsuit raising federal constitutional challenges either to licensing rules themselves or to their application in his own case. District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 489 (1983)(Stevens, J. dissenting) 16, After that cogent introduction, Justice Stevens opines that if plaintiffs challenging a bar admissions decision by a state court prove facts comparable to the allegations made by the plaintiff in error and appellant in Vick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886), they would clearly be entitled to relief in the United States district court. If they were seeking admission to any other craft regulated by the State, they would unquestionably have such a right. Feldman, 460 U.S. 490, fn.2.17. My petition for certiorari did indeed frame my concerns in Yiek Wo terms. The handwritten notes (Linda Loepker’s) attached to my file are further evidence of a Fick Wo-like fact pattern at bar. 18. [have filed the instant motion due to my belief that due respect and doctrines of comity should move me to allow this Honorable Court ample opportunity to remedy this perceived injustice prior to further review in the federal court, If this Court does not strike the pending motion then no notice of appeal will be filed in the federal matter prior to the thirty days allowed by law. 19. Tension filled my application process due to my former civil disobedience and current dedication to such politically incorrect concepts as the Kingship of Chaist (see the transcript of my hearing before the Board of Law Examiners). This tension is understandable from a socio- legal perspective. According to Dr. Judith Boss, in Ethies for Life (McGraw-Hill, 2010)? “Natural law ethicists who engage in civil disobedience often come into conflict with the law because of their rejection of cultural relativism and their belief in a higher moral law.” Boss, p 172, Thi -ollision course” is set, according to Boss, due to the Natural Law-adherent’s belief that “natural law is higher than human law,” and thus, “when human laws or cultural norms conflict with natural or any of the higher laws, civil disobedience may be not only morally acceptable but morally required.” Boss, p. 168 * teach from Boss’ textbook on ethics at the University of Saint Francis. | began teaching as an adjunct professor ‘of philosophy less than four months after the Board denied me certification for morals and character, and have now taught seven sections, more than 175 students, without missing a single class. I have been offered two additional sections in the Fall of 2011. | offer this as aneedotal evidence rebutting the government doctors” unfounded innuendoes as to my true nature. AAs in my previous roles as deputy attomey general and constitutional litigator, 1 am functioning quite fine, albeit profoundly religiously informed and directed, in my current role, And that jous component certainly seems to be the sticking point in the processing of my file, atleast as far as the former Executive Director of the Board and those whom she influenced were concemed. My character was assassinated, ‘and unfairly so, through the application process. This motion secks an inquest into that process, bringing forth evidence thatthe terminated Executive Director acted in an unprofessional fashion, atthe very least.20. | have attempted to communicate this point with the Board of Law Examiners, but fear that their prior Executive Director either never understood or frankly rejected the concept. The point is merely that the Roman Catholic Church, in its history and continuous teaching office, preserves and promotes this Higher Law doctrine to which I must remain faithful. I took an oath to preserve and promote this historic teaching when I joined the Roman Catholic Chureh in 1994 {after much research and reflection) and then pledged that if the choice of denying this teaching or sacrificing my life, liberty or sacred honor were put to me ~- I would make whatever sacrifice was demanded ‘That pledge is not unique to me. One of the greatest modem spokesmen for this culture- redeeming message of hope is not a Catholic, but rather a jailed Protestant pastor: Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openily advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws. hutp://www.africa.upenn.edw/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.himl 22. Those who hold differing theological paradigms and/or moral codes (such as cultural relativism or rule utilitarianism) often hear in such expositions of the Higher Law a dedication to lawlessness, Just the opposite is the case, To again quote Martin Luther King, Jr. from the same jailhouse letter: Thope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do 1 advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That ® Any authority that makes such a demand of a Christian sets themselves over and against the authority of the Risen king of the Universe and His Church. (See previous catechetical submission at para, 399),23. ‘would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly. lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Thave lived the above to a greater degree than most applicants to the Indiana bar. T cannot help but believe that had my “cause” been the exact same as MLK’s then my application would have met far fewer headwinds. Having found evidence in my “nonpublic” file of headwinds ostensibly arising out of the biases of the former Executive Director, I pray for a review of my file by persons not so prejudiced against religious faith and/or conservative values. 24, [realize that some — and even some not prejudiced against my Catholic faith -- could argue that my unlawful recaleitrance was greater than MLK’s. While ] would not agree with that appraisal, I think all would agree that my alleged recalcitrance does not rise to the level found in the following trial transcript: The Court {Ordering the defendant to stand up), Has the prisoner anything to say why sentence shall not be pronounced? ‘The Prisoner —Yes, your honor, | have many things to say; for in your ordered verdict of guilty. you have trampled under foot every vital principle of our government. My natural rights, my civil rights, my political rights, my judicial rights, are all alike ignored. The Court —The Court must insist the prisoner has been tried according to the established forms of law. ‘The Prisoner —Yes, your honor, but by forms of law all made by men, interpreted by men, administered by men, in favor of men, and against women; and hence, your honor’s ordered verdict of guilty, against a United States citizen for the exercise of "that citizen's right ro vote," simply because that citizen was a ‘woman and not a man. But, yesterday, the same man-made forms of law, declared ita erime punishable with $1,000 fine and six months imprisonment, for you, or me. or any of us, to give a cup of cold water, a crust of bread, or a night's shelter toa panting fugitive as he was tracking his way to Canada. And every man or woman in whose veins coursed a drop of human sympathy violated that wicked law, reckless of consequences, and was justified in so doing. As then, the slaves who got their freedom must take it over, or under, or through the unjust forms of law, precisely so, now, must women, to get their right to a voice in thisgovernment, take it; and [ have taken mine, and mean to take it at every possible opportunity. ‘The Court —The Court orders the prisoner to sit down. It will not allow another word. The Prisoner —When I was brought before your honor for trial, I hoped for a broad and liberal interpretation of the Constitution and its recent amendments, that should declare all United States citizens under its protecting aegis that should declare equality of rights the national guarantee to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. But failing to get this justice—failing, even, to get a trial by a jury not of my peets—I ask not leniency at your hands—but rather the full rigors of the law, The Court —The prisoner will stand up. The sentence of the Court is that you pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs of the prosecution. ‘The Prisoner —May it please your honor, I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty. Al the stock in trade I possess is a $10,000 debt, incurred by publishing my paper—The Revolution—four years ago, the sole object of which ‘was to educate all women to do precisely as I have done, rebel against your man- ‘made, unjust, unconstitutional forms of law, that tax, fine, imprison and hang ‘women, while they deny them the right of representation in the government; and I shall work on with might and main to pay every dollar of that honest debt, but not a penny shall go to this unjust claim. And I shall earnestly and persistently continue to urge all women to the practical recognition of the old revolutionary maxim, that "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." Source: http://eessba.rutgers.edu/does/sbatrial.html* 25, This overt “flirtation” with criminal contempt should be compared to the statement of the Honorable Judge William C. Lee, who penned the following in the very same case -- even the very same ruling -- that the Law Examiners used against my admission in the above-quoted (#6) paragraph: As for Brown, he is correct that the record does not indicate that he has ever done anything to violate any order of this court.... The court also hastens to note that Brown has always demonstrated respect for this court and conducted himself in a professional and courteous manner when appearing at any proceeding before this ‘an Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony on the Charge of illegal Voting, (Rochester, N.Y., 1874), 81-85,court including the most recent hearing on July 24, 2009.... The evidence and the record before the court at the present time demonstrates that Brown may very well be under an unfair and unintended burden by the presence of the permanent injunction in this case and its associated ancillary orders. Also, as stated, no party to this lawsuit violated the injunction or its amendments during the time that the FWWHO continued to occupy the Webster Street property. Brane v. WHO, case 1:90-ev-00066-WCL document 169 filed 08/06/2009. 26. Yet despite this lack of finding of contempt I have been sentenced to five years punishment for having the audacity to appeal to the Higher Law while this same Court holds Susan B. ‘Anthony in the highest possible esteem. See http:/Avww.in gov/judiciary/cite/lessons/susan-b- anthony/index.himl and Exhibit A, attached, 27. This Honorable Court likewise celebrates (and thus holds out for emulation) Helen Gougar, who encouraged civil disobedience (in the form of unlawful voting) by hundreds while she was a member of the bar of Indiana, See My Place is in the Voting Booth: Hoosier Suffragette Helen M. Gougar, Indianapolis, November 16, 2010.5 hitp:/mww.in,gow/judiciary/cite/lessons/gougar/index. html 28. According to a source promoted by this Honorable Court, this civilly disobedient activist, Determined to rally the troops of Indiana women to the suffrage cause, ... encouraged all women of the state of Indiana to join her at the polls for the November 1894 election, At the state Woman’s Christian Temperance Union convention in October of 1894, Gougar persuaded 300 women to pledge that they would go to the polls and attempt to vote in November.11 On November 6, election day, the women of Indiana delivered on their promises: newspapers noted that well over one hundred women attempted to vote in the election. Gougar herself—accompanied by an entourage including her husband and a number of supporters—attempted to vote in the Tippecanoe County voting precinct in which she lived, and “by previous arrangement with the election board,” voting administrators permitted her to enter a voting booth and request state, county, and township ballots.13 Helen Gougar Biographical Essay authored by Renee Stowiteky for Stanford University’s Women’s Legal History Program (tendered to Professor Barbara Babcock in 2006 and posted on the Indiana Supreme Court’s website as a supporting resource for Exhibit B at tp: //www. in.govijudiciary/cite/lessons/gougar/index.ltm!) 5 (The Indiana Supreme Court will hold back-to-back productions of its interactive drama "My Place isin the Voting Booth" on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 10:30am and 12:30pm. These productions are for students from any Indiana sehools, home schools, or scout groups.”)ARRESTED | Miss Susan B. Anthony for VOTING The Trial of Susan B. Anthony 1:00 PM, Monday, November 4, 2002 | Indiana Supreme Court Indiana State House, 200 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis *+1870s dress encouraged FREE &OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Miss Susan B. Anthony was arrested for voting in the Presidential Election in Rochester, NY on November 5, 1872. Her trial was June 17, 1873 This trial re-enacted with audience participation features: RAY BOOMHOWER, Traces Editor, Opening Remarks, Timeline HANK FINCKEN, A National Theater Company of One REFRESHMENTS = See it on the WEB at www.in.gov/judiciary/education | A Festival of Spirit and Place Event Sponsored by: + Unitarian Universalist Church of Indianapolis + Indiana Supreme Court + Indiana AAUW Indiana Commission for Women + Indiana Humanities Council « Indiana NOW Indiana Women’s History AssociationMy Place is inthe Voting Booth: Hoosier Suffragette Helen M. Gougar Intp://www.in.gov'judiciary/cite/lessons/gougar/index.him Courts in the Classroom Lesson Plans and Materials My Place is in the Voting Booth: Hoosier Suffragette F Gougar Indianapolis, November 16, 2010 2010 Production The Indiana Supreme Court will hold back-to-back productions of its interactive drama "My Place is in the Voting Booth" on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 10:30am and 12:30pm. These productions are for students from any Indiana schools, home schools, or scout groups. About the Production The Court hosted this interactive program beginning Fall 2009 to commemorate a famous 19th century ‘case about women and voting. Hoosier suffragette Helen Gougar was denied the right to vate in Tippecanoe County election and took her case all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court (Gougar ¥. Timberiake), During this program, students from fourth grade to high school participated in a re-enactment of events sufraunding this case by playing roles such as Helen's family, attorneys, or Supreme Court judges, holding scene cards, or reading definitions, Get Ado for POF D Get Winde for Window Watch the ARCI ‘Webcasts of the 2010 Productior ‘We invite classroom teachers, home school groups, history clubs and so forth to contact skidwell@cours state in us if you are interested in participating in future programs. For information about other fied trip programs in the Indiena Supreme Court courtroom, please visit bttpvwww.in.goviudiciary/cite!trips. htm. This program was developed by Courts in the Classroom and Jennifer Adams, Assistant Professor at DePauw University with funding from the Indiana Humanities Council ‘Windows Media: My Place is in th Booth: Hoosier Helen M. Gouge 11162010] 10:30em Supporting Materials ‘Some che folowing documents are avail in Abe POF format only. Leen ee ‘You must have Adee Acrobat Reader installed en you computer to view hem. Windows Media: Document Title POF | My Place isin tt “My Plece is in the Voting Bi 4 Script TX | Booth: Hoosier Teacher Guide for "My Place isin the Voting Boot wm lfeen ni cover Gougar v. Timberlake a Kriebel, Robert C. Where the Saints Have Trod. The Life of Helen Gouger. West ~My Place isin the Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1986. in Previous Years \Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Gougar, 84 Ind. 176 (1882) Ba Gougar 02 (1895) a Ex& of 5/9/2011 12:36 PN29. Itis crucial to note that both Susan B. Anthony and Helen Gouger appealed to the Higher Laws doctrine to justify their rejection of the social mores, conventions and even positive laws of their day, just as Martin Luther King, Jr. would half ‘a century later. These heroes of Americana swere neither cultural relativists nor rule utilitarians. Nor were they positivists. They rather, like me, looked back to the Republic that was Rome for the sure foundation of their political science: [The true law] is eternal and unchangeable law valid for all nations and for all times and there will be one master and one rule, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.” Marcus Tullius Cicero, The Republic 30. Some seem to believe that this political science was rendered passé once the civil rights movement seemingly determined that secularist political correctness rendered such foundations {oo religious to invoke ~ or even tolerate. While such may indeed be the case among the current cadre of Ametican elites (dedicated, as they are, to an aggressive secularism), not all Americans. are willing to tum their back on 4000 years of Western Civilization. I am not, and that is the ‘king point of my present and unenviable position before this Honorable Court 31. Fidelity to the ric “higher laws” perspective is not as rare as the ruling secularists in the legal profession may hope, as was recently demonstrated in a law review article written by Dr. Robbie George which opens in this fashion The concept of "natural law” is central to the Western tradition of thought about morality, politics, and law, Although the Wester tradition is not united around a single theoretical account of natural law, its principal architects and leading spokesmen--from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King--have shared a fundamental belief that humanly created "positive" law is morally good or bad--just or unjust--depending on its conformity to the standards of a "natural" (viz., moral) law that is no mere human creation. The natural law is, thus, a "higher" law, albeit a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation. St, Paul, for example, refers to a law "written on the heart” which informs the consciences even of the Gentiles who do not have the revealed law of Moses to guide them (Romans 2:14-15). Many centuries later, ‘Thomas Jefferson appeals to "the law of nature and nature's God" in justifying the American Revolution. Most modem commentators agree that the Founders were firm believers in natural law and sought to craft a constitution that would conform to its requirements, as they understood them, and embody its basic principles forthe design of a just political order. The framers of the Constitution sought to create institutions and procedures that would afford respect and protection to those basic rights ("natural rights") which people possess, not as privileges or opportunities granted by the state, but as principles of natural law which it is the moral duty of the state to respect and protect. CoLLoquium: NATURAL LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 2269 (Dr. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University), 32. ‘The Founders of Indiana left us a clear and certain statement of their dedication to this Higher Laws concept in the Constitution of 1851, which remains the organic legal foundation for this Honorable Court. The Preamble of that crucial document opens thanking ALMIGHTY GOD, and the first seven articles, Indiana's Bill of Rights, are focused upon the paramount right to put the Laws of this Deity first and foremost in one’s life. 33. [ repeatedly raised section five" (as well as others) of the Indiana Bill of Rights throughout my processing (see file), receiving nothing save disdain from the former Executive Director. disdain that is found hidden in my file in the form of handwritten notes to this Honorable Court disparaging me. Her note disparaging me, and general refusal to meet with me, retum my correspondence or otherwise treat me as one deserving of human dignity communicated to me the idea that I was an extremist — and unlike Gougar, Anthony and King, an extremist that the Indiana judiciary was unwilling to “celebrate.” 34. Being so processed and so treated brought to mind yet another passage from America’s most treasured jailhouse letter: But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do © “No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for any office of trust or profit.”otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . .." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? 35. Ljoin this Honorable Court in seeking to be an extremist for justice. Attached find Exhibit C, documenting that in 1999 this Honorable Court set up a Commission on Race and Gender Faimess to advance its idea of justice. Had the former Executive Director of the Board of Law Examiners treated me unfairly based upon my race or gender or sexual orientation I could have taken my appeal to that Commission, I was rather treated unfairly, at least so 1 think the evidence leads, due to my religion, my ideology. In specific, due to my agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on the nature of abortion and the paramount import of allegiance to a law higher than the state. This Court had established no Commission to investigate my repeatedly tendered pleas ~ all ignored by the former Executive Director -- for a civil rights review of my file. Many opine that the modern trend is to ignore the civil rights of Christians. 36, ‘The Indiana Supreme Court’s Diversity Summit 2005 addressed such burning topies as “social consciousness and sexual orientation” and “improving diversity in legal education” while not addressing religious discrimination or protecting ideological nonconformity. That is not to say that religion was not discussed, for the keynote address by Harry Belafonte seemingly celebrated the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr., as does this reply brief. 37, Th tremendously successful” event that “generated energy and ideas for improving Indiana’s legal system” opened with remarks from Indiana’s Chief Justice. Those remarks have been characterized as presenting “the legal system’s historic and challenging role in the struggle * Exhibit C: Diversity Summit 2005: An Exchange of Ideas, Indiana for diversity and equality Court Times, Fall/Winter 2005.38 This prayer for equitable relief is presented to raise consciousness on the High Court, and among the Board of Law Examiners, as to a contemporary area in which diversity and equality is threatened. That threat is found when the Indiana Supreme Court rejects an applicant for refusing to deny his religious convictions. That threat is clearly evident on the face of my application, in both the actions -- and the nonactions -- of former Executive Director Linda L. Loepker. For that reason alone this Honorable Court should review my application de novo to ensure that substantive justice has been rendered. Signed this 9" Day of May, 2011 a 827 Webster Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 (260) 515-8511 SERVICE UPON THE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS ‘The undersigned hereby certifies that he served this document, with attachments, upon the State Board of Law Examiners on May 9, 2011 by placing a signed original of the same in the United States mail, postage paid, addressed as follows: Board of Law Examiners clo Acting Executive Director David Remondini 30S. Meridian Street Suite 875 Indianapolis, IN 46204Diversity Summit 2005: An Exchange of Ideas The Indiana Supreme Court Commission on Race and Gender Fairness launched its first Diversity Summit on October 14-15, 2005 at the Madame Walker Theatre and Indiana University School of Law-indianapolis. Nearly 200 people attended this two-day event aimed at promoting dialogue and encouraging participants to ‘examine a number of diversity issues within the legal system. Long-time civil rights activist Harry Belafonte delivered the keynote address, sharing his philosophy that “the role ofthe artist is to not only show life as itis, but show life as it should be.” Diversity Summit 2005 came about as a specific recommendation from the Indiana Supreme Court's Com mission on Race und Gender Faimess, led by former Indiana Supreme Cour justice Myra Selby and Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Ezra Friedlander. Created in 1999, the Commission was charged with examining issues involving race and gender in Indiana courtrooms and making recommendations for improvements. After three years of research, the Commission submitted its Bxecutive Report and Recommendations to the Indiana Supreme Court, making twenty-four recommendations in various areas affecting Indiana’s legal system. As the ‘Commission moves to the implementation phase of the study's recommendations, members placed a high prior- ity on receiving input from other representatives of the judiciary, bar, law schools, bar associations, law en- forcement, corrections, and other entities as to how to best implement these recommendations. Diversity Summit 2005 began with a formal dinner on Friday evening. Given his continued commitment to the goals of the Commission on Race and Gender Fai ress, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard provided opening remarks to commence the Summit, He spoke about the legal system’ shistoric and challenging role in the struggle for diversity and equality. ‘The Saturday schedule for the two-day Summit in- cluded substantive breakout sessions on a variety of diversity topics. Both national and local speakers came to Indianapolis to serve on panels for the following sessions: + 1 Prosecutorial Discretion: Equal Justice, Striving to Achieve + 2 Jury Trends and Innovation, + 3 Recruiting and Retaining Minority Law Enforce- ment Officers, * 4 Improving Diversity in Legal Education, + 5 What’s Diversity Got to Do With I? + 6 The International Community's Access to the Courts, + 7 Juvenile Ethnic Gangs, + 8 Urban vs, Rural Sentencing: Diversity, Inequity or Reality, and + 9 Social Consciousness and Sexual Orientation, Panelists then delved into topics, some controver- sial—some less so, with candor and enthusiasm about today’s diversity issues in the legal system. Saturday afternoon, Harry Belafonte delivered his keynote address before a crowd of over 500 (tickets for his keynote address were open to the general public) at the historic Madame Walker Theatre. Belafonte re- counted his childhood experiences in a segregated ‘American society. He also chronicled his call to action for civil rights as he became a close friend to Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr. and assisted in uniting cultural elements behind the marches in Selma and Montgomery, Ale- bbama and the Freedom March in Washington D.C. in 1963, Belafonte also described his recent humanitarian endeavors with the We Are The World and Hands Across America hunger benefits as well as his continu- ing commitment to UNICEF. By ll accounts, Diversity Summit 2005 was deemed 4 tremendous success, generating energy and ideas for improving Indiana’s legal system. Members of the Commission on Race and Gender Faieness thank all in attendance at the Diversity Summit asthe ideas originat- ing from the Summit will further assist Commission members in implementing the recommendations from the 2002 Executive Report. Copies of the Commission's 2002 Executive Report and Recommendations as well as notes from the substantive breakout sessions from Di- versity Summit2005 can be viewed onlincat www.in gov! Judiciary/Tuirness. Adrienne Meiring