IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS

CAUSE NO. 49A04-1504-PL-00163

DOUGLAS COSTELLO and

PROFIT SEARCH, INC,
Appellant/Defendant

)Appeal from the Marion Superior Court

Civil Division

2:

)
)

Trial Court Case No.: 49131040114)

GERSH ZAVODNIK

Appellee/CrossAppellam

10

)
)

v.

9972 FILER")
g
~~~
~~~

~
~~

) The Honorable J. Jeffrey Edens. Speci

SEP 2 6 2016

58;: 5} E3011???

VERIFIED MOTION/AFFIDAVIT FOR DISOUALIFICATION OF JUDGES OF THE

INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS (CA) & JUSTICES OF THE INDIANA SUPREME

COURT (I.S.C.1
Comes now Appellee/Cross-AppelIant, (Gersh Zavodnik"). ("Zavodnik").

Judges

per. per so. and moves the Court on the Veried

("I"). ("Me") (My").

Motion/Afdavit For Disqualication Of

()fThc Indiana Court Oppeals (0A.") And Justices OfThe Indiana Supreme Court ("l.S.C").

and Zavodnik states the

following:

1.As l have stated in my Veried Motion In Objection To Not Putting The Attached Petition For

Transfer Into The Docket & My Veried Afdavit. Deliberately Sabotaging My Appeal, it mightve
been that the said judges andjuslices in the said opinions/orders haven't issued an expressed

impingemem/restrictions. sanctions/penalties, but their practical effect's harsh and reects what those
unjust and damaging opinions've done to me and to my family, which's been stated in that document
and my numerous other documents on le, including in this contemporaneously-lcd document now ~

my Veried I\40tion/Afdavit For Disqualication OtJudges OfThe Indiana Court

Oppeals And

Justices OfThc Indiana Supreme Court & Veried Motion To Immediately Set A Disqualicatims Hearing
and other documcnts. Please see those documents on le. Herc below and a bit later on.

practical effect 0[\\'hat you've done.

~~

~~
~1dgqmomwm~~~
~

(Mine"). pro

..

I'll get back to the

2.When in

you stated that Plaintiff Gersh Zavodnik is

prolic. abusive litigant. A search ofhis

name brings up 123 cases in Marion County and other counties on the Odyssey case management system

(which is not yet in place in all Indiana counties). All but three ofthose cases were led since January 2008.
Mr. Zavodnik is also a party in thirty-four cases before the Court

oppeals and

this Court, including

twenty-three special judge requests.". you stated a lie to deliberately paint me in false light. because at that
time I'd about 50-something cases led, and you did that knowing that the media, who's your coconspirators. would immediately pick up your lie and make

blown out of proportions sensation

-a

product specically created by you to destroy me. The various media sources put some personal touches on

your

False

light paintings too, which you can

see

in this Motion/Afdavit.

3.Here are some ofthe comments and publications demonstrating the said practical effect

ofyour opinions:

"Doug Costello who sold printer on Craigslist spends $12k on legal ...www.dailymail.co.uk/.../MansoId-40used-printer-Craigslist-spends-six-half-...Daily Mail Loading...Jun 6, 2016 -

prolic litigant who haslea' over 200 lawsuits, mostly

He

initially led

Zavodnik is an

lawsuit in small claims

court asking for maximum ..., and the practical outsomes of your opinions also state "Beware

Zavodnik

of

Datalounge https://vw.datalounge.com/thread/l 70395 l4-beware-of-zavodnik Jun 6, 2016

- The buyer. Gersh Zavodnik, said the printer was broken and sued him for

Zavodnik is an prolic

litigant who has led over 200 lawsuits, ...and Man who sold $40 used printer on Craigslist spent the
next six- and ...wwwgopbriengroom.com/index.php?topic=210732.0 Jun 7, 2016 -

The buyer. Gersh Zavodnik, said the printer was broken and sued him for

litigant who has led over 200 lawsuits,

deserve

and

post -

author

Zavodnik is an prolic

How come serial killers never kill people who truly

it (hold by G.Z.)... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160606081921AAFYarn

Jun 6, 2016

Gersh Zavodnik is a perfect example. (bold by 6.2.) Read this article in USA

Today: ...and "[]LustMyKahkis 208 point5209

pointlO points 2 months ago. Thats

IQ

like asking people to murder him, sooner or later someone

by G.Z.) and

"

Sugerfuzz-BigMuff

16

is

going to lose it and kill him. (bold

points] 7 points] 8 points 2 months ago. Sometimes, I feel,

this kind of thing is justied. When the justice system fails completely, it's the job of the people to

carry it out. (hold by 0.2.) and ||CandoatedFans 39 p0ints40 points4l points

months ago.

"You are then allowed to kill them right? ..... only seems fair (bold by G2.) and
"||Televisions Frank

dump

points4 points

points 2 months ago. One of these days that guy's gonna

lawsuit on someone with no qualms about killing him to end it. (bold by G2.) and

HQ 94 poinls95 points96 points 2 months ago. The whole situation is so hopeless. This
Zavodnik guy

is

pretty lucky that no one whose life he has ruined

so

far has

been the sort

person who would just murder him for being such a terric asshole. (bold by 6.2.) and
'|Lord Dreadlow

I77 pointsl78 pointsl 79 points

2 months ago.

of

"

He also said he has no plan to

pursue any legal action against Zavodnik. The action I'd pursue against this low-life piece of shit

wouldn't be legal in nature either, I can tell you that. (bold by G.Z.)

and

"

morejosh 38 points39

points 40 points 2 months ago. "Zavodnik the prick should be shipped back to Ukraine. Fucking

scum. (hold by 6.2.) and How come serial killers never kill people who truly deserve it?
Gersh Zavodnik is a perfect example. (bold by 0.2.) Read this article in USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/20 l 6/06/06/man-sued-30k-over-40-printerhe-soldcraigslisu85478168/ "And tell me this world would not be a waaaay better place without Gersh

Zavodnik in it. He comes to this country (USA) from the... Gersh Zavodnik

is a

perfect example.

(bold by G.Z.) Read this article in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-

b)

now/20]6/06/06/man-sued-30k-over40-printer-he-sold-craigslist/85478168/ ."And tell me this world

would not be a waaaay better place without Gersh Zavodnik in it. He comes to this country
(USA) from the Ukraine and spends his life suing people he buys things from online. Hello all you
serial killers (and rapists) out there! This guy is just asking to be your next victim. (hold by 0.2.),
and much more was published with photos

of me accompanying the publications,

as a

direct effect

of

what you did.

4.Despite the fact that l.S.C.'s opinion deliberately stated that Plaintiff Gersh Zavodnik is
abusive litigant. A search

of his

prolic.

name brings up [23 cases in Marion County and other counties on the

Odyssey case management system (which 2 is not yet in place in all Indiana counties).
cases were

led since January 2008. Mr. Zavodnik is also

All but three ofthose

party in thirty-four cases before the Court

Appeals and this Court, including twenty-three special judge requests.. at that time

had a bit over

of

fty

cases, which you knew or were supposed to know, yet you deliberately constructed your sentences so that

you would be able to work up

sensation, and so those who aren't legal professionals would be misled and

would count the same case which have been to

812

courts due to the abuse that thosejudges instituted over

me and other circumstances. as 8-12 difTerent cases, and therefore you've been able to

trick the public and

sway their opinion against me. and the media. which co-conspired with you, instead ofdoing the fair-

I'eponing,joined you in destroying and abusing me, with all ofyou and the opposition inciting the public to
harm me one way. or another, and thus you've reached your goal by doing these things innuendo.
5.1t's interesting to notice that the Odyssey CCS system and docket

of law

of the higher court reect hundreds

suits brought by various entities, including Fargo, Indiana Loss Mitigation, Inc ("friends

of

Mr.Wuertz"), and other banks, collection agencies, various other entities and lawyers, and other entities
and individuals. including more than two dozens

oflaw suits led by Mr. Wuertz alone (counsel for the

opposition) not for his clients, but his own law suits, on his own behalf, yet l.S.C. and CA. have never
singled them out. never issued any opinions calling them vexatious. abusive. or using vcxatious

litigation practices, never gave ...[g]uidance to this states courts on some options when confronted
with abusive and vexatious litigation practices. Id. At 261-62.", and never stated to them anything
similar about those entities and individuals

as

you stated about me, when you stated As our Supreme

Court has recognized, Zavodnik is a prolic, abusive litigant. Zavodnik

261 (Ind. 2012). He spends much

v.

Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259.

of his life prosecuting lawsuits against individuals and

with whom he has entered into online transactions.

Zavodnik

See

v.

businesses

Richards, 984 N.E.2d 699, 701 n.2

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), affd on reh g, 988 N.E.2d 806 (Ind.Ct. App.2013), and when you stated Mr.
Zavodnik has argued that the system is unfairly biased against him
every right to represent himself in legal proceedings, but

as a

se

litigant. Mr. Zavodnik has

pro se litigant is held to the same standards as

trained attorney and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue

ofG.P.U.. 4 N.E.3d l158 (Ind. 2014). "[O]ne acting pro

pro

se has no

of being

self-represented. See Matter

license to harass others, clog thejudicial

machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets." Farguson v. MBank
Houston. N.A.. 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986) (denying [FP application and dismissing appeal). Even
a

court may take reasonable steps to prevent

good faith pro

se

if

litigant from being placed at an unfair

disadvantage. an abusive litigant can expect no latitude. and you did that while harassing. abusing and

intimidating me while your lower courtjudges had cops present, sometimes with the dogs. at each hearing
or trial
that

attended in my cases, all to shut me up, intimidate. abuse. threaten and harass me. like Gestapo. so

couldn't even stand up for my rights, bring evidence. or even be able to make an offer of proof.

all

because you criminals gave those couns and your other colleagues-criminals, green light to do so. Yet.

when I'd ask thosejudges and Deputy O'Connor whether

represent any type ofthreat to them, or not.

theyve stated no".

6. You did it all to me and my mom, even despite the fact that percentage wise. Wuertzes" and

"Midland Fundings won much less cases than I won on the merits, and in fact I won more

cases

percentage wise than most lawyers known to me ever did, but please take into an account that when

lawyer has to legally ght only the opposition, and/or their attomey(ies), and often even none of them.
while winning his/her cases by default, I havnt been given default judgments. other than maybe

very

few (the most). yet I've had to legally ght not only the opposition. and/or their attomey(ies), but in
most

of my cases,

the Gods

of War themselves ~judges and justices, who prejudge my

cases and

tailor

their outcomes to those prejudged opinions, in which Zavodnik must always lose regardless the
evidence and any other factors, and therefore it's fair to say that in the circumstances such as these,
where the hostile environment towards Zavodnik warrants no wins for him. Zavodnik have been able to

win more than one case, needless speaking of dozens.

7.Recently Zavodnik won (2) two cases, this one and the one where he was 3 Defendant against the
Carters (case # 49D131509-CC-030146). yet the said high court judges and justices, including Vaidik.

previous occasions, co-conspired, plotted, colluded and committed RICO acts, and sabotaged

as on

both

of my appeals, while discriminating

against me, and therefore did everything they could so that

Zavodnik and his mother would be deprived of the rights/money/property.

8.lt's my personal knowledge that on numerous occasions, previously, in such case as this one

49A04-1504-PL-00163, Vaidik (while withoutjurisdiction to act

as a

trial courtjudge. for this one of

the things she did together with or apart from judges C.J.. Barnes, Mathias, JJ.) co-conspired. plotted,

colluded, sabotaged my appeal, committed RICO and other violations and offenses, while depriving me

of my numerous rights/money/property,
so by I.S.C's

LH.

and received a go-ahead to do so and later on was joined to do

Rush, C.Bumham, the opposition, their counsel and his law ofce, media and others.

9.Thus for example 05/23/2016, N. Vaidik, C.J., Barnes and Mathias,

JJ

committed multiple unlawful

acts stated by me in my Petition for Rehearing. led by me together with the

yet that A'ndavit has never been put on the docket

above

Afdavit on 6/22/2016.

of this case. just as my other documents mentioned

Petition to Transfer. In addition to other issues, the said documents mentioned above, clearly

spelled out all

of the errors, violations/offenses

and misconduct committed by some

of the said

individuals against me, yet upon today, the said documents aren't even on the docket of this case.
10.In James Carter v. Gersh Zavodnik, et al. (49AO2-1602-CC-00314) Vaidik ex pane communicated

with Joven and committed multiple other vi01ations/offenses/deprivations listed by me in Petition for
Rehearing, led by me 05/23/2016, which she also denied after closing her eyes on fraud and perjury

brought by her colleague Joven, and similar things happened in Gersh Zavodnik, et al. v. James Carter
(49A02l601-CC-00005). where Vaidik. while herself stating that she/CA. has nojurisdiction, granted
Joven's ex-parte Request for Guidance, led by Joven ex pane on 01/25/2016.
11.1n

Zavodnik. Gersh

v. Cheng,

Ken and Eastern Trading

& Imports (49A02-1404-PL-00294), Vaidik

committed same or similar deprivations, and while 1/26/2015 denying my Motion and even Afdavit

for her to Show Cause (led by me on 01/22/2015), which's unheard of; it's like we'd allow drug-

trafckers and murderers to conduct their own trial and rule on their own cases, prior to which on
12//18/2014 Vaidik,just as in majority

of my appeals denied

me to

and correct the Clerk's record so

it would be complete, and dismissed the appeal with prejudice. In her Order she wrote that nothing was

led in furtherance of that appeal, which was written by her despite the fact that she knew that T.C.,
and therefore the Court's Recorder wasn't xed/corrected/complete, nor was the Transcript. and

therefore I couldn't have the xed/corrected/complete Transcript available, and my Brief wasnt even
due yet, and thus when the

Brief wasnt even due yet,

the Notice

of Completion of Clerks

Record has

not been led and therefore the Clerks Record wasn't complete, she sabotaged my appeal in that case

too. just as in several other

of my cases on appeal.

She didn't rule on my

Veried Motion For Extension

Of Time (Afdavit Of Personal Knowledge (First-hand Knowledge) For The Court Reporter To
Correct Errors In The Transcript & For Zavodnik To Submit His Brief And Appendix Within (60) Sixty
days

After The Corrections Have Been Made, Or (45) Forty Five Days at Its Minimum (After The

Corrections Have Been Made. Notice Of Completion Of Transcript Hasnt Been Filed.
7

12.The same or similar treatments by the said courts and individuals in my numerous other cases could
be demonstrated by me

in here over and over again, but I prefer to do it during your disqualication

Hearing, and besides, the limitations of pages that I'm allowed to have in my motions, which are
imposed upon me by the App.Rules make it impossible to demonstrate all

of my rights and deprivations of millions of dollars

of the instances of violations

and property through the hard evidence in my

possession and which is on the record, which clearly shows animus, discrimination, co-conspiracy,

plotting, sabotaging my appeals, collusion, multiple predicate acts and commitments of RICO act over
and over again, as well as other violations and offenses, all resulting in said deprivations, and therefore
I request the courts stated above to set up a hearing on these judges' and justices' disqualications, at

which I would demonstrate all of the instances of the said multiple violations/deprivations. Id. Judicial
Notice
13.Suchjudges and justices cannot be presumed impartial, because my evidence rebuts that
presumption, and since there are no safeguards available to me. those individuals and entities dont
have immunity from prosecution.

I4.Exhibits which I've attached, not only demonstrate the said documents led by me, yet they never
appeared on the docket

of CA, but they also demonstrate cases led by the opposing counsel,

and they

of inequality when it comes to your animus treatments of me

(a pro 56

are presented here as an example

person who openly criticized you all for which you've retaliated at me) vs. the others, and to compare
apples to apples, and not to oranges.
15.These examples, which I also attached as Exhibits, demonstrate not only the documents through

which you've sabotaged my appeal, but also the cases led by Mr.'Wuertz not for his clients, but on his
own behalf. It seems that by using the logic

of 1.8.0, a person who les more than (1) one law suit,

les too many, and therefore becomes a vexation abusive litigant when it comes to me, yet when it
comes to Mr. Wuertz, it's perfectly

ok for him to have (23+/-) entries in the Odyssey system,

8

as

long

as hes not

Zavodnik, and it's also ok for the Midland Funding, for example to have (151. 120) one

hundred and fty one thousand and one hundred and twenty entries into the Odyssey system. again as

long as they're not Zavodnik, yet they werejust like Zavodnik

the Plaintiffs (I'm not perfect; Im

mortal and I make mistakes), and their cases demonstrate various violations by those Plaintiffs, yet no
'special' treatment and no guidance as per how to deal with them has ever been issued. as it was

'specially' and specically done for Zavodnik. You do nothing to dozens upon dozens of people and
entities like those. including you doing nothing to the opposition and their counsel Wuertz, yet you
picked me
as

as

your scape goat 'to do me in for openly criticizing all of you, and you decided to do me in

your way to retaliate against me by 'black-marking me'.

l6.Thus for example, in the case 94800-0512-BL-00694, I.S.C. opinedf

1/23/2 FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE COURT DISMISSES WUERTZ'S PETITION
FOR REVIEW. WE ALSO NOTE THAT WUERTZ HAS FILED A MOTION. PER
006
APPELLATE RULE 34(D), FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN IN SUPPORT OF HIS

PETITION FOR REVIEW. BECAUSE WE FIND HIS PETITION PROCEDURALLY

IMPROPER, WE DEEM HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO BE MOOT.
RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE MS

and similar procedurally improper lings by the opposing counsel Wuertz appear in numerous cases.

yet I.S.C. has failed to issue the same or similar guidance against Mr. Wuertz. as it issued about me.
Dozens upon dozens

of violations by him appear in this appeal.

yet C.A. deliberately closed its eyes on

it, and on contrary did the appeal for Mr. Wuertz, despite not having a right to do so.
17.Another deprivation

of my rights/money/property

was done by I.S.C. through their deliberately

harmful tactic of remand of my cases to the lower court spiteful judges, who hated me and
discriminated against me, which was done by I.S.C. on multiple occasions so those T.C. judges would

'nish me up' and continue violating my rights and commit said deprivations at the whim and green

light given them to do

so by I.S.C., and therefore despite the facts stated here above and the fact that

Plaintiff objected to I.S.C.s left-handed actions in numerous Plaintiffs

cases. where the same judges

who violated Plaintiffs rights were remanded back on Plaintiffs cases,

all in violation

of the I.T.R.s.

Plaintiff 5 rights, l.C.s, Rules and Code of Judicial Conduct, Rules of the American Bar Association,
Rules

of the Indiana Bar Association, Rules of the Indianapolis Bar Association.

the province

of what

proper, all done so illegally by I.S.C., who truncated the case law with the right opposite holding(s)

is

of

what I.S.C. deliberately misrepresented as the said holding(s) state, after which those two cases
sentences were glued together by I.S.C., the latter used the said

trick, for which I.S.C. itself chastises

atlomeys and pro se litigants alike, to remand the black-eyed by Plaintiff lions back into the cage with
already previously-wounded by those lions Plaintiff, and therefore those acts by I.S.C. left Zavodnik at
mercy of the said previously-removed by the I.S.C.s right hand (LJudson)

Judges, thus

leaving Zavodnik unprotected, while attempting to justify their wrong-doing by stating that those
Judges are already familiar with those cases, and therefore can speed up their resolution, yet completely

disregarding the fact that those judges were removed by I.S.C.s right hand due to the fact that those

judges didn't rule on Zavodniks numerous Motions in

timely manner and did not set up those

Motions for hearings to begin with as it is prescribed to be done in 30 days, and thus their removal was

justiable and warranted.

18.Contrary to what I.S.C.s justication

of their action

was, those T.C. judges had no right purpose to

come back on the Plaintiffs cases, other than the Justices wanted them to eat up Zavodnik, to which

later on, I.S.C. gave green light too by issuing its facts-less-paintingZavodnik-in-false-light-

09/30/2014-Order. after which not only the said Judges, but lawyers such as the opposing counsel
Wuertz and multiple media, received I.S.C.s green light to abuse Plaintiff too by defaming the latter
and painting him in false-light all over the media, and therefore the wrong purpose was deliberately
used to harm, damage, hurt, harass, intimidate and abuse Zavodnik.
10

19.We again adopt the language

of Judge

failure to obey the clear explicit dictates

harmless error, then, the erosion

Staton in his well-reasoned dissent in Otte as follows:

of the Indiana Rules of Procedure can be simply dismissed

of an orderly judicial

ofthe Indiana Rules of Procedure can

If the

system has begun.

as

If the clear, explicit meaning

be re-written by judicial opinion to avoid the consequence

of a

violation, then, the shroud of confusion will prevent any meaningll, just and predictable solution to
those disputes which must be resolved in our courts. 412 N.E.2d at 1232.. Otte v. Tessman, 426

N.E.2d 660 (1981).

20.Both said courts violated the very foundation

of ourjudicial

rules, and you sabotaged my appeal and therefore deprived me

appeal from the nal judgment, and therefore all

well

as I must be

system

adherence to the law and

of money/property and my right to an

of the said judges and justices must be disqualied,

as

given due process through an opportunity to rebut your allegations against me,

conduct discovery, and to rebut your unfair guilty verdict, which you announced without giving me
an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence and to rebut the allegations against me, as

further rebut your presumption

well

as to

of impartiality.

21.The wrong acts by I.S.C. didn't only affect Zavodniks life, while turning it into a nightmare, which
was the aim

of those acts done by I.S.C.

comply with I.S.C.s said Orders

as

and

CA, but they also gave green light to those judges not to

well, and thus I.S.C.'s numerous mandates to T.C.s judges were

violated by the latter too.

22.You're not presumed impartial Violating law/rules/rights. I possess the primafacie hard evidence

rebutting that presumption, and due to the fact that you've been denying my due process, where for
years you've been painting me in false light in order to bring a maximum impact on damaging me and

my family, you all must be disqualied, for which you must set an immediate hearing, which I demand.

NOW.

11

WHEREFOR, Zavodnik requests I.S.C. and C.A.'s said judges and justices disqualify themselves
now, or alternatively the judges

of CA. and justices of I.S.C.

cease and desist

violating my rights

and depriving me of rights/money/propcrty and from ruling on my cases, other than they

immediately set

Hearing on their disqualications, and they must allow for my due process and

equal protection, and they must allow me to conduct discovery and rebut what has been stated by

all of you in your numerous opinions, and for all other relief, all just and proper in the premises.

VERIFICATION
l. Gersh Zavodnik (the Afant). understand that a false statement in this document could subject me to
the penalties for perjury. and therefore I

afrm under the penalties for perjury that the statements in the

stated document are true. correct and accurate, which's my personal ("rst-hand") knowledge. and

we're competent to testify about them.

Respectfully submitted by:

k *7

917! W/WL

Afant/Appcllce-Cross-Appellam/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaimi ff

Afant/AppelleeCross-Appellant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25" SL. Apt. 318.

Indianapolis. In 46229
email: Cincmaparadiso@netzero.nel

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

I

verify and certify that the Appellees'-Cross-Appellams' Veried Motion/Afdavit For Disqualication

01 Judges

OfThe Indiana Court

Oppeals (0A.") And Justices OIThe

contains no more than 4,200 words.

Indiana Supreme Court ("I.S.C'")

Afant/Appellee-Cross-Appellam/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
Afam/Appellee-CrossAppellam/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25" SL. Apt. 318,

Indianapolis, In 46229
email: cinemaparadiso@netzero.net

CERTIFICATE OF FILING
I

hereby certify that

served

copy ofthe foregoing AppelleesCross-Appcllant's Veried

Motion/Afdavit For Disqualication OfJudges OfThe Indiana Coun

()IThe Indiana Supreme Court ("I.S.C") on the following Clerk

01

Oppeals (0A.") And Justices

the Indiana Supreme Coun. Court

of

Appeals. and Tax Court. (by depositing the same through rotunda ling). (by placing the same in the
United States mail, postage prepaid), this

26111

day

of September. 2016) to

be delivered in person to 200

W. \Nashington Street. Room 217 Statehouse. Indianapolis. In 46204.

,rj

C97 \giL/W/W/C
Afam/AppbelleeCross-Appellam/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff

Afant/Appellee-Cross-Appellant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25h St.. Apt. 318.

Indianapolis. In 46229
email: cinenmparadiso@netzero.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

hereby certify that

served a copy

ofthe foregoing Appcllee's-CrossAppcllam'sVeried

Motion/Afdavit For Disqualication OfJudges OfThe Indiana Count

Oppeals ("0A.) And Justices

OfThe Indiana Supreme Court (I.S.C) on the following counsel of record by placing the same in the
q

13

United States mail. postage prepaid, this 26th day of September, 2016 and sending the foregoing
Appellee's-CrossAppellant's Veried Motion/Afdavit For Disqualication OfJudges OfThe Indiana

Coun

Oppcals ("CAI) And Justices OfThe

Indiana Supreme Court (I.S.C") [0 Chad D. Wuertz.

Attorney ID: 26656-49, Attorney for Appellants (Doug Costello & Prot Search Inc), Wuertz Law

Ofce. LLC. 210 Victoria Centre. 22 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, In 46204.
,1: 7

(efxsM/avwm
/
Afant/Appellee-Cross-Appellant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
Afant/AppelleeCrossAppellant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25" St.. Apt. 318,

Indianapolis. In 46229
email: cinemaparadiso1letzeronet

14

l.
Wuertz Law Ofce LLC v. Anthonv
29D01-1507-MI-006215

Wilson. Med-1 Solutions LLC. JPMoruan Chase Bank NA

Wuenz Law Office LLC vs. Anthonv

Wilson

3.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Paula McConnell

49K071 104SC-001224

4.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Ken Rose

49K07-1104-SC-001223
5.

Chad D Wuertz. et. al. vs. Gersh Zavodnik

49D11-1011-CT-047920
6.

Chad D Wuertz. et. al. vs. Gersh Zavodnik

49D02- 0| 1-CT047920
1

7.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Brenda Fenderson

49K07-1009-SC-04873
8.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Erni Fouts

49KO7-1009~SC-04867
9.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Christopher Whitehead

49K07-1009SC-04870
10.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Victoria Smith

49K07-1009SC-04872
11.

Wuertz Law Ofce, LLC vs. Montova Jones

49K07-1009-SC-04863
12.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Dennis Young

49KO7-1009-SC-04865
13.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Gary Richards

49K07-1009-SC-04866
14.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Timothy Harvell

49K07-1009-SC-04868
15.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Rodney Snider

49K07-1009-SC04871

l6.

Wuertz Law Ofce LLC vs. Deardra Pvles-Garnett

49K071009-SC-04864
17.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Chrissy Gregorv

49K07-1009-SC-04869
18.

Wuertz Law Ofce. LLC vs. Chrissy Gregory

49K07-1009-SC-04869

l9.

Wuertz Law Ofce Llc vs. Park University Enterprises Inc

49K03-1006-SC002600
20.

WUERTZ LAW OFFICE LLC vs. MOBILTEK MEDICAL INC

49K01-0808-SC-09198
21.

Chad D Wuertz. el. al. vs. Gersh Zavodnik

49D111011-CT047920
22.

Chad D Wuertz. et. al. vs. Gersh Zavodnik

49D02-1011-CT-047920
23.

WUERTZ, CHAD D. VS INDIANA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS

Case Number 94SOO-0512-BL-00694

Court

Supreme Court

Converted Event
FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE COURT DISMISSES WUERTZ'S PETITION
FOR REVIEW. WE ALSO NOTE THAT WUERTZ HAS FILED A MOTION, PER
01/23/
APPELLATE RULE 34(D), FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN IN SUPPORT OF HIS
2006
PETITION FOR REVIEW. BECAUSE WE FIND HIS PETITION PROCEDURALLY
IMPROPER, WE DEEM HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO BE MOOT.
RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE MS

02/07/ Converted Event

2006 MOTION TO RECONSIDER. (6) PROOF OF SERVICE (2)

MAIL. DL

03/02/ Converted Event

2006 ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER:
Converted Event
PETITIONER HAS MOTIONED THIS COURT TO RECONSIDER ITS ORDER OF
03/02/ JANUARY 23, 2006 DISMISSING HIS PETITION FOR REVIEW. HAVING CONSIDERED
2006 PETITIONERS MOTION AND BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT HEREBY DENIES
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. MS