February 9, 2015

Indiana Supreme Court

Division of State Court Administration
Commission for Race and Gender Fairness
30 S. Meridian Street, Ste. 500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Via lilia.judson@courts.in.gov
Via jasmine.parson@courts.in.gov

Re: Request for investigation and study of alleged unfairness within judicial branch

Dear Honorable Myra C. Selby, Chair and Commissioners:

I am a person of minority gender 1 and (partially) minority race 2 who requests that this Honorable
Commission, in keeping with its charter, investigates the enclosed allegations of unfairness in the
processing of Indiana bar applicant 24128. I bring forth what I believe to be serious and substantial
allegations of unfairness, discrimination and biases manifested within the very heart of Indiana's judicial
system over the past eight years. I am asking that that the Commission, at a minimum, and in keeping with
its mission statement, investigates the alleged lack of fairness presented herein and makes recommendations
intended to protect future bar applicants from these same unfair acts.

Supreme Court precedent two generations aged frames out the discussion to follow:

The term good moral character can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways, for
any definition will necessarily reflect the attitudes, experiences, and prejudices of the definer.
Such a vague qualification, which is easily adapted to fit personal views and predilections, can
be a dangerous instrument for arbitrary and discriminatory denial of the right to practice law.

Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 353 U.S. 252 (1957). The plea for help documents use of this dangerous
instrument for the arbitrary and discriminatory denial of the right to practice law.

To borrow from the Commissions mission statement, it is my belief that this investigation, if only
undertaken, would constitute a study [of] the status of race and gender fairness [and ethnic, and religious,
and basic fairness, and near total absence of whistle blower protection] and thus, at least potentially, lead
1
http://www.maletofemaleratio.com/wiki/Indiana-IN/Indianapolis.htm (accessed on 1.31.15)
2
Ancestry/bloodline details available upon request. My ancestry includes a certificate of Melungeon descent,
which was then considered socially undesirable and politically disadvantaged. Some of those ancestors were forced
to walk the Trail of Tears by the WASP-dominated governments. My grandfather clearly showed these genetic
markers, as do two of my five children. My children also have ancestors who faced much discrimination as the
unwanted Irish, enemies of England who were captured and sold into slavery (see
http://www.historyjournal.ie/irish-slavery/55-irish-slavery-main-page/106-the-irish-slave-trade.htm). As for their
English ancestors, my children descend from those driven from their lands in Colonial Maryland as a result of
religious wars between recusant Catholics (who fled from religious persecution in England) and Roundheads
(who advanced religious persecution in England.) See Putting Colonial Maryland in its Historic Place: Reflections
upon North Americas Legacy of English Ecclesiastical History, by Bryan J. Brown, Life, Liberty and Family
Journal, June, 1996. (My telling of our family ethnic history of fleeing England to escape religious persecution, in
the context of history writ large, dedicated to my ancestor, William Browne, who emigrated from England to the
Maryland Colony of Lord Baltimore in 1634 so that he could hold to his Catholic Faith without government
interference/persecution.)
1
the Commission to comprehend ways to improve race and gender fairness [and fairness in all other
characteristics within the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment], in the courts, legal system, and state [ ]
government. This submission is primarily focused on unfairness as it has been documented on the Board
of Law Examiners (BLE) and the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP).

This study should begin in haste, as that the Board of Law Examiners is slated to deliberate on my
application on this coming Friday, February 13, 2015. I am requesting that representatives of the
Commission monitor those deliberations to assure that the unfairness and biases alleged herein are not
manifested. By my signature below I hereby waive all confidentiality as to that hearing and the entire
contents of my application file with the BLE, which stretches back to Spring, 1996 if not before.

I make this filing to facilitate the Commissions worthy goal of tendering recommend[ations] to the
Supreme Court [encouraging] the adoption of policies and procedures promoting race and gender fairness,
as well, I hope, as fairness in all areas affected by immutable characteristics, including just good old basic
human dignity, both color blind and gender blindfolded.

It is my sincere belief that the allegations tendered herein, and the record referenced, 3 more than sufficiently
proves up unfairness on the part of the BLE and JLAP -- in fact, I believe that the record reveals a
disturbing trend of unfairness of such a profoundly troubling nature as to justify this Commissions
immediate attention.

I file this urgent request for an investigation and study based, in large part, on my assumption that this
Commission on Race and Gender Fairness finds its legal foundation in the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I come to this conclusion
due to the naming of the Commission, its dedication to the pursuit of fairness as a juridical virtue, and the
decided lack of references to either gender fairness or race fairness in the Constitution of the State of
Indiana. 4

Of course, the question of fairness is the question that animates both equal protection and due process
analysis, as the United States Supreme Court made clear more than sixty years ago:

The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal
protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the
concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness,
are not mutually exclusive. The "equal protection of the laws" is a more explicit safeguard of
prohibited unfairness than "due process of law," and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are
always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so
unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.

Bolling v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954).

3
A record containing my three previous bar applications, private mental health assessments, nearly 100 letters of
recommendation, some from Congressmen, past Attorneys General, and all of my supervisors-at-law since 1993,
the evaluation from three Supreme Court-appointed character and fitness evaluators (one of which is being kept
from me), my recently passed bar examination results (which, I allege, should have, but for unfairness of an
unconstitutional magnitude, should have resulted in my licensure on May 20, 2014), other government documents,
and sworn evidence in overview format that clearly presents evidence of fraud on the Indiana Supreme Court.
4
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html Religious concepts are found five times in the first five
sections of Article I -- fairness is found once in Article I, and then only for crime victims. It was amended into
Article I, Section 13 in 1996.
2
Based upon the above, the legal foundation for this Fairness Commission must be "nor [shall any State]
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV,
1.

I stand before this investigatory Commission alleging that I, as a person under this organic law, have been
denied the equal protection of the laws and, for that reason, I am not currently licensed to practice law by
the State of Indiana. In addition, my application is currently stalled, being held hostage by discriminatory
and biased processing and even being subjected to reverse processing (which is threatening dismissal
under tolling statutes) and reneged-upon statements of protocol in past weeks.

I believe that the procedures, protocols and practices that I have documented are nonstandard and non-
normative. I believe that many procedures affecting the processing of my application are unique to me.

While some think of the Equal Protection Clause only in terms of races or classes, the United States
Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that the Clause "protect[s] persons, not groups." Engquist v. Ore.
Dept. Ag, 553 U.S. 591, 597 (2008)(quoting Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995));
see also Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948). Furthermore, Engquist confirmed that the Clause's
protections "apply to administrative as well as legislative acts." 553 U.S. at 597.

Thus mere persons, even persons without any immutable characteristics of the minority variety, can have
recourse under the law guaranteeing equal protection under this analysis, even against an administrative
agency and not just legislative classifications or stereotypical group think.

To be quite frank, the Commissions under inclusive choice of immutable characteristics to study,
investigate and ultimately seek to remedy is curious. Under inclusion and over exclusion are the
analytical tests that prove up an Equal Protection violation and here is the Indiana Supreme Court, leaving
behind more than some of the traditional suspect classes and categories to limit its investigation, study and
remedies merely to issues of race and gender.

Race certainly makes sense as that race was the focus of the Equal Protection Clause from its very inception:
The original meaning of the equal protection clause is that, if the police and prosecutors protect white
citizens, they must protect black citizens too. Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp., 680 F.3d 887, 901 (7th
Cir. 2012)

The racist history supporting the Fourteenth Amendment is unquestioned. The white race ruled the
nonwhite races in such a fashion as to allow little variation in the power dynamics. (Actually, as the Irish
experience proves (see fn2, supra), it is probably better said it was the white Anglo Saxons ruling ueber
alles.) The Equal Protection analysis, as forged, was based upon the assumption that the black citizen was
powerless, the white citizen powerful, and that the white authorities, if not checked by federal law, would
overprotect the powerful and under protect the powerless. (Soon thereafter those of Asian descent found
they, too, were protected under the shade of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
(1886)).

What happens when, 140 years later, it is the white citizen who is powerless, the nonwhite citizen who is
empowered, and the political leadership either nonwhite or establishing programs clearly preferring
nonwhite citizens? Is the analysis then reversed as to color scheme?

3
What happens when few are pure as to bloodlines, either Negro or Caucasian or Asian? What happens
when all are, arguably like me, of mixed blood? When the U.S. President, USAG Eric Holder, and many
others with ever increasing social and political power are an admixture of white and black ancestry?

How then is the racial analysis to be undertaken? Do we compare genetic printouts to determine who is to
be favored or disfavored? How do my childrens Catholic recusant ran-out-of-England-and-off-their-
colonial-lands and despised, even pressed-into-slavery Irish ancestry stack up against an African American
whose direct ancestors, on both sides, were African nobility -- like the Presidents East African namesake,
who did not arise out of a line experiencing slavery?

Do my children still lose when so competing in the government-supervised marketplace of commerce and
even ideas and even licenses simply due to their lack of pigmentation? Has equal protection analysis merely
become a question of who is darker? (I have two children who are darker than the other three, do they then
enjoy superior protection under the law?)

These are crucial questions seldom asked in this social milieu. I am asking them of this Commission of the
Indiana Supreme Court, since I am now facing, as a white male, what I allege to be unfairness of a kind that
should be amenable under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In my case, I stand powerless before the machinery of the State. And I freely admit (to my great
disadvantage in the modern age) that I am mostly white in appearance (but with some Melungeon blood,
so arguable of mixed race, and considerable darker in August than in February). I stand powerless and
appearing quite white before a Board of Indianas Supreme Court that has absolute power over my law
license, a Board that is made up of members of varying degrees of whiteness, some of whom would be
counted as black enough under the standards of 1871 (like a subset of my ancestors), some who would
not (also like a subset of my ancestors).

More importantly, at least as I view it, all on the Board are members of Indianas privileged class all are
in positions of absolute socio-political power over me as I merely seek to be able to practice my chosen
profession within the borders of Indiana. They are super lawyers, me but a worm. I stand before them
seeking the application of law that seems to be changeable on their whim, leaving me with no protection as
they seemingly seek to use vague and flexible rules and majority votes to keep me from recourse to
judicial review while denying me a law license. I stand before them commanded to instead grovel.

Discussions on race and power dynamics are difficult to have in this country. The assumption of the past
century was that whites in authority could not be trusted to be colorblind. Such assumptions still seem to
be the norm, while such assumptions never seem to run the other direction. Are nonwhites in powerful
positions simply incapable of racial biases? Are those of mixed race who appear more white than black
never to benefit from set asides and privileges and presumptions reserved for those who appear mostly
black? Are those of mixed race who appear more black than white assumed incapable of racism? When
two persons of color meet is the darker one always assumed the victim, and the lighter one the victimizer,
under the law?

Difficult questions as to how the legal defaults are tuned and where the assumptions rest.

The Commission also exists to address unfairness in gender. As The Indiana Lawyer recently reported, for
the first time in Indiana history, women preside over all of the States appellate courts. (Indiana Chief
Justice Loretta Rush, Chief Judge Robyn Moberly of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of

4
Indiana, Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik of the Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Tax Judge Martha
Wentworth). This certainly begs the question as to glass ceilings and gender advantages/disadvantages.

I have not been impressed with a lack of female leadership in the operation of the Indiana judiciary. Quite
the opposite, in fact. When it was men in all of the top spots that was cited as evidence of institutionalized
sexism. I must ask: What is it when the opposite is the case?

Discussions on gender and power dynamics are difficult to have in this country. The assumption of the
past century was that males in authority could not be trusted to be anything less than misogynist. Such
assumptions still seem to be the norm, while such assumptions never seem to run the other direction. Are
women simply incapable of thinking in sexist terms? Were I a woman remanded to a male psychiatrist, a
male psychiatrist who committed fraud against me, as a woman would it simply be ignored? What if the
gender roles were reversed? It strikes me that my application record demonstrates that I have been
victimized simply because feminist ideology demanded that I be so processed is such biased thinking not
a fairness issue since feminism is dominant among the current legal elite? Are feminists categorically
incapable of the opposite of misogyny?

Difficult questions as to how the legal defaults are tuned and where the assumptions rest.

Shifting focus off of my case and onto larger philosophical/jurisprudential issues, it is curious that the
Commission links gender to race. Racial fairness was the very raison dtre for the Equal Protection Clause
-- Gender fairness only a Janie come lately to Equal Protection analysis -- and then only if seated toward
the back of the bus.

Consider: In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the Equal Protection Clause to protect women from
gender discrimination, but only in situations where there is no rational basis for the discrimination. Reed v.
Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). That level of scrutiny was boosted to an intermediate level in Craig v. Boren,
429 U.S. 190 (1976). And there is stays, at an intermediate level, unlike racial and religious discrimination,
which is supposed to call down the almost always fatal strict scrutiny analysis. See, e.g., Personnel
Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
(I write supposed to because in my instance religious discrimination has been met with no official disdain
whatsoever.)

This Commissions curious coupling of race and gender (while ignoring religion and ethnicity) could, if
one were to wax colloquial, be labeled out of whack. Perhaps back in the day religious/cultural/ethnic
discrimination and/or biases and/or basic unfairness was difficult to fathom, or appreciate, or measure. If
so, such is not the case any longer. 5

5
Actually it never has been. My recusant ancestors faced, in the Constitution of New York, the very same anti-
established religion biases raised against me by the Board of Law Examiners, to wit: 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 king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters,
ecclesiastical as well as civil. New York Constitution of 1777, Article XLII For contemporary persecutions,
consider such studies as the following: Religious Discrimination Cases on the Rise (WSJ):
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304682504579153462921346076
EEOC Becomes Crusader in War on Religious Bias (Chi-Trib)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-10-06/news/9810060346_1_eeoc-attorneys-religious-accommodation-
religious-beliefs. See also analysis of trends at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Home-Page-News-and-Views/Are-
All-These-Christians-Complaints-of-Religious-Discrimination-Just-So-Much-Empty-Whining.aspx
5
Continuing with the idea that it is strange to couple race and gender while ignoring religion, consider the
body of organic law that founded the Indiana judiciary. It has little-to-nothing to say about either gender
or racial fairness, but consider what it has to say about the protection of religious persons in the practice
of their non-statist ideology:

ARTICLE 1. Bill of Rights

Section 1. Inherent rights
Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their
CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; that all power is inherent in the People; and that all free governments are, and of right
ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the
advancement of these ends, the People have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform
their government.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).
Section 2. Right to worship
Section 2. All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to
the dictates of their own consciences.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinions
Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Section 4. Freedom of religion
Section 4. No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship;
and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any
ministry, against his consent.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).
Section 5. No religious test for office
Section 5. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for any office of trust or profit.

One could easily conclude that the Founders of Indianas government meant to value and protect religion
as a first freedom, over even the freedom from racial or gender unfairness.

It would appear that even a luminary as bright as USGA Eric Holder believes that it is right to protect
religion with an ardor at least as zealous as the ardor expended in pursuing racial and gender fairness:

Religious freedom is one of the United States founding principles, protected by the First
Amendment and other federal laws. The right against religious discrimination is likewise one of
our basic civil rights. When Congress enacted the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the height
of the civil rights movement, in addition to barring discrimination based on race, national origin,
and sex in a wide range of areas, it also barred discrimination based on religion.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/religiousdiscrimination/ 6

6
Accessed 2.1.15. Also consider published, peer-reviewed analysis from a well-respected law school recently
arguing that state action that discriminates on the basis of religion is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection
Doctrine even if it does not violate the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause as incorporated by the
6
All of the above protection of religious persons and religion being part and parcel of the American creed, I
must confess (pun intended), given the current youve come a long way, Baby moment we are all enjoying
in the Indiana judiciary, and given my own experience before the BLE and JLAP, and given the legal
precedent, and given the organic law of this State I have to opine that religion deserves a place on the
Commission ahead of gender.

My study of the organic documents and the precedent law from the highest court in the nation causes me to
posit the following as a very fine question in this hour:

How does the State reconcile the Establishment and Free Exercise Doctrines, including those in
the Indiana Constitution, with Equal Protection analysis, that is fundamental fairness, as to the
religious person and as to religion in general?

Yet this is a question that the Indiana Supreme Courts Commission on Race and Gender Fairness, by
charter, simply cannot address.

If that be the case, then the very charter establishing this Commission is, ironically enough, wide open to
the charge that it has, in its very mission statement, violated that very due process/basic fairness that it
allegedly pledges to pursue. This Commission, by charter, creates classifications violative of equal
protection.

I thus communicate my intent to consider filing an Equal Protection challenge, a claim sounding in
basic fairness and due process, against the very mission statement and name of this august Commission.

Please consider this notice of my intent to consider filing such a facial challenge. Please advise me on any
avenues that I may enjoy in which I can advance this claim in a judicially appropriate fashion. I simply do
not know how the laymen can challenge the very raison dtre of this Commission, but given this glaring
oversight, this fatal under inclusion, it certainly seems to be a proper subject of judicial review.

Of course, I do understand that the Commission may agree with my analysis above and change its moniker
and mission to fairly meet the demands of the Equal Protection Clause. If that be the result, then all are
winners here.

That challenge issued, that objection lodged, I will now argue, in the alternative, that one could posit that
this Commission has previously ten years ago -- acknowledged that the scope of its concerns simply must
go beyond race and gender. This was confessed by the Commission when it promoted the following
alternative mission statement incident to the 2005 Diversity Summit:

The Indiana Supreme Court Commission on Race and Gender Fairness was proud to host the 2005
Diversity Summit for attorneys, judges, law enforcement officials and other individuals interested
in diversity issues affecting Indiana's judicial system. As the commission moves to the
implementation of the study's recommendations, the goals of the Diversity Summit were to:

Fourteenth Amendment. State action that discriminates on the basis of religion should be subject to strict scrutiny
and should almost always be held unconstitutional. Calabresi, Steven G. and Salander, Abe, "Religion and the
Equal Protection Clause" (2012). Faculty Working Papers. Paper 213.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/213 (accessed 2.1.15).

7
 1. promote an understanding and awareness that inclusiveness and diversity are valued in the legal
profession;
2. emphasize that fairness and understanding of gender, race, and ethnicity issues are required in
the justice system;
3. continue efforts to encourage diversity in the legal, judicial, and law enforcement professions in
order to utilize the talents and experiences of various segments of society as well as to counter
perceptions of bias that undermine confidence in the legal system.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/fairness/2388.htm (accessed 1.31.15, emphasis added)

Of course, an open minded person could read into the inclusion of ethnicity and a heartfelt dedication
to inclusiveness and diversity the intent to help protect religious citizens as well, and not exclude them
while pursuing fairness into various [diverse] segments of society. After all, perceptions of bias,
without qualification, is heralded as something to be countered so that must mean confronting even biases
against religion and religious persons, correct?

The balance of this correspondence naively assumes as much. I write to confront and counter biases that I
believe to have affected my very life and ability to practice my chosen profession here in Indiana. 7

Regardless of which characteristics are considered by the Commission (gender, race, sexual orientation,
religion, ethnicity, mental capacity, diversity quotient, political correctness certification, subservience to
authority, whatever) one rule of law animates Equal Protection Analysis that rule of construction "is
essentially a directi[ve] that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center, Inc, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).

And there is located the rub. I do not believe that I have so treated by the State and my alleged
mistreatment by the government has ruined my career at law and driven my family of seven into economic
destitution.

I allege that my processing at the hands of the BLE since October 2013 is not akin to the processing of
similarly situated bar applicants. Furthermore, I do not believe my processing prior to 2013 was either. I
believe that I have received special processing since the beginning of my file with the BLE in 1996. And
I do not mean special in the good way.

I mean special as in the judicial doctrine that chews through all laws opposing abortion rights. I believe
that my processing at the hands of the BLE is an ongoing example of the

ad hoc nullification machine that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of
constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice [i.e. abortion]. Madsen v.
Womens Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part
and dissenting in part).

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (Scalia, J, dissenting, joined by Thomas, J.)

In the case of my application, that machine chewing through stare decisis and due process has now

7
I wrote this Commission last April in an attempt to better understand the above creedal formulation. I thank
Jasmine Parson for her repeated professional responses between April 17 and May 1, 2014.

8
devoured, not a statute, not the First Amendment rights of an association or individuals, not an abstract
legal argument, but seven years of my career at law and my ability to support my wife and five children. In
my case the machines appetite has become quite personal.

Thus Justice Scalias well-worn quip that, "Today the ad hoc nullification machine [of abortion
jurisprudence] claims its latest, greatest, and most surprising victim: the First Amendment", Madsen v.
Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting), can be altered in my case.

It is bar applicant processing in Indiana that has now been fed into this politically correct (but
constitutionally destructive) machine. I have found this machine insatiable, much to my great harm.

In the paragraphs that follow I couch my allegations of special processing (that is, the distorting and
destructive work of this nullification machine) in the terms of the following classifications for purposes
of equal protection analysis: Religion, ethnicity, race, gender, mental health and whistleblower. The latter
is an equal protection claim on a road less traveled, that being the class of one analysis. 8

Allegation of profound unfairness #1: I have been treated unfairly based upon my religious identity

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: My record before the BLE sets forth in detail my claims and
concerns here. See especially my hearing before the Board of Law Examiners in June, 2009, in which I
was clearly asked to choose between the Law of God and laws of man. 9 Such a question should never be
asked of one who affirms the Natural Law beliefs that moved the Founders of Indiana to pen our Bill of
Rights. (Some find a section of the Indiana Constitution to be directly on point; alas, not the BLE.) The
residue from this 2009 inquisition is still built upon by the bar examiners in requesting that I gain a favorable
psychological assessment before they will approve me to practice law. My mental stability was challenged
due to my religious beliefs. By continuing to build upon this previous unfair treatment based upon religious
identity the BLE continues to victimize me in a manifestly unfair manner.

Request of the Commission: Study/investigate the use of my religion against me as revealed in the files of
Applicant 24128, and especially as presented in my petition for certiorari filed in February 2010. This same
focus upon my religious identity has continued into the present, albeit in a more nuanced form. It has in the
past been open and blatant, even unapologetic as set forth in the document referenced at footnotes 9 and 10,
infra and supra. As for the more nuanced analysis, if others of dissimilar creed are treated more favorably
by the Board, for example, are not asked to disavow key articles of their faith to prove up their bar
worthiness, then creed-based favoritism/disfavoritism may be the explanation. I have more to share on this
subject, and will do so if an investigation ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #2: I have been treated unfairly based upon my religious expression

8
The most efficient way for the Commission to quickly come up to speed on my processing would be to read the
fifty-three page affidavit that I filed with the BLE and the Indiana Supreme Court on or about October 20, 2014.
That document, and the correspondence that has crossed between myself and the BLE since that document was
created, sums this matter up rather well. Unfortunately I am unable to tender that document to the Commission. I
have no objection, however, to the Commission seeking that document from the Board of Law Examiners.
9
Evidence in my bar application file, filed with the Indiana Supreme Court, as well as posted online in the
appendix of http://www.scribd.com/doc/109518279/Brownv-ind-S-ct-BoardLawExams#scribd. The entirety of my
petition seeking cert from the Board denial was also filed by Defendants in Brown v. Bowman docket below.
9
Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: My record before the BLE sets forth in detail my claims and
concerns here. See especially the actual reports of Dr. Stephen Ross and Elizabeth Bowman, which clearly
reveal that my religious expression was probed, weighed and adjudged wrongful. See also the verified
affidavit in the case of Brown v. Bowman, et al., which is found in my BLE file and as docket entry Number
1 from December 8, 2009 in the federal district court of the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne. 10

The residue from these 2008 inquisitions is still built upon by the bar examiners in requesting that I gain a
favorable psychological assessment before they will approve me to practice law. By building upon this
previous unfair treatment based upon religious identity the BLE continues to victimize me in an unfair
manner.

Request of the Commission: Study/investigate the use of my sought-out religion expression against me as
revealed in the files of Applicant 24128, and especially as presented in my verified civil rights complaint
filed on December 8, 2009 and my petition for certiorari filed on February 16, 2010. (All available in my
files with the BLE and elsewhere.) This same focus upon my religious identity has continued into the
present, albeit in a more nuanced form. I have more to share on this subject, and will do so if an investigation
ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #3: I have been treated unfairly due to ideological bias

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: Government social worker Tim Sudrovech filed a report adverse
to me on January 22, 2009. That report faulted me for lacking empathy for those who disagreed with my
religious and political perspectives on some of the most contentious social issues of our day. This is
viewpoint discrimination, and it is unconstitutional. Sudrovechs report tendered the report of Dr. Elizabeth
Bowman, a report which likewise faulted me for having the wrong views on such topics as abortion, Holy
Writ and Dr. Bowmans career path and religious thoughts. (I am not making this stuff up.)

Sudrovech had previously tendered the report of Dr. Stephen Ross, a report that faulted me for my ideology
as well, by a doctor who seized my work product, notes evidencing a test I was given to weigh my political,
religious and ethnic perspectives. (You cannot make this stuff up.)

Ross came right out in his report filed with the government, and admitted that my religious opinions were
part of his calculus as to my bar worthiness. The residue from these 2009 secularist inquisitions is still built
upon by the bar examiners in requesting that I gain a favorable psychological assessment before they will
approve me to practice law. By building upon this previous unfair treatment based upon alleged ideological
nonconformity the BLE continues to victimize me in an unfair manner.

Request of the Commission: Study/investigate the use of ideological acid tests against me as revealed in the
files of Applicant 24128, and especially as presented in my recently authored fifty-three page affidavit,
which has been filed with the BLE. There are parallels in the Senate Confirmation Hearings for Justices
Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork and Samuel Alito. Such politics, once occurring only at the federal judicial
level, have invaded the very attorney minting process, as my application reveals. This same focus upon my
ideological nonconformity has continued into the present, albeit in a more nuanced form. This focusing
upon my ideology metastasized into a cancer on my career when I raised constitutional arguments against
the government weighing my world view as part of the licensing process. I have more to share on this
subject, and will do so if an investigation ensues.

10
See Brown v. Bowman, et al, No. 11-1456 (CCA7) for all docketed materials. The verified complaint is also
found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/23961843/Brown-v-Bowman-complaint-12-09 and in the files of the BLE.
10
Allegation of profound unfairness #4: I have been treated unfairly due to racial bias

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: I realize that I am treading on controversial and even sacred
ground here, and want to be sensitive to this. Please suffer me the use of creative license through an
allegorical telling of my story. To borrow from Rod Serling, submitted for your approval .

Imagine that we are in South Africa thirty years ago, and you are a Black female bar applicant
standing before a licensing board dominated, in the main, by a white alpha male. For eight long
years you have been denied a license by this board, the entire time this dominant white male has
been actively working your file.
Background research reveals that years ago, when this white male government bureaucrat was
studying the law, he authored an academic paper making light of the racial biases that your kind
was enduring, even going so far as to label your race not victims, but rather victims using the
word only in quotations. Even worse, when he spoke of your kinds claims to be innocent victims
of racial biases, he placed the word innocent in quotes, a seeming communication that he
believed your entire group lacked innocence, but was rather the cause of the problems. The policy
advanced in the paper advocated racial preference for his white race, at the expense of your
nonwhite race, justifying it as deserved, even though your ancestors suffered from acts of violence
and plunder and discrimination, just as his allegedly did.
Standard fair in South Africa, as I understand the history.
Years later this same white leader was appointed as a Commissioner in a self-deputized
association calling itself The Commission on the Status of White South Africaans. This
Commission was called into being to address the status of White Africaans who, for economic or
social reasons, find themselves disadvantaged or isolated. This Commissioner, as an attorney,
publically advocated that White Africaans are negatively and disproportionately affected by the
justice system, seemingly disparaging the system and accusing the nonwhites of institutionalized
racism of the kind that negatively impacts the dispensation of justice in the social order an
accusation that came very close to violating the oaths that attorneys take to respect and uphold the
legal system.
This same Commission advertised for a Skin-color Privilege conference that advocated that
the entire social order was fabricated to discriminate against whites. The Skin-color Privilege
conference was often accused of being a racist front organization.
Before this Commissioners term ended he was promoted onto the licensing board that you
stand before. You believe that this board has made this alpha white male the leader over your
application, and that the board has subjected you, as a black female bar applicant, to specialized
treatment, specialized rules, and nonstandard requests put to no others who are similarly situated.
Years later, after stepping down from the Commission on the Status of White South Africans
and becoming a member of the licensing board, this same white South African alpha male becomes
the president of a racially mixed university. The university is about 80% white, the balance being
nonwhite, and most of the minority being essentially the same color as you. This president appears
on a radio program being interviewed by a white clergyman of the religious right, one active in the
Skin-color Privilege movement, and who has been accused of being racist himself. The white
president/license granter volunteers the following about his mission at this racially diverse school
to his fellow white host:

11
 Look Adolph, the bottom line is this: My University is about success. About getting
more folks that look like us into positions of success in higher education.

Yet this university accepts federal funding that demands color blind leadership. Thus the
concept of unblinking allegiance to the rule of law, which the white alpha males board has used
against you for years without mercy or exception as to religion, simply do not seem to apply to
him, as least as to his desire to push his People Empowerment (i.e., white power) creed. You
hear this clear statement of racial preference broadcast across the radio and social order and clearly
understand that you have suffered from racial biases and discrimination. So enlightened, you
come to believe that this white male may be so blinded by ideology as to not be able to look at
you, as a Black female, and see anything but a threat that must be denied equal treatment, denied
due process, denied fairness, denied a law license -- in perpetuity.
Freshly empowered with this understanding of the racism you face, you look about for someone
to report this discrimination to. But you find only commissions set up to entertain allegations
against those with the same skin color as you, or commissions set up to entertain allegations only
against females, like you. You discover that the power structure simply does not believe that alpha
white males, like this board member, are capable of discriminatory acts. There are no commissions
established to investigate even the possibility that a white alpha male could discriminate against
you, a powerless black female. You have, in effect, no recourse to the law.
Welcome to white South Africa, circa 1984.

End of allegory. Now, if this Commission will only reverse the races and reverse the genders above, and
then add thirty years, my present reality comes very close to the allegory above. I stand prepared to back
up all of the allegorical allegations above with evidence should this Commission have the courage to
investigate my complaint.

Request of the Commission: Realize that just as whites in control of government authority can rule with
seeming racist/stereotypical biases and therefore, be investigated for possible discriminatory
thoughts/actions, so too nonwhites can perpetrate (even unintentionally) race-based discrimination. If
there is no rational reason for my nonstandard processing at the hands of the government (i.e. unfairness),
then the irrational reason of racism may be the explanation. I have more to share on this subject, and will
do so if an investigation ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #5: I have been treated unfairly due to racist preferences

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: I was denied a license in 2009 due, at least in large part, to a
criminal record. That record involved a misdemeanor, of the lowest level, that was then more than fifteen
years past. That misdemeanor became a focus to the BLE. It involved me questioning the police while
they wrongfully arrested (she was found not guilty) an 83 year old pro-life protester for allegedly peaceful
trespass. I was fined $50 and court costs. This conviction loomed large in the BLEs analysis and
rejection of me. I have to wonder, in an admittedly stereotypically fashion that is informed by statistics on
nonwhite incarceration, if any nonwhite bar applicants with more troubling legal records have been found
to possess sufficient character and fitness where I did not. I am of the opinion that such is, statistically
speaking, most likely the case.

12
Request of the Commission: Investigate whether nonwhites and whites are being held to differing standards
as to character and fitness in the realm of past convictions, and whether, in my case, I was adjudged harshly
on criteria that causes no concerns in the file of one of different genetic makeup. This harsh judgment as
to my 1993 conviction for what the sentencing judge called an act of chivalry continues to haunt my file
to this day, as that the BLE yet builds upon my previous denial. If others of dissimilar race with criminal
records more involved than mine are treated more favorably by the Board that is, their misdemeanors and
trespasses are not counted against them, then race-based favoritism/disfavoritism may be the explanation.
I have more to share on this subject, and will do so if an investigation ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #6: I have been treated unfairly due to gender bias

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: The seats of judicial power in Indiana are, in the main, held by
women. Some call abortion a womens issue. Abortion animates my file before the BLE. It has been
front and center throughout (along with viewpoint discrimination and doctrinal acid tests), as the Seventh
Circuit noted

Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian
to put obedience to God's laws above human laws. Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown
expressed devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health
treatment and that he made sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental
health authority and the abortion industry.

Brown v. Bowman, 668 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2012)

Some of those who dub the civil rights and social justice issue abortion a womans issue have long told
me to get my rosary off their ovaries in response to my concerns about the human rights issue that is
called abortion on demand. Has this street level anti-patriarchal feminism mutated into bias against me by
on the part of the Indiana judiciary? I believe that is a possible reading of the record.

In 2007-09, the BLE was made up of about half women. Its Executive Director was a woman. More women
than men were involved in the decision to deny me a law license in 2009, including the afore-mentioned
women, the female Executive Director of JLAP Terry Harrell, and Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, the
governments chosen psychiatrist who filed an admittedly-false report essentially ending my career at law.
Today two women serve as the President and Vice President of the BLE, with three woman also serving on
the Board. The report that was used to deny me a law license in 2009 was inexplicably delayed weeks to be
file stamped January 22 the well-known anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Some will scoff, but if a Black applicant was denied as a result of an admittedly falsified report (with racial
undertones) that was filed on the death date of Martin Luther King, Jr, would it be dismissed so lightly? I
think not. If a gay applicant was denied as a result of an admittedly falsified report (with traditionalist
undertones) that was filed on the anniversary of the Mathew Shepard murder would it be dismissed so
lightly? I think not. If a Muslim applicant was denied as a result of an admittedly falsified report (with
patriotic undertones) that was filed on September 11 would be dismissed so lightly? I think not.

Yet my concerns about the admittedly falsified report of Dr. Bowman, which faulted me for my views on
abortion, and which was filed on January 22, are dismissed quite lightly. Is this because she is a woman
aligned with the dominant creedal statements of the legal elite and I am a male dissident from those same
creeds? (I.e., politically incorrect). Or is it because I am not supposed to bring this up at all, since it is
circumstantial evidence of animus and bias?
13
Request of the Commission: Consider that just as men in control of government authority can suffer from
misogynistic tendencies and therefore be investigated for possible biases and discriminatory
thought/actions, so too woman can suffer from (even unrecognized) misandry. If there is no rational reason
for the nonstandard fashion in which my application has been processed to date, then the irrational reason
of misandry may be the explanation. I have more to share on this subject, and will do so if an investigation
ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #7: I have been treated unfairly due to ethnic bias

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: My record before the BLE sets forth in detail my claims and
concerns here. See especially my previously described verified civil rights complaint from February 2010.
In that report I present myself as a member of an ethnic subset in modernist America: Catholic, pro-life,
pro-natural law, homeschooling, patriarchal, traditionalist, and constitutionalist. This amalgamation
defines a cultural expression within our greater American experience. While the progressives among the
legal elite tend to label us as ignorant, retrograde, unwanted evolutionary throwbacks, a sociologist (I am
so degreed) recognizes us as an ethnic subgroup.

Yet rather than being celebrated for the diversity that I bring to the bar, rather than a warm all-inclusive
embrace, I believe that I have been met, instead, with biases and discriminatory treatment based upon my
ethnicity, from Dr. Ross, from Dr. Bowman, from the government social worker Sudrovech, and even from
the BLE. By building upon this previous unfair treatment based upon my ethnic identity, the BLE continues
to victimize me in an unfair manner.

Request of the Commission: Study/investigate the allegation of biases against me due to my ethnicity as
revealed in the files of Applicant 24128, and especially as presented in my verified civil rights complaint
from February 2010 and recent affidavit alleging the same. This focus upon my ethnic identity has
continued into the present, albeit in a more nuanced form. Consider that just as traditionalists in control of
government authority can afflict others due to ethnic biases, and therefore be investigated for possible
discriminatory actions, so too, progressives and nontraditionalists can perpetrate (even unrecognized) ethnic
biases. If there is no rational reason for my nonstandard processing at the hands of the government (i.e.
unfairness), then the irrational reason of ethnic bias may be the explanation. I have more to share on this
subject, and will do so if an investigation ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #8: I have been treated unfairly by the misuse and purposed
misstating of mental health records

I was labeled mentally ill or something quite close to it by the Board back in 2009, and therefore rejected
as to character and fitness. The BLE alleged that two or more mental health agents had found me to suffer
from a diagnosable condition that I refused to have treated. It was, in fact, my conservative belief system
that the Board and its agents had focused upon. My history with the BLE is, if nothing else, a very fine
example of the abuse of mental health assessments to the great harm of a religiously motivated socio-
political dissident.

An overview should prove helpful to the Commission. I presented the history of my mental health
adventures with the Board at length in my August 25, 2014 letter and my fifty-three page affidavit seeking
the Indiana Supreme Courts supervision of this process.

A shorter accounting is as follows:

14
Seven years ago the Board ordered me onto the couch of psychologist Stephen Ross. Dr. Ross conducted
an involved inquisition, involving three objective tests recognized and respected by the profession due to
their alleged powers, and, on the very face of his report admitted to weighing my religious perspectives
he nevertheless found me bar worthy. He concluded that he could diagnose me with no actual mental health
condition in light of that testing. His conclusion was rejected by the BLE.

I sought an independent evaluation from psychologist Dr. Thomas Sass. He did not use any objective tests,
but he, too, weighed my psyche/soul and found it bar worthy. This Board barely gave his glowing
evaluation of me passing glance. Dr. Sass conclusion was rejected by the BLE.

The Boards chosen psychiatrist, Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, before seeing me herself, then chose an
independent psychologist, Dr. William Alexy, to test me using subjectivist methodologies. Alexys testing
was quite different from both Sass and Ross. He, like Drs. Sass and Ross, diagnosed me with no condition
and recommended that I sit for the bar exam and become an Indiana attorney.

Alexys was the third such opinion from mental health agents in six months clearing me --- all of which
were rejected by the BLE. Wrong answer?

Next up comes the grand inquisitor as it were, the governments hand-picked psychiatrist, Dr. Elizabeth
Bowman. Her methodology was most like Dr. Sass. No fancy computer tests, no pictures, no complete-
the-sentences, no ink blots, no fill in the blanks. Just sit and tell me your life story, and let me ask you
questions about your upbringing, your values, your religious opinions, and your viewpoint on hot button
social issues, your empathies, your intimacies and your deepest innermost secrets.

It was kind of like spending eight hours with Bewitcheds Gladys Kravitz only to have the final report
written by NBCs Brian Williams. To no great surprise, this government ordained weigher of my soul, this
hard left social activist nee psychiatrist Dr. Elizabeth Bowman 11 found me wanting. See supra, the Seventh
Circuits footnote on how I was evaluated my views on social issues led the parade as I was carted off to
be burned at the secularists stake.

My figurative burning at the stake on mental illness/fitness grounds was justified, the BLE determined,
because more than one mental health agent had found me worthy of such an end. So said Dr. Bowman, so
repeated the BLE. But there was a problem. Dr. Bowman had misrepresented Dr. Alexys diagnosis and
recommendations to get me tied to the governments stake.

Neither Dr. Bowman, nor JLAP social worker Tim Sudrovech filed the Alexy report with the Board. Finding
that curious, I requested it directly from Dr. Alexy to double check Bowmans report on his report. After
reading Alexys report and finding that it cleared me, and that it was in material disagreement with the
Bowman report, I file the Alexy report with the BLE. They completely ignored it and still built about one-
third of their opinion adverse to me and destructive of my legal career on the Bowman report.

11
Whose biased and discriminatory even harsh -- public denunciations of fundamentalists, conservatives
traditionalists, evangelicals, the patriarchy, pro-lifers Catholics those who resist gay marriage, those
who call God Father, those who oppose her ideals as to gender issues and Christians with whom she disagrees
(i.e., the ones that she claims will not be with her and the Godhead in Paradise, including me) I have filed with this
Board earning a harsh rebuke from both the Board and the Indiana Supreme Court for so doing. See Ind. S.Ct.
docket in my appeal, decision 11/16/2009, order unfiling from the docket the evidence I tendered toward this, order
that BLE maintain the pleading alleging bias. See also Exhibit 70 and the discounted/ignored post-hearing motions
from my previous BLE record.
15
The story does not end here. I sued Dr. Bowman and other alleging a conspiracy to violate my civil rights,
including claims sounding under the Fourteenth Amendment. I used her misuse of the Alexy report as
Exhibit A.

And now the plot thickens. Dr. Bowman filed an answer in federal court admitting that her report misstated
the findings, diagnosis, conclusion and treatment plan of Dr. Alexy. After admittedly reading his very clear
and rather short report, Bowman had mistakenly thought Dr. Alexy had diagnosed me with a mental
illness, when he had, in fact, found me to suffer from no such thing. (Her reading comprehension skills
should be quite suspect at this point.)

Not only that, Dr. Bowman had mistakenly thought that Dr. Alexy had recommended that I spend time in
psychoanalysis with a female therapist, when Dr. Alexy had ordered no therapy, finding me quite sane and
all.

Of course, Dr. Bowman misquoted Dr. Alexy at a time when she did not realize that I would get a copy of
the Alexy report and file it with the Board. I think I became a fly in the ointment at that point. One to be
swatted.

Dr. Bowman also made some other concessions in federal court that one in my position finds unsettling:
That she knew of me before I contacted her; That the government handler/social worker Tim Sudrovech
had told her what she could and could not write in her report; That she was pre- and post-briefed by
Sudrovech, and; That the government agent Tim Sudrovech had failed (or simply refused) to pass onto the
Board Dr. Bowmans verbal recommendation that I be given a law license.

That last one is a real kicker. JLAPs Sudrovech must have determined that Dr. Bowman agreeing with Dr.
Ross, Dr. Alexy, Dr. Sass and Dr. Flueckiger in other words all of the doctors that evaluated me as the
question of my sanity and bar worthiness --- a mere minor detail unworthy of mentioning to the Board or
me. I mean, who really cares what the doctors conclude. As the BLEs final report dated September 25,
2009 clearly reveals, all that mattered is what Sudrovech, who never met me, recommended. He evidently
did not want any doctor, even Bowman, to get in the way of him not recommending me for a law license.

Now here is one of the many ironies that haunt my application processing. I have been now been denied
certification as to good moral character, or fitness, or both due to my alleged refusal to indulge the Board
and get a fifth independent evaluation like Bowmans, while I was harshly denounced, in the Boards
order of September 25, 2009, for obtaining a second opinion from a psychiatrist just before I saw Dr.
Bowman.

It is true, I must admit, I sought out a second opinion. Before setting up the government mandated visit with
the prevaricating (or at least something like prevarication) Dr. Bowman, I had already set up and set for an
independent mental health examination from a psychiatrist with very fine credentials. See
http://www.citizensmemorial.com/news/2014/citizens-memorial-hospital-announces-new-medical-
staff.html I asked JLAP to prepare Dr. Bryan Flueckiger. They refused. Thus I prepared him by asking
Dr. Ross to tender his report and I dropped off the Rule 12 criteria at his office days before meeting him for
the evaluation. Dr. Flueckiger was not on the take and he did not guarantee me a good report before I
met with him. It was a truly independent mental health assessment.

It is interesting to note that none of the professionals briefed by Tim Sudrovech were given the Rule 12
criteria. One is left to wonder just how Sudrovech pre-briefed them, if not against the very Rule that was
16
supposed to be used to adjudge my bar worthiness? A glimpse into the process is found in the Ross report
and the Bowman federal court answer, and neither looks good for Sudrovech. The question is who was
directing him? It is a question yet unanswered.

I have repeatedly attached Dr. Flueckigers dispassionate and professional report to my letters to the BLE.
As I stated, I was rebuked for daring to even seek him out in the Boards 2009 order, and his report, like
the written reports of Ross, Sass and Alexy, was scorned by the Board. I was, in fact, seemingly punished
by the Board for seeing out Dr. Flueckiger.

Dr. Flueckiger found me, like Dr. Ross, like Dr. Sass, and like Dr. Alexy, quite sane and more than
acceptable under the actual Rule 12 criteria.

I am, in fact, quite sane. Just, it seems to me, too darn conservative to allow some BLE members who
stand between me and a law license to vote for my approval to practice. What a scary Star Chamber-like
system Indiana maintains!

Due to Bowmans admittedly falsified report, I have been labeled mentally unfit by the BLE. She recanted,
but the Board will have none of it. An allegory from gender studies would be if one were to label me
female, and for that reason justify excluding me from a mens college basketball league. No matter how I
protested that the labeling was in error, the system claimed it was impossible of error, and so I was, for all
of the systems intent and purposes, a female. Even the one entering the data admits that I am male, that the
female label was attached to my file in error. Still the system will not let me play mens ball, since I am a
female. Irrational, right?

I could not come up with a parallel involving races or religions, since the government allegedly allows no
separate but equal accommodations there. (Hmmm, perhaps race and religion make a better group than
race and gender?)

Request of the Commission: Study/investigate the discrimination inherent in such cynical misuse of the
mental health assessment powers granted the BLE and JLAP. Dr. Thomas Szatzs work on the power of
labeling is most instructive. I was given the mark of Cain, or, if the reader prefers, a yellow star stapled to
my sleeve to mark me as the unwanted. It is my prayer and hope that no future bar applicant, of any race,
gender, religion, ethnicity or ideology is run through the same dehumanizing gauntlet that I described above.
An investigation as to whether the Sudrovech/Bowman error in communication was the work of gross
negligence or intentional acts or direction from on High could save some applicants and/or attorneys from
a broken career and financial destitution in the future. I have more to share on this subject, including
additional allegations of malfeasance, and will do so if an investigation ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #9: I have been treated unfairly based upon unfounded and false
mental health allegations

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: This claim follows up on the former. That is because, based
upon what I documented above, the BLE now considers me mentally ill and in need of another psych screen,
from their hand-picked expert and no other, before they can clear me to enter the Indiana bar. I fear, of
course, another set up like the Bowman episode. I think I would me mentally ill not to fear such a repeat,
since the BLE refused to admit their error and seem bent on instead getting me before a mental health agent
of their choosing, of their pre-briefing, of their post-briefing, and now, a new wrinkle, even to be hired by
them and paid by them (albeit without an explanation as to where the funds are coming from to pay this
new Dr. Bowman figure in my life.)
17
I believe that federal law has something to say about their groundless allegations. A prima facie case in an
action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 12132 et seq., [ADA], alleging
discrimination in bar admission due to the applicants history can be supported, even if the applicant is not
mentally ill, if the applicant is perceived as having such an impairment. Such is the case at bar the BLE
perceives me to have an ailment, and thus treats me discriminatorily.

At the risk of proving that I am crazy by denying that I am crazy (the favorite argument of bureaucratic
totalitarians the world over) -- I have no such ailment. The proof is in the reports filed with the BLE that
have not been disclaimed. The BLE can bring forth no credible evidence of such an ailment. They only
allege, cynically.

Due to this perception, which is better dubbed a baseless government accusation that builds upon a fraud
before the Indiana Supreme Court, I have been subjected to additional burdens -- such as being required to
answer inappropriately broad disability-related inquiries on the bar application and being subjected to
harassing and constantly mutating procedures seemingly intended to embarrass me, and now being denied
bar admission for refusing to open myself to another shot from one situated just like Dr. Elizabeth Bowman
-- who, has, based upon the communication file from the BLE, done absolutely nothing wrong in her
processing of my file, despite her admissions otherwise.

The focus here should be upon the cynical use of the allegation of mental illness, affording this
Commission opportunity to study how the BLE justifies its past and desired future actions adverse me.
As the record above reveals, I was found quite sane in the previous go around. Wrong answer. There is
nothing in my current file to justify the BLE treating me like I am less than sane. Yet I am still so treated.
Yet without any reasonable predicate, the BLE has attempted, since May, 2014, since I passed the bar
exam, to force me to have my personality approved by one of their hand-picked experts. Yes, they
have actually used the word personality to describe just what it is they want a mental health
professional to weigh out as to me.

My one hundred letters of recommendation written over a twenty year period, the recommendation of all
of my supervisors since law school, recommendations from co-counsel, from opposing counsel, from
Attorneys General, from two United States Congressman -- none of those matter. That I am a Kansas
licensed attorney in good standing since 1996 who has never been disciplined -- does not matter. That I
am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
and have been admitted and argued before about half of the federal courts of appeals -- does not matter.
That the nonpartisan National Conference of Bar Examiners approved me as to character and fitness the
year before I applied to Indiana -- does not matter. That I recently finished a Masters of Science degree
at the intersection of law and medicine in a one year advanced program --- does not matter.

All that matters is that the Board alleges me to be mentally ill, and that I, in response, grovel appropriately
and seek help from the new Dr. Bowman figure to whom they direct me.

I fall under the ADAs regarded as prong due to the BLEs assumption that I need to see a mental health
official to qualify for law license. This prong applies when the government mistakenly believing that an
applicant has a substantially limiting impairment. See, e.g., Lanman v. Johnson County, Kansas, 393 F.3d
1151 (10th Cir. 2004). At least one court one quite close to home -- has held that a licensing board that
imposes any additional requirements on applicants with a history of mental health issues will trigger
application of the regarded as prong. ACLU of Indiana v. Individual Members of the Indiana State Bd.
of Law Examiners, 44 Natl Disability Law Rep. P 18, 2011 WL 4387470 (S.D. Ind. 2011). The BLE was,
18
of course, a party to that case. For some reason the BLE still finds cause to erect a full blown mental health
assessment as a bar to my admission, even after losing that case.

Bad faith may be the reason? Discriminatory intent may be indicated?

Request of the Commission: Study/investigate the discrimination inherent in such a seemingly cynical
misuse of mental health allegations, which is a stand-alone violation of the ADA. I ask that this Commission
challenges the BLE to identify the danger that I allegedly pose to the public. I ask this Commission to
demand that the BLE put in writing the predicate for repeatedly requesting that I tender a full
psychological workup to satiate their concerns concerns not satiated by my tender of the same,
successfully, five years ago. While I am not mentally ill, and have proven this to the BLE, they yet allege
as much in a seemingly cynical bid to delay, even foreclose, my admission to the Indiana bar. This is not
at all reasonable. Nor it is at all fair. The blatant religious and ethnic discrimination of 2008-09 has now
taken on a more nuanced and subtle form - the allegation that I have a personality defect needing managed.
One that primarily showed itself when I dared to question the constitutionality of government actions hostile
to me due to my religious and ethnic identity.

There is, of course, much historic precedence for the treatment of such dissidents, but I dare not cite to it.
As the record reveals, so citing to that historic precedence in 2008 got me labeled as mentally ill in a
report that was later admitted, by its author, to be error-filled and even falsified. There is no rational reason
for either my nonstandard processing at the hands of the government (i.e. unfairness) or the (potentially
defamatory) allegation that I suffer from mental illness. Given the decided lack of a rational basis for the
actions, an irrational reason is the likely explanation. Unfairness is thus writ large in my file. I have more
to share on this subject, and will do so if an investigation ensues.

Allegation of profound unfairness #10: I have been treated unfairly because I am a whistleblower.

Allegations of Fact/Supporting Evidence: My August 15, 2014 letter and fifty-three page affidavit of
October 2014 spell out these claims most clearly. In a nutshell, I documented unconstitutional and even
fraudulent actions by Dr. Ross, by Dr. Bowman and by government social worker Tim Sudrovech. The
fraud rose to such a level that it became fraud upon the Indiana Supreme Court and even the Supreme Court
of the United States, since the Bowman report was filed with my petition seeking certiorari. I allege fraud
on these Courts that caused me to be denied a law license and be ordered to not even again seek an Indiana
license for five years. My detractors will claim that I seek to reargue an appeals lost in 2010 and 2012
such is not the case, for this evidence of fraud, and especially as to Dr. Bowman, was not fully before the
Indiana Supreme Court until I filed my application in the Fall of 2013.

This is because Dr. Bowmans admission of prevarication, or something much like it, and accusations of
professional malfeasance against Tim Sudrovech were not before the Indiana Supreme Court in 2010, for
her federal court answers did not file until after my previous application to join the Indiana bar was
completed and closed. This whistle blower has suffered great loss, seemingly for blowing the whistle on
processing that facilitated a fraud upon both the Indiana and United States Supreme Courts. I now have
suffered denial of good moral character and mental fitness since May 20, 2014, based, in the main, upon
actions taken against me, I believe, due to my whistle blower status.

I anticipate that this present filing with the Commission may cause me to suffer even more as a whistle
blower. I have purposely not excerpted from my record before the Board or attached documents served
only upon the Board or arguably residing only in the Boards files due to my reasonable fear that this very
report may generate state action hostile to me on the part of the Board. It is not inconceivable that the BLE
19
will file against my Kansas law license to punish me for blowing the whistle on their actions in this plea for
a civil rights investigation.

The fact that I am a whistle blower who holds evidence of a fraud perpetrated upon the Courts, a fraud that
was due to gross negligence and/or intentional discrimination, grants this Commission a stand-alone reason,
apart from all of the above, to investigate, irrespective of my gender or race. That is because I lodge credible
allegations that I have suffered adverse treatment from the government as a result of my whistle blowing.
Request of the Commission: Study/investigate the allegation of lack of protection for whistle blowers. I
ask this Commission to review the following article written by Indiana University Professor of Law Patrick
Baude, who was a current Indiana Bar Examiner and former President of the Board of Law Examiners
when he penned it: An Essay on the Regulation of the Legal Profession and the Future of Lawyers
Characters, 68 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 647 (1993). The article is the work of a consummate insider and
whistle blower who alleges, from his perch on the very Board at question, that studies have shown that the
current effect of [character and fitness] regulation has not been to protect the public so much as to ensure
the spoils of victory to those who control the politics of the bar. Id. My career at law, and my very ability
to support my wife and five minor children, are such spoilage at this time. My life has become, one could
conclude, a spoil of the culture war due to the BLE -- if Professor Baudes critique is taken at face value.

This glaring lack of protection for whistle blowers in my circumstance defines my contemporary problems
with the BLE, as I attempt to resist a seeming desire to punish me for daring to question the processing of
my application. I believe that I have been punished, and that I am still being punished. If there is no
rational reason for my nonstandard processing at the hands of the government (i.e. unfairness), then the
irrational reason of punishment for whistle blowing may be the explanation. I have more to share on this
subject, and will do so if an investigation ensues.

###

All of the above except the final allegations sound in traditional equal protection classification or
treatment based upon group identity. The latter claims are brought to the Commission in keeping with the
less common class of one analysis. Since the latter claim is less common, I present the following briefing
in support:

A moment's thought shows that a true class-of-one case (that is, one that does not implicate
fundamental rights) falls under the "general rule" that the Court has articulatedin other words,
the allegedly unequal treatment of the "one" must be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a
legitimate state interest. As the Supreme Court has said, "[u]nless a classification trammels
fundamental personal rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion,
or alienage, our decisions presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and require
only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest." City of
New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976). If a classification
is based on a forbidden characteristic, then by definition it would not be a class-of-one case. Under
rational-basis review, the Court continued, "it is only the invidious discrimination, the wholly
arbitrary act, which cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. at 303-04, 96
S.Ct. 2513. It is the plaintiff who bears the heavy burden of showing such a complete lack of
rationality in the challenged state action.

Del Marcelle v. Brown Cnty. Corp., 680 F.3d 887, 911 (7th Cir. 2012) Such is the black letter law governing
my ten allegations.

20
I have clearly alleged invidious discrimination in the final claims set forth above. Given the following, I
believe that I have a case sounding under the class of one analysis:

[complainant must ] show that he was the victim of discrimination intentionally visited on him by
state actors who knew or should have known that they had no justification, based on their public
duties, for singling him out for unfavorable treatmentwho acted in other words for personal
reasons, with discriminatory intent and effect. [Complainant] must plead and prove both the
absence of a rational basis for the defendant's action and some improper personal motive (which
need not be hostility, but could be, for example, corruption) for the differential treatment.

Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 255 (7th Cir. 2012). Please see my briefing before the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in Brown v. Bowman, 668 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2012). See especially my reply brief,
docket # 29, 09/02/2011, in which I clearly allege corruption as the cause of the discrimination. That
ideological corruption continues, unabated, to this day. I was singled out, and am still singled out for
unfavorable treatment, as a result of ideological corruption on the part of the BLE.

The other factors that have crept their way into our class-of-one casespersonal animus,
illegitimate motives, inexplicable deviations from clear rulesare not primary rules. They are
instead illustrative of the kind of facts on which a plaintiff might rely in a complaint to show that
the lack of a rational basis is not merely possible, but plausible.

Del Marcelle, 680 F.3d at 913. I have documented, and can document further, examples of personal animus,
illegitimate motives, inexplicable deviations from clear rules and other such evidence supporting my class
of one claims. In the parlance of case law, I have alleged intentional discrimination, which is required for
any violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040,
48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 610, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985).

I allege and sincerely believe that I would be able, after an investigation, to show "discriminatory purpose"
by demonstrating that "the decision maker ... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in
part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects...." Id.

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) parallels my bar application. The Village was
charged with having discriminated against the Olechs in violation of its own regulation. The Village was
accused of doing so in order to punish the Olechs for having sued the Village. The Villages discrimination
was in the form of asking too much of the Olechs. The Village had a right to a 15 foot easement, but, upset
that the Olechs had engaged in whistle blowing against the Village via litigation, the government agents
attempted to get the Olechs to sign away a 33 foot easement. The Village had no legal predicate to demand
the extra 18 feet, and so the Olechs refused and went without a sewer hookup. After three months (only
three months!) the Village relented and allowed the Olechs the sewer with the legally justifiable 15 foot
easement. The Olechs sued, alleging class of one equal protection claims.

Finding that the purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every
person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned
by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents the Court allowed
the Olechs to sue the Village, since the demand for the 18 extra feet appeared to be retaliatory rather than
justified under the law.

21
In my case the violation can be found, among other actions, in the demand that I return to the couch of one
of the governments hand-picked mental health agents as a predicate to the BLE processing my application
to join the Indiana bar.

I allege that the BLE has delayed my application, even now moving its processing backward and violating
a pledge to instead move it onto the docket of the Indiana Supreme Court, to visit adverse effects upon me
because I sued JLAP and Drs. Bowman and Ross. Because I sued, because I am a whistle blower I have
faced, since 2008, but especially since May, 2014, administrative headwinds meant to punish me, to make
an example of me. Just like the Olechs. I believe that placing certain Examiners (or support staff) under
oath during an investigation will bear this out.

Reason alone cannot explain the decision to not certify me in May, 2014. I have suffered from special
treatment as a whistle blower of a despised ethnic identity, unwanted ideological bent, disdained religious
expression, and likely just a general dislike of me personally.

The main question is what relief do I have under the law? I am up against a Board created by the Indiana
Supreme Court and vested with monarch-like immunity. I am certain that I can allege facts that would
survive a motion to dismiss on the merits, but the immunity doctrines would foreclose me from even
opening the courthouse door.

That problem of relief brought me to this Commissions doorstep. I believe that this Commission was
established to address problems just like the one I have documented. Now, I understand that I am not of
the gender or race that this dinner was set to serve but guess who has come to dinner this decade? A
white conservative, male, heterosexual, seeking the Commissions help, appealing to diversity and
inclusiveness to find a seat at the table.

As to the law, I appeal to modern Equal Protection doctrines pioneered more than seventy years ago in a
case weighing state action that purposely deprived mentally challenged criminals of the fundamental right
to procreate. Edited to better fit my situation that seminal case law would read as follows:

When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality
of offense and sterilizes [ends the legal career of] one and not the other, it has made as invidious
a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment.

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

Thus the analysis for class of one ends much like the analysis for all other equal protection claims. Was
some individual treated differently in a manner that is unreasonable? Not a mere roll of the dice or turn of
an unfriendly card, but rather some more insidious like gender bias, or racial discrimination, or anti-
religious bigotry, or ethnic cleansing, or a slap down to silence the whistleblower.

The Board of Law Examiners is made up of ten attorneys who serve on a rotating basis. Bradley Skolnik is
the current Executive Director. Linda L. Loepker was the executive director when, I allege, serial violations
of equal protection and due process, violations that are still prejudicing me in the present, were undertaken.
Those active in my case through JLAP include Tim Sudrovech and Terry Harrell. I am not alleging that
each of these individuals are equally culpable, or that each one acted out of discriminatory intent, or even
the same intent. Some may have been moved by racial biases, while others were unduly influenced by anti-
religious bias, while still others, unmoved by either race or religion, instead acted out of gender biases,
ideological biases or ethnic biases. Some, I will admit, may have no discriminatory intent or biases
22
whatsoever. Others likely misunderstand the law and the limitations based on their power, not realizing
that making it difficult for me simply out of dislike for my personality or politics or pro-life perspectives
is itself an unlawful act.

I am constrained by the system. From a litigation perspective this constraint is mostly due to doctrines of
absolute immunity and Rooker-Feldman. From a state appellate perspective this constraint is the
demonstrable procedural fact that the Board has me stuck in a whirlpool of its own design, swirling
requests over me again and again, nuanced demands that I go to another Dr. Bowman or they will not
allow me to escape to appellate review.

As to my inability to determine the exact reason for my current position, as to each and every player keeping
me in the above referenced eddy I admit, I cannot. But I do believe that I have documented a metaphorical
neutering one that mere standard processing cannot justify. Res ipsa loquitur. So victimized, so
figuratively sterilized, so professionally emasculated, this legal eunuch begs this Honorable Committee to
investigate why he has been so mistreated and is still be so mistreated --- if for no other reason than to
ensure that no future applicants are processed in a similar career-destroying manner.

Conclusion

It is my belief that the above allegations, and the record to which they direct, document an administrative
process that has refused to follow the rules of fairness has refused to follow even its own standard
procedure for less than admirable reason. This disturbing trend in the Indiana bar admission processing
was the subject a whistle blowing law review article from a then-serving Law Examiner to no effect in
1993.

The ongoing use of the processing paradigm that I have documented (and attempted to expose) constitutes
the repudiation of the significant obligation that government attorneys have to be role models as to the
necessity of following the rules and not breaking your word as litigators. Who but government attorneys
reporting directly to the Indiana Supreme Court should be charged with the task of assuring that justice is
properly administered, who but such bright stars and self-professed super lawyers among Indianas legal
elite should be modeling the best in due process?

Two towering figures in the pursuit of Hoosier justice recently stated (in a case that encouraged me to file
this request for an investigation) the following:

the highest degree of professionalism should continue to govern the behavior of all attorneys at all
times. Walking the line of permissible and impermissible conduct creates distrust in our legal
system, undermines the rights we have sworn to protect, and discourages collegiality. The
profession deserves thoughtful adherence to ethical, professional, and prosecutorial standards.

Shell v. Indiana, Denial of Transfer Order in Appellate Case 52A02-1307-CR-598, dissent of David, J. joined
by Rucker, J. (Jan. 27, 2015).

If the above quote describes fairness, and fairness for all, not just for favored races and favored genders,
then I must stand and salute this pledge to render justice the ideal American Way in Hoosier judicial
governance. I believe that I have documented a system has knowingly and purposely failed to maintain the
standards set forth above.

23
It is my prayer that this submission helps the Indiana Supreme Court find its way home to just such blind
fairness/justice, even if it does not aid me in my personal search for justice. I have prepared myself for
another loss, again on principle, again to demonstrate that there are agents and forces with the Indiana court
system bent on the misuse of the power that they have been delegated.

That pledged, I do seek fairness, I do seek justice, I do seek release from the ad hoc nullification machine
that is denying me the ability to work in my chosen profession, based upon the application of religiously-
nuanced tests, in clear violation of the Indiana constitution, Article I, section 5. And to the great harm, even
very great harm, of my family -- my wife and five minor children. We are a family in significant distress,
due, in the main, to state action/inaction regarding my licensure a decision that the nonpartisan NCBE
found easy to make two years before I applied to Indiana nearly ten years ago. A decision that held up
neither the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals nor the federal district court for the Northern District of
Indiana.

I seek recourse to the law, a redress of my grievances, in keeping with the following organic law governing
the Hoosier court system:

All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or
reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and
without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.

Indiana Constitution, Article I, Section 12. I seek the Commission of Race and Gender Fairness aid in my
search for speedy justice, equal protection and due process in this very difficult situation. To expedite a
thorough review, I hereby waive any and all claims to privilege or privacy or confidentiality. The latter has
already been rendered the law of the case via State of Indiana, ex rel. Bryan J. Brown v. Board of Law
Examiners, 94S00-1410-OR-00668 (October, 2014).

Finally, it is my understanding that the BLE will meet again on this Friday, February 13 to consider my
status. I sincerely hope that this Commission monitors the work of the BLE on Friday, challenging any
who would allow the biases alleged herein to result in discrimination or the misapplication of the law.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Bryan J. Brown
1304 Lakeland Cove
Fort Wayne, IN 46825
bryanjbrownlaw@gmail.com
(260) 515-8511

Indiana Bar Applicant 24128

Kansas Bar License No. 17634 (since 1996)
Admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States (Since 2001)
Admitted to practice law in the Northern District of Indiana (after a full briefing on why the Indiana Board of Law
Examiners would not have me)
Cleared as to Character and Fitness by the National Conference of Bar Examiners and the State of Missouri in 2006 just
one year before I was stalled, and then denied, now twice denied, by Indiana. 12

12
Additional details as to these comparable jurisdictions, as well as my previous interactions with the BLE, are
found in my BLE file, and especially in my letters to the BLE in August 2014 and January 2015. I was uncertain as
to whether I should copy the BLE on this request from the Commission. I determined that since both serve the
same Court, and that since this Commission seems to have some investigative authority, that I would leave to the
24
p.s.

As this Commission debates whether to study/investigate my call for an unfairness investigation, I

realize that some may consider the fact that my politics, my religion and my view of the social issues
arising out of my religion and politics are quite different than many, if not most, on the Commission. With
all due respect the analysis is not whether the Commission would want to hire me, work alongside me,
commute with me or worship beside me. I am not asking to be put on the Commission although that
would not be a bad idea, if diversity is the goal. I am admittedly politically incorrect, but I am also
merely a magisterium affirming Roman Catholic of a conservative political bent. I advocate nothing that
is against the law or outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. The question should be whether I am to be
afforded equal protection and the due process of law.

Given the month, and given this somber topic, I pause to mark Presidents Day with an appropriate quote
from our most celebrated founding father, our first president:
I have already intimated to you the danger of [partisan] parties in the state [governance] . Let
me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the
baneful effects of the spirit of [partisanship], generally. The alternate domination of one faction
over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to [political] party dissension, which in
different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful
despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their
Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an
explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

George Washington (Feb 22, 1732 -Dec 14, 1799)

End of request for investigation and study of alleged unfairness within judicial branch

Commission the decision as to if and when the BLE should be copied. Neither have I copied any other government
entities with this submission.
25