Interest of the Amicus

Robbin Stewart is a Marion County Indiana voter who was denied the vote in the 2006 primary and general elections when he declined to provide ID without a warrant or some showing of probable cause. He was personally known to the election official. His provisional vote was not counted after he went to the clerks office and asked that it be counted, but again declined to show ID.
Joell Palmer is a Marion County voter who was denied the vote in the 2006 primary election. In the general election, his ID was searched without warrant before he was allowed to vote. He received over 300 votes as a Libertarian Party candidate for state representative.
Stewart and Palmer were harmed when Stewart's provisional vote for Palmer was not counted. Palmer was harmed when his voting license was searched without cause.
Palmer was a co-plaintiff in Edmonds v Indianapolis (_US_ 2000) when he was unconstitutionally searched and assaulted at a drug roadblock. He objects to roadblocks at the polling booth. Stewart was the plaintiff in Stewart v Taylor (_S.D.Ind. _ 1997) which found Indiana's disclaimer statute unconstitutional, after one of his campaign signs was confiscated by election officials.
Stewart expects that he will be prevented from voting for Ron Paul in the 2007 primary if the court does not provide preliminary relief.

Private - not for public consumption.
privileged attorney work product.
go away. thanks.

1 IRS penalties
2 Habitat for humanity
3 call mom X
4 go thru gmails.
5 outline 227 tax problems
6 email re house on tecumseh
7 make better list
8 sign case
9 jail situation
10 PA cop situation.

http://www.rcrclinical.com/volunteers.html
- Show quoted text -
http://www.astrazeneca-us.com does studies in philly, cant find info online.
Spare Time???


Notes for E ethics complaint

To: Indiana Disciplinary Commission

I am writing to report what I suspect is a series of violations of
ethical standards by @KE, a former assistant marion county prosecutor.

One concern is dishonesty toward the court.
The other concern is incivility to another attorney.

@KE prosecuted me on four charges. You have already received a disciplinary complaint against me setting out those charges. All charges were dismissed.

Some of the false allegations were made by KE in a motion to revoke bond, made under oath.
In that filing, she claimed that I am a convicted felon. That isn't true.
What is true is that in 1980 I was arrested and charged with drug possession, so there is an FBI file with my fingerprints from the date of arrest. The charges were dropped.
In her filing, she stated that she had verified the felony conviction.
While a prosecutor reporting an arrest as a conviction could have been merely negligence or incompetence or recklessness, her statement that she had verified the conviction had to have been knowingly false, since there was no conviction to verify.
A knowingly false statement under oath to the court by a prosecutor raises ethical concerns.
She has a general duty of honest to the court under the canons of professional conduct, but also swore an oath of office as a prosecutor which included a promise of honesty to the court.

The FBI reports listed both my legal name, Robbin George Stewart, and the name on my birth certificate, Richard Lee Stewart. I had changed my name as a minor for religious reasons.
In her motion to revoke bond, she argued that my having a different name than on my birth certificate was grounds to revoke bond, stating or implying that it was deceptive on my part.
Of course, I have properly disclosed both names when I applied to the Indiana bar, used proper legal process to change my name, and have never used my current name for any fraudulent purposes, and am not hiding anything.
If it had been true that I had a felony and had hidden my change of name, these are not grounds for bond revocation under the rules of procedure.

Another dishonest statement to the court was made orally at the initial bond hearing. She stated that I was unemployed, while knowing that I am an attorney in solo practice. It is certainly true that my practice does not generate an income, since the cases I work on are pro bono civil rights matters. But for the purposes of assessing bond and flight risk, there is a significant difference between a licensed practicing attorney and an unemployed person.

A more serious breach of the duty of honesty to the court was involved in her treatment of the confinement charge.

The most serious charge against me was a felony count of attempted confinement, based on an allegation by a child that I had tried to drag him into a car.
At a deposition in November of 2004, the witness appeared and admitted that I had never tried to drag him into a car; the allegation had been false all along and simply didn't happen.
Under these circumstances, I would think that she would have an ethical duty to dismiss the charge. Instead, she continued to maintain the false charge against me, until, I think it was May of 2005, when she dropped the charge only in exchange for an agreement that I would waive my right to a jury trial.
I suspect, but have no way of knowing for sure, that KA is the person who filed a disciplinary complaint against me, basically reiterating the charges against me.
If she was that person, then once she learned in November that the allegation was false, she might have had a duty to report that to the commission.
One of the other charges against me was initially filed as a misdemeanor battery.
The allegation was that I had struck a teenager with my hand while pushing her around on a merry-go-round piece of playground equipment.
When I plead not guilty and hired counsel, she refiled this charge as a felony.
She knew that the felony charge requires an element of bodily injury, and that no injury had occurred. What was at issue was a momentary affront to the complaintant's dignity, rather than any actual bodily harm.
I think that this overcharging represents dishonesty to the court, in a way that raises ethical concerns.

Above, I have outlined what I think are issues of dishonesty toward the tribunal.
Now, let me go over these points from the perspective of the duty of civility owed to fellow counsel.

At the bond hearing, she claimed that I was unemployed when she knew I was an attorney in private practice.
In the motion for bond revocation, she claimed that she had verified that I was a convicted felon, and that I was improperly using an assumed name.
This filing was irrelevant to any legitimate grounds for bond revocation,
and may or may not have been made to prejudice the court against me, but had as its primary effect trial by media, resulting in adverse coverage by TV channels 6 and 13.
KE is not directly responsible for the additional false malicious and derogatory statements channel 6 added to the story. Channel 13's coverage was fair and balanced, repeating KE's allegations, but also quoted my lawyer and did not include additional false claims.
As a prosecutor, KE is immune from liability for the false defamatory and malicious statements about me that were then echoes to an audience of a million by the TV stations. She is answerable only to the disciplinary commission, and perhaps to her current employer - she now works as a prosecutor in another county.
In November, she learned that I was innocent of the most serious charge against me, but did not dismiss it at that time,and only dismissed it 6 months later in exchange for waiver of my right to jury trial.
If she was the person who filed the disciplinary complaint against me, she failed (as far as I know) to inform the disciplinary body that the confinement charge had been found to be unfounded.
To my subjective opinion, each of the above points - the defamatory false statements under oath, the filing of a charge she knew was unfounded, the refusal to dismiss a charge once she knew it didn't happen, the trial by media, the groundless attempt at bond revocation - represents a failure to treat fellow counsel with civility. I bring these matters to the commission's attention so that they can be reviewed more objectively.
Above, I have concentrated on aspects of the case where KE's conduct (possibly misconduct) is clear and unequivocible. Let me now address the larger picture of what happened, about which KE may have some degree of plausible deniability.

I own a vacant lot on my block, 238 N temple, which I allow to be used as a playground by the church on the corner with the stipulation that they maintain it and allow it to be used by the residents of the 200 Temple block.
On the first warm day of spring I went over there to pick up the trash, since the city's Health and Hospital department files suit against me frequently on allegations of trash or what they call weeds and I call flowers. One of the kids said "Push us, Push us. He's strong." So I pushed the kids around on the merrygoround, boisterously. There was a certain amount of incidental contact, as there usually is when people play together, and someone took offense. They huddled and planned what to do next. Seeing that things had gotten awkward, I went home. Soon I had a visit from an angry parent who threatened to kill me, but settled for calling the police.
Long story short, police assumed the worst, especially after I refused to sign a false statement that it would have been perjury for me to sign.
I was arrested and held for three weeks at CCA. While being booked, I was exposed to HIV and threatened with a taser. At CCA, I was denied food (I'm a vegetarian), medicine (I had a broken tooth which was causing excruciating pain when I couldn't get aspirin for it) was assaulted by inmates, denied sleep, due to excessive noise and violence, denied access to a law library, and denied access to a phone book so that I could call my lawyer. I became ill. Several years later, I still have an irregular heartbeat.
to be continued.
charged under unconstitutionally vague statute.
media frenzy.