Does the Indiana Supreme Court consider the First Amendment helpful? Pertinent? Binding?

(Tim, w/thanks to a brother) Wondering if and where there are violations of the First Amendment in these United States? Look no further. Here's an entirely believable account of the method used to bar Roman Catholic attorney Bryan Brown from practicing law in the state of Indiana. If even partially true, this is a sordid tale. But I'm betting it's all true being quite similar to accounts I've heard privately of intimidation and persecution for the Faith.

Seeking to evaluate Brown's psychological fitness, representatives of the Indiana Supreme Court asked him these questions:

Do you believe that you should be punished for your sins?

Do you believe the husband should be the head of the family?

Do you have strong political opinions?

Do you believe that a multitude of people are involved in sexual sins?

Have you ever had a vision?

Tim Sudrovech, Clinical Director of JLAP--an arm of the Indiana Supreme Court's Indiana Board of Law Examiners--concluded that Brown's religious zeal “suggests a sub-clinical level of bipolar disorder which would warrant further consideration by a psychiatrist.”

The Indiana Supreme Court's Indiana Board of Law Examiners then required Brown to be examined by Indianapolis psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman and Bowman concluded Brown was sick.

In the head.

Brown has responded by filing a lawsuit this week in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne.

If even the smallest part of this account is true, it indicates Hoosier attorneys have been asleep at the wheel for at least a decade, now. Such violations of basic civil rights don't pop up out of nowhere and nothing.

Comments

"Even more troubling is Brown's assertion that Bowman has been associated with the Fort Wayne Feminists, who sued Brown in the 1990s. During his session with Bowman, Brown claims, she said the 'trouble' he caused in Fort Wayne would not 'just be forgotten.'"

Hmmmm. That would definitely be a conflict in interest if he can demonstrate this. Unfortunately, the original lawsuit was filed by Fort Wayne Women's Health Center...and the plaintiffs are all Jane Does.

It may be that Brown was brought before the Indiana Board for questioning based on an injunction against him from the original lawsuit...which has been vacated as of August. Here's a recent case related to the 1990 lawsuit: http://indianalawblog.com/documents/FWWHO.pdf

I'm unsure of the relevance of the board's questions in light of what the court concluded. If their concern was regarding the injunction, they would have to demonstrate the appropriateness of the questions. In light of their being vacated, and this admission from the court, I think the Board ought to be sweating:
"Both sides–and everyone even tangentially
associated with them–respected this court’s orders and any further potential conflict (or even
physical violence) was averted.

As for Brown, he is correct that the record does not indicate that he has ever done
anything to violate any order of this court."

If anything, his conduct demonstrates that, while being pro-life, an active demonstrator to boot, he is able to comply with the law.

Thank you, Pastors. We are in this together, and only by following our Risen King shall we prevail.

WOW...I'm speechless. I don't what to say. I knew this day was coming, but essentially, this means that day is already here. I expected my children to see this as grown ups, but now I see it myself before I am old.

If our religous freedom is removed then America is doomed. I pray for His church, that it may stand in meekness, but not ever in weakness. After all if God is for us,why should we fear? Bryans dad

Dear Mr. Brown and son Bryan,

Thank you for your witness for the unborn. May God give you grace to stand in this latest battle. I will pray that attorneys across the state will be led by God to expose this persecution you have suffered.

With love in Christ,

This is amazing and appalling. Before I react to something as bad as this, though, I like to see evidence that it is true. It's illegal to lie in an affidavit or a lawsuit, but it's been known to happen. Mr. Brown, could you post supporting documents on the Web? If you do, I bet this can get national attention. If you don't know how to post them, just send me scanned-in copies, and I'll set up a web page for you. I'm at erasmuse@indiana.edu.

Too bad not a single one of you has the slightest clue what it is that you're talking about. This is not even remotely a clear picture of what is going on. No one is persecuting you. Truth be told, during Christianity's blood 2000-year history, it has been Christians who have done the persecuting. Grow up, children.

Oh Danny Boy (revised)

Oh Danny Boy, the King, the King is calling
From glen to glen and down the mountain side.
The mothers gone and all the babes lie dying
‘Tis you, ‘tis you must fight so they will ‘bide.
So come ye back, for Christ is ever patient
For sinners’ hearts are made as white as snow
Still Christ is here in sunshine or in shadow
Oh Danny boy, Oh Danny boy, He calls you so.

And if you come, when all the babes are dying
And die for Christ while still a chance there be
You’ll come and find the life that He is giving
And kneel and say, “Thou Christ hath died for me.”

Then you shall hear, “Well done thou faithful servant.”
And all your scorn will be a memory
He will not fail to tell you that He loves you
And you’ll be with Him through eternity.

And you’ll be with Him through eternity.

Danny Boy, if you've got contrary evidence, present it. I'd like to be wrong here, but the evidence I've seen so far clearly indicates political bias in allowing a man to practice law in the state I grew up in.

Danny,
not that I believe you're actually trying to be thoughtful...but on the off chance you are, here's a list of the top 20 "worst" things people have done to each other...please note the top 20 largely follow on the heels of the "Enlightenment": http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst

Add up the totals from atrocities in the 20th Century and compare them the totals from the previous 1900 years.

Consider the death tolls from Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and ask yourself "if ideas have consequences, why do secular ideologies result in more murderous regimes?"

World history is replete with a demonstration of death on behalf of the many against the individual and the individual tyrant vs the many. The 50 million+ that have been massacred in the name of individual freedom does not have a representation on that chart, and that is a grievous statistic. A number written with the blood of infants.

We will see death tolls rise, but not because of the teaching of Scripture, rather, it will be a result of the LORD turning men over to their so-called reason. The fact an abortion rate in the multiples of millions is not recognized as an atrocity is not the sign of man's vibrant, healthy moral state. Instead, it is the sign of it being nearly dried up. It's Romans 1 in action. It's not the sign of the absence of God, it is God visiting delusions upon us:
2 Thess 10b-12
"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."

God have mercy!

The federal complaint is signed under the pains of perjury. Purposed error will cost me my Kansas license. There is none. Read it and see that I seek an order stripping confidentiality protection from the underlying reports. Until that is stripped they cannot be posted, only the affidavit, which contains only those averments justified by the legal claims advanced.
As our Lord Jesus is my King the claims are true.

Danny Boy

We have just left the bloodiest century in history; with tens of millions murdered and ten times that many oppressed by secular socialist regimes. Graig only mentioned the major contributors to this mass genocide committed in the name of a new enlighted humanity. Even the most insignificant third world Marxist despot on this infamous list makes Torqumada look like a flower child. Only the most ignorant of fools could have made such a shockingly untutored statement as you have.

Confidentiality is indeed a cover for a lot of rascally behavior. So far, though, we don't have a copy of your complaint online, or your affidavit, just a link to a news story, and that's not under oath or subject to penalties for fraudulent litigation. Could you post a link to the complaint and affidavit in a comment here?

Hey, Tim, any chance Brown would want to speak at the Bloomington Rally For Life this year?

We aren't getting much support from any local churches (except CGS and a few Catholic churches), I don't know why I'm surprised, and all the pastors we've asked to be the main speaker have turned us down.

-Clint

Al,

I saw the story on National Review Online:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzc1MWExZjc3NTA5NDdhMDY3MTI0ODIyMDEzOTI0NWU=

"A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross."

Apparently, psychology and Christianity are like oil and water. Ever since I took an undergraduate class in psychology, I knew it was just a matter of time before "Christianity" showed up as an entry in the DSM.

Reminds me of this scene from The Simpsons:

In a courtroom, Marge sits in front of a tribunal of three psychologists, who will determine her sanity. Becky, Lisa, Maggie, Bart, and Homer sit in the gallery.

Lisa: Poor Maggie. How many insanity hearings have you been to in your

short little life?

Psy. 2: Mrs. Simpson, before we begin, I just want to assure you that this is not a trial.

[other psychologists groan]

Alright, it's a trial.

[all high five]

Psy. 1: [opens a file] Now, Marge, according to this, you recently went berserk in a ice cream parlor.

Marge: Yes.

Psy. 1: And, Marge, did you ever have an unhealthy fixation on Ringo Starr?

Marge: It was healthy; he reciprocated.

[psychologists take notes]

He reciprocated! [mumbles a prayer]

Psy. 1: Excuse me, what are you doing?

Marge: Oh, I was just praying to God that you'll find me sane.

Psy. 1: I see. And this "God", is he in this room right now?

Marge: Oh, yes. He's kind of everywhere.

[psychologists exchange disapproving looks]

Psy. 2: Marge Simpson, you give us no choice but to declare you utterly--

Marge: [rising] I'm not insane!

Psy. 2: You didn't let me finish. --insane!

It also reminds me of this one interaction I had with a psychologist in my early 20s. At the end of a consultation during which I must have said something about my faith, she was writing a prescription for a medicaion for me and remarked quite disdainfully, "Don't worry, it won't interfere with your belief in 'God.'"

My next thought, which I have ever since regretted not saying, was "Yeah, but I'll bet you're working on a pill for that as we speak, eh?"

Oh boy.....going off on psychologists & psychiatrists can be fun! My favorite example; I was a somewhat troubled youth, and the counselors I had had figured out exactly what my problem was; I was "obviously" feeling guilty about, um, "self-pleasuring." So they got me into a room and told me, using the technical term, that it was OK for about 15 minutes.

In their triumph of modern psychology, they had no idea I had not a clue what that big word meant, and that my real difficulty had to do with the collapse of my parents' marriage.

I guess I'm insane, too. "ha ha ho ho hee hee, they're taking me to the....."

Never mind. I'm OK now. I think. :^)

Is there any way that we can encourage him by reaching him in some direct or indirect way?

Al,
Well, at the risk of confirming the narcissistic diagnosis, yes, yes you can!

Leave a note at www.archangelinstitute.org

It is great to have Evangelical protestors pulling for me. I was so raised and my sibs and parents yet remain.

Crazy about our Risen King, bjb

You need to bring this to the attention of Bill O'Riely of Fox News. Bill seems to want to fight for justice. What they are doing to Mr. Brown is unconstitutional!

Mr. Brown, Please continue to fight this issue, it could slow down the steps that the progressives are taking to shut down our views.

Bryan's religious views do not appear to be the linchpin in the decisions. The words "fervor" and "expressiveness" pervade the decisions. Reading Bryan's Complaint, and his blog postings, it is readily apparent that Bryan wore his heart on his sleeve, apparently to a fault. I, too, am a pro-life Christian. However, as I tell many fellow Christians, too much of a good thing is still too much. The merits of the Complaint aside, people are easily turned off when religion is "thumped" upon them especially in a secular setting. They go on the defensive, and can, as has happened here, decide that the Christian has lost his marbles. And when these actions are coupled with a perceived "narcissism" or "showing off" (as is mentioned in the Complaint), the message is not only lost but transformed into something from a supposed lunatic.

An additional theme persists throughout: the irrational thrashing about of ideas, offers, statements, and arguments before, during and after the various interviews. My experience is that by doing so, credibility wanes. A Bar Admission Interview is not the place to promote Christian beliefs - at least not as a primary goal.

I have been witness to good people going off the deep end as a result of their religious fervor. I hope that Bryan is not one of them.

A lawyer recognized in good standing in more than one state can't sit for the IN bar? Sounds like political and religious discrimination! What next doctors and nurses trying to get their state licenses will be asked their religious beliefs? And Indiana is considered conservative, think again! Rise up and fight this Indiana!

Add new comment