ILNews

Judge orders man to stay away from city offices

Jennifer Nelson
September 11, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who had repeatedly threatened city employees is now barred from visiting South Bend governmental offices after a St. Joseph Circuit judge granted a workplace violence protective order and permanent injunction against the man.

The city of South Bend sought the protective order and permanent injunction against St. Joseph County resident Stephan Alexander Range. St. Joseph Circuit Judge Michael G. Gotsch granted the order and injunction Sept. 9; the court previously had entered a temporary restraining order against Range.

According to the court order, Range repeatedly visited city offices and disrupted the workplace and threatened employees. Range visited the city's Animal Care and Control Shelter wearing a firearm and ammunition on several occasions and had to be removed by South Bend Police. Despite being asked by city employees to not return to the shelter, Range continued going there with a firearm and ammunition.

He's prevented city employees from doing their jobs and caused several to fear for their personal safety at work and at home, according to reports. Range claims he is "chosen of God to deliver his people," compares himself to Moses, and says he may "bring desolation to an empire."

Judge Gotsch ordered Range to stay away from any city employee, to not threaten, batter, or stalk any employee, to stay out of certain city offices, such as the clerk's office, attorney's office, mayor's office, and animal shelter, and to not contact any employees at home or at work. He's only allowed to come to the city offices in person after receiving prior written permission from the Department of Law. He must also contact the city attorney by letter for non-emergency request for information. The order allows range to phone the police or fire department in the case of an actual emergency.

The order will remain in effect until Sept. 9, 2011, at which time South Bend may request renewal of the order.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT