ILNews

Indiana man takes lawyer-admission case to 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Fort Wayne man who claims he’s being prevented from becoming an Indiana attorney because of his religious beliefs is asking the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether a lower federal court properly dismissed his case.

Bryan K. Brown filed an opening brief earlier this week with the federal appellate court, contending that the federal courts should be able to decide his constitutional claims even though they relate to action from the Indiana Supreme Court that prevented him from becoming an attorney.

Admitted and in good standing as an attorney in Kansas, Brown filed this suit in the Northern District of Indiana in late 2009 on grounds that he was improperly required to go through the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program and that the Board of Law Examiners and Indiana Supreme Court rejected his admission to the state bar.

He contends that an Indiana law license would allow him use the legal system on behalf of pro-life and other traditional Christian causes through the ArchAngel Institute that he created several years ago, but the BLE determined his application to take the bar exam should be denied and that he can’t seek admission again until 2014. Brown raised two-dozen constitutional arguments against JLAP director Terry Harrell, program psychologist Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, and Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, as well as several others involved in his case.

In March 2011, U.S. Judge Theresa Springmann dismissed Brown’s case and found that precedent prevents her as a federal judge from addressing what was a state-court action prohibiting his admission. She relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that involves two rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1923 and 1983, which together hold federal District courts lack jurisdiction over lawsuits from state-court losers and that any jurisdiction remains solely with the nation’s highest court. In Brown’s case, the SCOTUS has already denied his petition for writ of certiorari.

Judge Springmann relied on 7th Circuit precedent from a decade ago to determine that Brown’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the state action and that the federal court doesn’t have jurisdiction to issue a decision on his constitutional claims.

“The Plaintiff is correct that he is not asking the Court directly to review the Indiana Supreme Court’s order. However, the Court cannot allow artful pleading or argument to obscure what the practical effect of any potential judgment would be – a review and modification of the Indiana Supreme Court’s final order,” she wrote.

The judge also dismissed Brown’s other claims based on immunity arguments, finding that the state defendants are entitled to immunity through the 11th Amendment or as witnesses.

Now, Brown is asking the 7th Circuit to overturn Judge Springmann’s ruling and find the Rooker-Feldman doctrine doesn’t apply to his case. Brown raises questions about the scope of the doctrine and the reach of expert witness immunity, based on his contentions that defendants in this case weren’t properly sworn in under oath and therefore are prevented from being dubbed “witnesses” as required by the state.

The state defendants have until mid-August to file response briefs in the appeal.

This is one of three similar suits filed in recent years against the Indiana Supreme Court, Board of Law Examiners, or JLAP relating to how individuals are admitted to practice in this state.

Another case filed by Clarence Carter involved arguments that the state was improperly requiring him to attend law school before sitting for the bar exam, but a Southern District judge and the 7th Circuit have dismissed that suit.

In July 2009, a Porter County woman filed a federal suit against the BLE in Amanda Perdue, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-842, charging that certain questions regarding fitness violate her Americans with Disabilities Act-rights relating to mental health. That case remains pending before U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson in the Southern District, and the arguments that had been scheduled for July 22 have been continued until Aug. 24.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Calling other victims of
    the political-correctness-on-steriods movement. If John is correct, I would very much like to network with others who were run through the JLAP and/or BLE pc machinery. www.archangelinstitute.org
  • why denied in the first place
    I still dont understand why Indiana denied Bryan's license in the first place.

    IMO state bar admission should not be a tool of political correctness. This is not the first time this has happened.
    • It is refreshing to see
      that journalistic integrity yet exists. I truly did not think this paper would cover my 7th circuit filing due to political correctness concerns. Good for y'all. More details on my pending appeal at www archangelinstitute dot org or dot com.

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

    2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    ADVERTISEMENT