ILNews

Judge cautions about filing frivolous suits

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Northern District judge has warned two litigants that if they keep filing frivolous lawsuits they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted.

Plaintiffs Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch have filed several lawsuits in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of Indiana in which they allege there’s a large conspiracy involving government and private entities that are part of a “criminal gang” focused on persecuting Leadbetter and Teusch. They even claimed three judges of the Northern District, including Judge Rudy Lozano, are a part of the conspiracy.

The latest complaint filed Oct. 7 alleges Parkview Hospital and Park Center Inc., along with the Fort Wayne Police Department, Fort Wayne City Attorney, and the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office and other entities conspired to deny Teusch medical treatment after she attempted suicide. The two also alleged sometime in the past, Teusch was drugged, confined, and repeatedly raped by a police officer, but was then abducted by others who “cleaned, sterilized, and reclothed” her.

The October suit, Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch v. Parkview Hospital, et al., No. 1:10-CV-348, is similar to the one dismissed in September for being frivolous.

Judge Lozano found the instant case to also be frivolous, noting the claims, although phrased slightly different, are still delusional.

“It is past time for Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch to stop wasting this court’s time with frivolous filings,” wrote the judge. “Therefore, if either of them file any more frivolous or malicious papers in this court, they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT