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

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT