First Amendment
Teens sue school after expulsion for online death threats
April 26, 2012
IL StaffThe three teenage girls who were expelled from school because of their after-school online activity filed a lawsuit Wednesday
in federal court against the northern Indiana school district. The teens claim the death threats they made on Facebook were
made jokingly and their First Amendment rights are being violated.
MoreOfficer's statement not protected by First Amendment
March 16, 2012
Michael HoskinsA divided Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled the New Albany Police Department had the right to discipline an officer whose
racially charged comments made to fellow officers were leaked to the press and made public.
MoreShield law ruling unique in nation
March 14, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals adopts a modified test in a defamation case.
MoreCOA upholds judgment in favor of employer in wrongful termination suit
February 21, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Insurance in a lawsuit filed
by a former employee claiming wrongful termination.
MoreStudent sues over 'I (heart) BOOBIES' bracelet
February 6, 2012
IL StaffThe American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a northern Indiana middle school student who
believed he would be expelled if he didn’t cover up his bracelet that said “I (heart) BOOBIES.”
MoreAppellate court to visit Sellersburg for arguments
February 3, 2012
IL StaffThe Indiana Court of Appeals will travel to a southern Indiana high school to hear a civil case involving First Amendment
claims for a police officer’s private statements.
MorePrisons face legal questions in managing inmate requests
January 18, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe institutions must balance religion of inmates and security of prisons.
MoreSCOTUS won't consider off-campus school speech
January 17, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe nation’s highest court has declined to take a pair of cases asking whether schools can censor the off-campus behavior
of students who post messages or photos against school officials or other students.
MoreState Supreme Court's robo-calls ruling carries over to federal lawsuit
January 5, 2012
Michael HoskinsA ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court upholding the state’s automated phone call ban has found its way into the briefing
of a federal appeal challenging the same statute, and the attorneys disagree on whether the state justices adequately addressed
a First Amendment issue.
MoreJustices uphold Indiana robo-calls ban
December 29, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has held the state can continue enforcing a ban on automated robo-calls, with four justices finding
that enforcement does not violate the Indiana Constitution’s free speech rights.
More7th Circuit allows Indiana to enforce ban on out-of-state robo-calls
December 22, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Indiana is allowed to enforce the statute that restricts out-of-state robo-calls
while an appeal on the issue is ongoing.
MoreJudge won't allow auto-dialer statute enforcement during appeal
December 13, 2011
Michael HoskinsBalancing free speech rights with the public interest in preventing automated political calls from out-of-state entities,
U.S. Judge William Lawrence in Indianapolis denied the state’s request to continue enforcing Indiana’s auto-dialer
statute while a higher court is considering his ruling from two months ago that blocked enforcement.
MoreCOA to consider journalistic shield protections for anonymous online comments
December 9, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals hears arguments Monday on a question of first impression for the Internet-savvy 21st century:
whether news outlets have any First Amendment or state journalistic shield protection from being required to disclose information
that could help reveal the identities of people posting anonymous comments online.
MoreCourts limiting workers' online conduct
October 26, 2011
Michael HoskinsWorkplace Internet policies go up against free speech concerns.
MoreCan schools discipline for off-campus conduct?
August 31, 2011
Michael HoskinsSchool is back in session, and a new set of court rulings issued during the summer break may make it more difficult for school
administrators to decide how to handle inappropriate or potentially disruptive online activities carried out by students off-campus.
MoreCircuit Court upholds ban on pen-pal solicitation by inmates
July 19, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe First Amendment rights of Indiana inmates aren’t being violated by a ban instituted by the Department of Correction
on advertising for pen-pals and receiving materials from resources that allow people to advertise for pen-pals, the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals held Tuesday.
MoreJudges halt enforcement of challenged laws
June 27, 2011
Jennifer NelsonTwo federal judges issued preliminary injunctions June 24 preventing parts of two new controversial laws regarding immigration
and funding of Planned Parenthood of Indiana from being enforced.
MoreJudge: video games don't infringe on Dillinger trademark
June 17, 2011
Cory SchoutenA federal judge has shot down a lawsuit brought by heirs of notorious bank robber John Dillinger over the depiction of the
Dillinger name in video games based on the classic movie "The Godfather."
MorePlanned Parenthood's request for restraining order denied
May 11, 2011
Jennifer NelsonJudge Tanya Walton-Pratt has denied Planned Parenthood of Indiana's request for a temporary restraining order barring
the enforcement of a law signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels on Tuesday.
MoreSCOTUS denies cert, upholding Indiana's judicial canons
May 2, 2011
Michael HoskinsIt’s official: Indiana’s judicial canons are constitutional and the rules don’t infringe upon a judge or
candidate’s free speech rights.
MoreSCOTUS denies Indiana judicial canons case
May 2, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States has refused to take a case asking whether Indiana’s judicial canons constitutionally
infringe on the free speech rights of those on or vying for seats on the bench.
MoreJustices find email is constitutionally protected speech
April 21, 2011
Jennifer NelsonA trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a fire chief and township in a firefighter’s suit following his
termination by the chief for sending a personal, political email that the chief believed contained false statements of fact.
The firefighter’s email was actually constitutionally protected speech, the Indiana Supreme Court held Thursday.
MoreReligious-worship burglary enhancement doesn’t violate constitutions
February 21, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals ruled against a man who argued the enhancement of his burglary conviction to a Class B felony
because he burgled a church violated the federal and state constitutions. In the first impression issue, the judges held the
enhancement doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution.
MoreLawsuit challenges free-expression restriction at airport
January 24, 2011
Jennifer NelsonA Fort Wayne man is suing the Allen County Airport Authority because he claims a recently enacted resolution severely restricts
his ability to protest the new screening procedures implemented by the Transportation Security Administration.
MoreJustices hear 3 cases, including robo-calls appeal
January 20, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court heard three arguments this morning, including one case that it had granted emergency transfer to
regarding whether the state should be constitutionally allowed to restrict robo-calls to residents.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Court Calendar
-
May 23, 2012 Covered Bridge Homeowners Association vs. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana - 5/23/12
-
June 1, 2012 Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., et al. v. Michiana Contracting, et al. - 6/1/12
-
June 12, 2012 State of Indiana Military Department, et al. v. Continental Electric Co.
-
June 19, 2012 The City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Insurance Co., et al.
Indiana Lawyer Featured Advertisers
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.