Petition for Writ of Mandamus — In Re Perry

Supreme Court, U.3.

FILED

No. 02 104 wns 72002

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In re LLOYD G. PERRY

Petitioner

V.

INDIANA SUPREME COURT et al

Respondants

On Petition For

Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition

PETITION FOR WRIT

OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

Lloyd G. Perry

Pro se on record

P.O. Box 11041.

Ft Wayne Ind 46855

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Due process standards of "Notice of Hearing and Right

To be Heard". Is this standard Constitutional when the complaint

is pled pursuant to Rules of Court 7 thru 19 and establish facts in

a case demanding trial by jury; case is dismissed as frivolous?

y Motion For Relief From Judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)

Does the Trial Court, Court Of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court

or any Federal Court have the right to strike, delete, remove and

alter parts of the record that establishes the fraud by opposing

counsel, or Clerk, or the Court it's self, opposing parties, when

these said frauds form the bases for the Rule 60(B) Motion?

3. Are the following Constitutional under circumstances

related to this mstance case and it's long history? Public Law

100-702 [H.R. 4807] (Judicial Improvment and Access To

Justice) Act 102 STAT. 4642, at 4650, 4651; 28 USCS § 1654;

Indiana Code § 33-2-3-1 (1999 Replcmnt. pp. 113-114. Under

the circumstances, opposing counsel and Perry's own counsel

and the Court's engage m fraud detrimental to Perry's position;

the State Of Indiana Supreme Court refuses to discipline either

the attorneys or the judges for their criminal acts conducted in

civil proceedings to Perry's demise. Said State Supreme Court,

refuses to address the issues of jurisdiction as well; the case is

dismissed as frivolous after Perry's own attorney stripped his file

of evidence; some one of this group killed two of Perry's friends

to keep them from testifying, and any remaining witnesses

refused to get involved out of fear for their lives and the judge

ordered Perry to be pushed down the stairs of the court house to

kill him. The case had been before the National Labor Relations

Board and the Civil Rights Commission but those records were

also destroyed. The case is dismissed and and injunction placed

for filing a frivolous complaint. No Rule 60(B) relief given.

4, Is it Constitutional for the Internal Rrevenue Service to

use bogus claims to prosecute Perry, when the U.S. District Court

and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Perry's defense

rights to use the District Court with a bogus mandate for a

frivolous appeal filed under Trial rule 60(B); after the

conspirators altered, Perry's Social Security records, Tax Records,

Central Pension Fund Records and for years on end disrupted his

employment and businesses creating tax problems because of the

altered records and destruction of tax records by the IRS

themselves?

PARTIES INVOLVED AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

To my knowledge, there are no public corporations

involved in this case. (Rule 29.6)

All parties do not appear in the caption of this petition

for extraordinary writ to the State and Federal Courts of the State

Of Indiana, in the nature of mandamus and prohibition. See list

mi the Appendix on pages A1l6 thru A31 includes both the

Officials, their offices and the parties. The separate Lodgings

hold Federal Cases, directly related to this case and petition.

SHORT LIST: RESPONDANT OFFICIALS

1. INDIANA SUPREME COURT: and the Honorable,

402 West Washington Street

216 State House

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

A. Randall T. Shephard, Chief Justice

B. Brent E. Dickson, acting Chief Justice

C. Frank Sullivan, Jr., Justice

D. Theadore Boehn, Justice

This instance case of Perry v. Curtis on appeal, Denied. Docket

Number 57A04-0009-CV-404 also original action denied.

Pending, Perry v. McCarthy Lebit, Docket No. 02A04-0204-CV-

157 and the Jensen v. Perry case pending in Allen Superior

2. INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS: and The Honorable;

402 West Washington Street

216 State House

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

A. John G. Baker, Judge

B. Ezra H. Friedlandr, Judge

C. Margaret G. Robb, Judge

D. Paul D. Mathias, Judge

Same cases as listed above in paragraph 1.

3. GOVERNOR, STATE OF INDIANA: The Honorable

402 West Washington Street

211 State House

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

A. Frank O'Bannon, Govemor

- fi, -

a - a ne rr eee ee

4. STATE OF INDIANA: and

402 West Washington Street,

Indiana Government Center, South, 5th Floor

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

A. Stephen Carter, Attorney General, Indiana

5. OHIO LOWER COURT NO. CV-319861

Cuyahoga County, Court Of Common Pleas

Justice Center, Court Tower

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

A. Jose A Villanueva, Judge

6. ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT: and The Honorable

Allen Superior Court / Circuit Court

Court House

Main Street

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

A. David J. Avery, Judge

B. Wayne Lennington

Pending; Jensen v. Perry, Docket No. 02D01-0101-CT-000022

C. Paul D. Mathias, Judge

Pending on appeal, Perry v. McCarthy, Lebit Crystal Haiman,

Lower Court No. 02D01-9712-SC-20814: Ind. Court Of Appeals

Docket No. 02A04-0204-CV-157

7. NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT, the Honorable

Courthouse

101 Orange Street

Albion, Ind. 46701

A. Stephen Spindler, Judge

B. J. Scott VanDerbeck, Special Judge

C. Diana Botner, Clerk

This instance appeal and petition of Perry v. Curtis

Lower Court No. 57D01-9007-CT-000018

8. INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY

COMMISSION and the Honorable

402 West Washington Street

216 State House

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Sued for non-discipline in U.S. District Court case of Perry v.

Barnard U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 00-241

Q. Howard S. Young Jr.

Represented by Assistant Indiana Attorney General Janice E.

Kreuscher, Indiana Government Center, South, Fifth Floor, 402

West Washington, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (Robert Spears

originally)

B. Russ Hart

Represented by Theadore Lockyear and James A. Komblum, of

Lockyear and Komblum, P.O. Box 3515 Evansville, Indiana

47734-3515

>. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

- iv. -

EVANSVILLE, DIVISION, and The Honorable

304 Federal Building

101 N.W. Martin Luther King Bivd.

Evansville, Indiana 47708

A. Gene E. Brooks, Judge

B. Susan M. Doninger, Deputy Cierk

10. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS, DIVISION, and The Honorable

Room 105

46 Ohio Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

A. David F. Hamilton, Judge

B. John Daniel Tinder, Judge

C. Susan M. Doninger, Deputy Clerk

11. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, and The Honorable

319 Dearborn Street, 27th Floor

Chicago, Illinois, 60604

A. Richard A. Posner, Cir. Judge

B. Frank H. Easterbrook, Cir. Judge

C. Michael S. Kanne, Cir. Judge

Cases related to this instance appeal of Perry v. Curtis and that

were before the Federal Courts listed above are as follows:

Perry v. Barnard U.S.S. Ct. Docket No. 00-241

Revived by Trial Rule 60(B) Motion, Case is blocked by

Mandate Issued 6/30/99

Perry v. United Staes Of America et al. U.S. S. Ct. Docket

No. 99-310, Case blocked by mandate issued 6/03/99

This list includes all officials and/or their offices,

Perry v. Gresk, (Pauper) S. Ct. Docket Nos. 86-1765

advanced to 86-1765 (precedent case)

This list includes all officials and/or their offices,

ee

12. | UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, OFFICE, and

Suite 2100

10 West Market Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

A. Timothy M. Morrison, assist. U.S. Attorney

13. | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY: and

Internal revenue Service, Criminal Investigation

8398 Mississippi Street

Merrillville, Indiana 46410

A. Matthew E. Fabina, Special Agent

B. Keith Andrews, Supervisor W-L:F : TAC

1415 Director's Row

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT: PAGE:

1. Questions presented ......-++++--> i.

2. Short List of Respondants........- iii-Vi A16-A31

K Rule 29.6 No public corporations. .... . ii.

4, ee i.

5. ee 1,2.

6. Jurisdiction of U.S. Supreme Court. ... . 3,4.

Te Rule 14(e)(v) Service of Notice. ......- 3.

8. Statement of the case ......---++-: 5,6

D. Summary ....2. ccc cc cccereces 7,9

10. Evasive Tactics ..... 2.2.50 e eee 9

11. Case History ....2. cece ceecees 9,14

12. Broken JudicialSystem .......+.+.-- 14,17

13. Geundinmw .. ccc ccccvevvccvecs 17

14, Relief asamatteroflaw.........-. 17,19

15. onrespondants.........-. 20,25

16. Indiana Courtof Appeals ........-- 22,23

17. a 24

18. State Attorney General .......--+-> 24

19. Federal Courts, District and Appeal... . . 24,25

, a |. Sr es ee 24,25

APPENDIX

i. Order, Ind. Supreme Court denied transfer Al

y 5 Ind. Court Of Appeals, Judgment Opinion A2-A8

a Certificate of Judgment ........-- A7-A8

4. Docket Sheet, Ind. Court of Appeals .. . A9-A15

_% Respondant list in addition to pp. ii-vi. . . A16A31

yop >

PETITION SET INCLUDES:

Petition for extraordinary writ of mandamus and

prohibition to the State and Federal Courts in Indiana.

Separate appendix to said petition

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITY;

1.

~~ F- FF PP PP PP

A ne WON

PAGE:

Doe v. Sullivan County Tenn.

956 F.2d 545 see 113S.Ct.187.....

Hogue v. MQS Inspection Inc.

RS ee eee

Houck v. City of Prairie Village Kansas

912 F. Supp 1428 recons. 950 S. Supp 312

Jones v. State

449 NLE. 2d 1060 (1983) 698 N.E.2d 735

Loving v. Boren

133 F.3d 771,772 (CA 10th 1998)... .

Scothorn v. State of Kansas

772 F. Supp 556 (Kamsas 1991). ....

Sivard v. Pulaski County

995 F.2d 662; 17 F.3d 771,772 .....

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INDIANA CONSTITUTION

Article L, § 12, Burns Ind. Stat. Const.

(1999 Replcmnt) p.30 ..........

Article IIL § 1, Burns Ind. Stat. Const.

(1999 Replcemnt.) p.204.........

Article VIL. § 4, Burns Ind. Stat. Const.

(1999 Replemnt.) p.277.........

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article L § 1,

West's Blacks Dict. 6th Ed p. 1639

Article II § 1,

West's Black's Dict. 6th Ed p. 1642

Article II § 1,

West's Black's Dict. 6th Ed p. 1644

Article VL [2],

West's Black's Dict. 6th Ed. p. 1645

Amendment VIL,

West's Black's Dict. 6th Ed. p. 1646

Amendment XIV,

West's Black's Dict. 6th Ed. p. 1647

- Vili. -

> » » WwW Ww WW

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITY: PAGE:

FEDERAL STATUTES

1. 18 USCS § 872 (was § 871) ........ 21

2. a sg kaw f 3,15

3. a 19,24

4. ZBUBCSS1IGSL —«-_ iw wc ces 3,15

5. ae eee i,3,5

6. il 18,19,24

7. Dn." on 66 66 s0 0 6.6 19,24

8. 21A Fed Proc. L Ed § 51:166

ee Mo 6 3 5 oo 6 6 8 00 4,17,18

9. 21A Fed Proc. L Ed § 51:167

ae a Sel ress amar eer 4,17,18

10. rrr) )=—CS~S we i

11. ll EA ee i,3,4,17,19

12. Supreme Court Rule 10(A) & (C). ..... 3,15

13. Supreme Court Rule 14(e)(v) ...... 3,15

14. Supreme Court Rule 20(1.) ........ ii,3

15. Supreme Court Rule 29.4(b) & (c) . . . .. ii,3

16. Supreme CourtRule 29.6 ........ ii

INDIANA STATUTES

1. Indiana Code § 33-2-3-1 ......... i,3,4,5,12,

20

2. Indiana Code § 34-5-2-1 (repealed) .... 4,12

CONGRESSIONAL ACTS

1. Public Law 100-702 [H.R. 4807]

Judicial Improvment and Access to Justice

Act 102 STAT. 4642 at 4650,4651..... i,3,5

REPORTS:

1. Perry vs. Curtis, Indiana Supreme Court Petition To

Transfer, Denied March 19,2002 (see apdx. p. A 1.)

2. Perry vs. Curtis, Indiana eo Of pon Appeal

denied, August 3, 2001 (see apdx. pp. A2-A8)

3. Lloyd G. Parry ve. Linda K Bamand ot al. US. Supreme

Court Docket No. 00-241. Instructed to take back to State by

S.Ct. Law Clerk.

4. Lloyd G. Perry vs. United States Of America, et al U.S.

Supreme Court Docket No. 99-310, Instructed to take back to

State by S.Ct. Law Clerk.

3. Lloyd G. Perry vs. Linda K. Bamard et al., 00-1725 (7th

Cir. May 16,2000) Dismissed without appeal

6. Lloyd G. Perry v. United States Of America et. al., No.

98-4128 (7th Cir. April 30,1999) Order Judgment. (unpublished)

A Lloyd G. Perry v. United States Of America et al., No.

98-4128 (7th Cir. May 26, 1999) Rehearing denied.

(unpublished)

8. Lloyd G. Perry v. United States of America changed to;

Lloyd G. Perry v. Senator Richard Lugar et. al., No. IP 98-677-C-

H/G (S.D. Ind. Oct. 23, 1998) Order Entry dismissing the action

(unpublished)

9. Lloyd G. Perry v. Senator Richard Lugar, et al., No. IP

98-677-C-H/G Rehearing denied. (unpublished) (S.D. Ind. Nov.

12, 1998) (unpublished)

EARLY RELATED CASES:

5. Lloyd G. Perry v. Paul D. Gresk, et al., No. 84-174-C

(S.D. February 21, 1986) (unpublished order) (See Bamard )

y & Lloyd G. Perry v. Linda K. Bamard, et al., No. EV 88-

24-C (S.D. Ind. September 26, 1989) (unpublished) (see Writ

ee 16-19 covering both Gresk and Barnard)

Perry v. Barnard et. al., No. 89-3575, 1990 WL 121481

ita Ce. Aug. 17. 1990) (unpublished order) (omitted)

CASES EFFECTED BY DEPRIVED COURT ACCESS:

‘. Curtis vs. Perry/ Perry vs. Curtis, 57D01-9006-CT-018

Noble Superior Court Ind. (see Lodgings . pp.58-63)

2. Perry vs. Fox Contractors Inc., et al., No. 02C01-8908-

CT-93. (see injunction (Id.) )

3. American General Finance vs. Perry, No. 02D01-9305-

CP-832 Allen Superior Court Ind.

a

4. M&M Investments vs. Perry/Perry vs. M&M Investments

No.02D01-9305-CP-861 Allen Superior Small Claims and Allen

Cireui

5. Summit Account and Computer Services/ Fort Wayne

National Bank vs. Perry, No. Allen

Superior Small Claims, Ind.

6. Perry vs. Geiger Developing Inc.,No.02C01-9111-CP-

996 Allen Superior Court Fort Wayne, Indiana

Perry vs. Barry's Inc. No 02D01-9503-CT-0122 Allen

Superior Court, Ind.

8. A-1 Freeman Moving and Storage vs. Perry Enterprises

Inc. - - Perry Enterprises Inc. vs. Portland Trailer and Equipment

No. CIv.95.1829-W U.S. District Court, Western District Of

Oklahoma.

a Star Financial Bank vs. Perry Industries Inc. and Lloyd

G. Perry, No. 02D01-9609-SC-17346 Allen Superior Court Smail

Claims.

10. Perry Enterprises Inc. vs. B.M.L Transportation Inc., No.

1:96-CV-0547, U.S. District Court Cleveland Ohio Division

11. Trier Ford Lincoln Mercury vs. Perry/ Perry vs. Trier

Ford No. 02D01-9702-CP-222 Alien Superior Court Ind.

12. McCarthy Lebit Crystal & Haiman vs. Perry, No. 319861

Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County Ohio, proceeded to

collect in Allen Superior Court Small Claims, Ind. No. 02D01-

9712-SC-20814

13. Federal Bankruptcy Court, Fort Wayne Ind. Division;

Adversary Proceedings; McLane, Trustee vs. Perry, No. 98-1066;

in the William Edward Faurote, Jr. and Lois Rose Faurote,

bankruptcy, No. 96-10702

14. MLL. or Mary Patterson, vs. Lloyd G. Perry, No. 02d01-

9608-SC-15572 Allen Superior Court Small Claims

15 State of Indiana vs. Lloyd G. Perry, No. 98-IF-2238,

Allen Superior Traffic and Misdemeanor, Ind.

16. Jensen vs. Perry, Allen Superior Court, No. 02D01-0101-

CT-22,

JURISDICTION OF THIS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

i. Judgment was entered by the Indiana Court Of —

Appeals August 3, 2001(Apdx pp A1-A8 ), on petitioners motion

for relief from judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B); a petition

related ip State practiced policy of

discrimination; and flawed laws depriving access to the courts.

2. Statutory provisions for this Court's is

113,114 (1999 atin Violations of Separation Of Powers

Doctrine.

Under Clauses")West's Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition p.

1644, as the supervisory power over the Indiana Supreme Court;

parties to this extraordinary writ have preempted the;

United States Constitution setforth under the following:

-1 Article L Sec. 1. West's Black's Law Dict. p. 1639

2 Article IL Sec. 1.West's Black's Law Dict. p. 1642

3 Article IIL. Sec. 1. West's Black's Law Dict. p. 1644

is

4 Article VL [2], West's Black's Law Dict. p. 1645

5 Amendment VII. West's Black's Law Dict. p. 1646

6 Amendment XIV. West's Black's Law Dict. p. 1647

State Of Indiana Constitution setforth under the following

-l Article L § 12, Burns Ind. Statutes, Const. (1997

Repimnt) p. 30

2 Article IIL, § 1, Burns Ind. Statutes, Const. (1997

~ Repimnt) p. 204

3 Article VIL, § 4, Burns Ind. Statutes, Const. (1997

Replmnt) p. 277

6. The timelyness of this action for relief from

General, pp. 438, 439 (inchude the cited case law

ithin)

2 21A Fed. Proc. L Ed § 51:167 (1999 Ed) What

Judgment are void: p 439,441 at 440 thru last 5

Imes on 441 and (include the case law cited within)

: A Petitioner filed petition to transfer his appeal to

the Supreme Court of Indiana on November 19, 2001 and that

said Supreme Court had refused to rule on this transfer three

times perviously; at the time of filing; during the appeal, and by

original action. It has refused to address the issues of exclusive

jurisdiction; refused to address the issues of Federal Question

Challenges to the Indiana Statutes of Indiana Code, § 33-2-3-1

and LC. § 34-5-2-1; and continues to discriminate against this

citizens by denying them access to the courts using flawed laws

and denying trial by jury. The federal question challenge was

first raised in the cross-complaint filed by this petitioner at the

of the case of Curtis v. Perry in Noble Superior Court, as

was the issues of no jurisdiction over the person or the subject

matter. Again on appeal, Perry v. Curtis.

«he

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

DEPARTURE:

bs Honesty, integrity, fairness, balance, truthfulness,

devotion to the State and Federal Constitutuions and the laws

under each, courtesy, dignity; these are all hall-marks of the

Justices, Judges and attorneys of the legal profession. That is,

they use to be the hall-marks but not so today in most instances.

y & To be able to deal with the actions of the Courts

in todays time periods, the standards of review have to be "totally

erroneous", “abuse of discretion", "abuse of power". These are

terms that should never have to be used in a place that is to be so

respected it is almost hallowed grounds but yet it must be

because those whom we are to trust, lye, cheat, steal, obstruct

justice, extort conditions that would not otherwise be a willful

act. This place is anything but hallow, it is nothing short of being

the pit. The approximate cause, no discipline (LC. § 33-2-3-1)

and Public Law 100-702, which allows the making of their own

Tules without oversite.

3. But what about the justice or judge or attorney

for those losses and damages on your tax is up to 3 years but it

takes 10 years to get thru the court process; that is if it isn't

corrupted. Add to this then the conspirators, (Judges in part) then

use the IRS to attack Perry for defects created by others that was

designed to cause Perry to be arrested; intended to deprive him of

8. An examination of the record shows the IRS has

a copy of the tampered video tape of the Perry v. Vande Zande

case. That is a clear case of obstruction of justice by attomey

Randy Hammon and the court reporters. Did the IRS-CID do

anything? Certainly not, all they did was try to find something to

Rights Commission along with other records. all of those records

had been destroyed and the people in charge refused to co-

operate in discovery. Pow many of those jury persons is going to

wills

1. This petitioner filed his motion for relief from

. . It is long past time to stop this abuse of power

and failure to provide equal protection of the law, so we file in

- the United States Supreme Court for the needed corrections that

can not and will not come from the State Supreme Court because

of their personal interest in the outcome of the matters and so

~

- -

se

they evade the issues by refusing to address the problems and

refuse to rule on a motion to transfer so that Perry can go forward

to get relief.

5. Perry has no desire to practice law but because of

the circumstances he must act as pro se or go without recourse.

He has been denied appointment of counsel, even under a pauper

petition in the Federal District Court under Perry v. Gresk. It is

shameful the way the courts of this state have treated Perry just to

protect politicians that have committed crimes and those crimes

cause others in the Courts and State and Federal Government to

committ crimes and now here we are with a broken judicial

system that this United States Supreme Court must fix because it

can not be handled anywhere else and justice is illusive.

6. From the beginning, way back with the Tell City

National Bank interference with Perry's construction busmess to

prevent Perry from discovery of the embezzlement of his

$125,000. by the bank, till now, all Perry has been trying to do is

use the courts as they are designed for - - relief from wrongs and

justice. But because the attomeys and judges of this State don't

like pro se laymen in their courts, that relief and justice has been

denied, without consideration that many attomeys have been

hired and all have defrauded Perry at some point along the way

forcmg the pro se representations. See Indiana Constitution

Article L, § 12 Burns Indiana Statutes, Constitutions (1997 Ed.

p. 30) also Perry v. Gresk (supra); Perry v. Barnard (supra) and

Perry v. US. .

7. -. Citing the Indiana Court of Appeals excerpt

from the lower court record of Curtis v. Perry, Noble Superior,

we can see the deceptive practices of both the Noble Superior

and the Court of Appeals by tuming around the conditions to

favor their own; practiced in Allen Superior and precedent m

Gresk and Bamard

"I believe that if anyone is subject to sanctions under

Rule 11 and if anyone has behaved themselves m a

fashion which causes justice to cry out for an injunction

to curb the abuse of the legal system which you have

perpetrated in the past and the future, it is you. And, for

that purpose, I am going to grant all of the Motions and

Applications for Permanent Injunctions." R. at 461-62.

"This action, as I tried to explain to you earlier, is so

patently frivolous, with regards to everyone you named."

This statement was made by Judge Stephen Spindler after

he had denied Perry's request to bring the witnesses into court to

testify under protection of the court because of the witnesses fear

for their lives if done in just affidavit form. It also followed Judge

Spindlers order to the Noble County Sheriff's department to strip

seach Perry and search his car without probable cause or a

warrant; this then was followed by the Judge's order for those

deputys to push Perry down the stairs of the court house and try

to kill Perry as is noted in the record. True, justice does cry out

but for Perry's relief, not for sanctions that enjoim his access. The

United States Supreme Court gives equal justice under the law.

1. This case has a long history (see official and un-

official reports above) A case entitled Perry v. Fox Contracting

Inc. filed in the Allen Circuit Court for slander and lible was

instigated by an attorney Theadore Lockyear growing out of a

case from the United States District Court entitled Perry v. Paul

D. Gresk eta al., followed by Perry v. Bamard and an injunction.

2. The issues of slander and lible in the Fox case

was instigated for the purpose of dislodging Perry's employment

with the Operating Engineers Local #103 (28 years there) and

was intended to get Perry into State Court, to bar his use of the

Courts by placing the State injunction, to join with the Federal.

3. Allen Circuit Court Judge Thomas Ryan refused

quarters.

defense of his safety and in an effort to save his job, struck the

main person that was promoting the slander, Marvin R. Curtis.

4. Perry, intending to end the slander hit Curtis once

wrong Court, when the issues were pending in the Allen Circuit

and the fight took place in Delaware County. Perry objected

immediately but the whole objection and entry was removed

from the record.

135134] age HGR] au 7 SHE

nettauey Hel Hi Hat

ican Aeetlt uu Tatil

sybhigel Hes Le THe rently

HIE TOP Lee HT EH Tee

eat tie

| doa hye *35 § if TH ie 2

Ft BSC

ot bnes aaa gat tig ecss E Hit

uneleRlLiT BAT ity SE

BUR TOR ER ITT eT T

iat I: HUAI 3 il

vette dat ile tie at

HEAR ETE EEE

THER Hee ed (Te

A i ‘i

ayn aae ni F wal frei EE ses

sal HEE TAT

frivolous and require sanctions for their filings. This is not only a

false and misleading statement contrary to the facts and laws, but

it is founded on flawed laws, that have been legislated to allow

the courts of all levels to get rid of any case they don't want. That

raised the Federal question issue, related to Indiana Code, § 34-5-

2-1 which deals with the rule making process of the State but that

has been repealed since this litigation started but it stands as it

was only under other new State Statutes. They have

compounded their lack of jurisdiction by taking the questions of

facts away from a jury. They just plain denied trial by jury by use

of the said flawed laws which allows them to dismiss as frivolous

Or aS summary judgment or default when the facts and evidence

are clearly contrary to their judgments.

15. That the facts hereim present document proof of

serious and damaging conditions to the judicial systems of the

State and Federal Courts of this State Of Indiana.

16. Pursuant to State of Indiana Law, Indiana Code §

33-2-3-1, pp. 113,114 West's Statutes (1999) The Supreme Court

of Indiana is charged with the legal duty to discipline attomeys

behavior as a provision to escape the challenge of the

Constitutionality of restricting the practice of law to licensed

3

ca

tan ly ie aE

. Th Mees + Pais : - fal rae

H. HI HOH HE filtinaselil “

ate Ai uanhabes

Pa Ruta

HHL iis HU F Gis Hi

placements in the judicial systems to block this petitioners

litigation in both civil and criminal matters. Chief Justice, Randall

T. Shephard was one of those placements. The re- examination of

any of them for their crimes. Each got away without any sort of

penalty. That is what broke the system.

22. The Indiana Supreme Court could no longer

punish the attorneys and judges without risk of bemg punished

themselves. The result is very clear, in the various taken

es of thi

terms and conditions of Supreme Court Rule 10(A) & (C) and

Rule 20(1.) under the terms and conditions of the United States

Constitution Article IIL Section 2, clauses 1 & 2, The systems

you have a legal duty to correct these

29. This judgment of August 3, 2001 makes the

point very clear:

" . - trial court denied Perry's Motion for Relief, - - -

Perry had not carried his burden to show any mistake,

ee

the Catalogue of Tables of Contents as required by the appellate

rules. The amount of fraud shown by reference to the record,

amounts that it makes a black eye for the high courts of this State

to write such an opinion as is expressed in the August 3, 2001

32. The point to all of this is that it is so

}

bases for Perry's cross-complaint., Why didn't the judges take

action and investigate? The answer is clearly, the Federal

- 16. -

Injunction and the history of escaped punishment for criminal

Boren, (CA 10th, 1998) 133 F. 3d 771,772 No evidence, no

" The Article III elements of standing ‘ are an

indispensable part of plaintiff's case, upon which he

bears the burden of proof.’ At trial the plaintiff failed

to offer any evidence of injury in fact; dismissal for

lack of standing was affirmed."

ARGUMENT

judgment pursuant

pursuant to 21A Fed. Proc. L Ed § 51:166 (1999 Ed) Judgments,

-17.-

general, pp 438,439 (also cited case laws therein) and; 21A Fed

Proc. L Ed § 51:167 (1999 Ed) What Judgments are void pp.

439,441 at 440 thru last 5 lines on 441 and the case law cited

fiscri

State. see 698 N.E.2d 735

Discrimination is easily identified in this case and all of

brief. The record already on file with this United States

Supreme Court in the cases of Perry vs. Barnard and Perry vs.

ns ’ :

motivation an is key element to § 1983 action

Village Kansas 912 F. Supp 1428 recons. 950 F.

Supp 312 see also Hogue v. MQS Inspection Inc.

875 F. Supp 714

6. As it appears, the enforcement of criminal action by a

private citizen can not be accomplished, because of the way the

case laws are designed and the conspiracy to not prosecute a

fellow lawyer or judge. To do anything other than deny equal

protection of the law, for them, is to invite punishment for the

crimes they are trying to shield. See the untouchable attitude in

the Federal Court Judgment footnotes. (Lodgings pp. 49,50,51)

- Where procedural due process is_ alleged,

constitutional violation actionable under § 1983 is

not complete when deprivation occurs; it is not

complete unless and until state fails to provide due

process. Doe v. Sullivan County, Tenn., 956 F.2d

545; 113 S. Ct. 187.

7. When this United States Supreme Court goes to the files

and looks at the docket number of 99-310 and 00-241, they

know that the law clerk was doing that which had to be; give

the State one more chance to make it right. As burdensome and

financially difficult as it was, I did take both back plus this

instance case. The Federal cases, Judge Posner, Hamilton and

Tinder, ended immediately with a mandate and some one even

tried again to kill me to keep me from appealing that mandate.

8. The facts are that the Deputy Clerk, Susan Doniager

would not certify the federal questions to the State Supreme

Court, and she false certified that all the record was there when

it wasn't. The mandate ended it all when I pushed for a correct

record.

9. With Curtis, the State Supreme Court turned down the

Originai Action related to jurisdiction and twisted the facts to

make it look like I had mis-filed. Then they refused to transfer

the case from the Court of Appeals; and with the evidence of

the tampering; personal interest in the outcome and record

ing, all was struck from the pleadings. All were bases for

a Trial Rule 60(B) Motion.

10. Ina short statement, this Supreme Court made clear, to

take it back to the State and if they don't correct the problem

bring it back. Well they have been given every possible chance

but they just don't want to give the relief. As a matter of law,

relief is 22 years over due for the theft of $600,000. and all of

the ongoing wrong doings, which tolls the statutes of limitations

in conspiracies of both civil and crimmal nature.

- 19. -

SHORT LIST OF RESPONDANTS

This petition for extraordmary writ in the nature of mandamus

and prohibition is directed at the State Of Indiana Supreme Court;

Indiana Court Of Appeals; Noble Superior Court; Allen Superior

Court together with the Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals and the

United States District Court For The Southern District Of Indiana,

pulling in the Intemmal Revenue Service, the United States

Attomey and Indiana Attorney General

1, Perry v. Curtis Docket No. 57A04-0009-CV-404 also

Perry v. McCarthy, Lebit 02A04-0204-CV-157

INDIANA SUPREME COURT AND DISCIPLINARY

COMMISSIONERS, listed in Appendix, pp A20-A21

(A) Randall T. Shephard, Chief Justice _

Placed for the purpose of safeguarding attorneys and judges who

elect to conduct themselves in a manner defined as racketeering

and/or criminal methods practiced in civil procedure. Relates to

cases, Gresk, Barnard, Curtis, Jensen and McCarthy Lebit. He

refuses to discipline or allow civil action against an attorney or

judge for their said criminal activities. Refuses to recuse himself. _

But Justice Shepard was placed to obstruct Perry's justice and has

had and has displayed a personal imterest im the case with

emphasis on the Federal and State Court Injunctions, which was

placed for an illegal purpose, contrary to law, contrary to the

facts. This Court just does not want to discipline nor protect the

public from the un-ethical and un-scrupulous as the record of this

case and the others hereim cited, reflect. (see LC. § 33-2-3-1)

(B) Brent E. Dickson, Acting Chief Justice, appears to

support all of Chief Justice Shephard's positions and makes the

same defective judgments and distorted statements as does

Shephard. No weight given to evidence and record tampering,

attempted murder and murder in a civil action; they just strike

those meritorious facts out as being scandalous. The views of

prejudice and discrimination against laymen pro se seems to be a

common thread with all the justices on this Court. This gives rise

to the Federal Question Challenge to the Constitutionality of LC.

§ 33-2-3-1 because the public is not

(C) Frank Sullivan, Jr., Justice appears to be of the same

minnd set of being opposed to balance, fairness and justice

according to the rule of law, the same as the others in this Court

- 20. -

bring a crimmal charge and they won't allow a civil action.

Tinder was not sued because he did not prosecute, he was sued

because he took the Federal Judgship in tue of prosecution which

was nothing short of a bribe. The bribe, the setting on a case he

was prosecutor on and refusal to recuse, then placing an

injunction (see injunctions Sep. Apdx. pp. 91 thru 100) that

protects the attorneys and judges that choose to practice fraud

against i

- 21. -

Le Ee ee Ter ee ee ee "

a Obtained file by deception and then attempted

high retainer at risk of loss of the suite if not paid; then filing of

false claim for attomey fees not earned and monovered hearings

with both the Ohio Court and Allen Superior Court to cause a

loss to Perry of $2.2 million in Ohio and $2.8 million m Indiana.

This was accomplished by Judges, Jose A Villaneuva , Paul D.

Mathias, Daniel Heath and a counter claim for damages was

clear that attorney, Marc Cohn used extortion tactics to leverage

representation in the Federal Case of Perry Enterprises Inc. v.

B.MLL Transportation, by holding the file so that Perry could not

seek other counsel and Cohn then asked for $200,000. up front

to represent Perry's company and in the end caused Perry to lose

$5,000,000. by use of a boycott against Perry. This raises the

Challenge to the Federal Statutes 28 USCS § 1654 which requires

a corporation to be represented by a license attomey.

y & INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS

402 West Washington Street

216 State House

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

(.1) John G. Baker, Judge, Ezra H. Fiedlander,

Judge, Margaret G. Robb, Judge, Paul D. Mathias, Judge, all

followed the precedent set by the Indiana Supreme Court but the

violates his oath of office to defend and uphold the

United States Constitution and State of Indiana Constitution.

Rather the first thing any of these judges want to do i

said Constitutions and legislate from the bench, (in violation of

no offer to change that offensive law. Which raises the challenge

to the Public Law 110-702, and the right to make rules without

overcite.

_

il

fa

Ate

i

il!

alt

Te

:

F

ise

Hal

i

:

:

:

A

F

i

it

a

i

gfe

i

,

;

;

:

issues, but with different actors, as was the complaints as far

back as Perry vs. Gresk and further. That was their intent so as

to put in place a State Court injunction like the Federal Court

injunction. In fact Judge Spindler ordered it to be that way.

4 Compare the injunctions, both in the Separate

Appendix from pages 91 thru 100. Look also at the docket

from the Perry vs. Fox case in the Lodgings pages 30 thru

the records of the lower courts of both Noble Superior

;

;

|

Judges of Richard A. Posner, Cir. Judge; Frank H. Easterbrook,

Judge and Michael S. Kanne, Cir. Judge. All knew of the

the $600,000.; all knew of the killings and attempts to

‘all denied the Title 42 USCS § ee

et

tee

iH

aire

i

lying bout facts to make their case law work. With emphasis on

immunity; jurisdiction; equal protection of the law; and the

application of valid germane case law.

d The IRS-CID first contacted me about tax on my

only have three years and it's been 5 or 6 or 10 and even then

you can only claim $3,000. per year. Add then that more

money was stolen, forced involvment in money laundrying and

the alteration in my social security records, union records of

both local #103 and # 150; central pension funds records

altered showing low income and work haveing been for

companies when I didn't work at all over a 4 year period.

The problem comes down to corruption in the courts.

You can't get the fair litigation and the proof of the evidance

tampering such as with attorney Randall Hammond im the Perry

vs. Vande Zande case, the IRS and agent Fabina have copies of

-24.-

the altered video of the Barry deposition; they have the

knowledge of the theft of $36,000 from Star Bank; and of the

money laundrying but they refuse to do anything about it and

with the U.S. District Court blocked, I can't do anything nor

can I fully complete my tax filings because of all the fraud that

been injucted into my records. At this pomt the IRS is

o

‘

B

F

4

3

As a matter of law, (21A Fed. Proc. L Ed § 51:166 and

§ 51:167) this Petitioner is entitled to full relief and

compensation for all the losses and damages, denied because of

the said discrimination. Discrimination acted out by each and

all the State and Federal offices and Officials of the State of

Indiana, in total denial of nearly all of this Petitioners United

States and State Of Indiana Constitutional Rights.

relief and compensation that has for so long been denied him.

So requested with all other just and proper relief in the

premises.

Under the laws of the State Of Indiana, Subscribed and

Swom under penalty of perjury, to the forgoing statements to

be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief

and by review of the records.

y erry, pe

P.O. Box 11041

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46855

Phone

- 25. -

SEAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

Brian Bisl ,

Clerk 317-232-1930 FAX 317-232-8365

PERRY, LLOYD G..

10025 West, 400 South

Dunkirk, In 47336

- Al. -

SEAL OF STATE OF INDIANA

1816

Brian Bishop

Clerk

CLERK

SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, AND TAX COURT

STATE OF INDIANA

217 STATE HOUSE, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

317-232-1930 FAX 317-232-8365

PERRY, LLOYD G. Cause No. —

10025 West, 400 South 57A04-0009-CV-00404

Lower Court Number.

DUNKIRK, IN 47336 57D019007CT18

PERRY, LLOYD G. -v- CURTIS, MARVIN R.

You are hereby notified that

COURT OF APPEALS - has on this day 8/03/01

ISSUED THE ENCLOSED OPINION: RS

WITNESS My name and the seal of said Court,

3RD AUGUST, 2001

this day of 7

Brian Bishop

Clerk Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court

[12] (Notice Cover Page of Order)

to Ind. Appellate Rule 15(A)(3)] | FILED

this Memorandum Decision shall not be |} AUG 3 2001

regarded as precedent or cited before Brian Bishop

any Court except for the purpose of CLERK

establishing the defense of res judicata, INDIANA

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case} SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEALS

AND TAX COURT

LLOYD G. PERRY

Dunkirk, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

LLOYD G. PERRY, )

Appellant-Piaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 57A04-0009-CV-404

MARVIN R. CURTIS, et al., )

Appellees-Defendants. )

APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable J. Scott VanDerbeck, Special Judge

Cause No. 57D019007-CT-189

August 3, 2001

MEMORANDUM DECISION-NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, JUDGE [1] (of order)

Appellant-plaintiff, Lloyd G. Perry appeals the dismissal

of his Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial

Rule 60(B). Specifically, he contends that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction in permanently enjoining him from instituting a cause

of action, in any court i the State of Indiana, on matters already

litigated regarding a battery claim and im a separate case for

slander and libel. Perry also maintains that his motion should

have been granted because he demonstrated that the defendants

in those actions committed fraud.

FACTS

The facts most favorable to the judgment are that on

February 22, 1991, Perry was enjoined, by the Noble Superior

a

Court, from instituting any further causes of action that arose

from, or related to, issues in Perry v. Fox Contractors, Inc... et. al..

No. 02C01-9808-CT-93, or Perry v. Curtis, No. 57D01-90006-

CT-018, in any court within the State of Indiana, without leave of

the Noble Superior Court. Record at 146. The claims brought by

Perry in those action were based upon battery and defamation.

When the order was issued, the trial judge commented as follows

"I believe that if anyone is subject to sanctions under Rule

11 and if anyone has behave themselves in a fashion

which causes justice to cry out for an injunction to curb the

abuse of the legal system which you have perpetrated in

the past and the future, it is you. And, for that purpose, I

am going to grant all of the Motions and Applications for

Permanent Injunctions." R. at 461-62. "This action, as I

tried to explain to you earlier, is so patently, obviously,

and tansparently frivolous and brought in bad faith that it

is frivolous, transparently and patently frivolous, with

regards to everyone you named." [2] (of order)

R. at 472. The trial court noted that the injunction did not affect

Perry's right to appeal the decision, to defend himself in any

criminal action, or to deny his access to the Court of Appeals or

the Supreme Court of Indiana for any purpose. R. at 147-48.

Perry did not appeal this injunction, but instead filed a T.R. 60

(B) Motion for Relief From Judgment or Order on December 12,

1999. In that motion, Perry claimed that the trial court was

without jurisdiction to issue the permanent injunction regarding

those cases. He also argued that the opposing parties acted

fraudulently. .

‘Prior to the Noble Superior Court's issuance of the injunction,

the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Indiana, in 1989, enjoined Perry from filing in any federal court,

without leave of that court, any lawsuit arising out of or related to

any issues in Perry v. Gresk, No. EV84-174-C, slip op. (S.D Ind.

Feb 21, 1986, or Perry v. Barnard, No. EV88-24-C, slip op.

(S.D.Ind. Sept. 26, 1989). R. at 628-32 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 1986)

These actions involved conspiracy and defamation claims against

various state officials and government agencies. That injunction

was afm bythe United Staten Court of Appeals forthe

- A4. -

a Circuit, Perry v. Bamard, No. 89-3575. R. at 633-34

(1

In response to the Noble Superior Court's order, Perry filed a

show that the trial court i

the injunction. the trial court denied Perry's Motion for Relief

from Judgment on June 28, 2000, determining that Perry had not

carried his burden to show any mistake, discovered

evidence or fraud as required by T.R. 60(B). He now appeals the

denial of that motion

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

L Standard of Review

668 N.E.2d 1269,

process.

N.E.2d 233,238 (Ind. 1987). Likewise, the equity powers may

be invoked to prevent a multiplicity of suits or to suppress

oe

litigation when otherwise there would be actions at law

unnecessarily or [4] burdensomely numerous.

Superior Court Room 4, 335 N.E.2d 199,203 (Ind. 1975)

Tumning to the circumstances in the instant case, it is apparent

that Perry has a history of bringing frivolous lawsuits. Perry was

sanctioned by the federal court for instituting spurious claims in a

“nen :

under T.R. 60(B), supports the trial court's decision to deny

Perry's Motion for 65] Relief fromJudgment. Finally, we note that

- A6. -

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

A7

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF INDIANA )

)

Court Of Appeals )

I, Brian Bishop, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State Of

Indiana, Certify the above and foregoing to be a true and

complete copy of __THE OPINION _ OF SAID COurt m the

above entitled case.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I set my hand and affix the seal of

____THE CLERK OF THE ___said Court, at the City of

Indianapolis, this _19 day of __ MARCH 2002

SS:

"9/ Brian Bishop "Clerk

Page 1.

CL505RT HISTORY LISTING FOR CASE NO. 9-CV-00404

405/02 PERRY, LLOYDG. -V- CURTIS, MARVIN R.

Lower Cause Number: 57D019007CT18

PERRY, LLOYD G. Perry, Lloyd G.

10025 West, 400 South A

Dunkirk, In 47336

765-768-9915

JAMES VANDERBECK Curtis, Marvin R

1213 N. Arlington Ave.

In 46219 :

317-353-9363

9/150 “Praecipe Filed"

9/26/00 Notice of Appeal by Lloyd G. Perry, eee

(2) Proof of service (2) mail

(6) proof of service (2) mail AH

9/26/00 Appellant's motion to transfer appeal to the Indiana

Supreme Court (6) proof of service (2) mail AH

9/29/00 Issued the enclosed order:

9/290 The appellant's motion to transfer appeal to the

Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana is Denied.

jurisdiction remains with the court of appeals. the

Appellant May seek transfer under appellate Rule 11,

if need be and if justified under the applicable Rules

and Law, once the court of appeals renders a decision.

A9

OT Ne TT Oe Ce EE ee Ee Oe ee ee eee a ee

RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE AA

10/02/00 ***** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED **#*

10/06/00 Appellant's request for pre-appeal conference

denied. JOHN T. SHARPNACK, Chief Judge AA

10/0600 ***** Above Entry Mailed ###*

12/01/00 Appellant's verified petition for extension of time in

which to file the record (2) certificate of service (2)

mail TG

PAGE 2.

File Date: _

12/01/00 Appellant's Statement on the record pursuant to

appellate Rule 7.3 (6) certificate of service (2) mail

12/01/00 Appellant's motin to settle this case by mediation

with the Indiana Court of Appeals acting as

mediator (6) Certificate of service (2) mail

12/01/00 Appellant's motion for stary of appeal pending

12/08/00 Issued the enclosed order:

12/08/00 The appellant's motion to settle this case by

reason that it is not the function of the court of

appeals of Indiana to act as mediator in litigation

pending before it;

2. The appellant's motion for stay of appeal

pending outcome of settlement should be and the

same is denied;

3. The appellant Perry's statement on the record

pursuant to appellate Rule 7.3 should be and the

same is disapproved for the reason that said Rule

contemplates for a record to be prepared under that

tule by the parties preparing and signing a statement

of the caase showing how the questions arose and

were decided in the trial court, that the statement

then be approved by the trial court, thereafter to be

certified by the trial court and then the statement

sent to this court as the record on appeal; What

Perry has presented to this court as his statement is

merely a unilateral statement of the record which

A10

settled and certified by the trial court;

4. The appellant should be and he is hereby granted

an extension of time within which to file the record

of the proceedings, which is presently due to be

filed on or before December 14, 2000, to and

inchuding February 13,2001 -

CARR L. DARDEN, Acting Chief Judge

Baker, Kirsch, Vaidik, J.J., Concur AA

12/08/00 ***** Above entry mailed *****

12/15/00 Appellant's pro se motion for leave to file amended

Certiticate of service (6) No proof of Service MS

12/21/00 Appellant's motion for leave to file amended

certificate of service denied.

John T. Sharpnack, Chief Judge FM

12/2200 ***** Above entry mailed *****

1/30/01 Appellant's verified petition for extension of time in

which to file the record (2) certificate of service

(2) mail/NSS

PAGE 3.

File Date:

*SECOND* GP

2/021 Appellant's pro se motion to amend request for

extension of time (6) certificate of service (2) mail

2/01/01 Appellant's petition for extension of time to file record

granted to and including March 15, 2001. * Final

Extension * John T. Sharpnack, Chief Judge

2/05/01 ***** Above entry mailed *****

2/07/01 Appellant's motion to amend request for extension of

time filed January 30, 2001 Denied.

_ JOHN T. SHARPNACK, Chief Judge AA

27/01 ***** Above entry mailed ***** ?

3/1501 ****Tendered: 4 Volume Record. One of the

Volumes is a "Helpful Information Brochure: That

atty believes is allowable under Rule placed on my

desk until hear from Mrs. Blue. MP

3/15/01 Appellants request for waiver of appeal bond to

specify dollar amount time bond must be paid (6)

certificate of service (2) mail MP

All

EDITOR'S NOTE

ORIGINAL PAGINATION IS NOT CONTINUOUS

epttnts pettcn to manos of toon.

Randall T. Shepard, Chief Judge

All Justices concur

3/19/02 *** Above entry mailed***

Al5

PERRY V. CURTIS, APPEAL DEFENDANT LIST

THIS LIST IS OF COUNSEL OF RECORD WHOM

ARE BOTH DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR OTHERS AND

THEY ARE ALSO DEFENDANTS IN THE CASE

Indianapolis,

Phone (317) 232-6316

Intemational Union Of Operating Engineers, Local #103

and;

Indianapolis,

Phone (317) 353-9363

- Al6. -

Hawk, Haynie, Gallmeyer, co-defendants

Counsel of record, David Hawk

Suite 400

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Phone (260) 422-1515

Lebamoff Law Offices, Karen Walker, Thomas B. Boyer

all co-defendants

Counsel of record, not listed

Lebamoff Law Offices

918 South Calhoun

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Phone (260) 423-2581

Hunt, Suedhoff, Borror & Eilbacher, co-defendants

Scott L. Bunnell, Leonard E. Eilbacher, Daniel Leininger

all co-defendants

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Phone (260) 423-1311

Rothberg, Galimeyer, Frechtenicht , Logan Scott Niemann

and Rothberg, Gallmeyer, Frechtenicht, Logan all as

co-defendants

-Al7. -

10.

11.

Counsel of record not listed

Roth & Logan

2100 Ft. Wayne, Nat'l Bank Bldg.

110 West Berry Street

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Phone (260) 422-9454

Suite 2200, Fort Wayne Nat'l Bank Bldg.

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Phone (260) 423-9551

Burt, Blee, Dixon & Sutton, J. Phillip Burt, co-defendant

Counsel of record, J. Phillip Burt

Burt, Blee, Dixon & Sutton

200 East Main Street

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Phone (260) 426-1300

Barrett & McNagny, Thomas K. Kimbrough,

Gary J. Rickner all co-defendants

Counsel of record, Thomas K. Kimbrough

’ Barrett & McNaghny

215 East Berry

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Phone (260) 423-9551

- Al8. -

12.

a5.

14.

15.

16.

DEFENDANTS LISTED IN PARAGRAPHS 12 THRU

16 BELOW, ARE REPRESENTED BY ONE OF THE

LAW FIRMS LISTED IN ffi 1 THRU 12, THE RECORD

DOES NOT DISTINGUISH WHICH

Miller Brothers Construction Inc., it officers, directors or

1 Bemard Nartker

a Denny Warner

a Charles Christman Jr.

4 Greg Johnson

Crider & Crider Excavating and Paving, its officers,

directors, or agents;

.1 Wayne Pancake

a Paul Grimm

a Richard Yearling

S.E. Johnson Companies, Inc., its officers, directors,

or

agents;

i Herbert Widener

2 David Day

- Al19. -

‘aii

DEFENDANT LIST: PERRY V. BARNARD

U.S. S. Ct. No. 00-241

4. DEFENDANTS ARE MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA

SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION,

INDIANA JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTE,

AND TWO PRESIDENTS OF THE INDIANA BAR

ASSOCIATION

2 Counsel of record for the State Supreme Court

Disciplinary Commissioners and Judicial Nominating

Committe Membezs, Robert Spear, Deputy Att. Gen.,Ind

Replaced by Jon Laramore, and Janice E. Kreuscher

Office General

402 West Washington Street

Indiana Government Center, South, 5th Floor

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Phone (317) 232-7979

3. Counsel of record for Rabb Emerson and Russ Hart,

Presidents of the Indiana Bar Association was Theadore

Lockyear reqlaced by James Komblum, Michael Macer

LOCKYEAR & KORNBLUM

555 Sycamore Street

P.O. Box 3515

Evansville, Indiana 47734-3515

Phone (812) 422-1199

Disciplinary and inating Committees;

1 Linda K. Bamard D.C.

a Sheldon D. Breskow D.C.

3 Sherill Colvin D.C.

4 G. Daniel Kelley Jr. D.C.

5 Clifford Mashmeyer D.C.

6 James McDonald, Jr. D.C.

7 James Puckett D.C.

8 Wesley W. Ratliff, Jr. D.C.

9 Itsia Rivera D.C.

13 James T. Neal N.C.

14 CC. Coydon Randall N.C.

-15 Thomas H. Singer N.C.

-16 Howard S. Young, Jr. N.C.

DEFENDANT LIST: PERRY V. UNITED STATES et al.

U.S. S. Ct. No. 99-310

1 United States Of America

A. Internal Revenue Service

2 Senator Richard Lugar

3 Senator Danforth Quayle

Represented by Office of The United States Attorney

Timothy M. Morrison, Assistant

Suite 2100

10 W. Market Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3048

Phone (317) 226-6333

A Paul D. Mathias,Judge Allen Superior

& Stephen Spindler, Judge Noble Superior

Represented by Jon B. a ee

Office Of The

matinee

Indiana Government Center, South, 5th Floor

Indiana 46204-2770

Phone (317) 232-6201

Indianapolis,

Phone (317) 638-4521

- A21.-

6 Theadore Lockyear

Represented by , B. Michael Macer

LOCKYEAR & KORNBLUM

555 Sycamore Street

P.O. Box 3515

Evansville, Indiana 47734-3515

Phone (812) 422-1199

DEFENDANT LIST: PERRY V. GRESK et al.

S. Ct. Nos. 86-6325 advanced to 86-1765

Noun Whe

Represented by William E. Statham & Douglas V. Jessen

Jessen, Clark, Statham, McCray, Thomas & Krohn

215 N.W. 7th Street

P.O. Box 3567

Evansville, Indiana 47734

Phone (812) 425-5223

asper,

Phone (812) 482-1818

- A22. -

15 James DeMotte

Represented by Ron A. Hobgood

Kightlinger, Young, Gray & DeTrude

219 Main Street

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Phone (812) 464-9508

16 William Welbom

Represented by, Fred S. White

Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald & Hahn

708 Hulman Bldg.

P.O. Box 657

Evansville, Indiana 47704

Phone (812) 425-1591

-17 —_ Indiana Department Of Natural Resources

Represented by, Richard E. Hagenmaier, Deputy Att. Gn.

replaced by Jon B. Laramore

402 West Washington Street

Indiana Government Center, South, 5th Floor

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Phone (317) 232-6201

18 Patrick S. McSoley, pro se

Steele, Steele & Steele

Bedford National Bank Bldg.

Bedford, Indiana 47421

19 Jenney Richardson

Represented by Richard C. Rusk

Rusk, Overton & Hoefling

101 East Walnut Street

Washington, Indiana 47501

Phone (812) 254-1680

Bloomington, Indiana 47402- 0787

Phone (812) 332-9295

Jasper, Indiana 47546

Phone (812) 482-5500

31 William C. Welbom, pro se

William C. Welborn

112 N.W. 7th Street

Suite 302-303 Old Vand. Courthouse

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Phone (812) 424-3471

32 C.LT. Credit Corporation

33 James Hartz

by two firms

Norton Schwentker & James M. Schwentker

203 Court Building

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Phone (812) 423-4234

and

Bamberger & Feibleman

500 Union Federal Building

45 N. Pennsylvania Ave.

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Phone (317) 639-5151

ROBERT E. JENSEN etal No. 02D01-0101-CT-000022

Plaintiff (s)

v. FILE DATE 01/26/2001

Lloyd G. Perry Judge, David Avery

Defendant(s)

Robert E. Jensen M.D.

Attorney

Milford M. Miller Jr. Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219)423-4329

Fort Wayne, In. 46802 Attorney Number 9354

Attomey

Liston A. Grant Phone (219) 423-4329

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In. 46802 Attorney Number 22450

Gary P. Dillon MD.

Attomey Milford M. Miller Jr. § Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In. 46802 Attorney Number 9354

Attomey

Liston A. Grant Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In. 46802 Attorney Number 22450

Boyd Bradley R. MD

Attorney

Milford M. Miller Jr. Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In. 46802 Attorney Number 9354

Attomey

Liston A. Grant Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In 46802 Attorney Number 22450

William C. Lentz MD

Attomey

Milford M. Miller Jr. Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In 46802 Attorney Number 9354

Attomey

Liston A. Grant Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In 46802 Attorney Number 22450

FORT WAYNE DERMATOLOGY PC

Avtorney

Milford M. Miller Jr. Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In 46802 Attomey Number 9354

Attomey

Liston A. Grant Phone (219) 423-9411

i 1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In 46802 Attorney Number 22450

EAR NOSE AND THROAT ASSOCIATES

Attomey

Milford M.Miller Jr. Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In 46802 Attorney Number 9354

Attomey

Liston A.Grant Phone (219) 423-9411

1400 One Summit Square Fax (219) 423-4329

Fort Wayne, In 46802 Attorney Number 22450

BALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC.

Attorney

Kelly J. Pitcher Phone (317) 236-2389

One American SQ Box 82001 Fax (317) 236-2219

Indianapolis, In 46282 Attomey Number 14101

Christina C. Drummond MD

Attorney

Steven Cohen Phone (317) 844-5200

9465 Counselors Row Ste 104 Fax (317) 844-7200

Indianapolis, In 46240 § Attorney Number 3754

Attorney

Edna M. Koch Phone (317) 844-5200

9465 Counselors Row Ste 104 Fax (317) 844-7200

Indianapolis, In 46240

MIDWEST HEMOSTATIS THROMBOSIS

Attorney

Kelly J. Pitcher Phone (317) 236-2389

One American Sq Box 82001 Fax (317) 236-2219

Indianapolis, In 46282 §Attomey Number 14101 :

CARDINAL HEALTH SYSTEM

Attomey

Kelly J. Pitcher Phone (317) 236-2389

One American Sq. Box 82001 Fax (317) 236-2219

Indianapolis, In 46282 Attorney Number 14101

LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF FORT WAYNE

GASTROENTEROLOGY DEPARTMENT

Attorney

Steven Cohen Phone (317) 844-5200

9465 Counselors Row Ste 104 Fax: (317) 844-7200

Indianapolis, In 46240 Attorney Number 3754

Michael T. Isenberg MD

Attorney

Tina M. Bell Phone (219) 423-9551

- A28. -

215 East Berry St. Fax (219) 4238920

P.O. Box 2263 Attorney Number 21169

Fort Wayne, In 46801

Attomey

John M. Clifton Jr. Phone (219) 423-9551

P.O. Box 2263 Fax (219) 423-8920

Fort Wayne, In 46801 Attorney Number 3271

INDIANA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES LLC

Attomey

Tina M. Bell Phone (219) 423-9551

215 East Berry St. Fax (219) 423-8920

P.O. Box 2263 Attorney Number 21169

Fort Wayne, In 46801

Attorney

John M. Clifton Jr. Phone (219) 423-9551

P.O. Box 2263 Fax (219) 423-8920

Fort Wayne, In 46801 Attomey Number 3271

Mark J. Tatara MD

Attorney

Tina M. Bell Phone (219) 423-9551

215 East Berry St. Fax (219) 423-8920

P.O. Box 2263 Attorney Number 21169

Fort Wayne, In. 46801

Chuang Tsu Yi MD

Attorney

Kathleen M. Clark

Clark & Associates

450 E. 96th. Street, 5th Floor

Indianapolis, In 46240

Stephen E. Wolverton MD

Attorney

James W. Brauer Phone (317) 639-5454

251 East Ohio Street Ste 1100 Fax (317) 632-1319

Indianapolis, In 46204 Attorney Number 3649

CLARIAN HEALTH PARTNERS INC.

Attomey

Robert G. Weddle Phone (317) 639-5444

One Indiana Square Ste2100 Fax (317) 639-5232

Indianapolis, In 46204 Attorney Number 1020

METHODIST I U RILEY

Attorney

Robert G. Weddle Phone (317) 639-5444

One Indiana Square Ste2100 Fax (317) 639-5232

Indianapolis, In 46204 Attorney Number 1020

Attormey

Robert G. Weddle Phone (317) 639-5444

One Indiana Square Ste2100 Fax (317) 639-5232

- A30. -

Indianapolis, In 46204 Attorney Number 1020

ATLAS COLLECTIONS INC. vs. LLOYD PERRY

Attorney, J. Thomas Hurley

309 W. Charles St.

Muncie, Indiana 47305

ATLAS COLLECTIONS INC.

Attorney J. Thomas Hurley

420 W. Washington Street

Muncie, Indiana 47308

PERRY vs. VANDE ZANDE Allen Superior Court

Judge Paul D. Mathias No. 02D01-9503-CT-0122

Counsel of record, Randall J. Hammond and firm,

Tremper Bechert Leonard & Terrill

800 S. Calhoun Street. Fort Wayne, Ind. 46802

McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & vs. Perry Enterprise et al.

Marc Cohen, attorney and firm of McCarthy Lebit

Allen Superior Court No. 02D01-97 12-SC-20814

Ind. Supreme Court No. 02A04-0204-CV-157

Judges, Paul D. Mathias, Daniel G. Heath,

i Jerry Ummel

Indiana counsel of record, David R. Smelko of

- A31. -