Andrew Straw, et. al V. Indiana, Loretta Rush and G. Michael Witte

Straw's Actual Business Card

Indianapolis, IN — HE received a press release email stating that a former employee of the Indiana Supreme Court was filing a judicial complaint against two high-powered and embattled Hoosier judges: Chief Justice Loretta Rush and the Hon. G. Michael Witte, who currently serves as a senior judge in the state despite being overwhelmingly rejected by Dearborn County voters in the 2008 election for Judge of Superior Court 1. The Dearborn County voters instead in 2008 elected the Hon. John Cleary to replace him.

Mr. Straw need not hold his breathe waiting for justice from such a corrupt lot -- Indiana's Supreme Court Justices and their Attorney Disciplinary Commission.

HE, however, expects that Rush may soon resign or be impeached by the IGA, following what some describe as her long and dismal tenure at the helm of Indiana’s court system, where legal ethics have deteriorated to the point of becoming an oxymoron. Access to justice and the ability to find an affordable attorney in many of Indiana’s 92 counties have reached a breaking point.

There are stories alleging her involvement in the termination of parental rights in a “kids-for-cash”-type scandal involving human trafficking during her time as a judge in Lafayette. She once reportedly bragged that Indiana had 4,100 adoptions annually—second only to California—raising serious concerns. [See: https://www.hoosierenquirer.com/post/exposé-ind-supreme-court-chief-justice-loretta-rush-s-alleged-kids-for-cash-empire-in]

Chief Justice Loretta Rush, the most powerful Indiana leader G. Michael Witte, former IN Ethics Czar, often called "Indiana's Comey"

Further, recent incidents involving Indiana judges—including arrests for drunk driving, allegations of sexual harassment of staff, and even one judge being shot outside a strip club—have raised serious concerns. SEE https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/lake-superior-court-judge-charged-with-alleged-misconduct-by-judicial-commission

These events are seen by many as evidence of systemic incompetence within the leadership of Indiana’s judicial branch and have fueled calls for Chief Justice Loretta Rush to step down from what is arguably the most powerful position in the state. Critics argue that she appears to wield largely unchecked authority.

The Indiana Constitution grants the Indiana Supreme Court "exclusive" power to license, regulate, discipline, suspend, and disbar attorneys—an arrangement that many view as fundamentally un-American.

Chief Justice Rush holds not only the most powerful legal position in the state, but also one that indirectly influences political careers, since many Indiana politicians are licensed attorneys. Under her leadership—and with the backing of G. Michael Witte, former Director of the Indiana Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Commission—there has been growing fear among legal professionals that dissent or independence could result in harsh disciplinary action. SEE https://www.hoosierenquirer.com/post/revisiting-a-questionable-ethics-case-v-former-hoosier-lawyer-doug-bernacchi

(Doug Bernacchi's one-sided ethics case was a clear attack on good lawyer who ran for judge)

Many claim civil rights have been routinely trampled in the name of control.

Despite the severity of these concerns, the legal media in Indiana have remained largely silent. But he will not.

Andrew Straw, once employed by the Indiana Supreme Court and formerly an associate dean at the Indiana Maurer School of Law, now considers himself a victim of judicial abuse under both Witte and Rush. “When I say my broken bones were in service to [Indiana’s] 400 courts, I mean I worked for the Chief Justice of Indiana until [she] betrayed me for being disabled,” wrote Straw, now indefinitely suspended from practicing law, on his Facebook page. Comments in response to his post read: “The Lord will give you back what you have lost,” and “Indiana is run by sinners, especially Chief Justice Loretta Rush and the SCOIN.”

By press release he wrote this week:

Re Andrew U. D. Straw

License# 23378

My attorney license discipline has snaked on for 8 years when it was dismissed automatically by Rule 23, Section 10(h), in 2016.

This due process shredding suspension has led to a long string of mischiefs but the facts are not even controvertible.

ADA coordinator Rodeheffer retaliated against my disability complaints with a disciplinary complaint of her own dated 9/3/2014. That was ADA retaliation. I was a senior employee of the court before, hired by CJ Shepard [A predecessor CJ before Rush] , with legitimate complaints and this Rodeheffer complaint was pure retaliation. She even mentioned my complaints in hers. IADC sent me a letter asking for response on 1/5/2015.

I responded. I did not delay anything. No action happened within a year as required by Rule 23, Sec.10(h). [This smacks of illegal and selective prosecution.]

The verified complaint by Mr. Witte was over a year later and thus past the absolute 10(h) time limit. 1/11/2016.

At one year, this 10(h) rule provides that the original complaint, by Rodeheffer in this case, is dismissed automatically.

I didn't make up the rules but I demand everyone to follow them if I am expected to.

Why was this verified complaint allowed when the matter was already dismissed?

It was dishonest 100% for any proceeding to continue after that automatic dismissal.

Dishonest by Witte and Rush both.

Any honest person looking at the dates on these documents can see my disciplinary complaint was dismissed by rule.

Why was a hearing officer appointed?

Why was I asked to defend against an already dismissed complaint?

Why was an outrageously long suspension imposed with no dishonest act or crime alleged and with the statutory dismissal in place 13 months earlier than the suspension order?

I should have my license back with an apology and compensation.

This was an excessive fine in violation of the 8th Amendment. No fine or punishment was justified when the complaint was dismissed.

Just like the 9-0 shellacking Rush's erroneous 5-0 order got from SCOTUS in Timbs v. Indiana.

Wrongly convicted people are paid for their prison time.

This suspension ruined my law career everywhere. I lost 4 federal licenses to suspension and was denied an 11th Circuit license even when my 4th Circuit license has always been Active in good standing.

[Virgiana State Bar] VSB's exoneration of me is well described by Artificial Intelligence. Indiana needs to shape up and stop abusing a Camp LeJeune poisoning victim and a civil rights leader.

People need to stop ignoring me and do the right thing. It might hurt your pride, but your oath is not to your pride, but justice and my rights under the Constitution.

I ask for that justice and those due process rights.

Legal Ethics in Indiana have become a protection racket for the well connected and show trials for the independent.

HE supports the concept of taking the lawyer regulation from the corrupt Supreme Court powers that can be so unfair, and have been failing to public and at the same time engaging in ethic lawfare in the past decades. Towards that end HE publishes below with permission an excerpt for the Internet and from former Indiana Lawyer Doug Bernacchi's book, America's Kangaroo Courts. This excerpt follows:

Paul Ogden Said it Better

Who is Paul Ogden, you ask? He is yet another Indiana Attorney who endured the wrath of the Indiana Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Commission, having his law license suspended early in G. Michael Witte’s tenure as Executive Director or Executive Secretary. He seemed to use both titles interchangeably, if only to confuse his prey. There was no doubt that he engaged in physiological warfare, sending so many letters on Friday afternoons, and causing his marks to be unable to focus on their real work, their current clients’ cases. His witch hunts had a particular modus operandi agreed to be those who I interviewed.

Paul Ogden fought back and today, he is a local watchdog/journalist and blogger in Indianapolis, Indiana. Paul, an Indianapolis attorney, lost his license to practice law for privately criticizing a judge.

In Ogden’s own words:

“I received notice today that the Disciplinary Commission has filed a complaint against me based on two allegations.The first deals with a million dollar plus estate case out of Hendricks County. I represented one of the heirs, one of four children of the decedent.

The executor was the one adult child who had been excluded from sharing in the large residual part of the estate. I filed motions relating to what I believed what had been the improper handling of the case. When the trial judge failed to rule on one within 30 days, I filed a notice under Rule 53.1 to have the Supreme Court remove the trial judge.

A new judge was appointed.Several months later, I wrote emails complaining about the handling of the case by the original judge, in particular the failure to follow probate rules and also repeated my client’s assertion the judge knew the executor and had been a family friend. (My client reaffirmed this in an affidavit.)

These private emails, which started with the attorney for the estate, were later taken by the mother of the executor to the trial judge who demanded I apologize. I refused and outlined the probate rules he had failed to follow. The emails and the letter where I refused to apologize were forwarded to the Commission.

The second allegation deals with a letter I sent to several Marion County civil court judges regarding the statutory procedure for dividing civil forfeiture proceeds as well as pointing out the comments by the Indiana Supreme Court in a footnote in the State v. Serrano case.

I had no civil forfeiture cases before any of the judges I had sent the letter to and I copied the Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry, Attorney General Greg Zoeller and the Marion County Public Safety Director Frank Straub on the correspondence.

Regarding, the first allegation, it is not a violation of the rule to criticize a judge. It is a violation of the rule, in particular Rule 8.2(a) for an attorney to criticize a judge with information he knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to whether it is false. There has not been any information provided to me showing this standard has been met.Regarding the second allegation, the Commission claims I engaged in ex parte communication to try to influence a judge. First, it is not an ex parte communication as I sent a copies of the correspondence to the Marion County Prosecutor and the Attorney General.

Both represent the State and law enforcement agencies that are the Plaintiffs in civil forfeiture actions. The former provides representation at trial, the latter on appeal.Second, not only did I not have any cases before the judges I sent the letter to, the issue had to do with a matter when the case is over and issues relating to the civil forfeiture defendant have been decided, namely how the proceeds from civil forfeiture are to be divided between the governmental entities.

As I pointed out, the statute requires that judges make determinations as to "law enforcement costs" on a case-by-case basis with those costs going to law enforcement and the balance going to the Common School Fund. As media accounts have pointed out, this is not being done in Marion County (law enforcement has been keeping 100% of the money for years) and in most of the counties in Indiana.As a side note, I would add that several years ago, I do believe Judge Jim Payne who headed DCS until recently sent out communications to trial judges about what he believed was the improper handling of DCS cases and I am not aware he faced any disciplinary charges.I believe strongly in free speech and that we attorneys don’t lose our free speech rights when we get sworn in.

In my blog, I have been critical of the operation of the Disciplinary Commission, in particular the apparent focus on small law firm attorneys while attorneys at the big firms rarely ever seem the subject of disciplinary action. (That big firm-small firm dichotomy emphasizes a common criticism regarding the apparent unevenness in how various matters are treated by the Disciplinary Commission.)

I believed it was, and still is, my right to criticize the Disciplinary Commission as well as it is my right, within the rules regarding false information, to criticize judges. I have also publicly advocated for reforming the selection process for Marion County judges, which also is part of my free speech rights.While I do respect the Disciplinary Commission and especially the Indiana Supreme Court, I have long believed that the attorney disciplinary process in Indiana is in dire need of reform. This new, very personal, experience with the Commission reinforces that belief.

Over the following year and beyond, Mr. Ogden continued to publicly criticize the Indiana Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Commission and its former Director, G. Michael Witte—who many have described as power-hungry, erratic, and politically rejected. Ogden shared numerous legal ethics commentaries and exposés on his blog, Ogden on Politics (www.ogdenonpolitics.com).

Interestingly, many of his sharp, truthful, and critical writings have since vanished from the internet. This pattern mirrors the broader disappearance of public criticism aimed at Witte, Chief Justice Loretta Rush, and other powerful Indiana officials accused of misconduct. These erasures only reinforce growing concerns about unchecked power and a lack of transparency in Indiana’s legal system. The Hoosier State deserves better.

Andrew Straw, like Paul Ogden, believed he had the constitutional right to speak out against and challenge the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission in pursuit of justice. However, he found that such criticism carried steep consequences—especially when directed at a body that holds exclusive authority to write the rules, control the process, and determine the due process rights (if any) afforded to attorneys.