To the Activists in Robes: "Transparency is the First Law of Justice"

Indiana Supreme Court Justices all have a past and Loretta Rush uses it against them.

The term "activists in robes" has been circulating nationwide as courts have become the battleground where national Democrats turn to combat former President Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday temporarily blocked the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under an 18th-century wartime law based on the ACLU filings.  

In his first few months back in office as the 47th President,President Donald J. Trump swiftly initiated the agenda on which he campaigned. Many judges in our federal courts were appointed by Joe Biden, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, andeven George W. Bush, and they may have too broad of jurisdiction.

Arguably based on political biases, some federal judges seem willing to extend their jurisdictions beyond their geographical boundaries of their federal districts to stay the MAGA agenda. How is this possible? Why should the President or his administration and team be forced to appeal these clearly political efforts, which were rejected soundly at the ballot box in November 2024?  Trump/Vance made their agenda known; it was Harris/Walz who were agenda-less.  It should be no surprise that campaign promises are being kept.

So, why do so many Democrats abuse the powers of the "Third Branch of Government"? Many today feel strongly that the Democrat Party has in the past abused the powers of the "First and Second Branches of Government" so perversely that the voters rejected them in favor of a "felon," as they labeled Trump through said abuses. Past government abuses are being exposed by DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk. Musk is now the new villain of the left, or perhaps just for those who were benefitting financially. 

To be fair, even though law schools, like most universities, breed mostly liberals today, Indiana, which has many Republican judges in courtrooms throughout the state, which might seem conservative. However, Indiana law school professors and IU law alumni are unlikely to be conservatives, making a general observation.

Loretta Rush suggested mike should stand.

There seems to be a bias in favor of "the establishment" here, and not necessarily always in favor of justice. The current Governor, Gov. Mike Braun, appears more willing than the past Governor to challenge the supremacy of "Indiana's Third Branch of government." Recently, at the State of the Judiciary address, CJ Rush turned and went to the podium avoiding the side where the Governor was waiting.

 It was clear that "The Fuhrer" Chief Justice Rush, pictured above, as she is called behind her back, was not afraid of former Governor Eric Holcomb or his Lt. Governor, who were never inclined or going to check her powers.  Then after avoiding him prior to speaking, and an awkward moment and perhaps wishful thinking, CJ Rush told Gov. Braun to stand up, and  she actually welcomed him to “the team.”  

The SCOIN has incredible exclusive authority in the state to rule without regard for much other than showing who has the power--the high court in Indiana flexes.  It is even codified --ironically unconstitutionally-- in the state's rewritten State Constitutionthat Rush’s Court has certain exclusive powers. 

Specifically, the Indiana Constitution delineates the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court in Article 7, Section 4.

This section specifies the original and appellate jurisdictions of the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdiction includes matters such as admission to the practice of law, discipline or disbarment of legal practitioners, unauthorized practice of law, discipline, removal, and retirement of justices and judges, supervision over the jurisdiction exercised by other state courts, and issuance of writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is exercised under terms specified by rules, with direct appeals from judgments imposing death sentences.

Certainly, with regard to professional licensing many issues and problems arise because of these exclusive powers to proceed against Hoosier lawyers in ethics cases without the protections normally ensured by the Rules of Criminal Procedure—which do not apply in Indiana's legal ethics tribunalhearings, which is wrong.

Former lawyer Doug Bernacchi, whose case has resulted in a series of HE articles, said: "Ironically, in Indiana, lawyers have fewer rights than criminals when accused of unethical conduct; yet, some lawyers commit crimes and still retain their law licenses."

Nationally, he pointed to Hunter Biden, who was pardoned of all criminal acts but not unethical conduct as a lawyer, yet still has his law license "Active and in Good Standing" in the District of Columbia, and the Connecticut Supreme Court has also refused to prosecute an ethics case against his Connecticut law license. Rudy Giuliani in New York had his license and reputation canceled without a hearing on the merits, just like Mr. Bernacchi did.

Selective legal ethics prosecutions, which the SCOIN has the written right to exclusively engage in here in Indiana, targeting personae non gratae (i.e., disfavored or politically unpopular individuals within the legal profession) (e.g., Todd Rokita), are problematic for several serious legal, ethical, and institutional reasons. 

Selective prosecution in legal ethics cases is antithetical to the rule of law, especially when the Supreme Court of the United States does not accept certiorari to address the widespread court abuse in states where legal ethics cases have become a form of "lawfare." Here is a further breakdown of why this practice undermines the justice system: 

1. Violates Equal Protection and Due Process (never addressed by SCOTUS)  

a. Selective enforcement undermines constitutional protections:  

i. Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): Everyone should be treated equally under the law. Targeting certain individuals while ignoring others for the same conduct is discriminatory. 

ii. Due Process Clause: The process must be fair and impartial. When disciplinary action is selectively applied, it compromises the fairness of the process and may suggest retaliation or bias. 

2. Chills Dissent and Undermines Free Expression  

a. Targeting disfavored attorneys—often whistleblowers, political dissenters, or critics of the judiciary—can chill protected speech, if there is any at all for lawyers in Indiana:  

i. First Amendment violations can occur if disciplinary action is motivated by the content of the lawyer's speech rather than legitimate misconduct. 

ii. Lawyers may avoid speaking truth to power or representing unpopular clients for fear of retaliation. 

3. Damages Public Confidence in the Legal System  

a. The perception (or reality) of selective prosecution:  

i. Undermines public trust in the legal profession and judicial institutions. 

ii. Suggests that ethics rules are being weaponized for personal or political gain rather than used to ensure integrity. 

4. Undermines the Purpose of Legal Ethics  

a. The point of legal ethics is to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession, not to punish people based on who they are:  

i. Ethics enforcement should be impartial, transparent, and consistent. 

ii. Selective enforcement turns disciplinary systems into tools of control, not correction. 

5. Opens the Door to Abuse and Corruption  

a. When ethics rules are selectively enforced:  

i. It creates a two-tiered system: one for favored insiders and another for outsiders. 

ii. Accountability suffers when misconduct by the well-connected goes unpunished, while minor or technical infractions by the disfavored are pursued aggressively. 

If you are an Indiana lawyer who feels afraid of the current exclusive system, join the discussion online at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Loretta_Rush. Or, if you are someone who has filed one or more complaints against a dishonest lawyer or judge in Indiana only to receive a letter back denying your truth, knowing this current system is rigged—a criminal protection racket for the powerful, and a series of show trials often against competitors of the crooks large and in charge, the disfavored, or some very late against the criminals prosecuted already in other courts—then please join the online discussion, too. 

So, to the agenda-driven activists in robes, let bright lights shine on.... Let the record show: corruption cannot survive the light, and "Transparency is the First Law of Justice." 

If you are an Indiana lawyer who feels afraid of the current exclusive system, fearing attack, join the discussion online at 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Loretta_Rush.

Or, if you are someone who has filed one or more complaints against a dishonest lawyer or judge in Indiana only to receive a letter back denying your truth, knowing the currentABA-designed system is rigged— i.e., a criminal-protection racket for the powerful combined with a series of annual show trials often against competitors of the crooks large and in charge, the disfavored, handicapped, minorities, solo practitioner, collectively the personae non gratae, or brought late againsome--very late against the criminals prosecuted already in other courts—then please join this online discussion, too. 

So, to the agenda-driven activists in robes, let bright lights shine on you. Let the record show: corruption cannot survive the light, and "Transparency is the First Law of Justice" otherwise we just have kangaroo courts in America, too.