#MeToo victim, Re-Victimized by Mike Pence FAILURE OF DUTY and a Criminal conspiracy
0 have signed. Let’s get to 200!
My Name is Gary Jackson Sr and I am a Convicted Sex Offender in Indiana, and my "Victim" was RE VICTIMIZED by the [State] and Government Officials sworn to uphold our Laws and Constitution; who made a promise to her and Myself through a Plea Agreement, and then failed to uphold the promise.
I am writing this petition to you today, so that we may clear up a matter with a Federal Court Civil case, which includes Criminal Conduct by the Indiana Government Officials named in the Federal Civil lawsuit. Mike Pence as former Indiana Governor and in his Personal capacity is named in this suit along with Eric Holcomb and several other (19) Individual Indiana Officials and (8) Offices or agencies. Bringing a total of (27) Defendants' (under 2 different 6/2017 amendments) and an additional amended 3rd complaint in 12/2017. Available for viewing https://www.pacer.gov/ [1-16-cv-2551-WTL-MPB] ***NOTICE*** ***Federal Court Website*** User acct. required - Official use only
The Indiana Attorney Generals Office allowed Numerous violations of my Constitutional Rights to continue and even assisted in the violations, to cover up the Illegal, Unconstitutional and unethical conduct of parole Officials and other parties.
The specific Deputy Attorney General who used his position to allow this and protect the Guilty Parties is Benjamin Legge, along with David Arthur assisted [Legge] as Co-Counsel and [Arthur] was also primary Counsel for the [Bleeke] Defendants of a previous case by another [S.O] for similar reasons.
This is in Regards to a Sex Offender who had a plea agreement and Indiana's Sex Offender Parole Conditions, which failed to be changed even after their [already known] Unconstitutional Conditions were taken to court by a previous Sex Offender. David Bleeke was a Previous Indiana Sex Offender Parolee who had taken his action to 4 different Court levels and won in all 4 Courts (although not on all claims); but nobody (Parole or Government Officials) changed the [Status Quo].
My Sexual Conviction involved my Bio-logical Daughter and it is something I regret Daily. My offense came about as an "Inappropriate" touch of her breast on the "Exterior" of her clothing. I explain this in such emphasis to help the Individuals reading this to better understand the details of the "Crime and Conviction".
Every Sex Offense is Different, they are [Generally] perpetrated by a single Individual. Our Laws, Society and Judicial system has FAILED to understand how to "Fix" the problem. In fact, it's Growing at such a rapid rate and even including Celebrities, Politicians, National product spokespeople, Different athletic Coach's, School Officials and everybody down to the Man/Woman next door, or in my case, not even outside (the) home. Each "Crime" has it's own "Elements" that make it different than the others committed by the Individuals who was before and those After each others "Individual" Conviction or case.
There is No One size fit's all. If were ever going to accept this as what it is, and try to "Cure" the "Individual" then ALL probation, parole, and Community Corrections conditions and Agency's; along with our Laws should be Tailored towards the "Individual" and ENFORCED as written.
We have cases which are heinous, involve horrible acts by the "Individual Perpetrator", some are so heinous they involve Death. However, We also have cases which are far less severe and can be an "inappropriate" touch, urinating in public (Public Indecency), Jack and Jill crimes of "Lovers" of separate ages; some of those "Lovers" even go on to Marriage after their "Crime" and Conviction.
Our Jail's and Prisons are overcrowded and mostly because of Unconstitutional Sex Offender Conditions. This Hurts the Public Because we have people Incarcerated who DON'T Truly pose a threat, (wasted tax dollars). Overcrowding which causes those who are a Danger to be released back into the public.
Our Sex Offender Laws are all looked at as some Monster and extreme heinous acts were committed. I DO NOT say this to MINIMIZE ANYTHING. Our Probation, Community Corrections, and Parole "Standard Conditions" AUTOMATICALLY sets your "INDIVIDUAL" Conditions "STANDARD". Your the scum of the earth, and Parole takes it so much further; why, as Melissa Pine put it - my Parole agent for the 1st 10 Months of my 1 year term " They are the [STATE] and are Not controlled by the courts, but THE GOVERNOR OF INDIANA.
My case as I said earlier involved my Daughter and an "Inappropriate Touch", there was no forcing, violence, threats, weapon, computer or Internet, and was not even outside the doors of my own home. I Signed a plea agreement which [allowed] "contact with Minor Relatives as long as it was supervised by another adult, and the minors parent(s) agreed in writing", ...... Further; it also"allowed contact with [victim] after she turned 16, as long as she agreed and Initiated the Contact".
I was sentenced to 6 years [ 2 yrs Comm Corrections, 4 yrs Probation], I completed my CC time and was then placed on probation. I had several probation violations which mainly stemmed from Financial issues and the Court Ordered classes at ICC [Indianapolis Counseling Center] which required payment "at time of service". These classes can range as high as $50 per session and can be at least once if not more, times per week. If you fail to have payment in full; you were denied entry, (at one point in time I was a dollar short). When these circumstances arise and you are denied entry, It is considered "an unexcused absence" even though you showed up and had money, but not full payment. (Marion Cty. Probation failed to Intervene) After you received 2 U.A at ICC, you were terminated or suspended from class. This causes a Probation Violation for being removed from class or having an unexcused absence.
I Violated my Probation and was eventually sent to the IDOC [Indiana Dept Of Corrections] for 2 years and had probation revoked. I spent 9 months in New Castle Indiana IDOC facility, I was Court approved to spend the remaining 3 months of my (50% 2 days credit) Sentence in the IDOC CTP [Community Transition Program] (2yr sentence = 1 prison + 1 parole). I completed the program and on July 12th 2016 I was placed on Parole (for my last remaining year of my IDOC sentence), at the 30th St. Indianapolis Parole District 3.
Indiana's Parole Scheme is Mandatory, and along with several other States, has very HARSH and Unconstitutional conditions for Sex Offenders. The rules are put in place in Indiana on a ‘standardized’ form 49108, in violation of I.C 11-13-3-4 , I.C 4-22-2 and without Due Process as required by Law and the U.S. Constitution.
Sex Offender Parolees are REQUIRED to sign [under duress] and "Agree" to abide by all the "Standard" Conditions. Many of these Conditions restrict contact with ALL MINORS, regardless of the "Individuals" offense, personal circumstance, history or "Element" of their Crime. These Conditions go as far as keeping family away from each other, not even being allowed pictures of "minor" family members even after the [minor] becoming a grown adult; not being able to talk on the phone, write a letter, buy a gift, or have any "3rd Party" contact - Meaning a child, whose been in the life for 3 yrs of the "Sex Offender Parolee", After the Conviction, can have NO CONTACT with that [S.O], This Further destroys lives, and it did.
This Clearly Amounts to "Cruel and Unusual Punishment", Torture; especially KNOWING "that the Parolee had a history of Mental Illness and was a substantial suicide risk".
The [State] said in their by (Filipow) M.C.P.O, Deputy Prosecutor: “The State would not object to enforcement of the terms of the plea agreement to the extent the Defendant was placed back on probation for supervision;…” and [Gary] had previously said in an email to [Legge] and [Arthur] “all we really want is what he bargained for in his plea agreement”.
[Arthur] during his Arguments in front of the Indiana Supreme Ct. (David Bleeke v. State of Indiana, (12-5-2013) 02S05-1305-PL-00364) was directly asked about a “liberty interest” by Justice Rucker @ 23;00 (watch the oral argument video webcast at http://mycourts.in.gov/arguments and [Arthur] agreed that parole and probation are Identical concerning that Liberty Interest, then again @ 28:00 Justice David went back to clarify with [Arthur] and asked “Is it your position that [his] Rights are the same had he been under Probation from a Court or terms and Conditions of parole” [Arthur] emphatically stated “Yes, Yes, No Different”. Going further Justice David @ 30:57 asked specifically about parole automatically imposing conditions which should not apply to that person and referencing an analogy that (a parolee is released from prison with the automatic conditions, not allowing contact with children and being subject to immediate violation if children are present to pick a parolee up, just being released from prison, without being able to challenge those conditions – David Arthur replied “that was the situation at the time, that’s under review right now because of this case”. This never changed and [Arthur] knew it and (he) stood by and allowed parole and [Legge] to continue violating my Rights and my plea agreement all to allow parole to maintain [their] Unconstitutional conduct, using Illegal and Unethical conduct to keep the Status Quo.
This is in every since of the words = OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Further, these conditions restrict "Sex Offender Parolee's" [but not other parolees] from going to Public venues, locations, malls, sporting events or many other type of [COMMUNITY or Public access]. These Conditions "Restrict" and "Hinder" the very purpose of parole "To Successfully Reintegrate the parolee into SOCIETY", the exact opposite of what Indiana Parole does. This IS an "Equal Protection claim". A Murderer can walk our streets freely without restrictions, but a [S.O] cannot. The public is led to "Believe" law enforcement will protect against terror but not a [S.O]? If they gave the [S.O] Due process they would know "Exactly" who and what to restrict them from doing or going to.
I.C. § 11-13-3-4 states in particular “Sec. 4. (a) A condition to remaining on parole is that the parolee not commit a crime during the period of parole.
(b) The parole board may also adopt, under IC 4-22-2, additional conditions to remaining on parole and require a parolee to satisfy one (1) or more of these conditions. These conditions must be reasonably related to the parolee's successful reintegration into the community and not unduly restrictive of a fundamental right.”
I.C 4-22-2 requires the Parole Board to publish notice of the proposed parole conditions in the Indiana Register, hold a public hearing, receive and respond to public comments, submit a final version to the Attorney General of Indiana and the Governor of Indiana for approval, and then submit the approved version for publication in the Indiana Administrative Code.
NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE OR FOLLOWED BY THE STATE OFFICIALS
When David Bleeke sued the Indiana Parole Officials in Federal Court Northern Indiana - The Court stated that the
"Parole Board had a constitutional obligation to provide some procedural safeguard allowing for an individualized determination . . . . . before imposing . . . parole conditions,”. Id. at *13. Bleeke v. Server, 2010 WL 299148 at *1 (N.D. Ind. January 19, 2010)(Quoted from Ind Sup. Ct. Opinion) (IND Supreme Court, 02S05-1305-PL-364 Bleeke v. Lemmon 2014.)
The Indiana Supreme Court even commented in their response to the [States] Appeal from the Allen Superior Court giving [Bleeke] an Injunction because [Bleeke] was being restricted from his Wife and Children.
“Certainly the Parole Board, by virtue of having control over offenders about to be released to parole, may be fully capable of developing individualized assessments for each parolee prior to imposing any parole conditions.
And it may be more efficient, long-term, for such determinations to be made up front rather than waiting for them to be judicially ordered as a consequence of a legal challenge.” (IND Supreme Court, 02S05-1305-PL-364 Bleeke v. Lemmon 2014.)
“When the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being” . . . . . “it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf -- through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty -- which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, . . . . Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services 489 U.S. 189 (1989) Also see: Bowers v. De Vito, 686F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)
"During the past 60 years, the practice of releasing prisoners on parole before the end of their sentences has become an integral part of the penological system. …. Rather than being an ad hoc exercise of clemency, parole is an established variation on imprisonment of convicted criminals. Its purpose is to help individuals reintegrate into society as constructive individuals as soon as they are able, without being confined for the full term of the sentence imposed. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer) (Bold emphasis added)
As MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN has written..,
"this Court now has rejected the concept that constitutional rights turn upon whether a governmental benefit is characterized as a 'right' or as a 'privilege.'"
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365, 403 U. S. 374 (1971). Whether any procedural protections are due depends on the extent to which an individual will be "condemned to suffer grievous loss." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 341 U. S. 168 (191) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), quoted in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 397 U. S. 263 (1970). The question is not merely the "weight" of the individual's interest, but whether the nature of the interest is one within the contemplation of the "liberty or property" language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (172). (Quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471) (1972),
“Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause[.]” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Id. at 333.
The essence of due process is the requirement that ‘a person in jeopardy of serious loss (be given) notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.’” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 348, quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-172 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Due process also requires that, following the hearing, the decision maker must issue a written statement as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the determination. See, e.g., Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489. “When protected interests are implicated, the right to some kind of prior hearing is paramount.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-570 (1972).
These Court Rulings, Ind Code and Laws, and Federal Laws set "Clearly Established Rights" to Due Process and the [State] Fails to abide and tries to shield themselves under the 11th Amendment. However, these ARE "Clearly Established Rights to Due Process".
The Indianapolis Division Federal District Court has allowed these Individuals to get by with this behavior, even after all the cited cases and court decisions, even citing criminal conduct which was even listed in the Court Documents, Which was perpetrated by the Government; and the fact of me being a "Sex Offender" and "Pro Se" and the "Cover up" because I was suing Mike Pence for "Deliberate Indifference" for failing to make parole change their actions AFTER he Settled the [Bleeke] lawsuit. Remember I.C 4-22-2 gives the Governor of Indiana the FINAL APPROVAL of Parole Conditions - Not the Parole Board.
A right is clearly established when it is defined clearly enough to put officers on notice of their duties under the circumstances they confront. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (“For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”) (quotation omitted).This does not require a prior case “directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al‐Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).
For 3 years prior to Gary going on parole he was allowed contact with his minor relatives, just as the plea agreement stated. This even happened when Probation and CC had the same or similar "Standard" conditions like Parole; Probation and CC chose to follow the plea agreement because they were required to, just as the Court was required and the [State] being required to abide.
(Becker v. State 992 N.E.2d 697 In Sup. Ct. (2013) Citing
"Criminal cases are prosecuted in the name of the “State of Indiana.” But as Shakespeare famously asked, “What's in a name? that which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.” Gertrude Stein's answer was that “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.”
Similarly, we conclude that in this matter related to the sex offender registry, “the State is the State,” whether it acts through a deputy prosecutor or through the Department of Correction. Both entities share the same substantial interest—to maximize an offender's *699 registration obligations—and are therefore in privity with each other in cases involving that interest. Accordingly, we hold that when the State (via a local prosecutor) fails to appeal an adverse sex-offender registration ruling, the State (via the DOC) becomes bound by it under principles of res judicata.
 William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet act 2, sc. 2.
 Gertrude Stein, Sacred Emily, in Geography and Plays 178, 187 (1922).
Parole was required to follow those same terms of the plea agreement but refused. Not just because they are a [State] Agency, but because they are in "Privy with each other", BECAUSE "the local prosecutor had the same interest in mind; that being - to protect the community and another relative from becoming a victim. see (Becker v. State 992 N.E.2d 697 In Sup. Ct. (2013)
“[A] ‘privy’ is one who after rendition of [a] judgment has acquired an interest *701 in the subject matter affected by the judgment,” or “whose interests are represented by a party to the action.” MicroVote Gen. Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm'n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 196 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). “[A]n entity does not have to control a prior action ... for privity to exist.” Id.Quoting (Becker v. State 992 N.E.2d 697 In Sup. Ct. (2013)
Parole refused to follow my plea agreement, Why? Because I was a "Sex Offender Parolee", Not because I posed a "Threat". I screwed up yes, but that was a stupid, selfish, Intoxicated moment; but that's not who I am. And the Prosecutor and Judge seen that, in the beginning, which is why I had these terms in my plea agreement in the first place; and NOTHING had changed from the time of my conviction to the time I was placed on parole; other than "Probation violation" mainly for Monetary reasons.
This Destroyed lives, not just mine. This effected friends, family members, and quite frankly I believe it Destroyed my 3 Dogs lives and when I say this I mean Literally.
In Jan 2017 Heidi, our Rot of 12 years and the sweetest thing, was drinking water one day, everything was normal, playful; all of a sudden she fail to the floor into a seizure. We rushed her to er vet and she kept getting worse and more seizures, and then the bloating. We had to make the decision to put her down, she was everybody's friend and the little dogs loved her. Next, around late March to April, our cheweenie (Precious) was forgotten outside when I left for work, the little thing got out of the yard and was hit by numerous cars; [terrible site]. Lastly was Dolly, we had her about 14 yrs and she just got old and really depressed after the other two were gone. We had to put her down in late June/July. May they all 3 Rest in Peace.
It just goes to show life can change in a moments notice. I have 9 Grandchildren and that 1 year I was away was extremely hard on the entire family, kids don't understand why they can no longer go to Mamaw and Papa's. They grew up quick in that year also, so a lot was missed.
While I was in prison my [Daughter] "victim" made contact with me after she turned 18 yrs old in November of 2015. She had previously wanted contact with me after she turned 16 but she was forbidden by her Bio-logical Mother. She contacted me sometime around the Christmas Holiday of 2015. She made this contact through the IDOC New Castle J-Pay [email] service, we sent emails back and forth and I apologized and did the best I could to explain,.. WHY? We talked a few times on the phone during my stay in prison, she came up to see me as a [surprise] when I was to be released into the IDOC CTP on April 14th 2016. I was immediately returned back to IDOC due to conflicts of my Home Address and "Plea Agreement" issue's. The IDOC CTP Marion Cty. CC had no clue what was going on and sent me back to prison. I had to go back through an entirely New Intake process at IDOC RDC before being returned back to New Castle Facility. My Daughter returned home before I was re-released a week later back into IDOC CTP MCCC.
My Daughter and I spoke on the phone a few times during my time on CTP (3 Months), Once was even an all night appx 3 1/2 - 4 Hr long phone call. We were planning to meet in person, but my time to go on parole was nearing and I began contacting them prior to my Start date about my Plea agreement. Parole refused to abide by the Plea agreement, I protested, sent a letter to the parole board, filed a lawsuit, asked to have my plea revoked and then asked to have it enforced. Everything was denied.
My Daughter and I lost that contact and I have never been able to get it back. These Parole conditions Destroyed my Family and the Re-building of a Father - Daughter Relationship.
I filed a civil lawsuit in September 2016 and asked for an injunction, it was denied; the Attorney Generals Office said I was a "threat" and parole "needed to protect the Community". There were NEVER any allegations, behavior or anything to support this claim, but the Court sided with the [State], (res judicata Becker v. State).
When I filed for my Plea agreement to be "Enforced" on parole in the Criminal Court, the Judge [Grant Hawkins M.C.S.C (5)] told the [State] to respond within 30 days. The [State] responded by the Original Marion County Deputy Prosecutor Elizabeth Filipow and Benjamin Legge entered his appearance and Motion to Intervene for IDOC, (Res Judicata) Judge Grant Hawkins (M.C.S.C 5) who has already been previously reprimanded PUBLICLY; DENIED the Motion without any reason given. (Due Process101)
Further Mr. Legge nor the State by Filipow EVER said I was a "Threat" or the need of "Protecting the Community" as [Legge] had argued in the Civil case. Further, [Legge] trying to "Intervene" in [Gary's] Motion to Enforce his plea; was completely against more case law, Because; “An intervenor is treated as if it was an original party and has equal standing with the parties.” Mercantile Nat. Bank of Ind. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Pension Fund, 668 N.E.2d 1269, 1271 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). But that means that intervenors, just as any other party, are “not permitted to re-litigate matters already determined in the case,” and are bound “to all prior orders and judgments in the case.”(Becker v. State)
I asked the Federal Court (Judge Lawrence) to correct his ruling and allow monetary damages in Feb, 2017 since I had named the Defendant's "Individually" and in their Official Capacity. (Pro Se Complaint's are to be construed "Liberally") Motion Denied. Motioned for Expedited discovery: Motion Denied, (2) Motions to Amend: Denied, Motion for Sanctions for unethical conduct and abuse of a Motion: Motion Denied, (2) Motions for Recusal: Motions Denied.
The Federal Court helped to Cover up this Case and Closed Judgment in the [Defendants] Favor (ie. The Government) on November 17th 2017. Ironically, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission closed my complaint on 5 Individuals (Judge Hawkins, Legge, Filipow, Arthur, Zoellor) on this same date.
The Federal Court Judge William T. Lawrence continually allowed Constitutional violations and Conduct by the Attorney Generals Office which was Criminal in nature and also has been disclosed by the Plaintiff (Gary=Pro Se) in the Court Documents.
After Continually allowing delay after delay to the [Defendants], even one to "Extend the deadline for Dis-positive (ie. Dispose) Motions for 14 Days" because "[Legge's] wife had a new baby".
Certainly this Baby had been coming for 9 months, it was not a surprise. The Original Dis-positive Deadline was set for July 5th 2017; and [Legge] had even discussed the deadline AND [Gary's] Parole release date during the Status conference in May 2017.
Benjamin Legge asked for this extension only to have a claim to "Dispose" of the case. The Proof is in the details, There was an original date to file motions to "Dispose" of the case by July 5th 2017, However; [Gary] was being released from parole on July 12th 2017; so a 14 Days extension gives you July 19th 2017. In which [Legge] proceeded to make the claim that the case should be dismissed because [Gary] was no longer on parole.
The Defendants' NEVER even Commented or Objected to the (2) Motions to amend. But yet the Judge Granted their request for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff's Objection and Motions to Amend (which again is to be construed "Liberally" and in a Motion for Summary Judgment (In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party).
[Gary] Fought in State Court and Federal Ct and the Government tried to hide it all because it was a huge case and very damaging to a lot of Officials, including Mike Pence, and would put Several people in Prison. The Fed. Ct. even ran a "fake news" story on Fox 59 about "Clogged Court Dockets" after [Gary] had left a voicemail for the Court Deputy telling her if Judge Lawrence did not hurry up and make a decision or set a hearing date(as was requested in a Motion); Gary was filing a Writ of Mandamus with the 7th Circuit. 2 days later; and the day following the deadline expiration [Gary] had given the Ct Deputy is [Ironically] when the Story went On Fox 59. Mike Pence had a relative Nicole Pence who worked for Fox 59, and one of the other Lead Defendants, [Bruce Lemmon] (possibly) has a relative working in the Att. Generals office directly with MR. [Legge] and [Arthur] in the same [Civil Rights Division] that being Jennifer E. Lemmon.
The Original Victim to this "Crime" of mine, is now out there lost and on Drugs. Help Stop this abuse of power and Bring these Individuals to Justice. [Gary] now must move for PCR since his Plea agreement was denied to be revoked AND denied enforcement - WITHOUT ANY REASONS GIVEN. Due Process101 - See also (Santobello v Newyork)
Where the "plea bargain" is not kept by the prosecutor, …..the state court will decide in light of the circumstances of each case whether due process requires (a) that there be specific performance of the plea bargain or (b) that the defendant be given the option to go to trial on the original charges. One alternative may do justice in one case, and the other in a different case. In choosing a remedy, however a court ought to accord a defendant's preference considerable, if not controlling, weight inasmuch as the fundamental rights flouted by a prosecutor's breach of a plea bargain are those of the defendant, not of the state. (Santobello v. New York)
To Finalize this I want to say I miss my Daughter and the [State Officials] destroyed what we had started. On Jan 26, 2017 and email was sent to Benjamin Legge and David Arthur and it said "we are offering to drop our suit if we can come to some common ground and reach an agreement in how things will be from here on out". . . . [Gary] is on parole for another 5 1/2 Months and all we really want is what he bargained for in his plea agreement"
They Refused to give Justice and chose to fight this battle and use unethical, Illegal conduct.
And to Silence me from the demand for Justice, they put me in Contact with a U.S. Marshall Garrett Hawk (USMS) and would not treat my case PROPERLY or give JUSTICE.
PLEASE HELP OUR CAUSE AND HELP US RECEIVE JUSTICE,
WE HAVE FILED AN FRCP 59 & 60 MOTION WITH THE COURT (12-2017)
WE HAVE ALSO FILED A 3rd AMENDED COMPLAINT (12-2017)
Please make sure the Courts and Government Officials do their job properly.
The Followings links below are for our Organization and help Support Equality!
Today: Sex Offender and Minority Civil Rights Organization is counting on you
Sex Offender and Minority Civil Rights Organization needs your help with “#MeToo victim, Re-Victimized by Mike Pence FAILURE OF DUTY and a Criminal conspiracy *** Indiana State House: VICTIM of Sex Offense RE VICTIMIZED by the [State of Indiana Officials] Including MIKE PENCE: Civil Rights Violations by [State Officials]”. Join Sex Offender and Minority Civil Rights Organization and 129 supporters today.