Supreme Court: Wells vs Bernitts et al - PFT

[RegalDaddy]

Supreme Court, Wells vs Bernitts et al Petition for Transfer

PETITION FOR TRANSFER

Civil Case: Appellate case 53A01-0910-CV-494
Trial Court case no.: 53C06-0409-CT-01782

Analysis of the Pleadings in the case has revealed significant, flagrant errors (violating Federal Law) as well as omissions committed by the State Appellate Court and Trial Court with respect to their published opinion favoring Indiana State Troopers Stacy Brown and Travis Coryea, but denying Plaintiff Scott Wells’ claim of battery and “excessive force” inflicted on him by the Troopers.

With respect to Bud and Amy Bernitt of Bernitt Realty, (“Bernitts”), the Court of Appeals Misapplied “Res Judicata” and “Issue Preclusion” to Wells’ Claims and ignored the evidence that Wells actually presented to show the Bernitts' malice against him in his Defamation Claim. In addition, there are 89 New Additional Defamatory Posts that were posted by Bud and Amy Bernitt on the Herald-Times website that has not been addressed by the Courts.

PETITION FOR TRANSFER, Page 4: “In both the first defamation lawsuit and in the present lawsuit, Wells offered as evidence of the element of malice certain posts that the Bernitts made on an internet "chat room" hosted by the Bloomington Herald-Times. In the present lawsuit Wells designated as evidence on summary judgment 89 new posts in addition to the ones he previously designated in his earlier lawsuit against the Bernitts...”

Page 13: “Moreover, the evidence offered was not identical in the two lawsuits. Wells designated as evidence at least 89 new additional posts in the instant lawsuit that he did not offer in the earlier lawsuit. A comparison of the posts from Wells v. Shiflet (found in the Bernitts "Designation of Pleadings from 53C01-0207-CT-01283)," to the posts that Wells designated in the present lawsuit (See Plaintiffs "Amendment to Plaintiff Scott D. Wells' Final Reply to Bernitts' Motion for Summary Judgment and Designation of Additional Evidentiary Materials," filed July 17, 2007), reveals some overlap but many new posts as well. Some of the new posts clearly refer to topics related to Wells' arrest, before and after. For instance, the one post predicting that Wells would soon be in jail about two months before his arrest (R. 109); and another revealing post early in the morning on the day of Wells' arrest predicting he would be "Behind Bars!" (R.120). Three days after Wells' arrest another post referred to Wells resisting arrest and yet he was acquitted of that charge (R. 122).”

TO SUPREME COURT



(PDF DOWNLOAD TIME APROXIMATELY 100 SECONDS)

SCOTT D. WELLS,
Appellant/Plaintiff

v.

HERMAN BUD BERNITT, individually,
AMY BERNITT, individually,
TRAVIS COREA,
Individually, and as an employee of the
Indiana State Police, STACY BROWN,
Individually, and as an employee of the
Indiana State Police,
Appellees/Defendant

Appellate case 53AOI-0910-CV-494
Trial Court case no.: 53C06-0409-CT-01782

Monroe Superior Court

The Honorable Michael A.
Robbins, Special Judge

PETITION FOR TRANSFER

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR TRANSFER

1. Whether the Court of Appeals properly used the doctrine of collateral
estoppel to hold that a criminal conviction established facts that
effectively precluded a civil claim of excessive force, when federal
law establishes its own doctrine for determining the preclusive
effect of a criminal conviction on a Section 1983 claim.

2. Whether a finding that a piece of evidence does not rise to the level of
"actual malice" in one defamation lawsuit collaterally estopps a
plaintiff from using similar evidence in a subsequent defamation
lawsuit regarding a new, unrelated defamatory utterance.

FACTUAL BACKROUND OF ISSUES FOR TRANSFER

Scott Wells walked out of the Crazy Horse Tavern in Bloomington,
Indiana on September 27, 2002 and got in his car to drive home. According to
the owner of the Crazy Horse, with whom Wells conversed for twenty
minutes before leaving, Wells was not drunk or impaired in any way. (R. 55-
56.) Unknown to Wells at that time two of his political opponents, Bud and
Amy Bernitt, had staked out the Crazy Horse and when Wells left the
establishment they called J.D. Maxwell, another of Wells' political opponents
who was also an Indiana State Police trooper and candidate for Monroe
County Sheriff, and told Maxwell that Wells had exited the Crazy Horse
staggering drunk, urinated on railroad the tracks, and drove away swerving
so badly that he nearly killed several pedestrians. (R. 58-59, 61-62.) In
actions that were contrary to normal procedure, Maxwell, who was at home
at the time, called the dispatch office and specifically requested that Troopers
Stacy Brown and Travis Coryea respond to the Bernitts' report. (R. 69.)

The troopers met with the Bernitts to take their report and then
Trooper Brown left to find Wells. When Brown located Wells he saw "no sign
of impairment." (R2. 159.) Nonetheless, Brown effected a traffic stop on
Wells for an alleged seatbelt violation. What happened next is in sharp
dispute. According to the officers Wells cursed and shouted at the officers,
refused their instructions to be quiet, to provide identifying information, or to
present his hands for handcuffing, and finally attempted to strike them
necessitating a violent takedown. (R.73.) According to Wells, he was passive
and cooperative with the officers and only tried to explain to them that his
arrest was a "set up" by J.D. Maxwell. Four independent witnesses testified
that at the time of the take down Wells was merely conversing with the
troopers and showed no sign of belligerence. (See, e.g., R2. 129.) Whereas,
both Bernitts testified in their Voluntary Statements Wells was "fighting and
resisting" the Troopers; yet he was acquitted of those charges (R. 67-68.).

Wells was charged with six criminal counts: 1) Operating a Vehicle
While Intoxicated in a Manner that Endangered a Person; 2) Battery on a
Law Enforcement Officer; 3) Resisting Law Enforcement; 4) Public
Intoxication; 5) Disorderly Conduct; and 6) Failure to Use Front Seat Safety
Belt, a Class D Infraction. The case went to a jury trial on October 27,2003
and Wells was acquitted of all charges except Disorderly Conduct and the
lesser included offense of Operating While Intoxicated Without
Endangerment. [1.] In rendering its verdict, neither the jury nor the judge
issued detailed findings of fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed Wells'
conviction on June 15, 2006 in Wells v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. Ct. App,
1996).

[1. Neither the charging documents nor a certified copy of the conviction were
designated as evidence on summary judgment by any party.]

Wells commenced this lawsuit in September 2004, bringing claims of
defamation against the Bernitts and excessive force against Brown and
Coryea. (R2. 79.) Wells had previously sued the Bernitts and others for
defamation after they falsely accused him of arson. This lawsuit eventually
resulted in a $390,000 judgment against one of the defendants in that case,
though the Bernitts were dismissed out prior to trial. (Indiana Jury Verdict
Report, July 2009, p. 3.) The Bernitts made their false report to the police
that led to this lawsuit two months after Wells commenced his first
defamation suit against them. (R2. 79.) In both the first defamation lawsuit
and in the present lawsuit, Wells offered as evidence of the element of malice
certain posts that the Bernitts made on an internet "chat room" hosted by the
Bloomington Herald-Times. In the present lawsuit Wells designated as
evidence on summary judgment 89 new posts in addition to the ones he
previously designated in his earlier lawsuit against the Bernitts.

The trial court granted summary judgment against Wells and in favor
of the Bernitts and the State defendants. (R. 12-18.) With respect to the
Bernitts, the trial court found that Wells had not raised a triable issue on the
element of malice and that the Bernitts' utterances were protected by the
common interest privilege and were substantially true. With respect to the
State defendants, the trial court found that Wells' federal claims of excessive
force were barred by the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994), which prohibits civil lawsuits that would necessarily
imply the invalidity of criminal conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court, finding that the summary judgment ruling in the earlier
defamation claim collaterally estopped Wells from adducing the chat room
posts as evidence of malice in the present lawsuit, and that Wells criminal
conviction collaterally estopped him from asserting his version of the
take down in support of his excessive force claim. (Wells v. Bernitt, Slip Op.,
54A01-0910-CV-494.)

The facts that the Court of Appeals determined to be conclusive were
not the conviction itself (a copy of which is not in the record) but rather the
factual synopsis from the Court of Appeals' decision in Wells' criminal case.
Id.

ARGUMENT

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION DISPOSING THE SECTION
1983 CLAIM ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CONFLICTS WITH
FEDERAL APPELLATE DECISIONS THAT SPECIFY WHEN A
CONVICTION BARS A CIVIL CLAIM.

The Court of Appeals erroneously gave preclusive effect to its own factual
synopsis of the prosecution's evidence in Wells' criminal trial. In so doing the
Court of Appeals both contravened federal law and misapplied the principles
of issue preclusion.

A. Federal law requires that any preclusive effects of Wells'
conviction be evaluated according to Heck v. Humphrey.

The Court of Appeals effectively disposed of Wells' excessive force claim on
the grounds of common law issue preclusion, holding that all facts
established in his criminal case-as later summarized by the Court of
Appeals-were binding in the subsequent civil suit. In so ruling, the Court of
Appeals ignored the body of federal law that the U.S. Supreme Court has
promulgated to determine when a criminal conviction bars a subsequent civil
suit.

Although state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear Section 1983
claims they are obligated to follow federal law. When Indiana courts consider
a federal civil rights claim "[f]ederal substantive law controls, and any state
laws or rules which inhibit the prosecution of a § 1983 action are preempted
by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution." Higgason v.
Stogsdill, 818 N.E.2d 486,490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). This Court has held that
Indiana laws are ineffective to shield State defendants from federal remedies
by reason of the Supremacy Clause and principles of federalism, to the extent
the Federal Constitution prohibits conduct by state officers. Cantrell v.
Morris, 849 N.E.2d 488, 506 (Ind. 2006). State law may neither expand nor
contract the congressionally established contours of § 1983 and its defenses.
Severson v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University, 777 N.E.2d 1181,1189
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002)(citing Howlett ex rel. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365
(199)).

The federal courts have developed a body of law that determines the
preclusive effects of a criminal conviction on a § 1983 case that arises out of
the same set of events as the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court announced that
doctrine in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), which prohibits a
civil lawsuit that would necessarily imply the invalidity of criminal
conviction. This doctrine resembles the common law doctrine of res judicata
but is a distinct set of principles announced by the federal courts applicable
to § 1983 lawsuits. The cases construing Heck explain that the mere fact that
a plaintiff was convicted does not necessarily bar his subsequent civil suit.
Heck "does not automatically bar Section 1983 claims simply because the
processes of the criminal justice system did not end up in the plaintiffs
favor." VanGilder v. Baker, 435 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2006). Federal courts
recognize that the police may effect an otherwise lawful arrest with excessive
force. Robinson v. Doe. 272 F.3d 921, 923 (7th Cir. 2001). "And so a claim of
excessive force in making an arrest does not require overturning the
plaintiff's conviction even though the conviction was based in part on a
determination that the arrest itself was lawful." Id.

The trial court nonetheless found that Wells' federal claims were Heck
barred. The trial court did not dispose of Wells' federal claims on grounds of
common law issue preclusion and the State defendants did not argue issue
preclusion on appeal. The Court of Appeals' published opinion does not cite
Heck. Thus the Court of Appeals' reliance on issue preclusion departs from
the trial court's line of reasoning and the parties' argument as well as from
federal law.

Wells appealed his convictions of Disorderly Conduct and Operating While
Intoxicated ("OWl") to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In rendering its
decision on the criminal appeal, the Court of Appeals summarized the facts of
the case; its factual synopsis the court correctly viewed the evidence in the
light most favorable to the conviction. Barnes v. State, 925 N.E.2d 420, 426
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Thus the Court of Appeals' factual synopsis from the
criminal appeal embraces the officers' testimony and entirely omits Wells'
version of the incident. The Court of Appeals' factual synopsis went far
beyond the facts that established his convictions for OWl and disorderly
conduct; the synopsis describes in succulent detail the officers' testimony that
Wells was belligerent and fought with them, even though Wells was
acquitted of resisting and of battery on a police officer.

By deeming the Court of Appeals' own factual synopsis-as opposed to the
two convictions-preclusive, the Court of Appeals deprived Wells of the
ability to offer testimony on his own behalf. Had the Court of Appeals
analyzed Wells conviction under Heck, Wells would have been permitted to
offer testimony that contradicted that of Troopers Brown and Coryea. In
Evans v. Pokson, 603 F.3d 362, 364 (7th Cir. 2010) the court explained that a
Section 1983 plaintiff who has been convicted is not required to accept the
defendant officers' version of the facts. A plaintiff "need not repudiate his
allegation that he did nothing wrong in order to maintain that he was the
victim of excessive force." In a Heck analysis only the conviction itself has
preclusive effects, not other facts surrounding the incident from which a
conviction might have flowed but did not. VanGilder v. Baker, 435 F.3d 689,
691 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court of Appeals' use of its own factual synopsis
from the criminal appeal had the effect of doing precisely what Evans forbids.
It forced Wells to accept the officers' version of the facts. This use of issue
preclusion constricted the Congressionally established contours of § 1983,
which the laws of both Indiana and the United States forbid. Severson v.
Board of Trustees of Purdue University, 777 N.E.2d 1181, 1189 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002).

This Court should grant transfer to correct the Court of Appeals' conflict
with federal law.

B. The Court of Appeals erroneously gave preclusive effect to its
own factual synopsis, rather than to the conviction itself.

Even if the Court of Appeals was correct to ignore Heck v. Humphrey
and apply the common law doctrine of issue preclusion, it misapplied that
doctrine by giving preclusive effect to something other than what the trial
court actually determined. Issue preclusion bars subsequent litigation of the
same fact or issue that was necessarily adjudicated in a former suit.
Micro Vote General Corp. v. Indiana Election Com 'n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 197
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Issue preclusion applies only to matters actually
litigated and decided, not all matters that could have been decided. Id. The
matters decided must have been appealable in the original suit. Miller
Brewing Co. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 903 N.E.2d 64, 68 (Ind.
2009) [emphasis added].

The matters actually litigated and determined at Wells' criminal trial
were that he was convicted of OWl and disorderly conduct and acquitted of
OWl with endangerment, resisting arrest, and battery on a police officer.
Neither judge nor jury issued detailed factual findings in support of the
verdict. The only matters appealable were the convictions for OWl and
disorderly conduct. The officers' testimony regarding the take down was not
appealable in the original suit because that testimony did not form any part
of the judgment. The factual synopsis in the Court of Appeals' decision in
Wells' criminal case contains factual details that far exceed the scope of what
was actually decided in the original suit. Moreover, because that synopsis
was necessarily written in the light most favorable to the convictions, it
omitted all the exculpatory evidence that supported the acquittals, though
the acquittals were actually litigated and decided in the original suit.

The Court of Appeals' decision to give preclusive effect to its factual
synopsis from the criminal case runs contrary to the law of issue preclusion
and warrants reversal.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPLIED RES JUDICATA TO
WELLS' CLAIMS AGAINST THE BERNITTS.

A. The Court of Appeals erroneously found that Wells was
precluded from offering evidence of malice that had been
offered in a prior defamation case regarding a different
utterance.

The Court of Appeals departed significantly from law and practice in
its application of the doctrine of res judicata to Wells' claims against the
Bernitts. Wells designated evidence of the Bernitts' ill-will against him in
the form of internet chat room posts by the Bernitts criticizing Wells in
harsh, personal terms; one of these posts, predicting that Wells would wind
up in jail, was made two months before he was arrested and suggests that the
Defendants were already planning to set up Wells for arrest. Some of the
same posts-though not all of them-had been designated by Wells as
evidence of malice in a previous lawsuit for defamation against the Bernitts
and others. That lawsuit, Wells v. Shiflet, et al., 53COI-0207-CT-01283
(Monroe Circuit Court), concerned defamatory statements the Bernitts made
to the effect that Wells burned down the house of real estate developer Steve
Smith. Although Wells ultimately won a $390,000 verdict in Wells v. Shiflet,
the verdict was against another defendant; the Bernitts were dismissed out
on summary judgment upon a finding that the chat room posts did not
establish the element of malice with respect to the allegation of arson.

(Bernitts' "Designation of Pleadings from 53C01-0207-CT"01283,"Tab 12,
filed September 17, 2007.)[2.]

[2. This document is not in any party's appendix. The final ruling on summary judgment
as to the Bernitts in Wells v. Shiflett, et al is contained the trial record in Tab 12 of the
Bernitts' Designation of Pleadings from 53COI-0207-CT-01283 filed on September 17,
2007.)]

The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that issue preclusion
prevented Wells from offering the chat room posts as evidence of malice with
regard to the defamatory statements the Bernitts made about Wells' conduct
outside the Crazy Horse. As noted above, issue preclusion bars subsequent
litigation of the same fact or issue that was necessarily adjudicated in a
former suit. Micro Vote General Corp. v. Indiana Election Com 'n, 924 N.E.2d
184, 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Actual malice exists when the defendant
publishes a defamatory statement " 'with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' " Journal-Gazette Co. v.
Bandido's, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446,456 (Ind. 1999)(quoting New York Times Co.
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964)).

Wells designated the chat room posts in the earlier lawsuit to show
that the Bernitts knowingly made false statements about whether he burned
down Steve Smith's house. The question of whether the Bernitts knowingly
lied to the police about Well's conduct outside the Crazy Horse on September
27, 2002 was not before the court in the earlier lawsuit. The posts were
offered to show reckless disregard of the truth with respect to two different
utterances made eight months apart about completely different subjects.

Moreover, the evidence offered was not identical in the two lawsuits. Wells
designated as evidence at least 89 new additional posts in the instant lawsuit
that he did not offer in the earlier lawsuit. A comparison of the posts from
Wells v. Shiflet (found in the Bernitts "Designation of Pleadings from 53C01-
0207-CT-01283)," to the posts that Wells designated in the present lawsuit
(See Plaintiffs "Amendment to Plaintiff Scott D. Wells' Final Reply to
Bernitts' Motion for Summary Judgment and Designation of Additional
Evidentiary Materials," filed July 17, 2007), reveals some overlap but many
new posts as well. Some of the new posts clearly refer to topics related to
Wells' arrest, before and after. For instance, the one post predicting that
Wells would soon be in jail about two months before his arrest (R. 109); and
another revealing post early in the morning on the day of Wells' arrest
predicting he would be "Behind Bars!" (R.120). Three days after Wells' arrest
another post referred to Wells resisting arrest and yet he was acquitted of
that charge (R. 122).

But even if the chat room posts offered in the present case were
identical to those Wells offered in Wells v. Shiflet, issue preclusion would still
be inappropriate because the issues are not the same in the two lawsuits.
Whether the chat room posts showed the Bernitts knowingly made false
statements with regard to setting fire to Steve Smith's house is a distinct fact
from whether the Bernitts knowingly made false statements about Wells
conduct outside the Crazy Horse. Each lawsuit concerned different
utterances. The utterances at issue concerned different incidents that
occurred at different times and places regarding observations by different
persons. It is theoretically possible for the Bernitts to have spoken sincerely
about the arson but maliciously about Wells' conduct outside the Crazy
Horse. It was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to apply issue preclusion to
the chat room posts because the fact of whether the Bernitts recklessly or
knowingly made false statements regarding Wells' conduct outside the Crazy
Horse was not litigated or determined in the earlier lawsuit.

The Court of Appeals' use of issue preclusion to find the chat room
posts inadmissible was error and should be reversed.

B. The Court of Appeals ignored the evidence Wells actually
presented to show the Bernitts' malice.

Even if the chat room posts were correctly precluded, Wells offered other
evidence that raised a disputed issue of material fact with respect to malice.
The Court of Appeals disposed of Wells' claims against the Bernitts solely by
finding that Wells failed to demonstrate the element of malice because issue
preclusion prevented him from offering the chat room posts. As a result,
"there was no admissible evidence before the court to establish actual
malice ... " (Wells v. Bernitt, Slip Op., 53A01-0910-CV-494,p. 10.) This is
simply erroneous. Wells designated a panoply of evidence to show actual
malice.

Indeed, Wells offered the chat room posts primarily to show not malice
but ill-will. (Appellant's Appendix, Vol. II, p. 18.) The chat room posts are not
even mentioned in Wells' brief to the Court of Appeals in the section
regarding malice. (Appellant's Br., pp. 18-20.)

While "ill-will" is not an element of the legal definition of actual malice, it
is nevertheless relevant and admissible as evidence in the determination of
whether defendant possessed a state of mind highly conducive to reckless
disregard of falsity. Cochran v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 372 N.E.2d
1211, 1220 (Ind. 1978). Wells adduced other evidence to show malice. The
evidence of malice consisted principally of the testimony of Lee Williams that
the route along which the Bernitts claimed to have pursued Wells and where
they supposedly observed Wells nearly strike pedestrians, was barricaded
and closed to vehicular traffic for the Lotus Festival. (Appx., Vol. I, p. 57.)
Thus what the Bernitts claimed to have observed was physically impossible.
Wells also adduced the testimony of Ronald Stanhouse, the owner of the
Crazy Horse Tavern, that he conversed with Wells for twenty minutes
immediately before Wells departed and that Wells was not mentally or
physically impaired, and thus not likely to have engaged in the undignified
behavior the Bernitts claimed to have observed when Wells exited the Crazy
Horse. (R. 55-56). Contrary to the Court of Appeals' characterization, the
testimony of Williams and Stanhouse is admissible evidence probative of
whether the Bernitts made their statements with reckless disregard of the
truth. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to treat the chat room posts as
probative of ill-will, rather than malice, and in ignoring all the other evidence
that Wells adduced to prove the element of malice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Court should accept transfer on the
issues of whether the Court of Appeals misapplied the doctrine of issue
preclusion to Wells' separate claims against the Bernitts and the State
defendants, and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to deny
their Motions for Summary Judgment.

[RegalDaddy]

Bud Bernitt’s Herald-Times Postings implicate him in Wells’ Arrest Setup based on his own publications. A few examples:

Approximately two months prior to Wells’ Arrest, on 7/20/2002, Bud Bernitt posted on the Herald-Times website “HoosierTalk” under the name Tree cutter, “And your right scott shouldn't be sitting on a fence. He should be sitting in jail with the rest of you fascist eco terrorist thugs and I'm sure it's just a matter of time.”

On the day of Wells’ Arrest, approximately 20 hours BEFORE, at 1:06 AM in the morning, Bud Bernitt published, “Where would Scott wells be without the liberal press? Behind Bars! Long live President Ellington and the Fab Five!”

PLAINTIFF’S DESIGNATIONS ON 7/2/07, 7/17/07 and 3/31/10

BUD BERNITT'S POSTED NAMES: TREE CUTTER, CHAINSAW,
MOTOR CITY MADMAN, BOB THE BUILDER, AND
NO LONGER A DEMOCRAT

AMY BERNITT'S POSTED NAMES: 007, DAISY,
CHAINSAW (OCCASIONALLY)



(PDF DOWNLOAD TIME 45 SECONDS)

PUBLISHED HERALD-TIMES POSTS BY BUD BERNITT
TOPIC: ECO-TERRORISM

I. TAB 2: Pages 48-49

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-07-20 13:06

Once again you idiot! How does a concerned citizen getting up at a public
Meeting and repeating what a fascist county council member told him in a conversation classify one to be a racist?

Scott and brian o’neil have bald heads!

Let's see. Your side takes land away from citizens, fines them for cutting
their own God given trees, When you can't get what you want through your
democratic controlled fascist local government, your side burns, bombs,

vandalizes, attempted murder of Sims workers and fire fighters?

And your right scott shouldn't be sitting on a fence. He should be sitting in
jail with the rest of you fascist eco terrorist thugs and I'm sure it's just a

matter of time

PUBLISHED HERALD-TIMES POSTS BY BUD BERNITT
TOPIC: POSTS BEFORE & AFTER ARREST

II. TAB 3: Page 19

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-09-27 01:06

Where would Scott wells be without the liberal press?

Behind Bars!

Long live President Ellington
And the Fab Five!

[RegalDaddy]

Scott Wells' Injuries versus the Indiana State Police - Stacy Brown and Travis Coryea

From the Court Record in CAUSE NO. 53C04-0211-FD-01030

A Few of the Evidentiary pictures obtained from the case in the Trial of S. Wells vs State of Indiana.

INITIAL PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PULLOVER:

(1.) Bernitts' cell phone communication to Off Duty State Trooper J.D. Maxwell on Wells leaving
Crazyhorse: Stating--- Plaintiff "Staggering" (Public Intoxication) "Urinating" (Public Indecency)
"Almost Driving over Pedestrians" (OWI Endangerment)

Plaintiff Scott Wells was Acquitted of those charges at Trial or Charges Dismissed prior to Trial.

Subpoenaed Phone Records & Trooper J.D. Maxwell's Police Report prove the Bernitts' Tip Call to
Maxwell was made BEFORE Plaintiff Wells even left Crazyhorse. Plaintiff Wells was
"sober" and "not impeded in anyway" on leaving Crazyhorse.
(Affidavit: Ron Stanhouse - owner of Crazyhorse)

The Driving Routes Bud and Amy Bernitt testified under oath three separate times where they
"followed" Wells where "he crossed the centerline almost striking pedestrians" was
impossible because that route was "Barricaded Closed".
(Affidavit: Lee Williams - Lotus Festival Director)

(2.) Trooper Stacy Brown then Reported and Pulled Over Plaintiff Scott Wells for an
Alleged Seat Belt Violation (Public D Infraction).

Plaintiff Scott Wells Seatbelt Violation was Dismissed prior to Trial.

INTIAL ARRESTING OFFICER: Trooper Stacy Brown; Trooper Travis Coryea Backup

[RegalDaddy]

Additional parts of the Defamation Claim: "There are 89 NEW Additional Herald-Times Message Board Posts that are distinctly different from the other Defamation Lawsuit against the "Bernitts" (Bernitt Realty) that the Appellate Court and Trial Court (Special Judge Michael A. Robbins) failed to consider with respect to the element of malice."

CASE NO. 53C06-0409-CT-01782
S WELLS V H BERNITT ET AL
Case Type: CT - Civil Tort
Monroe Circuit Court 6

Claims for Relief

2: The wrongful, intentional, and malicious conduct of Bud and Amy Bernitt
constitutes making a false crime report, defamation, and defamation per se,
against their victim, Scott D. Wells.

This Defamation Case against Bernitts et al is being reviewed by Federal Civil Rights Attorneys and others and is moving forward, and it is distinctly different from the other Defamation Case. Here the Designated Evidence, Affidavits, Depositions and Material Issues of Fact support Plaintiff Wells' Claim made against the Bernitts in Filing a False Crime Report, committing Defamation and Defamation Per Se. If Rules of the Court for a Civil Case are followed it must remand a trial.



(PDF DOWNLOAD TAKES APPROXIMATELY 100 SECONDS)

SCOTT D. WELLS,
Appellant, Plaintiff

v.

HERMAN BUD BERNITT, individually,
AMY BERNITT, individually,
TRAVIS CORYEA, Individually,
and as an employee of the Indiana State Police,
STACY BROWN, Individually, and as an employee of the
Indiana State Police,
Appellees, Defendants

Monroe Superior Court
The Honorable Michael A.
Robbins, Special Judge

PETITION FOR TRANSFER

...Wells commenced this lawsuit in September 2004, bringing claims of defamation against the Bernitts and excessive force against Brown and Coryea. (R2. 79.) Wells had previously sued the Bernitts and others for defamation after they falsely accused him of arson. This lawsuit eventually resulted in a $390,000 judgment against one of the defendants in that case, though the Bernitts were dismissed out prior to trial. (Indiana Jury Verdict Report, July 2009, p. 3.)

The Bernitts made their false report to the police that led to this lawsuit two months after Wells commenced his first defamation suit against them. (R2. 79.) In both the first defamation lawsuit and in the present lawsuit, Wells offered as evidence of the element of malice certain posts that the Bernitts made on an internet "chat room" hosted by the Bloomington Herald-Times. In the present lawsuit Wells designated as evidence on summary judgment 89 new posts in addition to the ones he previously designated in his earlier lawsuit against the Bernitts.

There are 89 NEW Additional Herald-Times Message Board Posts that are distinctly different from the other Defamation Lawsuit against the Bernitts that the Trial Court (Special Judge Michael A. Robbins) failed to consider with respect to the element of malice.

SOME OF THE NEW 89 HERALD-TIMES MESSAGE BOARD POSTS DESIGNATED 7/2/07, 7/17/07 AND 3/31/10.



(PDF DOWNLOAD TAKES APPROXIMATELY 70 SECONDS)

Bud Bernitt’s names used in the Herald-Times Postings were the following: Tree Cutter, Chainsaw, Motor City Madman, Bob The Builder, and
No Longer A Democrat.

Amy Bernitt’s names used in the Herald-Times Postings were the following: Daisy, 007, and Chainsaw (Occasionally.)

I. TAB 1: Page 8

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-04-27 18:50

I hear that most people that do what scott did, (Without a permit that is!)
usually get fined $3,000!

But I am sure that scott won’t have to pay a penny. You know how they rally
behind their own!

II. TAB 1: Page 9

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-04-30 22:49

I hear that scott wells is trying to blame the plumbers!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Let's just stop and think about this one!

Scott wells did not get a permit.
Scott wells is bashing Steve Smith for almost the same thing.

Steve got fined $100. Scott is above the, law.

Scott says that Steve should have known better.
I say Scott likewise should have known better!

It was your job to get a permit for your property Scott, not the plumber. I think we
should expect more from a county Council member!

Scott Wells! you are a hypocrite!
And everytime you get on your soap box and start preaching about the law
and the ordinances, I am going to knock you off it!

Your thorn in the flesh! Tree Cutter!

[This Message was edited by: Tree cutter on 2002-04-30 22:54 ]

III. TAB 1: Page 10

Author: 007 Posted: 2002-05-06 19:44

BB,
I know that there is going to be some big grief over this. The last I heard there still
had not been a fine issued. This was after I personally talked with Randy at the
Board of Health and he told me Scott did NOT get a permit AND used a company
who is NOT approved by them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But hey, guess what, no fine. Yeah BB, when you find out how to get on this side
of things, please let me know too.

IV. TAB 1: Page 10

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-05-07 00:01

Quote: On 2002-05-01 00:23, Tree cutter wrote:

Yes the Green Prophet has sinned!

Scott Wells above the Law?

V. TAB 1: Page 13

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-05-25 21:54

Scott wells is a little freakin hypocrite!

He wants Steve Smith thrown off the Drainage Board for violations but he says
nothing of himsELF about his own violations reguarding (sic) his septic system!

Scott wells you are a hypocrite and when I’m done with your sorry rear!
every person in the county is going to know it also!

And remember you started this!

VI. TAB 1: Page 15

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-05-25 22:39

Sorry Scott but there is no fun place for scott wells on my watch! that
freakin hypocrite is going down!

Tc is now a Buzz Saw!

PS: If you read the article today about Steve being fined $23,100 then you
would know why I am so irked off!
Scott wells and the democrats just started WW III!

[This Message was edited by: Tree cutter on 2002-05-25 22:40]

VII. TAB 1: Page 18

Author: Tree cutter Posted: 2002-07-03 09:01

Quote: On 2002-07-03 07:35, anthalonrave wrote:

Scott was verifying reports of illegal activity on Mr. Smith’s property.
The same kind of investigation that would be done by any other
Planning staff member in any other metro area of the country.
If Mr. Smith, a member of the drainage board, where capable of
Building his home without violating the law then an investigation
would not be needed. Mr. Smith is the only person who violated any
laws during the tree-cutting incident. As a member of the drainage
board he also know (sic) that it is a violation of the law and still did it. Now
he is forced to make amends by paying fines to both the county and
the state. He is also state it is his intent to replace the destroyed trees.

Other people were fined not just Steve Smith.
Scott is a member of planning and he repaired his septic without a permit. Why did
he not have to pay fines?
Is scott above the law?
Why are you greens not saying a word about city projects like college mall?

You bunch of hypocrites!

And it was Trespassing!

[This Message was edited by: Tree cutter on 2002-07-03 09:21]

The Designated Evidence proves Scott Wells never violated any Monroe County ordinance or laws
with respect to getting a septic permit.

Futhermore, in the Designated Court Video Bud Bernitt made malicious accusations
that Wells “dumped tons of raw sewage into Lake Monroe” and
Bernitt made many other threatening defamatory statements
at many televised governmental meetings.

[RegalDaddy]

AMY BERNITT’S DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS OF FELONY BATTERY, RESISTING ARREST,
OWI ENDANGERMENT, PUBLIC INTOXICATION, AND PUBLIC INDECENCY OF WHICH PLAINTIFF
SCOTT WELLS WAS ACQUITTED OR NOT CHARGED (ISP VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS).

(PDF DOWNLOAD APPROXIMATELY 30 SECONDS)




DESIGNATED EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF S. WELLS ON 7/2/07, 7/17/07, 3/31/10

AMY BERNITT'S INDIANA STATE POLICE VOLUNTARY STATEMENT

9/28/02 AT 12:53 AM TO 1:00 AM

COMPLETE STATEMENT, QUOTED TEXT:

I SAW SCOTT WELLS STAGGER THRU THE PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM THE CRAZY HORSE. HE WALKED OVER SLOWLY TOWARDS THE RAILROAD TRACKS & I’M PRETTY SURE HE URINATED OVER THERE. HE WALKED BACK UP TO THE PARKING LOT & WALKED BACK & FORTH SEVERAL TIMES THEN VERY SLOWLY GOT IN HIS CAR. WE FOLLOWED HIM SINCE WE WERE PRETTY SURE HE WAS VERY DRUNK & HE DROVE THRU TOWN & SWERVED OVER THE LINE OF HIS LANE ON WALNUT & THEN DROVE DOWN 6TH STREET & PARKED & HEADED TOWARDS NICKS. WE PULLED INTO THE PARKING LOT @ 6TH & DUNN & CALLED JD & SAID WHAT DO WE DO? HE SAID HE WOULD CALL THE POST & SEE IF AN OFFICER COULD COME OVER. THEN AN OFFICER SHOWED UP. SCOTT CAME OUT TO HIS CAR & STUMBLY GOT IN. THE OFFICER FOLLOWED HIM & PULLED HIM OVER. I SAW SCOT TRY TO SHOVE THEOFFICERS ARM DOWN WHEN THEY SHINED THE LIGHT ON HIM. HE YELLED & CUSSED. HE SEEMED TO BE GETTING VIOLENT & WAS SHAKING HIS ARMS AROUND. NEXT THING I SAW WAS THE OFFICERS HOLDING HIM DOWN & REPEADLY SAYING “SIR PLEASE STOP RESISTING.” THEY THEN PUT HIM IN A POLICE CAR & WE LEFT.

AMY BERNITT’S KEY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS

I SAW SCOTT WELLS STAGER THRU THE PARKING LOT ACROSS FRM THE CRAZY HORSE. HE WALKED OVER SLOWLY TOWARDS THE RAILROAD TRACKS & I'M PRETTY SURE HE URINATED OVER THERE. HE WALKED BACK UP TO THE PARKING LOT & WALKED BACK & FORTH SEVERAL TIMES THEN VERY SLOWLY GO IN HIS CAR. WE FOLLOWED HIM SINCE WE WERE PRETTY SURE HE WAS VERY DRUNK & HE DROVE THRU TOWN & SWERVED OVER THE LINE OF HIS LANE ON WALNUT & THEN DROVE DOWN 6TH STEET & PARKED & HEADED TOWARDS NICKS. WE PULLED INTO THE PARKING LOT @ 6TH & DUNN & CALLED J.D & SAID WHAT DO WE DO? HE SAID HE WOULD CALL THE POST & SEE IF AN OFFICER COULD COME OVER. THEN AN OFFICER SHOWED UP. SCOTT CAME OUT TO HIS CAR & SLOWLY & STUMBLY GOT IN. THE OFFICER FOLLOWED HIM & PULLED HIM OVER. I SAW SCOT TRY TO SHOVE THE OFFICERS ARM DOWN WHEN THEY SHINED THE LIGHT ON HIM. HE YELLED & CUSSED. HE SEEMED TO BE GETTING VIOLENT & WAS SHAKING HIS ARMS AROUND. NEXT THING I SAW WAS THE OFFICERS HOLDING HIM DOWN & REPEATLY SAYING "SIR PLEASE STOP RESISTING." THEY THEN PUT HIM IN POLICE CAR & WE LEFT.

PLAINTIFF SCOTT WELLS' WIN ON BERNITTS’ COUNTERCLAIM

(PDF DOWNLOAD APPROXIMATELY 50 SECONDS)

IN THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
CAUSE NO.: 53C06-0409-CT-01782
FILE STAMP: 6/24/09

SPECIAL JUDGE MICHAEL A. ROBBINS

SCOTT D. WELLS,
Plaintiff,

vs

HERMAN BUD BERNITT, individually,
AMY BERNIIT, individually, J.D.
MAXWELL, as an employee of the Indiana
State Police, TRAVIS CORYEA,
individually, and as an employee of the
Indiana State Police, STACY BROWN,
individually, and as an employee of the
Indiana State Police, INDIANA STATE
POLICE, OTHER UNKNOWN
EMPLOYEES OF THE INDIANA STATE
POLICE, and STATE OF INDIANA,
Defendants.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PAGE 2.

2. Mr. Wells' Complaint for Damages alleges that the Bernitts falsely claimed to J.D.
Maxwell of the Indiana State Police and others, including the media, that they observed Mr. Wells urinating in a public place, staggering, driving recklessly almost hitting pedestrians, and attacking police officers by striking repeated blows with his fists, and attempting to take away one of their guns.

3. Based upon the Defendants' above assertions, Mr. Wells was arrested and charged
with, among other things, Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated in a Manner that Endangered a Person, Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Law Enforcement, Public Intoxication and Failure to Use Front Safety Belt.

[RegalDaddy]

BUD BERNITT’S DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS OF FELONY BATTERY, RESISTING ARREST, OWI ENDANGERMENT, PUBLIC INTOXICATION, AND PUBLIC INDECENCY OF WHICH PLAINTIFF
SCOTT WELLS WAS ACQUITTED OR NOT CHARGED (ISP VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS).

(PDF DOWNLOAD APPROXIMATELY 30 SECONDS)




DESIGNATED EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF S. WELLS ON 7/2/07, 7/17/07, 3/31/10

BUD BERNITT'S INDIANA STATE POLICE VOLUNTARY STATEMENT

9/28/02 AT 12:53 AM TO 1:10 AM

COMPLETE STATEMENT, QUOTED TEXT:

I SEEN A MAN WHO APPEARED TO BE DRUNK WALKING THROUGH PARKING LOT BEHIND BANK ONE DOWNTOWN BLOOMINGTON. HE WAKED AROUND FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES HE APPEARED TO GO OVER BY RAILROAD TRACKS AND URINATE HE THEN GOT IN HIS VEHICHLE AND DRIVE AWAY. IT APPEARED TO BE A MAN SCOT WELLS, I CALLED STATE TROOPER JD MAXWELL TO ASK FOR ADVICE. WE FOLLOWED THAT IS MY WIFE AND I FOLLOWED GREEN SUV TROUGH DOWNTOWN I OBSERVED VEHICHLE CROSS LINE AT LEAST ONCE. VEHICHLE SERVED ONCE NEAR WALNUT AND KIRKWOOD BARLY MISSIN PEDESTRIANS VEHICHLE WENT TO 6TH AND DUNN ST. AND PARKED. DRIVER LEFT VEHICLE. JD MAXWELL WAS CALLED THE FIRST TIME AND SAID HE COULD NOT DO ANYTHING BUT CALL STATE POLICE POST. HE JD MAXWELL CALLED BACK AND SAID STATE TROOPERS WHERE GOING TO COME AND TALK TO US. STATE TROOPERS CAME TO THE SCENE AND TOOK OUR INFORM. MY WIFE AND I OBSERVED TROOPERS WATCH VEHICLE AND WAIT UNTIL DRVER CAME BACK. OFFICERS THEY FOLLOWED GREEN SUV AND PULLED IT OVER. MY WIFE AND I WATCHED FROM A DISTANCE AT LEAST HALF A BLOCK AWAY. OFFICER GOT OUT AND TALKED TO DRIVER. A FEW MIN LATER A SECOND STATE TROOPER ARRIVED AT THE SCENE. AFTER ABOUT TEN MINUTES OFFICER APPEARED TO ASK DRIVER TO GET OUT OF VEHICLE. AFTER DRIVER WAS OUT OF VEHICLE FOR ABOUT TEN MINUTES I NOTICED DRIVER SWING HIS ARM AT ONE OFFICER ABOUT 2 MINUTES LATER OFFICER APPEARED TO ASK DRIVER TO TURN AROUND AND BE CUFFED. THAT’S WHEN OFFICERS HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. PEOPLE WALKIN DOWN THE STREET WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVER ARGUING TO OFFICERS. I ALSO HEARD DRIVER YELLING AT OFFICERS. AND CURSING THEM. AFTER THE DRIVER STARTED FIGHTING WITH OFFICERS I GOT OUT OF MY VEHICLE AND WALKED WITHIN 4O FT OF SCUFFL I OBSERVED DRIVER CUSSING AT OFFICER AND THE OFFICERS TELLIN DRIVER NUMEROUS TIMES TO QUIT RESISTING ARREST. IT TOOK OFFICER SEVERAL MIN TO CUFF DRIVER. SEVERAL BACK UP OFFICERS THEN ARIVED. DRIVER WAS SCREAMING AT OFFICER IN A LOUD VOICE OFFICERS IN MY OPPINON DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE.


INDIANA STATE TROOPER TRAVIS CORYEA ADDED COMMENTS TO BUD BERNITT’S STATEMENT:

REFENCE WHERE SUBJECT CROSSED LANE DIVIDER – MR. BERNITT SAID IT WAS N/B ON WALNUT JUST S/ OF KIRKWOOD HE SWERVED OVER AND FAILED TO SIGNAL A LANE CHANGE. THE VEHICLE THEN WENT TO TURN RT. ONTO KIRKWOOD BUT THE ROAD WAS BLOCKED DUE TO FESTIVAL. THE DRIVER THEN SWERVED BACK ONTO WALNUT. APPEARED TO BE CONFUSED OR LOST CONTROL AND NEARLY STRUCK A GROUP OF PEDESTRIANS.

CASE # 33-24692

BUD BERNITT’S KEY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS:

I SEEN A MAN WHO APPEARED TO BE DRUNK WALKING THROUGH PARKING LOT BEHIND BANK ONE DOWNTOWN BLOOMINGTON. HE WAKED AROUND FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES HE APPEARED TO GO OVER BY RAILROAD TRACKS AND URINATE... IT APPEARED TO BE A MAN SCOT WELLS, I CALLED STATE TROOPER JD MAXWELL TO ASK FOR ADVICE. WE FOLLOWED THAT IS MY WIFE AND I FOLLOWED GREEN SUV TROUGH DOWNTOWN I OBSERVED VEHICHLE CROSS LINE AT LEAST ONCE. VEHICHLE SERVED ONCE NEAR WALNUT AND KIRKWOOD BARLY MISSIN PEDESTRIANS... I NOTICED DRIVER SWING HIS ARM AT ONE OFFICER... THAT’S WHEN OFFICERS HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. PEOPLE WALKIN DOWN THE STREET WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVER ARGUING TO OFFICERS. I ALSO HEARD DRIVER YELLING AT OFFICERS. AND CURSING THEM. AFTER THE DRIVER STARTED FIGHTING WITH OFFICERS... I OBSERVED DRIVER CUSSING AT OFFICER AND THE OFFICERS TELLIN DRIVER NUMEROUS TIMES TO QUIT RESISTING ARREST. IT TOOK OFFICER SEVERAL MIN TO CUFF DRIVER... DRIVER WAS SCREAMING AT OFFICER IN A LOUD VOICE OFFICERS IN MY OPPINON DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE.

PLAINTIFF SCOTT WELLS' WIN ON BERNITTS’ COUNTERCLAIM

(PDF DOWNLOAD APPROXIMATELY 50 SECONDS)

IN THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
CAUSE NO.: 53C06-0409-CT-01782
FILE STAMP: 6/24/09

SPECIAL JUDGE MICHAEL A. ROBBINS

SCOTT D. WELLS,
Plaintiff,

vs

HERMAN BUD BERNITT, individually,
AMY BERNIIT, individually, J.D.
MAXWELL, as an employee of the Indiana
State Police, TRAVIS CORYEA,
individually, and as an employee of the
Indiana State Police, STACY BROWN,
individually, and as an employee of the
Indiana State Police, INDIANA STATE
POLICE, OTHER UNKNOWN
EMPLOYEES OF THE INDIANA STATE
POLICE, and STATE OF INDIANA,
Defendants.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PAGE 2.

2. Mr. Wells' Complaint for Damages alleges that the Bernitts falsely claimed to J.D.
Maxwell of the Indiana State Police and others, including the media, that they observed Mr. Wells urinating in a public place, staggering, driving recklessly almost hitting pedestrians, and attacking police officers by striking repeated blows with his fists, and attempting to take away one of their guns.

3. Based upon the Defendants' above assertions, Mr. Wells was arrested and charged
with, among other things, Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated in a Manner that Endangered a Person, Felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Law Enforcement, Public Intoxication and Failure to Use Front Safety Belt.

[RegalDaddy]

Federal Civil Rights Attorneys are on record that the “Court of Appeals decision was flagrantly erroneous” ie. Rules of the Court have been abrogated, previous Case Decisions that would uphold Plaintiff S. Wells Motions have been ignored, State has supplanted the Criminal Case testimony of battery, resisting, OWI Endangerment of which the Plaintiff was ACQUITTED using police officers’ testimony as rebuttal evidence (ignoring Plaintiff Wells’ Evidence), violating normal procedures allowed in a Civil Case against the State. This is being investigated further.

There is a plethora of Designated Evidence from the Plaintiff S. Wells which the Courts have failed to even consider or review ie. Appeals Court, Findings of Fact #14. More Discussion to follow.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
OPINION FOR PUBLICATION

JUDGES: JAMES S. KISCH, PATRICIA A. RILEY, L. MARK BAILEY

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Findings of Fact

14. Wells has not presented evidence that the Bernitts reported their suspicions of Wells’ behavior to the police with knowledge that the reports were false or with serious doubts as to their truth.

IN THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
CAUSE NO. 53C06-0409-CT-01782

SPECIAL JUDGE: MICHAEL A. ROBBINS

FILED: September 12, 2008


SCOTT D. WELLS
Plaintiff,

vs.

HERMAN BUD BERNITT, individually,
AMY BERNITT, individually,
J.D. MAXWELL, as an employee of the Indiana State Police,
TRAVIS CORYEA, individually, and as an employee of the Indiana State Police,
STACY BROWN, individually, and as an employee of the Indiana State Police,
INDIANA STATE POLICE,
OTHER KNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE
INDIANA STATE POLICE,
STATE OF INDIANA,
Defendants,



(PDF DOWNLOAD APPROXIMATELY 40 SECONDS)

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DESIGNATION OF MATERIAL ISSUES
OF FACT WHICH PRECLUDE THE ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comes now the Plaintiff Scott D. Wells, by counsel, Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the
Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, and states in response to the State Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment that there exists genuine issues of material fact which preclude the granting
of Summary Judgment.

A. Plaintiff designates the following as evidence in support thereof establishing the
material issues of fact:

1. The Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages filed September 27, 2004, and
attached hereto as Exhibit A;

2. The State Defendant's Memorandum in Support of State Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment, and attached hereto as Exhibit B;

3. Affidavit of Ronald W. Stanhouse, attached hereto, Exhibit C;

4. The Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Indiana State Police's Request for
Admissions, under this cause, and attached hereto Exhibit D;

5. The transcripts of the sworn testimony of Kieran Casey in the trial of Scott
Wells under Cause No. 53C04-0211-FD-01030, attached hereto as Exhibit E;

6. The transcripts of the sworn testimony of Michael Tanoury in the trial of
Scott Wells under Cause No. 53C04-0211-FD-OI030, attached hereto as
Exhibit F;

7. The transcripts of the sworn testimony of Samuel Kaplan in the trial of Scott
Wells under Cause No. 53C04-0211-FD-01030, attached hereto as Exhibit G;

8. The transcripts of the sworn testimony of Jason Moore in the trial of Scott
Wells under Cause No. 53C04-0211-FD-01030, attached hereto as Exhibit H;

9. The Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit I;

10. Affidavit of Stacy Brown as provided in State Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit J;

11. Affidavit of Travis Coryea as provided in State Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit K;

12. Trial Testimony of Bud Bernitt, in the trial of Scott Wells under Cause No.
52C04-0211-FD-0130, attached hereto as Exhibit L;

13. Indiana State Police Audio call Transcription on 9/27/02, case #33-24692,
track #4, and attached hereto as Exhibit M;

14. Indiana State Police Supplemental Case Report, #33-24692, and attached
hereto as Exhibit N;

15. Cell phone records of Bud Bemitt from September 27,2002, and as attached
as exhibit 0;

16. Affidavit of Lee Williams, Exhibit, P;

B. Plaintiff designates for this Court the following disputed and unresolved genuine
Material Issues of Fact, which preclude the granting of Summary Judgment:

Material Issues of Facts In Dispute

1. DID SCOTT WELLS BECOME ANGRY AND RESIST OFFICERS, WHILE
GETTING INTO A BOXING STANCE, THEN DRAW UP IDS LEFT HAND AND
DELIVER A BLOW TO DEFENDANT CORYEA'S FOREARM AS CLAIMED BY
DEFENDANTS BROWN AND CORYEA BUT DENIED BY SCOTT WELLS AND
OTHERS?

Defendants Coryea and Brown allege that Scott Wells became angry, started to yell and
use profanity. (Brown, Exhibit J, paragraph 35; and Coryea, Exhibit K, paragraph 16.)
Defendants further assert that Scott Wells clenched his fist, got into a boxing stance and
yelled he was not going to jail. (Brown, Exhibit J, paragraph 40 and Coryea, Exhibit K,
paragraph 22.) Defendants continue their false claims that Scott Wells struggled or
resisted by alleging that he then drew up his left arm and delivered a blow to
Defendant Coryea's forearm. (Brown, Exhibit J, paragraph 41 and Coryea,
Exhibit K, paragraph 23.)

However, Scott Wells denies these claims, and along with ample testimony of at least four
other witnesses whom Wells did not know, establishes that he did not engage in such alleged
behavior but was in fact passive and non-combative. (Wells, Exhibit D, pages 9-13, Responses
8 and 9.) Several eyewitnesses testified that Scott Wells was standing there calmly and did not
make any sort of fighting stance or aggressive gesture. (Casey, Exhibit E, page 830, lines 11-24;
Tanoury, Exhibit F, page 861, lines 17 - 25 and page 862, lines 1-18; Moore Exhibit H, page
1045, lines 10- 25 and page 1046, lines 1, 23-25, pages 1047, line 1; Kaplan Exhibit G, page
1091, lines 22-25 and page 1092, lines 106.) Scott Wells did not resist in any way nor did he
strike out at the Defendants. (Kaplan, Exhibit G, page 1094, lines 18-25, and page 1095,
lines 7-9 and 12-18 and; Casey, Exhibit E, page 830, lines 14-21 and age 846, lines 19-20.)

The directly conflicting observations of several impartial witnesses gives rise to this
factual dispute of a material issue concerning the unreasonableness of the Defendants' use of
force.


2. DID DEFENDANT BROWN WRAP IDS ARM AROUND SCOTT WELLS'
BICEPS AND UNDER IDS UNDERARM TO PREVENT WELLS FROM HITTING THE
GROUND AS CLAIMED BY BROWN AND CORYEA BUT DENIED BY SCOTT
WELLS AND OTHERS?

Defendant Brown claims to have taken preventive measures to protect Scott Wells from
hitting the ground by wrapping his arm up around Well's biceps and under Well's underarm.
(Affidavit of Brown, Exhibit J, paragraph 44; Coryea, Exhibit K, paragraph 26; State Defendant's
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit B, page 17). The
Plaintiff's Response to Admissions and the trial testimony of four witnesses completely contradict
the Defendants' claim of a safe take down. The eyewitness testimony paints a clearer picture of
Wells being grabbed and violently thrown to the ground by Defendants, face first and his hands
behind him with nothing to break his painfully hard fall except for his own body. (Casey, Exhibit E,
page 833, lines 17-18 and page 848, lines 3-4; Tanoury, Exhibit F, page 88, line 12 and page 882,
lines 3-6; Kaplan, Exhibit G, page 1100, lines 8-22 and page 1101, lines 7-9.) Wells further details
in his Response to Admissions that the severe impact of his head and face hitting the brick sidewalk resulted in a significant contusion and momentary blackout. (Scott Wells, Response to Admissions,
Exhibit D, page, 15.) The testimony of Jason Moore furthers that such a brutal rnovernent on the
part of the police officers was surprising and created cause for concern. (Moore, Exhibit H, page 1047,
lines 21-25; page 1048, line 1 and page 1049, lines 22-25 and page 1050, lines 1-13.) This evidentiary conflict regarding the manner and type of force used by Defendants gives rise to the unresolved
dispute in this Material Issue of Fact.


3. DID WELLS FAIL TO NEGOTIATE THE TURN ONTO INDIANA STREET
CORRECTLY, TURNING HIS VEHICLE IN A SHARP MANNER, AND AFTER
OVERCORRECTING HIS VEHICLE WAS STRADDLING THE CENTER LANE OF
INDIANA AVENUE AS CLAIMED BY TROOPER BROWN BUT DENIED BY WELLS
AND OTHERS?

Defendant Brown claims that Wells failed to correctly negotiate a turn in his vehicle and
was straddling the center lane of Indiana Avenue. (Defendant Memo., Exhibit B, page 5)
The testimony of an independent witness, Kieran Casey, and of Bud Bernitt, a named
defendant, contradict Defendant Brown's claims by asserting that they did not notice
anything unusual about the turn that Wells made from Sixth onto Indiana or show any
signs of wrecklessness. (Kieran testimony, Exhibit E, page 828 lines 20-25, page 829,
lines 1-6; Bernitt testimony, Exhibit L, page 730, lines 14-25; page 731, linesl-5) T
he conflicting testimony, especially that of the joint Defendants, who are postulating
opposite and contradictory accounts of the same event, regarding Wells manner of driving
just prior to the stop demonstrates a disputed fact on a material issue.


4. DID WELLS EXHIBIT RED AND WATERY EYES, SLURRED MUMBLED SPEECH,
AND POOR MANUAL DEXTERITY BELIEVED TO BE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION
AS CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT BROWN BUT DENIED BY WELLS AND OTHERS?

Defendant Brown falsely alleges that he felt that Wells had red and watery eyes,
slurred mumbled speech, poor manual dexterity which he claims to be signs of intoxication.
(Plaintiff, Exhibit I, page 6). However, Brown contradicts his own testimony in a radio
transmission to the State Police Post on September 27, 2002, at 9:45p.m. in which he states,
in reference to Wells, that Wells did not show impairment as he walked up to his car, but that
Brown would be stopping Wells on Indiana and 7th and that Wells had no seatbelt. (State Police,
Exhibit M, lines of Brown transmission 1-3.) An additional witness, Ronald Stanhouse, observed
Wells prior to the incident and indicates that Wells did not appear to have any signs of intoxication. (Stanhouse, Exhibit C, page2.)


5. DID J.D. MAXWELL RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM A BUD BERNITT
ADVISING THAT BUD HAD OBSERVED A POSSIBLE INTOXICATED DRIVER,
LATER IDENTIFIED AS WELLS, AS CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT MAXWELL BUT
AS DENIED BY WELLS AND THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE?

J.D. Maxwell claims that he received a telephone call from a friend identified as Bud,
who advised Maxwell that he observed a possible intoxicated driver (State, Exhibit B, page 3).
However, the facts contradict his accounting of events. In a supplemental Indiana State Police
Report filed by J.D. Maxwell in which he reports that on the evening of Wells arrest that at
approximately 2100 Hours he received a telephone call at his residence from a subject that he
knew as Bud Burnett who advised that he had observed a drunk driver. (Report, Exhibit N, lines
1-3 of Summary). In direct conflict with that report is the actual phone records of Bud Bernitt
which indicates that he called J.D. Maxwell at 7:41p.m., over an hour and twenty minutes prior
to the time indicated in the police report. Then a couple of minutes prior to the time that the
police report indicated that Maxwell notified the police, Defendant J.D. Maxwell had actually
been the one to place a phone call at 8:57p.m. to Bud Bernitt. This is in direct conflict with
what he falsely submitted in the police report. (Records, Exhibit 0, item 165, 184). The cell
phone records further indicate that Maxwell called Burnett a second time, at 9:01p.m., just
after contacting the police about Wells, and then later that evening at 10:34p.m. (Records,
Exhibit 0, items 186, 190). These conflicting facts give rise to dispute of issues that are
material to this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court to deny summary judgment, granting judgment
in Plaintiff's favor, and for all other relief necessary and proper in the premises.

BUD AND AMY BERNITT’S PHONE RECORDS THAT SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S MATERIAL ISSUE OF
FACT #5: JD MAXWELL’S FALSIFIED POLICE REPORT AND BERNITTS’ FASLE REPORTING ON
SCOTT WELLS ON 9/27/02.

From 7:05 PM to 11:24 PM there were 42 Cell Phone Calls made or received by Bernitts

PLAINTIFF’S DESIGNATED EVIDENCE SUBMMITTED ON 7/2/07, 7/17/07, 9/12/08



(PDF DOWNLOAD APPROXIMATELY 25 SECONDS)

BUD & AMY BERNITT'S CELL CALLS ON 9/27/02 TO OR FROM
KEY ASSOCIATES:

I. STEVE SMITH: Three Cell Calls, TOTAL TIME = 26 MINS.
CALLS:

1) Item 132 TIME: 8:50 pm CALL LENGTH: 7 minutes
2) Item 185 TIME: 8:59 pm CALL LENGTH: 1 minute
3) Item 187 TIME: 9:54 pm CALL LENGTH: 18 minutes

II. JEFF ELLINGTON: Five Cell Calls, TOTAL TIME = 15 MINS.
CALLS:

1) Item 158 TIME: 7:24 pm CALL LENGTH: 8 minutes
2) Item 174 TIME: 8:14 pm CALL LENGTH: l minute
3) Item 175 TIME: 8:15 pm CALLLENGTH: 1 minute
4) Item 176 TIME: 8:15 pm CALL LENGTH: 2 minutes
5) Item 189 TIME: 10:29 pm CALL LENGTII: 3 minutes

III. JD MAXWELL: Four Cell Calls, TOTAL TIME = 16 MINS.
CALLS:

1) Item 165 TIME: 7:41 pm CALL LENGTH: 2 minutes
2) Item 184 TIME: 8:57 pm CALL LENGTH: 2 minutes
3) Item 186 TIME: 9:01 pm CALL LENGTH: 3 minutes
4) Item 190 TIME: 10:34 pm CALL LENGTH: 9 minutes

IV. LEO HICKMAN: One Cell Call, TOTAL TIME = 2 MINS.
CALLS:

1) Item 168 TIME: 7:45 pm CALL LENGTH: 2 minutes

V. FRANK ANDREW: Two Cell Calls, TOTAL TIME = 2 MINS.
CALLS:

1) Item 167 TIME: 7:44 pm CALL LENGTH: 1 minute
2) Item 188 TIME: 10:28 pm CALL LENGTH: 1 minute

VI. RICHARD WELLS: Two Cell Calls, TOTAL TIME = 2 MINS.
CALLS:

1) Item 164 TIME: 7:40 pm CALL LENGTH: 1 minute
2) Item 169 TIME: 7:47 pm CALL LENGTH: 1 minute

VII. KEVIN SHIFLET: One Cell Call, TOTAL TIME=1MIN.
CALLS:

1) Item 156 TIME: 7:05 pm CALL LENGTH: 1 minute

J.D. MAXWELL’S INDIANA STATE POLICE SUPPLEMENTAL CASE REPORT

Subpoenaed Phone records of the Bernitts’ reported tip call about Wells “staggering” “urinating” “driving over pedestrians” (OWI Endangerment) was at 7:41 pm to ISP J.D. Maxwell. But in Maxwell’s ISP Case Report, he stated he received the call from Bud Bernitt at 2100 Hours (9 PM). According to the Affidavit of Crazyhorse owner Ron Stanhouse, Wells was sober, not intoxicated, and left Crazyhorse at 8 PM. Stanhouse further stated in his Affidavit that he had a 20 minute conversation with Wells immediately before he left Crazyhorse. These stark contradictions clearly indicate false reporting as elucidated in Plaintiff’s Material Issue of Fact #5 and give rise to disputed issues in this case remanding a trial.

DESIGNATED EVIDENCE ON 7/2/07, 717/07, 9/12/08, 3/31/10



(PDF DOWNLOAD APPROXIMATELY 18 SECONDS)

INDIANA STATE POLICE SUPPLEMENTAL CASE REPORT

Offense: RESISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT

SUMMARY: ON 9-27-02 AT APPROXIMATELY 2100 HOURS I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL AT MY RESIDENCE FROM A SUBJECT WHOM I KNEW AS BUD BURNETT WHO ADVISED HE HAD OBSERVED A DRUNK DRIVER AND THAT THE SUBJECT HAD TURNED INTO A BAR NEAR THE CORNER OF SIXTH AND DUNN STREET IN BLOOMINGTON INDIANA. HE FURTHER ADVISED HE WAS PARKED IN A LARGE PARKING LOT ACROSS FROM THE BAR AND THAT HE OBSERVED THE SUBJECT STAGGERING IN THE PRAKING LOT AND URINATING IN THE PARKING LOT. HE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HE THOUGHT THE SUBJECT MIGHT BE SCOTT WELLS WHOM I KNEW TO BE A COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER...

[Richard Potato]

Thank you for the cut-and-paste. Links are so overrated.

[RegalDaddy]

IN THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
CAUSE NO. 53C04-0409-CT-178

Former Judge Richard D. McIntyre’s Untimely Death
Replaced by Special Judge Michael A. Robbins of Lawrence County

INDIANA STATE POLICE UNDER OATH ADMISSIONS STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF S. WELLS

(PDF DOWNLOAD PAGES 1-10, TIME APPROXIMATELY 90 SECONDS)

SCOTT D. WELLS,
Plaintiff,

v.

HERMAN BERNITT, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT INDIANA STATE POLICE'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

COMES NOW your Plaintiff, Scott D. Wells, by counsel, David J. Colman,
and responds to Defendant's Request for Admissions as follows:

REQUEST NO.1: Admit that you were convicted of Operating a Vehicle While
Intoxicated as a result of the investigation conducted on September 27, 2002 by
Indiana State Troopers Brown and Coryea.

RESPONSE NO.1: Denied.

At my criminal trial Troopers Stacy Brown and Travis Coryea testified,
making false statements in regards to my intoxication. Both Brown and Travis each,
after many hours on the witness stand, tried to convince the jurors through their
testimony, that I was operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWl) in a manner that
"Endangered a Person, a Class A Misdemeanor." Even though I did not testify, the
jury's decision to acquit me of Count I: OWl - Endangerment, came from
testimonies of the following who thought that I was completely sober and not
impaired, in any way, by their direct observations of me on Friday, 9/27/02:

1. Ron Stanhouse, co-owner of Crazy Horse
2. Willis Mahaffey, Manager of Crazy Horse
3. Jay Cotton, Bartender of Nick's English Hut
4. Kieran Casey, 501 East Street, House on northeast comer of 7th & Dunn Street
5. Michael Tanoury, 501 E. 7th Street, House on northeast comer of 7th & Dunn St.
6. Jason Moore, 501 E. 7th Street, House on northeast comer of 7th & Dunn St.
7. Samuel Kaplan, 501 E. 7th Street, House on northeast comer of 7th Dunn St.

Even Trooper Stacy Brown, when he first observed me walking up to my
vehicle to get in, radioed Dispatch, "Subjects returned to vehicle. Saw no
impairment as he walked up to it. Will be stopping him at Indiana and Seventh
Street. He had no seatbelt." (Short CD, Track #4) However, after that radio
transmission, he changed his story and wrote in his police report and testified to,
that I "drove over the curb" etc. This was absolutely false testimony according to
the other witnesses. Also, refer to Response Answer Number (NO.) 6.
In the end, the jury found me, as to Count I: Guilty of the lesser-included
offense, OWl - Without Causing Endangerment, a Class C Misdemeanor, a
significant reduction.

FACTS, DOCMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. Criminal Trial Transcript
2. Depositions of witnesses below
3. Supplemental Police Reports of witnesses listed below
4. All pertinent Police Radio Transmissions on Short and Long CD's
5. Indiana State Police Radio Transmission: Short CD, Track #4
6. Testimonies of the seven witnesses listed above at Trial
7. Videotape of S. Wells' Incarceration in the Monroe County Jail
8. Jury Verdict: OWl - Without Causing Endangerment versus the State's
Charge of OWl - Endangerment (A significant reduction)

WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT DENIAL FOR TRIAL:

1. Ron Stanhouse
2. Willis Mahaffey
3. Jay Cotton
4. Kieran Casey
5. Michael Tanoury
6. Jason Moore,
7. Samuel Kaplan, et al.

REQUEST NO. 2: Admit that immediately prior to being stopped on September
27, 2002 by Trooper Brown you were driving an automobile.

RESPONSE NO. 2: I admit, that immediately prior to being stopped on
September 27, 2002 by Trooper Brown, I was driving my automobile -
a green, 1997 Suzuki, Sport Side-Kick.

REQUEST NO. 3: Admit that immediately prior to being stopped on September
27, 2002 by Trooper Brown you pulled onto Sixth Street.

RESPONSE NO. 3: I admit, that immediately prior to being stopped on
September 27, 2002 by Trooper Brown, I pulled onto Sixth Street.

REQUEST NO. 4: Admit that immediately prior to being stopped on September
27, 2002 by Trooper Brown you were not wearing a seatbelt in the automobile that
you were driving after pulling out onto Sixth Street in Bloomington, Indiana.

RESPONSE NO. 4: Denied.

Trooper Brown's testimony that I was not wearing my seatbelt was
completely false. Immediately prior to being stopped by Trooper Brown, I was
wearing my seatbelt. By the time I left my parking spot on the north side of Sixth
Street close to Dunn Street, my safety buckle was fastened. As I was driving east on
Sixth Street towards Indiana Avenue, I was adjusting my shoulder harness driving at
about 5-10 mph past the entrance to I.U. Parking Lot on the north side of Sixth
Street. At that time, I was looking over my left shoulder and making my final
shoulder harness adjustment. I was startled when I noticed a Trooper staring at me
in an Indiana State Police vehicle, parked in the parking lot with its lights out. The
State Police vehicle was approximately 40 feet back from the entrance to the I.U.
Parking Lot, and it was pointing directly at me as I passed by. As soon as eye
contact was made with Trooper Brown, he immediately turned his headlights on and
started to pursue me east to the Stop Sign at Sixth Street and Indiana Avenue.

FACTS, DOCMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. The State, Before Trial, Dismissed Count VI: Failure to Use Front Seat Safety
Belt, Class D Infraction
2. Criminal Trial Transcript
3. Depositions of witnesses listed below verifying soberness and responsible
driving
4. Supplemental Police Reports of witnesses listed below verifying soberness
and responsible driving
5. All pertinent Police Radio Transmissions on Short and Long CD's

REQUEST NO. 6: Admit that immediately prior to being stopped on September
27, 2002 by Trooper Brown you turned onto Indiana Avenue from Sixth Street
without using your turn signal.

RESPONSE NO. 6: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. I turned onto Indiana Avenue from Sixth
Street only after I had properly used my left turn signal. Trooper Brown stated and
testified that I had turned onto Indiana Avenue from Sixth Street without using my
turn signal. His testimony was completely false. As soon as I noticed that I was
being pursued by the Indiana State Police, immediately after I passed the entrance to
the I.U. Parking Lot, I followed textbook driving because at that point I believed
that I was being setup by J.D. Maxwell. When I came to a complete stop at Sixth
and Indiana Avenue, I was extremely nervous and uncomfortable because as I
looked out my rear view mirror, the State Trooper was too close to my rear bumper.
At that point, I turned on my left turn signal to proceed north on Indiana. Then, I
looked left and right two distinct times for cross traffic on Indiana Avenue. Since
there were no vehicles on the road at that time, I turned left and proceeded north
onto Indiana to Seventh Street staying completely in my lane and not weaving or
swerving whatsoever once I turned onto Indiana Avenue. In fact, by slowly looking
left and right both times, I wondered if I was being too cautious at my delay in my
left turn at Sixth Street and Indiana, and if that might not result in my being pulled
over by the State Trooper.

Later, I read the Indiana State Police Report submitted by Trooper Stacy
Brown and heard his testimony at trial about my extremely reckless driving that he
observed as I took my left hand turn onto Indiana Avenue from Sixth Street.
Trooper Brown testified, "Q: And what happened then? A: Huh, the driver of
the vehicle was turning the steering wheel before his car was in movement, had
cut the corner too or turn too much. Once he started to go he had cut the
corner too sharply and was heading for the curb. The subject then reacted and
turned the steering wheel the opposite way to correct, which he over corrected.
By this time he was Indiana Avenue and he was straddling the center lane.
Once he got his car straight he briefly turned on his turn signal and it came off.
Q: And did the driver that you just referred to would you consider that
improper driving? A: Yes." (Trooper Brown, Trial Transcript pg. 142, lines 6-19)
This stark fabrication was highlighted by the fact that only moments before
Trooper Brown had radioed Dispatch the following about my walking to my vehicle
on Sixth Street in his first, unbiased, Radio Transmission: "Subjects returned to
vehicle. Saw no impairment as he walked up to it. Will be stopping him at
Indiana and Seventh Street. He had no seatbelt." (Short CD, Track #4)

Bud Bernitt, who testified about my of impairment as I entered into my
vehicle on Sixth Street and who stated that he was 80 feet further away from me
than Trooper Brown's vehicle, stated, "Q: What happened next? A: He went up
to his vehicle, came around uh, he went for his door handle and when he did he
missed it completely. And then he got in his vehicle and started to pull over.
Q: Did that happen within the view of Officer Brown where he was sitting?
A: I could have easily, yeah. Q: Did you register that as a sign of impairment
not being able to pull the door handle, correct? A: Well I've done it a few times
myself, but uh I would say considering all the other circumstances, yeah
thought it added to it. Q: So if Trooper Brown at that point registered in
radioing in that he saw Scott Wells walk up to his vehicle and observed no
signs of impairment, that's inconsistent with your memory, correct? A: I can't
speak for Trooper Brown. I wasn't sitting at his view, but I clearly seen from
my view." (Bud Bernitt, Trial Transcript pg. 728, lines 9-25 and pg. 729, line 1)

Only moments later, Bud Bernitt stated that at the comer of Sixth and
Indiana Avenue, which was the only portion of my driving that he observed; he saw
nothing unusual about my left hand turn onto Indiana Avenue. Bud Bernitt
testified, "Q: Did you observe anything unusual about that turn that he made
from Sixth onto Indiana? A: No." (Bud Bernitt, Trial Transcript pg. 731, lines 3-
5) With Bud Bernitt's proven animosity toward me, logic would dictate that if
he witnessed my alleged intoxicated state upon entry into my vehicle; then, he
certainly would have reported my impaired driving at the corner of Sixth and
Indiana Avenue that would have occurred only moments later, if in fact it
actually occurred. But, Bud Bernitt testified that there was nothing unusual
about my left hand turn onto Indiana Avenue contrary to Trooper Stacy
Brown's Police Report and testimony.

Furthermore, I heard Kieran Casey, who testified at my criminal trial as
well, stated that he had an excellent view from his porch and watched intently as
soon as the State Trooper turned on his emergency flashing lights on Indiana
Avenue. Casey stated that he observed my driving from Indiana Avenue to Seventh
and Dunn Streets with absolutely no signs of impaired, or reckless driving, which
was totally contrary to Trooper Brown's testimony and Police Report. Casey
testified, "Q: Okay, so you noticed the police car and noticed the lights come
on. Did you notice the vehicle that he was, was there any vehicle in front of
him? A: Uh, yes, yes. Q: Did you notice that vehicle make any unusual driving
move or anything that, uh (inaudible) attention of showing any signs of
recklessness or anything like that?" A: No, I didn't. Q: Okay, what happened
next? A: "He made a left onto Dunn Street off of 7th and was pulled over on the
corner right there."(Kieran Casey, Trial Transcript pg. 828, lines 20-25 and pg.
829, lines 1-6)

Yet, Trooper Brown, at the same time and from the same approximate
location, stated, "Q: So what did you do? A: Huh, at that point in time once I,
he straightened up and got into his lane I pulled in behind him and activated
all of my emergency lights. Q: Now what happened? A: He proceeded through
the intersection of Indiana and Seventh, stopped, signaled that turn, turned
onto Seventh Street, begin to pull over to the right curb on Seventh. I started to
pull in behind him, he then jerked his vehicle back into the travel portion of the
roadway, continued to the intersection of Seventh and Dunn, stopped to,
proceeded to turn onto Dunn Street, and then immediately pulled over to the
left hand curb." (Trooper Stacy Brown, Trial Transcript pg. 142, lines 20-25 and
pg. 143, lines 1-8)

In conclusion, both Bud Bernitt and Kieran Casey gave truthful testimonies
about my driving which contradicted Trooper Brown's absolutely false testimony
and Police Report. This malicious prosecution by the State was amplified by the fact
that the jury did not find me Guilty of Count I: Operating a Vehicle while
Intoxicated in a Manner that Endangered a Person, Class A Misdemeanor. Troopers
Stacy Brown and Travis Coryea's malicious and absolutely false and lengthy
testimony about my overall intoxication level that night and my erratic driving was
intended to cause me to be convicted of OWl - Endangerment. However, the jury
acquitted me on that specific Count.

FACTS, DOCMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. ACQUITTAL - Count I: Operating a Vehicle while Intoxicated in a Manner
that Endangered a Person, Class A Misdemeanor.
2. Criminal Trial Transcript
3. Indiana State Police Radio Transmission: Short CD, Track #4
4. Depositions of some witnesses listed below verifying soberness and driving
5. Supplemental Police Reports of some witnesses below verifying soberness
and driving
6. All other pertinent Police Radio Transmissions on Short and Long CD's

WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT DENIAL FOR TRIAL:

1. Kieran Casey
2. Scott Wells
3. Bud Bernitt
4. Michael Tanoury
5. Samuel Kaplan
6. Jason Moore
7. Ron Stanhouse
8. Willis Mahaffey, et al.

REQUEST NO. 7: Admit that immediately prior to being stopped on September
27, 2002 by Trooper Brown you turned onto Indiana Avenue from Sixth Street and
then turned on your turn signal.

RESPONSE NO. 7: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. I turned onto Indiana Avenue from Sixth
Street only after I had properly used my left turn signal while coming to a complete
stop at Sixth Street and there was no cross traffic on Indiana Avenue. I did not turn
my turn signal on after I had already completed my left hand turn onto Indiana
Avenue; I did it before. Also, refer to Response Answer Number (NO.) 6.

FACTS, DOCUMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. ACQUITTAL - Count I: Operating a Vehicle while Intoxicated in a Manner
that Endangered a Person, Class A Misdemeanor.
2. Criminal Trial Transcript
3. Indiana State Police Radio Transmission: Short CD, Track #4
4. Depositions of some witnesses listed below verifying soberness and driving
5. Supplemental Police Reports of some witnesses below verifying soberness
and driving
6. All other pertinent Police Radio Transmissions on Short and Long CD's

WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT ADMIT DENIAL FOR TRIAL:

1. Kieran Casey
2. Scott Wells
3. Bud Bernitt
4. Michael Tanoury
5. Samuel Kaplan
6. Jason Moore
7. Ron Stanhouse
8. Willis Mahaffey, et al

REQUEST NO. 8: Admit that on September 27, 2002, you refused verbal
commands of Trooper Brown and Coryea commanding you to place your hands
behind your back.

RESPONSE NO. 8: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. I never refused verbal commands of
Trooper Brown and Coryea ordering me to place my hands behind my back because those commands were never given at any time. Trooper Brown and Coryea's statement is completely false.

My statement about the violent take down was and still is that Trooper
Travis Coryea, with assistance from Trooper Stacy Brown, with absolutely no
warning whatsoever, delivered a severe blow that caused a deep contusion,
cartilage damage, and hemorrhagic internal bleeding to my left knee and thigh
area. Then, in concert, they both threw me to the brick sidewalk, face-first,
with my hands behind my back with both of them on top of me while they
delivered a series of other repeated blows, as I was face down on the brick
sidewalk. This sudden, abrupt, and violent act, left me severely disoriented.
Afterwards, I blacked out on the ground for several seconds. During the
vicious takedown by the Troopers, my left ankle became twisted and severely
sprained on the very uneven brick sidewalk. Also, I sustained a deep abrasion
on my right elbow, a significant contusion and abrasion to my left forehead
area, as well as cuts on my right hand. The pictures submitted at Trial as well
as the testimony from Kieran Casey, Michael Tanoury, Samuel Kaplan, and
Jason Moore lead to my ACQUITTAL on Battery and Resisting, alleged by the
Troopers.

I cooperated at all times with the Troopers even though I believed I was being
setup by J.D. Maxwell and Bud Bernitt because of their previous involvement in my
other legal case: My Defamation Lawsuit concerning the fire at the Pedigo Bay
Development where I was accused of arson. Later, my belief in the setup proved to
be true. In short, I tried to diffuse the situation in every way possible at all times
during the Troopers' presence. All eyewitnesses who witnessed the incident from
various, different points of reference, testified about my passive, non-threatening,
and non-combative behavior.

I heard testimony at trial from eyewitnesses Kieran Casey, Michael Tanoury,
Samuel Kaplan, and Jason Moore, who at the time were complete strangers to
me. I read their Deposition statements and their Trial Transcripts as well. All
the witnesses' observable distance away from the Troopers and me was from
approximately 49 feet, or 16 yards, to no more than 118 feet, or 39 yards.

At Trial Kieran Casey stated, "A: From what I saw he was just standing
there ... he was just standing there calmly it seemed to me... I watched the
whole time (15 minutes)." (Kieran Casey, Trial Transcript pg. 830, lines 11-13
and pg. 841, line 3)

I recall that Jason Moore testified, "A: If he had been fighting with them
prior to us getting there the situation wouldn't have been nearly as calm as it
was when we did get there." (Jason Moore, Trial Transcript pg. 1083, lines 20-23)

I distinctly remember that Samuel Kaplan testified, "Q: Okay, and could
you tell what they were doing? A: Huh, I thought that they were talking. Q:
Okay, was it a normal conversation? Did you notice anything unusual about
the conversation? A: Hum, no they was just seemed, I couldn't hear anything
obviously, but it just seemed like they were talking. Q: Did it seem animated or
just kind of a normal conversation? A: It seemed pretty normal from what I
saw." (Samuel Kaplan, Trial Transcript pg. 1091, lines 22-25 and pg. 1092,
lines 1-6)

I recall Michael Tanoury testified, "Q: Okay, what do you next recall? A:

[RegalDaddy]

INDIANA STATE POLICE UNDER OATH ADMISSIONS STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF S. WELLS

(PDF DOWNLOAD PAGES 11-20, TIME APPROXIMATELY 90 SECONDS)

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT INDIANA STATE POLICE'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

RESPONSE NO. 8: Continued.

"Huh after watching for about five or ten minutes, there wasn't really anything
going on, just they seemed to be standing there talking and no big
confrontation so I grew kind of bored and went back inside and continued for a
long time. So we just kept watching and kept watching and eventually we saw a
man get thrown to the ground and it kind of grabbed our interest a little more
after that." (Michael Tanoury, Trial Transcript pg. 859, lines 8-16)

They all testified that at no time, from their unobstructed view, did they
witness or hear any refusal by me to the Troopers. They did not see or hear
any loud profanity or screaming, or observe any resisting or battery, in any
way, by me on the troopers, at any time.

FACTS, DOCUMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. ACQUITTAL - Count III: Resisting Law Enforcement, Class A
Misdemeanor.
2. ACQUITTAL - Count II: Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer. Initially,
Charged with a Class D Felony.
3. Criminal Trial Transcript
4. Indiana State Police Radio Transmission: Short CD, Track #4
5. Depositions of all witnesses listed below verifying my passive, nonthreatening,
and non-combative behavior
6. Supplemental Police Reports of all witnesses below verifying my passive,
non-threatening, and non-combative behavior
7. All other pertinent Police Radio Transmissions on Short and Long CD's

WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT DENIAL FOR TRIAL:

1. Kieran Casey
2. Michael Tanoury
3. Samuel Kaplan
4. Jason Moore
5. Scott Wells

REQUEST NO. 9: Admit that on September 27, 2002, you refused verbal
commands of Trooper Brown and Coryea commanding you to stop resisting.

RESPONSE NO. 9: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. I never refused verbal commands from
Trooper Brown and Coryea to stop resisting because I never resisted at all,
whatsoever, and I don't recall those commands ever being given. The Trial
Transcript is compelling in my acquittal. All of the eyewitness accounts that
were not associated with law enforcement testified that there was no resisting
by me, period.

At trial I heard Kieran Casey's testimony, "Q: Could you see him make
any sort of a gesture flailing his arms at the police officers? A: No, I didn't.
Q: Did you see him into any sort of a fighting stance? A: No, I did not. Q:
Now are you saying that you didn't see it or are you saying it didn't happen?
A: As far as I could tell it didn't happen ... Did he resist them in anyway?
A: No." (Kieran Casey, Trial Transcript pg. 830, lines 14-21 and pg. 846, lines 19-
20)

I also heard the testimony of Michael Tanoury who stated, "Q: Did you see
prior to the man going down to the ground did you observe him make any sort
of movement toward the police officer? A: No distinct movement. Q: See him
assume a fighting position? A: No. Q: Did you see him slug out in any way? A:
No... Q: And right before he went down what happened? A: I don't know how
to describe it. Nothing substantial. He was grabbed and thrown down ... Q: Did
you see Scott Wells do anything aggressive toward those police officers before
he was thrown to the ground? A: I did not. Q: No blading off? A: Didn't see
that. Q: No smacking of hands, none of that? A: No." (Michael Tanoury,
Trial Transcript pg. 861, lines 17-23; pg. 880, lines 11-13 and pg. 887, lines 6-13)

I recall Samuel Kaplan testified, "Q: Okay, did he assume any kind of
fighting stance? A: Not from what I saw. Q: Where you able to see? A: Yeah I
was in a pretty good position I'd say. Q: Okay, did he strike out at the police
officer in any way? A: Not from what I saw. Q: Now I've got to make sure the
jury understands what you're saying and I do too, did not happen? A: Hum, I
do not think so, or from my advantage point I could see no strike by the
Defendant ... Q: Anything like going into a fighting stance? A: No, no. Q: Not
possible? A: I don't think so. Q: Are you sure about that? A: Yes." (Samuel
Kaplan, Trial Transcript pg. 1094, lines 18-25, and pg. 1095, lines 7-9 and 12-18)

Jason Moore testified, "Q: Okay, was there any point that you saw Mr.
Wells raise his fist? A: Raise his fist, no not at all. Q: Okay, did you see him
blade off, taking a fighting stance? A: No. Q: Did you see him bat their arms
away? A: No. Q; Did they do that? Did he do that? Did Scott Wells make any
fighting moves toward those officers? A: No, not at all. Q: And what happened
between the time that you saw him standing there sort of rigid, how did the take
down occur? A: Hum, well the two police officers were standing to his left
and to his right. And the police office on his left struck him in the back of the
knee I believe with one of his own knees. They were sort of holding on to Mr.
Wells arms." (Jason Moore, Trial Transcript pg. 1045, lines 14-25 and pg. 1046,
lines 1-9)

The jury believed their testimony, and I was acquitted of Count III: Resisting
Law Enforcement, Class A Misdemeanor as well as Count II: Battery on a Law
Enforcement Officer. Also, refer to Response Answer Number (NO.) 8.

FACTS, DOCMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. ACQUITTAL - Count III: Resisting Law Enforcement, Class A
Misdemeanor.
1. ACQUITTAL - Count II: Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer. Initially,
Charged with a Class D Felony
3. Criminal Trial Transcript
4. Indiana State Police Radio Transmission: Short CD, Track #4
5. Depositions of all witnesses listed below verifying my passive, nonthreatening,
and non-combative behavior
6. Supplemental Police Reports of all witnesses below verifying my passive,
non-threatening, and non-combative behavior
7. All other pertinent Police Radio Transmissions on Short and Long CD's

WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT DENIAL FOR TRIAL:

1. Kieran Casey
2. Michael Tanoury
3. Scott Wells
4. Jason Moore
5. Samuel Kaplan

REQUEST NO. 10: Admit that on September 27, 2002, your head and face did not
make contact with cement as a result of the Trooper's actions.

RESPONSE NO. 10: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. My head and face did make very hard
contact with the brick sidewalk as a result of the Troopers' actions. The severe
impact to my head, left knee and thigh area, left ankle, and right elbow caused
me to black out on the ground for several seconds, and I was left severely
disoriented afterwards. The submitted pictures of my injuries at Trial showed
a significant contusion and abrasion on my left forehead area proving that
serious contact was made with the brick sidewalk. Also, my right elbow
sustained a serious, deep abrasion; again proving that major impact with the
sidewalk surface occurred. Because of the very uneven nature of the brick
sidewalk and the vicious, without warning, takedown; I twisted and sprained
my left ankle as well as I was thrown to the ground with the Troopers on top
of me.

Kieran Casey testified at my Trial and he stated, "A: The man was taken
out of this car and was standing with the police officers and then after that he
was thrown to the ground with his hands behind him face first ... I would say it
was a pretty violent take down I would say ... Q: What was it on? It was on the
sidewalk by the stairs." (Kieran Casey, Trial Transcript pg. 829, line 25; pg. 830,
line 1 and pg. 831, lines 3 and 7) Later, Kieran Casey testified, "They put a knee
into either the back of his leg or in his back and he went down face first ...
Q: Okay, he hit the ground pretty hard? A: Yeah, face first." (Kieran Casey,
Trial Transcript pg. 833, lines 17-18 and pg. 848, lines 3-4)

Michael Tanoury testified at my Trial and I heard his total rejection of the
Trooper's fallacious and malicious testimony as well as other witnesses. At my Trial
I heard Michael Tanoury's testimony, "But after he (Wells) was thrown to the
ground ... He went down hard ... It seemed it hurt bad ... I mean you saw him
go down rather quickly onto what was a brick sidewalk." (Michael Tanoury,
Trial Transcript pg. 862, lines 23-24 and pg. 863, lines 6, 15, and 17-18). Later at
my Trial, Michael Tanoury testified, "He was grabbed and thrown down ... "
and that the take down was so violent that, "We expected something was going
to be found in the car like drugs or something like that. And I do believe I said
a pound of heroin." (Michael Tanoury, Trial Transcript pg. 880, line 13 and pg.
883, lines 3-6)

Another witness, Samuel Kaplan, testified, "Q: Is that what you saw
happen? A: Yeah. Q: Was it gentle? A: No. Q: Was it violent? A: Yeah.
Q: Did it startle you? A: Uh, yes to some degree. I remember thinking like
cringing a little bit almost being like ouch that would hurt. Q: Did it look to
you like anything was done to cushion his fall onto the steps? A: No.
Q: Nothing broke his fall except his own body? A: Yeah, that's what I would
say ... Q: Okay, so you just saw him go down on pretty ... A: Yeah, it just
looked painful because he didn't catch himself I'd say."
(Samuel Kaplan, Trial Transcript pg. 1100, lines 8-22 and pg. 1101, lines 7-9)

I recall Jason Moore testified, "Q: She was concerned? A: She was
concerned because it was such an aggressive situation it was such a kind of
surprising know of a brutal movement on the part of the police officers that she
was concerned about him ... Q: Now how did you come, become a witness?
What happened? A: Well the events started unfolding in the newspaper quite
readily, in fact Molly called me the next morning and said that we had
witnessed something that was now front page news in the newspaper. And then
it was a matter of oh I suppose weeks or so as things unfolded. It was really
when the felony battery charges were filed against Mr. Wells that I felt very
compelled to step forward. Q: And why did you feel compelled to step
forward? A: Because I did not agree at with the recounting of the events as
they were told in the newspaper. Q: And you in fact saw something that
completely contradicted what you understood the charges to be? A: Absolutely,
yes." (Jason Moore, Trial Transcipt pg. 1047, lines 21-25; pg. 1048, line 1 and pg.
1049, lines 22-25 and pg. 1050, lines 1-13)

Because of their testimonies, the jury acquitted me of Resisting Arrest and
Battery on a Police Officer as well. Also, refer to Response Answers Number (NO.)
8 and 9.

FACTS, DOCMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. ACQUITTAL - Count III: Resisting Law Enforcement, Class A
Misdemeanor.
2. ACQUITTAL – Count II: Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer. Initially,
Charged with a Class D Felony
3. Criminal Trial Transcript
4. Indiana State Police Radio Transmission: Short CD, Track #4
5. Depositions of all witnesses listed below verifying my passive, nonthreatening,
and non-combative behavior
6. Supplemental Police Reports of all witnesses below verifying my passive,
non-threatening, and non-combative behavior
7. All other pertinent Police Radio Transmissions on Short and Long CD's

WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT DENIAL FOR TRIAL:

1. Kieran Casey
2. Michael Tanoury
3. Samuel Kaplan
4. Jason Moore
5. Scott Wells

REQUEST NO. 11: Admit that on September 27,2002, you resisted Trooper
Brown and Coryea's attempts to place you under arrest.

RESPONSE NO. 11: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. I never resisted the Troopers in any way in
their attempts to place me under arrest. My behavior was passive, non-threatening,
and non-combative at all times that night. The jury ACQUITTED me of Resisting
Arrest. Therefore, the State has no real argument to make concerning that absolutely
false claim because of my trial acquittal. This request for admission can only be characterized
as a fishing expedition and an outrageous, malicious lie. Refer to Response Answers
Numbers (NO.) 8, 9, and 10.

REQUEST NO. 12: Admit that on September 27,2002, you struck
Trooper Coryea in his arm.

RESPONSE NO. 12: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. I never struck Trooper Coryea in his arm -
period. My behavior was passive, non-threatening, and non-combative at all times.
The jury ACQUITTED me of Battery. Therefore, the State has no real argument to
make concerning that absolutely false claim. This request for admission can only be
characterized as a fishing expedition and an outrageous, malicious lie. Also, refer to
Response Answers Numbers (NO.) 8,9, 10, and 11.

REQUEST NO. 13: Admit that on September 27, 2002, you lunged at Trooper
Coryea and Brown with clinched fists.

RESPONSE NO. 13: Denied.

That statement is absolutely false. I never lunged at Trooper Coryea and
Brown with clinched fists whatsoever. My behavior was passive, non-threatening,
and non-combative at all times that night. The jury ACQUITTED me of Battery and Resisting Arrest. Therefore, the State has no real argument to make concerning
those absolutely false claims. This request for admission can only be characterized
as a fishing expedition and an outrageous, malicious lie. Also, refer to Response
Answers Numbers (NO.) 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

REQUEST NO. 14: Admit that on September 27, 2002, you consumed alcoholic
beverages at three different establishments (bars or restaurants) in Bloomington,
Indiana prior to being stopped by Trooper Brown.

RESPONSE NO. 14: I Admit that on September 27, 2002, I consumed only
one alcoholic beverage at each of the three establishments (bars or restaurants) in
Bloomington, Indiana prior to being stopped by Trooper Brown.
I also consumed food at two of the three establishments.

REQUEST NO. 15: Admit that during the criminal proceedings that were brought
as a result of the allegations as asserted in your Complaint, you contested the stop of
the automobile that you were driving.

RESPONSE NO. 15: Denied.

I never contested the stop of my automobile that I was driving. When Trooper
Brown's emergency flashing lights came on, I immediately pulled over and parked
on the southeast comer of Seventh and Dunn Streets. I was passive, non-threatening
and non-combative, throughout my interaction with the Troopers. At all times, I
tried to cooperate and diffuse the situation from escalating into a serious problem.
Also refer to Response Answer Number (NO.) 8.

REQUEST NO. 16: Admit that during the criminal proceedings that were brought
as a result of the allegations asserted in your Complaint, you contested your arrest.

RESPONSE NO. 16: Denied.

That statement is false. I never contested my arrest. I was passive, nonthreatening,
and non-combative in my interactions with the Troopers the entire
time that I was in their presence. Also, refer to Response Answers Numbers
(NO.) 8 and 15.

REQUEST NO. 17: Admit that during the events of September 27, 2002 as alleged
in your Complaint, Trooper Coryea and Brown were acting within the scope of their
employment in stopping you and affecting your arrest.

RESPONSE NO. 17: Denied.

I do not believe that neither Trooper Stacy Brown nor Trooper Travis Coryea
acted properly, or within the proper scope of their employment in stopping me in the
manner in which they did, because they bypassed normal police procedure to arrest me
while they acted "under color of state law". They maliciously arrested and brutally
physically assaulted me leaving permanent injuries to my left knee. Trooper Brown and
Trooper Coryea have stated, by testimony in their Depositions, that on many late nights
they believed that they were understaffed, with only two Troopers available to cover a
five countywide area. Yet, on the night in question, their priority that night, through
the command of off-duty Trooper J.D. Maxwell, was to stake out an alleged, OWl, for over
35 minutes - even though that area was overlapped by three other, more appropriate,
Police Jurisdictions: City of Bloomington Police, Indiana University Police, and the
Monroe County Sheriffs Department's Deputies. Also, refer to Response Answers
Numbers (NO.) 8, 9, 10, and 15.

REQUEST NO. 18: Admit that immediately after the events of September 27,
2002 as alleged in paragraph eight of your complaint you refused medical treatment
offered to you by state and county officers.

RESPONSE NO. 18: Denied.

This is absolutely false. I never refused medical treatment! In fact, I
repeatedly requested medical attention for my serious contusion to my left forehead
area as well as my severely abraded right elbow. Also, I requested medical
assistance for my severely bruised left thigh area, my left sprained ankle, and cuts to
my right hand. But most importantly, I requested immediate medical assistance to
tend to my seriously injured left knee, which has left me with severe, throbbing pain
for many years. The damage to my left knee was later diagnosed by MRI as a tear to
the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus according to Dr. Timothy A. Hupfer M.D.
of Orthoindy - Northwest. Dr. Hupfer advised me that my left knee needed surgery
in order to repair the tom cartilage caused by the severe blow. To this date, because
of my loss of health insurance from losing my tenured teaching job as a result of the
defamation from this police setup, that surgery procedure has not been performed.
The only medical assistance that I ever received was from BPD, Officer Tiffany
Willingham, who before she transported me to the Monroe County Jail, taped some
gauze over my serious, deeply abraded, right elbow.

FACTS, DOCMENTS, & OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT DENIAL:

1. All Documents and Notes from Bloomington Hospital
2. All Documents and Notes from Ortholndy - Northwest
3. All X-Rays, MRI's, etc.

WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT DENIAL FOR TRIAL:

1. Scott Wells
2. Dr. Timothy A. Hupfer - Ortholndy - Northwest
3. Dr. Wendy Ann Conger - Bloomington Hospital
4. Dr. Moseman - Bloomington Hospital

I declare under penalty of perjury that the factual statements set forth in the
foregoing responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

March 28, 2007 Scott D. Wells


Respectfully submitted
COLMAN & CURE

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

Seeing this pop up, made me wonder what the status of the Petition to Transfer was in this case. Looks like it was denied by the Indiana Supreme Court on March 10th (emphasis added - to assist those who do not enjoy legalese).

Case Number: 53 A 01 - 0910 - CV - 00494
WELLS, SCOTT D. V. BERNITT, HERMAN BUD, ET. AL

3/10/11 THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A
PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A
DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED
PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT
WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW,
ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH
THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER
OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING
MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE'S VIEWS ON
THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES.
BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT'S
PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION.
RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.
(ORDER REC'D. 3/10/11 AT 11:30 A.M.0 ENTERED 3/10/11 KM
3/10/11 ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ******

[VietVet]

Seeing this pop up, made me wonder what the status of the Petition to Transfer was in this case. Looks like it was denied by the Indiana Supreme Court on March 10th (emphasis added - to assist those who do not enjoy legalese).

To assist those who do not keep up -- who got bitch-slapped?

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

Seeing this pop up, made me wonder what the status of the Petition to Transfer was in this case. Looks like it was denied by the Indiana Supreme Court on March 10th (emphasis added - to assist those who do not enjoy legalese).

To assist those who do not keep up -- who got bitch-slapped?

I am not sure we can say that anyone got bitch-slapped here. Wells needed the Supreme Court to grant transfer to keep the case alive. That did not happen. Case is over.

As per Indiana Appellate Rule 58: The opinion of the Court of Appeals shall be final except where a Petition to Transfer has been granted by the Supreme Court.

Thus, whatever the Court of Appeals said, that is the last word.

[VietVet]

What does it mean? Is this the end of the Wells v Bernitt suit?

[czyn]

Seeing this pop up, made me wonder what the status of the Petition to Transfer was in this case. Looks like it was denied by the Indiana Supreme Court on March 10th (emphasis added - to assist those who do not enjoy legalese).

To assist those who do not keep up -- who got bitch-slapped?

I am not sure we can say that anyone got bitch-slapped here. Wells needed the Supreme Court to grant transfer to keep the case alive. That did not happen. Case is over.

As per Indiana Appellate Rule 58: The opinion of the Court of Appeals shall be final except where a Petition to Transfer has been granted by the Supreme Court.

Thus, whatever the Court of Appeals said, that is the last word.

From what I just heard the outcome Denial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard was expected-

As other federal attornies have taken over the case. The case is alive and proceeding as other options are being carried out right now.

After reading the blogs with links to evidence it really shows an unfair legal system, a coverup at the highest level of government.

How many times have you heard of the Indiana State Police being involved in a setup while working with two unsavory realtors to take out an elected official for political reasons?

How many times have you heard of the police being involved in a serious battery included by the men in blue on that very same elected official? Answers: Never ....... And Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard from reading the online links wants to keep it that way by not allowing evidence in- that should be allowed- and not following normal court rules of procedure that typically are followed in Civil Cases.

Allowing this case to be heard at a trial would bring some of most sordid details of politically tainted case against the State, the mighty men the ISP blue, and it would embarass the privileged, politically connected few, here in Monroe County that are in still in power.

And So it goes, Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has done the only thing he knows how to control: Simply do Not acknowledge anything about this case, as if it never existed by granting a Denial. That prevents the public from hearing anything more about it and keeps the Tums bottle on the shelf.

The Herald-Times



By Mike Leonard Herald-Times Columnist

I call it the trial of the century, mindful, of course, that we only crossed into a new century a few years ago.

It has drama, politics, conspiracy and overtones of corruption, and, darn, it's made for great reading.

Now the trial of Scott Wells is on hiatus for a week while special prosecutor Stan Levco is off participating in a legal seminar in South Carolina.

Who set up this time frame, HBO? It's like building up to the season finale of "The Sopranos" and putting the last episode off for a week while millions of viewers anxiously wonder whether the modern mob leader will whack or be whacked.

Certainly, the criminal case against the sitting Monroe County councilman has delivered more than its share of intrigue. The fun began just prior to jury selection in a pretrial hearing in which the prosecutor dropped three charges filed against Wells, including a felony battery charge.

One always wonders in such cases whether the dropped charges were filed as an extralegal form of punishment from the beginning. It's a standard technique: pile on the charges, impugn the character of the defendant and then back away from the things you know you can't prove.

Prosecutor Levco didn't do anything to indicate otherwise when he also admitted in his opening statement that the defense had a pretty good argument that political enemies had waged a nasty vendetta against Wells. Yeah, they stalked him. Yeah, they threatened him. Yeah, they engaged in a cell phone frenzy, calling each other breathlessly on the night they believe they witnessed Wells drinking and driving.

It didn't exactly bolster the state's case when the arresting officer, Stacy Brown, admitted that he was "irate" that a fellow Indiana State Police trooper, who happened to be running for Monroe County sheriff, bypassed standard procedures to involve him in a politically tainted case.

The defense introduced extensive phone records and testimony that gave every appearance of contradicting the testimony and time frames provided by state witnesses. Can anyone say, "reasonable doubt?"

And then, there was the unsettled and angry testimony against Wells by longtime antagonist Bud Bernitt, and the courtroom repentance of his wife Amy, who previously had admitted to trespassing on Wells' property to place a bumper sticker on his car, implicating him in an arson committed by the radical Earth Liberation Front.

"Christ tells me to love anyone, so I love him," Amy Bernitt professed. Cue up the dramatic music and fade to black.

Maybe that was a perfect place, after all, to break for a commercial, or in this situation, a 10-day hiatus.
Whatever transpires when the trial resumes will be worth watching.