Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Talk of Bloomington, Monroe County and surrounding area

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby czyn » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:24 pm

RegalDaddy wrote:Plaintiff Scott Wells Wins Counterclaim vs. Bud and Amy Bernitt; Attorney Geoffrey Grodner of MCGB

Court Case of the Plaintiff is proceeding forward

STATE OF INDIANA, LAWRENCE COUNTY, SS:
IN THE LAWRENCE SUPERIOR COURT
Annual Term, 2009

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 UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF
THE INDIANA STATE POLICE, and
STATE OF INDIANA,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
("Motion") on the Counterclaim of Defendants, Herman and Amy Bernitt
("Counterclaim"). The Counterclaim was filed on September 27, 2006, and Plaintiffs
Motion was filed on June 24, 2009. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ("Response") on July 27, 2009. The Court held
a hearing on August 17, 2009 for oral argument on the Motion, which both parties
attended.

The Court, having heard and considered oral argument from both parties, and
having reviewed the moving and opposition documents, now GRANTS Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment on the Counterclaim of Defendants, Herman and Amy
Bernitt...

III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Malicious Prosecution


In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Counterclaim Defendant Wells has
identified portions of both the trial testimony offered by the Bernitts, and the deposition
of Mr. Bernitt, as demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, asserting
that he acted with probable cause when he initiated a civil action against the Bernitts.
(Motion, pg. 4.) Wells has sustained the burden of proving the nonexistence of a genuine
issue of material fact using information obtained during discovery and his criminal trial.
Therefore, the burden shifts to the Bernitts to prove the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact precluding summary judgment.

In response to Wells' assertions, the Bernitts argue that the alleged
misrepresentation of factual information in both the trial testimony of the Bernitts, and
the affidavit of Mr. Bernitt, is an "insignificant detail that is not pertinent" to the lawsuit
filed against the Bernitts. (Response, pg. 10.) This Court disagrees, finding instead that
conflicting testimony during the discovery and trial process is sufficient to support the
initiation of a civil claim against one's accusers...

Abuse of Process

Abuse of process is the misuse of legal process to accomplish some ulterior
purpose outside of the proper scope of the process itself. Tancos v. A. W, Inc., 502 N.E.2d
109, 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). It requires proof of the following elements: 1) illegal and
improper use of process by the defendant (in this case Counterclaim Defendant Wells);
and 2) malicious or ulterior motive or purpose employed in the use of process. National
City Bank v. Shortridge, 689 N.E.2d 1248, 1252 (Ind. 1997).

The Bernitts argue that the evidence mustered is sufficient for a jury to conclude
that Wells sued the Bernitts because he "wanted to seek personal retribution against his
political enemies." (Response, pg. 12.) Yet this Court does not agree that a statement
regarding the alleged existence of a long-standing animosity between parties, and the
Bernitts' dependence on previous litigation as evidence of a contemporary malicious or
ulterior motive or purpose is sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact for the purpose of defeating a Motion for Summary Judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court does now GRANT the Plaintiffs Motion
for Summary Judgment, finding against Defendants in their Counterclaim.

It is so ORDERED this 10th day of September 2009.

The Honorable Michael A. Robbins
Special Judge, Monroe Circuit Court VI


This was on another thread and should have been linked here.
After reading the postings of Bernitts’ Counterclaim Denial by Judge Robbins Supporting Scott Wells, there is a clear Material Issue of Fact which means in normal court room proceedings there will be a Trial at some point involving the Defendants.

Judge Robbins: Malicious Prosecution

“In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Counterclaim Defendant Wells has
identified portions of both the trial testimony offered by the Bernitts, and the deposition
of Mr. Bernitt, as demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, asserting
that he acted with probable cause when he initiated a civil action against the Bernitts.
(Motion, pg. 4.) Wells has sustained the burden of proving the nonexistence of a genuine
issue of material fact using information obtained during discovery and his criminal trial.”


The motivation to get Scott Wells setup and arrested on phony charges by Bud and Amy Bernitt becomes much more obvious after reading the investigative reporting by Steven Higgs and the connection to Developer Steve Smith of Pedigo Bay and the Wells’ Defamation Trial that took place last year where Scott Wells won in a very big way against Kevin Shiftet.

However, I didn’t realize that veteran Indiana State Trooper JD Maxwell was connected to the Kevin Shilfet Defamation Case with Bud and Amy Bernitt as supporting parties in that Wells’ Defamation as well. Oh yes the other standard supporting cabal cast of characters is listed below as well as participants in the Higgs Article in the Bloomington Alternative:

http://www.counterpunch.org/higgs1029.html

BLOOMIGTON ALTERNATIVE: Steven Higgs wrote: “He also has no doubt why Maxwell would target him. Wells recently sued county resident Kevin Shiflet for defamation after he charged at a county council meeting that Wells knew who set the fire at the Pedigo Bay housing development on Lake Monroe. In a 108-page deposition taken in that case, Shiflet "cracked like an egg, and the egg splattered, and part of it landed on J.D. Maxwell," Wells says.

"J.D. Maxwell is clearly one of the active participants in my defamation lawsuit against Kevin Shiflet et al," Wells says. Maxwell, along with other right-wing zealots like Franklin Andrew, Leo Hickman, Richard Wells and Bud Burnitt, were implicated in the deposition, Wells says.

"What's the motive for J.D. Maxwell to go after me?" he asks. "Is it the defamation lawsuit?”
czyn
skate
skate
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 0 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby crinklecrust » Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:07 pm

From the Herald-Times report it is clear that JD Maxwell had a previous history of tampering with evidence, falsifying the Record, intimidating witnesses, and working outside of the Law as a sworn Indiana State Trooper prior to the Scott Wells Arrest years later. If Scott Wells knew of Maxwell's checkered Trooper History, I am starting to understand why Scott did what he did the night the State Troopers Arrested him because the Troopers operated outside their normal patrolling zone by working in the center of the city for a long while. The area at 7th and Dunn where Wells was arrested sometime in September 2002 is overlapped by Bloomington Police, Indiana University Police and County Deputy Jurisdictional Area.


FROM THE HERALD TIMES: JD MAXWELL'S INDIANA STATE TROOPERS FIVE SUSPENSIONS PRIOR TO THE YEAR 2000


Herald-Times Newspaper

Maxwell punished in Knight incident
Trooper accused of improperly sharing information with Knight


By Beth Spangle Herald-Times Staff Writer
September 8, 1999

An Indiana State Police trooper is being suspended over his actions in a case involving Indiana University basketball coach Bob Knight.

Sgt. J.D. Maxwell was accused of improperly sharing information with Knight during the investigation of a confrontation at an Ellettsville restaurant. He will be suspended without pay for eight days, said Trooper Jacqueline Taylor of the Bloomington post.

Chris Foster, a Bloomington guitar-maker, had accused Knight of making a racist remark while the two dined separately at an Ellettsville restaurant June 7. When the two went outside, he said the coach started screaming at him and grabbed him by the neck.

Monroe County Prosecutor Carl Salzmann, however, said the evidence did not support Foster's claim of being choked and that it appeared Knight had been provoked into a confrontation. At a news conference an hour after Salzmann announced his decision, Knight criticized the prosecutor for letting the case drag on for nine days.

Maxwell also spoke at the news conference and said witnesses confirmed no profanity or racial slurs came from Knight's table at the restaurant. "As sure as there's a God in heaven, I know Bob Knight is not a racist," Maxwell said at that time.

Maxwell, an evidence technician at the Bloomington post, faced charges of insubordination for refusing to comply with an order given by post commander Lt. Dave Schipp to limit his involvement in the Knight investigation to his responsibilities as evidence technician. Maxwell interviewed a witness after the incident.

He was also charged with improper dissemination of confidential information when he disclosed the findings of that interview to Knight. The third charge, conduct unbecoming an officer, alleges that Maxwell continued to have contact with Knight, someone he knew was the subject of a criminal investigation.

According to a state police spokesman, Maxwell had a hearing last Thursday where he presented his case to Assistant Superintendent Col. Don Brackman. Maxwell then met with Superintendent Melvin Carraway, who had 15 days to decide to punish Maxwell.

Maxwell will be able to appeal or accept Carraway's decision.

Maxwell did not want to comment on the suspension Tuesday night.

The eight-day suspension is the most recent of several suspensions during Maxwell's 18-year career as a trooper. According to First Sgt. Dave Bursten of the state police public information office, Maxwell was suspended for five days in 1986 for interfering with a criminal investigation; suspended two days in 1988 for destroying a traffic ticket; suspended 15 days in 1991 for unauthorized use of deadly force; and suspended three other days in 1991 for insubordination.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
crinklecrust
skate
skate
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:10 pm
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 0 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby czyn » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:54 pm

IN THE MATTER OF:
SCOTT D. WELLS,
Plaintiff,

v.

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

AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD W. STANHOUSE

3. Between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. on the evening of Friday, the 27th day of
September, 2002, I had an approximately twenty-minute conversation with
Scott Wells, which I viewed as extensive and which ended when I left the
premises.

4. Scott Wells occasionally visited my establishment on Friday evenings, and
usually left early.

5. When Scott Wells left my presence, on the 27th day of September, 2002, at
8:00 p.m., I observed in him no signs of alcohol impairment in his mental
or motor functions whatsoever. He seemed perfectly normal to me.

Further Saith the Affiant Not:
Ronald W. Stanhouse
Co-owner of the Crazy Horse Tavern



AFFIDAVIT OF LEE WILLIAMS

3. 4th Street was closed to vehicular traffic between College and Walnut Streets from
Friday, September 27th, 2002 at 7:00 a.m., until Sunday, September 29th, 2002 at
3:00 a.m.

4. The full West end of 4th Street was blocked to vehicular traffic by barricades,
from College Avenue to Walnut Street, which made it impossible for a car to
travel in an easterly direction.

Further Saith the Affiant Not:

Lee Williams
Director of the Lotus Music Festival



Affidavit of Herman Bud Bernitt

4. After exiting the Crazy Horse, Wells staggered across the street, appeared
to urinate on the railroad tracks, showed other obvious signs of intoxication, entered a
vehicle, and drove onto the public streets of Bloomington.

5. After Wells exited the parking lot, Amy and I followed him in our truck
through the public streets of Bloomington.

AFFIRMED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY this 9th day of February, 2007.

Herman Bud Bernitt


According to Ron Stanhouse's Affidavit, it's hard to imagine how someone could show "no signs of alcohol impairment in his mental or motor functions whatsoever" and be "perfectly normal to me" upon leaving Crazyhorse. But then, only moments later, according to Bud Bernitt's Affidavit alleged Wells, "After exiting the Crazy Horse, Wells staggered across the street, appeared to urinate on the railroad tracks, showed other obvious signs of intoxication, entered a vehicle, and drove onto the public streets of Bloomington."

Further, Bud Bernitt Affidavit states, "After Wells exited the parking lot, Amy and I followed him in our truck through the public streets of Bloomington" But the Affidavit of Lee Williams states, "The full West end of 4th Street was blocked to vehicular traffic by barricades, from College Avenue to Walnut Street, which made it impossible for a car to travel in an easterly direction" so Bernitts could not have followed Wells. If the route was barricaded closed, Bernitts could not have followed Wells; they must have known that reporting otherwise was a falsehood.

Without a logic course it's easy to see that the Bud and Amy Bernitt the tip-callers had to know that what they were reporting to off-duty State Policeman JD Maxwell was absolutely FALSE. Incidentally, Bernitts were actively campaigning for Maxwell to become Republican Sheriff at the time.

That certainly could be argued that actual malice has been comitted, repeating a known falsehood in order to damage one's reputation.
Last edited by czyn on Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
czyn
skate
skate
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 0 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby BigDog » Sat May 01, 2010 5:59 pm

Can one of the board admins please remove the above? I find this to be objectionable and can't help but wonder what the purpose of posting this is.

Thank you.
BigDog
Support Your Right to Arm Bears
Image
User avatar
BigDog
leonard springs nature
leonard springs nature
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:16 am
Location: Southeast Side
Has thanked: 1 times
Have thanks: 14 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby Louie » Sat May 01, 2010 6:07 pm

Big Dog, most of the time I am with you. But, if this case is still active, what is objectionable about our community getting to see the consequences of the state police intervention?
Dogmatic Liberalism--The New Shallow Thinkers, but Not as Clueless as the Ultra Shallow Thinking of the Corporate Fart Suckers LIke Raving Karl
Louie
Entrenched
 
Posts: 12837
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:51 am
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 77 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby JayRoberts » Sat May 01, 2010 6:38 pm

This whole situation has grown well beyond distasteful, but I agree with Louie. We need to see this.
"Enjoy every sandwich." -- Zevon
User avatar
JayRoberts
bryan
bryan
 
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: Bloomington, IN
Has thanked: 8 times
Have thanks: 30 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby Curmudgeon » Sat May 01, 2010 7:49 pm

I think this is a sockpuppet account and the person in question is using the capabilities of their new phone to post from.

I believe the proper solution would just be to lock this thread and delete any further ones along its line.

I will listen to counters...

This being this accounts's first post pretty well narrows down the field here.

I would also permaban this account.
-----
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Curmudgeon
I'm the mean moderator
 
Posts: 26840
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:11 am
Has thanked: 607 times
Have thanks: 997 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby BigDog » Sat May 01, 2010 9:12 pm

Thanks Louie. As you mention, you and I usually see things in much the same manner.

My feeling however is that this type of material is more appropriate for the courts and not an internet cyber-forum. I suppose I could/should just not read threads that seem inappropriate then it wouldn't be a problem. I just don't see the value of posting this stuff. If this is a campaign of some sorts, then perhaps the poster(s) should state their intent.

Perhaps I'm over reacting. If so, my apologies.
BigDog
Support Your Right to Arm Bears
Image
User avatar
BigDog
leonard springs nature
leonard springs nature
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:16 am
Location: Southeast Side
Has thanked: 1 times
Have thanks: 14 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby VietVet » Sun May 02, 2010 1:43 am

I think that the information, including the photographs, is useful and should be made available to the public.

But sock puppets should be vigorously suppressed.
.
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful,
and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions,
is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.


-Adam Smith
User avatar
VietVet
Entrenched
 
Posts: 8349
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Nowhere Land
Has thanked: 46 times
Have thanks: 53 times

Re: Court Hearing: Wells vs Bernitts 8/17/09 at 11 AM

Postby Curmudgeon » Sun May 02, 2010 2:06 am

VietVet wrote:I think that the information, including the photographs, is useful and should be made available to the public.

But sock puppets should be vigorously suppressed.


The thing is they have them on a website already, they are linking them to here.

the pictures are not part of the documents they linked, they are on photobucket.

"Before the Courts Now" button links to here: http://www.keepandsave.com - the dates involved are almost 6 months ago and prior.

So I'm locking the thread and banning the account.

He can pass out handbills or get his own website. It cost about the same as 2-3 drinks a month.
-----
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Curmudgeon
I'm the mean moderator
 
Posts: 26840
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:11 am
Has thanked: 607 times
Have thanks: 997 times

Previous

  • Similar topics
    Replies
    Views
    Author

Return to Bloomington, Monroe County and area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests