1
IN THE
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana
IN THE MATTER OF ) Case No.: 1:17-mc-00005
ANDREW STRAW, )
An Attorney. )
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
I, plaintiff, Andrew U. D. Straw, PETITION for reinstatement under the
Local Rule 83.6-11(c):
- I paid in full the discipline fees of the Indiana Supreme Court in
March 2021 with my Biden Stimulus Payment. - I have been suspended both by the Indiana Supreme Court and this
Court, though this Court’s reciprocal suspension at Dkt. 4
(3/21/2017) was entered on the record with two federal lawsuits
pending to stop the Indiana suspension. - I include a copy of the Indiana suspension and the VSB ORDER
exonerating me and finding that I had violated no ethical rule by
“clear and convincing” evidence. Exhibits 1 & 2. - This Court has never given me the right to a proper hearing so I
could explain why the Indiana Supreme Court discipline is wholly
without substance and void.
2 - The same question of whether to impose a suspension was before
the Virginia State Bar and after due process before a 3-judge panel,
I was 100% exonerated, found not to have violated any ethical rule,
and that the Indiana Supreme Court’s attack using its ADA
coordinator, “had all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting.” - https://www.vsb.org/docs/Straw-062217.pdf
- The problem for Indiana is that my suspension was still being
appealed two different ways when Virginia’s ORDER became final
and was not appealed because the Bar Counsel in Virginia actually
agreed with me that I did nothing unethical in filing 4 federal
lawsuits for disability rights as a disabled person. - Thus, the Virginia State Bar ORDER finding by clear and
convincing evidence is first in time final on June 20, 2017. The
summary dismissal ORDER was entered on May 24, 2017. - The 16-1346 direct appeal of my suspension to the U.S. Supreme
Court via petition for writ of cert. was not decided until June 26, - This was too late to create first in time final effect.
- Note that this is 6 days after the VSB ORDER was entered.
3 - I also had another federal lawsuit to stop the discipline under
the ADA Title II, which does apply to state courts. Tennessee v.
Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 525, 531 (2004). - That lawsuit was not decided on appeal at the 7th Circuit until
July 6, 2017, meaning the case to stop what Indiana did was not
final at the 7th Circuit until 16 days after the VSB ORDER was first
in time final. - Straw v. Indiana Supreme Court, et. al., 17-1338, 692 F. App’x
291 (7th Cir. 7/6/2017). - I appealed this 7th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court
and the denial of certiorari did not take place in that 17-6812 docket
until January 8, 2018, 202 days after the VSB ORDER was first in
time final. - Please never forget that this is between me and my former
employer when I became disabled driving there to work, a reckless
driver breaking my legs, pelvis, and skull as I drove to serve the
Chief Justice of Indiana and every court in the State of Indiana,
over 400 of them I served.
4 - I made a complaint about the ADA violations of my former
employer and it ended up on the desk of the Indiana Supreme Court
ADA coordinator, who was eager to cause me injury and discredit
me. She attacked 4 federal lawsuits I had filed in 2014 that were
not final when she attacked them. She also attacked my mental
disability and blamed it for my filing these cases. - Please take notice of her judicial act as an officer of the
Indiana Supreme Court: http://rodeheffer.andrewstraw.com - In every one of the cases she attacked that ended up in the
suspension ORDER, I was not accused of anything unethical, did
not receive any FRCP Rule 11(c) due process, and was not issued
any sanction, and this is obvious because the due process was
wholly lacking to justify any sanction. - Judges don’t just get to point at people, grunt angrily, and end
their careers. While that is apparently how it works at the Indiana
Supreme Court, federal courts are bound by due process under the
5th Amendment.
5 - Thus, while Indiana says it was enforcing Rule 3.1, it was not.
There was no evidence of a Rule 3.1 violation given no due process
was provided to reach that conclusion. - This Court in particular in the Rutherford and Dixon cases
did not give me due process under Rule 11(c) for any sanction, and
did not impose a sanction under Rule 11. - The Northern District of Illinois was even more dubious. The
ABA case was dismissed, but the word frivolous did not even appear
in any order of the Court, but Indiana just stepped in and
interfered. - Even the Kloecker case dismissal only mentioned the word
frivolous one time, and it was done not in the ethical sense, but to
say my legal interpretation of evidence was wrong. Wrong is not an
ethical violation. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 320 (1989). - Moreover, even the 7th Circuit that has been so hostile to me
has said there is a First Amendment right to file lawsuits and
petition courts with viewpoints. Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 847
F.3d 469, 483 (7th Cir. 2017).
6 - The 7th Circuit has punished me and restricted my ability to
file across its area in all courts because I expressed the viewpoint
that the 7th Circuit hiring my appellee to be a federal judge and
favoring him in my appeal was illegitimate and wrong. Straw v.
Indiana Supreme Court, et. al., 692 F. App’x 291 (7th Cir. 2017)
(Dkts. 79 & 80). It is a due process violation for the 7th Circuit to
continue violating my rights to use the courts while making my
opponents into federal judges. There is no shame, but this Court
does not have to collude and violate the 5th Amendment. - The Indiana Supreme Court was simply out to get me after I
made a legitimate and true ADA complaint about it. It cannot then
turn around and do a DARVO against me, claiming its victim is
really at fault. - The Indiana Supreme Court has taken 2 cases from this
District Court and imposed a reciprocal suspension based on them
when this Court, the Northern District of Indiana, imposed no
discipline at all, and I was and still am an attorney of this Court. - I am a federal attorney, associated with the bar of this Court,
and I have been abused by a lower state court without any good
7
reason, only discrimination and retaliation. It should shock the
conscience that a state court would abuse me that way. - Indiana imposed a reciprocal suspension when there was no
suspension (either in Indiana or Illinois) against me, and then this
District Court imposed a reciprocal suspension based on that
meritless and baseless Indiana reciprocal suspension. - Bootstrapping retaliation based on NOTHING by a state
supreme court UNDER this Court should not be allowed. - I committed no crime, felony or misdemeanor.
- I committed no dishonest act.
- I had a clean disciplinary history as a lawyer from 1999 (my
first bar exam passage in Virginia) to 2017, when this fake
reciprocal suspension was imposed to get revenge and ruin my
reputation. - Not one of my 10+ mitigating facts, brimming over in my selfdefense in that fake Indiana process, was considered or made part
of the final Indiana suspension ORDER. I may as well have been
gagged and thrown in the basement while they did this to me. - Please take notice: http://mitigation.andrewstraw.com
8 - It is below the dignity of this Court to continue this fake
reciprocal discipline that the Virginia State Bar found in its
ORDER to be wholly without merit. - That Virginia State Bar ORDER must be obeyed and its
findings of fact and law are FIRST IN TIME FINAL. - Thus there is res judicata impact and collateral preclusion of
any contrary finding. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (cl. 3). - Reinstatement here should happen under N.D. Ind. L.R. 83-
6.11(c). - I petition here under (c)(1) and provide the Indiana and
Virginia ORDERs as attached Exhibits 1 & 2. - (c)(2)(A) provides that the Chief Judge must promptly decide
whether I am fit to practice law again. In this case, it was never
established that I was not fit and that is why the FIRST IN TIME
FINAL ORDER in Virginia should determine this decision. I was
exonerated by clear and convincing evidence. (Ex. 2) - Under (c)(2)(B) the Chief Judge, finding absolutely no
sanctions justifying Indiana’s reciprocal attack, should recommend
reinstatement without fees, given this was never my fault. I
9
presented over 1500 pages of evidence to show VSB that I did not
deserve this, ever. - I ask the Court’s District Judges (not any bankruptcy judge)
to find under (c)(3)(A) that given the VSB ORDER, its first in time
final findings of fact and law, there is no reason to keep me from
being the fully admitted federal attorney here that started when I
passed the Indiana Bar Exam in 2002 while working for the Chief
Justice of Indiana and serving every court in the state. - Help me celebrate my 20 years of bar membership here by
removing this 5 years of bogus and unfair discipline that violates
my constitutional and statutory rights. - My efiling privileges should be reinstated.
- Given I have not filed an explicit N.D. Ind. L.R. 83-6.11(c)
petition up to this point, this petition should be allowed now. - Out of respect for the Court’s recent COVID ORDERs (e.g.,
General Order No. 2021-33), I ask that the admonition to file by US
Mail be set aside and this document and the exhibits be allowed by
email.
10
WHEREFORE, I petition the Court to reinstate me as an active in good
standing attorney of this Court, and make this nunc pro tunc due to the
circumstances of the fake reciprocal suspension.
I, plaintiff Andrew U. D. Straw, verify that to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances, that the above statements and factual representations
are true and correct under penalty of perjury. February 13, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
s/ ANDREW U. D. STRAW
700 12th ST NW STE 700 PMB 92403
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (847) 807-5237
andrew@andrewstraw.com
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Andrew U. D. Straw, certify that I filed the above PETITION and
EXHIBITS and ORDER proposed below with the Clerk of Court via email
on February 13, 2022.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ ANDREW U. D. STRAW
700 12th ST NW STE 700
PMB 92403
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (847) 807-5237
andrew@andrewstraw.com
Pro Se
12
IN THE
United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana
IN THE MATTER OF ) Case No.: 1:17-mc-00005
ANDREW STRAW, )
An Attorney. )
ORDER
The Court, having considered the matter in the facts and law and
premises, hereby find that Andrew U. D. Straw did not merit any
reciprocal suspension here and his sanctions are hereby obliterated as
though never imposed. His efiling privileges are hereby reinstated.
Given Attorney Straw did not merit these sanctions at all, no fees will be
imposed on him. The Court wishes Attorney Straw well on his 20th
Anniversary of being admitted to the Bar of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
Hon.
Date
MaryGSykes.com 
Reblogged this on Justice for Everyone Blog.