From AS: Andrew Straw disciplined and suspended for filing ADA cases to protect the disabled

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):

  1. I paid in full the discipline fees of the Indiana Supreme Court in
    March 2021 with my Biden Stimulus Payment.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.”
  6. https://www.vsb.org/docs/Straw-062217.pdf
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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,
  10. This was too late to create first in time final effect.
  11. Note that this is 6 days after the VSB ORDER was entered.
    3
  12. 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).
  13. 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.
  14. Straw v. Indiana Supreme Court, et. al., 17-1338, 692 F. App’x
    291 (7th Cir. 7/6/2017).
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Please take notice of her judicial act as an officer of the
    Indiana Supreme Court: http://rodeheffer.andrewstraw.com
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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).
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Bootstrapping retaliation based on NOTHING by a state
    supreme court UNDER this Court should not be allowed.
  32. I committed no crime, felony or misdemeanor.
  33. I committed no dishonest act.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. Please take notice: http://mitigation.andrewstraw.com
    8
  37. 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.
  38. That Virginia State Bar ORDER must be obeyed and its
    findings of fact and law are FIRST IN TIME FINAL.
  39. Thus there is res judicata impact and collateral preclusion of
    any contrary finding. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (cl. 3).
  40. Reinstatement here should happen under N.D. Ind. L.R. 83-
    6.11(c).
  41. I petition here under (c)(1) and provide the Indiana and
    Virginia ORDERs as attached Exhibits 1 & 2.
  42. (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)
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. My efiling privileges should be reinstated.
  47. 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.
  48. 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

1 thought on “From AS: Andrew Straw disciplined and suspended for filing ADA cases to protect the disabled

Leave a Reply to jmdenison Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s