Sept 9, 2009: Deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss & Grant the FOJ*in Favor for the Plaintiff 9-9-2009

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Kay Kim,Plaintiff, )

)v. )

) Cause No. 1:09-cv-0829-DFH-JMS George F. Parker, M.D., IU Psychiatrist & ) as an Officer capacity power given by the State,)Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt, )Indiana University, employer of Dr. G. F. Parker,)

Defendants. )

DENY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANT PLANTIFF FOR THE FINAL ORDER OF JUDGMENT

I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se filed my Deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Grant

Plaintiff for The Final Order Of Judgment on this 07th day of September, 2009 as follows and not

limited to:

1. Defendants: George F. Parker, IU Psychiatrist,

Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt,

Indiana University (IU), employer of Dr. George F. Parker.

This court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 12(b)(1).

2. I, Kay Kim, Pro Se received the copy of Dr. Parker’s evaluation report after I

called for an update around June 25, 2009. Until then, there was no notice or update of any

sort(s) from the court that my self representation was taken away.

3. Knowing the law and the ramification of the situation, I was literally undersized

by the overwhelming hopeless and helpless. Against all odds, it took me about 10 days to collect

my thoughts and filed the federal lawsuit against the defendants.

of 20FED2 Deny 06 Defendants Motion toDismiss &Grant Plantiff SummaryJudgment as FOJ 9sept2009fnl3o3

4. Previous scheduled preliminary hearing will be a competency hearing. It would

be only a formality for me to go mental institution which is a done deal planned by the Judge

Proffitt, prosecutor Andrew Wignall and the public defender (PD) Matthew Gerber.

5. Matthew Gerber, PD told me over the phone that the court has appointed him to

be my lawyer. At the same time he said that he is not my lawyer. I was disgusted with the

contradicting statements and told him to file a court paper that he is not my lawyer. Up to date he

has not filed.

6. Though he profess that he is not my lawyer, he arranged/made deals with the

court and the prosecutor prior to the competency hearing. PD Gerber told me that the scheduled

July preliminary hearing would be a competency hearing whether I am competent to stand trial.

The court and he agreed that Dr. Parker or any other doctor(s) will not be at the hearing for me to

cross examine because it would be too expensive. Besides that, I am no longer representing

myself and have no say in the matter and I have to do whatever he told me to do. PD Gerber told

me that he is the lawyer and he will not do anything whatever I told/ask him to do including

reading my federal court filing. He does not have time and does not care what it contains even

though I told him that it has a lot of the evidences/exhibits showing my innocence.

7. The general contents of the phone conversation with the PD Matthew Gerber was

that the Judge, the prosecutor and he are all in agreement that my going to the mental institution

is a done deal. He continued that once in the mental institution I will not be allowed to make

phone calls. There will be no writings and I cannot do any court filings.

8. To make the long story short, he ended with the promise that he will get me out of

mental institution just like Davis. He told me that he was the one who represented Davis at the

Appeals court. Maybe, he was telling the truth but I did not see his name mentioned anywhere in


the court documents I read. (ref. Davis in my (Kay Kim’s) original Complaint. Davis is kept in

the mental institution longer than the actual sentence if she had been convicted with the alleged

crime. It took Indiana Supreme court order for Davis to come out of mental institution because

the psychiatrist & psychologist’s diagnose that she cannot be restored to competency to stand

trial.)

9. I spent the last 4 years to keep my self-representation rights in Indiana criminal

court. I have filed interlocutory appeal with no avail. Filing an interlocutory appeal in the

Indiana criminal court does not mean anything. The trial judge have to agree to it otherwise

nothing will be done.

10. A couple years ago, I filed the court paper that I will take entire Indiana criminal

justice system to federal court and shall exhaust all the remedy available for me to have/keep my

self-representation rights in the Indiana criminal court. It is like groundhog day. The entire

system keeps coming back to deny my rights to self representations.

11. This lawsuit is to regain my rights to SELF-REPRESENTATION in the Indiana

Criminal Court which was illegally taken away by the Indiana State criminal court Special Judge

Proffitt who was appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court to try my criminal cases.

12. Special Judge Proffitt and Psychiatrist George Parker conspiringly (conspiracy by

character in agreement), maliciously & corruptly with other unnamed defendants took my self-

representation rights away. The Plaintiff further seek remedy, relief and commensurate

restitutions for the damages that have occurred and could have incurred. The Plaintiff is not

asking this court to try pending/ongoing criminal cases and certainly did not intent to use this

court to avoid criminal trials in the State.


13. On the contrary, I, Kay Kim, Pro Se like to regain my rights to self- representation

and confront my accusers in the State criminal trials as accorded by the United States

Constitutions.

14 This lawsuit in this court at this juncture does not have jurisdiction over whether

I, Kay Kim, Pro se is guilty or not guilty in a pending/ongoing criminal cases in the State and

should never be an issue in this lawsuit.

15. However, for the sake of argument, as shown in my original Complaint- Exhibit 3

, I am absolutely not guilty of any charges. I have been the victim of housing discrimination

which started as soon as we moved into the condo 10 years ago. That is the beginning and

source of all my criminal cases, small claims court and federal court cases. This court of Judge

Sarah Evans Barker and Jane Magnus-Stinson also share the bulk of responsibility for my

ongoing problems which could have stopped if only Judge Barker had uphold the law of the

United States Constitution for the rights of individual like me in the first lawsuit 1:05-cv-

1616-SEB-JMS. (ref. Details are in the federal court filings of 1:05-cv-1616-SEB-JMS, 1:08-cv-

1644-SEB-DML & State of Indiana civil, criminal and small claims court filings.) All these

court filings are done by me, Pro Se.

15(a) The entire Indiana’s justice system include this court is indifferent to the

my situation over the years and not hold anyone liable which

makes my family and my life harder as time went on. My accusers

and State of Indiana are the criminals and are the one should be charged

criminally besides civil liability.

15(b) Because of last arrest on November 6, 2008 arrest/incident, the State of

Indiana put restraining order against me to protect Rhonda Heath


who was a GUEST/Visitor of 4250 unit 4 owner Linda Handlon in my own

unit 2 of building 4250. I was told that I cannot be in my own unit when

guest Rhonda Heath visit anyone in the condo. (Rhonda Heath has no

contractual rights and obligation in the condo what so ever

and only friend of Linda Handlon.)

15(c) I have never seen Rhonda Heath prior to the incident and I do not know

her and I do not know anything about her until the incident.

Rhonda Heath committed criminal trespass in my own condo

limited common area and she was the one used force (push me with her body) on

me to come into the limited common area. Yet I am the one who got

arrested and have restraining order in my own condo or anywhere (no contact

order) which include my family & my acquaintance(s). What kind Law

is this?

15(d) The heart of November 6, 2008 case is easily prove to the court and to the

jury for my own defense which is recorded/video taped in its

entirety for what the States’s witnesses said/signed on the police

affidavit what they witnesses. 4250 unit 8 Mae Vera video taped the

incident not as a bystander/samaritan/non-bias observer but

as a one of conspirator of character in agreement to entrap me for

good in a guaranteed conviction manner/solid proof. This important

tape was subpoenaed and filed numerous filings to compel but to no

avail.


16. I, Kay Kim, Pro Se did not named prosecutor Andrew Wignall and public

defender Matther Gerber’s conspired action involved in the matter because Judge Proffitt have

ample time and authority to stop at any point in time their misbehavior and intention to mislead

the court. Judge Proffitt instead became the culprit and the driving force all along.

17. Please see ATTACHMENT A through H which are the few of Indiana criminal

court filing I, Kay Kim, Pro Se have done as follows and not limited to:

ATTACHMENT A: STATE OF INDIANA CRIMINAL COURT CASE CHRONOLOGIES TOTAL OF 88 PAGES.

ATTACHMENT B: DEFENDANT’S WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS.ATTACHMENT C: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE.ATTACHMENT D: DISMISS..… RUN OUT…. STATUTE OF LIMITATION.ATTACHMENT E: DEMAND REINSTATE.... SELF-REPRESENTATION.ATTACHMENT F: …COMPEL THE COURT TO ORDER.PRODUCE EVIDENCE.ATTACHMENT G: ..ORDER...OBEY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM…MAE VERA.ATTACHMENT H: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.

Plese refer to Federal database for additional docket reports and filings which all

done by myself as Pro Se on 1:05-cv-1616-SEB-JMS and 1:08-cv-1644-SEB-DML at this time.

18. All my alleged crimes are misdemeanors and except for the Novemeber 6, 2008

arrest/charge the statute of limitation have run out. Most of charges are trespassing on my own

common property, the city county building… Besides I am not even guilty of any charges.

During the last arrest on November 6, 2008 my accusers went out of the way to make my life

hell by using conspiracy to entrap me and sign false police affidavit against me to sent me to jail

and the mental institution.

19. Involuntary pretrial civil commitment is equivalent or worse than the life sentence

without parole. Under involuntary commitment, the court/the law literally give absolute control

over the body and mind to the Psychiatry professionals to use any drugs and even brain surgery

without my or anyone’s consent. This is like a Psycho Horror movie plays in real time. What

kind of “doctor” admits a patient to the hospital knowingly when there is no cure for the disease


unless there is intention to perform untested experiment on me for whatever reasons. If I go

under the care of Dr. Parker’s profession and his kind of professional(s), I will ultimately

become a total mental and won’t be even to recognize my own name and face.

20. Whether this is the proper format or not, anyone who reads this; especially the

minority in race, economic, social status, and others so called 3rd world Countries, etc, do not

bring yourself or your children to the psychiatry professional(s) following the footstep of United

States if you want to have a better fighting chance in life. The United States use Psychiatry-

voodoo/junk Science to control the minority in a “Scientific” way and for majority-white, rich,

powerful, previllaged, etc., to fondling the law “Scientific” and “Sophisticate” way. United

States violate human and civil rights legally. All they need is for a Psychiatrist to say in an

evaluation report that he/she is “incompetent” and conspired with the Judicial system

(Conspiracy in character of agreement.) and invoking 18th century or whatever century English

common law concept of “Absolute Immunity” to get away with murder. Who can and dare to

question the United States Laws which is the most powerful and the most humane country in the

universe. I can make a cheesy argument that Indiana is not a common law state and therefore

the whatever Century English Common Law does not apply.

21. A couple years back before the Nov 6, ’08 arrest, I had competency hearing under

a different judge related to my pending criminal cases. The court appointed expert witnesses Dr.

Parker and Dr. Olive were at the hearing in court for me to question them and to prove that I was

capable to conduct my own defense and is competent to stand trial.

22. At that time Dr. Parker and the court personnel including the judges and the

entire State of Indiana justice system were involved in a conspiracy to take away my self-

representation and declare that I am not competent to stand trial.


23. After the first competency hearing, I received a letter from a public defender and

a private attorney. They wrote to me that the Judge told them to write a letter for me to go for

inpatient treatment in a mental institution. I wrote back to him that I will not going on my own

accord without a lawful court order/warrant and that I will be waiting at my home for a sheriff to

arrest and transport me to the mental hospital. That did not materialized.

24. The entire State of Indiana is obsessed to prove that I’m mentally incompetent to

stand trial and “mental” as if the State of Indiana is on some kind of hallucinogenic and/or

hypnotic drugs. The State of Indiana is going through any length to certify that I am “mental and

“danger to the community” and even so far as to conspire (conspiracy of character in agreement)

with willing participants of the court appointed psychiatry professionals. Thus the State of

Indiana is no longer obligated to give me fair trials and put me away for good in a mental

institution and shut me up forever. It is like killing two birds with one stone.

25. It is clear that the State of Indiana is abusing mental law to substitute for a fair

trial. It is the convenient and best way to lynch me.

26. My problems started when two individuals from my condo building 4250 unit 4

Linda Handlon and unit 3 Patricia Ladenthin accused and signed false police affidavits against

me in their efforts to get rid of my family and me from the condo. The two white single females

are the ones that need “mental help”. Their brains need to be deracialized and their superiority

complex be removed. They are so proud of their white skin and fake blonde hair. They get extra

attention and feel important whenever they accused me as “Crazy and Mental.” The basic truth

is that the entire Indiana State is entertaining them because they are white and I am not. What an

ingenious, new and improved way to carry out housing and racial discrimination. Labeling me


as a crazy and mental through out the community and beyond is their perfect weapon of choice

because they know it works.

27. The entire State of Indiana is determined to send me to pretrial involuntary civil

commitment in a mental institution indefinitely for the “alleged” misdemeanors-trespass in my

own common property, the city county building…. I am totally innocent of every single charge.

What a despicable way to apply the law. Furthermore, I was FORCED to take the drug test

because I was accused specifically by IMPD Lt./Condo Security Guard James Waters. The drug

test was negative. The entire State of Indiana was disappointed that my drug test was negative.

They are phishing to prove that I am Crazy, Mental, and Drug addict. They were sure that I

was under the influence of illegal drug and mental.

28. I am a 50 year old female with a physical handicap and suffering constantly from

chronic pain. I take the least amount of pain medications because of the side effects are

intolerable at times. Besides that, I do not want to be addicted to pain medications. I have to

fight the pain with my mental power as much as I can take everyday of my life. I have never and

am not using any “illegal drug” and am not “crazy” or “mental” as alleged. I have never been

violent either.

29. The State of Indiana violated my constitutional rights over and over again

because my race is not white and am supposed to be “MENTAL.” It is rampant and a

disturbing trend that it is perfectly lawful to treat and violate my basic/fundamental

Constitutional Rights because I am branded “Crazy & Mental.” Most of arrests and the ongoing

cases with the State are based on the fact that I am “crazy and mental.” These conspirators

justify their own criminal acts by certifying me as a “Mental”. This is 21st century Witch Hunt -


“MOB” justice. Psychiatrist George F. Parker and Judge Judith S. Proffitt are the culprits who

seal the deal.

30. The Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se was never given a chance to prove my innocence

and to present any evidences which I have to the State Criminal Court. The State of Indiana

court has either to dismiss the cases or let me confronts my accusers. The State of Indiana and

Dr. Parker agree that the Plaintiff should be deprived of the two choices. Dr. Parker and the

Judge Proffitt do not care about professional integrity. They trash the entire Psychiatry

profession and Justice System. Instead of protecting the mentally ill like me, they conspired to

take away my self-representation and maneuvered to lock me up in a mental institution

indefinitely. They plan to substitute fair trials for a one stop shopping fashion in a Psychiatry

World of Voodoo/Junk Professions under the cloak of mental laws. They are the last defense for

the “mental ill and mentally challenged” like me. What kind of message will this justice system

send to people like me? I am fortunate to have the ability to fight back no matter how

insurmountable the challenge may be.

31. Finally the State of Indiana got “The Certification” that they are yearning for all

these years. The Certificate of Mental Deficiency for the Kay Kim was issued by the

Psychiatrist George F. Parker, Indiana University Psychiatry Professor. Psychiatrist George

Parker certified that Kay Kim, Pro Se is “Crazy, Mental, Danger to the community and No cure”;

therefore, Kay Kim should go to mental institution indefinitely on an involuntary pretrial civil

commitment if the Court concurred. Under Indiana mental law, indefinite confinement to a

mental institution is the ramification when the person “cannot be restored to competency to stand

trial and danger to the community.” Who can challenge and question IU Psychiatry Professor

Dr. Parker who is supposed to be “The Authority” in this field.


32. I, Kay Kim, Pro Se come to the conclusion that given the circumstances the best

and only way to prove that Dr. Parker’s diagnose was intentional, malicious, corrupt and fraud is

to sue him in the Federal district court by myself. I am my own expert witness against

Psychiatrist George Parker and the Judge Judith Proffitt.

33. Can anyone picture in their mind what is like to be branded as “mental” and to

live a life? I try to be brief on what it is like to live and suffer when I am branded as “Crazy and

Mental. ” As I stated in numerous court filings under different cause numbers, it is a devastating

situation for me to live in such a hostile environment. I am not dangerous to the community. It

is the other way around. I am always in danger of my safety physically, mentally and financially

from the community and the State of Indiana. I, Kay Kim, Pro Se and my family suffer beyond

measures both tangible and intangible ways. My family and I have long lost the normal sense of

life in this environment. At times it is horrifying. We try to put on a brave face and make the

most of it.

34. My family and I cannot possibly imagine what the consequence will be if this

district court, appeals court and the U.S. Supreme court holds the view steadfastly of absolute

immunity doctrine in favor of the defendants – the court appointed Psychiatrist Parker, the Judge

Proffitt and their employer(s).

35. Regardless of its relevancy, I was dumb founded that this court ban many people

from filing a federal lawsuit in the court. I could guess why. For me the reason is the least

important and does not matter. No matter what the justifiable reason this court might have, there

is no reason for banning person(s) from filing a lawsuit. This court can certainly orchestrate the

system and/or with other system for tougher administrative process for the accused and accusers

before filing a federal lawsuit; but not to ban a person(s) from filing a lawsuit. There are many


people in the positions/authorities; especially under prison & justice system exploit prisoners and

powerless person(s) for their own sordid gain and sick pleasures; because, they are the easiest

target. Regardless, it shows the volume about this court’s principle and philosophy in general. It

is disappointing and down right freighting.

36. With that in mind, this court did not disappoint me when it dismissed

Psychiatrist Parker and the Indiana University. This court could not even wait till I receive an

Answer(s) from the remaining defendant , Judge Proffitt.

37. It is no longer every courts under any circumstances stead fast view of absolute

Immunity doctrine for the court appointed expert witness(es) and the Judges. “As early as 1806,

the Supreme Court in Wise v. Withers 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 331 (1806) had recognized a right to

sue a judge for exercising authority beyond the jurisdiction authorized by statute, ….. several

courts had concluded that Congress never intended to immunize state-court judges from federal

civil rights suits., McShane v. Moldovan, 172 F.2d 1016 (6th Cir, 1949). 435 U.S. 349 (1978).”.

“The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted soon after the Civil War as a reaction to abuses by

Southern officials Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 559 (1967) (1871 Act passed in response to

Southern lawlessness)….. In time, the Supreme Court held that the amendment’s due process

clause obligated state courts to obey virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights. Under this

evolving concept, due process embodied at least the specific liberties guaranteed by the

Constitution, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), holding that the Fourteenth Amendment

“incorporates” specific provisions of the bill of Rights.”

38. No longer the common law doctrine of absolute judicial immunity extends to all

persons who participate in the judicial process and are an integral part of the judicial process

entitled them to absolute immunity from civil liability for anything they said and including court-


appointed psychiatrists such as Dr. Parker is not only doctor by trade-“malpractice” and is

categorized as the “expert witness”.

39. In Dennis v. Sparks, even if a judge has immunity for an act related to a case,

conspirators do not have immunity, the United States Supreme Court held that those who were

sued for bribing a Texas judge had no immunity even if the judge had immunity.

40. In Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity….; later, in

Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986)

41. Psychiatrist George Parker violated under color of law1 as an officer of the State-

Court appointed professional/expert witness, intentionally malpractice in his individual capacity

- “Doctor” by trade and betrayed his own profession as an employee of the Indiana University

Psychiatry Professor. Therefore, Dr. Parker, IU - his employer and the State of Indiana who

used his services all share responsibility.

42. Expert witnesses should be treated like other professionals who have to contend

with the possibility of getting sued if they do something negligent and they be held to the same

standard of care of their profession as doctors or lawyers.

1Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State

Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as

though it is by the state. Police officers, prison guards and other government officials who improperly abuse the

rights of individual Americans have long been recognized in federal law as a threat to society as a whole. That's

why, immediately after the Civil War, Congress approved Title 18 USC 242 -- a statute making it a crime to deprive

any person of their rights "under color of law." The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is

within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be

conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.


43. New Jersey’s State Supreme Court has held that even a court-appointed expert is

not immune from liability for deviating from the accepted standards applicable to his or her

profession. Levine v. Wiss & Co., 97N.J.242.

44. The Texas Supreme Court stated that experts can be sued for negligence resulting

from their misdiagnoses. And the mere fact that those diagnoses became the subject of

testimony in a lawsuit did not insulate the doctors from liability in a negligence action…… the

court expressly rejected extending a blanket grant of immunity from all civil liability for doctors

who testify in mental health proceedings. James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914.,

45. The Missouri Supreme Court held that privately retained professional who

negligently provide litigation-related support services should not be cover by witness immunity.

That protection should only cover defamation suits and retaliatory actions against adverse

witnesses, the court said. Murphy v. A.A. Mathews, 841 S.W.2d 671.

46. Connecticut became the fifth state to recognize an exception to the witness

immunity doctrine for a friendly expert in May 2000. A Superior Court judge in New Haven

refused to dismiss a lawsuit against a Yale University professor accused of failing to competently

provide litigation support services. Judge Bruce Levin said the policy on which witness

immunity is based-allowing witnesses to speak freely-was not implicated by the allegations

against the professor, who essentially was accused of not doing what he had been hired to do.

Pollock v. Panjabi, No. 402199, May 17, 2000. Experts are liable, too. ABA Journal, Nov 2000.

47. Though, judicial immunity was first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in

Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S.(7Wall.) 523, 19L. Ed. 285 (1868), ….. in its opinion the Court

stated that a judge will be liable for judicial acts if they were done “maliciously or corruptly.”


which Dr. Parker’s evaluation report and its ramification were intent with malice and corruption

to use it as a substitute for a fair trial and to put the Kay Kim in a mental institution permanently

without due process and the opportunity to confront her accusers.

48. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the doctrine of immunity should not be

applied broadly and indiscriminately, but should be invoked only to the extent necessary to effect

its purpose. “We also must look beyond the status of the party seeking immunity and consider

the nature of the conduct for which immunity is sought.” Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59, 63-

64 (9th Cir. 1974).

49. “When applied to the paradigmatic judicial acts involved in resolving disputes

between parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court, the doctrine of absolute judicial

immunity has not been particularly controversial. Difficulties have arisen primarily in attempting

to draw the line between truly judicial acts, for which immunity is appropriate, and acts that

simply happen to have been done by judges. Here, as in other contexts, immunity is justified and

defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches.” “...Once

again, it was the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it,

that informed our immunity analysis.” Forrester v. White, 484 US 219, 98 L Ed 2d 555,565, 566,

108 S Ct 538 (US 1988)

50. "Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate

litigants civil rights; Robert Craig Waters. Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spr. 1986 21 n3, p509-

516"

51. Defendant George Parker, M.D. flagrantly violates R704(b) and it states, no

expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal

case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental


state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such

ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.

52. The lower court in Wintoll based its opinion on an earlier Pennsylvania case,

Panitz v. Behrend, 273, 632 A.2d 562 (1993). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then

distinguished Panitz by categorizing the claim against the expert witness there as one which

attacked the "substance" of the expert's opinion whereas the claim in Wintoll as being premised

on the allegation that the expert was "negligen[t] in formulating [his] opinion." The court found

that public policy of encouraging accurate testimony by expert witnesses was better served by

making the witness liable for negligent preparation of testimony than by immunizing such

negligence. Expert witnesses have always been subject to prosecution for perjury for false

testimony. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has now expanded the liability of expert witnesses

to include negligence in the preparation of testimony. The Court made the distinction between

"substance" and "preparation" to avoid overruling the older ruling in Panitz.

53. "The law has been moving in the direction of holding friendly experts liable for

their professional errors for the past 10 or 15 years," says Andre Moenssens, a University of

Missouri-Kansas City law professor who writes and lectures frequently on expert witness

liability. "The courts are doing away with expert witness immunity."

Both Moenssens and Carol Henderson, the Nova Southeastern University law professor who

wrote what is believed to be the first law review article on expert witness malpractice in 1991,

see that trend as a positive development. "If expert witnesses can charge thousands of dollars for

their expertise and the expertise they render is faulty, they ought to be held accountable for

consequences of their acts," Moenssens says. According to Henderson, expert witnesses should


be treated like other professionals who have to contend with the possibility of getting sued if they

do something negligent.

54. U.S. Supreme Court, Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990), No. 87-1965,

(1990), 494 U.S. 113. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court against, inter alios…., the

court granted petitioners' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

relying on Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517, The Court of

Appeals reversed and remanded.

489 U.S. 1064 (1989) 494 U. S. 117,… For purposes of review of a Rule 12(b)(6)

dismissal, the factual allegations of Burch's complaint are taken as true…… We express no view

on the ultimate merits of Burch's claim; we hold only that his complaint was sufficient to state a

claim under § 1983 for violation of his procedural due process rights. “We express no view on

the ultimate merits of Burch's claim; we hold only that his complaint was sufficient to state a

claim under 1983 for violation of his procedural due process rights." The judgment of the Court

of Appeals is affirmed.

55. The State of Indiana took away Kay Kim, Pro Se’s lawful rights to self-

representation without a hearing thereby achieving the goal to put her in a mental institution

without a defense. “Process Clause" mandates that an individual be given an opportunity for a

hearing before he is deprived of any significant protected interest… Parham v. J.R., 442 U. S.

584, 442 U. S. 606-607 (1979).

56. The purpose of having mental expert witness(es) and mental laws is to protect the

“mentally ill” person(s) from wrongful prosecution and deprivation of their rights and not the

other way around. The Defendants Psychiatrist George Parker and Judge Judith Proffitt


conspired (conspiracy in character of agreement) violated the plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se’s

Constitutional rights as states herein in the original Complaint.

57. Dennis v. Sparks is a United States Supreme Court opinion about corruption in

Texas courts. The court held that those who are not judges, but conspire to corrupt the court, are

not protected by immunity.

One of proof of conspiracy to take my self-representation rights is that the Indiana

criminal court Judge Barbara Collins recused herself and yet, on January 14, 2009 pretrial

hearing taped session told me, “… You are going to either get a Public defender or a Private

Lawyer and not going to defend yourself… Case is complicated… Special Judge will … not let

you represent yourself…!” Indiana criminal court judge is not only a “Judge” but a “Psychic

Judge!”

58. Turner v. Upton County, Texas, 915 F.2d 133, 137-38, (5th Cir. 1990), …..while

not a judicial immunity case, is an immunity case from West Texas in which conspirators do not

obtain immunity by conspiring with someone who had immunity. All parties to an alleged

section 1983 conspiracy need not be state actors or charged in the same capacities for liability to

attach to all -- even if one of the coconspirators is absolutely immune from liability for his own

actions as a participant. When the official representing the ultimate repository of law

enforcement power in the county makes a deliberate decision to abuse that power to the

detriment of its citizens, county liability under Section 1983 must attach, provided that the other

prerequisites for finding liability under that section are satisfied. The district court erred in

absolving the county of Section 1983 liability.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se urges this Court not to adopt the absolute

immunity doctrine for the expert witness(es), court appointed expert witnesses and the judges to

further insures judicial integrity of the process. A “perfect” doctrine does not exist. The

Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se strongly believes that this court will better serve the its own peoples’

Constitutional rights in the long run and insure a fair due process for the individual(s) by not

adopting the absolute immunity doctrine. A merit(s) of the suit should triumph over any

doctrine. Absolute immunity and “absolute” of any and all things/doctrine/power, etc., will be

corrupted with time. No profession(s) or person(s) in power should have “Absolute” immunity

under any circumstances.

FURTHER, the Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se prays that this court reverses its own ruling

for the dismissal docketed 23 of the Defendant, Indiana University and docketed 24 of the

Defendant, Psychiatrist George F. Parker and Grant Final Order of Judgment for the Plaintiff as

stated herein and the original Complaint against the Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 9, 2009 ____________________Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff4250 Village Pkwy c e apt. 2Indianapolis., IN 46254, Ph# 317-641-5977e-mail: [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing to the counsels were sent by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid no later than September 12, 2009.

n/a: Robert G. Weddle & Elizabeth A. Schuerman (Attornies for G.F.Parker, M.D.)TABBERT HAHN EARNEST & WEDDLE, LLPOne Indiana Square, suite 1900Indianapolis, IN 46204-2032telephone: 317-639-5444facsimile: 317-639-5232 em: [email protected], [email protected]

n/a: David J. Mallon, Jr. & Jennifer M. Johnson (Attornies for Indiana University)ICE MILLER LLPOne American Square, Suite 3100 & 2900Indianapolis, IN 46282-0200t317-236-2100em: [email protected]

Corinne GilchristDeputy Attorney GeneralOffice of the Indiana Attorney GeneralIndiana Government Cetner South, 5th Floor302 W. Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-2770tel: 317-234-2237fax: 317-232-7979em: [email protected]

____________________Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff4250 Village Pkwy c e apt. 2Indianapolis., IN 46254, Ph# 317-641-5977e-mail: [email protected] from

federal civil rights suits dates only from the1967 Supreme Court decision in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), which found aMississippijustice ofthe peace immune from a civil rights suit when he triedto enforce






Sept 9, 2009: Deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss & Grant the FOJ*in Favor for the Plaintiff 9-9-2009

Documents

Transcript of Sept 9, 2009: Deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss & Grant the FOJ*in Favor for the Plaintiff 9-9-2009