Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 56

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Kay Kim,
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
VEC HOA (Village at Eagle Creek ) Cause No. 1:08-cv-1644-SEB-DML
Home Owner’s Association) )
Judge Theodore M Sosin, the Court Staff & )
Commissioner Richard Gilroy )
Northwest District Prosecutor(s) )
Officers Melvin Clayton & his Partner )
Officer Ryan J. Romeril )
State of Indiana Attorney General, et al. )
Defendants. )

DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND


GRANT SUMMARY AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AS A FINAL ORDER FOR THE PLAINTIFF

I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se filed my Motion For Summary Judgment and Deny of

Defendants’ Motion to dismiss on this 26th day of June, 2009 against named and unnamed

defendants as follows and not limited to:

I. PLAITIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS.

1. Defendants: all named & unnamed. (See./Ref. caption and CMP-docket #120)

State of IN Attorney General/AG counsel, Kathy Bradley, NW dist prosecutor(s), Criminal Court

Judge(s), Judge Theodore M. Sosin & his staff and Commissioner Richard Gilroy, IMPD NW

Dist Supervisor, IMPD Lt/VEC Security Guard James Waters, IMPD W0036 Gregory Wilkes,

IMPD F227 Shawn Smith, IMPD F254 Robert Lowe, Officer Melvin Clayton & his partner,

VEC HOA, 4250 unit#3 Patricia Landenthin, unit#4 Linda Handlon & Rhonda Heath, unit#5

Susan Sclipsea & Charles Ritter, unit#8Mae Vera & Scott Perry.

Unnamed Defendants are as follows and not limited to:

Page 1 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
1(a) Dr. George Parker, Dr. Olive, etc.

1(b) VECHOA Board of Directors: Kim Timmis, Bryan Whitfield, etc.

2. Defendants, unit #3, #4, #5, #8 and Rhonda Heath answers by counsel, James A.

Edgar filed on May 28, 2009 are no different from the 1st answer already denied by the Court.

The only difference from the 1st motion to dismiss is multi lines are added and two extra words,

“admit nor….”. ----- I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim deny whatever the Defendants are denying. (Though

#5 Charles Ritter & Susan Sclipsea claimed to be Pro Se, I have included them in the

“Defendants 2” not only for convenience but because of their role(s) in the conspiracy. Besides

that it appeals that their filings were done by the same counsel, James A. Edgar.

Named “Defendants 2” reside in the VEC building 4250 :

2(a) #3: Patricia Ladenthin

2(b) #4: Linda Handlon and Rhonda Heath

2(c) #5: Charles Ritter and Susan Sclipsea

2(d) #8: Mae Vera & Scott Perry

3. Defendants, IMPD Officers represented by City counsel, Nicole R. Kelsey filed

motion to dismiss this lawsuit literally one sentence, “Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to

establish any of the claims against these defendants…” ----- I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim deny whatever

Defendants are denying.

Named “Defendants 3” are as follows and not limited to:

3(a) IMPD Lt/VEC Security Guard James Waters,

3(b) IMPD W0036 Gregory Wilkes,

3(c) IMPD F227 Shawn Smith, IMPD F254 Robert Lowe

3(d) Officer Melvin Clayton & his partner,

4. “Defendants” refer to everyone mentioned in ¶1, ¶2 and ¶3; unless

specified otherwise. (ref CMP-docketed 120)


Page 2 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
“Defendants 2” refer to everyone mentioned only in ¶2 unless specified

otherwise.

“Defendants 3” refer to everyone mentioned only in ¶3 unless specified

otherwise.

5. Defendants in¶4, are the Conspirators in Character of the Agreement with

“Criminal Intent”. Plaintiff, Kay Kim’s Civil and Housing Rightswere violated. Defendants

acted under Color of Law. I was charged and arrested four times for “criminal” misdemeanors

while on hercommon and real property. She was also charged for trespassing in the Marion City

County Building. In all five cases, there were no probable causes and no warrants. The arrests

and time spent in jail have given me severe mental stress and physical hardship. The bonds, court

filings/Pro Se and court appearances have been a great financial burden for my family.

5(a) Conspiracy in Character of the Agreement: “No written, formal, or

definite agreement is necessary to make a conspiracy. It is enough

if there is a meeting of the minds-a mutual, implied understanding of all

parties working together with a single design. The crime of conspiracy

may be committed whether or not the parties understand its entire

scope, whether or not the parties are known to each other- as long

as their actions lead to the same unlawful deed. The law does not

set a particular length of time that the combination has to be formed before

the unlawful deed. A time need not be set for the completion of the

design. The agreement may result from hours of planning or may arise

on the spur of the moment. (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241: Conspiracy

Against Rights, etc)

Page 3 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
5(b) Color of Law: Willfully to deprive and conspire to deprive the

Plaintiff’s of rights protected by the United States Constitution,

False arrest and fabrication of evidence, Excessive force, deprivation of

right of enjoyment of property, Failure & Neglect to prevent

repeated violation of the Plaintiff’s rights and due process. (Title 18,

U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, etc)

5(c) Criminal intent: “Corrupt motive or specific criminal

intent to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful

manner. A dual mental state: the intent of the parties to act together

and the intent to commit the unlawful act. The fact that the motive of a

person was not corrupt when he/she joined a conspiracy does not

agree him/her from guilt if he/she remains a member after learning of its

illegality.

6. Defendants by counsels filed motion to dismiss on grounds of insufficient

information(s) and facts and therefore deny the charges. The same Defendants have signed on the

probable cause affidavits causing the plaintiff to be arrested. Deprived Plaintiff’s equal rights of

enjoyment with dignity in real and personal property. Defendants’ are admitting to the Plaintiff’s

allegations in docketed 1, 17, 18, 19, 120, etc., by denying own actions-“don’t know, insufficient

facts, admit or denying….” caused this lawsuit. Plaintiff reiterates that the Defendants are in a

conspiracy to inflict criminal tort and they are liable civil restitution to the Plaintiff at the least.

Plaintiff deserved to have relief for the mental, physical and financial burden inflicted on her as

request for relief in docketed original Complaint-docketed 1 and

CMP-docketed 120.

Page 4 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
7. 2005, 2006 and 2007 misdemeanor cases are stillpending and not yet disposed.

2008 case is ignored by the Indiana Criminal court. Plaintiff have 2 years from the date of

diposal of the cases to bring to Federal court to demand civil liable monetary damages for actual,

punitive and all other relief and the clock has not stated.

2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 cases are conspired among IMPD Lt./condo Security

Guard James Waters and his cronies, VEC HOA Boards-Kim Timmis, Bryan Whitfield, etc.,

James A. Edgars’ Defendants over and over again violating the Plaintiff’s Housing and Civil

Rights in Condo Common and Personal Property and city county building.

Plaintiff was arrested and transported directly mental hospital. Police were using

immediate detention only to justify own wrongful arrest and they know it. Even if I was “crazy

and mental” that’s not a crime. There was no life treating situation for myself or anyone else

which meets the standard of Indiana Law under immediate detention. Immediate detention to

Mental transportation was used to phishing that I might be using a drug just because told by

IMPD James Water. I was forced to take the drug test for because IMPD James Waters. I was

cleared in all occasions.

The Plaintiff was jailed, physically injured, humiliated repeatedly because of the

Defendants lies and accusations without a shred of evidence. The Defendants conspired with the

Police to intimidate the Plaintiff so that she has to move out of my condo. The Defendants also

destroyed and obstructed the discovery of evidences. The Plaintiff maintained that the

Defendants and the Police lied for phishing so that she can be arrested and force to take

substance abuse test-blood and urine in the mental hospital.

On that note:

Page 5 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
7(a) James A. Edgar never filed appearance with the court representing VEC

HOA and Judge Sosin and filed in his brief this Court to dismiss

these cases is unacceptable.

7(b) Judge Sarah Evans Barker screw me on my first federal case;1:05-cv-1616

and left me to defend myself which causes all this. Judge Barker failed to

protect during and posing the case. And yet, again, this Court is

engaging conspiracy to protect everybody but me and to shut down

my conspiracy claim by first order of business was to dismiss #5

Charles Ritter and Susan Sclipsea before the discovery, interrogatories, etc. is

made and before my due date June 26, 2009 to respond.

7(c) Plaintiff never filea summary judgment. James A. Edgar and other

defense counsels filed summary judgment. They are the first

moving party. As a moving party, they did not present any

evidences and material related facts. Defendants answered in one

sentence to the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Case Management, and

Supplement Complaint in one simplest from, “…. deny, don’t’ know, therefore admit or deny. ….

”, therefore, Defendants want the court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s

lawsuit in its entirety.

7(d) James A. Edgar, Nicole Kelsey, Kathy Bradley’s “Answer” & “motion to

dismiss” are insufficient, no facts, no evidentiary materials

submitted by the parties. There are many genuine issues of material facts

remain. Therefore, Plaintiff pray that the Court to Deny Defendants’

motion to dismiss.

Page 6 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
8. The Defendants literally “hang” me at the stake. The State of Indiana and police

are supposed to be the “good guy”. They should play fair and operate strictly under the “rules of

law/engagement.” Somehow the “Rules of law/engagement” do not apply to the Plaintiff’s case.

8(a) Defense counsel, James A. Edgar referred my first federal case,

1:05-cv-1616-SEB-JMS as a (pph) frivolous. He should get his facts

straight. I got screwed by the Courton the case. The honorable

judge, Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Jane Magnis-Stinson

dismissed thecase with prejudice. Encouraged by the rulings of the

court, the Defendants continued to repeatedly harass and arrest me

over the next four years. The Plaintiff is left alone to defend herself against

the Defendants malice to this day and counting.

8(b) Indiana Superior criminal court judges refused to hear all my cases.

A second time, Indiana Supreme court appointed special judge

Cause No. 49S00-0811-SJ-599. (Unlisted Exhibit will not be attached

at this time.) The Special Judge refused to dismiss three of my criminal

cases although the Statue of Limitations ran out two to three years

ago. As a result the Plaintiff’s life has become a living “hell”.

9. Isn’t Plaintiff’s Complaint just to initiate the lawsuit with a concise/simple form

which includes the “request for relief”? After Complaint has been established and Answered by

the Defendants, all parties should be allowed to engage freely in the discovery and interrogatory

process before a &/or final ruling. I have not even got the “answer” from the Defendants and

held the pretrial conference. This Court had separate meeting with all Defendants &/or by

counsels without me just before the pretrial conference, why so secretive?

Page 7 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
10. The Defendants answers were literally none. Judge order to stay of all filings.

On the day of pretrial conference, Mag Judge Lynch partially lifted to file answer and motion to

dismissby Defendants. Plaintiff was not allowed to file summary judgment. Mag Judge Lynch

told the Defendants-State AG, “…Oh, you’re ok.”, Counsel, James A. Edgar, “…file Motion to

Dismiss …” – Mag. Judge repeated numerous time throughoutpretrial. I got the picture what’s

going on. Plaintiff asked permission to file summary judgment against #5 Charles Ritter and

Susan Sclipsea since they told the court that they are not filing new motion to dismiss. I was told

by the Mag Judge Lynch, “No.”. Judge Sarah Evans Barker dismissed #5 Charles Ritter, Susan

Sclipsea and State Attorney General while I’m preparing this filing. My filing is unintelligent

and rambling but not stupid enough to not to know what the Mag Judge was saying at the pretrial

conference to the Defendants.

11. Plaintiff hereby nominates filed Charles Chuang’s Affidavits-docketed 17, #18 & #19

as Designation of Evidence Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).

12. James A. Edgar’s brief supported his own motion by calling my filing “shotgun”,

“rambling”, and claiming without evidence that the Plaintiff is {paraphrase (pph)} a 4 times

Indiana criminal, 1 looser federal lawsuit (1:05-cv-1616), current federal lawsuit and more

lawsuit in the small claims court thereby by in his words, “…Kay Kim needs to be tamper…

etc.” Just because her 1st federal case was dismissed by SEB and JMS the defendants cannot be

assumed to be innocent or the Plaintiff to be wrong. It is a judgment call and the Plaintiff

maintained that she was screwed by SEB and JMS on case 1:05-cv-1616 period.”

12(a) It is very unprofessional for any bar member to brand me a four time

Indiana criminals when all my cases are still in the Indiana Criminal

Court. Defense counsel, James A. Edgar again convicted me in his brief

that I have a case in the Marion County Pike Township Small Claims

Page 8 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Court without stating any details, facts and evidence(s) to support his

judgment and blunt conviction of any ongoing cases of a court.

12(b) Defense counsel, James A. Edgar did not present any evidence to prove

that the defendants have nothing to do with my allegations. Instead Mr.

Edgar opts to sway the Court with unsupported lies and conveniently

asked the Court to dismiss the case without presenting any new evidence

or disagreements to the allegations.

12(c) Mr. Edgar’s defendants are directly involved in 3 of my criminal cases,

2 of my federal cases and 1 State civil case. The Plaintiff maintained that

all the charges against the defendants are true and she is innocent until

convicted and asked the Court to stop Mr. Edgar from further ranting and

false accusations against the Plaintiff, Kay Kim. The Plaintiff treats

counsels with respect and expects the same treatment from them.

12(d) Mr. Edgar’s comments about my poor financial status and he wanted in

his writings that any judgment I get from the Marion county Pike

Township Small Claims lawsuit should be used to compensate him.

I, Kay Kim demand that the Court to set the same standard for him,

his Defendants and all other Defendants.

13. In James A. Edgar’s brief; he convicted the Plaintiff all by himself when the

Defendants, Judges, Prosecutors and IMPD-Police could not do for the last 10 years. He asked

this Court to “…tamper Kay Kim” for his lawyer fees from the possible judgment of the Small

Claims Court {(pph) paraphrases}. The Plaintiff demands payment for her work in the case to be

equivalent to lawyer’s fee as defined by the law. Since the Plaintiff has to do the equivalent

work and filings as the Defendants 5 counsels her fees should consummate accordingly.

Page 9 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
13(a) The criminal courts deliberately avoid bring all the cases into trial

against the Plaintiff because the Defendants were lying and there is

insufficient evidence. If there is any credible evidence exist the

Plaintiff the court would have The Plaintiff to jail long time ago.

This further shows that the Defendants are the guilty parties with

conspiracy against the Plaintiff.

14. I don’t disagree with Defense counsel, James A. Edgar and anyone who tells me

that my writing is “unintelligent” and I am “rambling” for that matter. I don’t know how to write

even in my own native language. I never finished reading a book except a few cartoon books. I

am sorry I do not spend the same amount of time counsels had in school to come out with filings

and motions which are just as “unintelligent, rambling and ranting!” The Plaintiff does not

intend to get justice with her intelligence, education, knowledge, social connection, etc., but only

with the truth and nothing but the truth. I pray that the Court will rule based on the facts of the

case and decide whether any laws has been broken or any tort done but not on her writings

ability. Fortunately the US Constitutions did not specify that only intelligent writings can get

justice.

15. The Plaintiff never claims to be educated and she only has 9th grade of formal

education from another planet. English is her second language. The Plaintiff in her Pro Se

capacity has to make extra effort to speak, write and research for the case. Furthermore she is

handicapped and it is physically hard for her to keep up with case. She also has to endure the

physical pain. If she can afford to pay she would have retain her own counsel. The behavior

(physical & verbal) of individual(s) who degrade me because they are seeking self gratification

to conceal their own insecurity and lack of intelligence. To hide from the truth is a typical

character flaw which cover up their own guilt(s) and embarrassment of their denial of own

Page 10 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
illusions. When one cannot reconcile the right and the wrong, the thought process seeksthe truth

and reality is lost.

16. Defense counsel, James A. Edgar used “Authority” to justify his motion to

dismiss and accuse/convict me as a “whatever” without any evidence(s) submits to the court

telling me that he has the intelligence and skill to bring a stonefrom the stone age era to a

“Stainless Steel” tribal counsel meeting. What an achievement! and a “Hybrid”!

16(a) Defense counsel James A. Edgar, Defendants and defense Counsels are

toying with “12b6” and “Authorities” to justify conspiracies

against me try and have the case dismissed on technicality. The Plaintiff will not

even name a stray rat “12b6”.

16(b) In a recent news clip, US Supreme court nominee, Sotomayor used a 18th

century gun law/2nd Amendment to up held the State’s right instead

of a more recent 2008/2009 US Supreme Court’s Ruling to grant

Constitutional rights to an individual.

16(c) The Plaintiff firmly believes that the “Law” and the “Rule” are the vessels

to carry out justice and not to be abused and quoted to disguise the truth.

“Authorities” is not the “Law”, “Rule”, and “Evidence”. It should

only be treated as an adaptation to justify one’s definition and

interpretations of the law in other similar cases.

17. The Defense counsel, James A. Edgar’s remarks such as “shotgun” lawsuit and

“poor woman filing” are uncalled for. Even if the Plaintiff had to file separate lawsuits, they

would be still have to be consolidated for economic reasons and simplified accordingly to

therule.

Page 11 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
17(a) One exampleof her justifiable “shotgun” lawsuit is her lawsuit against

Indiana Circuit Court Judge Sosin, clerks and Commissioner Richard

Gilroy is within the Statue of Limitation. As the case has not yet been

disposed the Plaintiff will try her best to address each case separately

(see , III-¶42 to , ¶46). All cases are intertwined and borne by the

conspiracy of the Defendants.

17(b) Even if I, file all separately for each lawsuit, it would be hard not

mention intertwinednature of causes and effects.

18. For James A. Edgar’s information, on my first federal court case 1:05-cv-1616-

SEB-JMS was based on State of Indiana vs. Kay Kim. Charges of misdemeanor criminal

trespassing & RA in real property havebeen dismissed in this Court but still ongoing in Indiana

Criminal Court.

18(a) Everyone including 4250#4 Linda Handlon, #4Patricia Ladenthin called

me “crazy”. No discovery-interrogatory was done. This Court had ignored

the fact altogether.

18(b) Defendants VEC Property Manager, Sharon Overley and James Waters

were dismissed. As a result IMPD James Water got promoted from Sgt. to

Lt.

18(c) IMPD Lt./VEC Security Guard James Waters and Property Manager,

Sharon Overley is still tightly intertwined financially and with the

current

VEC Board of Directors, Kim Timmis and Bryan Whitfield, Some of

them do not pay the association fees and continue to embezzle association

funds to this day. When the Plaintiff excises her rights to complaint and

Page 12 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
investigates she gets arrested by the cronies of IMPD/Lt. James Waters

with the conspiracy of Defendants 2, VECHOA Boards and Property

Manager. VEC HOA have over 210 units. Since 1999 to this day, I, Kay

Kim is the only arrested numerous times in the common and personal

property because neighbors, IMPD/VEC Security GUARD James Waters,

VEC property managers and VEC HOA Boards labeled/accused as a

crazy, drug addict. I never did drug, drink and smoke to this day. I never

ever attend any rally/demostration for any cause, period. IMPD James

Waters and his cronies accused me as a “drug” addict. Only way to prove

their accusations, they used immediate detention to send me to menal

hospital and force for me to take the test. They thought, they got me for

good. But, they failed again.

18(d) Even though, I did not excise my rights since 1999, the Defendants still

try to get rid of me and my family. The Defendants would like to make an

example out of me whatever the reason. VEC HOA Boards make sure

that anyone wants to remain in their pay roll must make my life hell to

stay that way. That’s the one of the motive for IMPD Lt. as a VEC

Security Gurand James Waters instigate and conspired with others for me

to get arrest. Fortunately for the VEC HOA Boards and property manager,

they have first line of foot soldier: #4 Linda Handlon –She is racist and

bully, #3 Patricia Ladenthin-She is racist, bully and her motive was not to

pay associaiton fee, #8 Mae Vera and Scott Perry-Bully and to join the #3,

#4 and #5 gang, #5 Charels Ritter and Susan Sclipsea are the base for the

gang and she might not have paid association fees for many years.

Page 13 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
18(e) I, Plaintiff is not claiming against their embezzlements but to illustrate

their corrupt characters for conspiracy in character of agreement

against/use me as a “wag the dog” scheme to divert entire HOA attention

from their own despicable criminal acts.)

18(f) In VEC HOA ByLaw, to prevent embezzlements by the boards and

manager(s), there are rules and procedures in place. VEC HOA Boards

and property manager are above the bylaw and their illegal activities are

protected by the IMPD police and grand jury prosecutors. VEC HOA

ByLaw allow one owner to take class action suit against the HOA Boards

and Property manager for the condo. Each and every election of the

Boards are rigged. Thye excuse/wave all their cronies’ association fees. I

get arrested because I’m not white. I did not attend the association

meeting since 1999 and yet I still get arrested.

18(g) Defense counsel, James A. Edgar is correct when he says that I still have 4

Indiana criminal cases pending. Out of the 4 ongoing criminal cases,

Indiana Criminal Court Special Judge set a jury trial on July 30, 2009 for

the Judge Sosin’s case (Year 2006)/Trespassing in the City County

Building. The plaintiff cannot see the Special Judge logic of not choosing

the earliest or the latest of the 4 cases. She questioned the Special Judge’s

intention for choosing the 2006 case out of chorological sequence and

asked if the Judge was trying to influence herfederal suit. She ordered the

clerk on the spot to prepare for another mental evaluation. Although I

may not have the desirable manner and style, I am not lacking in

substance. She could have given me a fair warning to stop and/or charge

Page 14 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
the Plaintiff with the contempt of court. The Special Judge did not set the

jury trial for the November 6, 2008 arrest which has the more serious

felony and misdemeanor charges. (Battery with bodily fluid, battery, RA

with 3 signed State’s witnesses.) The Plaintiff cannot understand the logic

and intention of the honorable Judge’s decision. She also refused to

dismiss the other 3 criminal cases which have exceeded the statute of

limitation as per Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Order. (Ref. Order

from the Indiana Supreme Court no. 49S00-0702-SJ-62 dated 2nd day of

March, 2007.) Unless the State of Indiana passed a special law in a

special legislative session just so that the Plaintiff would have no Statute

of Limitation on all her misdemeanor cases, the State of Indiana should

have disposed all the cases according to the Statue. The Plaintiff would

not have to pay any bond and be released from jail on O/R for the

November 6, 2008 arrest if the Court has duly dismissed her cases. Instead

the Plaintiff had to spend three more days in jail and pay a $15,000

Bond.

18(h) Furthermore all my cases came back alive after staying “dormant” for

three years. The Judge, Special Judge and prosecutor blame the Plaintiff

for the delay of trials. When the cases were set for hearing I subpoenaed

all her witnesses but the court postponed the trail twice. The Indiana

Court then asked the Supreme Court to appoint a Special Judge and the

Plaintiff did not hear from the court since. The Court claimed that all the

time delayed is counting towards her clock but not against the State of

Indiana over a matter which she has no control whatsoever. The Plaintiff

Page 15 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
did not flee the country, and hasnever filed a motion for extension or

enlargement of time. I have never missed any scheduled court hearing. So

how can I be charged for the four years delay.

18(i) Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se request for relief as it is in the form of

monetary compensation for actual and punitive damages as it is

detailed in CMP-docket #120, Complaint-docket #1, and other

proper relief as the Court sees fit pursuant to FRCP R 68 the amount or

extent of the liability remains to be determined in further proceedings.

18(j) The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 provides that one

who prevails in a section 1983 action is entitled to recover

attorney’s fees. There is little doubt that the addition of this attorney’s fee

provision fueled the growth in the number of section 1983 cases that have

been filed because it has been held that prevailing plaintiff’s are

entitled to recover attorney’s fees unless special circumstances would

render such an award unjust, while a prevailing defendant may be

awarded attorney’s fees only “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action

was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even thought not

brought in subjective bad faith. “The different standards derive from

42 U.S.C. §1988’s generally pro- plaintiff and pro-civil rights

orientation and protects the defendant only from groundless litigation.

Plaintiff, Kay Kim demands own attorney fee if the court finds the

merits of Plaintiff’s this lawsuit pursuant to Title VI of the CRA 1964, sec

1983, 1988 or sec 13981 equivalent to attorney’s Hensley v. Eckerhar,

Page 16 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983), Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985),

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978).

19. This paragraph is dedicated specifically to IMPD Lt./VEC Security Guard James

Waters. Since IMPD James Waters became the Security Guard for the VEC in year 2002, he had

literally advanced his career in IMPD at the Plaintiff expense. Plaintiff was arrested and

transported directly mental hospital. Police were using immediate detention only to justify own

wrongful arrest and they know it. Even if I was “crazy and mental” that’s not a crime. There

was no life treating situation for myself oranyone else which meets the standard of Indiana Law

under immediate detention. Immediate detention to Mental transportation was used to

phishingthat I might be using a drug just because told by IMPD James Water. I was forced to

take the drug test for because IMPD James Waters’ accusations illegally.

19(a) In my Complaint-docket#1 ¶20, “On 6th day of March 2008; around 1430

hours, Lt. James Waters burned his police car engine to intimidate and

harass the Plaintiff as she was going into herbuilding-4250. Lt. James

Waters had a smirk on his face. The Plaintiff knew instinctively that she

has to brace herself…... The Plaintiff was wondering why IMPD James

Waters and his cronies, VECHOA Board and the neighbors in Building

#4250 were intensifying their hostilities to her in March 2008. As this suit

is going forward the Plaintiff found the answer to her own question a

couple of months ago in 2009.

19(b) The Statue of limitation on all the 3 criminal cases’ which year is 2005,

2006 and 2007 ran out at the latest on March 2, 2008 as per “Order of

appointment of Special Judge” dated 2nd day of March, 2007 from the

Indiana Supreme Court no. 49S00-0702-SJ-62 (The Plaintiff just want the

Page 17 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Court to note the Date of the Order and the Plaintiff did not know that

Supreme Court Order existed until this year 2009..) James Waters’

feeling is hurt when the Plaintiff did not get convicted for the three

previous arrests and he conspire with others and have me arrested in

November 6, 2008. No cops with right mind of state will arrest me on last

year 2008. His conspiracy will not stop and will get only worse depend

onoutcome of this lawsuit. In this Court, left me to defend myself last

time by dismissing my first lawsuit which situation worse is the proof. On

last March 6, 2008 incident-¶19(a)initiated by him was the subtle way to

show/tell me that he will not stop his harassment and intimidations by

more arrest of me which he did on Last arrest Nov 6, ‘08. How lucky I’m

that I get arrest once a year. If that is not the pattern and practice, I don’t

know what that could be. There are so many heartaches, degrading,

ridicules, etc., along the way by the Defendants that I had/have to endure

becauseone vs. Village, Indiana State and Federal. He is

empowered/anointed by the VEC HOA Boards, the Property managers,

especially building 4250 owners/residents to make me move out by any

means all for that matter dismissed my first lawsuit-1:05-cv-1616 by this

Court. I will suffer whoever I move/go live anywhere in the U.S. If I

(we) move out, this will only get worse because IMPD James Waters’

determinations to use me as to build his network/power to further his

career as he was/is doing.

19(c) The Court did not provide the Plaintiff with a copy of the Supreme Court

Orders and I, Kay Kim ran into by chance. IMPD James Waters

Page 18 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
was in close tap on my all case(s) because he was the mastermind behind

all the arrests and plan next attack.

19(d) Whenever the statute of limitation is any of her case is about to expire he

stirs up a new scheme and conspires with Defendants 2 & 3, his cronies in

IMPD, VECHOA Boards, Property Managers, Building 4250 Defendants

#3, #4,#5, #8, to get herarrested. He has to appease the VECHOA Board

and VEC residents of building 4250 if he intends to keep his VEC

Security Guard job which provided him a condominium unit free of

charge for the last 8 years. As a result the Plaintiff gets arrested on her

own property without probable cause on an average once a year. The

Plaintiff is not allowed to excise her rights as an owner of the condo unit.

19(e) There was a period of about 3 years between IMPD James Waters first

citation in 2002 against the Plaintiff in the VEC property parking lot for a

non-moving violation and her first arrest in year 2005 when he did not

bother her. The reason for the peace was that James Waters and the

VECHOA Board were too busy having sex with the property manager-

Sara Wilson who embezzled about $300,000- $500,000. They do not have

time to entertain #3, #4, #5’s discrimination. #8 Mae Vera and Scott Perry

did not move into VEC until the 2005 arrest.

19(f) When VECHOA Boards did not stop #3 Patricia Ladenthin and #8 Scott

Perry from harassing me in the common area the Plaintiff asked to have

the financial report from VEC Treasurer Bryan Whitfiled. He said, “….

Did you ask financial report when Sara Wilson was the property

Page 19 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
manager?” When the Plaintiff answered “no” he said “Then why are you

asking now?”

19(g) IMPD Lt. /VEC Security guard James Waters is directly and indirectly

involved in all my criminal and civil cases except the City County

Building Case. His involvements in all the cases can be proved beyond

doubts. All The Plaintiff need is an Order from this court or Indiana

Criminal Court to compel MCS Communications Department to produce

CAD/Event Detail History of transcripts for all the incidents on the day of

arrests.

19(h) City County Building ¶42-46 incident/arrest could have been prevented.

There was a chain of events starting with IMPD/VEC Security Guard

James Waters intentionally did not want to stop the 4250 #6 residents for

letting their dog to urinate and excreteon the balcony. IMPD James

Waters, VECHOA Boards, Property manager-Sharon Overley (Defendant

of 1:05-cv-1616) and #3 Patricia L, #4 Linda Handlon of building 4250

were all elated when 4250#6 Karen Herring was making my life hell.

Then 4250 #6 Karen Herring had a toilet overflow causing damages to my

unit. The Plaintiff filed for relief to her damages in the civil court. The

State Civil Court dismissed the case under 12b6 even though the Plaintiff

had claimed and itemized the cost of the damages down to penny and she

also had acourt filing and letter from the Defendant admitting guilt. The

defendants in this case learned the trick and want this Court to dismiss the

case under 12b6 too. When the lawsuit was dismissed, there was

community celebration in the VEC. IMPD James Waters and #5 Susan

Page 20 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Sclipsea knew about the dismissal even before the Plaintiff return home

from the State civil court. 4250 #6 Karen Herring moved out of VEC in

2006. The new owner/resident of #6 Shannon & Kyle Love decided to

move/sell their unit 3 years later. Before they move out they flooded my

unit with toilet water for 3 days. When the Plaintiff buzzed the unit#6 to

get insurance information from Shannon & Kyle Love, he threatened to

call the police and have them arrest her for harassment. He called the

Police but she was not arrested. They assumed that they can get away like

the others. They wanted to use the police to intimidate her. It only can

happen over and over again, because I’m not white. So the Plaintiff

claimed for relief in the Small Claims Court. The Judge started to give

advice to the defendants before the trial as if it is the normal practice and

“fact finding” purpose. A Judge should never decide on a case until he

hears the facts from both parties. Small Claims Court Judge Douglas

didn’t care. He already decided how much damage was caused even

refused to accept Plaintiff’s exhibits for the damage. My first Toilet

Overflow experience, I (we) got about $30. to repaint. I noticed that a

couple of days later yellow color sips through from the bathroom ceiling.

I let other left to imagination what that might be. If they dilute the yellow

colored water to make looks clear water, it will make matter worse

because bigger areas will be contaminated with more serious damage. I

didn’t know what was the proper way to rectify the situationback then.

Anyway, the Judge asked the defendants to get State Farm Insurance to

give an appraisal for the damage repair. Small Claims Court Judge A.

Page 21 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Stephen Douglas, Court Clerks, and Defendants are as usual busy

networking to screw me up. Even Defense counsel, James A. Edgar is

involved to influence my casewhich I have no problem with it. It’s free

country. I knew that this suit of Defendants 2 in ¶4, and even, IMPD

James Waters, etc., gang up to influence in even my Small Claims court

lawsuit. Well, I’m learning how the United States justice systems at work

and whatever. Furthermore counsel James A. Edgar wants the Federal

court to “….tamper..” me by convicting me on the 4 criminal cases

without any evidence so that he can share any judgment the Plaintiff may

get from the Small Claims Court. The Plaintiff has to inform him

regrettably that James Edgar may have to wait for a very long time

because this case may be heading to a higher court and thereafter to meet

worse corruptors-Judge Sosin and the staff. This case shows that the

residents/owners of building 4250 are doing the same thing to the Plaintiff

over and over again. This is because they have the blessings of IMPD

Lt./VEC Security Guard James Waters & VECHOA Boards, Property

Manager(s), residents/owners of building 4250 to conspire against the

Plaintiff. Obviously after the sale of the unit they will tell the new owner

her stories and how the police and all levels of courts screwed her over

the years. It is their rights to talk whatever they want and the Plaintiff has

no problem as long as they don’t become a copy cat. Unfortunately most

people become a copy cat and react and repeat the criminal acts against

the Plaintiff. All the malice and criminal acts do not break the Plaintiff

they only make her stronger. The Plaintiff finds some comfort in God and

Page 22 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
that he did not create all human beings equal. This is my short answer to

Defense counsel, James A. Edgar’s brief, “….tamper… “and whatever.

19(i) VEC Security Guard/IMPD Lt James Waters cover up for the unit #6 to his

own delight and to further appease the VECHOA Boards, Property

Managers, and Building 4250 residents/owners. James Waters would like

to keep the security job in VEC permanently. Lt James Waters is using

his cronies and other police under him to continue to arrest me

until the Plaintiff moves out of herunit. All others (VECHOA Boards,

Defendants 2 in ¶4) are conspirators to support the James Waters mission. In

docket #1-Complaint, ¶31, his VEC security report dated June 26, 2008 is a

blatant example of James Waters showing off his power by mocking the

Plaintiff in his security report. Since the Dog and the Toilet Overflow

incidents in 2006 the Plaintiff does not talk to him. The Plaintiff gave up

asking him for help after the “dog excrement” incident was ignored. The

Plaintiff has never complained to him about managements and neighbors.

The Plaintiff cannot excise her rights as an owner of the unit because of

his police connections. On the day of her last arrest on Nov 6, 2008, there

was a scheduled VECHOA meeting which she had intended to attend.

James Waters conspired with the residents of Block 4250 including #5

Charles Ritter to get her arrested so that she cannot attend the meeting.

That is one of the reasons the Plaintiff suspects that #5 Susan Sclipsea and

Charles Ritter do not have to pay the association fee and they become foot

soldier of the VEC HOA Boards and property manager. There are many

people who have not been paying the association fees over the years.

Page 23 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Elections to the VECHOA Boards are rigged. Once they into the Board

they excuse their “friends” from paying the Association fees. As for the

Plaintiff she getsarrested.

19(j) James Waters got promoted from SGT to Lt. and became IMPD Master

detective and the “chair” for the Police Promotion Board at my expense.

As soon as this suit is over and dismissed, IMPD Lt. James Waters will

again send his cronies to harass the Plaintiff and make her life hell with

more arrests. He has been doing the same to the Plaintiff since he was

Sgt., and now as a Lt. and the Chair of the promotion Board he is

unstoppable and will continue to be the VECHOA Board’s hero to make

the Plaintiff life as miserable ashell. As a policeman in the anti vice

department James Waters is literally raping the hooker(s) in exchange of

non arrests and helping to run the prostitution ring all for that matter, he

might the ring leader with his rank. How in the world did he get promoted

when there are so many more good and honest policemen in IMPD?

IMPD Lt. James Waters is a “junky”. I found out that among his peers, he

is known as the “DOG”.

19(k) All civil matters. No criminal offence has been committed. IMPD James

Waters often employs “entrapment” tactic to catch the prostitutes. He

then, let other cops to arrest him/her for the prostitution. He used the

similar tactics against the Plaintiff. He told other cops by false accusation

about me and the situation; then, let other-lower rank cops to arrest me.

He always stay in the background, but out in the open, he contradicts own

words/acts pretend let others take the fault. My entire life, cops,

Page 24 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
prosecutors and the judges are the highest pyramidscheme of the liar.

Wow! all over the world people look up to the United States for corrupt

free government, police, and judicial system. All the arrest he involved

directly were in my own property under false accusations/witnesses and

no probable cause. As the IMPD Sgt.-Lt./VEC security officer, he can

make own arrest but never because he knows I did not break any laws and

he is familiar with the VEC bye-laws and yet he sent the Police to arrest

me even though no crimes occurred. Our first encounter of IMPD James

Waters was, he came “BANG” on my door with his right hand on the

“GUN” at 3 a.m. because my car parameter sensor chirp for a couple of

times. (Parameter sensor was turned on after 12 p.m. and only chirp for a

second when someone near as a warning. It’s not analarm.). It has low

decimal and one cannot possibly hear with inside of unit in a normal

setting. Even so, I could have turned off no problem if anyone complaint.

No need for him to behave like that. He wants to make sure that #4Linda

Handlon sees him an action that how he is side of “whites”. That first

encounter, IMPD Sgt. James Waters threatened me for arrest when I

complaint about his conduct the way he handling the situation. Treated

me like some hard core criminal for that. After about 10 hours later knock

on my unit door and gave us a non moving violation citation. We had to

go to the Court. That’s how this thing started. The case was dismissed by

the Environmental Court. Since then he has been using other people and

police to arrest me. It is my humble opinion that Lt. James Waters is at

best a “junkie and pimp”. During the last on November 6, 2008 the

Page 25 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
arresting Police inflicted unnecessary and excessive force on the Plaintiff

who suffered intense internal pain and bleeding for 2 months.

19(l) IMPD James Waters found out how and where the Plaintiff gets her

information in her first federal lawsuit and the criminal courts. He

then used his rank and connections to obstruct her discoveries for

hercases.

19(m) Even if the Court does not care or act on her “unintelligent rumblings”

someone must investigate Lt. James Waters for his involvements in all the

unlawful activities. People take care of their own kind. Judge for judges,

police for police, neighbors for neighbor, etc., and I’m a choppedliver.

So, I don’t expect much; especially, after he got promoted at my expense.

But, not only pay-monetarily to me but at the least, he should be

transferredout of the IMPD or stop working VEC Security Guard.

Because, I was told VEC HOA Boards not going to fire him and let this

Court decide. He should be fired or demoted from his job in IMPD.

Instead he got promoted from Sgt. to Lt. and became the chair of the

Police Promotion Board. He has much power and authority to promote

the police who harass, intimidate and arrest me. He building his

network/power at my expenses. The Plaintiff has seen him transporting

several hookers” in his squad car to and from his home. He can do

whatever he likes so long as it does not involve her. He should move to a

bigger community where he can make much more money and stop

intimidating. This court failed to protect me. Now, it seems conspiring

Page 26 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
with IMPD, Defense counsels and all Defendants in ¶4 to bury me for

good.

20. Because IMPD James Waters told other cops I might be on drug and “crazy”,

IMPD cops usesthat as a crutch to arrest me without probable cause. Not only that, entire State

of Indiana Criminal Justice System- Judges, Prosecutors, etc. labeled me as such and try their

best to send me to mental institutionordering repeated mental evaluations. State appointed

psycho doctors are paid by them and they know the rules of the game what kind of

answer/diagnose to come up with. Immediate detention to Mental transportation and other

agencies were used to phishingto get solid proof against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff reiterate and

reallege that the named and unnamed Defendants are involved in “Conspiracy in Character of the

Agreement” with “Criminal Intent” & under Color of Law against Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro. Se.

21. Over the years and up to this day, the Defendants called, slandered and labeled the

Plaintiff as “mental, “crazy” “liars” and “habitual criminal”. The Defendants can call the

Plaintiff whatever they like but repeated criminal incidents and slanders make them liable for

their malicious actions. Many unnamed supervisory Defendants intentionally neglectto stop the

calculated actions against the Plaintiff. The promotion of IMPD James Waters from Sgt. to Lt.

is the most outrageous of them all. It reflects the IMPD’s “Law Enforcement Standard”.

22. The Defendants should know more about the Plaintiff than those mentioned in

this suit and have more evidences against her. The incidents are not mere hear say and innocent

disagreements but criminal malice. Otherwise the lack of evidence and their denial of the

Plaintiff’s accusationsshows that the Defendants are lying by their own admissions.

22(a) I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se nominates Event History Detail for all the

arrests in my VEC real and common property as a Designation of

Evidence.

Page 27 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
22(b) I request that the Court Order to the Marion County Sheriff

Communication Department to producefor on the day of all arrests.

It will confirm what the role of IMPD Lt. James Waters’ role in the

arrested of the Plaintiff over and over again as I alleged.

I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se DEMAND the Court to issue an permanent injunction

with own motion against IMPD Lt. James Waters from me, my family and my property from

1, 000. yards in addition to CMP –docketed 120 monetarily and hold the VEC HOA Boards and

the IMPD to holds commensurate restitution/responsibilities against them as it was detailed in

CMP-docketed 120. They conspire intentionally neglected to protect me for reoccurring false

arrests and hardship. Character issue: Linda Handlon brings 3-5differrent male a week (vary by the wk to mo). With her & James
Waters’ life style, it is high probability of something something. Sharon Overley and JamesWaters’s similar value, it is high probability of
something-umumum. Also, Mr. Jaames A. Edgar knew Linda Handlon before he become her counsel, it is hight probablity of som’umm
som’umm…Did you? If ansewer is yew, she doen’t even have to pay you $.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DESIGNATION


OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS: IMPD GREGORY WILKES,
RHONDA HEATH, PATRICIA LADENTHIN, LINDA HANDLON, CHARLES
RITTER, SUSAN SCLIPSEA, IMPD JAMES WATERS, ETC., TO BE
AMENDED AS REQUESTED IN THE RELIEF DOCKETED 1-COMPLAINT.

23. Plaintiff, Kay Kim Pro Se responded and filed docketed57 as to Defendant’s

motion to dismiss. Further, I, Kay Kim, Pro Se reiterate that the named and unnamed

Defendants each pays actual damages and punitive damages as detailed in Plaintiff Kay Kim’s

CMP-docket 120.

24. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se nominates

as a designation of evidence which was filed under docket #18-Affidavit of Charles Chuang in

Page 28 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
support of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion Incident on November 6, 2008 as to ¶56-docketed 1:

Complaint and docketed 120: CMP in response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

25. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: I, Kay Kim, Pro Se was arrested

(Indiana Criminal Cause No 49F08-0811-CM-254608) under D Felony-Battery with bodily

waste, A misdemeanor-Battery andA misdemeanor-RA (Resisting Arrest) by IMPD W0036

Gregory Wilkes. IMPD Gregory Wilkes arrived at the VEC Building 4250 approximately a half

hour to one hour after the actual “argument”. Altercation took place inside the hallway of

building 4250 on the day I got arrested.

26. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: When IMPD W0036 G. Wilkes

arrived at Building 4250, only the Plaintiff and #5 Charles Ritter was at the parking lot. No one

involved in the earlier altercation waspresent. State’s witnesses: #3 Patricia Ladenthin, #4 Linda

Handlon and Rhonda Heath were inside unit #4 Linda Handlon’s condo. Due to numerous and

repeated vandalism to my property I was taking down a stranger’s car license plate number at the

parking lot.

27. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: IMPD Wilkes followed me into my

unit. He grabbed my unit door and forced it open. I told him to get out of my property unless he

has a warrant but he refused to leave claiming that he has a right to be in my unit because it is an

apartment. In a split seconds unit #4 door (which is on the same floor and directly opposite from

my unit #2) opened. All three State’s witnesses (Patricia Ladenthin, Linda Handlon & Rhonda

Heath) pointed at me and shouted out loud in unison: “She (Kay Kim) Hit me (Rhonda Heath)! I

Saw she (Kay Kim) Hit her (Rhonda Heath)! She (Kay Kim) Hit her (Kay Kim)! Bruise

everywhere!” At that instant IMPD Wilkes lifted my body in the air and slammed my body on

the floor. He then pushed his knee deep into my back and handcuffed me. I was in horrifying

Page 29 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
pain. All this time the Defendants were watching delightfully and enjoying my pain and

suffering.

28. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: There is insufficient probable cause.

IMPD Wilkes came into my unit with the intention to arrest me. He asked: “Did you call the

police?” How come he did not even know who call the police? The SOP (Standard

OperatingProcedure) specifies that he should know at least know who called the police. He

didn’t know because he was not dispatched under normal procedure but IMPD James Waters.

29. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: IMPD W0036 never collected any

evidence(s). In his Affidavits and State’s Witnesses accused/charged me that I battered Rhonda

Heath with bodily fluid. Where is the evidence? The reason there was no evidence was because

there was no bodily waste fluid on the victim that can be collected. DNA on the bodily fluid will

proof beyond doubt on the complaint. There was no photo on the victim’s injury because there

was none. Everyone present has cellular phones but no one bother to capture the most important

evidence. All the Defendants are in a conspiracy to get me arrested by the Police.

30. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: the Plaintiff was handcuffed and

hadto sit on the bare hot ground at the parking lot for more than an hour until the Sheriff wagon

to transport me away. While I was on the parking lot I did not see the victim Rhonda Heath

leaving the condo of #4 Linda Handlin’sunit and the E.T or anyone else coming to take photo

and collect any physical evidence. Affidavit of Charles Chuang docket #18 on November 6, 2008

will confirm the above facts.

31. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: IMPD W0036 Gregory Wilkes’s did

not ask nor got the Plaintiff version of the incident. He got his detailed story after he arrested

after the Plaintiff was transported to jail. There was no mention of Miranda’s rights. There was

evidence of bodily waste fluid on the victim. There was no evidence on the alleged injury. I did

Page 30 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
not even know that I was getting arrest because I did not do anything wrong. How could I resist

the arrest when I was not even told that I will be arrested? All charges are setup in a conspiracy

by the unnamed and named Defendants: IMPD Lt. James Waters, #5 Charles Ritter, Rhonda

Heath, #4 Linda Hadlon, #3 Patricia Ladenthin, IMPD W0036 Gregory Wilkes, #8 Mae Vera &

Scott. Each individual defendant involvement in the conspiracy varies. Without the discovery of

various phone records and video tapes, I only can allege all the named & unnamed Defendants

share the same responsibility in the conspiracy. (Exhibit 4-1 thru 3 and 5 will not be attached

with this filing at this time.)

EXHIBIT 4-1, 4-2 & 4-3: IMPD W0036 GREGORY WILKES’S


PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT.

EXHIBIT 5: SIGNED AFFIDAVIT OF STATE’S


WITNESSES-#3 PATRICIA LADENTHIN,
#4 LINDA HANDLON.

32. ¶56-docketed 1, and line ¶7, What the State’s witnesses claimed happened on the

day of incident on November 6, 2008 in their sworn affidavits got the Plaintiff arrested. The

entire incident was videotaped and kept #8 Mae Vera. The Plaintiff has issued a Subpoena Duces

Tecum on April 17, 2009 (MCS Return#0053110000371902898) and compelled her to produce a

copy of the video tape of the incident to the Indiana Criminal Court but to no avail.

Unlisted Exhibits: All items in this paragraph are Unlisted Exhibits and will

not be attached with this filing at this time.

33. ¶56-docketed 1, and line¶7, The actual 911 &/or non-emergency communication

Event History Detail (It reads like Transcripts with CAD detail second by second.) is the second

important evidence for the conspiracy against the Plaintiff. On November 13, 2008, Plaintiff

asked the MCS Communication Division for a copy of the tapes relating to the arrest on

November 6, 2006, the MCS Communication Division initially claimed that the Plaintiff cannot

Page 31 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
have a copy of the tapes because the case is under ongoing Police investigations. When the

Plaintiff gets the facts straight with the MCS Communication Division, the MCS

Communication Division claimed that the tapes cannot be accessed from their system due to

their computer server problems. The MCS Communication Division further states that no tapes

on the case can be released unless I get a Court Order. The Plaintiff has issued a Subpoena Duces

Tecum to the Marion County Sheriff to produce the Event History Detail (Detail transcript of the

911, non-emergency &/or all types of communication) on April 7, 2009 (MCS Return

#70053110000371902867) and compelled a copy of the 911 and all police communication

transcript(s) of the incident on November 6, 2008 arrest to Indiana Criminal Court but to no

avail.

EXHIBIT 8: INITIAL DISCOVERY THRU MCS


COMMUNICATION DEPT. (Exhibit 8 will not be
attached with this filing at this time.)

The MCS Communication Division failure to cooperate to produce the requested

evidence is sufficient proof that the State of Indiana is directly or indirectly involved with the

Defendants in their conspiracy against the Plaintiff.

34. ¶56-docketed 1, According to MCSD/IMPD CAD there were 2 phone calls on the

day of arrest which was Nov 6, 2008 as follows:

EXHIBIT 9-2: SELECTION QUERY. (Exhibit 9-2 will not be attached


with this filing at this time.)

08-311-1521 11/06/2008 1:19:36 PM ..DIST... 4250 Village 1stUnit F132 #Units 8, Result RPT

08-311-1674 11/06/2008 2:10:11 PM..TRANS (1521 T804) 4250 Village 1st Unit WG17 #Units 1, Result NRPT

From EXHIBIT 9-2 above there is no record showing that IMPD W0036 Gregory

Wilkes was dispatched by the normal 911 &/or non-emergency dispatch. Furthermore all (NW)

Northwest district Police Batch Number is prefixed with “F” and there is no Batch number

Page 32 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
starting with “W” in theNW district. From my research only Sheriff Wagon used to transport

people to the prison start with a “W”. In that case the Plaintiff maintains that the Sheriff Wagon

was dispatched before the arrest and Gregory Wilkes came to the property with the sole intention

to arrest the Plaintiff without a warrant or sufficient Probable Cause. Further the Plaintiff

reinstate that the Police and the Defendants are involved in a criminal conspiracy against her.

35. ¶56-docketed 1, IMPD Lt. James Waters and his subordinate and cronies in

IMPD, MCS and other department(s) are violating the Freedom of Information Act and

obstructing justice by cover up and destruction of evidences to protect Police Abuse and Crimes.

EXHIBIT 10: EMIAL EXCHANGE AMONG IMPD, MCSD &


MYSELF. (Exhibit 10 will not be attached with this filing
at this time.)

35(a) Where did IMPD W0036 Gregory Wilkes comefrom? Who and why

IMPD W0036 Gregory Wilkes was dispatched to my condo? If a

crimes that warrant an arrest why did he arrive half hour to one hour after

the alleged incident? Why he did not arrest Rhonda Heath when she

admitted in her affidavit for criminal trespassing in a private

locked property?

35(b) According to the report, #3 Patricia Ladenthin, #4 Linda Handlon &

Rhonda Heath did not call 911. As in the EXHIBIT 9-1 AND 9-2,

since 2005 more than 40 recorded police runs were called against me by

#3 Patricia Ladenthin and #4 Linda Handlon. Since 1999 there were

more than 100 recorded and unrecorded police runs against me. If the

alleged crime had occurred as described why was there no call to

the police? The Plaintiff maintains that #3 Patricia Ladenthin, #4 Linda

Page 33 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Handlon, Rhonda Heath, Lt James Waters and other unknown

defendants are all involved in a criminal conspiracy against her.

EXHIBIT 9-1: SELECTION QUERY. (Exhibit 9-1 will not


be attached with this time.)

36. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: The Plaintiff nominates as Designation

of Evidences as follows and not limited to: (All Exhibit listed and unlisted will not be attached

with this filing at this time.)

36(a) Exhibit 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 will not be attached with this filing at this time.

36(b) Video Tape of the incident on the day of arrest November 6, 2008

in the possession of the Defendant #8 Mae Vera.

36(c) On the day arrest Event Detail History/CAD to 911 dispatches, non-

emergency lines and/or any detailed phone transcript(s) which are

in possession of the Defendants.

36(d) State’s witnesses Signed Affidavit.

37. ¶56-docketed 1: November 6, 2008 arrest: The Defendant, Rhonda Heath

trespassed on my property when she repeatedly pressed my door buzz with the intention to

commit a crime against me with the conspirators in Defendants 2 & 3. Rhonda Heath

intentionally harass/entrap the Plaintiff by conspire with the Defendants2 & 3 in ¶4. It was not

an accident and Exhibit 6 & 7 proves.

37(a) The Plaintiff does not know Rhonda Heath. Since 2005 The Plaintiff has a

written “2: Do Not Trespass” label on her door buzzer to prevent constant

harassments by the other people. Other’s are also, named and

numbered (SEE ATTACHED Exhibits 6 & 7.)

EXHIBIT 6: 4250 DOOR BUZZER SIGN 1 of 2.

EXHIBIT 7: 4250 DOOR BUZZER SIGN 2 of 2.


Page 34 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
37(b) Rhonda Heath does not have a contractual interest in the property as

defined by IC 34-43-2. At the least, Rhonda Heath was the one

should be charged with Trespass, Harassment, Intimidation &

Battery.

37(c) The main security door is designed to open by pull the door from the

outside and/or pushing the door from the inside of the building.

By the natural law of physics, it is harder for Rhonda Heath to pull door

open from the outside than the Plaintiff to hold on to the door from

inside the building. Rhonda Heath forcefully opened the door and

pushed the Plaintiff and came into the building 4250. As soon as she

came into the building, #3Patricia L, #4Linda H, #5Charles Ritter, &

#8Mae Vera (armed with a video camera)appeared at the same time.

#2 Charles Chuang was at his front door from time I went out to find

out who was buzzing my unit? The VECHOA had a scheduled

meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Nov 6, 2008. Initially the Plaintiff thought the

“stranger” is one of the owners who wanted to discuss issue(s)

related to condo. I found out that she was guest of #4Linda Handlon

only after she had forced herself into the building.

37(d) The Plaintiff did not file a charge or call the police about the incident in

spite of the harassment and forced entry into my building since

there was no serious injury except for a broken toe nail. When

Rhonda buzzed my unit, I asked through the intercom to find out the

identity and why. But she remained silent despite of my repeated

questions and keep pressing the buzzer. So, I went out to find

Page 35 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
out who she was. If Rhonda Heath were sincere in her intentions she

should have apologized for pushing the wrong button or she should

answered through intercom which

she deliberately did not answer. All the buzzers are number &/or

names. There is no reason for her to press my buzzer. Unless she

can’t read the number, name &/or retarded. Even my certified IQ 89 can

distinguishthat.

37(e) Why did the Police come one hour later? The Plaintiff’s

suspicion was confirmed later that I found out that Rhonda was

working as a hair dresser assistant to #4Linda Handlon and she is involved in a

conspiracy against her.

37(f) The VECHOA Boards, IMPD James Waters, 4250 building#3, #4, #5, and

#8 in a grand scheme of conspiracy wanted have the Plaintiff arrested so

that she cannot excise her rights as a owner/attend the HOA meeting

scheduled on that day. I have not attended any VEC meeting since the

1999 arrest. I wanted to attend the HOA meeting that day to discuss the

use of common areas.

38. Designation of Evidence: Nov 6, ’08 arrest: The main “Security (locked)” door is

communal property of the owners/residentsof building 4250. If the Plaintiff allowed Rhonda or

any stranger access into the building and they caused any physically harm, property damages and

theft to the other resident(s)/owner(s), she would be held fully responsible for the loss to some

degree according to the VEC bylaws and the law. (Exhibit 11 will not be attached at this time.)

EXHIBIT 11: 4250 BULLETIN BOARD


“….. Only allow people into the building whom you
know!”

Page 36 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
39. Designation of Evidence: Nov 6, ’08 arrest: ¶10, After VECHOA lost a lawsuit

filed by the unit owner, the Boards and Property Manager put up the warning sign in every block

(Cause No. 49K05-0511-SC-10947 to VEC owner, VEC HOA Boards & property manager put

up the warning sign. (Exhibit 12 will not attach at this time.)

EXHIBIT 12: “Front Entry Doors Are to Remain Closed At All Times.
Violators Subject to Fines.”

39(a) The Plaintiff did not know Rhonda Heath. She cannot open the door even

if another stranger/person living in the VEC had buzzed her bell. The

Plaintiff knows that about 20% to 30% in her building are doing drugs and

she cannot open the door for anyone unknown to her. The Plaintiff

expects others to give her the same privacy and safety specified in the

VEC Byelaws and law.

39(b) Rhonda Heath criminally trespassed on the Plaintiff’s property (¶37(a)

bell-Exhibit 6 & 7.) and forced herself with her body into the building

against the wishes of the Plaintiff. Legally/technically she should be

charged for criminal trespass, harassment and battery. If the Plaintiff had

done the same thing she would be arrested within the blink of a second.

Even though the Plaintiff is the right she did not to call police. Whenever

the Plaintiff calls the police, she is always the one who gets into trouble.

As mentioned in ¶49 (e), there is no point for the Plaintiff to moveout

because things will only get worse when the Police continue their

intimidations in the new surroundings. The Police harassment has been

going for the last 12 years.

Page 37 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
40. Leading up to the arrest on November 6, 2008, #3Patricia Ladenthin and #4Linda

Handlon have been harassing and intimidating the Plaintiff with disgusting images of

Halloweenprops in October, 2008. (Unlisted Exhibit: Linda Handlon’s mechanical Halloween

device was over the top with his looks and noise. I had to callthe police.). On that day, Linda

Handlon’s male guest was shouted at me, “Fxxx Yxx Bxxxx!” and threatened manner with his

power tool. When police were on the scene, IMPD officer try to put me in immediate detention

and accusing me with having weapons as usual and went in Linda Handlon’s unit and giggling.

It just too much to list. I don’t keep track of every incident.

40(a) On 27 October, 2008 #4 Linda Handlon brought some guests from Harvey

& Sons Construction and Property Maintenance (317) 557-0285 to

intimidate me.

40(b) Plaintiff had to suffer constant stress from the harassment and intimidation

of the Defendants’ guests, contractors, etc.

40(c) VEC HOA refuse to resolve these simple matter by condone and

instigating Defendants’ behavior to continued their tasteless behavior in my face. This is to show

their character and pattern and practice of constant harassment and not as a claim for monetary

damage on these incidents.

41. Defendants have 4 crucial evidences on November 6, 2008; they have police

arrested me. These will prove that preponderance &/or beyond reasonable doubt, this suit of

Defendant’s civil liability if not criminal and will clear the entire charges by the State of Indiana

againstthe Plaintiff.

Three crucial evidences are as follows:

41(a) Video tape entire incident on the day of arrest by the 4250 #8 Mar Vera.

Page 38 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
41(b) All 911, non-emergency &/or communication logs on the incident on

November 6, 2008.

41(c) Detailed phone records of Defendants 2 & 3’s.

41(d) #5 Charles Ritter and IMPD James Waters’ roles conspiracy on the day

of arrest from not only from their interrogatories, affidavits but

also, more definitely from 41(b) discovery.

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND DESIGNATION


OF EVIDENCE AS TO DEFENDANTS DOCKET #111: JUDGE SOSIN AND HIS
STAFF AND ARRESTING OFFICERS.

42. Docket #111, ¶1, Party: Indiana Civil Court Judge Theodore M. Sosin,

Commissioner Richard Gilroy, the clerks who signed as State’s witness in the Indiana Criminal

Case against The Plaintiff in this suit for “Trespass” charge in the City County Building.

43. The Plaintiff nominates Letter from the Master Commissioner, Richard D. Gilroy

right after State Civil Cause no. 49C01-0604-PL-13949 was dismissed under 12b6 :see. ref. of

this filing, ¶19(h). (Exhibit 13-1 & 13-2will not be attached at this time.)

EXHIBIT 13-1 thru 13-2: “…..Any further inappropriate behavior that


interferes with the operations of the Circuit
court could result in a hearing for
contempt of court and possible incarceration…
…”

EXHIBIT 13-1: LETTER FROM THE MASTER MISSIONER,


RICHARD D. GILROY DATED JUNE 22,
2006.

EXHIBIT 13-2: LETTER FROM THE MASTER


COMMISSIONER, RICHARD D. GILROY
DATED JUNE 22, 2006.

Page 39 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
44. As the Plaintiff details allegations against the Defendants, Judge Sosin and his

staff is docketed 111 filing, the Master Commissioner, Richard D. Gilroy’s letter- ¶41 is the proof

that Judge Sosin and his staff’s are Conspiracy in Character of Agreement against her. In order

to assist the Defendants’ to get winning judgmentin the State Civil Cause no 49C01-0604-PL-

13949 which I’ Kay Kim was the Plaintiff of the suit. I had Defendants and Defense counsel’s

written admission of the faults they have causedin my unit for Toilet Overflow. That was slam

dung case for me. It’s matter of how much I am entitled to. Judge Sosin’ staff kept loses my

files. So, when I personally went to their office to files, they complaint that I take too long and

called the police while I was filing and yelled at by the police to “Hurry Up” which was on

Friday. I had to went back on the following Monday because more files were missing and not in

the chronological case summary. It got worse. Two police were standingright behind while I’m

filing. Judge Sosin ordersthem to make sure that I leave the city county building. I had to get

permission from him that whether I can finished the filings. On the way out, the police man

arrested me in front of civil filing, room?101 by the same police in ¶ 45, Officers Melvin Clayton

& his partner.

44(a) Its entirety was videotaped by the Marion County Sheriff Security

camera and in their possession. (Unlisted Exhibit and will be

compelled thru the Court.)

44(b) Demand default judgment against Judge Theodore M. Sosin, Comm.

Richard Gilroy and their clerks, is made within the statute of

limitation which has not even begin because the case has yet to be

disposed. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S.261 (1985), But accrual of the

statute of limitation is governed by federal law, while totaling of

the statute of limitation is governed by state laws. Mullinax v.

Page 40 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711, 716 n.2 (11thCir. 1987). See also, Hardin v.

Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S.235 (1989).

44(c) Constitution Supreme Clause Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution

(This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall

be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the

Land. When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a

person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or

individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a "minister"

of his own prejudices. [386 U.S. 547, 568]. A judge is liable for injury

caused by a ministerial act; to have immunity the judge must be

performing a judicial function. See,

e.g., Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 ; 2 Harper & James, The Law of

Torts 1642-1643 (1956). The presence of malice and the intention

to deprive a person of his civil rights is wholly incompatible with the

judicial function. When the state in the instant case is one of the

perpetrators and violators, there can be no expectation of just, indeed

any, relief from it.

45. Docketed 111 and above ¶42-44 are chainsof events in the year 2006 resulting in

the arrest of the Plaintiff inside the Marion County City County building. (State of Indiana v Kay

Kim: Criminal Cause no. 49F15-0606-CM-112139)

45(a) Dkt 111-¶2, Defendants are: Arresting Officers Melvin Clayton & his

partner. His partner makes remarks while I was City Courting

officer waiting to be transported and said, “….. America is must be good.

Page 41 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Better than where you come from... .Go back to own country….” and left

the office.

45(b) This incident happened in year 2006 Criminal Cause No.

49F15-0606-CM-112139 andis scheduled for Jury Trial on July 30, 2009.

46. Statue of limitation has runout. But, Judges and Prosecutor(s) refuse to dispose

the case about 2-3 years ago; instead, they scheduled for jury trial on July 30, 2009. The State of

Indiana thereby violates Due Process accorded in the United States Constitution.

46(a) Judge Sosin, Commissioner Gilroy and their staff failed to answer to this

lawsuit within the specified time allowed. Docket #111- ¶3 and 4

46(b) Defendants failed to file and answer to this lawsuit within

the specified time allowed.

47. Docket #111- ¶3 Defendants/Party: Arresting officer Ryan J. Romeril, IMPD

James Waters, 4250 #3Patricia Ladenthin and 4250 #4Linda Handlon of case# 49F08-0607-CM-

140781.

47(a) This arrest was another conspiracy by Defendants listed above as

contained in the MCS Audio tape, IMPD James Waters call to 911. James

Waters willfully accused the Plaintiff for mental illness and drug

addictions and ordered a sheriff wagon to transport the handicapped

women to jail. The Plaintiff was sent to the mental hospital for

observations and drug testing against her wishes. Both tests were negative

and the reports are still missing in her case file.

47(b) IMPD James Waters ordered Deputy Romeril to arrest the Plaintiff when

she was in the common grass area and I did not have any knife with me.

IMPD James Waters, #3 Patricia Ladenthin and #4 Linda Handlon was

Page 42 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
right behind the Plaintiff. IMPD James Waters as a VEC Security Guard,

he is familiar with the VEC Bylaws on common area and previous

“trespass” could not convict me so, when Officer Romeil told me that I’m

arrest for trespass and James Waters shook his head. Then, Officer

Romeril change to disorderly conduct. IMPD James Waters, #4 Linda

Handlon. and #3 Patricia Ladenthin conspired to bare false witness leading

to the arrest of the Plaintiff. I found out from jail, after I was transported

away to jail, Deputy Romeril returned to the Building about 30 minutes

later. Deputy Romeril apologized to Charles Chuang for the arrest and

claimed he was ordered to arrest the Plaintiff. That was exactly what I

witnessed on the day of arrest in 2007. He then went into unit #4 to meet

with IMPD James Waters. The charge in the probable cause affidavit was then

changed from trespassing to disorderly conduct because a similar

trespassing charge on common property against the Plaintiff in 2005 did

not stick and till today the case is still pending in the Criminal Court. #3

Patricia Ladenthin and #4Linda Handlon refused to be State’s Witnesses

for the Deputy Romeril and the State does not have any witness present at

the time of the alleged incident. The Plaintiff reiterate that IMPD James

Waters initiated all her arrests in the VEC common and personal property

and gave improper and illegal orders to his subordinates and cronies to

arrest her time and over again. The Plaintiff nominates Event History

Detail/CAD for all her arrests as Designate evidences and this Court to

Order the MCS Communication Department to produce. This seems

hollow request in light of #5 Charles Ritter and Susan Sclipsea’s

Page 43 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
dismissal. How this Court dismiss them without CAD/Event History

Detail about/contents of #5 Charles Ritter’s phone called to the 911

Dispatch and to other(s). This only raises the issue of conspiracy by this

FED Dist court. Added to that suspicion, Mag Judge and all the

Defendants and Defense counsel had the meeting without me behind my

back. Pretrial conference was nothing more than a “show”.

47(c) I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se Demand IMPD James Waters away from me,

my family and property for good. I don’t care how it is done. One

solution is, him to transfer out of the IMPD and make more money in the

big city. With his rank, only sky is the limit.

48. Docket #111- ¶4 Defendants: Northwest District prosecutor(s) (ref. Cause#

49F080505CM-083990, 49F150606CM-112139, and 49F080607CM-14078) failed to file an

answer to this lawsuit within the time allowed. The Statue of limitation for all three cases has

run out. The State of Indiana, prosecutor and the judge(s) are indifferent to the law and thereby

violate her rights to due process accorded in the United States Constitutions. The Plaintiff

nominates previous court filings as designation of evidences.

48(a) State of Indiana, Prosecutor and Judges asserted in Court that all 3 cases

have not been disposed because of the Plaintiff who demands

default judgment from him. Prosecutors are entitled to immunity

for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the

criminal process,” but a prosecutor engaged in investigative or

administrative activities is only entitled to a good faith defense. Imbler v.

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). See also, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522

U.S. 118 (1997).

Page 44 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
49. Docketed 100 ¶1 Defendants VECHOA Board of Directors and VEC Security

Guard James Waters failed to file an answer to this lawsuit within the allowed time. The Plaintiff

nominates previous court filings as designation of evidences. The Plaintiff has written many

letters and emails asking the VECHOA to intervene but to no avail. I was left to defend myself

alone. I, Plaintiff by numerous emails and letters to apply same rule-bylaw that I have to abide by

it (Unlisted Exhibitof emails and letters will not be attached.). Which lead to October 5, 2008

incident and I names 4250 #8 Scott Perry and IMPD F227 Shawn Smith, F254 Robert Lowe,

IMPD NW District Supervisor as Defendants of this suit. After the incident, VEC HOA Boards

join forces to turn me over to prosecutors. (Unlisted Exhibit of letter drawnby the HOA lawyer

Dated October 22, 2008.) The letter only energize the Defendants 2 & 3 in¶4, lead to November

6, 2008 arrest. VEC HOA Boards and property manager conspiring with IMPD James Waters to

intimidate

Unlisted Exhibit: Over 50 pages of emails and letters will not


be attached

Unlisted Exhibit: of letter drawn by the HOA lawyer Dated


October 22, 2008.

49(a) Since IMPD James Waters became the VEC Security Guard in the year

2002, he has literally advanced his career in IMPD at my expense. He

conspired with the VECHOA Board of Directors, Property Manager, and

Defendants from VEC Building 4250 to put the Plaintiff in jail from time

to time and to serve notice to others in the VEC who intend to check the

on the finances of the VECHOA.

49(b) The Plaintiff is an easy target for them to bully and discriminate against

since the day she moved into the VEC in 1999. (Exhibit 1 will not

attached at this time.) Later, I and my family were reprimanded not to

Page 45 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
use secured common areas. To this day, fear of retaliation, we never used.

But, obviously, it did not make a bit difference. Whateverwe did and do.

EXHIBIT 1: VEC HOA property manager, Jack Cruse’ letter


Dated May 5, 1999.
“… All grass areas on the property are common areas (that
means that any resident may walk, fish or use at any
time…..it is spelled out in the By-Laws- and stop
challenging others as they walk or fish.)

49(c) The Plaintiff cannotafford to move. Besides, it’s not the just place, it is

the people. IMPD Lt James Waters use his police resources to track me

down and ask his cronies to harass, intimidate and make false accusations

to get her arrested. He is making his whole career by exploiting others

who cannot fight back. With his corrupt nature and work ethic, it is not

surprising that he employs similar tactic as a VEC HOASecurity Guard.

He was sure that the Plaintiff could not fight back.

49(d) VECHOA Boards and HOA are elated by James Waters illegal actions.

For them, he is their hero. Now that he became MASTER Detective and

“Chair” of Promotional Board in IMPD, he does investigate the

embezzlement going on in the VEC there are many condo owners who

illegally do not pay the association fees 4250 Defendants are having a

pleasurable time making false accusation against the Plaintiff.

49(e) I was told by the VEC Board Treasurer, Brain Whitfield that the Boards

will not fire James Waters and Laura Ritter (dead at age 48.). He will not

fire them because one person complaint. He wants to what Federal court

do.

Page 46 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
49(f) The VECHOA Board and Property Manager hired a lawyer to draft a

letter addressed to the 4250 building residents/owners but specifically

directed to the Plaintiff.. When the police cannot get a conviction for the

many arrests they decided to take another route by threatening to turn me

over to the prosecutor directly. At about the same time a police came to

my common area and told me about “prosecutor. (Unlisted Exhibit of

letters and emails to the VEC HOA Boards and property manager will not

be attached at this time. It’s over 50 pages.)

50. Docket #100 ¶1 Defendants VECHOA Board of Directors and VEC Security

Guard James Waters intentionally and maliciously neglect to prevent but encouraging the

Defendants to participates in the Conspiracy in Character of Agreement to violate the Plaintiff’s

Housing and Civil Rights.

51. Docket #100- ¶1 Defendants VECHOA Board of Directors and VEC Security

Guard James Waters are partners in the crime of embezzlement and conspired to put the Plaintiff

in jail &/or mental institution for good showing example out of me in the community. The Board

of Directors’ election are rigged. VEC HOA and IMPD/Security Guard James Waters are

engaging in Conspiracy In Chracter Of The Agreement against the Plaintiff.

52. #5 Charles Ritter was on his balcony wearing only tightwhite underwear with

grey bend. This is a very disgusting sight. His left hand was open towards me and I did not see

his right hand where it was. This incident happened after the pretrial conference at the Federal

building for this case and on the day of when I returned home from the court ordered psycho

evaluations. He was waiting for me with his perverted look. I pray the Court will not energize

him any further.

Page 47 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
53. I did not seek for motion for summary judgment. It is the Defendants seek for

summary judgment by disguised title “motionto dismiss as an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint”.

I never plead for summary judgment until now. Without Defendants’ “Answers” to my

Complaint. Therefore, it is the Defendants are moving-party which The pleading standards

Fed.R.Civ.P.56 the entry of judgment granting Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth., the pleadings

and evidentiary materials submitted by the parties to determine if there is a genuine issue of

material fact” exist. Defendants are allowed to file more than one summary judgment before 1st

stage of “Answer” is completedthrough disguised title stated above. Twombly at 555. “[N]aked

assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement” also failsto suffice.

53(a) The pleading-motion to dismiss must contain something more than a bits

and bites of “Authorities” Defendants’ disguised motion for

summary judgment” is just that, done not meet the standard stated

herein. Defendants have no factual and legal bases for

dismissal. 12(b)(6) has been addressed in my-Plaintiff’s previous

filing.

53(b) However, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment contain sufficient

factual matters, accepted as true, to “state a clam to relief docketed

1 and 120that is plausible on its face.” Twombly at 570. Plaintiff’s

claim has facial plausibility and pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged. Twombly at 556. Ibid. The plausibility standard

“asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

unlawfully” and the Plaintiff is entitled to relief as docked 1 and 120.

Page 48 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
54. While I’m preparing for response to Defendant’s summaryjudgment, I received

the mail the Court dismiss the #5 Charles Ritters and Susan Sclipsea. IMPD W0036 Gregory

Wilkes followed with me to my unit with hostile tone of voice with threatening matter

(rigid/though body language and looks) right after he talks to #5 Charles Ritters. Whatever he

told himto encourage the Officer acted towards me on the day of arrest. Charles Ritters is

involved in the conspiracy and Susan Sclipsea and knew something was cooking beforethe

incident and after the fact. I never said she was actively involved and she was on the scene. Not

coming forward at any point what they know which they do know, made them accessoryat least

and responsible in this suit. Before the arrested incident, #5Charls Ritter is the only one has the

size of the dog and the time line fits that smearing the dog(they were watching for someone)

poop on my van back door. #5 Charles Ritter and Susan Sclipsea were both home on that

morning. Their unit looking out parking lot. As soon as, I noticed the poop and about a few

minute before police arrived while I was in the parking lot, Susan Sclipsea told him to take to

dog back and he took into his car and left with the dog by himself. With smirk look on her face,

she went into the building.

55. Especially, in light of dismissal of #5 Charles Ritter and Susan Sclipsea. If they

are not involved in the conspiracy in character of agreement, since, I, Plaintiff never got a

satisfaction from their “answer” as in a “motion to dismiss” and not allow discovery of any & all

evidences, I, expected the Court to detail their statement and wait for complete discovery of

evidence(s) which exist for their involvement or not. I can only guess without discovery of

related evidences that NoSigned State’s Witnesses-#3 Patricia Ladenthin, #4 Linda Handlon and

Rhonda Heath called the police. Instead, they (included #5 Charles Ritter. #5 Susan Sclisea

knew after the fact.) called the IMPD Lt./VEC Security Guard James Waters. IMPD Lt./VEC

Security Guard James Waters instruct the Charles Ritters to called the police. Some point, they

Page 49 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
found perfect opportunity either spur of the moment or pre planed that the Rhonda Heath to play

a crucial role. Rhonda Heath is prentice for Linda Handlon in the salon and everyone agreed

what their roles going to be including #8 Mae Vera to video tape for solid evidence against me.

Before the incident, (see dkt 17, 18, 19) Defendants had meeting with Lt. James Waters against

me. I know whyand when. It will get too long if I fully explain. Make a long story short,

retaliation to my complaint against Lt. James Waters to CPCO. I know he has big gun and I don’t

even have a knife bring to his fight. By videotaping to get solid against by conspired to entrap

me only back fire at them. The Recoded Video Tape is “my salvation”. that November 6, 2008 is

conspiracy against me by the Defendants. Further, Lt. James Waters was in a hurry to

obstructthe Plaintiff’s discovery using his position. That’s my deduction from the chain of

events. In light of absence of actual evidences which are in Defendants’ possession; only proves

the Defendants’ criminal conspiracy against me. This Court willfully and knowingly shut down

the Plaintiff’s allegation of Conspiracy by the Defendants to protect “everybody-Defendants but

me. It is no brainer to deduct such. #5 Charles Ritter and Susan Sclipsea are protected by even

from this court and not to mention, IMPD Lt. James Waters, Police, Judges, Prosecutors, all

defense counsels of this suit, etc. That’s why no one ever stops. Where can I go look for justice

when this Court doing absolutely abhorrent. This only encourage #5 Charles Ritter behaved in

¶52 and smirk on Susan Sclipsea’s face. This Court left me to defend myself again. She uses

son and grandson and instigates others from the behind and actsinnocent. She knew before and

after. #6 Shannon and Kyle Love also, conspired to make life hell since they moved in. But, I

did not include because they did not call the police to harass, to intimidate and to get me arrest

until now-Toilet overflow incident as James A. Edgar mentioned in his brief. As I stated in my

Complaint, there are a lot of police and civilian workers did me wrong not as a civilian but as a

police and government employees told me to “move out, etc.” It’s worse as State employees.

Page 50 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Truth the matter is, I will not sue anyone just because someone called me with racial insults and

expressed even visually if there is no actual and physical harm done. Otherwise, there is no end

to it. Words is bad too, but anyone go beyond the words of expression is inexcusable. Any

owner/resident & contractors who is lucky enough to get their association fee waived and or get

paid, should leave it that and not becomea foot soldier to cause/do harm to me just because they

give them “hint”. IMPD Lt. & as a VEC Security Guard James Waters, VEC HOA Boards, VEC

property managers, IMPD supervisor(s) and this Court failing to protect me since my 1stfederal

lawsuit, 1:05-cv-1616 is inexcusable. Isn’t this Federal District court supposedly first line of

defense against this sort of things keeps happening to individual? Leading up to last November

6, 2008 and October 5, 2008 incidents were more than words.

I can never match your writing in any shape of form. I have officially certified 89 IQ

with English is my 2ndlanguage. If the lawsuit is competition who can wirte, quote authorities

and know the law better, I can never win. My lawsuit is only depending on facts and evidence of

merits of the lawsuit. All other procedures, I learn as I go and if I can afford to entertain. I,

Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se Demand Justice. Dismissal of #5 Charles Ritters and Susa Sclipsea

does not meet the standard of Summary Judgment. A genuine issue of material fact exists when

there is “sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that

party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).

56. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the answers to the interrogatories,

depositions, admissions, and pleadings combined with the affidavits in support show that no

genuine issue as to any material fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. SeeFED. R.Civ.P.56(c).

57. The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of the

basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that establish the absence of

Page 51 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the

moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and come

forward with specific facts to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial. See

FED.R.Civ.P.56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.

58. Defendants by counsels, James A Edgar, Nicole Kelsey and Kathy Bradley have

designated no evidence showing that there is a no genuine issue left or otherwise. While the

burden rests squarely on the party moving for summary judgment to show “that there is an

absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 325 (1986), the nonmoving party responding to a properly made and supported summary

judgment motion still must set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact

that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor. See Wolf v. City of Fitchburg, 870 F.2d

1327, 1329 (7th Cir. 1989); Posey v. Skyline Corp., 702 F.2d 102, 105 (7thCir. 1983). An issue is

genuine only if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-

moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

59. Denial contained in the pleadings or bald allegations that an issue of fact exists

are insufficient to raise a factual issue. See Shacket v. Philko Aviation, Inc., 681 F.2d 506 513 n.8

(7th Cir. 1982), reversed on other grounds, 46 U.S. 406 (1983). Mere conclusary assertions,

whether made in pleadings or affidavits, are not sufficient to defeat a proper motion for summary

judgment. First Commodity Traders, Inc v. Heinold Commodities, Inc. 766 F.2d 1007, 1011

(7thCir. 1985). “Rule 56 demands something more specific than the bald assertion/denial of the

general truth of particular matter; rather it requires affidavits that cite specific concrete facts

establishing the existence of the truth of the matter asserted.” Drake v. Minnesota Mining &

Manufacturing Co., 134 F.3d 878, 887 (7th Cir. 1998).

Page 52 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
60. In this case, Defendants has designated no evidence to support their argument that

motion dismissing summary judgment should not be granted against them. Merely, the court

grants without designation of evidence and just because defendants cited few authorities standard

qualifies this court to grant defendants’ motion would be grave unjust.

61. ¶9The standard of review on the entry of judgment granting summary relief is de

novo. Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth., 1993 OK 85 ¶14, 859 P.2d 1081, 1084. The appellate

court enjoys plenary, independent and non-deferential authority to reexamine the trial court’s

legal rulling. Id.

62. ¶10 “examine the pleadings and evidential materials submitted by the parties to

determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact” and view the facts and all reasonable

inferences arising there from “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Carmichael

v. Beller, 1996 OK 48. ¶2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Summary judgment is appropriate when the

pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions or other evidentiary materials show there is no

substantial controversy as to any material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Tucker v. ADG. Inc., 2004 OK 71 ¶11 102 P.3d 660,665. “Even when basic facts are

undisputed, motions for summary judgment should be denied if, under the evidence, reasonable

persons might reach different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts.” Bird v.

Coleman, 1997 Ok 44, ¶20,939 P.2d 1123, 1127. Defendants didn’t even presented basic facts

and no designation of evidence to dispute other than arrested affidavit by the IMPD Gregory

Wilkes.

63. James A. Edgar and defense Counsels stated in their disguised motion for

summary judgment as Motion to Dismiss as if I, Plaintiff filed motion for summary judgment

without present factual allegations, evidences and affidavits. Defendants filed motion for

Page 53 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
summary judgment without any evidences to support as required by the and only said, “deny,

don’t and cant’ admit.”

64. Defendants to survive a motion to dismiss must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, “Twombly at 570. The Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Twomblyat

556.

65. I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se concluded by James A. Edgar’s touched on “Color of

Law” which has nothing to do his Defendants 2-¶4 is somewhat puzzling. That law applies to

police and officer, not to civilian. I have certified IQ 89 but not that stupid claiming Color of

Law from the James A. Edgar’s Defendants. Under Color of Law and Title II makes retaliation a

criminal offense. IMPD James Waters & his cronies and James A. Edgar’s Defendants

repeatedly abused mental/crazy disability (according to their own accounts) to retaliate and to

justify own criminal acts against the Plaintiff.

66. Instead quoting various “Authorities”, Mr. James Edgar should present the Court

with all the evidences in the Defendants’ possessions to finish off the lawsuit one way the other.

67. Claim one incident, e.g. wrongful arrest, under one law; e.g.§1983, people (judges

and law professionals) can spilt in to quotes as many as one can and makes over 50 pages long as

for the “Publication” to especially denied the lawsuit. Truth is simple and the verdict is swift.

When people lieand continue to cover up the lies, things always get incredibly complicated from

the Authorities I have read. The same applies to Mr. James A. Edgar’s. Almost every authority

defense counsel quoted has nothing to do the plain and simple truth, right and the law. James A.

Edgar’s accusation (4 criminals and 1small claims court) in his brief may be acceptable in the

eye of the law but not to my common sense. These are legal cases of criminal and civil court

case. Bar approved lawyer doesn’t need facts to open his mouth and anything goes.

Page 54 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
68. I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se files responseto Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment and at same time files a motion for the same with facts and evidences. The Plaintiff

will submit Exhibits in due time.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se pray for the Court to Grant Default

Judgment against the Defendants from Docket #111-Judge Sosin, Commissioner Richard Gilroy

and their staff, Officer Melvin Clayton & his Partner, VEC HOA, IMPD Lt. James Waters,

Prosecutors & judges, IMPD NW District supervisors,.

Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se pray for the Court to Grant Summary Judgment

against the Defendants:: IMPD Lt. James Waters, IMPD NW district supervisor, IMPD Gregory

Wilkes, Officer Melvin Clayton, IMPD lt./VEC SECRUITY GUARD James Waters, Rhonda

Heath, Patricia Ladenthin, Linda Handlon, Charles Ritter, Susan Sclipsea, Mae Vera and Scott

Perry,

the reason stated herein and in all previous filings, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se

prays that the Court to Deny Defendants motion to dismiss and the Court to Grant Plaintiff, Kay

Kim, Pro Se of Summary and Default Judgment as a Final Order of Judgment and Award the

Monetary Damages, Court costs and All Other proper relief as filed in Complaint-docket #1 and

detailed CMP-docket #120 as a matter of Right and and the Law.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 25, 2009 /s/ kay kim


Kay Kim, Pro se

DISTRIBUTION: will not be made per order:


Chief Judge David F. Hamilton; Judge Larry J. McKinney; Judge Sarah Evans Barker.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing to the counsels & defendant(s) were
delivered either by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid or delivered on June 26, 2009:
Page 55 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final
Kathy Bradley
Deputy Attorney General
State of Indiana Attorney General
Office of Attorney General,
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth floor
302 West Washington St.,
Indianapolis, IN 46204
T# (317) 234-2968 / F# (317) 232-7979, kathy.bradley@atg.in.gov
Nicole R. Kelsey
Assistant Corp. Counsel, Office of Corporation Counsel
200 East Washington St., Room 1601
Indianapolis, IN 46204
T# (317) 327-4055 / F# (317) 327-3968 / E-mail: nkelsey@indygov.org

Jonathan L. Mayes
Chief Litigation Counsel
Office of Corporation Counsel
200 East Washington St., Room 1601
Indianapolis, IN 46204
T# (317) 327-4055 / F# (317) 327-3968E-mail: jmayes@indygov.org

James Edgar
Attorney, J. Edgar Law Office, Prof. Corp.,
1512 N. Delaware Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Pho# (317) 472-4000 / Fax# (317) 472-0640 / em: jedgar@jedgarlaw.com

Village at Eagle Creek Home Association


7225 Village Parkway Drive,
Indianapolis, IN 46254
Phone (317) 291-4916,
E-mail - vechoa@sbcglobal.net
___________________
Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff
4250 Village Pkwy c e apt. 2
Indianapolis., IN 46254, Ph# 317-641-5977
e-mail: retypeunitedstates@gmail.com

Page 56 of 56
FED1 Mot Summary Judgment For Named & Unnamed Defendants 26jun2009orii-Final