As reported on previous blogs, two complaints were filed with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission against Plymouth officials.
On 5/12/11 a complaint was filed against Marshall County Prosecuting Attorney David Holmes for his denial of citizens’ right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. Holmes has repeatedly refused to investigate an alleged crime of computer tampering on a Plymouth High School computer on at least 10/4/2007, and possible other dates. Additionally, he has repeatedly refused to ever once discuss this alleged class D felony with the victims, to examine or discuss the professional computer analysis that indicates computer tampering by Plymouth public school officials, or to even examine the crime scene. Instead, he lied to the Indiana State Police and more recently to citizens. Recently he even repeatedly refused to accept a citizen’s certified, restricted letter that for all he knows could have contained information about a murder! But, Holmes chose to not even bother to open the envelope.
On 4/27/11 a complaint was filed against Plymouth attorney Ed Ruiz for his most unprofessional conduct in his vulgar denial of his legal opinion –an opinion Superintendent Dan Tyree had previously publicly stated on WTCA radio (on 4/31/11) was, in fact, available to citizens---yet Tyree immediately thereafter sought legal counsel (at public expense) to then refuse citizens this access. Tyree also lied on air that this legal opinion was written by an Indianapolis attorney, but later under duress revealed it was not written by an Indianapolis attorney, but by Ruiz. Lies, lies, and more lies.
Do note Ruiz’s legal opinion, later secretly provided by a courageous mole, was obviously falsified by Ruiz and Tyree: this legal opinion was dated 2/15/11 yet therein Ruiz referred to a blog that was not even published until 3/10/11! Also note that this 2/15/11 legal opinion also revealed Tyree had not been honest on WTCA when he asserted he would not seek a legal opinion from a Tremco attorney—“as he/ Tyree had integrity”! Yet Ruiz wrote that in fact PCS consulted with Ice Miller attorneys in Indianapolis about this Tremco roofing scandal. Fact: Ice Miller has a negative history of involvement with Tremco.
Tyree additionally made false implications to the IPA Counselor about this 2/15/11 legal opinion and its coverage of a non existent 3/10/11 blog. Are there any IPA laws about individuals lying to the IPA counselor? Lies, lies, and more lies.
Crimes are no doubt being committed in the Plymouth community. Where does a citizen go if the prosecutor without reason refuses to even investigate or prosecute substantiated crimes----especially when those crimes are allegedly committed by powerful public figures—even his friends? And Holmes falsely but willfully influences the Indiana State Police (Officers Don McKay/ Scott Schuh?) to also ignore such serious, far reaching violations of law by public officials!?!
What did the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission (i.e. the sole Secretary Michael Witte) determine in regards to these serious citizen complaints against Attorney Ruiz and Prosecutor Holmes? Did Mr. Witte and the Commission decide to take any action to hold these two publicly retained attoneys accountable for their apparent "cover up" of escalating wrongs to the Plymouth educational community?
This unidentified publicly entrusted Commission through the sole determination of their secretary Witte decided that “ . . . these complaints did not raise a substantial question of misconduct that would warrant disciplinary action.”
Willfully ignoring an alleged Class D felony, a crime of computer tampering, and assisting in an alleged cover up of roofing laws by public school officials is not misconduct? Please, therefore, pray tell what constitutes misconduct?
The preamble of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s Rules of Conduct for Indiana attorneys states the following regarding attorneys’ responsibilities:
 A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Whether or not engaging in the practice of law, lawyers should conduct themselves honorably. (Defined “respectably, with honor, properly”)
 A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.
 Many of a lawyer's professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. However, a lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation (Defined “good opinion, esteem, admiration) of professional peers. A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law and the legal professional and to exemplify the legal profession's ideals of public service.
 . .... (conflicts) must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules. These principles include the lawyer's obligation to protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved . . . .
These two publicly entrusted Plymouth attorneys--David Holmes and Ed Ruiz-- have in my experience, as is fully documented, been dishonorable in their conduct, sought to intimidate citizens, refused to serve the public’s interest, been unprofessional, and disgustingly discourteous. It is firmly believed they have sought with Plymouth administrators to cover up a crime, as based on significant evidence. Yet, Secretary Witte finds their actions do not warrant disciplinary action. This is bizarre.This is frightening for the public welfare!
Can anyone in Indiana hold these “public servants” accountable? The question should better be stated, WILL anyone in public authority dare to hold these so-called public servants accountable for their actions that obviously fuel public corruption? Are you listening, Attorney General Zoeller? IDOE Chief Bennett? Governor Daniels? Your silence thus far shouts.
The Plymouth School board (Todd Samuelson, Larry Pinkerton, Frank Brubaker, Melissa Christiansen, Larry Holloway and former member Attorney Ron Gifford –now on house arrest) historically refuses to do so. As does everyone else in public authority from Governor Mitch Daniels, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, State School Superintendent Tony Bennett, Representative Nancy Dembowski, Senator Ed Charbonneau, etc,. etc., etc. Everyone thus far willfully chooses to pass the buck—though our Governor asserted in a State of the State address the buck stops at his office. Experience proves that is hogwash. The Plymouth School System is continually being corrupted by both local and state leaders who possess no moral courage or strength.
Mr. Witte states that his office has “ . . . no jurisdiction or authority to review the prosecuting attorney’s exercise of the very discretion that was entrusted to him by the voters.” So WHY does the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission even exist?
Basically, Mr. Witte states if wrongs of our public leaders and their publicly retained attorneys--in this case an alleged CRIME--are ever going to be addressed it must be done by the voters. This opinion may sound "legal" but is in reality empty platitudes. Legally, Citizens can not bring crimes to court, they can only bring civil suits. Only the prosecutor can bring crimes to court for prosecution. BUT WHAT IF THE PROSECUTOR REFUSES--despite significant evidence, testimony, and professional analysis? Secretary Witte basically states the only recourse to bring this crime to justice in this case is to appeal to the voters, as he and everyone else in public authority refuses to address these alleged criminal acts/corruption against the Public's welfare!!! In reality, from what Mr. Witte states, if a crime is not addressed by the prosecutor it can only then be sought to be addressed by popular vote--if the media even dares to publicize that crime! As is the case in Plymouth, the local and state media consistently refuses “for fear of being sued” to ever unbiasedly print the facts of this public corruption at the hands of too powerful bureaucrats. ( And, what about the statute of limitations on a crime expiring before an election is held?)
And what if there are no truly honorable citizens of genuine integrity and intelligence who dare to enter the political process?
And what will happen to our communities if no one cares any more about right and wrong because they are resigned only the corrupt will rule? Think about that.
Lies, lies, and more lies. Who will dare to stand for Truth? And then dare to fight for it to be upheld?