sept 9, 2009: affidavit of charles chuang insupport of theplaintiff's foj...

8/14/2019 Sept 9, 2009: AFFIDAVIT of Charles Chuang inSupport of thePlaintiff's FOJ &DenyDefendant'sMOTtoDismiss 9-9-2009

1/7

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Kay Kim,Plaintiff, )

)v. )

) Cause No. 1:09-cv-0829-DFH-JMSGeorge F. Parker, M.D., IU Psychiatrist & )

as an Officer capacity power given by the State,)Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt, )Indiana University, employer of Dr. G. F. Parker,)

Defendants. )

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES CHUANG IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR THE FINANL ORDER OF JUDGMENT AND

DENY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 9-9-2009

1 I am Charles Chuang and sworn under the penalty of perjury the affidavit below.

2 I have lived with Kay Kim since 1996. Kay Kim has lost her knee many years ago. She is

handicapped and need a walking stick or wheel chair to move around. She has never been

violent or convicted of any criminal offence. I understand her very well and am

absolutely sure she does not have psychosis.

3 There are more than 200 families living in my condominium community. We have been

staying there for more than 10 years and apart from the few neighbors who are against

her the other people do not have any problems with her.

4 In 2000 she was alleged to have threatened Chris Meloy over the phone. While in

custody the Honorable Judge Baker ordered a psychiatric observation to be done. The

Psychiatrist concluded that she shows no evidence of psychosis.

5 In 2005 the Police arrested her for trespassing on her common property. She was sent to

the psychiatric ward for observation. All the psychiatric reports state that she is normal

and does not exhibit any signs of insanity. She filed a federal lawsuit against the accusers

Page 1 of 7FED2 AFFIDAVIT of Charles Chuang 02 iSupp ofPlantiff MotForFOJ & DenyDefMOTtoDISMISSoDismiss 09SEP2009-

Fnl1


2/7

and police but the civil suit was dismissed even the criminal case of interest is still

pending in the Indiana Criminal Court.

6 In 2006 she was arrested and charged with trespassing in the Marion County and City

Building. A few days before the arrest Kay and I were thrown out of the city and county

building while she was filing court papers in the Indiana Superior Civil Court. In the

initial pretrial hearing the Honorable Judge wasbelittling her for representing herself. He

claimed that she does not know the rules and procedures of the court. She then requested

for a change of Judge. The Honorable Judge claimed that she is crazy and choose not to

randomly assign a new Judge for her. Instead he illegally assigned her case to Judge

Collins who handles all the mental cases.

7 In 2007 the Police arrested her again for trespassing on her common property but

subsequently changed the charges to disorderly conduct. She was sent to the psychiatric

ward for observation and blood and urine test for substance abuse. The hospital report

states that she is normal and tested negative for substance abuse.

8 In spite of the numerous previous immediate detention and jails psychologists and

psychiatrists reports on record and her ability to conduct her defense in courtJudge

Collins ordered Dr. Parker and Dr. Olive to advice if she can represent herself. Dr. Parker

concluded with medical certainty that she is able to understand and represent herself.

Judge Collins relieved herself and assigned a new Judge to her cases.

9 The new Judge asked her to be evaluated by Dr. Parker the second time. Judge Collins

discussed her case with Dr. Parker while he was in court on other unrelated business. On

the second evaluation Dr. Parker changed his evaluation and concluded with medical

certainty that she is unable to represent herself.


Fnl1


3/7

10 During the competency hearing Dr. Parker and Dr. Olive provided their views but she

was able to question them because she was representing herself . The Court did not rule

that she cannot represent herself. All her cases has been stayed for a few months and

subsequently a magistrate judge concluded that she can represent herself and proceed to

continue the trial.

11 After a week the magistrate judge suddenly reversed his initial order. All her cases were

postponed and she was told to wait for further instructions from the Court. While

researching for another case she accidently learned that the Indiana Supreme Court has

appointed a special Judge from Hamilton County to oversee her cases.

12 In 2007the Honorable Judge Proffitt illegally asked a private attorney to tell her to check

into Winona Women Hospital for inpatient treatment. She told the attorney that she will

not comply unless the Judge issues a court order to compel her to go.

13 She did not hear from the court for three years. The statue of limitation for all her

misdemeanor cases has run out. In 2008 the Police arrested her for resisting arrest and

allegedly causing bodily injury. Suddenly all her previous cases became alive and

attached to the new case. No judge in Marion County wanted to take her case. Judge

Proffitt also asked to be excused.

14 The Indiana Supreme Court ordered Special Judge Proffitt to trial the last case. In the

pretrial hearing she asked the Judge to rule on her request for evidence. The Prosecutor

claimed that the statue of limitations has not run out because all delay has been charged

to her account. The Judge decided to take on the second case out of any logical

chronologicalorder. She was annoyed and wanted the Judge to rule on the statue of

limitation on the first three cases. The Judge allowed to voice her complaints and at no

time try to stop her. At the end of the session she ordered the prosecutor to file a motion


Fnl1


4/7

to test her competency. The Prosecutor, the Public Defenders and Judge Collins then

went into the Judge Chambers to plan for the action to be taken.

15 Judge Proffitt then issued an order for her to be evaluated by Dr. Parker and Dr.

Callaway. In her order she did not ask for an evaluation but told the Doctors

unambiguously that she is incompetent to stand trial and asked for their advice of the

possibility of treatment to return her normalcy.

16 Dr Callaway and Dr. Parker gave identical evaluations concluding that she is incapable of

representing herself and is incapable of assisting counsel. Dr. Callaway recommended

that since there is no cure for her state of mind she should not be put in an impatient

facility. Dr. Callaway also violated her doctor and patient confidentiality when she shared

her documents and comments with Dr. Parker. Even though she did not agree with Dr.

Callaways evaluation she did not take any legal actions against her because her

evaluation would be superseded by Dr. Parker. Dr. Parker came up with an identical

evaluation but added a recommendation that if the court concurred she should be put in

an inpatient facility even though there is no cure because she is a threat to the community.

Dr. Parker does not have any evidence to the threat and he is asking the Judge for

permission to put her in an inpatient facility. If Dr. Parker is worth his salt, he is required

by law to put her in a mental facility immediately if he really believes his

recommendations. Dr. Parker maliciously added the inpatient treatment when there is no

cure without any evidence. Dr. Parker knows and understands the ramifications of his

recommendations and has intentionally committed medical malpractice. How many

times Dr. Parker has committed innocent people to inpatient facilities before?

17 The Judge then decided to strip her of her rights to self representations without a

competency hearing. If the Judge has her way she will not be allowed to defend herself


Fnl1


5/7

and have to abide by any rulings the Public Defender, the Prosecutors and Judge agreed

on. I am no rocket scientist but I can see the writings on the wall because once admitted

to an impatient facility and there is no cure by Indiana Law she will be remain in the

facility permanently.The Judge intended to proceed with the competency hearing even

though she has filed a motion for injunctive relief.

18 I wonder how Dr. Parker and Dr. Callaway can come to the same conclusions. In my

simple mind a crazy person will be committing the offences many times a month and

thousand of times in the five years span. Why was Dr. Parker allowed to make three

similarevaluations on her? Dont she deserve a second and third opinion from different

doctors? I believe the Indiana Law on competency is to protect the insane who is

incapable of understanding their actions and punishments if proven guilty. This law

should not be used by any Judge to prevent anyone from due process and a fair trial. If

the prosecutor has any evidence in any of the four cases why the delay in proceeding with

the trials. Why is the State spending so much resources and money when the offences in

the four cases are so minor? Why is the Indiana Supreme Court appointing a special

Judge for these cases?

19 The Indiana University claimed immunity from prosecution because it is a state

institution. If a state institution knowingly allows a felon or a person of immoral

character to head one of its department and refuse to do anything about the situation then

the state institution should not be protected and be equally responsible for the criminal

and illegal activities of all its employees.

20 Dr. Parker claimed immunity from prosecution because he is appointed by the court.

Dr.Parker is protected by law so long as his evaluation is fair and consistent with standard

acceptable in psychiatric practice. When Dr. Parker willfully and maliciously gave an


Fnl1


6/7

evaluations without any evidence to appease the court to take away a person rights to self

representations he is not immune for his careless evaluation and can be sued for medical

malpractice.

21 The honorable Judge Proffitt refused to dismiss the three previous cases with expired

status of limitations. She also obstructed justice by not allowing a person to get

evidences for the last case. She collaborated with the prosecutor and public defendant to

strip a person the right to self representation. She gave Dr. Parker the format of the

evaluation she desired before the person was sent for evaluation. Since the honorable

judge has violated the rules of the court on so many occasions she can no longer claims

immunity from prosecution.

22 English is Kay Kims second Language and many people misunderstood and

misconstrued her arguments. Although Kay Kim does not have any law background she

is conversant with the Rules and Procedures of the Court and do her own research of

cases in the law library. I affirm that Kay Kim is capable of representing herself in her

trials and be accorded the due process under the law. It is unconstitutional to deprive Kay

Kims rights to self representation.

I affirm under the penalty for perjury that the representations contained in this

affidavit are true to the best of my information and belief.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 09 , 2009By Charles ChuangPhone# (317) 641-5977Address: 4250 Village Pkwy Cir E unit 2,Indianapolis, IN 46254


Fnl1


7/7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing to the counsels were either mailed by first

class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid or hand delivered no later than September 12, 2009. ____________________ Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff 4250 Village Pkwy c e apt. 2Indpls., IN 46254, Ph# 317-641-5977e-mail: [email protected]

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

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

Corinne GilchristDeputy Attorney GeneralOffice of the Indiana Attorney GeneralIndiana Government Center South, 5 th Floor 302 W. Washington StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204-2770tel: 317-234-2237fax: 317-232-7979em: [email protected]

____________________ Kay Kim, Pro Se-Plaintiff


Fnl1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

sept 9, 2009: affidavit of charles chuang insupport of theplaintiff's foj...

Documents