Wednesday, June 6, 2007

A Cry For Help!


This is a cry for help. No ordinary citizen can protect or defend himself from this kind of abuse.
Dan O'Vadka can be reached at 765-472-2235 or at
Abbott can be reached at 574-223-9586 or at

Within the last week, state and local swat teams were put on alert and laid plans to disguise themselves as contractors coming on Dan and Tina O'Vadka's rural Miami County Indiana property to remove many years of tree growth[1] for City of Peru Municipal Airport purposes and to, as related to Dan by longtime very close personal friend and Pastor, Rick Abbott of Rochester Indiana, to see if O'Vadka would shoot at them for coming on the property. Pastor Abbott, having removed all weapons from the O'Vadka home at Mr. O'Vadka's request though his intent was the same, would learn this after intervening in this ugly situation and beginning discussions with local and state law enforcement. The dispute centers on municipal claims that that this rural Miami County property, in excess of four miles from the city, is in the cities airport zone and under the jurisdiction of municipal authorities. Yet, the county admits the property is under their jurisdiction but claim to have nothing to do with the airports "fly zone".[2] No violence has occurred, that is, as committed by the O'Vadka's. You be the judge.

Surely law enforcement officials could easily verify these claims of municipal zoning and territorial jurisdiction before planning a military style assault on a man and wife, couldn't they? How much of a real threat could a retired totally disabled man who has extreme difficulty walking any more than the distance through an average "superstore" and can not squat down due to his knees, actually pose? O'Vadka has not had any brush with the law in nearly 30 years. Could it be that both O'Vadka and Pastor Abbott saw the potential for extreme violence and misrepresentation and took these steps preemptively? Abbott later testified to many violent aspects of this situation and raised many troubling issues to law enforcement and the local court. O'Vadka would be summoned into court on civil contempt charges as posing a threat of armed resistance to a court order.

In one of three law enforcement visits which later court testimony and affidavits show as essentially friendly, a sheriff's officer serving contempt of court papers was invited into the O'Vadka home by Mrs. O'Vadka while Dan was sleeping. The officer saw a rifle, shotgun, handgun, and ammunition in the O'Vadka's living room. Abbott's discussions with law enforcement revealed that swat teams had been alerted and plans made. Pastor Abbott, having knowledge that close friend O'Vadka had been visited by the City's Chief of Police and informed of that hour long conversation, and whom had also been informed by O'Vadka that he had argued with the County sheriff by phone, intervened, assured law enforcement by sworn affidavit that he had removed all weapons from the O'Vadka home, and then began his discussions with law enforcement officials.

Was O'Vadka charged with a criminal offense? No. He was summoned into court on civil contempt of court charges. Was it unlawful to have rifles and ammunition in his home? O'Vadka would eventually cross examine law enforcement officers about this to which the answer was that it was absolutely not unlawful to possess and keep these firearms in his home and he had not committed any violation of law by doing so. Other testimony reveals that they were not sure what OVadka' statements meant, and that all such statements were conditioned on showing of legal authorities according to federal and state statutes that O'Vadka cites by the bucketload verbatim. What if O'Vadka's statements were acts of demanding law enforcement action and protection against unlawful and unreasonable legal abuse and the destruction of their property? Yet he is now not allowed to have those weapons, and a weapons search of home and property was conducted by both the local sheriff and chief of police 5-29-2007 without a warrant. What is really going on here?

How can it be that in the United States of America can someone be forced to surrender fundamental constitutional rights to possess and keep those weapons in his home, and later be required to "voluntarily" submit to future weapons search and seizure without a warrant, without being charged with an offense, be disarmed by intimidation of the planned exercise of force and violence against him, be denied his lawful right to defend himself and his property, or be jailed for contempt of court for what someone thought he MIGHT DO? Does the presence of lawful weapons in your home present a threat of armed resistance? Can these Constitutional rights be abrogated under the guise of contempt of court with no charges other than civil contempt having been alleged against him? It should be noted that O'Vadka was not found in contempt at the hearing,[3] but later notified by mail of this contradictory finding.[4]

The O'Vadka's firmly believe that voluntary removal of weapons from their home and property by their close friend and pastor at O'Vadka's request is far different than being required by the local court to not keep them in their home, and to be required to submit to a weapons search and seizure of home and property without a warrant to be an egregious abuse of power and violation of their rights. What if you "agreed" to do this "voluntarily" under extreme duress and extreme intimidation to keep from being jailed, or worse? Does this circumvent the need for a warrant and probable cause? Either you go to jail and lose all rights, have a federal lawsuit derailed for time factors, or are forced to sacrifice all but your freedom. What if this was your home, property, and Constitutional rights? Are there any gun owners out there that fear this kind of abuse? Please step forward.

Dan and Tina O'Vadka began what is a now more than a 2 1/2 year battle with local, state, and federal officials over a federally funded 2004 runway expansion of the Peru Municipal Airport in which approach surfaces were placed as low as approximately 18 feet above ground and approximately the same distance from their roof. Clearing was demanded, uncompensated, for another new surface which was as low as 13 feet above ground due to the expansion and was even closer to the roof of their home. Municipal officials demanded that the O'Vadka's allow the bulldozing of all trees on their property. [5] The O'Vadka's demanded that the city and airport purchase their home and property. Eventually they filed a federal lawsuit in US District Court [6]last October for fraud and civil rights violations.

These approach surfaces were long ago defined as "highways in the sky" by the US Supreme Court.[7] They are rising inclined planes varying in size and elevation as defined and required by law[8]. The reader should understand that many federal laws apply to the airport and federal grant recipient[9] and require them to institute proper airport compatible zoning laws, [10] and certify the safety of approach areas [11]among many, many other things providing lawful consideration for the social, economic, and environmental effects of the Airport[12] on surrounding properties. These laws also provide multiple assurances of representative and political considerations and that airport development be consistent with local planning. These are very good laws Congress has provided us and should be obeyed. As with federal highway and all other funding, when the states accept federal program funds, they are required to abide by their certifications of federal standards and requirements.[13] They should also be recognized in every court in this nation.[14] O'Vadka would be told in the local court that he could cite federal law in his federal lawsuit.[15]

The Courts long ago decided effects of these "highways in the sky" [16] could not interfere with private property and clearly decided that landowners must have exclusive control of the immediate atmosphere[17] to be entitled to full use, enjoyment, and exploitation of their property. "Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" . . . . "The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material." [18] The O'Vadka's do occupy the immediate atmosphere with their trees in this case and it is outrageous and absurd that any responsible government official would even consider this ridiculous and unsafe proximity to their property as reasonable, let alone declare it legal and proper or expect them to submit to what amounts to the destruction and elimination of all economic value of their property. The courts later established 500 feet for the flight of aircraft as the standard over rural areas, and all courts must abide by US Supreme Court precedents.

The O'Vadka's brought the federal civil rights action in October 2006 in US District Court. It is a matter of record that only one limited hearing has been allowed, the docket is a foot thick and full of unanswered motions, and discovery not allowed. The federal defendants claim absolute immunity for "state torts" and claims "best described as fraud" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and other allegations of "state misdemeanors" of criminal trespass and conversion. Although all parties agree that the O'Vadka's are entitled to judicial review and determination of these immunity claims, a hearing has not yet been held. Federal officials claim that the complaint can be construed as a taking, (true in part) and therefore the matter should be pursued in state court or the US Court of Federal Claims. The O'Vadka's 5th Amendment claims focus on Due Process and Equal Protection clauses more than the Taking and Just Compensation aspects of the 5th and 14th Amendment.

Instead, the O'Vadka's found themselves in the local circuit court. O'Vadka's attempts to have it removed went judicially unanswered and motions to injunct and for evidentiary hearing were "studied" until after the state trial. Therefore, the O'Vadka's filed a another civil rights action [19]against justice department officials for obstructing the federal proceeding, for fraud and fraud on the court, for denying them federal information to defend themselves in state court, and for what was allowed to take place with the local federally funded airport development, and particularly for their involvement and what was allowed to take place in the local court while the first action was pending. The O'Vadka's many claims focus on the following:

It is a matter of public record that no ordinances[20]of any kind exist granting any municipal or airport authority over Miami County lands surrounding the Peru Municipal Airport [21] and the police know this. Instead they buy into local nonsense that they are not necessary. Perhaps they might call the surrounding counties to see if they have an airport zoning ordinance? Perhaps they should have someone read the states airport and aeronautics laws and explain title 36 [22]of the Indiana Code? No municipal annexation ordinance exists for the surrounding county properties,[23] nor does a city or county airport zoning ordinance exist,[24] nor does permission from the county as lawfully required exist or at least will be produced.[25] No cooperative or interlocal agreement exists or has been produced between the city and county[26] nor has joint city county airport authority been established. [27] Perhaps law enforcement could read IC 8-22-2- 9 titled: Establishment of Restricted Zones, Approaches to Airports, Zoning Jurisdiction, to see if a zoning ordinance is required for this airport? Or perhaps IC 8-22-2-10 which refers to the use of eminent domain powers for "areas in restricted zones established under this chapter", and which refers to remonstrance and other rights along with acquisitions "not inconsistent with this chapter". (IC 8-22-2)
The O'Vadka property lies four miles from the city and is zoned agricultural under Miami County jurisdiction. All improvement permits for this property were issued by the county. What would you do if this was your county property and the city claimed you were in the city's airport zone? Wouldn't you demand to see the ordinance establishing that zone? What if you built a home, invested your life's savings and equity and then, after a recent 2004 runway expansion discovered that state law prohibited the zoning authorities from issuance of these improvement permits[28] without first having approval and a permit from INDOT aeronautics division.[29] What if you and very many other county landowners that had built homes had no notice of this requirement? What if it was not recorded or stated in any document affecting your title or in any ordinance that the city or county will produce. What if the city claims they don't need an ordinance to establish this zone affecting your county property? [30] What if you were summoned into court and told that upon challenging the city's and courts jurisdiction that "there is no violation of law" and "no specific law" applies? How do you have a trial in which no law applies? Answer, you live in Miami County Indiana where if you demand that officials quote the law and produce proof of ordinances, you're likely to be visited or executed by a swat team.

How can you be summoned into court and not sued for a zoning or other any other ordinance violation for having trees on your property which have grown for many, many years? Many have (had) grown to more than 40 feet. Or, how can you be summoned into court, not sued under laws for recovery or possession of property or for ejectment, nuisance, or any other cause of action concerning real property or applying other property laws? [31]

An order was recently issued by the local court enjoining the O'Vadka's from interfering with the municipalities' entry upon their land to top in the excess of 100 trees on their property at very low elevations for what is claimed as the municipal airports transitional approach zone area. [32] Remember, the runway was expanded in 2004. Should a public hearing have been held and zoning updated for these new effects and the landowners been provided their rights under law to oppose, remonstrate, or access the courts in opposition? [33]All court orders refer to the airports zone. All other documents repeatedly refer to a zone and other land use restrictions prohibiting bright lights, radio interference, and acceptance of aircraft noise and the flight of aircraft. Wouldn't you demand to be shown ordinances establishing this municipal authority and zone when you live in, vote in, and pay Miami County taxes and have no connection or political representation with the city? Wouldn't you demand answers to your questions and that these answers be stated in accordance with what the laws of your state require? What if the county admits your property is under their zoning jurisdiction but they have nothing to do with the city's "fly zone", [34]wouldn't you demand to know by what authority this zone was established? Every statement Mr. O'Vadka made was conditioned on the production of documents.

What if you had been stalled in federal court in a connected civil rights lawsuit for 8 months then forced into local court, denied change of venue, denied a change of judge and who refused to rule on all motions submitted until minutes before trial. What if you had as your opponent an ex judge of that very court that had presided over the past airport land acquisition issues presented in the federal lawsuit and you had stated your intent to join and sue him, and had made allegations of a criminal nature involving the use and acquisitions of state and federal public funds? Does it sound like a change of venue should have been denied? Should a trial be held under these circumstances in a county in which many other municipal and county officials were named to be joined in the federal lawsuit after federal questions were answered, or sued separately?

What if a nearly 20 year old easement document was executed and acknowledged out of state without a notary seal,[35] and without other lawful requirements entitling it to be recorded in Indiana, and with dates that do not match, and signed by someone outside the chain of title, and who was not the legal owner of the property as defined by Indiana law, [36] and contains a 70 feet vertical defect and a 400 feet horizontal defect in the legal description plus another fraudulently concealed 2.25 feet error O'Vadka discovered by transit. [37]Indiana's eminent domain statutes[38] defines the owner for those eminent domain purposes as the person stated on the deed and who is listed on the tax roles as the person responsible for the taxes. This is not to be confused with property laws concerning marriage, rights in trusts, by will, by reversionary rights, by appointment, etc. Lands taken for public purpose are subject to the provisions of that chapter.[39] When the laws of this state since 1905 have provided that rights taken for public purpose, except in fee title, expire in 5 years unless the government body takes possession and adapts the property for the intended use, you could expect the courts to recognize it's state laws, couldn't you?[40]

What if this document also described your real property as which lies in a zoned area of a municipality and refers to zone conditions, including height and land use conditions repeatedly? It should be safe to say that you would expect that a zoning ordinance was established[41] and that the municipality had territorial jurisdiction?[42] When Indiana law provides that when a specific method is provided by statute, that method must be followed, right?[43] Or, when it also provides that when a specific method is not provided, a government body can exercise a power by ordinance, right?[44] So when the state enacts legislation requiring that when a government body wants to exercise zoning powers and requires that it must do so by following the specific laws and procedures enacted by the legislature, you could expect that, right?[45] After all, our American system of government is of limited powers derived from the people, by the people, and for the people, right?[46] We do not live in a monarchy or communist dictatorship where the government owns all and can take whatever they want, or maliciously impose such unreasonable legal hardships that a person can not claim their rights, do we?

You would expect that along with examining a published and recorded ordinance [47]you could view zoning maps, records of public hearing, records of notice to the land owners,[48] and that all other rights such as remonstrance rights and rights to access the courts in opposition are available and were provided when ordinances were established, right? We think it safe to say that you could reasonably expect to have voting rights, political representation, a board of zoning appeals,[49] and that all conditions and restrictions affecting your property were revealed and contained in the ordinances? What if those conditions and effects changed and had a drastic effect on your property? Wouldn't the property owners be entitled to public hearing? Wouldn't the zoning ordinances have to be changed, those effects disclosed, published and recorded, maps created, other local agencies notified, and the landowners provided all legal rights and be compensated for those changes affecting their properties[50]?

Can land use zoning including height restrictions, tolerance of noise, flight of aircraft, restrictions on bright lights and a prohibition on radio interference be established by easement claiming the property is in a zone and clearly outside of the specific methods provided by the legislature which must be followed. Can territorial jurisdiction be established by easement and all rights as provided by the legislature for voting rights, board of zoning appeals rights, rights of remonstrance and rights to access the court in opposition be circumvented by acquiring so called easement rights describing property as "which lies in south transitional approach zone area of the Peru Municipal Airport"? Welcome to Miami County Indiana where no laws apply and they just make them up as they go. There is no such thing as a transitional approach zone in state, federal, or local law. They are approach surfaces to be controlled by local zoning, and are not zones except in aeronautical parlance, not law. Trees are not regulated for airport purposes in Indiana law, only structures erected and installed[51] by man. Ownership rights of the space above the lands of the State of Indiana are vested in the owners beneath.[52]

After all, Indiana is part of the United States, isn't it? We still have fundamental rights provided by the Constitutions of the State and of the United States, don't we? Haven't generations upon generations suffered and sacrificed their fathers, brothers, sisters and friends who died to uphold and defend these freedoms? We have the right to property[53], the right be safe and secure in our homes, persons, papers, and effects[54], the right to access justice[55] and right to be shown lawful authority when government personnel act, don't we[56]? We have the right to access and view all public documents and to full disclosure of the acts of our government officials as provided by law, don't we[57]? We have the right to equal protection of law[58], to due process of law[59], and the right to bring charges when people break the law, don't we? We have the right to free speech and right to petition the Government for redress of grievances, don't we[60]? We have the right to keep and bear arms [61]and right to protect and defend from forcible entry/felony against our persons and property, don't we? [62] We have the right to face our accusers in a court of law,[63] to present evidence,[64] and if they are not present their accusations should be excluded, don't we? When you are summoned into court, you have a fundamental right to know the nature of the charge and violation of law so you can prepare a defense, don't you? No one is so high that they are above the law, and the laws are to be applied equally to all, aren't they?[65]

Pastor Abbott would relate his knowledge and personal involvement to law enforcement in his discussions where, as subsequent court testimony reveals, Abbott believes there are many issues surrounding this situation that remain legitimately in question. He stated his belief that these need to be addressed before any further action is taken. Abbott raised many very serious and troubling facts including issues of fraud, retaliation for filing the federal suits, misrepresentation of legal authority, government force, local citizenry's fear of local officials, and violent threats and intimidations against the O'Vadka's. Abbott discussions with law enforcement presented viable arguments that law enforcement was being used to commit crimes against the O'Vadka's and their property by corrupt local officials intent on obstructing pending federal civil rights lawsuits filed by the O'Vadka's. Abbott stated his belief that the local trial was an illegal sham proceeding and that before law enforcement is used in this manner they should carefully investigate the true circumstances.

Abbott swore an affidavit to law enforcement as to the O'Vadka's fear for their lives and insisted that they needed to shown legal authority and be provided enacted ordinances establishing this claimed authority. Abbott testified that this was all the O'Vadka's had asked for. Abbott testified to his attendance at a municipal airport board meeting in which turning airport property into a cemetery and Dan being the first to be buried was discussed. Abbott testified to his involvement with tape recordings of public officials refusing to answer questions. Abbott testified to knowledge supported by a witness that the O'Vadka's have suffered gunshots fired in the middle of the night on their property, suffered vandalism and destruction of property, and suffered intimidations and arrogant abuses by municipal officials while challenging the O'Vadka's financial and other ability to access justice, and while belligerently and arrogantly proclaiming that the local court would not find against local government personnel for any reason.

Abbott related to law enforcement and later testified to his attendance at the previous local trial in which he took notes of statements, rulings, and of circumstances he has very strong disagreements with. He stated his attendance was also to emotionally comfort Mrs. OVadka if the judge made good on her previous threats to jail Dan for contempt. He also testified to Mrs. O'Vadka's fear and near emotional breakdown status and of his prior counseling and attempts to comfort her. But make no mistake, she fully agrees with her husband about this situation. It's just too much fear and intimidation for her or anyone else to endure. Mrs. O'Vadka has a heart condition and other serious medical conditions, and has been hospitalized five times since this began. She is recovering from a recent surgery. O'Vadka's anger with the local sheriff focused on this, and O'Vadka did state that the sheriff would have to kill him to put her in jail, was not going to kill his wife with this s**t, and as was connected with all other statements, produce documents, quote the law, and prove authority first or the sheriff was committing a crime for local corrupt officials.

Abbott sent a letter to Indiana's Chief Justice Shepard[66] relating what he witnessed at the trial and his opposition and disagreement to the judge's immediate finding after trial that Dan O'Vadka had committed a punishable offense by engaging in the "unauthorized practice of law". [67] The judge sent this letter to the Chief Justice and local prosecutor making this allegation, informing them that O'Vadka had also filed federal actions. Abbott stated his belief that the local action was to interfere with constitutional rights to pursue a pending federal civil rights action filed in the US District Court by the O'Vadka's. O'Vadka has not been prosecuted though it is very clear that if he files any papers in the state courts or requests transcripts, she will jail him.

The judge's letter stated that she had "discovered during trial" that the property was deeded to his wife and therefore Dan held no property interest. Therefore she concluded that Dan had conducted a trial without membership to the bar and was guilty of this offense. Odd, the judge left out the fact that the original complaint at paragraph 3 named Mrs. O'Vadka as sole owner and that Mr. O'Vadka "appeared to be a necessary party", and that she had failed to address this issue previously. The basis for the courts jurisdiction was repeatedly challenged from day one with no response except "I have jurisdiction" combined with threats of contempt of court. All pleadings state "Now Come Daniel L. and Tina M. O'Vadka." Mrs. O'Vadka was present in court with her husband at all times. Conversely, the federal court determined that as long as this criteria was met, it was perfectly acceptable for them to both proceed pro se and, with O'Vadka having demonstrated capability, determined they held parallel interests and parallel ownership rights, and determined that O'Vadka's presentation to the court would serve both.[68] The local judge ruled O'Vadka didn't own the property, issued an injunction against him for the property, and then made another bizarre ruling that a person who was not on the deed to the property[69] had previously granted rights to the city for the airports zone because he was buying the land on an unrecorded land contract.

Abbott's brother in law and also longtime friend of the O'Vadka's was eyewitness to forcible demands, threats, taunting, and name calling by a city employee who belligerently asked if O'Vadka thought a lawyer would do him any good and if he thought anyone "gave a s**t about his g**damned property " as he demanded that O'Vadka submit to the bulldozing of all trees on their property or the city would top and kill the trees leaving them a "yard full of poles". He witnessed violent threats made on the O'Vadka's and he has submitted affidavits to the courts. He first sent a complaint letter to U.S. Senator Bayh prompting an inquiry. His written accounts clearly state that O'Vadka simply said "show me all the details". This person is now very afraid, and rightly so. Other neighbors will testify to the same or similar statements and abuse if afforded protection. One has also submitted affidavits to both the state and federal courts as has Abbott himself. The "yard full of poles" is now taking place with the so called tree trimming which is in reality leaving the O'Vadka's with trees without branches. O'Vadka would not be allowed to enter the senators several letters into evidence without subpoenaing the Senator.

Before the contempt hearing Abbott accompanied and witnessed a "conference" between the City attorney and O'Vadka. Also present was O'Vadka's mother in law. In this meeting, the O'Vadka's were presented a "settlement agreement" where in exchange for a worthless tract of property directly behind the O'Vadka property, he was asked to sign an agreement dismissing all lawsuits against federal officials, and agree not to sue municipal, county, state, or INDOT personnel, and the city attorney himself. It should be noted that while there are many other aspects of this written offer that are seriously legally flawed, the land behind the O'Vadka property is stated as prohibiting the erection of any structure. Duh, then why is the O'Vadka property, 300 feet closer to the runway, being allowed for residential use with navigable air space (approach transitional surface) barely above ground? The threat of contempt and unauthorized practice of law charges, incarceration, fines, and legal expense are nothing but intimidations and threats of violence, force, and infliction of emotional distress. This should be very evident to anyone that reads the terms of this ridiculous "offer to settle." [70] If the purported legal authority and claimed rights, along with a full, fair, meaningful and timely trial and access to the courts were legally proper and in accordance with the O'Vadka's civil rights, then why make an offer. In this conference, also attended by law enforcement, O'Vadka was not allowed to ask any legal questions about the terms of the document. It was of course rejected, and the reply was "let's go have a contempt hearing then."

In the "indirect contempt of court" hearing 5-23-07, Pastor Abbott would also reveal his knowledge and involvement with recordings in which county officials repeatedly refused to answer O'Vadka for 43 minutes. It should be noted that the recordings clearly state that O'Vadka was recording them. Others of municipal personnel were made with a recording device in plain sight on the O'Vadka property. The county commissioners answers consisted of repeated "Mr. O'Vadka, we've turned that matter over to our attorney" (county) followed by O'Vadka's statements that "and your attorney will not answer my questions." "Are you going to make me go to court to get these documents?" And "did the people elect the county attorney", and "you're the executive body[71], answer my questions".

This was preceded by a meeting in which they stated to O'Vadka and next door neighbor Marilyn Saylor, "I guess your property is under our jurisdiction" and "these things cost a lot of money" and other statements warning that essentially you can't win, you can't do anything, meaning that we'll bankrupt you or worse and the local court will protect us. Saylor's affidavits attesting to this were submitted to the courts. Witness testimony and affidavits clearly demonstrate the O'Vadka's have suffered threats of intentional financial harm at the hands of belligerent municipal and county officials demonstrating their intent to use the "legal system" to bankrupt any who, including Saylor, oppose or attempt to expose their corruption. Such is the "law" in Miami County Indiana.

Abbott would also state his same involvement and knowledge of recordings made of municipal airport commissioners in which they refused to answer questions and as Abbott testified under Dan's cross examination, "they ridiculed you" and their "No, we're not going to answer your questions". Many other statements are on this recording such as "and your attorney (city) won't answer my questions" and "it's between you and the court" and as to questions involving jurisdiction, "I don't think anyone here can answer that question," and very much more.

What if the purported "threat of armed resistance" assumptions were statements that were actually all conditioned on the production and showing of lawfully executed authority by statute or ordinance according to cited law by both the city and the county before anyone entered the O'Vadka property to commit an act of force on behalf of the city. Or to jail either of the O'Vadka's for what are clearly land use and zoning matters of their Miami County property.

What if Mr. O'Vadka has uncovered and has such damming information on local government corruption as to genuinely have reason to fear those people, and in particular what would occur if incarcerated? Is it not a reasonable question to consider as to why this has fight gone on for close to 3 years and is only now coming to a boil? Is it unreasonable to demand public documents of enacted ordinances as clearly required by Indiana law [72] before submitting to these actions? Wouldn't you? What if O'Vadka has opened up a can of worms big enough to devour the local kingdom? How hard would it be for the media to make requests for public documents and check for themselves whether the preceding paragraphs are true? Do ordinances exist? Is O'Vadka in real danger? Read on.

What if all this is a criminal sham perpetrated by local government officials willing to use law enforcement personnel to do their "dirty work" and manipulate, instigate, or invent a violent confrontation between law abiding citizens who are, as Abbott would later testify, only claiming their civil rights and trying to protect themselves. All law enforcement agencies have access to the chief law enforcement officer of the state, the Attorney General.[73] Would it not be legally and morally responsible to have this situation reviewed by the Attorney General before they dispatch swat teams to arrest or execute a citizen who claims his civil rights and lawful right to act in self defense [74] as provided by the laws of this state and country? Or have we now reached the status of a police state in this country where your rights are no longer defined by anything other than whatever arbitrary excess some corrupt official decrees by local edict, not established law?

All law enforcement will focus on is that a local judge has issued an injunction against the O'Vadka's for the municipal airports Transitional Zone and they believe they must enforce that order, however wrong, illegal, or morally reprehensible it is or should be to them. Elementary school reading and mathematics skills reveal vertical and horizontal defects so obvious that a school child could point them out. Several officers have expressed more than a sympathetic position, both off and on the record [75] in calm reasonable discussions with both Mr. O'Vadka and Abbott. Both Abbott's and O'Vadka's positions are strikingly different with them in that (1) law enforcement should not be ordered or participate in criminal acts without investigating the real facts, particularly ones so obvious, and (2) none of this would happen if government officials and law enforcement had done their jobs, or would do their jobs (3) We do not live in a Monarchy and law enforcement can not execute a known invalid warrant.[76]

To be clear, O'Vadka did make a stand and make hostile statements later described in court by as "I don't know" as to what he meant by the chief of police who did personally consider these statements a potential threat, which is all it could be because no violence actually occurred, at least by O'Vadka, but admitted under cross examination by O'Vadka that they spoke for an hour and even "laughed a couple of times" and had asked O'Vadka, a retired musical instrument maker, if he would look at his uncles old guitar and tell him about it. During cross examination of the chief Dan did not delve much into what the Chief had actually stated to him but focused on what he had told the chief. Only time will tell if choosing not to make an enemy or subject the chief to the wrath of the local powers for telling the truth, or put him in a position to lie was wise, but all knew that there were two ways that O'Vadka could prove what was said and had actually been discussed between Dan and state and local police, and the white collar crimes division of the state police.[77]

But can a citizen be lawfully forced into court and forced to surrender fundamental rights and freedoms for what they might do? Do we live under a system of laws or in a monarchy where a malicious and hostile judge and ex judge city attorney can rule by edict and declare that whatever they say is the law, though records and testimony show that the judge ordered the O'Vadka's into court and would not answer challenges to what the violation of law was, threatened him with contempt and summary judgment, and culminated in a trial in which she proclaimed there is no violation of law and no specific law applied and then dispatched police to use violence, force, intimidation, and emotional abuse.

Mother in law of O'Vadka, Arletta Plake, and others, later stated to O'Vadka that it was obvious that the majority of law enforcement officers were on O'Vadka's side. Sheriff's captain Vitek would state to O'Vadka after the hearing that they were caught in the middle and to advised him continue to pursue it in another court. All law enforcement take this same position, that if a judge orders it, they must enforce. This was the primary cause for statements made and a hostile argument between O'Vadka and the County Sheriff who submitted an affidavit of HIS side of the conversation, but did not attend the hearing. O'Vadka's objections and arguments fell on deaf ears when he demanded that if the sheriff was not present to be cross examined, the affidavit should be excluded. Anyone ever hear of the right to face your accuser?[78] That doesn't exist in Miami county Indiana either. The Sheriff constantly advises going to the State Police White Collar Crimes Division, which they have repeatedly.

The court record shows that the O'Vadka's were sued by local officials claiming that their acts "will cause the loss of future grant funding for the Peru municipal airport" and "safety", "violating the airspace", and "public purpose". Shouldn't the "safety law" be invoked? Shouldn't the "airspace law" be invoked? Isn't public purpose established and governed by statute or enacted ordinance as Indiana law clearly requires and shouldn't the defendant have the appropriate law established so they can prepare and defend themselves? Is this what our system of laws and government have degenerated to? When citizens can be drug into court and be sued for what some official proclaims "will cause" without alleging a violation of law or established causes of action invoked? The final judgment tells a different story than "will cause". FAA withheld the airports funding either before or after the O'Vadka's sued FAA officials for, among many things including fraud and civil rights violations, their claiming authority to determine the O'Vadka's property rights under state laws. FAA has no authority to regulate or control private property, nor do they have authority to act in a judicial capacity over state law issues. Nor will they state any legal authority.

Both Abbott and O'Vadka would relate to law enforcement how the O'Vadka's were sued "pursuant to trial rule 65" for a permanent injunction and a statute that applies during a proceeding for temporary injunction or restraining order, as does the trial rule. The O'Vadka's were not sued for a zoning violation, for ejectment or possession of property, for nuisance, or for any violation of law or any municipal ordinance. O'Vadka would be told that laws were not evidence.[79]

The O'Vadka's repeatedly challenged the jurisdiction of the municipality, the "standing" of the municipality to sue, and the jurisdiction of the court. O'Vadka told the chief that he argued repeatedly in court and by multiple unanswered motions that for the court to have jurisdiction, authority to sue, a violation of law and associated injury had to be established on the record of the proceeding for the court to have jurisdiction. O'Vadka's jurisdictional challenges were fully supported by Indiana Appellate and Supreme Court decisions and US Supreme court decisions. O'Vadka related how at eventual trial, the judge would state that "there is no violation of law", "No specific law". "The Judge would further state she was "interested in whether the easement is the document owned by Peru, not whether it was executed in accordance with law." The judge refused to rule on all motions submitted or require the city attorney to respond to all motions, constant jurisdictional challenges, allow oral arguments, and the O'Vadka's found her order denying all while on the defense table minutes before court. Major portions of all motions were ignored, misconstrued, or not addressed in any way except to non specificlly state they were dismissed and to ignore established rules of procedure which would afford the O'Vadka's summary judgment.[80]

Throughout all conversations with law enforcement and in all papers submitted to the federal and state courts, O'Vadka cites a multitude of applicable state and federal statutes relating to airport and aeronautic laws, zoning laws, property laws, laws defining local government powers, planning and development laws, access to public documents laws, and offers the tape recordings of public meetings and public records along with written statements of officials showing that no government entity, city, county, state, and FAA, will state what they or the airport/governing body did to comply with them nor have they cited a lawful basis to make their claims. It is as if these laws don't exist, and for that matter, they don't in Miami County.

[1] Public documents and airport/ FAA/ aerial photos show this property and all adjacent to be heavily wooded back to the original 1970 development.
[2] Letter from the county's insurance co.
[3] Minute entry from court.
[4] Judgment changed and sent by letter from city atty. judge signature stamped.
[5] Eyewitness account of event and statements/affidavits.
[6] 3: 06 CVO 698WL
[7] United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256, 266 (1946
[8] IC 8-21-10-8 mirrors 14 CFR part 77
[9] 49 USC chapter 471- 14 CFR part 151,152.
[10] 49 USC 47107 (a) (10)
[11] 49 USC 47105
[12] 49 USC 47106 (b) (c) subject to NEPA and CEQ
[13] See; South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 483 U.S. 203 (U.S. 06/23/1987) citing United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936), Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, (1981) clearly articulating the right under the Spending Clause of the federal government to attach conditions to the use of federal funding.
[14] Supremacy Clause Article VI US Const.
[15] Witnessed by 2 other parties (Abbott/ Saylor) who will testify. We do not trust nor have seen a transcript
[16] Causby v. US 328 U.S. 256, 266 (1946)
[17] Griggs, 369 U.S. at 89 SEE
[18] Griggs, 369 U.S. at 89
[19] 3: 07 CVO 159RL
[20] IC 36-1-3-6, IC 8-22-2-5, IC8-22-2-9, IC 36-7-4-et seq 36-4-3-4 (a)(2) (e)(g)
[21] Zoned Agricultural Miami County Ord. 31, 1968
[22] IC 36 et seq Local Government
[23] IC 36-4-3
[24] IC 8-22-2-9, 36-1-3-6, 36-7-4-201(a)
[25] IAC 105-3-3-8-(5)
[26] IC 36-1-7-(1)(2)(3)
[27] IC 8-22-3 et seq
[28] IC 36-7-4-801-802- IC 36-7-4-918.5
[29] IC 8-21-10-3
[30] 3-7-2007 trial - city attorney
[31] IC 32-30 et seq 8-21-10-8 approach surface locality in nuisance law
[32] No such thing in law. Transitional surface, not zone.
[33] IC 36-7-4 et seq 49 USC 47016 (c)
[34] county ins. co. letter IC36-4-3-9.1 (2) 105 IAC 3-3-8-(5) 105 IAC 3-1-3
[35] IC 32-21-2-5
[36] IC 32-24-1-2
[37] Verified correct by later obtained public documents. Fraudulent concealment from beginning.
[38] IC 32-24-1 et seq
[39] IC 32-24-1-16
[40] IC 32-24-1-15
[41] IC 36-7-4-201 (a) IC 8-22-2-9 IC 8-22-3-14
[42] IC 36-1-3-6 IC 36-1-4-18 IC 8-22-2-5 (by ordinance) IC 36-4-3-3.5 IC 36-4-3-4
[43] IC 36-1-3-6 (a)
[44] IC 36-1-3-6 (b) (1) IC 36-1-7-2
[45] IC 36-7-4-201
[46] US Constitution
[47] IC 36-1-3-6 IC 36-7-4-201 IC 36-4-3-6 IC 36-4-3-8 IC 36-7-4-205 IC 36-7-4-601 et seq -specifically 36-7-4-610
[48] IC 36-7-4-et seq
[49] IC 36-7-4- 901 et seq SEE 918.5
[50] All in title 36
[51] IC 8-21-10-2
[52] IC 8-21-4-3
[53] 5th amendment US Constitution- elsewhere
[54] 4th amendment US Constitution
[55] 1st, 5th, 6th,7th, 14th amendments US Constitution- Article III, IV etc.
[56] The prohibitions of the Constitution apply to all departments of government, and to all private citizens. The executive of course must always show authority of law for his action: and when this is out of his power, this can not be due process of law. All ministerial officers must show warrant for everything they assume to do in apparent disturbance of the rights of others. The judiciary, from the highest courts to the lowest, must exercise it powers within the limits permitted by law, or it will act without jurisdiction, and therefore without Due Process. Thomas Cooley, 4th ed. 2002, The General Principals of Constitutional; Law in the United States. Art. 16 sec. 2 Who restrained?
[57] IC 5-14-3 et seq - freedom of information act.
[58] 5th 14th amendments US Constitution
[59] 5th 14th amendments US Constitution
[60] 1st 4th 5th 14th amendments US Constitution
[61] 2nd amendment US Constitution
[62] IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force
[63] 6th amendment US Constitution
[64] 5th 6th amendments US Constitution
[65] No Man (or woman) is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. Butz v. Economou citing US v. Lee, 106 U.S, at 120.
[66] Included
[67] letter from judge Burke to Chief justice, included. 3-19-07 Order- 1st paragraph
[68] federal ruling provided upon request.
[69] Meyer v. Marine Builders, Inc., 797 N.E.2d 760, 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). "A record outside the chain of title does not provide notice to bona fide purchasers for value."
[70] "recording does not establish ownership, Patterson v. Seavoy, 822 N.E.2d 206, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

[72] All airport statutes IC 8-22 and local government IC 36 powers are by law, defined IC 36-1-2-8, constitution, statute, ordinance.
[73] IC 4 sec. 6
[74] IC 35-42-3-2
[75] Abbott and O'Vadka conversations with local and state, Affidavits witnessing Sheriff Roland admit there were no zoning or annexation ordinances, city never had power of eminent domain, and airport documents obviously wrong.
[76] IC 35-41-3-3
[77] Several attempted contacts. Same position, if a judge gives an order, they'll enforce it.
[78] 6th amendment
[79] see IC 36-1-5-5, IC 35-40-1-2
[80] motions to dismiss pursuant to trial rules 12 b6 and 12 B7 were ignored. 33 objections under 11B (false statements) were not addessed. All other Motions were dismissed without fact finding, due process,and all else.