Hi Arch,

> I don't buy the contention that all those assertations
> of discrimination are truly "Facts Not in Dispute"

The section you refer to is a feature of summary judgment motion practice. The idea is that if there are no questions of fact in dispute on a particular portion of a lawsuit, a party should be able to motion the court for a judgment based on the pleadings and any evidence that has been introduced. The person moving states what they believe are the facts not in dispute; the non-movant (or opposing party) states what facts *are* in dispute; and the judge decides if they are, or not, in dispute. The State may agree with me; they may dispute those items; or they may elect not to address them and risk the Bench agreeing with me.

As a material issue, I would not allege that which I cannot prove, and I am prepared to prove those assertions. In short, I have the evidence to back up my statements and proceeding otherwise would be foolish. It is clear on the record of the case that the State has refused to prosecute crimes committed against me.

> I don't believe sexual orientation (attraction to minors)
> is the sole determining criterion those listed use to justify
> their opinions.

You are - only in the slightest sense - correct. "Thoughts", per se, cannot be sanctioned by the law. The State has confirmed to the District Court that they require political action of some sort on the part of a minor attracted individual to take those actions. That political action, presumably, would include telling another person (i.e. "outting" yourself to someone who betrays your trust). Understand, it is in writing that their policy is to discriminate against us based solely on orientation AND some political activity.

> I believe an individual's criminal record
> (play a much larger role than Kevin admits)

So too, would the State like you to believe that...at least until they establish the precedent. It is in error. I have a single conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a), possession of child pornography, ten years ago. My offense was "violating the decency standards of the community", which is the sole reason why pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. It is not a "crime against a minor". How does your speeding ticket years ago bear on your fitness as a parent?

> and past actions play a much larger role than Kevin admits

I was a successful small business owner in Indianapolis, married, active in my Church, a volunteer for the Regional Minority Supplier Development Council, active in the Chamber of Commerce, and an active Republican. I served my country in uniform and under hostile fire. I declared bankruptcy once in my life. I did not have a speeding ticket for fifteen years, or any other legal trouble (besides my conviction, which I pled guilty to). My family is a political one and I know a lot of people in this City. I partcipated (in my last private business) in a great deal of the inner-city reconstruction efforts that took place here, and I can walk through downtown and see the work that I did still in place.

You are wrong about past actions.

Sincerely,

Kevin Brown