You are on page 1of 27


Kay Kim, Plaintiff,

) ) v. ) ) Cause No. 1:09-cv-0829-DFH-JMS George 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. )

_______________________________________________________________________ _ CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT _______________________________________________________________________ _ i. PARTIES


Plaintiff Kay Kim, Pro Se, am a citizen of Indiana and presently reside at

4250 Village Pkwy unit 2, Indianapolis, Indiana 46254 t#(317) 641-5977, email: 2. Defendant, George Parker, M.D. address is Forensic Psychiatry Clinic,

1111 W. Tenth Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-4800; t#(317) 274-1355 f#(317) 278-7259. 3. Defendant, Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt address is Marion Superior

Court Criminal Division 8, 200 E. Washington, St., Indianapolis, IN 46204. f8clk 317-327-5665/3202, f8f# 317-327-1432.

Page 1 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009


Defendant, Indiana University address is 750 East Kirkwood Avenue,

Bloomington, IN 47405-7101, t#(812) 856-4301 / f#(812) 855-7623.


5. 1983. U.S.

Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § Constitution: 5th-due process, 6th-self representation, 8th-cruel and unusual

punishment, 14th-eqal protection of the laws, 42 USC 14141, intentional malpractice. 6. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.



Based on Dr. George F. Parker’s competency report of evaluation done on

May 19, 2009, Plaintiff lost self representation on June 16, 2009 order issued by the Special judge Judith S. Proffitt and facing imminent danger of institutionalization in a mental hospital by involuntary civil commitment indefinitely. According to Dr. Parker’s evaluation of the Plaintiff, there is no cure or medication for paranoid personality disorder, and the Plaintiff is a danger to community. With his recommendations, the State of Indiana can put the Plaintiff in a psychiatric institution for life without due process. Since 2005 the Defendants have systematically abused their position/power bestowed by the State of Indiana and committed conspiracy in character of agreement to intentionally inflict emotional distress and alienation of affection for the Plaintiff and her family
Page 2 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

without evidence thereby violating the Plaintiff’s rights protected by U.S. Constitutions. Dr. George F. Parker’s report/evaluation is bogus. It is scary that he is an IU professor and teaching the next generation psychiatrists with his flawed theory which impacts and exploits the “mentally ill” for financial benefits and substitute a fair trial to deprive Plaintiff’s body and mind.



The following is the mental evaluation report on the Plaintiff done by Dr.

George F. Parker, Psychiatrist, IU Assoc Professor, on May 19, 2009, in part as follow: (Attached: EXHIBIT 1: his full report of evaluation done on 5-19-00; EXHIBIT 2: cassette tape of evaluation done on 5-19-09; EXHIBIT 3: Plaintiff, Kay Kim’s Pro se filing “Deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Grant Summary and Default Judgment as a Final Order for the Plaintiff” on 6-9-20.) OPINION ….. “Overall, Ms. Kim demonstrated an impaired ability to assist her attorney in her defense and an impaired ability to represent herself. SUMMARY: It is my opinion, with reasonable medical certainty, that the defendant is currently capable of understanding the nature and objectives of the proceedings against her and is not currently capable of assisting her attorney in her defense or of representing herself in her own defense. RECOMMENDATIONS: If the court concurs, Ms. Kim should be referred to the Indiana Division of Mental Health & Addictions for inpatient restoration to competence, as this is the least restrictive setting consistent with the treatment needs of the defendant and the safety of the community. In my November 2009 report, I noted that treatment of paranoid personality disorder is difficult, as people with this diagnosis do not believe they have any mental disorder. In addition, psychiatric medications are generally not helpful and engaging people with this disorder in psychotherapy is not easy. As a result,
Page 3 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

restoration of this defendant’s competence to stand trial is likely to be difficult, but it is hoped sufficient progress can be made to facilitate resolution of the defendant’s cases.” Signed by: George F. Parker, M.D. Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry Indiana University School of Medicine


Dr. George F. Parker’s competency report is bogus, flawed and groundless.

It contains a wishful list of allegations without any evidence. (The Plaintiff request for relief for all and any detail of every contentious pointwill be done by Oral Argument. Therefore, Plaintiff has not listed all the details.) Dr. Parker should not have any problem with her request through this court to debate. Dr. Parker will undoubtedly have a huge advantage over her. The Plaintiff speaks and writes in broken English. English is her 2nd language and she only has 9 years of formal education. Dr. Parker’s summary is not based on his evaluations that day and his recommendation is based solely on his whim and fancy without any scientific and medical test. Dr. Parker is ignorant that a “statute of limitation” exists for a misdemeanor charge and the Plaintiff had to explain the statue to him. He insisted repeatedly that there is no statute of limitation. 10. No one needs to go to a hospital if there is no medicine and cure available

for a disease unless he can obtain temporary relief from the pain from some drugs like morphine. Dr. Parker recommended the Plaintiff to be referred to an inpatient facility when he is certain that there is no cure and no medicine that can restore her conditions. The Plaintiff can have no benefits from going to the inpatient facility since there is nothing the doctor can do. Dr. Parker’s conclusions and recommendations is solely based
Page 4 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

on his own decision to exploit the Plaintiff for own interests. Even though the Plaintiff did not carry any paper in the court on May 12, 2009 Dr. Parker alleged without any evidence in his report that the Plaintiff thrashed some papers around in court. 11. Dr. Parker assumed erroneously that Charles Chuang is Mr. Kim. He

further claimed that Mr. Kim appeared embarrassed by the Plaintiff’s action whatever it may be. Charles Chuang is capable and can speak himself. In any case it is not Dr. Parker’s prerogative to make any evaluations on him. Charles Chuang suffers as much as the Plaintiff when she is victimized and persecuted by the Defendants. Charles and the Plaintiff cried after we read Dr. Parker’s report and the cruel implications and recommendations it contained. 12. As soon as tape ran out, Dr. Parker turned into “Dr. Jackal” and shouted

and accused the Plaintiff: “You are violent in 2005!.... why would the police lie?….” The constitutions specify that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial but Dr. Parker concluded and convicted the plaintiff with all the alleged crimes rightthere and then. The Plaintiff then asked him to repeat what he just said and was willing to tape over the previous recordings but he refused. The Plaintiff told Dr. Parker that she was there to be evaluated for competency to stand trial and not to be convicted on any crimes. Charles wanted to talk to Dr. Parker but the Plaintiff didn’t want him to as this evaluation was to determine her competency and not his. Charles is the only solid confidante the Plaintiff has in this world and she will only let him write a few affidavits for her because she is afraid of possible retaliations on him. The Plaintiff feels that Charles life is much more precious than hers and furthermore her family needs him. The Plaintiff then left with Charles.

Page 5 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009


On June 15, 2009, Judge Proffitt ordered that the Plaintiff can no longer

represent herself and set competency hearing on July 10, 2009. The Plaintiff received the psychic evaluation and order on June 27, 2009. The Public Defender Matthew Gerber claimed that he told the judge it is illegal for her to take away the Plaintiff rights to self representation and admit her to a mental institution without a hearing. Regardless the Plaintiff feels that the hearings set for July 10th , 2009 is just a stage for the Judge to send her to an impatient facility. 14. The statute of limitation of 3 out of the 4 Indiana criminal cases had run

out and yet to be disposed. Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt and the Prosecutor blamed the Plaintiff for the delay in the trial of the cases. Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt set July 30, 2009 for the jury trial of the Judge Sosin case and ignored the other 3 cases. The Statute of limitation of the last case is the only one that has not run out. 15. All the 3 criminal misdemeanors cases run out of Indian Statute of

limitation under INDIANA STATUES, ARTICLE 2, Limitation, §§ 2030: Criminal Procedure-Limitation of Actions. – In all other case, prosecutions for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years, ..… But prosecutions for the forgery of an instrument of the payment of money, or for the uttering of such forged instrument, may be brought within five years after the maturity thereof. (1929 p. 677 §§ 1; 1905 p. 584 §§ 23.) 15(a) On March 2, 2007, Indiana Supreme court under Cause no. 49S00-0702-SJ-62 Order Appointed Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt to try the 3 criminal cases against the Plaintiff: 49F08-0607-CM-140781, 49F08-0606-CM-112139,
Page 6 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

49F08-0505-CM-083990. Judge Proffitt ignored the order and pushed the cases under the rug. The Plaintiff did not hear anything about the cases from the Court. When the Plaintiff was arrested on November 6, 2008 the three old cases were attached to her new case. 15(b) On November 14, 2008, Judge Judith S. Proffitt together with Judge Barbara Collins filed a motion to Indiana Supreme Court to ORDER ON RECUSAL AND REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL JUDGE under Cause no 49F08-0811-CM-254608. 15(c) On December 1, 2008, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard under Cause no 49S00-0811-SJ-599 denied her motion and Ordered the Honorable Judith S. Proffitt as a special judge captioned only case number 49F08-0811-CM254608. By the order of Chief Justice’s caption by replied with one case instead all 4 cases, one could conclude anything from that. Bottom line, Chief Justice’s Order is insufficient and it can be construedas even “illegal order”. Judge Proffitt intentionally put a Chief Justice in a very bad position. If I work for anyone, I’ll never and ever knowingly & put my boss to give illegal order by tricking him or even to my subordinate for that matter. He could have firmly chastised Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt and Judge Barbara Collins’s acceptable disregard for the law. Plaintiff is not asking the Chief justice to do my job. But, when an issue was presented to him, he cannot and must not issue aninsufficient and illegal Order. Chief Justice could have stated in the body of order of stating that the all 3 cases have run out of Statute of limitation. If he was serious
Page 7 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

about tackling the issue to prevent future misconduct by a Judge, he could have follow up with some sort of necessary sanction whatever that might be. Then, this lawsuit and court room drama could have ended. 15(d) Judge Profffitt, Collins and prosecutor Andrew Wignall blamed the Plaintiff for the delay in the trial and further told her that the clock counted towards her. This will only apply if the Plaintiff fled the State &/or country, missed any set court hearing or asked for an enlargement of time. Since the above criteria do not apply to the Plaintiff she demanded the Judge Proffitt to dismiss case accordingly. When Judge Proffitt set 2006 (2nd oldest case) cause no CM112139 for jury trial on July 30, 2009 the Plaintiff questioned the Judge’s decision to try the cases out of any logical chorological order. The Plaintiff complained that the Judge has no intention to carry out justice. By her conscious action to try instead of dismissing the cases which are no longer within the statute of limitation she has intentionally violated Indiana Statue. Even before she took away the Plaintiff Pro Se and the Judge said (sarcastically), “They have 8 years of law degree. Do you know the law? ….” 15(e) Judge Proffitt did not even mention the latest case or asked if there is any evidence against the Plaintiff for the trial in the Indiana Criminal Court. Instead, she ordered the Plaintiff to file motion whenever she asked for Prosecutor to produce evidence for the alleged charge. The Plaintiff filed numerous motion, subpoena
Page 8 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

duces tecum, interrogatories, produce evidences, Exhibit lists, Witness lists, etc., and was ready for trial. Judge Proffitt never talks or rule on any of the filings for CM254608 which is the latest case. Instead, Judge Proffitt had been siding with the prosecutor to turn the case into a “mental” one. All the judges, prosecutors, public and private defenders before Judge Proffitt wanted the same outcome and refused to give Plaintiff a fair trial. 15(f) On May 1, 2009, Judge Proffitt ordered the mental evaluation under all 4 cases and titled, “ORDER FOR EXAMINATION COMPETENCY TO STAND RESTORE THE DEFENDANT TO DEFENDANT’S SOUNDNESS OF CONCERNING DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, THE ABILITY TO COMPETENCY AND/OR MIND.”

15(g) Based on Dr. Parker’s report on June 16, 2009, Judge Proffitt issued an order to remove the Plaintiff right to self-representation and set July 10, 2009 for competency hearing. The Plaintiff believed that the Judge has already laid her ducks in a row and ready to shoot. The Plaintiff is fearful that the Judge will put her in a mental institution for good and the State will not have to try her cases. 15(h) Since the Judge did not allow the Plaintiff to represent herself, the Plaintiff could not fire the PD (public defender) Matthew Gerber even though he failed to provide sufficient counsel. The PD told the Plaintiff that he is not her counsel. He also made many
Page 9 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

contradicting statements. He told the Plaintiff , “plea guilty to trespassing, no matter how heinous it might sound - you will go to a mental institution 6 months to 1 year maximum and I will take you out just like DAVIS.” He made his intentions loud and clear. The Plaintiff trusts only Charles Chuang to defend and fight for her innocence in any trial if she is not allowed to represent herself. 15(i) The Plaintiff believed that the existing pattern and chain of events shows that Judge Proffitt has no intention to give her a fair hearing and intend to put her into a mental institution without due process. 16. Judge Proffitt never attempted to stop the Plaintiff when she was fighting

for her own life in a passionate manner. The Plaintiff wanted the Court to know that though she may not have the “desirable” manner and style in the court she is not lacking in substance. The Judge has the prerogative to warn and stop the Plaintiff at any time if she doesn’t like anything said or even the tone of voice. If the Plaintiff fails to comply with the warning the Judge can charge her with contempt of court and send her to jail for a few hours to overnight if she sees fit. The Judge ordered the Prosecutor to file a motion for competency hearing. In that instance, Judge ordered F08 court clerk to prepare for mental evaluation paper. After the preliminary hearing, Plaintiff went to F08 clerk’s office and got a copy of the chronological summary for all her cases. The Plaintiff watched the Prosecutor, the Public Defender and the Judge discussing/planning the matter. Later Judge Collins, the prosecutor and the Public Defender went into the Judge’s chamber to finalize the plan.
Page 10 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

17. The Judge has chosen to ignore the two psychiatric examinations given when the Plaintiff was taken to jail. There was also a court psychiatrist taken when the Plaintiff was in custody certifying that there is no evidence of psychosis. The Plaintiff has been seen by Dr. Parker 3 times. Dr. Parker claimed that he is not associated with a state mental institution thereby clearing him of the conflict of interest in his evaluations. However, Dr. Parker teaches at IUPUI and his students go to work in the state institutions thereby making his appointment a conflict of interest disallowed under Indiana Statue. Most Psychiatrists are past students of Dr. Parker and the Plaintiff wonders if anyone dares to disagree with his evaluation no matter how wrong it may be. The only way the Plaintiff can prove that his report/evaluation is flawed and bogus is through a public forum so that the whole world can judge. 18. When there is lack of evidence in a criminal case it is the duty of the Judge to dismiss the case. The Prosecutor does not have any evidence in all the four cases and there is no probable cause and no warrant to arrest in all the affidavits. The Prosecutor and Judge Proffitt haveno intention to grant due process to the Plaintiff by delaying the trial for four years and requesting the Court to test for the competency of the Plaintiff to stand trial. In the four years the Plaintiff has represented herself pro se in two federal lawsuits, one Indiana Superior Civil courts and two small claims courts. 19. Dr. Parker mentioned that Mr. Kim seem to be embarrassed by the

Plaintiff. I will let Mr. “Kim” (he is referring to Charles Chuang) speaks for himself. Dr. Parker became a mind and name reader and is a pretty bad one at that. The Plaintiff and Charles were very disappointed/horrified with the summary and recommendations which seem to contradict everything mentioned earlier in the same evaluation report.

Page 11 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

Dr. Parker came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is a danger to the communitywithout any evidence. He also claimed that the Police cannot be wrong and the Plaintiff is guilty as charged. Dr. Parker claimed with medical certainty that the Plaintiff cannot be restored and thus cannot be cured but yet he is recommending the court to send the Plaintiff to an inpatient institutionas permitted under Indiana law. This is an open ended/life sentence for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Charles even contemplated that it is better for the Plaintiff to plead “guilty or no contest” to all the charges and get sentenced for a limited time instead of the indefinite involuntary commitment. We cried. With this kind of standard and systematic process, any innocent person will admit to murder or any other crimes. This kind of treatment is nothing more than “torture” under name of “medical” certainty. Dr. Parker met his own selfish interest and intentionally provided a careless and malicious option which the Judge asked for. 20. The Plaintiff had taped one hour of the evaluation session with

Dr. Parker for anyone to listen and judge for himself the diagnostic techniques and skill used to come to a conclusion with “medical certainty”. According to Dr. Parker’s assessment/evaluation, the Plaintiff “paranoid personality disorder” has no cure …. Therefore she needs to be admitted to the mental institution…. Danger to the community…” According to Indiana Law, if a patient is a danger to the community he must remain in the mental institution until he can be cured. With Dr. Parker’s recommendations the Plaintiff could remain in the mental institution for the rest of her life without a trial or any evidence. This sentence without a trial is as serious as life imprisonment without the possibility parole is in humane and cannot be taken lightly. 21. Mental Disorder by itself is not a crime. The Plaintiff insists and believes

that anyone who is not pleading a mental defense, should get a fair trial regardlessof any
Page 12 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

reports/evaluation. In the sentencing phase, psychiatric evaluation can be used by both the prosecutor and the defense for aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances. Psychiatric Evaluations cannot and should not be used as a substitute for trial. On this point of law, the Plaintiff challenges the State of Indiana which allowed this standard in the United States Courts in addition to the Plaintiff’s claims in this action. 22. The Plaintiff cried after she read Dr Parker’s report. The Plaintiff is

powerless to do anything but to face the reality that the court is trying to put her in a mental institutionfor good. When that happens Dr Parker and the State of Indiana will be depriving/alienating the Plaintiff from her family’s affections which is the only source that give her strength to keep her sanity when all the injustice are done to her and her family. 23. All the Plaintiff wanted is a fair trial and to represent herself in front of a

jury. If found “guilty” after the trial, the Plaintiff has no choice but to accept the punishment. The Plaintiff is willing to take the chance in all her alleged offenses. The Judge can sentence her way she sees fit. The Plaintiff vows to fight to the end to protect her right to self representation and under no circumstances will she be sent to a mental institution on an Involuntary Civil Commitment. 24. Dr. Parker is grossly negligent and indifferent to the Plaintiff’s welfare.

He intentionally inflicted emotional distress to her and her family and illegally took away/violated her civil rights. 25. Everyone has a peculiar personality trait. For the sake of argument, if the

Plaintiff has “paranoid personality disorder” as described; did she commit a crime that requires her to be institutionalized when there is no medicine and no cure?

Page 13 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009


One cannot change a dog’s personality. One can only deviate, instructand

change the undesirable behavior in a dog but not its borne personality trait. Humans are more complex and no one can change the personality of another person. That’s what we all are. No one can change what God has given but psychiatrists believe they can change personality and cure mental disorder. 27. The State of Indiana’s position on all the Plaintiff’s criminal cases is clear

and they intended to send the Plaintiff to a mental institution and thereby avoiding a trial. Dr. Parker’s has malicious intent and consciously used his report to deprive the Plaintiff of her rights. 28. The Court scheduled competency hearings for the Plaintiff on

July 10, 2009. Since 1999 the Indiana Criminal Court had been trying to get Dr. Parker to certify that the Plaintiff has a mental disorder and cannot represent herself. The Court did not get what it wanted in Dr. Parker’s first report. So the court asked from a second evaluation from Dr. Parker to confirm that the Plaintiff cannot represent herself and cannot assist counsel in her own defense. After a competency hearing and insufficient evidence the Court reluctantly allowed the Plaintiff to continue herself representations. In his last report Dr. Parker did not change his evaluations but deliberately included in his recommendations that the Plaintiff is a danger to the community without any evidence and further allow the court to commit her to an inpatient institution indefinitely even though he is medically certain that there is no cure and no medication available. Basing on his report alone Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt ordered on June 16, 2009 to strip the Plaintiff of her rights to self representation. Public Defender Mr. Matthew Gerber was appointed to take all her cases forthwith including the competency hearings. It is regretful that the Indiana Supreme Court appointed a Special Judge whose view and
Page 14 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

prejudice to all the cases are exactly the same as all the other judges before her. The Plaintiff believes that there is no evidence to convict the Plaintiff beyond reasonable doubt and the Court has all along been trying to avoid giving her a fair trial. Furthermore the Statue of Limitation on the first 3 cases has already run out but yet the judge sent all four cases to Dr. Parker for evaluation even though the Indiana Supreme Court specially ordered the Special Judge to try the last case only. As a result Dr. Parker came out with his new report and recommendation to give the Judge the options she requested. 29. At the present time the Plaintiff is representing herself Pro Se in the

Federal District Court Indiana Indianapolis Division in the case 1:08-cv-1644-SEB-DML and in the small claims court no 49K05-0904-SC-2680. In 2005, the Plaintiff represented herself Pro Se in the Federal Court under cause no 1:05-cv-1616-SEB-JMS and Indiana State civil court case no 49D01-0604-PL-013949. (ref. ¶F, PREVIOUS LAWSUITS) The Plaintiff is now preparing the brief to appeal to the Federal 7th Court of Appeals in the event the case 1:08-cv-1644 is dismissed without merit. I told the Dr. Parker that she is representing herself in the Federal court and Federal Judge allows her to represent herself Pro Se and has not appointed a pro bono lawyer for her case. Dr. Parker does not use any scientific test or instruments to support his subjective evaluations. At the end of evaluation Dr. Parker asked: “Why would the Police lie?” In Dr. Parker’s mind the Police cannot be corrupt or involved in illegal activities but the Plaintiff maintained that all people including judges, Doctors, Governors, Senators, Police Chiefs and other officials can be corrupt and be involved in illegal and criminal to meet their own selfish interest. All the recent events in the news confirmed the Plaintiff’s claims. 30. The Indiana Criminal Court never gives the Plaintiff a chance to prove her

innocence nor allow her to rebut the charges in the court. Instead the Judges, prosecutors
Page 15 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

and Public Defenders have been acting in collaboration to avoid a trial and label the Plaintiff “mental” so that she can be confined in an inpatient institution for good. So far they have no success. This time Judges Proffitt, prosecutors , public defenders and collaborated with the state appointed doctors to label her “mental” and “dangerous” so they can send her to mental institution indefinitely without a trial. In 2007 the Public Defender appointed by Judge Proffitt while she was a Hamilton County Judge told the Plaintiff: “she’s crazy” and the Judge wanted to send her for inpatient evaluations. At that time the Judge did not have a doctor’s recommendations to execute the order. With the latest evaluations and Dr. Parker’s co-operations the same Judge can now legally commit the Plaintiff to an inpatient institution for good. 31. Indiana criminal appeals court has set a precedent for the rights of the

accused when committed to a mental institution cause 49A02-0706-CR-545 stating with the State that even if the Defendant has been subject to a involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution longer than the maximum sentence for the charged offense, the Defendant has to remain in the institution as long as her competency is not restored and as long as the superintendent of the particular mental health institution agree with the State. This is a very chilling message. This is human rights violation, and violation of constitutions for cruel and unusual punishment. Superintendant of the mental institution has a monetary motive and incentive not to release anyone. A patient has no rights for a second opinion or there is no way to challenge the superintendent’s judgment which is subjective and influence by his own interest. It took another year for theIndiana Supreme Court cause no 49S02-0812-CR-657 to overturn the appealscourt. The State of Indiana can still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but while all this is going on the Defendant remained in the institution and suffered without a voice.
Page 16 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009


The Plaintiff has to fight for her life to prove her innocence and get the

justice she deserved in light of the possibility of indefinite involuntary civil commitment. It is better to play “guilty or no contest” to all her charges. If the Plaintiff pleads “guilty” to all her charges, she can only be sentenced to time allowed under the Law. When a law allows the Judge and prosecutor with the collaboration with the psychologist and psychiatrist to literally sentence someone indefinitely to involuntary civil commitment, the Plaintiff has no choice but to agree to stop herself representation and waive jury trial. If the Plaintiff’s concession is still not acceptable to the Court she will have no other choice but force to plea no contest to all her charges. 33. The Plaintiff did not take a plea bargain because she is not guilty of her

charges. The Plaintiff never makes for a “mental defense”. Plaintiff only wanted from the Criminal court is a fair jury trial. If proven guilty the Plaintiff will not ask for mercy and take any punishment allowed under law. The Plaintiff is now in a scary dilemma and faced with the possibility of indefinite involuntary civil commitment without a trial she has to contemplate the option of a no contest plea even though she is not guilty. If Plaintiffis “guilty” as hell, than she doesn’t have any choice. Plaintiff maintained her absolute innocent and this is a nothing more than a modern day witch hunt for new and improved way the system to allow white to discriminateagainst minority race(s). By my race, education, social connection, etc., I’m expendablein their eyes and no one need and will come for Plaintiff’s defense. Plaintiff’s contemplation of the “plea” can be well explained as a person facing getting rape then to be tortured and killedby the perpetrator. 34. It is not only in the third world countries that people in power will find

legal or illegal ways and means to get rid of someone that is a pain to them. In the United

Page 17 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

States, the same thing happens except legal systematic methods are used in collaborations with state appointed officials to justify the intimidation and removal of innocent victims. 35. From the way the Plaintiff has been treated by the court so far a normal

person would have gone insane and crazy. The sad thing is that the public is paying for all the unnecessary evaluations and court costs when the alleged charges are only minor misdemeanors. Why does the Supreme Court need to appoint a Special Judge? Why no judge wants to take the latest case? On what bases were the 3 earlier cases sent for trial in another county? The Plaintiff is scared for her life. Not many people can stand the persecutions/discriminations given to the Plaintiff by the judges, prosecutors, police, public defenders, psychiatrist, and neighbors. 36. The Plaintiff has her own personality but she does nothave paranoid.

Even if she has paranoid, it is not a crime and insufficient reason to take away her rights to self representation. Since there is no cure it is in humane to put her in involuntary civil commitment indefinitely? Dr. Parker’s subjective report/evaluation is nothing more than an intentional and malicious accusation to convict the Plaintiff. 37. The Plaintiff has a personality that always prepare for a rainy day. There

is no guarantee in life. That is why like most of us she buys insurances for her home and car. Even Countries have arms race because of they are “paranoid” that other country might attack them with better and stronger weapons. The Plaintiff has a healthy dose of a paranoid and there is nothing dangerous about it. 38. The entire World looks up to the U.S. for justice and the protection of

human rights. The Plaintiff is already in the U.S. and can only look to the Heavens to grant her the strength to fight the good fight. The Plaintiff does not ask God for mercy but pray that God will grant justice and mercy to the Indiana Criminal Courts, police, and
Page 18 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

others for her pica dement. God did not create all human with equal personality, ability, wealth, IQ, etc. Everyone has to do whatever it takes survive and make the right choices. Ultimately one has to fulfill his own destiny. The Plaintiff knows that she is loved and cared for by her family and will cherish every moment she has with her family. The Plaintiff will fight and not let anyone deprive her of that sacred right and peace of mind. 39. United States uses “psychology-mental evaluation” as a systematic way to

deprive one’s right legally and illegally. The U.S has a system in place by law to take away one’s body and mind. One does not even have a fighting chance when you seek psychiatric help &/or order to do so with their subjective judgment and bogus medication. With such low ethics in the profession,the psychiatrist collaborates with the other people in power can be used to build huge financial empire. It is all about the “$” and not much things to do with the “medical”. Plaintiff doesn’t disregard “psychiatry” as a total sham. There are many upside if use it as a “ministerial” function in the court and “social work” to give compassionate landing hand for those who needs but not used and abused to in a “criminal Law” as a substitutefor a trial. Being immune to prosecutions the psychiatrist works with many dishonest judges to give them whatever the judgment they wanted. In other words if one has the money he can steer and influence the system the way he liked it to be. The Plaintiff has very limited fund barely enough to afford paying for the court filing. However the Plaintiff is fighting this uphill battle so that other innocent defendants need go through her misery or face her same fate. 40. In the evaluations, there is a pattern that the Doctors tried to find out about

her up bring and motherland. I don’t understand what has got to do with my competency evaluation. Besides, when the Plaintiff was growing up she was never discriminated, never bullied by others and no disciplinary of any short from the home , school & with
Page 19 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

the law. Plaintiff would and will not do anything to embarrass motherland or family. Though, she is very glad that her parents passed away and will never know what predicament I were/am in. The Plaintiff maintains her innocence and that her up bring and motherland has nothing to do with what she has been facing. Certainly, should be ashamed of himself/herself anyone tries to look to and makes an issue. 41. Dr. George F. Parker’s report/evaluation that Plaintiff is danger to the

community. Only community the Plaintiff is exposed 24/7 is the Village at Eagle Condominium (VEC) and have 216 units. He is welcome to interview any and everyone. Since 1999, Plaintiff only has problem with especially 4250 unit 3 & 4 and who are the Defendants in her ongoing lawsuit 1:08-cv-1644-SEB-DML. The Plaintiff does not have any problem with the other owners/residentsover 210 units live in the community. Having said that, Plaintiff came to term and finally given up and done fighting to live in her unit any more. One has to give up even own “country” when other stronger country invade with strongerand better force. Plaintiff stand up for herself and for her family for this long, this far, this much hardship believing that the “home” is the last place for anyone’s right’s should be protected. She comes to her term. I will move out as soon as I can and will actively seek to do so. Even if how your dog loves you, when you kicks/abuse, no food and water; eventually, a dog will run away from the master. I and my family getting too old and it is not worth to live in the “community” at any price. We already pay too heavy price just stay here; physically, mentally, financially, etc. Main reason was cheaper than the rent and hard to find a place to live with the 4 dogs. 42. Plaintiff doeshave a personality. Even if the Plaintiff has paranoid

personality, Dr. Parker did not state clearly why she cannot represent herself or stand trial when she can understand the nature of the offence and the law. Dr. Parker also failed to
Page 20 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

state on what basis the Plaintiff is a danger to the community. Dr. Parker knows the implications of his recommendations and intentionally slanted his results to meet the Judge’s request. As a result of his carelessness, negligence and malice intention, Plaintiff is stripped of her right to self representation, deny of due process and facing imminent danger of institutionalization in a mental hospital for the rest of her life as there is no possible cure for her mental disorder. 43. Under Indiana “mental law” by Dr. Parker’s evaluation, the State is

allowed to take away my rights to self representations in criminal court but also, indefinitely deprive of the Plaintiff rights to her own body, intelligence and mind by forcefully admit to the mental institution. They are systematically as conspiracy in character of agreement of the Defendants against the Plaintiff abusing their position/power bestowed by the State of Indiana to intentionally inflict emotional distress and alienation of affection to the Plaintiffand her family without any evidence. 44. Whateveris worth, Plaintiff’s 10 years of odyssey in Village at Eagle

Creek Condominium started by VEC maintenance man told us, “Why don’t you move out!” and I’M FINALLY MOVING OUT of the VEC Condo as soon as I can sell it for a fair market value or whatever. You people win. This chapter in my life is about to end in a note by George F. Parker, Psychiatrist and Judith S. Proffitt, Special judge’s evaluation and order of facing imminent “pretrial involuntary civil commitment with open ended sentencing in a mental institution.” That’s was the sure way to anyone to move out of own home. Charles Chuang suffers as muchas me or more for all of your malicious actions and acts. New and improved-Hybrid way of housing and civil rights violationby almost everybody involved in my cases-criminal and civil.

Page 21 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009


Unfortunately for you people, I will never commit a crime no matter what

and enjoy every moment with my family who absolutely adore me and suffering the same. That’s mybest revenge against all of you. I will never give you a control over my body and mind if it is absolutely in my control and a situation. Only way is not to commit a crime.

E. CAUSE OF ACTION AND CLAIM 46. This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. U.S. Constitution:

5th-due process, 6th-self representation, 8th-cruel and unusual punishment, 14th-eqal protection of the laws Title 42 USC 14141-color of law. Dr. Parker’s report is fraud and bogus. Dr. Parker violates Plaintiff’s civil rights by intentional malice and bogus mental evaluation reports to lay the ground for the Judge Proffitt to execute the plan against the Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se. Regardless of whatever the Plaintiff’s personality is, she has ability represent myself in the Indiana Criminal court for her alleged “crimes”, is competent to stand trial and not danger to the community. Judge Proffitt wait and see to set the trap along the way to get the report she wants and needs in order for her to take away my Pro Se in her court and deny due process by put me in a mental institution as substitute for trial(s) which even harsher punishment than the actual “alleged crimes’” sentence if she is convicted. Further, Judge Proffitt knowingly violates Indiana Statue of limitation of limitation to further deprive this suit of Plaintiff’s rights protected by United States Constitution. Judge Proffitt and Judge Collins knew there was not enough evidence/no evidence to go to trial. So, instead dismissing State’s charge(s) against me, Judge Proffitt laid the ground to obtain damaging mental evaluation report from the Dr. George F. Parker collaboration with prosecutor and public defender.
Page 22 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

F. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS 47. Indiana Marion Superior Civil Court #49D01-0604-PL-013949 (as Pro Se, Plaintiff.) 48. Indiana Fed S. Dist Court Case# 1:05-CV-1616-SEB-JMS (as Pro Se, Plaintiff.) 49. Indiana Marion County Criminal Case# 49F15-0505-CM-083990(as Pro Se, Defendant.) 50. Indian Marion County Criminal Case# 49F15-0606-CM-112139(as Pro Se, Defendant.) 51. Indiana Marion County Criminal Case# 49F15-0607-CM-140781(as Pro Se, Def). 52. Indiana Marion County Criminal Case# 49F08-0811-CM-254608(as Pro Se, Defendant.) 53. Indiana Fed S. Dist Court Case# 1:08-CV-1644-SEB-DML (as Pro Se, Plaintiff.) 54. Indiana Pike Township small claims 49K05-0904-SC-2680 (as Pro Se, Plaintiff.) 55. F. line 44 through 49: all the ongoing cases are represented by her.

I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro se represent all of the cases listed.

G. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 56. Plaintiff Demand Jury trial as defined by Fed R Civ.P.38.

Page 23 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009


Plaintiff pray the Court to use of punitive damages against Defendants to

makes a public example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful conduct by others not to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights with malicious intent abuse the power bestowed by the State. 58. Award Plaintiff anticipated actual damage of $1.1 million from the

Defendants which $1 million from Dr. Parker, $100,000 from Judge Proffitt. 59. Award Plaintiff for punitive damages amount of $10 million and

anticipated punitive damage of $100 million from Dr. George Parker & his employer, IU. 60. Award Plaintiff for punitive damages amount of $300,000 and anticipated

punitive damage of $3 million from Special Judge Judith S. Proffitt and her employer. 61. Anything more than net award to the Plaintiff $300,000.00 from combined

award of line 58 thru 60 will be used as an either Kay Kim foundation &/or donate to any charities of her choice. 62. 63. Forbid Defendants to engage in retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997d. Allow Plaintiff to further discover and amend claims and defendants this

suit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.11(b)(3). 64. Amend the claim and Enjoining the defendant from engaging in such

practice or ordering such affirmative action permanent or temporary injunction, temporary restraining order. 65. Court to order Injunctive and declaratory judgment relief from further

proceeding of discriminate “mental” disability alleged charges/crimes and use it to institutionalize Plaintiff of this suit and take away her right to self representation. 66. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Page 24 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009


Play taped session pretrial conference for case# 1:08-cv-1644-SEB-DML

on May 12, 2009 and mental evolution done on May 19, 2009 with Dr. Parker in the court room in its entirety to prove the Plaintiff’s ability to represent herself. 68. Pay Plaintiff fees commensurate with Attorney’s Fees act of 1976 sec

1983 incurred/incurring in litigating this action; such as, court cost, any and all other legal equitable damages and/or other proper relief this court sees fit. 69. Demand Oral Argument with the Defendants in a public setting to prove

my ability and to prove Dr. Parker and Judge Proffitt’s intentional malice evaluations and order taking away my right to represent myself, against facing imminent involuntary civil commitment and any and all issues of criminal and civil cases and not limited. 70. Plaintiff demands that the IU revoke Dr. George F. Parker’s tenure from

further corrupting/contaminating the students. 71. Plaintiff demand that the IU and State of Indiana to revisit all of Dr.

George F. Parker, his associates and state superintendant’s evaluation which resulted in alleged criminals into both pretrial/temporary involuntary civil commitment and regular commitment to State mental institution for its validity of evaluation and justification. 72. I, Plaintiff, Kay Kim, Pro Se dare to challenge in a open public/court

debate to every and any number of Dr. Parker’s colleagues of IU, any other Universities &/or his choosing in his defense for any and all details of every contentious points will be done by Oral Argument for all phase of trials. (Plaintiff did limit the detail contentious points in the Complaint.) 73. Plaintiff challenge the State of Indiana “mental” Law of its legality,

relevancy and constitutionality against United States Constitution and request relief from the Court to issue a declaratory judgment for the Plaintiff for the following & not limit to:
Page 25 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

73(a) State of Indiana Criminal Court cannot force a Defendant such as Kay Kim, Pro Se to take mental defense and mental evaluation. Mental evaluation and mental defense in a voluntary base at a Defendant’s choice. In that regard, State must provide a fair trial and no pretrial/temporary involuntary civil commitment which lead to regular commitment to State mental institutionto the Defendant Kay Kim, Pro Se. 73(b) Mental evaluation and its consequence are only to be considered after the “conviction” of the alleged “crime(s)”. Even then, allow a Defendant &/or Kay Kim to choose/weight its option to choose either mental treatment or prison. State and Defendant is allowed to use“mental” option only in a sentencing phase by both &/or either parties as an aggravating &/or mitigating factors/circumstances if a party desires. 73(c) State of Indiana Criminal Court use IC 35-36-3-3 (90 days pretrial involuntary civil commitment)and IC 12-7-2-184 or under IC 12-26 (indefinite regular commitment) when a Defendant &/or Defendant Kay Kim, Pro Se is not restore under IC 35-36-3-3 is substituted for a fair trial and is unconstitutional. 73(d) Even if Dr. Parker’s met the entire standard provide in Indiana “mental” law IC 35-36-3-1 and have no conflict of interest, his position in the Indiana University as the associate Professor makes his opinion impossible to overrule by other people inthe same profession. Because, he trained/teach them. Psychiatry evaluation is open to interpretation and too subjective to use it in a criminal court. I’ll ask any “shamanist & Psychic” will produce more accurate result then the Dr. Parker’s. State should never useDr. Parker’s service. Dr. Parker is fraud. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kay Kim,, pro se, prays for judgment and grant relief as a matter of right, law and/or with its merit.
Page 26 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009

Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ Original signature of attorney (if any) _________________________ Plaintiff’s Original Signature

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that he/she is the plaintiff in the above action, that he/she has read the above complaint and that the information contained in the complaint in the complaint is true and correct. Executed at 4250 Village pkwy unit 2, on July 4, 2009

________________________ Plaintiff’s Original Signature

Page 27 of 27 FED2 COMPLAINT ORIGINAL-2 30JUN2009