ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITN NOTICE

Document Sample
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITN NOTICE Powered By Docstoc
					STATE OF INDIANA          )      IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                          )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM          )      CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68



CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )


   ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
      WITH NOTICE, PERLIMINARY INJUNCTION, PERMENANT
      INJUNCTION, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES

       Comes now defendants collectively, by counsel and would respond to this
complaint as follows:
       Specific responses to the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s complaint follow
below on a paragraph by paragraph basis. A more general response will precede the
numbered responses.

                                GENERAL RESPONSE

       A. The complaint contains many allegations that are surplusage. Factual
assertions are made that relate to the removal of Plaintiff as the town marshal and the
appointment of a new town marshal during 2007. However, no prayer for relief is made
with reference to those assertions. Indeed the case law is clear that a town marshal serves
at the pleasure of a town council. He/she can be removed at any time for any reason or
for no reason. Only if discipline or wrongdoing is alleged do the procedural protections in
the Indiana Code become involved. There are a number of cases where this issue has
been addressed and answered directly. Olejniczak v. Town of Kouts, 651 N.E.2d 1197
Ind.App. 1995, is one of those cases.

       The court framed the issue as:

       Olejniczak presents one issue for our review which we restate as: Whether
       a Town Marshal may be reduced in grade without a hearing and
       procedural due process pursuant to IND. CODE 36-5-7-1 et seq. and I.C.
       36-8-3-4 (1993). (651 N.E.2d 1197 @ 1198)

       The court’s resolution of the issue was:

       The Town of Kouts contends that a town marshal may be reduced in
       grade without cause and without the procedural due process
       protections set forth in the Disciplinary Statute, I.C. 36-8-3-4(c). We
       agree [Emphasis added] and conclude that the chief police officer of a
       department, whether it be a metropolitan police commission system or a
       marshal system, does not possess a common law entitlement to the
       position. (651 N.E.2d 1197 @ 2000)

       (The law in this respect has been expanded and strengthened in a recent case. That
case involved a town where the outgoing town council gave the chief law enforcement
officer a contract that purported to extend his term of service for four years subject only
to removal for cause. The court of appeal held that such a contract was void as against
public policy.)
        Any claim in this litigation relating to the removal and replacement of a marshal
based on due process is frivolous. The surplus allegations relating to the removal of the
plaintiff as town marshal should be stricken from the complaint. The scurrilous
allegations relating to Cloverdale Town Council members Sublett and Padgett should be
stricken.


        B. The second broad area that is addressed in the complaint is the town’s decision
to reorganize its department to deal with the horse arena scheduled for its opening in mid
March of 2008. This business is predicting that it will bring into the area large crowds.
These crowds are anticipated to be as large as 6,000. The town population is less than
half of that figure. Failure to prepare for this arrival would be foolhardy and dangerous.
        As with many municipal budgets, Cloverdale’s resources are limited. In order to
have sufficient police to handle the anticipated crowds, Cloverdale elected to create a
reserve force of Ten (10) officers. This would provide more officers to deal with events
that are typically involved with large crowds. (This program has already had such initial
interest that an expansion to as many as Fifteen (15) is currently under active
consideration)
        While reserves are not paid, there are still significant expenses involved in having
them on the force. Uniforms and equipment are needed as well as supplies and other
things necessary for them to perform their duties. Depending on how conditions develop,
more vehicles may be needed.
        In order to meet this financial challenge the town elected to reduce its full time
paid staff by one member. The town council also imposed significant restrictions on its
reserve force and as a further economy move, after considerable discussion reduced the
availability of take home police cars. Take home police vehicles will be limited to
officers living with in the town limits. A decision was made and included in the
ordinance delaying the effective date of the vehicle policy and the lay off until March 1,
2008. This was done in order to give any officer affected by the vehicle policy the
opportunity to move into town or provide other personal transportation. It was also set to
allow the marshal to decide which officer to lay off and to provide as some notice to the
affected officer.
       Plaintiff has been informed as a courtesy that he would be laid off in advance of
the March 1, 2008, date. This was done as a courtesy in order to allow him planning time
to find other employment.
       Plaintiff’s complaint does not acknowledge the need for government to reorganize
and on occasion reduce the number of its employees. The effect of what the Plaintiff
asserts is that the only way a municipality can reduce its police or fire service would be
by removals for discipline problems or by natural attrition. With the upcoming changes in
real estate taxes, including the one percent (1%) “circuit breaker” many municipalities
will find themselves in a position where public safety personnel will have to be laid off.
Plaintiff’s position is not the law, and practically could not be the law.


       The law is clear in this area. A municipality is not forced to wait for attrition or
serious misconduct to reduce the number of police positions it authorizes. Decisions to
eliminate positions are not prohibited and do not require any kind of hearing. Pfifer v.
Town of Edinburgh, 684 N.E.2d 578, Ind.App.,1997

       “Therefore, we hold that when a legislative body, authorized to create law
       enforcement positions, exercises its plenary authority to eliminate those
       positions for economic reasons, the notice and hearing procedure set ,
       forth in Indiana Code § 36-8-3-4 is not implicated.. (684 N.E.2d 578,
       Ind.App.,1997 @ 583, 584)


               RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE COMPLAINT

       1.        Plaintiff Charles Hallam resides outside of the Town of Cloverdale.
       2.        The Town of Cloverdale is a political subdivision of the State of Indiana
       3.        The Town Council is the legislative body of the Town of Cloverdale.
       4.        It is not clear what Plaintiff is alleging in paragraph 4 under his heading
                 Parties. Generally under I.C. 36-8-3-4 (a) the town council sitting as the
                 safety board is the “appointing authority”. However, under I.C. 36-5-6-6
                 (a) the town council


            “…[M]ay by ordinance authorize the marshal to appoint deputy marshals.”
      The town council has exercised this power and given the marshal the authority
      to appoint his deputies. (See Ordinance 2008-1)
5.    Marshal Donald Pearson resides in Cloverdale, Indiana
6.    Council Member Don Sublett resides in Cloverdale, Indiana
7.    Council Member Dennis Padgett resides in Cloverdale, Indiana
8.    Council Member Glen Vickroy resides in Cloverdale, Indianan
9.    Council Member Terry Puffer resides in Cloverdale, Indiana
10.   Council Member Stephen Caulkins resides in Cloverdale, Indiana.
11.   The court has jurisdiction of this matter.
12.   The court has jurisdiction of this matter.
13.   Putman County is preferred venue.
14.   Cloverdale is a town.
15.   I.C 36-5-2 as well as numerous other statutes applies to the Town of
      Cloverdale.
16.   The President of the town council is the Executive of the town.
17.   Cloverdale has not abolished the office of town marshal.
18.   The Town Council has the authority as well as the obligation to appoint a
      town marshal.
19.   The Safety Board of the Town of Cloverdale is filled by the members of the
      Town Council.
20.   Plaintiff has been employed by the town as a deputy marshal.
21.   Plaintiff was town marshal between April of 2004 and November, 2007.
22.   At one point or another Don Pierson’s interest in returning to the position of
      Town Marshal (a position that he held previously) was explored.
23.   Don Sublett denies having an interest in Don Pierson’s business.
24.   Dennis Padgett denies that his family has invested in Pierson’s business.
25.   Sublett, Padgett and Vickroy were members of the Cloverdale Town Council
      during all of 2007.
26.   Sublett was the President of the Cloverdale Town Council for all of 2007.
27.   Plaintiff was the Cloverdale Town Marshal from April of 2004 and November
      13, 2007.
28.   On or about November 13, 2007, the Cloverdale Town Council met in a
      public meeting.
29.   I.C. 36-8-3-4 (m) provides:

         “ Except as provided in I.C. 36-5-2-13, the executive may
         reduce in grade any member of the police … department who
         holds an upper level policy position. The reduction in grade
         may be made without adhering to the requirements of
         subsections (b) through (l). However a member may not be
         reduced in grade to a rank below that which the member held
         before the member’s appointment to the upper level policy
         making position.” [subsections (b) through (l) are the discipline
         provisions of this statute]

 I.C. 36-5-2-13 provides:

         “The town executive must have the approval of a majority of the town
         council before the executive may … reduce in grade under I.C. 36-8-3-4
         … .”

30. During the Cloverdale Town Council meeting on or about November 13,
      2007, Don Sublett as President of the Cloverdale Town Council, proposed to
      remove Hallam from the upper level policy making position of Town Marshal
      under the provisions of I.C. 36-8-3-4 (m) and requested approval of the
      Cloverdale Town Council as required by I.C. 36-5-2-13. A majority of the
      Town Council approved the removal.
31. During the Cloverdale Town Council meeting on or about November 13,
      2007, Don Pierson was appointed Cloverdale Town Marshal by a majority of
      the Town Council.
32. Plaintiff does not completely and correctly state the law. I.C. 36-5-7-6 (a)
      provides:

         “The town legislative body shall [emphasis added] by ordinance
         fix the number of deputy marshals. The town legislative body may
         [emphasis added] by ordinance authorize the marshal to appoint
         deputy marshals.”
      The language quoted above relating to fixing the number of deputies is
      mandatory. It uses the word “shall”. A town with a marshal MUST specify the
      number of deputy marshals if it is to have any deputy marshals. If it does not
      specify the number of deputy marshals, then the number of deputy marshals is
      zero. Transferring the Town Council’s authority to hire deputies to the Town
      Marshal is optional. In both case, this action must be done by ordinance
      passed by the Town Council.
33.   Plaintiff is in error if he suggests that there was an ordinance authorizing the
      marshal to appoint deputies. With the appointment of a new Town Marshal in
      November of 2007, a search of town records was undertaken. It did not
      produce an ordinance required by state law. Apparently legal authority for the
      employment of any deputy marshals was completely lacking prior to
      November of 2007. Also lacking was any authority of the Town Marshal,
      rather than the town council, to hire any deputies.
34.   Following his removal as Town Marshal, Plaintiff remained in his earlier de
      facto position as a deputy town marshal.
35.   Plaintiff alleges that the operative date of Ordinance 2008-1 is January 15,
      2008. That is accurate for only a portion of the ordinance. The provision of
      two (2) deputy marshals is effective as of March 1, 2008. Because of the lack
      of an ordinance authorizing any deputy marshals, legally Cloverdale was
      permitted to have zero deputies. Although not following the law, on a de facto
      basis, Cloverdale had three (3) deputy marshals prior January 15, 2008 and
      will have three (3) de facto deputies until March 1, 2008.
36.   Beginning January 2, 2008, the members of the Cloverdale town council were
      Don Sublett, Steve Caukins, Glen Vickroy, Dennis Padgett and Terry Puffer.
37.   A public meeting of the Cloverdale Town Council occurred on or about
      January 15, 2008.
38.   During the public meeting on or about January 15, 2008, Ordinance 2008-1
      was introduced, and passed by a unanimous vote of the Cloverdale Town
      Council.
39.   Ordinance 2008-1, represents a change in both the de facto and de jure
      organization of the Cloverdale Town Marshal Service. It also satisfies the
      requirements of state law requiring that the authorized number of deputies be
      set out by ordinance.
      The reorganization of the department is a reaction to a changing business
      climate in Cloverdale, the realities of rising gasoline prices and potential
      reductions in real estate taxes because of actions currently pending in the
      Indian State Legislature. Substantive changes include a reduction in the de
      facto number of full time paid deputies by one (1), the creation of a ten (10)
      person reserve force and a reduction in the take home car program.
      Take home cars will, as of March 1, 2008, be restricted to officers who live
      within the town limits. This will take advantage of the deterrent effect of a
      marked police car for the town and will also assure that the expenses related to
      the operation of those vehicles will be more closely related to the protection of
      the Town of Cloverdale.
      The arrival of a new business in Cloverdale is what has created the need for
      the reserve force. The new business is a horse arena. It is anticipated that the
      events to this new attraction will bring thousands of visitors to the Town of
      Cloverdale. It is anticipated that traffic situations will arise that will require
      for short periods of time many more officers than the Town of Cloverdale will
      be able to maintain as full time officers. The creation of the reserve force
      provides for Cloverdale enough officers for short spurts of activity anticipated
      from the new facility. The facility is expected to produce as many as 6,000
      visitors while the town population is far less than half of that figure.
      Financial considerations do not allow the town to maintain the number of full
      time de facto deputy marshals officers previously employed. Some of those
      resources need to be allocated to the much larger number of reserves.
40.   The number of full time deputy marshals that the town legislative body, in its
      legislative discretion, decided was proper under the circumstances and in light
      of the financing and all other considerations is two (2). (The town historically
      has not maintained 24/7 police coverage. It depends upon the Putnam County
      Sheriff’s Department for coverage when none of its officers are on duty.)
41.   Ordinance 2008-1 represented a decrease of one officer, from the de facto
      prior level of three (3). There is no statute directing the method of deciding
      who will be laid off from a marshal service when the number of deputies is
      reduced. Pursuant to I.C. 36-5-7-6 (c) it is the marshal who has the authority
      and responsibility for lay offs.
42.   I.C. 36-5-7-6 (c) is irrelevant to the removal of Plaintiff as deputy marshal
      during a Reduction in Force. “RIF”, except to the extent that it defines the
      marshal as the individual who is responsible for removal of officers.
43.   I.C 36-5-7-3 is irrelevant to the removal of Plaintiff as Town Marshal or his
      lay off as a deputy in a RIF.
44.   The town presumes that Plaintiff completed the Law Enforcement Training
      Academy, but that is irrelevant to the removal of a marshal where misconduct
      or discipline is NOT involved, or for a deputy marshal who is laid off where a
      RIF is involved.
45.   The misconduct and disciplinary provisions of I.C. 36-5-7-6 (c) and I.C. 36-5-
      7-3 do not apply to situations where a marshal is removed from the policy
      making position or when a deputy marshal is laid off in a RIF.
46.   On or about January 29, 2008 as a courtesy Plaintiff was informed by the
      marshal that he would be the deputy who would be laid off as of March 1,
      2008.
47.   On or about January 29, 2008, as stated above, as a courtesy Plaintiff was
      informed that he would be the deputy who would be laid off as of March 1,
      2008.
48.   Because the RIF was not a discipline related action, no specific reason for the
      lay off is required. To the extent that the Plaintiff seems to assert that someone
      else would be hired to replace him as a full time or paid deputy, he is in error.
      The Plaintiff uses the term “Terminated” which is a term of art that does not
      apply to a lay off.
49.   I.C. 36-8-3-4 applies to the termination or suspension of a deputy marshal
      under circumstances of misconduct; it does not apply to a RIF situation.
50.   No Safety Board meeting is required when in a RIF situation, because no
      misconduct has been alleged.
51.   Other than in Plaintiff’s complaint, no one, to the knowledge of the
      defendants, has alleged that Plaintiff was subject to criminal charges or has
      even mentioned criminal charges.
52.   I.C. 36-8-3-4 (m) is correctly cited by Plaintiff
53.   Plaintiff acknowledges that the position of Marshal is an “upper level policy
      making position” for the purposes of I.C. 36-8-3-4 (m) and Defendants agree
      that it is.
54.   Prior to his appointment as Marshal, Plaintiff was a deputy marshal.
55.   I.C. 36-8-3-4 provides that a deputy marshal, after completing the Law
      Enforcement Academy has job security as provided by the statute. This
      requirement does not force a municipality to maintain any particular level of
      staffing for its police force. Case law is clear that a RIF is not prohibited by
      these sections of the Indiana Statutes.
      Plaintiff is in error if he reads I.C. 36-8-3-4 (b) to prohibit a municipality from
      reducing the number of deputy marshals in a RIF. By case law it does not
      limit conditions for reducing a force to misconduct discharges or voluntary
      departures.
56.   Plaintiff properly cites the requirements for punishment of a deputy marshal in
      a situation of discipline for misconduct. These provisions do not apply to a
      RIF.
57.   Since no misconduct was alleged, no meeting of a safety board would be
      warranted. No action of the Safety Board is authorized in a lay off for a RIF in
      a marshal service.
58.   Other than any question raised by Plaintiff’s complaint, to the knowledge of
      the Defendants, no one has alleged any misconduct. The Plaintiff’s denial of
      such conduct is unnecessary.
59.   The provisions of I.C. 36-8-3-4 (c) apply to situations of discipline and have
      no application to a RIF.
60.   There is no Indiana statutory requirement for a hearing before a safety board
      for a lay off required by a RIF. Plaintiff again cites sections of Indiana law
      that relate to discipline, not lay offs in a RIF.

                             RESPONSE TO COUNT I

61.   The responses to Paragraphs 1 through 60 above are included by reference.
62.   The Cloverdale Town Marshal had the authority to, as a courtesy; tell Plaintiff
      that he is expected to be laid off on March 1, 2008. The marshal’s express
      authority to dismiss deputy marshals is I.C. 36-5-7-6. While this is limited n a
      disciplinary dismissal by a hearing requirement, there is no such limitation in
      a RIF. (Plaintiff uses the term “Termination” which is a term of art in this
      situation and has no application to a lay off as a result of a RIF.)
63.   There is nothing in this complaint that cannot be compensated by money, thus
      injunctive relief is inappropriate.
64.   Plaintiff alleges irreparable harm to himself, but does not specify what that
      harm is. Additionally since the RIF, a legislative decision on the structure of
      the marshal service will take place on March 1, 2008; one of the existing
      officers will no longer be employed. If Plaintiff is retained because of a court
      order here, then another deputy marshal, who has not been made a party to
      this action will have to be laid off.
      If the court restrains the restructuring of the Marshal Service in Cloverdale, a
      legislative decision on how to deal with the new horse arena and its
      anticipated crowds will necessarily be vacated.
65.   There is no unlawful act.
66.   Plaintiff alleges an injury but does not specify it, Plaintiff simply further
      alleges that whatever it may be, it exceeds damage to the town.
67.   Plaintiff’s complaint is unlikely to prevail on any of its allegations.
68.   Plaintiff makes the unsupported assertion that the public interest will be
      served by granting the Plaintiff relief.
      69.    Plaintiff’s counsel did fax an unfilled complaint to the undersigned attorney.
       WHEREFORE the Defendants pray that the court not grant to Plaintiff any
relief. Further if and to the extent that Plaintiff asserts a claim that his removal as Marshal
requires a hearing or any other process, such a claim is frivolous. The defendants should
be awarded attorney fees for defense of a frivolous claim and for such other relief as may
be proper.

                                     RESPONSE TO COUNT II

       Come now the Defendants and respond to Count II as follows:
     70.     Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations
             contained in paragraphs 1 through 69 of their answer.
     71.     The Cloverdale Town Marshal acted with courtesy and full legal authority
             when he gave the courtesy notice to Plaintiff that he would be laid off after
             March 1, 2008.
     72.     Plaintiff has no cognizable legal case and in any event any damages he claims
             could be reduced to a money judgment.
     73.     Plaintiff makes the unsupported allegation of irreparable harm.
     74.     Actions undertaken by Cloverdale to restructure the marshal service and alter
             benefits are lawful and an exercise of legislative actions for the good of the
             town. Actions anticipated to be taken by the Marshal in selecting the officer to
             lay off are fully authorized and legal. But the Marshal’s decision of which
             officer to lay off is not subject to any review or approval of the Cloverdale
             Town Council. The fact that the Cloverdale Marshal notified an officer in
             advance is a courtesy. It is legal, but not required.
     75.     Plaintiff again makes the unsupported allegation that Plaintiff’s harm exceeds
             the harm to the town without specifying either harm. In fact, granting such
             requests will necessarily interfere with legislative actions taken by the town
             council to prepare to deal with events that involve the opening of a major
             business in the area.
     76.     Plaintiff’s complaint is unlikely to prevail on any of its allegations.
     77.   Plaintiff alleges, without any facts that the public interest will be served by
           granting Plaintiff’s requests. In fact, granting such requests will necessarily
           interfere with legislative actions taken by the town council to prepare to deal
           with events that involve the opening of a major business in the area. It may
           have the effect of compromising public safety depending upon the scope of
           the order entered.
       WHEREFORE Defendant’s pray that Plaintiff take nothing and for such other
relief as may be proper. Further, to the extent that the Plaintiff is asking that the court in
effect immunize him for actions taken prior to the entry of a temporary restraining order,
such action is unnecessary and is a request that the court in effect rule on things that are
unknown. That particular prayer for relief would bar the town from taking any action for
improper or illegal acts subsequently discovered to have occurred prior to the entry of
such an order.

                                RESPONSE TO COUNT III

       Come now the Defendants and respond to Count III as follows:
     78.   Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations
           contained in paragraphs 1 through 77 of their answer.
     79.   The Cloverdale Town Marshal acted with courtesy and full legal authority
           when he gave the courtesy notice to Plaintiff that he would be laid off after
           March 1, 2008. Plaintiff uses the technical term “Termination” that has no
           application to a RIF.
     80.   Plaintiff has no cognizable legal case and in any event any damages he claims
           could be reduced to a money judgment if they were valid.
     81.   Plaintiff alleges irreparable harm to himself, but does not specify what that
           harm is. Additionally since the RIF, a legislative decision on the structure of
           the marshal service will take place on March 1, 2008; one of the existing
           officers will be laid off. If Plaintiff is retained, then another deputy marshal,
           who has not been made a party to this action, will have to be laid off.
           If the court restrains the restructuring of the Marshal Service in Cloverdale, a
           legislative decision on how to deal with the new horse arena and its
           anticipated crowds will necessarily be vacated.
     82.   There simply isn’t any unlawful act alleged or involved.
     83.   Plaintiff again makes the unsupported allegation that Plaintiff’s harm exceeds
           the harm to the town without specifying either harm. In fact, granting such
           requests will necessarily interfere with legislative actions taken by the town
           council to prepare to deal with events that involve the opening of a major
           business in the area.
     84.   Plaintiff’s complaint is unlikely to prevail on any of its allegations.
     85.   Plaintiff alleges, without any facts that the public interest will be served by
           granting Plaintiffs requests. In fact, granting such requests will necessarily
           interfere with legislative actions taken by the town council to prepare to deal
           with events that involve the opening of a major business in the area.
           Further, to the extent that the Plaintiff is asking that the court in effect
           immunize him for actions taken prior to the entry of a temporary restraining
           order, such action is unnecessary and is a request that the court, in effect, rule
           on things that are unknown. That particular prayer for relief would bar the
           town from taking any action for improper or illegal acts subsequently
           discovered to have occurred prior to the entry of such an order. In any event,
           everything that has been done here is in full compliance with I.C. 36-5-7-3,
           I.C. 36-5-7-4, and I.C. 36-5-7-5. Since no allegation of misconduct is
           involved, only a RIF. These citations have no application to the present facts.


       WHEREFORE Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by his complaint and
for such other relief as may be proper.

                                   RESPONSE TO COUNT IV

       Come now the Defendants and respond to Count IV as follows:
     86.   Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations
           contained in paragraphs 1 through 85 of their answer.
     87.   Ordinance 2008-1 attached as Exhibit 1 does the following:
           a. Authorizes the town marshal to employ his deputies as permitted by state
               law.
           b. Sets the authorized strength for the department as required by state law
               including:
                      i. Full time deputies
                   ii. Reserve deputies
           c. Limits the authority of Reserve deputies
           d. Requires authorization for outside work for deputies and reserves.
           e. Specifies the take home policy for police vehicles.
           The effect of a reduction in officers from a de facto three (3) to a de jure two
           (2) is permitted by applicable state law and has no specific application to the
           Plaintiff.
           Each officer of the force was equally eligible for a lay off. In order to reach
           the new authorized level, one officer must be laid off. This argument, in
           effect, means that no public safety agency can reduce its strength in a cutback
           occasioned by a change in local circumstances or a reduction in revenue.
     88.   There is no depravation of any substantive or procedural due process in a RIF.
     89.   The paragraph relating to notification of the Attorney General does not require
           a response.
       WHEREFORE Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by his complaint and
for such other relief as may be proper. Further, this claim is frivolous. Case law is clear
that a municipality may reduce its public safety forces when in the judgment of a
legislative body those reductions are appropriate. Nothing in this complaint has stated a
cause of action outside of lawful authority of the Cloverdale Town Council or the
Cloverdale Town Marshal. The defendants should be awarded attorney fees for defense
of a frivolous claim.

                                  RESPONSE TO COUNT V

       Come now the Defendants and respond to Count V as follows:
     90.   Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations
           contained in paragraphs 1 through 89 of their answer.
     91.   There is no violation of state law involved in providing a courtesy notice of a
           lay off in a RIF as it applies to an officer. The Plaintiff uses a term of art
           “Termination” that does not apply to a lay off.
     92.   Plaintiff’s assertion that pursuant to I.C. 36-8-3-4, only the Safety Board has
           the legal authority to dismiss or demote Plaintiff is a misstatement of the law.
           In a broad general sense that is true, RIF lay offs are by case law, (and logic)
           not covered by that particular statute. The safety board is not involved in a
           RIF.
     93.   Ordinance 2008-1 is an ordinance required to comply with state law. It does
           the following:
           a. Authorizes the town marshal to employ his deputies as permitted by state
               law.
           b. Sets the authorized strength for the department as required by state law
               including
                      i. Full time deputies
                   ii. Reserve deputies
           c. Limits the authority of Reserve deputies
           d. Requires authorization for outside work for deputies and reserves.
           e. Specifies the take home policy for police vehicles.
       It does not address discipline or the process that is involved in administering
discipline. There was no discipline process involved. None of the statutes that are
repeatedly cited by Plaintiff are applicable to a RIF.
       Plaintiff’s characterization of a lay off in a RIF as “bypassing” the requirements
of I.C. 36-8-3-4 is expressing his negative opinion about Indiana law. However, Indiana
law is clear that a RIF does not invoke the provisions of I.C. 36-8-3-4. Thus, technically,
rather than “bypassing” the statutory provisions relating to dealing with misconduct, a lay
off in a RIF simply is not part of that process.
       WHEREFORE the Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by his complaint
and for such other relief as may be proper. Further, this claim is frivolous. Case law is
clear that a municipality may reduce its public safety forces when in the judgment of a
legislative body those reductions are appropriate. No meeting of a safety board is
required when a RIF and a lay off is involved. The defendants should be awarded
attorney fees for defense of a frivolous claim.

                                 RESPONSE TO COUNT VI

       Come now the Defendants and respond to Count VI as follows:
     94.   Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations
           contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of their answer.
     95.   There has not been a depravation of any substantive or procedural due process
           here. All citations by Plaintiff relate to situations where he would have been
           charged with some kind of misconduct. There are no such allegations, and
           thus no rights to be heard on allegations of wrongdoing. Plaintiff once again
           uses the term “Termination”. That is a term of art that has no application to
           the lay off that was involved here as a consequence of the RIF.
     96.   Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages
     97.   Plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees.
       WHEREFORE Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by his complaint and
for such other relief as may be proper. The assertion of a claim under 42 USC 1983 is
frivolous. The Defendant should be awarded attorney fees for defense of this action.

                                RESPONSE TO COUNT VII

       Come now the Defendants and respond to Count VII as follows:
     98.   Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to the allegations
           contained in paragraphs 1 through 97 of their answer.
     99.   Plaintiff is expected to be laid off in a RIF March 1, 2008. This action is not
           one that will be taken by the Cloverdale Town Council. It is the Cloverdale
           Marshal’s responsibility under Indiana law to make this decision and
           implement it. Once again, Plaintiff uses the term of art “Termination” that has
           no application to a lay off in a RIF.
          Further, in the admittedly unlikely event that one of the other officers resigns,
          or otherwise leaves the force, Plaintiff will not be laid off.
     100. There are no damages to which Plaintiff is entitled.
       WHEREFORE Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by his complaint and
   for such other relief as may be proper.




                                                      Allan L. Yackey
                                                      Attorney at Law




                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                     Bill Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                 Danville, In 46122-1235

                                 Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                Danville, IN 46122-1235
                             The Honorable Steve Carter
                          Attorney General State of Indiana
                         302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                               Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                 Allan L. Yackey

Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 634-3809
STATE OF INDIANA             )      IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                             )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM             )      CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68



CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )


                            AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

       Cloverdale is a municipality entitled to immunity from punitive damages and
attorney fees.




                                                  Allan L. Yackey
                                                  Attorney at Law
                           CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                    Bill Harrington
                                 Harrington Law P.C.
                               105 N. Washington Street
                                Danville, In 46122-1235

                                Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                 Harrington Law P.C.
                               105 N. Washington Street
                               Danville, IN 46122-1235

                             The Honorable Steve Carter
                          Attorney General State of Indiana
                         302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                               Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                 Allan L. Yackey


Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 634-3809
STATE OF INDIANA            )       IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                            )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM            )       CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68


CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )



                MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12 (B) (6)

      Comes now the Defendants, by counsel and would show the court as follows:
    1.   The complaint fails to state a cause of action.
    2.   It relies on the provisions of state law dealing with discipline, which by the
         very allegations in the complaint are inapplicable to the ordinance that is
         attached as an exhibit.
       WHERFORE Defendants pray that the complaint be dismissed and for such
other relief as may be proper.




                                                   Allan L. Yackey
                                                   Attorney at Law


                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                      Bill Harrington
                                   Harrington Law P.C.
                                 105 N. Washington Street
                                  Danville, In 46122-1235

                                  Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                   Harrington Law P.C.
                                 105 N. Washington Street
                                 Danville, IN 46122-1235

                               The Honorable Steve Carter
                            Attorney General State of Indiana
                           302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                                 Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                   Allan L. Yackey

Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 634-3809
STATE OF INDIANA              )       IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                              )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM              )       CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68


CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )



                 MOTION TO STRIKE VARIOUS ALLEGATIONS

       Come now the Defendants and move to strike specific allegations from the
complaint
     1.     Paragraphs 23 make allegations that one council member has invested in the
            present marshal’s business.
     2.     Paragraph 24 makes allegations that another council member’s family have
            invested in the present marshal’s business.
     3.    Aside from the names council members denying the truth of such statements,
           there is nothing in the complaint that is based upon these assertions.
     4.    All of the allegations that make reference to the November, 2007 replacement
           of the town marshal do not form any part of any claim in the complaint.
           Indeed the law on this issue is clear that a town marshal can be removed for
           any reason or for no reason.
     WHEREFORE Defendants pray that the offending allegations be stricken from the
complaint and for such other relief as may be proper.




                                                     Allan L. Yackey
                                                     Attorney at Law




                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                     Bill Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                 Danville, In 46122-1235

                                 Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                Danville, IN 46122-1235
                             The Honorable Steve Carter
                          Attorney General State of Indiana
                         302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                               Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                 Allan L. Yackey

Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 634-3809
STATE OF INDIANA              )       IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                              )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM              )       CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68

CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )



 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO NAME INDISPENSIBLE PARTIES

       Comes now the Defendants, by counsel and would show the Court as follows:
       1.      Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit alleging a number of things relating to an
ordinance of the Town of Cloverdale reorganizing the police force. The net effect of his
claims is that the town should be prohibited from laying him off as part of a RIF.
       2.      There are three (3) de facto members of the department.
       3.      If the Court prohibits the Town Marshal from exercising his discretion in
the decision of how to implement the legislative decision to reorganize the department by
compelling the retention of Plaintiff, the officer slated for lay off, one of the other
officers will need to be laid off in order to have the department to reach its legislatively
established force level.
       4.      Neither of the other potentially affected officers is named in this suite, and
their substantive rights may be affected by the relief sought by the Plaintiff.
       WHEREFORE Defendants pray that this case be dismissed for failure to name
indispensible parties and for such other relief as may be proper.




                                                      Allan L. Yackey
                                                      Attorney at Law


                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                      Bill Harrington
                                   Harrington Law P.C.
                                 105 N. Washington Street
                                  Danville, In 46122-1235

                                  Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                   Harrington Law P.C.
                                 105 N. Washington Street
                                 Danville, IN 46122-1235
                             The Honorable Steve Carter
                          Attorney General State of Indiana
                         302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                               Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                 Allan L. Yackey

Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, In 46204
(317) 634-3809
STATE OF INDIANA           )       IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                           )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM           )       CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68

CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )

  MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSSAGE AND SCURRILOUS ALLEGAIONS

      Comes now the Defendants, by counsel and would show the court as follows:

      A. The complaint contains many allegations that are surplusage. Factual
          assertions are made that relate to the removal of Plaintiff as the town marshal
          and the appointment of a new town marshal during 2007. However, no
          prayer for relief is made with reference to those assertions. Indeed the case
          law is clear that a town marshal serves at the pleasure of a town council.
          He/she can be removed at any time for any reason or for no reason. Only if
            discipline or wrongdoing is alleged do the procedural protections in the
            Indiana Code become involved. (See the first portion of the ANSWER to the
            Complaint for legal authorities.)
       B.   Allegations in the complaint are made that Sublett has in interest in Pierson’s
            business and that Padgett’s family is somehow involved. Nothing further in
            the complaint speaks to those allegations and there is no logical nexus
            between those assertions and the complaint. (Sublet and Padgett deny those
            allegations in any event.)

       The surplus allegations relating to the removal of the plaintiff as town marshal
should be stricken from the complaint. The scurrilous allegations relating to Cloverdale
Town Council members Sublett and Padgett should be stricken.


       Wherefore the Defendants pray that the surplus and scurrilous allegations be
stricken from the complaint and for such other relief as may be proper.




                                                    Allan L. Yackey
                                                    Attorney at Law


                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                     Bill Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                 Danville, In 46122-1235
                                Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                 Harrington Law P.C.
                               105 N. Washington Street
                               Danville, IN 46122-1235

                             The Honorable Steve Carter
                          Attorney General State of Indiana
                         302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                               Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                 Allan L. Yackey

Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, In 46204
(317) 634-3809
STATE OF INDIANA              )       IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                              )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM              )       CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68

CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )

   MOTION TO REQUIRE THE POSING OF BOND FOR AN INJUNCTION

         Comes now the Defendants, by counsel and would show the court as follows:

   1. Plaintiff has requested injunctive relief.
   2. In the event that the Plaintiff does not prevail, the Defendants and the citizens of
      the Town of Cloverdale will have suffered considerable cost and disruption of the
      legislative plans of the town to deal with the incoming horse arena.
   3. A bond should be required to insure that the Defendants will be made whole in
      the event that the Plaintiff’s requests are ultimately denied.
Wherefore Defendants pray that the court require a bond as a precondition for proceeding
with this action and for such other relief as may be proper.




                                                     Allan L. Yackey
                                                     Attorney at Law


                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                     Bill Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                 Danville, In 46122-1235

                                 Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                Danville, IN 46122-1235

                               The Honorable Steve Carter
                            Attorney General State of Indiana
                           302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                                 Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                     Allan L. Yackey

Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, In 46204
(317) 634-3809
STATE OF INDIANA            )       IN PUTNAM SUPERIOR COURT 1
                            )SS:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM            )       CAUSE NO. 67C01-0802-PL-68

CHARLES J. HALLAM,                               )
                                                 )
           Plaintiff,                            )
                                                 )
                   vs.                           )
                                                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE;                              )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE TOWN COUNCIL;                 )
TOWN OF CLOVERDALE SAFETY BOARD;                 )
DONALD L. PEARSON, in his capacity as            )
     Marshall of the Town of Cloverdale;         )
DONALD SUBLETT, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
DENNIS PADGETT, in his capacity as a member of   )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and,    )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
GLEN VICKROY, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
TERRY PUFFER, in his capacity as a member of     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
STEPHEN CAULKINS, in his capacity as a member of )
     The Town of Cloverdale Town Council and     )
     The Town of Cloverdale Safety Board;        )
                                                 )
           Defendants.                           )



                              APPEARANCE FORM
                         (CIVIL – RESPONDING PARTY)


CASE: 67C01-0802-PL-68

[ ] Check if Pro Se.
1. Town of Cloverdale, Town of Cloverdale Town Council; Town of Cloverdale Safety
Board; Donald L. Pearson, Donald Sublett, Dennis Padgett, Glen Vickroy, Terry Puffer
and Stephen Caulkins in their capacity as a member of the Town of Cloverdale Town
Council and Town of Cloverdale Safety Board
  Name or names of responding party or parties

2. Address of pro se responding party or parties (as applicable for service of process):

  Name:                                       Name:
  Address:                                    Address:



(Supply names of additional initiating parties on continuation page.)

3. Attorney information (as applicable for service)
   Name:Allan L. Yackey                             Attorney No. 1408-49
   Address: 320 N. Meridian Street, #906            Phone No. (317) 634-3809
   Indianapolis, IN 46204                           Fax No. (317) 634-3812
                                                    Computer Address: Same

4. Will responding party accept FAX service?          Yes             No
                                                      If yes, Fax No.

5. Additional information required by state or local rule:




6. Additional information to supplement the appearance form submitted by the initiating
party.




                                                      Allan L. Yackey
                                                      Attorney for


                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following
individuals by First Class Mail, postage prepaid on the _______ day of February 2008.

                                     Bill Harrington
                                  Harrington Law P.C.
                                105 N. Washington Street
                                 Danville, In 46122-1235
                                Mrs. Betty Harrington
                                Harrington Law P.C.
                              105 N. Washington Street
                              Danville, IN 46122-1235
                             The Honorable Steve Carter
                          Attorney General State of Indiana
                         302 W. Washington Street, 5th Floor
                               Indianapolis, IN 46204




                                                 Allan L. Yackey

Allan L. Yackey, #1408-49
Attorney at Law
320 N. Meridian Street, #906
Indianapolis, In 46204
(317) 634-3809