IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS

CAUSE NO. 49A04-1504-PL-00163

DOUGLAS COSTELLO and

PROFIT SEARCH, lNC.,

Appeal from the Marion Superior C0

Appellam/Defendant

Civil Division

)
,

v.

) 11'1211

GERSH ZAVODNIK
Appellec/Cross-Appcllam

GREGORY R. PACHMAYR
CLERK OF COURTS

Court Case No.149D10-1011P

VVV

The Honorable

J.

Jcrey Edens. Special Judge

VERIFIED MOTION IN OBJECTION TO NOT PUTTING THE ATTACHED PETITION FOR

TRANSFER INTO THE DOCKET & MY VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT, DELIBERATELY

SABOTAGING MY APPEAL
('Omcs now Appellee/Cross-Appcllant. ("Gersh Zavodnik"), ("Zax/odnik). (1"), ("Me).

(Mine"). pro
not those

per. per se. and moves the Court

of the Indiana Court olAppeals

("My).

with jurisdiction and judges/justices with jurisdiction.

and the Indiana Supreme Court, who are corrupt. biased and

unlaix: discriminate and abuse/violate/deprix'e my

fami and me 01" various rights on the Veried

Motion In Objection To Not Putting The Attached Petition For Transfer Into The Docket & My Veried

Afdavit. Dcliberately Sabotaging My Appeal. and Zavodnik states the following:

l.()n 08/22/2016 I brought for ling with the Court otAppeals ("0A."), several documents.

Veried

Motion To Publish Opinion. Veried Motion To Modify Existing App. Rule 65 (B). In Objection To

Nm-publicution & In Support Of Veried Motion To Publish Opinion. Veried Motion To

Proceed In Forum Pauperis, the attached Petition For 'Iransfer and the Veried

Afdavit In Support Of

Motion To Proceed On Transfer In Foxma Pauperis.

2.011 or about 08/25/2016 I also brought

for ling with CA. my Veried Motion To Withdraw (3)

If The Opinion Has Been Published,

Three Documents.

But Not To Withdraw Petition For Transfer,

Veried Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Veried Afdavit.

3.0n or about 08/25/2016 Indiana Supreme Court (I.S.C.") issued an order in the above-referenced
matter. the notication

ofwhich I received

on or about 08/29/2016.

4.For a long time you (certainjudges, justices and my opposition, their counsel, law 0fce(s) and
clients. and even the media and the Indiana Judicial Qualications Committee) have been co-

conspiring. plotting, colluding, committing RICO acts and other procedural and non-procedural

obnses/vioialions against me, my family members, other people and the law. thinking that you all are
above it and the Constitution

of our people, and therefore you don't have to play by the very

rules that

you. as judges andjustices, yourselves created, but you've been fooling yourselves, and you know
about it, for the arm

of legal justice will eventually

reach you anywhere and

will

end your injustice

since you're not completely immuned, because there are no safeguards against your unlawful acts,

which exist to protect us due to all of you being in co-conspiracy with one another and committing
RICO against us,

those who are not members

of your Executive Club, those

people against whom

you've been discriminating and retaliating for openly criticizing you.

5.The said Order states that the Veried Motion was not accompanied by a petition to transfer, nor
does

it even mention the fact that with my Veried Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis I've also led

the Veried Afdavit accompanying said documents. and therefore it deliberately misrepresents the
facts. so that both C .A. and I.S.C. could later onjustify its unlawful acts and lie a ground for continuing

'doing me in on appeal and continuing deliberately painting me in false light, defaming me worldwide
through the media and issuing sanctions and penalties against me through the discriminatory/unfair.
biased/capricious opinions/orders without even giving me an opportunity to rebut them through
hearing. which you've previously denied me, violating my due process/equal protection and other

[0

rights: right to an appeal. You've also depriving me

of an

unbiased referee. money/property and my

right to life free of these and other unlawful deprivations/violations and discrimination while you coconspired. plotted and colluded, committed RICO acts, other violations, caused my father to have
heart-attacks, and incited harassments/imimidations/violence/hatred, abuse and threats towards me not

only by your colleagues, but also worldwide, retaliating towards me for openly criticizing your
discrimination towards my family and me, violations/deprivations and committing multiple other
offenses, including but not limited to covert, and not, schemes and acts, to which I've objected in the
past too. and I'm putting you all on notice that I've led a Notice

Motions for your disqualications again,

affording me

as I

ofTon Claim,

and now I'm bringing

did before, which you've previously denied me without

hearing, and thus violating my due process again. I've led another Afdavit with my

ling for Rehearing. but you also didn't put it on the docket.
6.1.S.C.'s original jurisdiction in discipling attorneys to who they afford a due process, and before any

disciplinary actions. opinions negatively describing those attorneys acts, sanctions or penalties're
imposed. an altomey usually has an opportunity to present evidence, to rebut the allegations against

him/her, to conduct discovery, to be heard and to be in front

your discrimination/animus/unequal treatment

of me a pro

of an
se

unbiased judges orjuslices, yet in

litigant, you've refused/declined to give

me same opportunity as to attorneys to which you often compared me to when both

of your mum,

on

various occasions. have stated that Mr. Zavodnik has every right to represent himselfin legal
proceedings. but a pro

se

litigant is held to the same standards

inherent leniency simply by virtue

of being self-represented.

See

2014).". Zavodnik v. Harper. 17 N.E.3d 259. 261 (Ind. 2014).

the same established rules

of procedure that trained

as a trained

attorney and is afforded no

Matter of G.P.U., 4 N.E.3d I 158 (Ind.

A litigant who proceeds pro se

counsel is bound to follow. Smith

N.E.2d 553. 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. cerl. dismissed. One risk

Lo)

v.

is held to

Donahue. 907

litigant takes when

proceeding pro se is that he will not know how to accomplish all the things an atlomey would know

how to accomplish. Id. When

party elects to represent himself. there is no reason for us to indulge in

any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct olhis
appeal. Foley

v.

Mmmor. 844 N.E.2d 494, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Therefore. time and time again.

you've proven to me that you don't treat me equally, and in fact you made your primary goal (when it
comes to me, or those who represent me) to 'black-mark' and to do me in', and that you'd go as far as it

would take you, and would not stop in front of anything to get rid of me and my cases and/or those who
represent(ed) me, to harm, damage, injure, abuse, intimidate, harass. threaten, retaliate, discriminate
and commit multiple various other illegal offenses, acts and misconduct not only against me. my family

members. but also against those who either represent me, or who criticize your unlawful acts, and

therefore you didn't even notice when you crossed the boundaries

of decency.

7.When my former attorney Mark O'Hara ran for being elected as ajudge and wanted to try to change

your corrupt establishment, his son,

former Marine, was threatened to be killed, and Mark and his

family had to relocate from Indiana, and therefore through these unlawful means you've intimidated
and threatened Mark's family, Mark and my

8.1n the same

family and me witnesses against you.

HAW case, on 09/30/2014, I.S.C. stated:Mr. Zavodnik has argued that the system

unfairly biased against him

proceedings, but

as a

is

pro se litigant. Mr. Zavodnik has every right to represent himself in legal

pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a trained attorney and is afforded no

inherent leniency simply by virtue

2014). "[O]ne acting pro

56 has

of being self-represented.

See Matter

ofG.P.U..

N.E.3d H58 (Ind.

no license to harass others. clog thejudicial machinery with meritless

litigation. and abuse already overloaded court dockets." Farguson

v.

MBank Houston. N.A., 808 F.2d 358.

359 (5th Cir. I986) (denying lFP application and dismissing appeal). Even if'a court may take reasonable
steps to prevent a good faith pro se litigant from being placed at an unfair disadvantage. an abusive litigant

can expect no latitude.".

9.\ouvc also stated:Zavodnik also led

federal lawsuit against the judge, which was immediately

dismissed", which was your fraud on court and me since it wasn't as the docket of the said US. Federal
Court shows and thus you deceived the public and me in addition to which, the case is still not dead.
and in fact the case is in the US Supreme Court:

10/33 0014

3_0

"VERIFIED MOTION to Amend/Correct 2_9 Closed Judgment. led by

tPlaintifsERSH ZAVODNIK TATIANA ZAVODNIK YURI
ZAVODNIK c/s (Attachments: # Exhibit 1- 5 # 2 Exhibit 6. # 3 Exhibit
# 4 Exhibit 8 # 5 Exhibit 9)(CKM) (Enter=ed: 10/27/2014)
1

301/12/2015

7.

AFFIDAVIT of the personal knowledge (first- hand knowledge) m support

3i

of the veried motion

to correct errors to reconsider to set aside judgment.

'to return us our original documents & to grant us the requested relief by
YURI ZAVODNIK. (Attachments. # 1 Exhibit 1- Local Rule 5 1 #_2 Exhibit
2- Local Rule 79-1)(CBU) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

I'

lO.You've also stated that On September 30. 2014, our Supreme Court issued an opinion in another

Zavodniks cases. See Zavodnik

v.

of

Harper. 17 N.E.3d 259. The Court actually denied Zavodniks

petition to transfer in that case, but it issued an opinion that gives guidance to this states courts on
some options when confronted with abusive and vexatious litigation practices. Id. At 261-62.". and

you stated "As our Supreme Court has recognized, Zavodnik is a "prolic. abusive litigant." Zavodnik
v.

Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 261 (Ind. 2012). He spends much ofhis life prosecuting lawsuits against

individuals and businesses with whom he has entered into online transactions. See Zavodnik

Ric/mills. 984 N.E.2d 699, 701 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). aff'd on reh

'g, 988

v.

N.E.2d 806 (Ind.CI.

App.20]3).

How can a court deny petition to transfer while issuing its opinion while denying me my due
process stated above. and that opinion to be not void? It's impossible, for without affording me due
process. you violated my various rights. and therefore that Order is void!
5

Illn a published to the third parties opinion, you called me someone who brings/brought an "abusive
and \exalious litigation. Let us look at the denition

l3.Wikipedia denes those terms

as: Vexalious

of those terms.

litigation is legal action which is brought. regardless of

its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form

or may be the repetitive. burdensome, and unwarranted ling

otherwise

meritorious cause

of a primary-ivnlaus lawsuit

of meritless motions in a matter which

is

of action.

l4.Duhaime's Law Dictionary denes such a person as someone. who habitually or persistently
engages in legal proceedings, without having a legitimate claim requiring resolution while the Free

()nline Black's Legal Dictionary states:

VEXATIOUS
A proceeding is said to be vexatious when the party bringing it is not acting bona de, and merely
wishes to annoy or embarrass his opponent, or when it is not calculated to lead to any practical result.
Such a proceeding is often described as frivolous and vexatious," and the court may stay it on that
ground.

VEXATIOUS ACTION
Endorsement or claim pleading that it is frivolous, cause prejudice. discloses no reasonable cause. is an
abuse of process. Also known as frivolous action or suit. vexatious proceeding.

VEXATIOUS PROCEEDING
malicious action done to annoy or hassle the opponent in a case before court. Information and
Denitions from Black's Law Dictionary. The Law Dictionary Featuring Blacks Law Dictionary Free
Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed., page # 18.
a

15.Without demonstrating all of the facts and without giving me due process to rebut said capricious
opinions with my evidence, the dirt that the said individuals deliberately brought on me together with
co~conspiring media, in order to retaliate for openly criticizing them and their colleagues

other judges

and justices for their multiple unlawful violations/deprivations. you basically opined and published to

the third parties that I'm an abuser (all while you were and are abusing me and my rights. and therefore
are abusers yourselves), in order to destroy me, my

life and my case and to abuse, harass. damage.

6

harm, intimidate, threaten. violate my rights, discriminate against me, deprive me, those who represent
me. and my family

of various rights, life. properly

and money. in order to injure and make my family's

and my life intolerable, and in order to incite others towards harm and even physical violence against

my family and me, you basically stated that I persistently exploit and abuse the processes

of the court

in order to achieve some improper purpose or obtain some advantage, and you basically stated that I

did all ofthat while being self-represented, and you implied that my motivation appears to be to punish

or wear the other side down through the expense of responding to persistent, fruitless applications. You
even failoed to state that I had several anomeys representing me, who cried and left the cases because

of your abuses,

as

Mr. Sharron did when Oakes' Court constantly abused him.

I6.You deliberately didn't allow me to rebut what you brought to destroy me with, yet most of what
you brought had no hard facts to substantiate with what you opined and published while stating what
you did. and since you lied and concealed facts capable

of destroying your

lies about me, you brought

fraud on court upon which you yourselves and others relied upon and followed up on. and you brought
it not only on court, but also on me, while you also and on multiple occasions brought perjury, deceit
and misrepresentations, for in my life in Indiana

(30)

I have won anywhere between (24) twentv four and

thirg cases on the merits, and that's exactly why you would not let me win another case, and

especially over an altomey, so later on I couldn't bring even more destruction

of your lies

you "See. I won another case on the merits!", for that'd continue destroying your goal

by saying to

of painting

me in

false light as someone who('s) brings/brought an "abusive and vexatious litigation" and where you

labeled me a vexatious. prolic, abusive litigant, someone who won anywhere betweem24) twentv

four and (30) thirtv

cases on the merits.

l7.Y0ur Courts are corruptjust

as you're, and you wonder

why public has no trust in you and in your

system which you created yourselves through your own rules which you yourselves don't follow and

don't adhere to?

18.That's why you all committed the acts that

never wished to be quite about and have been exposing

your corrupted practices (Publish all of this! You won't ah7). As Ive stated, you're so low that in your
commitments of RICO and orchestrated co-conspiracy and other attempts to silence me. you even
threatened the life

of my former attorney's

son, a marine. when his dad ran [0 become ajudge and to

expose your complete corruption where you in your opinion in

and Richards even gave

[g]uidance to this states courts on some options when confronted with abusive and vexatious litigation

practices." Id. At 261-62., and you stated As our Supreme Court has recognized, Zavodnik is

prolic. abusive litigant." Zavodnik v. Harper,

17

N.E.3d 25). 261 (Ind 2012). He spends much olhis

life prosecuting lawsuits against individuals and businesses with whom he has entered into online
transactions. See Zavodnik

v.

Richards, 984 N.E.2d 699, 701 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). a"d on reh g.

988 N.E.2d 806 (lnd.Ct. App.2013). Many

ofyou followed the guidance and unlawfully deprived me

ofmillions of dollars. property. rights and even deprived my family members oftheir lives.

and my

poor killed dad exposed all ofyou in his Veried Afdavit too.
19.You'\'e basically stated that I'm someone who persistently and habitually engages in legal
proceedings. without having a legitimate claim requiring resolution, and you've basically stated that
sue in order to annoy, harass, or

system and waste the time

nancially punish other people and 1 strain court resources. ood the

of judges

and administrative staff and prevent other, legitimate claims from

being dealt with, and that I force other people to incur otherwise unnecessary legal bills. and you

basically stated that no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, yet you were biased.
prejudice and unfair, because in your ad Imminem attacks to assassinate my character and to basically

'bury me alive' through your published lies, and deliberately without affording me due process. you
deliberately hid from the public for who those opinions were published, the fact that

anvwhcre between (24) twentv four and

guts. and so

Q30)

thirtv

cases on the

I have won

merits. so everyone would hate my

would have no place to live in, nobody would hire me to work. nobody would do

business with me. no attorney would want to represent me, and so I would suffer and go away when

you'd waive your broom, but

did not in 12 years, or so.

20.] didn't bring my suits for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression
parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion
12 years I

of other

of legitimate rights.

In

didn't sue Wuertz whom you sent on me, have I? Nevenheless, I will do so now for he's one

of you and all of you've co-conspired

against me.

2] .In determining whether proceedings are vexatious. the court must look at the whole history of the
matters and notjust whether there was originally a good cause

of action, but did you do

it? NO, for you

never cared for it since it would've destroyed your unfair discriminatory practices towards me. and
that's exactly why you concealed and hid from the public the very fact that I've won anywhere

between (24) twentv four and (30)

thirtv

cases on the merits. For

and publish to the public that I had paid for most

so. yes paid. so portions

if you did, you'd also have to state

of the law suits I brought when

I had the money to do

of the salaries of those who often 'did me in' could be paid too.

22.Before your discriminatory campaign against me, those who represented me and my family, was

fully implemented by you, I won several appeals too

as

well as a remand on the case which was

dismissed with prejudice by I.S.C., and I was awarded a big money awards too. Did you 'accidentallv

or by

negligent mistake' forget to mention that in your Opinions? Well. why don't you correct and x

that 'accidental

would put

or a negligent mistake' now,

a dent

here is your chance, but I bet you won't do it too, for it

into your plan/scheme to destroy me in the eyes

of the public, which would

undermine your goal to refer to my suits as pretty much legal bullying, and to me such a pro se legal

terrorist.
23.You've stated that I can expect no latitude. but have I ever had latitude from you, or did I ask for it to
begin with? No. In fact and on contrary. as I've stated, and after reading and comparing your opinions
issued against pro se people compared to those against attorneys, instead
9

of leniency

and latitude, for

years you've treated me and majority

of self-represented in discrimination/animus

and worse than

you've treated attorneys, yet in your hypocritical opinions you have guts to sometimes proclaim that
there's a leniency for self-represented while at some other times and when it suits your other purposes.

you compare us to trained attorneys, and yet you don't treat us as such, as I've demonstrated to you.
24Jusxice's supposed to be blind. not Judges when it comes to justice. Yet, you deliberately made

yourself blind when it comes to justice. Judges've taken control of the right to assert the rights
guaranteed to us, including me, yet those rights're no longer inalienable as guaranteed in the

Constitution. You made it so that the public has those rights only when

a judge feels

like letting the

public have them, and you deliberately made it so that nojudge feels like letting Zavodnik and his

family have rights, period, and

if a judge doesn't feel like letting a person have his/her rights. Ihose

person won't have them, when it comes to Zavodnik and his family, there is no

if. and therefore my

family and I have no rights due to you. and you've gured that there's really nothing Zavodnik can do.
not even pray for a shot at a Grand Jury, hence you created an unfair system in which effectively.

j udges.

as

vending machine dispenses. either dispense" our rights at their whim/pleasure with total

impunity. or they don't dispense any rights

if you're a Zavodnik. and it's because of you that ordinary

citizens have no other means to enjoy or enforce their civil rights except through that same court
system. once again consisting

of all ofyou,

and it's like you'd come to my mother to seekjustice and

fairness against her own son. Would you get any? No.

25.This means that without

fair mechanism for remedy. we (people, including me) have no rights.

judge refuses to order relief, then

pray to

If a

dont get any. Therefore. citizens have no choice but to (literally)

judge for leave to assert their rights. Where their prayers are denied. their rights are

denied. What a joke(!); but who judges the judges? Thejudges themselves? What ajoke! Ill work hard

to promote

body

of law which will consist of lay

men tojudge the judges, and they'll be thejudges to

10

judge the judges, since the judges like you're law/rights-violators, act not according to sworn duties.
26.When you're supposed to take evidence judging cases accordingly, you prejudge cases according to
the parties and you tailor evidence or its lack to your prejudged-opinions. Is that how the system

of

justice supposed to function? No, Right opposite's proper.

27.Your abusive predicate acts and decisions have been outside

of boundaries of decency. and prior to

you publishing your capricious opinions. you'd known what their real effect on me and my family

would be. and in your opinions you looked at me through the lens of my vexatiousness, yet you never
looked at everything I did, such as my wins on the merits in the lower courts and wins in both of the
upper courts. and in your void capricious discriminatory opinions you concealed it from the public too
in order to sway their opinions about me.
28.Rush and otherjustices/judges, such as Vaidik and others, weighed 'my vexatiousness into their

decisions while issuing their opinions, and they had pre-judged the outcomes
and then tailored their decisions to those pre-judged outcomes, instead

of numerous of my cases,

of looking at the evidence or

its

lack in front of them, but is that how justice works? No, that is how the injustice works.

29h might

have been that the said judges and justices in the said opinions and orders haven't issued an

expressed impi11gement/restrictions. sanctions and penalties, but their practical effect's harsh and

reects what those unjust and damaging opinions have done

10

me and to my family. which has been

stated in this document and my numerous other documents on le, including those that are

contemporaneously led now. such as the Veried Motion/Afdavit For Disqualication Of Judges Of
The Indiana Court

Oppeals And Justices OfThe

Indiana Supreme Court

& Veried Motion

To

Immediately Set A Disqualications Hearing and other documents. Please see those documents on le.
30.l request the Court with jurisdiction and judges/justices with jurisdiction, not those

of CA.

and

I.S.C.. who are corrupt, biased and unfair/discriminate/abuse/violate/deprive my family and me

11

of

various rights, money/properly, sustain my objections made by me in my Veried Motion In Objection

To Not Putting The Attached Petition For Transfer Into The Docket

& Veried Motion

In Support

Of

Veried Motions For Disqualication and other documents on le and those which are

conIcmporaneously-led, and they disqualify Ihemselvex or/and immediately set up

Hearing on their

disqualications.
WI-IEREFORE. Zavodnik requests the Cou withjurisdiction and judges/justices with jurisdiction. not
those

ofthe Indiana Court

oppeals and the Indiana Supreme Court, who're corrupt,

biased/unfair/discriminate and abuse/violate/deprive my family and me of various rights.

money/property. sustain my objections made by me in my Veried Motion In Objection To Not Putting
The Attached Petition For Transfer Into The Docket & My Veried Afdavit, Deliberalely Sabotaging

My Appeal. and they disqualify themselves. or/and immediately

set up a Hearing on their

disqualil'xcalions, and for all other relief. all just and proper in the premises.

VERIFICATION
I. Gcrsh

Zavodnik (the Afam), understand that

a false statement

in this document could subject me

10

the penalties for perjury, and therefore I afrm under the penalties for perjury that the statements in the
stated document are true, correct and accurate, which's my personal ("rst-hand") knowledge. and I'm

competent to testify about them.

Respectfully submitted by:

7

72 wvv/ VK
141

Afant/Apellee-Cross-Appellam/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
Afanl/Appellee-CrossAppellant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25 81.. Apt. 318.

Indianapolis. In 46229
email: cincmaparadiso@netzer0.net

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

I

verify and certify that the Appellees'-Cross-Appellanls' Veried Motion In Objection To Not Putting

The Attached Petition For Transfer Into The Docket & Veried Motion In Support Of Veried Motions
For Disqualication contains no more than 4,200 words.

(i xmw/LL
Afam/Appellee Cross-Appellant/Gash Zavodnik/Plaintiff
Afam/AppelIceCrossAppcllam/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25 St.. Apt. 318.

Indianapolis. In 46229
email: cinemaparadiso@netzero.net

CERTIFICATE OF FILING
I

hereby ccnify that

served

copy ofthe foregoing Appcllecs-Cross-AppcIlam's Veried Motion In

Objection To Not Putting The Attached Petition For Transfer Into The Docket & Veried Motion In
Support Of Veried Motions For Disqualication 0n the following Clerk ofthc Indiana Suprcmc

Court. Court ofAppeals. and Tax Court. (by depositing the same through rotunda ling). (by placing
the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid).

in person

10

thigj day of September. 2016)

10

be delivered

200 W. Washington Street. Room 217 Statehouse Indianapo/lis In 46204.

CM
paw/wk
Afant/Appellee-Cross-Appellanl/Gersh Zavodnik/Plainti 1T
Afam/Appellee-Cross-Appellant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25 St.. Apt. 318.

Indianapolis. In 46229
email: cinemaparadiso@netzero.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby

certify that I served

copy of the foregoing Appel]ee's-Cross-Appellam's Veried Motion In

Objection To Not Putting The Attached Petition For Transfer Into The Docket & Veried Motion In
Suppom

Of Veried Motions For Disqualication on the following counsel of record by placing the

same in the United States mail, postage prepaid,

thwyi day of September, 2016 and sending the

foregoing AppelleesCross-Appellant's Veried Motion In Objection To Not Putting The Attached

Petition For Transfer Into The Docket & Veried Motion In Support Of Veried Motions For

Disqualication

10

Chad D. Wuenz, Attorney ID: 26656-49, Attorney for Appellants (Doug Costello &

Prot Search. Inc). Wuenz Law Ofce, LLC, 210 Victoria Centre, 22 East Washington Street.
Indianapolis, In 46204.

Afam/Appel1ee-CrossAppe11ant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff

Afant/Appellee-CrossAppellant/Gersh Zavodnik/Plaintiff
9750 E. 25h SL, Apt. 318,

Indianapolis, In 46229
email: cinemaparadiso@netzero.net

14