Proposal for Strategic Reports in the Matter of Rice-Velasquez Foreclosure
This proposal outlines a multi-front strategy for the Rice-Velasquez foreclosure matter, comprising five distinct, purpose-driven reports. Each report is engineered for a specific audience and objective, ranging from a dispositive judicial challenge to a leveraged settlement negotiation and public advocacy. Together, they form a comprehensive legal and strategic framework designed to vacate a void judgment, prosecute significant civil rights claims, compel a favorable settlement, and address the profound systemic failures illustrated by this case.
1.0 Report for Judicial Review: Memorandum on Void Judgment
This memorandum is the foundational legal instrument for the defensive strategy. It is architected to present a clear, non-frivolous, and dispositive jurisdictional challenge to the Court. The core argument is that the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant—due to a complete and documented failure of service of process—renders all prior rulings void ab initio, thereby mandating the reversal of all subsequent enforcement actions.
1.1 Report Design & Specifications
Specification Details Report Title Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate Void Judgment Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) Intended Audience Presiding Judge, Marion Superior Court 3 Purpose To formally assert that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant due to a complete and documented failure of service of process, rendering the default judgment of May 28, 2025, and all subsequent enforcement actions (including the sheriff’s sale and Writ of Assistance) legally void.
1.2 Key Report Sections & Evidentiary Grounding
- I. Statement of the Issue
- The central legal question is whether a default judgment is void when the defendant was never served with the summons and complaint, thereby violating fundamental due process rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Indiana Trial Rules.
- II. Factual Background
- This section will construct a concise, chronological narrative from the Defendant’s perspective as a pro se litigant. It will clarify that the subject property is located at 4817 Shadow Pointe Dr, Indianapolis, IN 46254, while service of process should have been attempted at the Defendant’s distinct mailing address on record.
- Evidentiary Grounding: This narrative is anchored by the Defendant’s sworn declaration (“I affirm that I never received lawful notice of this foreclosure action.”), the court’s own timeline establishing the entry of Default Judgment on May 28, 2025, and the Defendant’s mailing address (3137 Melbourne Rd Dr S, Indianapolis, IN 46228) documented in court filings.
- III. Argument: The Judgment is Void for Lack of Jurisdiction
- The legal argument will establish that a lack of proper service is not a mere procedural error but a fatal jurisdictional defect that nullifies the entire proceeding.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The uncompleted service returns—specifically the blank “Sheriff’s Return on Service of Summons” and “Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing”—function as documentary proof from the court’s own file that a critical jurisdictional predicate was never met. This failure will be directly linked to the constitutional due process principles requiring notice “reasonably calculated to apprise” interested parties of a pending action, as established in Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams.
- IV. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
- The memorandum will conclude with a clear request for the Court to declare the judgment void, quash the Writ of Assistance, and vacate the sheriff’s sale and resulting deed.
- Evidentiary Grounding: This requested relief directly executes the primary defensive strategy objective: “Vacate default judgment, sheriff sale, deed, and writ as void.”
Having established the jurisdictional nullity of the state court’s actions, the strategy pivots from a defensive posture to an offensive one, leveraging federal statutes to re-characterize the plaintiff’s conduct as a pattern of actionable civil rights violations.
2.0 Report for Federal Investigation: Supplemental Complaint on ADA & FHA Violations
This report strategically escalates the matter beyond the confines of the state court foreclosure action. It serves as an instrument to invoke federal oversight from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), leveraging the formidable statutory power of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to reframe the case as one of actionable discrimination and denial of access to justice.
2.1 Report Design & Specifications
Specification Details Report Title Supplemental Complaint and Evidence Submission Regarding Denial of Access to Justice and Discriminatory Housing Practices (HUD Complaint No. to be assigned from 2025-12-22 filing) Intended Audience U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), FHEO; U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division Purpose To provide a detailed, evidence-backed account of how the foreclosing plaintiff, its counsel, and the Marion County judicial and law enforcement systems failed to provide reasonable accommodations for the Defendant’s known disabilities, leading to a denial of access to justice and resulting in discriminatory displacement in violation of the FHA and ADA Title II.
2.2 Key Report Sections & Evidentiary Grounding
- I. Summary of Violations
- A powerful opening statement will assert a direct causal link between the denial of reasonable accommodation for the Defendant’s disabilities and the ultimate loss of housing.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The submitted “ADA Title II Notice & Request for Reasonable Accommodation” will be presented as irrefutable proof of prior notice. Direct quotations from the initial HUD complaint summary will frame the harm: “Forced displacement and housing instability,” “Interference with my ability to access justice,” and “Denial of housing rights.”
- II. Chronology of Discriminatory Conduct
- The report will feature a granular, disability-focused chronology designed to demonstrate a pattern of willful indifference to the Defendant’s federally protected rights.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The “Case_Log.md” will provide precise dates and facts, including the submission of the ADA request, the specific documented communication needs such as “verbal communication across floors, raised voices, background music for focus regulation,” and the severe impact of displacement on the Defendant’s disabilities: “Physical exhaustion compounded by displacement” and “Stress and depletion impacting capacity to function, communicate, and comply without accommodation.”
- III. Legal Analysis: Failure to Accommodate under ADA Title II
- The argument will assert that the court and the sheriff, as public entities, had a non-delegable duty under ADA Title II to provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication.
- Evidentiary Grounding: This argument is supported by legal principles from the DOJ’s Steven Prakel, et al v. the State of Indiana - Statement of Interest, which clarifies that courts have an “effective communication obligation” under Title II. It will also cite the authoritative ADA regulations which state: “(ii) The primary object of attention in cases brought under title III of the ADA should be whether public accommodations have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not the extent to which an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity.”
- IV. Supporting Precedent and Pattern of Practice
- This section will contextualize the individual complaint by referencing similar federal enforcement actions, demonstrating a pattern of DOJ interest and enforcement in these types of violations.
- Evidentiary Grounding: Relevant cases from the DOJ’s “Housing Cases Summary Page” will be cited, such as United States v. Park City Communities (failure to grant a reasonable accommodation transfer) and United States v. City of Jackson (city discriminating on the basis of disability), to underscore the seriousness of the allegations and signal alignment with established enforcement priorities.
This report seeks formal government intervention, while the following confidential package is designed to bring the opposing party to the negotiating table directly and decisively.
3.0 Report for Negotiation: Confidential Settlement Demand Package
This package is architected not as a plea but as a formal presentation of overwhelming legal and financial risk to the plaintiff. Presented as a confidential communication under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, it is structured to make a negotiated resolution the only logical business decision. By first establishing the judgment’s invalidity and then layering on the significant exposure from federal civil rights claims, the package creates maximum psychological and legal leverage on opposing counsel and their client.
3.1 Report Design & Specifications
Specification Details Report Title CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION - Rule 408 Correspondence Intended Audience Opposing Counsel: MICHAEL E. FARRER, GRAHAM, FARRER & WILSON, P.C. (for conveyance to their client, Financial Center First Credit Union) Purpose To articulate the full scope of legal, financial, and reputational exposure facing the plaintiff and to present a clear, comprehensive offer to resolve all current and potential claims globally.
3.2 Key Report Sections & Evidentiary Grounding
- I. Executive Summary of Compounded Legal Exposure
- A high-level summary will outline the two primary vectors of liability: the fundamental procedural and jurisdictional failure leading to a void judgment, and the separate, affirmative civil rights claims arising from ADA and FHA violations.
- II. Inventory of Jurisdictional & Procedural Defects
- A clear, checklist-style presentation will detail the failures that render the judgment void and wholly unenforceable.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The claims will be systematically drawn from the “Master Inventory of Jurisdictional Violations,” with the primary defect cited as “No personal service on Defendant,” an incurable jurisdictional flaw.
- III. Analysis of Federal Civil Rights Claims & Potential Damages
- This section will outline the clear causes of action under the ADA and FHA, emphasizing the plaintiff’s exposure to significant compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. These violations are not theoretical; a formal complaint (HUD Complaint No. to be assigned from the 2025-12-22 filing) has already been filed with federal authorities, initiating an investigation that will run parallel to any state court proceedings.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The submitted “ADA Title II Notice & Request for Reasonable Accommodation” will be presented as irrefutable evidence that the plaintiff and its counsel were on notice of the Defendant’s protected status and accommodation needs, demonstrating willful indifference.
- IV. Schedule of Post-Judgment Torts & Continuing Damages
- This section will itemize the actionable harms inflicted upon the Defendant after the execution of the void writ. Plaintiff’s failure to secure the property post-eviction directly caused foreseeable harms, including burst pipes and mold, constituting actionable negligence independent of all other claims and creating a separate basis for damages.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The “Case_Log.md” will be used to detail property damage (“Burst pipes, water damage, and mold are foreseeable harms”), conversion of personal property (“Unplugging personal appliances and electronics exceeds any reasonable scope”), and the extreme personal hardship inflicted (“currently unsheltered, sleeping in a vehicle in freezing temperatures”).
- V. Global Settlement Demand
- The package will conclude with the specific, non-negotiable core terms required for a global resolution of all claims.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The demand will precisely mirror the terms laid out in the “Master Legal Blueprint”: “Cash payment 80k–100k,” “Full FCFCU tradeline deletion,” “No deficiency balance,” “No foreclosure reporting,” and “Confidentiality.”
To complement these direct legal actions, a parallel public-facing narrative is necessary to build external pressure and ensure the systemic issues are brought to light.
4.0 Report for Public Advocacy: Community Impact & Systemic Failure Briefing
This briefing is designed to translate a complex legal dispute into a compelling public interest story. It reframes the case not as an isolated incident but as a clear example of broader systemic failures in the foreclosure process, creating a powerful narrative for housing advocacy groups, community leaders, and the media to amplify and leverage for reform.
4.1 Report Design & Specifications
Specification Details Report Title A Case Study in Displacement: How Due Process and Disability Rights Failures Harm Indianapolis Homeowners Intended Audience Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana (FHCCI), housing rights advocates, local and state media. Purpose To translate the complex legal issues of the case into a relatable human story that highlights systemic problems in the foreclosure process, particularly at the intersection of poverty, disability, and access to justice, thereby generating public support and pressure for systemic reform.
4.2 Key Report Sections & Evidentiary Grounding
- I. The Human Story: From Homeowner to Sleeping in a Car in Freezing Temperatures
- This section will narrate the Defendant’s rapid and traumatic descent from stable homeownership into vehicular homelessness as a direct result of the void foreclosure action.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The narrative will create a stark contrast between the photographs in the “Subject Interior Photo Page,” which depict an established home, and the case log entry stating the Defendant is now “sleeping in a vehicle in freezing temperatures.” The profound personal loss will be illustrated by mentioning specific items, such as “a mini-fridge that had personal significance as a gift from a friend who was murdered.”
- II. A System Failing its Most Vulnerable
- An analysis of how procedural shortcuts (the failure of service) combined with the refusal to accommodate known disabilities created an insurmountable and discriminatory barrier for the Defendant.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The Defendant’s documented disabilities (“ADHD, anxiety, executive dysfunction”) will be used to explain how these conditions “increase the impact of sudden removal, loss of access, and chaotic conditions,” making due process and accommodation failures particularly devastating.
- III. Marion County in Context: A Foreclosure Hotspot
- This section will situate the individual case within broader, data-supported local trends to demonstrate that this is not an isolated issue, but a preventable instance of a known phenomenon.
- Evidentiary Grounding: Data from the FHCCI’s own report will be cited, specifically the finding that “Foreclosure Filings are Increasing” and the neighborhood-level filing rates from its “Appendix II.” This data will be paired with visual evidence, such as the image of a poorly maintained, boarded-up REO property from the “National Fair Housing Alliance” lawsuit, to provide a visceral example of the blight that results from such systemic failures.
- IV. A Call for Reform
- The briefing will conclude with a clear and actionable set of proposed reforms and areas for investigation by advocates and policymakers.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The call to action will be directly based on the failures identified in this case, such as demanding improved and mandatory ADA training for court and sheriff’s office personnel and advocating for more robust, verifiable oversight of service of process in all foreclosure cases.
Finally, the strategic focus must return to the Defendant’s immediate needs and the personal support system essential for their well-being and resilience.
5.0 Report for Internal Support: Family & Network Case Summary
This document is a vital internal tool designed to maintain the Defendant’s resilience through a protracted legal battle. It equips their personal support network with a clear, jargon-free understanding of the situation, the strategy, and actionable ways they can provide help, thereby distributing the emotional and logistical burden and preventing burnout.
5.1 Report Design & Specifications
Specification Details Report Title Case Update for Family & Friends of Cody Rice-Velasquez Intended Audience Defendant’s immediate family and trusted support network. Purpose To provide a simple, emotionally intelligent, and practical summary of the legal situation, the current challenges, the long-term strategy, and specific, concrete needs to prevent burnout and ensure the defendant has the personal and logistical support required to see the case through.
5.2 Key Report Sections & Evidentiary Grounding
- I. What Happened (The Simple Version)
- A plain-language explanation of the foreclosure and removal that emphasizes the core injustice without getting lost in legal technicalities.
- Evidentiary Grounding: The summary will state the core fact clearly and simply: “Cody was removed from the home on Dec. 9, 2025, without ever having received legal notice that a lawsuit was happening.”
- II. Our Plan to Fight Back
- A straightforward summary of the three-part strategy, empowering the network with an understanding of the path forward.
- Evidentiary Grounding: This section provides a simplified version of the “Strategy Map” to give the network a clear framework: “1. Defense: Prove the court case was invalid from the start. 2. Offense: Hold them accountable for violating Cody’s civil rights. 3. Goal: Reach a settlement that fixes the damage and provides a fresh start.”
- III. The Current Reality & Challenges
- We need to be honest with ourselves about how hard this is for Cody right now. This section directly describes the physical and emotional toll of the situation.
- Evidentiary Grounding: Quotations from the “Emotional Impact” section of the case log will convey the severity: “Significant physical pain and depletion” and “Heightened stress, vulnerability, and distress due to lack of food, money, and assistance.” The current living situation will be stated directly: “sleeping in a vehicle in freezing temperatures.”
- IV. How You Can Help (Specific Needs)
- Here are some specific ways you can help take some of the weight off Cody’s shoulders. This section provides a concrete, manageable list of support tasks that allows friends and family to contribute in practical and meaningful ways.
- Evidentiary Grounding: This list is derived from documented needs and evidence-gathering tasks, suggesting roles such as: helping to gather “Witness statements,” providing a safe place with “stable internet” to prepare for the January 9 hearing, assisting in itemizing costs for “food loss, appliance contamination,” and, most importantly, providing consistent emotional support.
The collective purpose of these five proposed reports is to execute a multi-front strategy designed to secure justice, accountability, and restoration for the Defendant.