Congressman Carson Employs False Stalker Accuser



STATE OF INDIANA                       )           IN THE MARION COUNTY COURT

                                                            ) SS:   

COUNTY OF MARION                   )           CAUSE NO. 49G16-1801-PO-00189


HEATHER HARVEY,                                  )


            Petitioner,                                            )


                        v.                                             )


MMOJA AJABU,                                          )


            Respondent.                                        )




            Comes Now Respondent, pro se, and files this Motion to Correct Error as follows:

1.         On February 22, 2018, this court held a hearing regarding the protective order of Heather Harvey against Mmoja Ajabu. 

2.         The evidence presented at the hearing was that Heather Harvey is an employee of Andre Carson, a member of the US Congress.  In particular, Heather Harvey handles veteran affairs matters for Mr. Carson.  Mmoja Ajabu is a veteran and frequents veteran events.  On a few occasions, Ajabu and Harvey have come in contact with each other at veteran affair events.  The majority of those contacts were amicable.  Each contact was regarding constituent services extended by Mr. Carson through Harvey.  Harvey testified that there have been approximately 20 interactions between herself and Ajabu but she was only able to provide dates for sometime in April, May, June and December.    Some of those contacts were initiated by Harvey and one in particular occurred on April 20, 2017, where Harvey left a voicemail on Ajabu’s phone and asked him to relay a message to another constituent whom Mr. Ajabu had contact with.  She also told him in that conversation that she was working on some things for him and asked for his patience.      

3.         Ajabu never personally sought out Harvey in order to communicate with her pertaining to anything that did not involve matters regarding Andre Carson or constituent services.  Ms. Harvey did not indicate that she ever asked Ajabu to not contact her besides implicitly when she filed her petition for a protective order.  There is also no evidence that Mr. Ajabu contacted Ms. Harvey after Ms. Harvey filed her petition for a protective order.

4.         The contact that is the subject of her petition for protective order occurred on December 19, 2017 at the monthly Mayor’s Advisory Council for Veterans meeting.  As recounted in Harvey’s statement, Ajabu asked to speak with Harvey privately and Harvey agreed.  In the conversation that took place Harvey placed her hand on Ajabu and Ajabu pulled away and indicated that she should not touch him.    The conversation was emotional but ended with both parties going their separate ways with the only physical contact being that which was initiated by Harvey.  Harvey then filed a police report regarding the issue and filed for a protective order on January 3, 2018.

5.         This court granted Harvey a protective order on the basis of stalking. 

6.         The Court Erred in Granting A Protective Order On the Basis of Stalking Because Harassment Does Not Include Statutorily or Constitutionally Protected Activity.


            Indiana Code §35-45-10-1 defines stalking as “a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened. The term does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity.”  Emphasis added.  The contact that Respondent had with Harvey was constitutionally protected.  Harvey is an employee of a member of congress to wit: she is the contact person for veterans.  Ajabu is a veteran and he has a right to contact his congressperson for matters pertaining to his interests, benefits or concerns as a veteran or as a constituent of Andre Carson. 

            Ajabu has the constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  When Ajabu approached Harvey he did so in order to address a grievance he had.  The conversation completely pertained to Andre Carson and acts that he carried out as a member of congress.  Asking questions of congressional staff regarding a congressional member that they work for without anything else is not stalking because Ajabu engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.  Furthermore, Ajabu has the right to have a face-to-face conversation with his congressperson or the right to picket the office of his congressperson and this protective order takes away his right to do so in Indianapolis.  This order requires that Ajabu write his congressperson in Washington D.C. rather than in his city in which he lives.  Not only is it impossible to find stalking in this circumstance because the statute specifically excludes Ajabu’s activities as not being applicable for stalking yet this court violates Ajabu’s constitutional right to contact his congressperson in the city in which he resides.        

7.                  The Court Erred in Granting A Protective Order Based on Harvey’s Discomfort with Interacting with Ajabu.


            At best, as Harvey’s lawyer explained, the interaction between Harvey and Ajabu made Harvey feel “small and inadequate”.  She explained in her police report that Ajabu towered over her but did not claim in her report that he threatened to hurt her or that she felt that he was going to hurt her.  Harvey may have felt intimated but that alone will not warrant a protective order.  Cruse v. C.C., 58 N.E.3d 974, 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). 

            In Cruse, the alleged victim claimed the perpetuator attended their son’s graduation and threatened to make a scene in front of everyone.  Id. at 976.  He followed the alleged victim out into the parking lot telling the children that she was keeping them from him.  Id.  As a result she claimed she felt intimidated.  Id.  The actor carried out similar acts in other settings as well.  Id.  The appellate court noted that there was no evidence that the actor attempted to, threatened to, or did cause any acts of physical harm and no evidence that he placed the alleged victim in fear of physical harm.  Id. 

            Similar to Cruse, there is no evidence that shows that Harvey felt anything more than intimidated and that is not enough to warrant a protective order.  Harvey never intimated that she felt Ajabu was going to strike her.  She claimed that he towered over her but that cannot be interpreted as tantamount to being threatened.  The court in Cruse refused to find stalking even when the actor followed the alleged victim to the car.  The court required more than feeling intimidated to justify a protective order.  Similarly, this court erred when it allowed the feeling of being “towered over” to justify a protective order. 

            In the hearing, some discussion was had about the height of Ajabu versus Harvey.  While it is true that Ajabu is quite a bit taller than Harvey he never once attempted to strike her or use his physical characteristics to place fear in Harvey.  Harvey stated that she did not feel comfortable dealing with Ajabu but that is not enough to warrant a protective order.  In this case, Harvey allowed her discomfort or prejudice to warrant the seeking of a protective order.  This court erred in obliging Harvey. 

8.         It was in Error to Issue a Protective Order When Harvey Did Not Ask for Ajabu to Not Contact Her and Ajabu Did Not Contact Harvey After Conflict Arose.


            The evidence shows that Harvey did not ask for Ajabu to not have any more contact with her.  In order to get a protective order, the petitioner must have asked the actor to not contact the petitioner.  Maurer v. Cobb-Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753, 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).  In Maurer, the failure to ask the actor to stop contacting the petitioner was a paramount issue in the court’s reasoning.  In that case, the court found that a request to not contact was necessary in order to issue a protective order.    

            Similar to Maurer the fact that Harvey did not ask Ajabu to not contact her is pivotal here.  As the court said in Maurer, “one can hardly characterize mutual communication between parties as harassment within the meaning of the stalking statute.”  Id.  The court stated that contact without more cannot constitute stalking.   Id.  While Harvey claims that she had had several contacts with Ajabu, she only points to one where she felt Ajabu “towered over” her or caused her to feel “small and inadequate.  After this incident, there is no evidence that Ajabu contacted her again.       

            In C.V. v. C.R., 64 N.E. 3d 850, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), the court followed the same reasoning.  The court also looked to whether the contact continued after there was a request for the contact to stop.  Id.  The court refused to allow a protective order where the actor stopped the contact upon request.  Similarly it is inappropriate to grant a protective order where Ajabu has not contacted the petitioner after the conflict.  People have the right to disagree and that is exactly what happened in this situation.  The fact that Harvey felt that Ajabu is stronger than her should not be the reason to grant a protective order.  It is clear from Harvey’s testimony that if Harvey towered over Ajabu there would not have been a request for a protective order.  But even more troubling is that this case is drastically different from two private citizens having a verbal conflict where one of them feels physically outmatched, this is a representative of government telling its citizenry to not contact them so even if Harvey would have made the request, as long as Harvey is designated by Ajabu’s congressperson as the contact person for veteran matters he is allowed to contact that designated contact person.  This is the cost of being in government and this is the cost of democracy.  You may have to talk to and be accessible to people you do not agree with and feel may be stronger than you.

9.         This Court Erred in Granting a Protective Order Without Evidence that Negative Contact Happened on More than One Occasion        


            The evidence shows that on December 19, 2017 Harvey engaged in a mutual conversation with Ajabu.  The evidence shows that the conservation turned into a caustic one and both parties parted ways.  There is no evidence that Ajabu made contact with Harvey since that conversation.  Harvey therefore provided no evidence that Ajabu stalked here.  In order for there to be stalking there must be multiple contacts.  From Harvey’s statement it can be surmised that the parties does not see eye to eye but even so, the last contact was definitely one in which Harvey had the option to engage in or not engage in. 

            Harvey chose to engage in the conversation.  Harvey cannot then use that contact to justify a protective order when Harvey has not shown that she ever indicated to Ajabu that she did not want to be contacted by him and he ignored that request. Stalking requires some evidence that the actor is the one looking for the victim.  Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.3d 794, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).  Harvey did not offer any evidence that Ajabu came looking for her after the conflict arose in December 2017.

            From the evidence presented, it was Harvey that showed agitation regarding the subject matter.  This agitation erupted when she placed her hands on Ajabu.  More is required to warrant a protective order.  Ajabu has the right to voice his opinion on any matter he pleases and in what ever tone he pleases and in whatever demeanor he please and in whatever stance he pleases.  The court has stated that an order of protection is not intended to serve as a remedy for a situation that entails fighting between unrelated individuals.  Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).  That is exactly what Harvey is asking this court to do, but even more, Harvey is asking this court to circumvent Ajabu’s constitutional rights not only to go wherever he chooses but to forego the option of contacting his congressperson in Indianapolis.  The two were in a verbal fight and that is all that can be concluded from the exchange.  Ajabu did not threaten to harm Harvey.  If Harvey felt threatened then that feeling comes from her prejudice mindset and not anything Ajabu communicated to her.  Even so, without additional contact after the December 19, 2017 contact, a protective order cannot stand.     

            Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff prays this Court enters an order correcting the error and orders all other remedies just in the premise.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,


Mmoja Ajabu, pro se

Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 04:46PM by Registered CommenterRev. Ajabu | Comments5 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

Strange that Harvey claims to be advocating for Vietnam Vets, when Mmoja Ajabu actually is one.

March 14, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterVNE VET


Point well taken.

March 16, 2018 | Registered CommenterRev. Ajabu

Is Harvey a veteran?

March 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterVet Supporter

Congressman Carson should "Trump" Harvey

March 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterVet Supporter

Vet Supporter,

Carson should definitely Trump Harvey. And no she is not a vet. Isn't that obvious? We wouldn't treat each other like she is treating me. All because I ask whether Congress paid a woman to be quiet about Andre acting sexually inappropriate towards her. Things that make you say hummmm.

March 19, 2018 | Registered CommenterRev. Ajabu

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>