Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Does this Shock Your Conscience?

Manifest injustice: something which is 'obviously unfair' or 'shocking to the conscience.' It refers to an unfairness that is direct, obvious, and observable.

This is a direction I am considering in preparing to petition the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  There are very few rights more fundamental than a criminal defendant’s right to know which of his actions led to the charges against him.  The following statements are from the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court in my criminal case.  Of course the author of the opinion is Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush.  And if you read this blog, I guarantee you will be calling for her resignation from the Indiana Supreme Court.

Rush said the jury instructions were unconstitutional:

“…it was constitutionally incomplete to instruct the jury on the First Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of our state Constitution without also instructing it on actual malice”

“That makes it quite possible that the impermissible criminal-defamation theory formed at least part of the basis for the jury’s guilty verdicts, and the general verdict cannot indicate otherwise. Accordingly, [the case of] Bachellar compels us to find a general-verdict error here—but as discussed below, [Brewington’s public defender] invited that error as part of a reasonable defense strategy, and therefore may not raise it as grounds for relief.”

Rush then said the prosecution improperly argued to a jury that I could be criminally prosecuted for lawful actions but I tried to take advantage of the unconstitutional trial:

“In effect, that approach sought to exploit the prosecutor’s improper reliance on “criminal defamation” to the defense’s advantage—focusing the jury on the clearly protected aspects of [Brewington’s] speech, and on that basis to find the ambiguous aspects of his conduct to be protected as well.”

“Requesting instructions on actual malice would have called the State’s attention to the distinction it repeatedly overlooked between threatening the targets’ reputations…and threatening their safety.”

After claiming I tried to take advantage of being prosecuted for a non-crime, rather than assume the State failed to meet its burden of proving the case against me, negating the need for me to testify in my defense, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush speculated the decision to exercise my Fifth Amendment Right not to testify somehow coincided with what Rush speculated was my trial strategy, which somehow added to the weight of me waiving my rights to appeal the unconstitutional trial:

“His decision not to testify, thus letting the case hinge solely on the sufficiency of the State’s proof, was also consistent with an “all or nothing” defense rather than the actual-malice defense he now says he should have had.”

Trial Strategy?  How can a defendant develop a plausible trial strategy when the Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court affirmatively stated the prosecution failed to acknowledge what conduct of mine was illegal and argued I should be convicted for constitutionally protected speech?  Then after listening to an implausible prosecution theory without a statement of a crime, the jury was not provided with constitutionally sufficient jury instructions, yet somehow Rush concluded my ability to appeal the matter was waived because my public defender’s strategy in doing nothing sought to take advantage of the unconstitutional prosecution.  Here is where I want to invite legal scholars around the globe to take note and maybe offer a little perspective into how to build a plausible defense against the following argument made by Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutor “Barney” Kisor during the prosecution’s closing arguments in my trial [NOTE: This quote has not been edited or modified in any way]:

“Craziness, dangerousness and then multiple times the threats to Dr. Connor — the game.  It's only a game to one man — Dan Brewington.  But when you tell me the game is over. We're not playing, we're taking off the gloves now, we may be, we're getting out the weapon ring, I don't know what we're going. The game is over? It ain't a game. Don't make it a game. Don't buy that it's a game because it's not. Those are threats and there's only a, there's a lot more threats. I probably haven't even highlighted the best ones.”

The best ones?  There was an eighteen month investigation by the federally funded Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit headed by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard.  A two day Grand Jury investigation.  My $600,000 bond.  There were three judges.  I had two public defenders.  My trial lasted four days.  Despite spending hundreds of man-hours and tens of thousands of dollars investigating, housing, and prosecuting me, Deputy Joseph Kisor and the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s Office claim in the closing arguments of my criminal trial that “they probably haven’t even highlighted the best threats” that caused Judge James D. Humphrey and Dr. Edward J. Connor to fear for their lives and the lives of their families.  How could I possibly develop a trial strategy if the prosecution admits they haven’t even told anyone what the best crimes are?  Someone should be calling for Kisor’s resignation.

I never knew which of my actions the prosecution alleged to be a crime.  “In general, an indictment is constitutionally adequate if it ‘contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend’” United States v Landham, 251 F.3d 1072 (6th Cir. 2001).  Despite knowing my indictments fall short of this constitutional requirement, Justice Rush reworded my indictments to try to strengthen the case she felt she needed to build against me.  Rush wrote:

“the grand jury’s indictments against Defendant here do not allege any particular act or statement as constituting intimidation, instead alleging generally that his conduct as a whole 'between August 1, 2007 and February 27, 2011' (as to the Doctor) and 'between August 1, 2009 and February 27, 2011' (as to the Judge) was 'intended to place [them] in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act.' App. 22, 24. Nothing on the face of the indictments, then, creates confusion between protected or unprotected acts as the basis for conviction."

Wrong.  What creates confusion is Justice Rush’s need to mislead the reader.  That was not the conclusion of the grand jury.  The front page of the Court’s Final Jury Instructions, filed October 6, 2011, contains the grand jury indictment that states the “Grand Jurors of Dearborn County”…“do present that on or about or between August 1, 2007 and February 27, 2011, Daniel Brewington did communicate a threat to another person, to-wit: Dr. Edward Connor, with the intent that Dr. Edward Connor be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act.”


A THREAT.  On or about or between a 43 month time-frame, Dan Brewington communicated A threat.  The letter “A” followed by a singular noun is a single entity.  The indictment says the grand jury alleged I communicated A THREAT; the grand jury did not allege “generally that [my] conduct as a whole was ‘intended to place [the “victims”] in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act.’”  As Justice Rush acknowledged the prosecution failed to define what specific conduct constituted an illegal threat, I was left with the task of guessing which of my actions over the course of 43 months were considered illegal by the standards of the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor.  As Justice Rush stated the prosecution argued I could be convicted under the prosecution’s unconstitutional criminal defamation theory, nearly all my actions were deemed illegal by the prosecution.  I hope people understand the severity of this situation.  The Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, Loretta H. Rush, after citing my “defense strategy” as the reason I waived my right to appeal what she deemed to be an unconstitutional prosecution and criminal trial on a number of levels, altered the wording of my, otherwise constitutionally defunct indictment, in an effort to solidify her judgment against me.  Rush did this because she thought she could get away with squashing the little guy who spoke out about her kind.  Does this shock your conscience?  Someone should be calling for the resignation of Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush.    

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Some thoughts from an 8 year vet of the Family Court System

If you ask me for advice regarding custody or divorce issues, I'll give it because I care. The system isn't fun or fair, and rarely is anything resolved in an expeditious fashion. Please do not ask me for my opinion if you do not want to hear it. I'm an optimist grounded in reality. I'm not an enabler, I'm a true friend. If you think I am going to condone bad behavior because the other side has done something wrong; you are wrong. Two wrongs never make a right. There may be no "me time." These are the things a parent in the bowls of a bad family court situation must realize. Everything you say and do, as well as those around you, will probably be used in court. Months or years of good behavior can be ruined by a seemingly insignificant event. It's not easy. People fall down. I'll always be there for a friend with an ear or a shoulder for support. Please do not confuse my sympathy with my approval. If I pat you on the head and say "It's going to be okay because they did it too" then I'm not being a friend. I'll help you get past the mistake and work on a game plan to move on effectively. If someone is willing to put forth the effort needed to weather the hurricane, I'll ride out the entire storm beside them.

-just wanted to share my thoughts from my Facebook page.  Dan Brewington 9/21/14

Thursday, September 18, 2014

The "Do What I Think or You're Gonna Die!" Threat Test

Here is an example of a legitimate test for a true threat as explained to the jury in the closing arguments by the government in the case of U.S. v. Turner; 720 F.3d 411 (2nd Cir. 2013):

“In this country, you can criticize people, you can use hate speech, love speech, or anything in-between. But the minute you say [" ]do what I think or you're gonna die,[" ] that's not protected speech. And that's what the judge will instruct you, that threats, as defined by these instructions, [are] not protected by the First Amendment. You don't have to let that be part of your analysis at all.”

“Do what I think or you’re gonna DIE” was the government’s explanation of the true threat test the jury was to rely on.  Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor provided the jury with a different standard of review of a true threat:

“These threats weren't just little opinions, little criticisms. You know maybe they were. Maybe they were if he was [man] enough to write Judge Humphrey or Ed Connor a letter and say you're a liar, you're a child abuser, you screwed me, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But when you do this over and over and over again with only one purpose to harass and bring them to ridicule and put them in fear, that is not an appropriate exercise of speech. That's a crime. That's a bunch of crimes and that's why he's sitting right there.”

Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard gave his own explanation to the jury of what defined criminal threats:

“Is this political speech or is this something intended to punish Judge Humphrey for ruling against him?  You get to decide but I think the evidence is clear and it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“That's the law and you can't go so far as to lie. He just didn't say he's a bad judge, he's not a fair judge, he didn't listen to me. That's fine. He could have even called him a son-of-a-bitch if he wanted, alright? That's probably okay. Not smart but probably okay. Not smart when you got cases in front of him. But he can say that. But what he can't say, he's a child abuser because it's not true”

That's clear evidence of his intent here ladies and gentlemen.  It's not a political discourse. It is so he can humiliate, expose Judge Humphrey to hatred, contempt, and ridicule.”

Then Deputy Kisor said American soldiers did not fight and die to give me the ability to criticize the family court system (Which by the way deeply offended some friends and family of mine who served in Vietnam):

“He was taking on our judicial system.  Why? Because after full and fair hearing, he didn't like the way the facts came out. He didn't like the way they were going to come out. He wasn't just taking on Judge Humphrey. He was taking on everything about our legal system that people have fought and died for. You know what, I don't think any American Soldier ever lost his life, gave his life in any war so that Dan Brewington could threaten Judge Humphrey and Heidi Humphrey and Ed Connor and Sarah Jones-Connor.”

Deputy Kisor explained the “WHOLE intent” of my actions:

“This is the one [Dan Brewington] just could not stop doing — exposing the people that he was threatening through the hatred and contempt and disgrace and ridicule. That was his whole intent. That's his only intent. There's no legitimate purpose for what he did except that and the other possible threats.”


My prosecution/persecution was never about law; it was about protecting Child Psychologist Dr. Edward J. Connor and Dearborn County Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey.  My intent has always been to share my story regarding my experiences in dealing with these less than desirable court “professionals.”  If reporting their actions causes them fear, I’m sorry about their luck.  The most disturbing part of my case is the Indiana Supreme Court decision, written by newly the appointed Chief Justice, Loretta H. Rush.  Prosecutors Negangard and Kisor spent three days complaining about how many times I called Judge Humphrey a child abuser or how I called Dr. Connor a pervert for only asking women sexually provocative questions during custody evaluations.  They did not argue I made any direct or indirect threats.  They both argued that, as deputy prosecutor Kisor stated, all of my “little opinions” and “little criticisms” amounted to threats to personal safety because I over did it with the free speech.  Justice Rush and the other four Justices decided to protect their own as well by claiming I had a history of violence against the victims but the opinion by high court of Indiana was “surprisingly” void of any examples of said violence.  Hopefully the United States Supreme Court will see the importance of accepting my case.  Please forward this information to anyone who understands the importance of free speech and the right to criticize government officials.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Chief Justice Rush alleges Jury Misconduct and Malicious Prosecution

An in-depth analysis of Daniel Brewington v State of Indiana demonstrates how the findings by the Indiana Supreme Court, in an opinion written by now Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush, alleges malicious prosecution as well as misconduct on the part of the jury in my trial.  In the Court’s opinion filed on May 1, 2014, Justice Rush wrote:

“To the extent Defendant attempted to veil his threats behind self-serving disclaimers and supposed ‘hypotheticals,’ the victims saw through that pretext—as did the jury, and as do we.’”

The first thing to note is I never made any specific threat to Judge James D. Humphrey.  [In upholding my conviction of attempted obstruction of justice of my divorce, Justice Rush referred to a blog post of mine where she claimed I made a hidden threat to punch Dr. Edward J. Connor in the face.  The Supreme Court stated this was an attempt to intimidate Dr. Connor in an effort to keep him from testifying in my divorce hearing.  Besides being an obvious non-violent analogy about making a consumer complaint against a plumber vs a custody evaluator, the obvious flaw with this argument is the blog was posted on May 11, 2010; 350 days after Dr. Connor’s testimony I was supposedly trying to obstruct occurred.]  If someone were to feel the need to argue this point, I would direct you to the Statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana because it was Justice Rush who wrote:

“Since Defendant never stated an overt threat against the Judge, we begin by examining the circumstantial evidence to determine whether Defendant knew his actions would be understood as a threat.”

First it’s important to note that in Indiana, the State does not bear the burden to prove the existence of a real threat in a criminal intimation trial.  The Court’s ruling in my case has whittled First Amendment protections down to the point where a prosecutor may arrest and try someone for intimidation if a prosecutor believes there is evidence a person would understand his public statements about public officials could be understood as a threat by the “victims.”  Obviously any public scrutiny of public officials has the potential to stir angry reactions from the readers of the speech.  It goes without saying that the targets of that speech may experience some element of fear or feel threatened due to that public anger.  However, outlawing speech critical of public officials because of public outrage only serves to shield the officials from criticism and public outrage; a huge component in public accountability.  The freedom to criticize judges is even more critical.  Attorneys are barred from criticizing judges.  Judges enjoy absolute immunity from civil action dealing with anything considered to be within the realm of their judicial capacity.  As the law currently stands in Indiana, in a case dealing with an unhappy litigant’s persistent complaints about a presiding judge, a prosecutor need only demonstrate in court that the speaker had a reasonable understanding that the judge, who was the target of the speech, may have viewed the speech as a threat.  The only other requirement for conviction is to have the judge testify he viewed the speech as a threat. 

Another key point that cannot be contested, per Justice Loretta H. Rush and the other four members of the high court in Indiana, is that I was a victim of an unconstitutional prosecution.  Rush wrote it was “quite possible that the impermissible criminal-defamation theory formed at least part of the basis for the jury’s guilty verdicts and the general verdict cannot indicate otherwise.”  This was due to what Justice Rush referred to as “the prosecutor’s improper reliance on ‘criminal defamation’” during my criminal trial. She also said the prosecution “repeatedly overlooked” the distinction between threats to reputation and threats to safety.  A substantial part if not all of my defense centered around rebutting what the Supreme Court found to be Prosecutor Negangard’s unconstitutional criminal prosecution of speech.   Rush sidestepped the constitutional violation by claiming I somehow invited the errors associated with the malicious prosecution.  The Supreme Court ruled the State did not have to prove a real threat.  The State did not have to make a constitutional argument.  The State did not have to tell the jury or the defendant which of the defendant’s actions constituted a crime, nor provide the jury with constitutionally adequate jury instructions.  Justice Rush claimed my “crime” consisted of knowing the “victims” of my case would interpret my speech as threats and then asserted the jury came to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court as the jury also saw through my “pretext” and found that I tried to disguise my hidden threats.  As Justice Rush found the prosecution’s criminal defamation argument to be unconstitutional, the indictments by the grand jury would fail any constitutional test.

How Justice Rush knew the thoughts of the jurors is a mystery.  Rush’s interpretation of the jury’s findings in my trial differ from the prosecution’s trial arguments.  Rush’s opinion claimed the prosecution’s criminal defamation argument was incorrect, the prosecution failed to make the distinction between legal and illegal conduct, while also stating the general-verdict error made it impossible to determine what factors compelled the jury to return a guilty verdict; yet Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court claimed to somehow know the specific logic behind the jury’s findings.  If you rule out the premise that Loretta Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court would lie about knowing the thoughts behind the jurors’ findings, the only means by which the Indiana Supreme Court could obtain the jury’s thought process in returning a guilty verdict is if the Court physically interviewed the jurors.  Even if Justice Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court employed some kind of supernatural psychic powers in determining the exact logic behind the thoughts of the jurors, the actions of the jurors would constitute jury misconduct as they returned a verdict in my trial that wasn’t consistent with the prosecution’s arguments nor the jury instructions.  By default, the “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement mandated by the jury instructions fails miserably when the current Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court claims the prosecution pursued a conviction for constitutionally protected activity; an error which is impossible for a defendant to invite.  Yet somehow Justice Loretta Rush claimed, "the failure of the jury instructions and general verdict to distinguish between protected speech and unprotected true threats did not prejudice Defendant’s substantial rights here."

There is little doubt in my mind that Indiana Supreme Court Justice Loretta H. Rush crafted the Court’s opinion in this case to send the following message to me or any other person who may criticize judges in the State of Indiana, “DON’T F*** WITH US!”  This fails to account that Rush used the exercising of my Fifth Amendment Right not to testify and evidence presented AFTER the trial, both of which are or should be out of reach of the jurors, as factors in rationalizing my “guilt” and upholding my conviction.  The Indiana Supreme Court did not take these measures to prove that I was the suspect who committed a crime, they resorted to extreme speculation in an effort to make an argument that a crime against the First Amendment was even committed.  I continue to closely analyze Rush’s opinion to find more constitutional arguments that exist within the discrepancies of Rush’s own statements.  Rush tried to custom tailor an opinion in such a manner to thwart any attempt to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  Rush’s efforts may have unknowingly narrowed down the complexity of my petition to the High Court of the country.  I’ve already contacted a legal publisher and plan on filing my petition for a writ of certiorari well before the October 29, 2014 deadline.  Stay tuned for more information. 

“It is not, what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do.”

― Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with America

Monday, August 25, 2014

Chief Justice Rush: "Brewington tried to take advantage of unconstitutional prosecution against Brewington."

The reason much of this is so difficult for people to understand, other than the people who just get it, is that the whole situation is so illogical.  Indiana Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush blamed Dan Brewington and his public defender for the prosecution’s failure to provide the jury and Brewington with an explanation of what actions were responsible for the charges against Brewington.  A logical person would never blame a defendant for the prosecution’s failure to properly state its case against the defendant, which is exactly what Justice Loretta Rush wrote in her opinion for the Indiana Supreme Court.  It is incomprehensible that a reasonable person would rationalize a defendant could somehow unknowingly waive his Sixth Amendment Right to know the nature of the charges against him.  That’s what Justice Rush did.  The following is an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of Rush’s claim.

Rush said it was quite possible the jury convicted Dan Brewington for engaging in constitutionally protected activity requiring Justice Rush and the Supreme Court to correct Brewington’s conviction as she stated the following:

“That makes it quite possible that the impermissible criminal-defamation theory formed at least part of the basis for the jury’s guilty verdicts, and the general verdict cannot indicate otherwise.  Accordingly, [the case of] Bachellar compels us to find a general-verdict error here.”

 Chief Justice Rush wrote the following about the findings of the Indiana Court of Appeals:

“[T]he Court of Appeals erred in relying on [threats to reputation] to support Defendant’s convictions for intimidating a judge and attempted obstruction of justice.”

Justice Rush stated the Indiana Court of Appeals improperly relied on criminal defamation to uphold my convictions.  Rush also wrote the prosecution in my criminal trial repeatedly “overlooked” the distinction “between threatening the targets’ reputations under Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1(c)(6)–(7) and threatening their safety under subsections (c)(1)–(3).”

Rush made the argument that the prosecution and the Indiana Court of Appeals did not know, or least failed to make known, the distinction between threats to reputation and threats to safety and that it was probable Brewington was convicted of engaging in constitutionally protected activity yet it was Brewington’s fault that the Supreme Court would not reverse the ruling.  Rush cited United States v. Jernigan when stating:

“’[P]lain error review is unavailable in cases where a criminal defendant ‘invites’ the constitutional error of which he complains.’  And though it was constitutionally incomplete to instruct the jury on the First Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of our state Constitution without also instructing it on actual malice, glossing over those distinctions was essential to Defendant’s defense.”

Rush wrote:

“In effect, [not objecting to a general verdict instruction to the jury] sought to exploit the prosecutor’s improper reliance on “criminal defamation” to the defense’s advantage—focusing the jury on the clearly protected aspects of Defendant’s speech, and on that basis to find the ambiguous aspects of his conduct to be protected as well.”

“Requesting [jury] instructions on actual malice would have called the State’s attention to the distinction it repeatedly overlooked between threatening the targets’ reputations under Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1(c)(6)–(7) and threatening their safety under subsections (c)(1)–(3).”

Rush claimed both the prosecution and the Indiana Court of Appeals were mistaken in relying on criminal defamation in prosecuting Brewington and it was probable that the jury convicted Brewington of engaging in Constitutionally protected activity, BUT claimed Brewington somehow invited the prosecution’s error:

“Defendant invited that error as part of a reasonable defense strategy, and therefore may not raise it as grounds for relief.”

Justice Rush claimed the Indiana Court of Appeals was unable to constitutionally uphold Brewington’s convictions while claiming the prosecutor did not give any explanation as to what parts of Brewington’s speech was or was not protected.  Rush stated the prosecution never furnished the jury, and subsequently Brewington and his public defender, with an explanation as to which of Brewington’s actions were considered threats to safety or threats to reputation; the latter of which is not a violation of law.  Somehow, Justice Rush rationalized that Brewington’s public defender tried to take advantage of the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s attempts to prosecute Dan Brewington for constitutionally protected speech.  Loretta H. Rush, the new Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, claimed Brewington waived his rights to constitutional protections by asserting Brewington’s public defender developed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard's attempts to prosecute him for constitutionally protected activity.  Rush claimed the jury and the Indiana Court of Appeals were unaware of the parameters of criminally punishable speech because Negangard never explained which of Brewington’s acts were unlawful.  This conclusion alone demonstrates Rush was fully aware that Brewington’s public defender failed to provide Brewington with an understanding of which of Brewington’s actions were responsible for the crimes and providing a defendant with an understanding of the charges against him  is a key component of the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, but somehow this is all Brewington’s fault.  In the absence of knowing which of Brewington’s actions were responsible for the criminal trial, it was impossible for Brewington’s public defender to devise any competent strategy for Brewington’s defense.   …But that’s just how things work in the State of Indiana. 


Saturday, August 23, 2014

Assault on the 2nd Amendment by Chief Justice Loretta Rush and the Indiana Courts

The State of Indiana not only attacked me for exercising my rights to the First Amendment, the State punished me for exercising my Second Amendment Rights as well.  One of many assaults on my Second Amendment Rights by the State of Indiana came during the closing arguments made by Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor at the end of my criminal trial:

“In the divorce decree and throughout the divorce proceedings, there's a 357 handgun, he was ordered, and you can read the order, it's in evidence, to turn it to his wife. He got it when she filed the petition for dissolution. That was her testimony. Around the time she filed, that's when he decided to get a 357 magnum handgun. It was ordered by Judge Humphrey to turn it over. He's not done that. He appealed those orders. The Court of Appeals upheld the judge, sent it back. The order still says; give that handgun to Melissa Brewington. I don't know where it is. Sheriff Kreinhop doesn't know where it is. Ed Connor doesn't know where it is.  Judge Humphrey doesn't know where it is and Melissa Brewington doesn't know where it is. He does. Would you be afraid if you knew right now, based on what you've seen and what you've heard, the distorted thinking, the almost maniacal attacks that he will go, the steps he will go to, to attack people. Would you be afraid if you knew and I hope to God he doesn't but if he had a 357 in his pocket right now, would you be in a little bit of fear? Man, I would.”

Of course, he is talking about someone never accused of violent activity or negligent gun use.  Also, notice that he said Judge Humphrey ordered me to hand over a .357 Magnum handgun that was purchased AFTER my ex filed for divorce to someone who has never fire a gun in her life.  Not the value of the gun; but the gun.  No evidence of misconduct, she simply said she wanted to take the gun away from me.  They claimed I was dangerous because I had a concealed carry permit because everyone knows there are laws against robbing a liquor store or committting murder unless you first are a law-abiding concealed carry permit holder.  Imagine a court telling a father to hand over his new Harley he bought after his wife left him and filed for divorce just because she did not approve.  Kisor pointed out how the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with Humphrey’s ruling of including property purchased AFTER the filing of the dissolution simply because it was a gun.  Of course I was not going to give a gun to someone who, not only had no experience with handling any firearm, but someone who Dr. Connor claimed may react to imaginary things not to mention also carrying an extreme hatred for me.  Kisor proceeded to implant the fear into the jury that I may have somehow snuck a .357 Magnum handgun past courthouse security in my pocket, despite the fact I arrived at the courtroom in shackles directly from the Dearborn County Jail.  No one was afraid of the .357 Magnum.  If I posed a risk of murdering anyone with my .357 Magnum, I would pose the same risk with the other several guns Humphrey allowed me to keep in the final decree in my divorce.  .357 Magnum just sounds scarier than my 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun my parents bought for me when I was 18.

Until now, I really have not touched upon my struggles with how the Indiana Courts have persecuted me for being a lawful gun owner under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  The persecution began when Judge James D. Humphrey provided the following as one of reasons why he felt it was necessary to terminate my parenting time in the divorce decree filed on August 18, 2009:

“Husband began instructing Mary now age 5, in the use of firearms when she was 4 years old over Wife's concerns and protests.”

When my ex-wife filed for divorce, she began making a big deal about me having guns in the house.  I just had some regular hunting shotguns and rifles, no assault rifles or handguns, I kept locked in a closet.  I kept two black-powder rifles under the couch.  (For those not familiar with black powder firearms, they are loaded the old-fashioned way by loading the powder and projectile into the gun, packing it down, and then igniting it with some kind of spark.)   As my ex began raising a stink about a locked closet not being able to keep guns away from my daughters, who were three and not quite one at the time, I purchased a gun safe.  Prior to that point, my daughters had no idea what a gun was no less had any idea that I owned any.  You could imagine what a three year old would say when she saw a big black box sitting in the living room.  “What’s that daddy?”  “It’s a gun safe.”  …and the questions kept coming. 

I am a person who firmly believes if you tell a kid something is bad just because they are young, it will eventually blow up in your face.  (See drug talk, alcohol speech, and lesson on birds and the bees.)  Taking a hard stance and telling your child that sex is bad for all unmarried people will only increase your chances of becoming a young grandparent.  My philosophy in teaching children right from wrong revolves around respect and education.  If a child respects you and has a good understanding of your concerns and the facts of a particular matter, it will increase the chances the child will make better decisions in life.  My ex was telling the girls that all guns are bad until you turn 18.  Regardless of your views on the Second Amendment or gun ownership, my ex’s statements either served to pit the girls against me, or fuel a normal childhood curiosity about what is behind the locked door.  When Mary was close to five, I let her use a plastic BB gun that we kept in the safe.  It was “her” gun.  The fun for her was not in shooting the gun but it was in trying to impress me with her gun safety.  Mary was aware we did not point anywhere near the dogs when we were shooting plastic BBs (we lived on a farm).  We wore eye protection.  She understood the difference between having fun and playtime.  We could enjoy ourselves shooting the plastic BB gun but it was not a game and we could not mess around.  When she finished shooting, I would open the gun safe and she would put “her” gun in its spot.  When she turned five, Santa gave her a pink BB gun.  I set up an indoor target range and we shot at targets with a backdrop and a gun rest.  She did not carry the gun.  I set it up for her.  The rules were when the BB gun came out and she put on her safety glasses, playtime was over.  Imagine the benefit of a five year old being capable of understanding the difference between having fun as a kid and the responsibility of having fun as an adult.  She was learning and growing… until my ex and Judge Humphrey labeled our experience as firearms training and cited the activity as a reason to strip my daughters of a father.  However, that was just the beginning on the State’s attack on my parental rights and my rights under the Second Amendment.

The best way to obtain an indictment from a grand jury in Dearborn County is to tell the jurors the target of the investigation is dangerous and the only way he can lose his ability to own a gun is to convict him of a felony.  The following is an exchange between a member of the grand jury and Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop:

JUROR: Sheriff if he took a psych. eval. and he flunked it or it came back with a negative report, would he lose his license to carry firearms?
MR. KREINHOP: He would have to be convicted of a felony and someone would have to petition the court and show evidence that it possibly could be taken away if he's demonstrated to be unstable but otherwise as far as an automatic loss, uh, it wouldn't be done immediately but if he was convicted of a felony, he would lose his license to have a handgun at that point, but otherwise it would have to be demonstrated in court that he's unstable to continue to possess or have a firearm.

During the course of the grand jury investigation in my case, words like gun, firearm(s), concealed carry permit, etc., appeared over 120 times.  At no time did Sheriff Kreinhop or Dearborn Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard allege that I did anything illegal with any gun, they just said I was dangerous and the only way the state could strip me of my Second Amendment Rights was to convict me of a felony.  That is exactly what happened.

Things did not get any better after my conviction as the Indiana Supreme Court failed to protect my rights under the United States Constitution.  Writing the decision, Justice Loretta H. Rush, who has recently assumed the role of Chief Justice of the Court, wrote:

“[Brewington] bought a .357 Magnum handgun shortly after his former wife filed for divorce, but never returned it to her as the Decree required, purportedly for concern about her mental stability.”

Not only did Chief Justice Rush acknowledge the State forced me to hand over property I purchased after my wife left me, she used the firearm scare tactic in her decision:

“There would be no doubt about that conclusion if Defendant, all in a single episode, had violently shouted and slammed piles of books in the courtroom, shaken his fist at the Judge and the Doctor, and told them, ‘You crooked child abusers! I’m a pyromaniac, I have guns and know how to use them, I’d like to beat you senseless, I know where you live, and I’m going to hold you accountable!’ Under those circumstances, it would be obvious that Defendant was making an unprotected ‘true threat’ against the victims, even if the phrase ‘crooked child abusers’ was protected speech. Defendant’s threats neither lose force, nor gain protection, merely because he built them up over the course of a years-long campaign of harassment.” 

Rush stated my “skill in the use of firearms, and long-running expressions of hostility towards” Judge Humphrey was reason for Judge Humphrey to fear me.  This was just another one of Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush’s assaults on the United States Constitution.  I may have been able to harshly criticize Judge Humphrey but if all of my other legal activities, such as law-abiding gun ownership, are taken into account, Chief Justice Rush opined my criticisms became threats.  Somehow a combination of legal acts became an illegal act.  In the math world, no matter how many times you multiply one times one, it will always equal one.  In the world of Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush, one times one equals whatever she wants.  (NOTE: Justice Rush and Judge Humphrey served on the Indiana Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee for at least six years.  Judge Humphrey, who was the alleged “victim” in my case, attended committee meetings with Justice Loretta H. Rush at the same time my case was being decided by Justice Rush.  Chief Justice Rush refused to recuse herself from the case.)

So now, I am a felon and cannot possess firearms.  The fact that I cannot shoot recreationally anymore does not bother me as much as the fact that the Indiana Judicial System has a complete and utter disrespect for the United States Constitution.  The gun issue pales in comparison to the fact these people are responsible for my children being fatherless for the past five years.  On the bright side, now I can criticize Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and the other four concurring justices in my case as much as I want because I am no longer dangerous because I have lost the ability to possess firearms.  Seem ridiculous?  Why do you think I keep writing?
 
I am appealing my case to the US Supreme Court and welcome any support from individuals and/or groups who still believe in the United States Constitution.  Help send a message to Justice Rush about the importance of the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution.  Please note Loretta Rush is up for a retention election in November.  Get out and vote.  Please forward this to other gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment.  If you have any questions about my integrity or the facts of my case, please feel free read more info on my blog.  You can also email me with any questions or concerns at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com as transparency is very important to me.  

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Child Custody Evaluation Report by Dr. Edward J. Connor, 8.29.2007

The Custody Evaluation that started it all.  As the issue of the custody evaluation deals with an unbelievable amount of information and the history of both my divorce and criminal cases, I will be writing separate blogs about different aspects of the custody evaluation.  On August 19, 2009, I received word that I no longer could exercise parenting time with my 3 and 5 year old daughters.  Without warning Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my parenting time with my daughters claiming that I was potentially dangerous.  Humphrey’s Decree, filed on August 18, 2009, based his findings on selected portions of the child custody evaluation completed by Dr. Edward J. Connor of Connor and Associates on August 29, 2007, but unfortunately Humphrey did not rely on the section where Dr. Connor recommended I could continue to care for my daughters nearly half of the time as I had during the course of my 2.5 year divorce.  He relied on Connor’s analysis of my criticisms of Dr. Connor. Humphrey wrote, “The Court is most concerned about Husband's irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor. Frankly it appears that these attacks have been an attempt at revenge for taking a position regarding custody contrary to Husband.”  The problem is I never questioned Connor’s decision; I questioned how an unlicensed psychological professional doing custody evaluations for courts could claim he had difficulties understanding a person with ADHD.  I questioned how a psychologist could file a report with “numerous errors and oversights” and then charge the parties to correct his errors.  Most of all I questioned how a court and psychologist could deny a father the evidence in Dr. Connor’s case file that I would be entitled to if I had a lawyer.

When I appealed Judge Humphrey’s divorce decree to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Court ruled on my divorce panel per curiam, which means the three judge panel remains anonymous.  From everything I have researched and been told, that was one of the first anonymous per curiam decisions from the Court of Appeals since the 1960’s.  It was only during my incarceration for the criminal conviction that I learned who actually wrote the decision.  My criminal appellate lawyer Michael Sutherlin informed me that Appellate Judge John Baker pulled him aside at some gathering and told him Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote the anonymous decision upholding Judge Humphrey’s ruling.  The reason I lost my children and went to prison was I criticized Dr. Connor and the Courts for giving conflicting reasons as to why I was not entitled to the case file from Dr. Connor’s report.  Indiana Code (IC) 31-17-2-12(c) states:

The investigator shall make the following available to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel:
(1) The investigator’s file of underlying data and reports.
(2) Complete texts of diagnostic reports made to the investigator under subsection (b).
(3) The names and addresses of all persons whom the investigator has consulted.

Justice Friedlander went on to write:

“We first note that I.C. § 31-17-2-12(c) does not require that Dr. Connor’s entire case file be provided to Daniel. All the items specified by statute were provided. Other than his belief that I.C. § 31-17-2-12(c) was violated, Daniel asserts no other basis on which to find that Dr. Connor’s report and testimony were inadmissible or should have been excluded from evidence.”

Judge Friedlander lied.  It was impossible for him to know what Dr. Connor provided me because there was no official record of what I was given.  Judge Baker even told my lawyer he should file a complaint against Friedlander for his actions in writing the decision.  The proof that I did not receive the information to which I was entitled did not come until after I was arrested when Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard submitted Dr. Connor’s evaluation as evidence against me in my criminal trial.  The problem was it was Dr. Connor’s own personal marked up copy documenting the mistakes.  The other problem was that everyone claimed I was irrational and dangerous because they claimed I posted sensitive information about custody evaluation report on the internet.  It was one of the reasons Humphrey took away my parenting time.  After Judge Friedlander wrote I had all the information to which I was entitled, Dr. Connor gives Prosecutor Negangard a piece of evidence I was prohibited from receiving during my divorce proceedings.  Connor’s marked up copy demonstrates there were errors in the report, which Connor charged $700 to fix.  What is even more remarkable is the fact Connor, the Court, and my ex-wife fought tooth and nail to prevent me from having the information because they said I would put it out in public, yet neither Prosecutor Negangard, Connor, nor my ex took any precautions to protect the confidentiality of the report before it was submitted as exhibit 9 in my public criminal trial.

So take the opportunity to browse Dr. Connor’s copy of the child custody evaluation report in my divorce.  Pay attention as there are many concerning aspects to this report.  For example: Dr. Connor wrote that my ex’s parents “expressed a concern whereby Mary (3 years old at the time) stated that Audrey (17 months) ate some of Tansy's cat food and Daddy ‘spanked her real hard.’”  The question that begs an answer is what is the significance of the statement?  Connor never asked me about it.  Connor did not report the issue as child abuse. Connor never interviewed Mary about the incident.  Connor never explained how it was relevant.  If Connor felt I was beating the children for eating cat food, he should have done something about it immediately.  The only thing the statement does is confuse the reader which is the exact opposite of what Dr. Connor is paid to do.  Just as Connor stated the concerns about my daughters getting hurt if they wandered in to the old barn unattended.  Connor claimed he had concerns about me being able to keep the children safe from the barn, which was 45 yards from the house yet he made no mention of any concerns of me being able to keep the girls safe from the road, which was 15 yards from the house.  The most important thing to note is Connor’s parenting recommendation:

“We again believe that Melissa should be the primary residential parent and that children should have time with their father during the times that their mother works.  If Dan can arrange his schedule accordingly, then we believe this would be a benefit to the children.”  “Currently, Dan has the children every Wednesday during the day and overnight and every Friday during the day and overnight and every third Monday during the day and overnight and equal weekend time.  Therefore, if our calculations are correct, Melissa generally cares for the children four days a week. We see no reason why this schedule should not remain intact at this time.”

Despite the professional opinion of his own expert stating it was the best interest of my children that I should be able to continue to care for them nearly half of the time, Judge James D. Humphrey arbitrarily decided I was too dangerous for even supervised visitation with my daughters and cut off all parenting time without warning.  And Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush said I was dangerous because I obsessed on the internet about Judge Humphrey eliminating a very capable parent from the lives of two little girls. 

Read on and be sure to take the information in Dr. Connor’s report with a grain of salt because I do not know how much of the information is accurate, which is why I always claimed they went to such lengths to keep the case file out of my hands.  Stay tuned as more information will be posted soon.