Thursday, July 26, 2018

Can a criminal defendant waive rights to relief from a conspiracy to alter grand jury records?

Indianapolis, Indiana – A petition for rehearing currently before the Court of Appeals requests the COA to consider an odd legal question: “Can a criminal defendant waive his right to relief from a trial court altering grand jury records in an effort to sabotage the defendant’s defense?”

In 2011, Daniel Brewington became the target of a grand jury investigation and criminal trial where Brewington was found guilty of three felonies stemming from Brewington’s critical speech of Dearborn County (IN) court officials. After serving a 2.5-year prison sentence, Brewington, while serving as his own attorney, challenged his convictions via the post-conviction relief process. Among several other grounds raised in his petition, Brewington claimed the Dearborn Superior Court II altered grand jury records in a conspiracy to help the State prosecute Brewington. Special Judge W. Gregory Coy issued an ex parte order summarily dismissing Brewington’s petition in favor of the State. Brewington challenged Judge Coy’s order by filing his own appeal. Surprisingly enough, the appellate arguments by the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill conceded that the trial court did in fact attempt to sabotage Brewington’s defense; however, the AG’s office argued procedural waiver precluded Brewington from obtaining relief from the conspiracy between the Dearborn Superior Court II and former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard (Negangard now serves as Chief Deputy to Curtis T. Hill). In an opinion dated July 10, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the arguments of the State and remanded the case back to Judge Coy for a “factfinding” hearing. In a filing dated July 23, 2018, Brewington filed a petition for rehearing requesting the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse Brewington’s convictions. Since the Indiana Attorney General conceded Brewington’s assertion of facts to be true, Brewington argues a factfinding hearing is now unnecessary. Brewington requests the Indiana Court of Appeals to decide whether procedural technicalities can disqualify Brewington’s right to relief from a trial court sabotaging Brewington’s defense. (The prosecution instructed Brewington to rely on the “complete” transcription of the grand jury investigation for an understanding of the indictments.) If the COA finds a Defendant cannot waive his right to relief from a trial court assisting the prosecution, Brewington’s petition argues the Indiana Court of Appeals should reverse his convictions.

To date, the Court of Appeals has not ruled on Brewington’s Petition for Rehearing.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Sexual harassment allegations against Curtis T. Hill raise additional problems for the Office of the Indiana Attorney General


Recent allegations of sexual harassment against Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill pose a deeper problem for the law firm of the State. The leader of the Indiana Democratic Party, John Zody, and others are calling for the Republican Attorney General to resign in wake of allegations Hill inappropriately touched four women attending an end of legislative session party at AJ’s Lounge in Indianapolis. The question of Hill’s future as Attorney General and a potential replacement sheds light on another pending controversy involving the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
A July 2, 2018 filing in a public records lawsuit seeking grand jury audio, addresses the disturbing concession made by Hill’s office in a separate legal action currently before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The appellee brief filed on behalf of the State of Indiana, makes a default concession that the Dearborn Superior Court II engaged in a conspiracy to alter grand jury records to assist the prosecution. The public records lawsuit seeks the original audio from same grand jury proceeding mentioned in the State’s appellee brief. Hill’s office also represents defendants Judge Brian Hill and the Dearborn Superior Court II/Judge Sally McLaughlin in the public records lawsuit; the individuals who altered and/or obstructed the release of grand jury audio. Now the Attorney General is trying to convince the public records court that the admission of a conspiracy to alter grand jury records in the State’s appellee brief is not relevant to the public records lawsuit. Hill’s office simply claims the issues are irrelevant because the evidence regarding the admission of misconduct is being “appropriately litigated” in a separate appellate action. The common denominator linking the aforementioned public records lawsuit, the State’s brief in a pending appeal, and Hill’s recent sexual harassment allegations, lies in the identity of whom the Dearborn Superior Court II conspired to help. The Dearborn Superior Court II conspired to alter grand jury records to assist former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; current Chief Deputy and potential successor to Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill.
As of the publication of this article, Curtis T. Hill has not resigned from office.

Thursday, June 7, 2018

Indiana Attorney General Recognizes Conspiracy to Alter Grand Jury Records

       Recent court filings demonstrate that the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill acknowledges the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana conspired to alter grand jury records to assist the prosecution convict me. The record tampering takes on much more sinister implications, when considering the that the prosecution instructed me to rely on the grand jury record to prepare my defense. The court filings also show the Indiana Attorney General signed and delivered the legal documents where Rush Superior Court Judge Brian Hill, under penalties of perjury, falsely accused me of harassing Judge Hill. The evidence of the misconduct is currently before the Dearborn Superior Court I and the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard (left)
w/Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill


My blog has provided the accounts of my criminal prosecution stemming from public criticisms of Indiana court officials. I was detained on a $600,000 bond, given a public defender that refused to meet with or speak to me, and then forced to trial without an understanding of what actions I was required to defend. The trial resulted in convictions requiring me to serve a 2.5-year prison sentence. The former prosecutor of Dearborn County, Indiana argued my writings violated non-existent criminal defamation laws, yet no lawyer nor any Indiana court made any attempt to hold the prosecutor accountable for the unconstitutional grounds he argued for my convictions. The former prosecutor of Dearborn County responsible for my grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution is the current Chief Deputy Attorney General for the State of Indiana, F. Aaron Negangard.

I am representing myself in two legal actions currently pending before the Indiana courts. I filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking the dismissal of my convictions for several reasons; the most notable being that the trial court staff of the Dearborn Superior Court II altered grand jury records to give the prosecution an unconstitutional advantage. Without the entire grand jury record, I had no way of knowing what actions I was required to defend. For those not familiar with law or Indiana post-conviction procedures, the post-conviction process affords people another means to contest their convictions besides the normal criminal appeal process. The special judge in my post-conviction case, Switzerland County Circuit Judge W. Gregory Coy, summarily dismissed my post-conviction action without a hearing and granted summary judgment/disposition to the State under Rule 1(4)(g) of the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Relief. I appealed the decision and the case has been briefed by both parties and is now pending review by the Indiana Court of Appeals. No order has been released on my motion requesting oral arguments before the Court of Appeals.

My other case currently before the Indiana courts is my lawsuit seeking public records, filed in the Dearborn Superior Court I. After determining the Dearborn Superior Court II omitted portions of the grand jury proceedings from the transcription of my grand jury investigation, I requested a copy of the grand jury audio to see if the audio record of the grand jury investigation in my case matched the transcription. Not only did the records not match, the audio contained less information than the transcription. I filed a lawsuit via the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) to obtain the official audio. As both cases have progressed, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has stumbled into an unthinkable situation; having to argue against the interests of the Attorney General’s own clients in both of my pending legal actions.

The “clients” of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill, consist of the opposing parties in both of my pending legal actions. In my APRA lawsuit, the AG represents Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill (Judge Hill served as special judge in my criminal trial and held jurisdiction over the release of grand jury records), and the Dearborn Superior Court II under Judge Sally McLaughlin. In the appeal of the summary dismissal of my post-conviction action, the client of the Attorney General is the State of Indiana.

Deputy Stephen Creason

In the appeal of my post-conviction case, Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason argues the following in the State’s Brief of the Appellee:

“The post-conviction court was also authorized to dispose of the petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Brewington’s motion for summary disposition was intentionally limited to his allegations related to the grand jury”

The State’s brief specifically addresses my claim that the trial court conspired to alter grand jury records:

“trial court staff allegedly manipulated the record of the grand jury proceeding as part of a conspiracy against [Brewington]”

A key requirement to summary judgment/disposition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) is that there can be no genuine issue of material fact. A material fact is a fact relevant to the legal proceeding. Rule 1(4)(g) also provides that “if an issue of material fact is raised, then the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably possible.” An issue of material fact occurs when there are two conflicting claims of fact relative to the legal proceeding. For a better understanding of how an issue of material fact arises, consider my claim that the trial court engaged in a conspiracy to alter grand jury records. If Deputy Creason would have argued that my claim was untrue, it would create an issue of material fact because my claim would conflict with Creason’s assessment of fact. To resolve the conflict, an evidentiary hearing would have been necessary. If Deputy Creason would have argued there was no conspiracy to alter grand jury records, the issue of material fact would immediately prove that the order granting summary judgment/disposition to the State was erroneous. Creason’s use of “allegedly” in addressing my conspiracy claim does not relieve the Office of the Indiana Attorney General from the culpability associated with knowing there was a criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records. Even a claim of uncertainty as to whether the grand jury tampering occurred, creates an issue of material fact. In arguing that Judge Coy properly awarded summary judgment/disposition to the State, Deputy Creason was required to accept my material facts as being true, so Creason argued legal technicalities and procedural bars precluded me from seeking relief from a conspiracy by the trial court to alter grand jury records. Creason’s apparent attempt to capitalize on an erroneous ruling by the post-conviction court inadvertently sabotaged the case of the Attorney General’s client in my public records lawsuit. Creason’s appellate argument, by default, affirms that the Defendant Dearborn Superior Court II, under Judge Sally McLaughlin, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records with the intent to sabotage my criminal trial.

Yesterday (06/05/18) I was notified that the judge presiding over my APRA lawsuit granted my Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. I requested the emergency continuance for two reasons, the first of which being Judge Brian Hill’s refusal to cooperate with simple admission requests. The second and more disturbing reason for requesting the emergency continuance was that I did not feel safe attending the hearing in the Dearborn County Courthouse following Judge Hill’s false harassment allegation. In responding to my pretrial requests for admissions, Judge Hill argued I tried to harass Hill as an opposing party in a lawsuit:       

Judge Brian Hill 

Rush Superior Court 

"[Judge Brian Hill] objects to the term 'excuses' as the term is derogatory and its use is intended to harass [Judge Brian Hill]. [Judge Brian Hill] further object to the term 'excuses' as it fails to adequately and specifically describe the subject matter sought and is vague and ambiguous and, therefore, requires [Judge Brian Hill] to engage in conjecture as to their meaning. As such, it is difficult to discern what Brewington is asking [Judge Brian Hill] to admit or deny."

The following is the entire statement from which Judge Hill bases his harassment allegation:

“Admit that in an opinion dated April 14, 2016, the Indiana Public Access Counselor deemed Hill's excuses for withholding the grand jury audio to be invalid.”

Deputy Attorney General Marley Hancock currently serves as legal counsel for the defendants in my public record lawsuit. Deputy Hancock and Judge Hill understand that harassing an opposing civil litigant is a crime. No reasonable legal or non-legal person would perceive the singular use of the word “excuses” as an attempt to harass; however, even a baseless harassment claim from a judge could be used to rationalize some form of criminal investigation. As the Indiana Attorney General does not deny that a Dearborn County court altered grand jury records to obstruct my access to indictment information and evidence in my criminal trial, Judge Hill’s claim can only be viewed as a threat intended to place me in grave danger of being subjected to another court-sponsored malicious prosecution in Dearborn County.

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General and other Indiana Court officials have backed themselves into a metaphorical checkmate. Attorney General Curtis Hill’s Office cannot argue both sides of this equation. If Deputy Attorney General Marley Hancock argues the Dearborn Superior Court II did not alter grand jury records, it creates an issue of material fact that decimates the appellate arguments made on behalf of the State by Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason. Creason’s entire argument before the Indiana Court of Appeals requires Deputy Hancock’s clients to have engaged in a conspiracy to sabotage a criminal trial, which is a violation of federal law, because no issue of fact may exist. As Deputy Hancock signed the responses to Brewington’s admission requests on behalf of Judge Hill, the harassment claim against Brewington may have originated from the Office of Curtis Hill, and not Judge Brian Hill. Such a finding would solidify the true interest of the Attorney General in fighting Brewington’s legal actions; protecting Curtis Hill’s second-in-command. The biggest dilemma facing the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill is the fact that the prosecutor whom the Dearborn Superior Court conspired to assist is the current Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General, F. Aaron Negangard.

For further information/evidence regarding the above claims, please feel free to review my Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. The motion filed June 4, 2018 also contains the following documents attached as exhibits A-E:

EXHIBIT A Brewington’s Request for Admissions to Judge Hill

EXHIBIT B Judge Hill’s response to Brewington’s admissions

EXHIBIT C The State of Indiana’s Brief of Appellee, filed by Deputy Creason

EXHIBIT D Brewington’s Reply Brief in response to Creason’s Brief of Appellee

EXHIBIT E Brewington’s Motion for Oral Arguments, filed 5/25/2018 with the Indiana Court of Appeals.


Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Indiana Appellate Court Punishes Me for Trial Clerk's Mistake


Just when you think it couldn't get any dumber, the Indiana Court of Appeals deems my Appellant Brief and Appendix untimely because the Dearborn Superior Court II screwed up again. On February 5, 2018, I filed my appellant brief and appendices with the Indiana Court of Appeals. On February 12, 2018, the Clerk of the Indiana Court of Appeals filed two notices in my appeal: a Notice of Defect re: untimely Appellate Brief, and a Notice of Defect re: untimely Appendix from the Indiana Supreme Court stating,

The Clerk’s Office has received your Appellant's Brief [and Appendix] tendered on 02/05/18, for filing in the above-referenced appeal. Your document has not been filed because it has been tendered after its due date. See Appellate Rule 45(B).

I checked Appellate Rule 45(B):

Appellant's Brief. The appellant's brief shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after: (a) the date the trial court clerk or Administrative Agency serves its Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record on the parties pursuant to Appellate Rule 10(C)

So, then I checked Appellate Rule 10(C):

C. Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record. On or before the deadline for assembly of the Clerk's Record, the trial court clerk or Administrative Agency shall issue and file a Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record with the Clerk and shall serve a copy on the parties to the appeal in accordance with Rule 24 to advise them that the Clerk's Record has been assembled and is complete.

And then I checked Appellate Rule 24:

24(C). Manner and Date of Service. All E-Filed documents will be deemed served when they are electronically served through the IEFS in accordance with Rule 68(F)(I). Documents exempted from E-Service will be deemed served when they are: (2) deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid

The Case Summary of my appeal on the website of the Indiana Supreme Court provides the following as to when the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s record was filed: “File Stamp 01/04/18.” I called the clerk for the Indiana Court of Appeals to get a grasp on the logic. The woman explained my filings were untimely because my 30-day time frame to file my appellant brief and appendix began on 01/03/18; the date listed on the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record and attached Certificate of Service filed by Rick Probst, Clerk of the Dearborn Superior Court II:

I certify that on January 03, 2018, I served a copy of this document upon the following person(s) by MAIL.

The certificate of service listed the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Daniel Brewington, and Clerk of the Appellate Court as recipients of the clerk’s Notice. The problem is Probst failed to mail the Notice until the day after the date Probst certified the Notice as being mailed and served.

Appellate Rule 25 states the computation of time for deadlines begins on the day following an order or applicable act. Thirty days after the January 4th filing of the Notice of Completion landed on Saturday February 3, 2018, which advances the deadline to the following business day; Monday February 5, 2018. When I called the Clerk of the Indiana Court of Appeals, she said I missed the deadline.

The woman claimed I should have begun computation of time from the date stamped on the trial clerk’s Notice, not the date shown as being filed with the Indiana Supreme Court/Court of Appeals. After inquiring as to why the Clerk of the Appellate Courts showed the Notice as being filed on January 4th She told me the Appellate Court filing date was dictated by the date of the postmark, which was January 4th. She then suggested that Rick Probst may have been a day late mailing the Notice to the Court of Appeals. I told her both the Appellate Court and I were copied to the certificate of service and my envelope was also was post-marked January 4, 2018. The woman instructed me to be sure to include a copy of the postmarked envelope in my Motion to File a Belated Appeal.

“Belated Appeal?” I can’t make this up. I get punished because the Dearborn Superior Court II mailed the Notice of Completion the day after the date listed on the Certificate of Service. The Indiana Court of Appeals said my appellate filings were untimely claiming my computation of time began on the day before the Court could recognize the Notice as being filed. Seriously. “Documents exempted from E-Service will be deemed served when they are...deposited in the United States Mail.” The Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record was postmarked January 4, 2018. The entry on the case summary from the Indiana Court of Appeals also includes a memo stating, “Certificate of Service-Mailed 01/03/18.” If the Notice was mailed on 01/03/18, the Court’s case summary would also show the Notice as being filed on 01/03/18. The absurdity of the situation is beyond comprehension:

The Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure precluded the Indiana Supreme Court from file stamping the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record prior to the postmark date; however, the Court ruled my Appellant Brief and Appendix were untimely because I should have recognized that the computation of time started the day before the Supreme Court could recognize the Notice as being filed.

There really are no words. I guess I’ll just keep fighting the good fight and file what I need to file. Stay tuned for more information.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Indiana Chief Deputy AG Faces Scrutiny for Violating Federal Law


The State of Indiana retaliated against me for criticizing the Indiana Court System. Here’s the common-sense analysis: If my conduct had any resemblance of being criminal, why did former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard instruct the trial jury to return guilty verdicts claiming I violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys?

“As to Count II, Intimidation of a Judge, that is more serious because it involves a Judge but because it involves a Judge, we do need to look at the first amendment issues because you are allowed to criticize judges. Right? I mean, I'm not. Defense counsel's not because we are attorneys. But remember he says he's acting like an attorney so we should treat it as he's acting like an attorney. Well if he's acting like an attorney, then he needs to accountable like an attorney. He could hire his own attorney but he didn't. So you know and he has to suffer the consequences." -Closing arguments by F. Aaron Negangard Trial transcripts page 515 (Appellant Appendix 22)

There is no such criminal law. Negangard made it up. The false ground for prosecution would normally warrant a mistrial or be grounds for vacating the convictions on appeal. Indiana officials continue to make excuses in rationalizing why my convictions are constitutional, while ignoring the conduct of Chief Deputy Negangard. My consequences for criticizing judges while “acting like an attorney” were nothing like those described in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. My consequences include serving a 2.5-year prison sentence and living with the label of being a convicted felon. Negangard’s actions are a federal crime. A prosecutor cannot convene a grand jury and prosecute someone for a non-existent crime to punish someone for protected speech. Doing so is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

F. Aaron Negangard is now Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has personally signed on to represent the State of Indiana in my appeal of Negangard’s unconstitutional prosecution. The above statement and many other ridiculous arguments by Chief Deputy Negangard appear in my Appellant Brief and attached appendices filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals. These filings prove both Attorney General Hill and the Indiana courts are fully aware of Negangard’s criminal conduct. Even an argument against Negangard’s conduct being criminal requires a contention that Negangard simply made up the argument to confuse the jury to obtain convictions, which is both unconstitutional and an act of malicious prosecutor misconduct. The Indiana courts continue to ignore Negangard’s conduct and now Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has signed on to help detract attention from a federal crime committed by his own chief deputy. Negangard even admitted my prosecution was not about the victims, as Negangard stated the prosecution was to prevent me from “perverting” the Indiana judicial system.

Stay tuned for updates. The office of Attorney General Curtis Hill is also representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking grand jury audio. I filed the lawsuit after discovering portions of the grand jury transcript and grand jury audio do not match; the same transcript that formed the basis of Negangard’s prosecution against me. If the Indiana Court System and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill continue to cover-up potential federal crimes committed by Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard, I’m going to make sure that the public knows about it.  




Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill to Defend Civil Rights Violations


The State of Indiana offers a post-conviction remedy to “[a]ny person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court of this state, and who claims that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state. I filed a petition for Post-conviction but Judge W. Gregory Coy summarily denied my petition. In an order lacking any foundation in law, Judge Coy ruled there was no factual basis to any of my 20 claims, granted summary judgment in favor of the State (in spite of the State arguing summary judgment was not available), and dismissed my entire petition without hearing. On 02/05/2018, I filed my appellant brief and supporting appendices in the appeal of Judge Coy’s ruling.

Indiana Courts continue to ignore the fact I had no assistance of counsel in preparing for trial and how no one would explain what illegal acts were responsible for my indictments and convictions. Complicating matters is the prosecutor in my trial is now Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill. Attorney General Hill has taken on the case himself on behalf of the State and on behalf of the personal interests of his chief deputy, F. Aaron Negangard.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that the prosecution by Negangard was an illegal act to punish my critical speech directed at Dearborn County court officials, under the guise of a grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution. Negangard admitted to such in his closing arguments to the trial jury:

“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we want. That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable.” Tr. 504-505 -Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard.

These are Negangard’s statements. This is a federal crime. Negangard admitted the purpose of obtaining grand jury indictments and criminal convictions were just a means to stop me from perverting the Indiana’s system of justice. Negangard made up crimes to prosecute me for speech Negangard did not like. There were no objections by the trial judge or my public defender, only supporting the fact that they had no interest in protecting me from Negangard’s malicious prosecution. Adding fuel to the malicious prosecutorial fires were the allegations by deputy prosecutor Joeseph Kisor. During closing arguments, Kisor told the trial jury that I could potentially murder someone in the courtroom during trial with a .357 Magnum handgun:

“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.” Tr. 451 -Deputy Prosecutor Joeseph Kisor.

These are acts of official misconduct that Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill seeks to defend. Negangard admitted to such. There is no other side of the story. Any claim that Negangard’s statements were rhetoric meant to inflame the passions of the jury is still an allegation of misconduct:

“[I]t is misconduct for a prosecutor to request the jury to convict a defendant for any reason other than his guilt or to phrase final argument in a manner calculated to inflame the passions or prejudice of the jury.” Neville, 976 N.E.2d at 1264

Judge Coy lied in his contention there was no factual basis to my claim. Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard doesn’t shy away from retaliating against people under color of law. Now Negangard’s boss, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has accepted the task of covering up Chief Deputy Negangard’s misconduct, while arguing that the Indiana Court of Appeals should uphold my unconstitutional convictions.

Stay tuned for more information.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Guest Contributor for "The Legal System and All Things Related Blog"


The authors of the book, "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor", Tom Scott and Sara Naheedy, were gracious enough to ask me to be a guest contributor on their blog. The post includes my introduction to arguments appearing in the appellate brief I'm filing with the Indiana Court of Appeals. I am still fighting the good fight against a less than honest Indiana Judicial System.  "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor" is available through the book's website, Amazon, Google Books,  etc. Positive reviews of "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor" include those written by Dr. Ron Paul, Senator Marco Rubio, and former CIA Officer John Kiriakou.




"This is a must-read for anyone who wants access to a variety of practical and not idealistic tools to help increase his chances of emerging from a run-in with our corrupt legal system with his liberty and/or property intact."
"Not just a book, but a public service. The good guys—the innocent—don't always win. With this book's help, you can learn exactly how to defend yourself and ensure justice prevails despite our system."
"Thank you so much for your book. America is truly blessed with individuals who offer their time and resources to educate others in their community about important issues facing our nation."
Doctor Ron Paul
Former CIA Officer
John Kiriakou
Senator Marco Rubio