Monday, November 2, 2015

Update on Judge Josh Berkowitz's lack of transparency

A short while ago I posted the following blog questioning the mud-slinging tactics of the Hamilton County Republican Committee and 4th District Municipal Judge Josh Berkowitz against opposing candidate Bob Kelly. I posted a link to my blog post on Twitter while tagging Judge Berkowitz and the committee that dumped thousands of dollars into the campaign of #JudgeJoshBerkowitz. #JudgeBerkowitz immediately blocked me from viewing his Twitter feed. Nothing demonstrates transparency better than a sitting judge blocking individuals from viewing his supposedly public Twitter feed. Please note that I did not bombard the man with posts. I made just one. I have met Josh Berkowitz on a couple of occasions and found him to be very friendly. Unfortunately being friendly doesn't qualify someone for a judicial position and operating a public Twitter feed that is selectively available to only some members of the public is discriminating conduct that is not very becoming of a judge. Please note that Bob Kelly's website not only accuses Judge Josh Berkowitz of lying, Mr. Kelly also points out how Judge Berkowitz has accepted over $21,000 from attorneys and political parties in an effort secure an elected judicial position, where integrity of the office hinges on the appearance of impartiality. Vote for a judicial candidate who not only does not cower when challenged but one who will remain transparent and impartial. Vote Bob Kelly for 4th District Municipal Judge.

4th District Municipal Court Canidate Josh Berkowitz dips to new lows

It is truly disturbing that a judicial candidate would resort to a smear campaign in an attempt to win an election, however Josh Berkowitz has done exactly that in an attempt to smear Bob Kelly's record as an attorney. Berkowitz's campaign misrepresented and distorted tax information stemming from a dissolution. Rather than attempt to challenge Bob Kelly's spotless record as an attorney for 37 years, Josh Berkowitz tries to draw some correlation between a marital tax debt (which is being paid) and former Hamilton County Juvenile Judge Tracie Hunter who faces multiple felony indictments. The fact that Josh Berowitz would dip so low in misrepresenting a tax debt from a marital dissolution in an attempt to secure a position as 4th District Municipal Court Judge of Hamilton County, Ohio is every reason why Mr. Berkowitz should not be a judge. "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." -Albert Einstein  Vote Bob Kelly for Judge.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Brewington Petition for Post-Conviction Relief...I'm still fighting

It seems unfathomable that someone in the United States could be indicted, convicted, and serve a 2.5-year without being provided with legal counsel or any knowledge of what actions the State alleged to be unlawful. Even more disturbing is that someone could be found guilty of a criminal defamation crime when no such crime exists. Combine that with the Indiana Supreme Court upholding the verdict based on criminal activity never argued during trial and you have my case.

My summary of argument for my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief gives a sneak preview to how the State of Indiana shows no shame or regard for the Constitution of the United States in going after individuals who criticize individuals in the Indiana judicial system. Before the naysayers suggest I am manipulating facts or statements, this isn’t an attempt to twist the words of the Indiana Courts, it’s me untangling the twisted arguments the Courts used to rationalize upholding my unconstitutional convictions. My public defender, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me before trial. Special Judge, Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill refused to address why Barrett would not meet with me and refused to tell me what actions I was supposed to defend. Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecuted me for calling court officials child abusers. Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush said Negangard’s prosecution was constitutionally impermissible but denied me relief from the unconstitutional convictions claiming my public defender tried to take advantage of Negangard’s constitutionally impermissible criminal procedure. At every turn I incur new hurdles which amount to little more than petty excuses to cover for the fact Prosecutor Negangard made me the target of a grand jury investigation for my statements Negangard and his staff “felt was over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements against either Dr. Conner or Judge Humphrey.” Yes. Those were Prosecutor Negangard’s actual words to the grand jury when he had me indicted for publishing statements about court officials without publishing supporting evidence to back my claim. Now I’m forced to file a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief so I can address the ever evolving excuses the State of Indiana keeps providing as to why I cannot refer to Dearborn County Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey as an unethical child abuser. Below are some excerpts from the summary of argument from my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. I wanted to get this information out in the hopes of garnering some interest in my case or in the least, shaming some legal official in Indiana to take appropriate action. The petition is still a work in progress but I wanted to leak some information so people can get a grasp of the blatant disregard Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and others have for the U.S. Constitution. Please share this information with anyone who is passionate about abuses in government and protecting constitutional rights.

Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor gave the following reason for what would be Brewington’s $600,000 bond:

“[Brewington] intends to try this case on his blog and I think that not only could be detrimental to the State. It might even be detrimental to him.” [Arraignment Tr. 20]

In describing my displeasure with my public defender refusing to meet with me before trial, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard told Judge Brian Hill:

“[Brewington]'s um mad that his attorney hasn't talked to him.” [Final pretrial hearing September 19, 2011 Tr. 78]

Chief Justice Rush claimed my public defender invited the constitutional errors stemming from my unconstitutional prosecution claiming Barrett:

“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.”

Rush gives Negangard a free pass for an unconstitutional malicious prosecution for criminal defamation then punishes me by essentially claiming that my public defender “knew better” and took advantage of the “ignorant” prosecutor. If the Indiana Courts rule I'm not entitled to legal counsel, evidence, and the charging information against me, then I hope to make the jump to the federal courts.

And it goes on and on…. Stay tuned.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Back at work. Post Conviction Relief petition in progress.

It's been a while since I've written a blog as I took a little break after the US Supreme Court denied hearing my case. I needed a little time to reflect on the path my life was on and whether I should continue forward with the Indiana courts or just call it quits. I decided to keep pushing and file a petition for post conviction relief because, among many things, I was forced to go through trial with a public defender who refused to meet with me before trial. That's a hard thing to walk away from, especially in light of the growing support from people who have viewed Divorce Corp since the documentary was released on Netflix earlier this month. You grow up with the belief you have a right to an attorney, unless you stand trial for criticizing a judge. The more I dig back into my case the harder I find myself having to work to argue the obvious. I have to provide strategic well considered legal arguments with the understanding that the State of Indiana can cheat at their convenience. So as I continue to work on my current legal petition, let me leave you with an example of the uphill battle before me.  Here's and example of the infinite wisdom of Indiana Appellate Judges Carr Darden, Patricia Riley, and Dearborn County native John Baker in the Appellate decision in my case. They claimed I knew I was was lying when I said Judge Humphrey was unethical. The Indiana Supreme Court disregarded the appellate court's ruling, and found me guilty of making hidden threats despite the fact the prosecution sought indictments for "making over the top" "unsubstantiated statements" against Judge James D. Humphrey and Dr. Edward J. Connor with absolutely no mention of hidden threats to personal safety. Funny how the state of Indiana keeps changing their story.

"Even if the State was required to prove that Brewington knew his internet postings and other communications about Judge Humphrey were false, there is ample evidence of Brewington’s knowledge. His public comments went well beyond hyperbole and were capable of being proven true or false. Over the course of at least a year, Brewington repeatedly called Judge Humphrey a “child abuser.” State’s Ex. 170; see also State’s Ex. 162 (“Judge Humphrey’s actions constitute child abuse”), State’s Ex. 168 (“abuser of children”), State’s Ex. 173 (Judge Humphrey “abuse[s] children who are part of the family court system”). Brewington also called Judge Humphrey “corrupt,” State’s Ex. 160, and accused him of engaging in “unethical/illegal behavior.” State’s Ex. 170.

Brewington argues he was merely stating his opinion that, in constraining his right to see his children, Judge Humphrey was essentially committing child abuse. However, it is clear from the divorce decree that Judge Humphrey, in the exercise of lawful judicial discretion and out of concern over Brewington’s history of “irrational behavior,” State’s Ex. 140, p. 8, imposed reasonable visitation restrictions upon Brewington out of a desire to protect the children’s well-being. Only by willfully misinterpreting the terms of the divorce decree in bad faith could one argue that Judge Humphrey’s conduct constituted an intentional act to harm Brewington’s children. Thus, even if the State was required to prove that Brewington knew his public statements about Judge Humphrey were false, there was ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Brewington accused Judge Humphrey of child abuse and professional misconduct while knowing that the accusations were false."

This is why I refuse to be bullied by cowards claiming to be victims. I'm not manipulating information. This is an exact quote from the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in my case. I'd call the above appellate judges anti-American except they may try to arrest me for knowingly stating false opinions. This is why people should speak out. Stay tuned for more ridiculous quotes from Indiana judicial officials.

Monday, January 5, 2015

How Judge Humphrey and the State of Indiana rationalizes stripping parents of guns

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush claimed I was dangerous because I refused to give my ex-wife a .357 Magnum handgun per my divorce decree as ordered by Dearborn County Judge James D. Humphrey.  Chief Justice Rush cited this as a explanation why Judge Humphrey had a justifiable reason to fear me. Judge Humphrey ordered I give my ex-wife my .357 Magnum because she said, "I had asked for it was because I don't even want it near our children."  My ex testified she had no gun training. She testified I had other firearms. When asked why she was worried about the .357 Magnum and not the other firearms I owned, she replied, "This is something that could be easily handled by our children. I want it out of their reach." When asked what she was planning to do with the .357 Magnum she replied, "Getting rid of it." When asked if she thought a young child could shoot a .357 Magnum, my ex replied, "I don't know." She testified she was unaware my daughter had ever fired anything other than a BB gun. During cross-examination I asked my ex, "Have they ever received any kind of medical attention for anything the respondent has done, you know, the dangerous activities that you accuse respondent of engaging in with the children?"  What was the response of my ex-wife?  "No, they have not."

That's why Judge James D. Humphrey ordered me to hand over a firearm to a person who was not even aware of whether a five year old was capable of shooting the .357 Magnum handgun my ex testified she had never seen.  No evidence of abuse, injury or neglect. She did not even claim my possession of a .357 Magnum caused her to fear me. The fact I did not give the .357 Magnum to an irrational parent was used against me to obtain criminal indictments, a conviction in a criminal trial, and was later used by Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court to rationalize upholding the convictions. There are no Second Amendment Rights in Indiana in a divorce. If you try to exercise your First Amendment Rights and complain about the actions of Indiana judges, you will quickly lose those rights as well.  Feel free to check out the above excerpts in pages extracted from the transcripts from my divorce. 

Thursday, December 4, 2014

IN Court of Appeals: We can't read minds like the IN Supreme Court

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General recently requested the Indiana Court of Appeals to do the absurd; read someone’s mind. In the recent Court of Appeals opinion in Derrick Weedman v. State of Indiana, authored by Judge Michael P. Barnes (filed November 26, 2014), the Indiana Attorney General argued Weedman waived his right to seek relief from improperly admitted evidence at trial because the AG claimed the failure of Weedman’s attorney to object to the unfairly prejudicial evidence was clearly a trial strategy on the part of the defense counsel; thus waiving Weedman’s right to raise the issue during appeal. The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the AG’s request in footnote 3 of the opinion, “We simply have no information regarding Weedman’s trial counsel’s thoughts on his strategy.” Weedman v. State, 90A04-1311-CR-549. Where would the Indiana Attorney General get the idea that the higher courts of the State of Indiana are in the business of reading the minds of defense attorneys in order to deny defendants the ability to appeal fundamental errors in trial? From the case of Daniel Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014). Apparently Appellate Judge Michael P. Barnes and the Indiana Court of Appeals lack the mind reading abilities of Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court.

“[Brewington] is correct that the instructions were erroneous and created a general-verdict error—but he affirmatively invited those errors as part of a perfectly reasonable trial strategy. When an error is invited for such legitimate reasons, it is neither fundamental error nor ineffective assistance of counsel.” Justice Rush wrote it was impossible to determine if the guilty verdict in Brewington’s trial was based on constitutionally protected activity because the jury instructions were constitutionally incomplete. Previous rulings by the United States Supreme Court mandate the reversal of a conviction based on constitutionally protected activity. Justice Rush wrote the general verdict error was a result of “the prosecutor’s improper reliance on ‘criminal defamation’” and “constitutionally incomplete jury instructions” but ruled the Indiana Supreme Court would “not grant relief from what by all indications was a deliberate and eminently reasonable strategic choice” by defense counsel. Rush wrote Brewington’s defense counsel “sought to exploit the prosecutor’s improper reliance on ‘criminal defamation’ to the defense’s advantage.” The Indiana Supreme Court ruled the failure to object to “constitutionally incomplete jury instructions” and a “plainly impermissible” criminal defamation argument by the prosecution was not ineffective assistance of counsel, rather a sound defense strategy. Justice Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court opined that defense counsel’s failure to object to the constitutionally flawed trial was “part of a reasonable defense strategy, and therefore may not raise it as grounds for relief.” Rush further justified the Supreme Court’s trial strategy argument by writing Brewington’s, “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. What also distinguishes Weedman from Brewington is the Attorney General raised the trial strategy argument in Weedman. Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court raised the issue on their own when they either speculated or read the mind of Brewington’s defense attorney in order to reach the Court’s conclusion because there was simply no information regarding Brewington’s trial counsel’s thoughts on his strategy on the record. [Note: Transcripts of the beginning of trial demonstrate Brewington informing the trial court Brewington had not met with his public defender to discuss his case and he, himself, was not aware of his own trial strategy nor was he aware what conduct led to the indictments against him.]

Brewington filed a writ of certiorari on October 29, 2014 so his case is now in the hands of the United States Supreme Court.  At this point, no attorneys, groups, or organizations have stepped forward to publicly support Brewington’s writ that addresses how Brewington was denied proper constitutionally relief because the Indiana Supreme Court did what the Indiana Court of Appeals refused to do; get into the business of reading minds in order to justify not following the Constitution of the United States of America. Brewington was denied probation and completed a 2.5 year prison sentence on 9/5/2013.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Brewington Writ of Certiorari for the United States Supreme Court

Today, October 29, 2014, is my deadline for petitioning the United States Supreme Court.  With the help of my mother and brother, to which there are no words to describe their ongoing love and support, I was able to send the finished product off to the publisher yesterday so my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari will be properly sent and served to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General and the Supreme Court of the United States of America by the end of the day today (Click here for a copy of the petition without appendix). The following excerpt is my closing statement from the Petition:

"The Petitioner made every effort to preserve his rights under the United States Constitution in a criminal action that was brought against Petitioner in retaliation for Petitioner’s criticisms of court officials. The Petitioner files his pro se writ of certiorari after being subjected to outrageous bonds, denial of counsel, and serving 2.5 years in prison because a prosecutor was able to obtain unconstitutional general conduct indictments and convictions by implementing a constitutionally invalid legal argument. The Indiana Supreme Court found that Petitioner’s alleged psychological disturbance was circumstantial evidence toward the commission of a crime yet the trial judge and public defender who both work out of the Rush County, Indiana Courthouse, failed to provide Petitioner with any mental health treatment or psychological evaluations in preparation of an effective defense. As Justice Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court have already stated the Petitioner’s guilty conviction is a general verdict error, it would be a miscarriage of justice not to reverse his convictions. The most telling evidence that the Petitioner’s internet writings enjoy First Amendment protections is the fact that no court of law has attempted to force the Petitioner to remove what the Indiana Courts deem to be hidden threats of violence. Petitioner’s experiences are still available at and Not having the freedom to criticize the conduct of court officials or living in fear of criticizing the conduct described in this brief would be the ultimate injustice."

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has 30 days to respond. If the Indiana Attorney General, Gregory Zoeller, files a response, I will post a copy as soon as possible.  I cannot say enough about the love and support I have received from so many during this entire experience.  Thank you.

[Please note that I did not receive any outside legal advice in any state on this petition nor did I receive any assistance in writing the Writ of Certiorari aside from the help I received from my “law clerks” (mom and brother).]