Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard (left)
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.