Monday, July 25, 2016

Judge Sally McLaughlin's Court Altered Grand Jury Audio

Part 1 of a two blog series on tampering grand jury audio.

Judge Sally A. McLaughlin
Superior Court IIDearborn County Indiana
The recent release of grand jury audio by the Dearborn Superior Court II (“Court”), under Judge Sally A. McLaughlin, provides conclusive evidence that the Court altered grand jury records, renamed audio files, while billing Dan Brewington for expenses incurred by the Court in altering grand jury audio. The Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor, under Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, made Brewington the target of a grand jury investigation just five days after the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed a complaint against Negangard that was filed by Brewington. Brewington became the target of a grand jury investigation for making “unsubstantiated statements” on the internet about Dearborn County Court Officials filed by Brewington. During Brewington’s trial, the Court and Prosecution provided Brewington with only the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings to determine what aspects of Brewington’s conduct that the Prosecution alleged to be unlawful while knowing the Court altered the records of the grand jury proceedings.

It is important to note that the grand jury audio begins at witness testimony as Judge McLaughlin’s Court omitted Negangard’s introduction to the grand jury from the audio record. The following excerpt from the grand jury transcripts by Prosecutor Negangard is just one example of where the Court altered the record of the grand jury proceedings. The statements in question allegedly occurred on March 1, 2011, in the closing moments of the second day of the grand jury investigation of Brewington. Page 336, lines 23-25 of the grand jury transcripts represent Negangard stating,

“I don't have any further questions at this time. Okay one of the Grand Jurors has a question for Sheriff Krieinhop.”

At first glance, nothing seems out of the ordinary; however, the transcripts fail to show that Negangard’s second statement comes from a later point in the proceedings. The following visual provides insight into one section of the altered record:


The box in the lower left hand corner shows Negangard’s statements as they appear in the transcripts but Negangard’s second statement exists in a separate audio file later in time. The green audio frequency wave represents a real time account of Negangard’s statements, with one exception. For the purpose of this demonstration, the two separate audio files received from the Court were spliced “as-is” to match Negangard’s dialogue in the transcripts. The placement of Negangard’s spoken words is where the individual words appear in the appropriate digital wavelength. As shown in the diagram, approximately 19 seconds of ambient noise occupy the space between Negangard’s statements. The circled point represents the point where the two audio files are spliced. The transcripts give no indication of the 19-second gap in the audio demonstrated in the wavelength above. Neither the transcripts nor the digital representation of the audio give any indication that the Court secretly removed at least one entire audio file existing in the 19-seconds of silence between Negangard’s two statements. 

Here is where it gets a little technical. Though the file structure is not rocket science, it is impossible to prove Judge McLaughlin’s Court altered the audio without figuring out the file naming structure of the court recording system. In reviewing audio files from public court proceedings, the audio recording systems in place for court reporting in Dearborn County Courts automatically store audio from court proceedings in individual five-minute files. In addition, the date and time are included in the automated file naming process. If an hour-long hearing occurs in the Superior Court II on July 4, 2016 at 10:00am, the first audio file name would include “Superior 2_20160704_1000”. In five minutes, the recording system automatically creates a new audio file, which would include “Superior 2_20160704_1005” in the following new file name. Every five minutes the name changes with the time: 1010, 1015, 1020 and so on. If you request public trial audio from a specific date, the court will provide a CD-R with similarly named five-minute files. When the Indiana Public Access Counsel issued his opinion (April 14, 2016) in favor of releasing the grand jury audio, the Court filed an order to release an edited version of the grand jury audio. The Court’s April 20, 2016 order made a new allegation that the audio of “four to five” other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with Brewington’s proceedings. Due to the new claim of confidential grand jury audio allegedly intertwined with Brewington’s grand jury proceedings, the Court’s order directed McLaughlin’s court reporter to edit the grand jury audio to include only portions of audio pertaining to Brewington. The Court changed the file format of the audio to an editable .wav file and combined the individual audio files. When the Court combined audio files, it retained the file name of the first audio file in the compilation. When the Court cut out segments of the audio, it began a new compilation of audio files and retained the name of the next audio segment that the Court decided to include in the "official" record. Negangard's statement on line 23 is the last statement appearing on the file named “Superior 2_20110301-1606_01cbd82ab1003d00”. Negangard's statement appearing on line 24 is located in the file named “Superior 2_20110301-1622_01cbd82cedc39690”. The first file began at 16:06 (4:06 pm) and the second at 16:22 (4:22 pm). The length of the audio in the first file is 10 minutes and 36, which would end at roughly 16:17. The earliest point that Negangard's statement on line 24 could have occurred is at 16:22. The audio is void of Negangard making any verbal recognition of the beginning or end of the record. Because a gap of over five minutes exists between the two audio files, the Court deleted at least an entire audio file from the grand jury audio released to Brewington. A problem arises if Judge McLaughlin claims the audio files from the grand jury proceedings do not adhere to the five-minute file structure employed by normal record keeping by the Court. If McLaughlin contends that the Court has the ability to control the length of time by which files are stored simply by switching the recording on and off, any confidentiality concerns about intertwining grand jury investigations are rendered moot, because the audio from the other proceedings would be stored in their own individual files. The argument would completely debunk the Court’s rationalization for altering grand jury audio. The fact Judge McLaughlin’s Court did not physically splice the audio does not make the crime any less egregious. Not splicing the audio is far more insidious as only altering the grand jury transcripts requires a joint effort by the prosecutor and the court. The release of grand jury transcripts is extremely rare and the release of audio is almost unheard of. If not for the release of the grand jury audio and an understanding of the file structure produced by Dearborn County Court reporting, Negangard and McLaughlin could continue to abuse the grand jury process.

Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard
Dearborn County, Indiana
There should be little doubt as to whether Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Judge Sally A. McLaughlin are aware of the procedures involved with recording grand jury proceeding. For several years, Negangard served as Chief Deputy Prosecutor under McLaughlin until McLaughlin’s 2006 appointment to her current position of Superior Court II Judge, where Negangard was subsequently appointed take over McLaughlin’s position of Dearborn County Prosecutor. According to Negangard’s recent endorsement of Indiana Attorney General Candidate Curtis Hill, Negangard served as Chairman and President of both the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council and the Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council. In early 2016, McLaughlin went through the interview process as an applicant for a vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court. Any claim of ignorance about simple court reporting procedure is not a defense in this case.

This is Part 1 of a two-blog series on the analysis of the release of the grand jury audio. Part 2 takes aim at the conflicting orders and letters in the Court’s attempts to obstruct access to the tampered records. There are many other examples where the transcripts and audio do not match up. As the Dearborn County Superior Court II threatened to hold Brewington in contempt for sharing the grand jury audio (altered by the Superior Court II), the audio is not available online but may be shared with individuals who express interest via email. Feel free to contact Dan Brewington at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com with any questions or comments. Feel free to share with others, especially law enforcement. 

Friday, July 15, 2016

Brewington files Lawsuit Seeking Grand Jury Records

Dearborn County, Indiana – Convicted Blogger Files Civil Complaint seeking Grand Jury Audio. In a civil petition filed July 14, 2016, Dan Brewington of Cincinnati, Ohio named Special Judge Brian Hill and the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana as Defendants in a civil action seeking audio from grand jury proceedings in early 2011.  In the forty-four page “Complaint Under Indiana Access to Public Records Act ("APRA") and for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief,” Brewington alleges court officials failed to accurately transcribe the official record from a three-day grand jury investigation initiated by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. Transcripts indicate Negangard made Brewington the target of the grand jury investigation because Brewington made “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about Dearborn County Court Officials which ultimately led to indictments, conviction and a five-year prison sentence.  On April 14, 2016, the Office of the Indiana Public Access Counselor (“PAC”) issued an opinion in favor of releasing the audio. In an email dated May 6, 2016, the PAC advised Brewington to file suit against Judge Hill. Brewington’s petition includes several court orders dating back to January 2012 that provide conflicting reasons for denying access to the audio. Brewington's complaint alleges the prosecution instructed Brewington to rely on the "complete" transcription of the grand jury proceedings to determine the nature of the non-specific indictments, while knowing the transcripts were incomplete; hindering any opportunity for a fair trial. A hearing has not been set in the matter. 

Monday, May 23, 2016

Letter to Dearborn County Superior Court II Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe

Update: 3:40 PM

I accidentally attributed a quote to the wrong document from Special Judge Hill. Normally it would not be an issue but I do not want to give these officials any excuse to deny me access to information. I sent another letter to Dearborn Superior Court II Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe explaining the error. 

Re: Grand Jury Audio in Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084

May 23, 2016

Dearborn County, Indiana Superior Court II 
Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe
215 W High St
2nd Floor
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
812.537.8800

Dear Ms. Ruwe,

I apologize for any potential confusion but this is the second of two letters, dated May 23, 2016. In referencing a quote by Special Judge Brian Hill in my previous letter, I accidently cited the wrong document from which the quote appeared. I stated the following in the first letter:

“Pursuant to the order of Special Judge Brian Hill order dated, April 20, 2016, I am interested in obtaining the audio record from the grand jury proceedings pertaining to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084; however, I am seeking clarification as to what information will be provided. Judge Hill’s order stated that I was entitled to receive ‘all audio recordings regarding your proceedings.’”
Though Judge Hill’s April 20, 2016 order authorized the release of the grand jury audio, the correct source of the quote is a letter I received from Special Judge Brian Hill, dated May 6, 2016 stating [Attached hereto]:

“Pursuant to the Court's Order following the opinion of the Public Access Counselor, you are entitled to receive all audio recordings regarding your proceedings.”
Sorry for any confusion but I am just seeking clarity in determining if you are providing me with all the audio from the entire grand jury proceeding or only the audio from which  transcripts of the proceedings. Regardless of which you provide, I still request the name of the entity responsible for authorizing the partial transcription of the official grand jury record.

A copy of this letter can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for your convenience. Feel free to contact me with any questions.


Very truly yours, 

Daniel P. Brewington

Attachments:

Judge Hill order filed April 20, 2016

Original letter to Barbara Ruwe dated May 23, 2016

_______________________________________________________________________

Original post

The following letter to Dearborn Superior Court II Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe simply asks whether she plans to provide me with all of the audio from my grand jury proceedings or only the portions of the audio represented by the incomplete transcription of the hearings. In addition, I requested the name of the authority authorizing the partial transcription of the grand jury proceedings that the prosecution represented as being complete. I'm not expecting an answer as either way acknowledges Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard withheld charging information from me prior to my criminal trial.

Re: Grand Jury Audio in Cause No. 15D02·1103·FD-00084

May 23, 2016

Dearborn County, Indiana Superior Court II
Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe
215 W High St
2nd Floor
Lawrenceburg, IN 4 7025
812.537.8800

Dear Ms. Ruwe,

Pursuant to the order of Special Judge Brian Hill order dated, April 20, 2016,
I am interested in obtaining the audio record from the grand jury proceedings
pertaining to Cause No. 15D02·1103-FD-00084; however, I am seeking clarification
as to what information will be provided. Judge Hill's order stated that I was entitled
to receive "all audio recordings regarding your proceedings." Will you be providing
only the portions of the audio transcribed for the criminal trial or will the audio also
include the audio record of all interaction between the prosecution and members of
the grand jury prior to witness testimony? Please pardon any confusion on the
matter but I was initially told the transcripts were complete. In addition, can you
please provide me with the name of the judge, or other authority, authorizing the
transcription of only certain segments of the grand jury record?

A copy of this letter can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for
your convenience. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Very truly yours,

Daniel P. Brewington
contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

Friday, May 6, 2016

Easy 3 Step Process for Media of How To Uncover and Report Grand Jury Abuse Scandal in Dearborn County, Indiana

Are you a journalist looking for an investigative exposé piece involving a court reporter and county prosecutor fixing Grand Jury Records that includes a judicial cover-up? Well look no further. This isn’t a joke. It really is this easy.

STEP ONE: Read Judge Brian Hill’s order to release grand jury records following the Indiana Public Access Counselor’s advisory opinion stating Hill erred in denying requests for the grand jury audio. However, Hill’s order directs Dearborn Superior Court II court reporter Barbara Ruwe to not prepare exact copies of the audio from the criminal defamation grand jury investigation of Dan Brewington but gives Ruwe the authority to copy and paste the audio to recreate the record at Ruwe’s discretion. Despite already providing multiple excuses why not to release the audio behind the transcripts, Hill raises a new argument. Hill now claims the Court just became aware that the audio from Brewington’s proceedings also include Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard frequently switching between “four to five” other grand jury proceedings during the same period thus requiring Ruwe to cut and paste the from the original audio recording so the copy would only include audio from Brewington’s proceeding.

STEP TWO: Follow the link to an “official” transcription of the grand jury audio from Brewington’s grand jury proceedings certified by Barbara Ruwe. Hit “Ctrl F” and do a search for words like “record” or “Brewington case” or any similar words that demonstrate Negangard advising the grand jurors he was switching back to Brewington’s case. You will find no evidence of Negangard frequently switching back and forth from Brewington’s case. [Please note that the grand jury transcripts also begin at witness testimony and do not include a record of the actual beginning of the proceedings (introductions, instruction to grand jurors, etc.,) as required by law.]

STEP THREE: Fill in your name and contact information and submit the following public records request form to the Superior Court II in Dearborn County, Indiana. The form requests the entire unedited grand jury record relating to the case of the State of Indiana v Daniel Brewington. Listen to the audio and then report your findings. You’ve done it! It really is just that easy.
The above may sound like a cheesy “infomercial” but the apparent ease of the three-step process demonstrates how egregious the grand jury abuse actually is in Dearborn County, Indiana. In a hearing on August 17, 2011, Judge Hill admitted the transcripts from the audio into evidence so they are public record. If the audio matches the transcripts, it will prove that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard omits the prosecution’s arguments to grand jurors from the official record, thus ignoring constitutional and Indiana law and giving Negangard a god-like ability before grand juries. If the audio does have the required opening of the grand jury, in the absence of the authority of any court (at least not official authority) Ruwe omitted the opening from the transcription of the grand jury while the prosecution represented the record as complete during trial. Now Hill is giving Ruwe the authority to “recreate” an official audio record that Ruwe failed to accurately transcribe from the beginning.

This is not an isolated incident as there is a pattern of abuse by Negangard involving grand jury proceedings. In an article by Mike Perleberg appearing on the website of Eagle Country News, Perleberg reported on a story involving a nurse indicted by Negangard for reckless homicide. Perleberg wrote, “After weeks of asking for the grand jury documents, Kathy Hess’ attorney requested a judge to order the state to share the documents with the defense. The judge granted that order, but it wasn’t until just days before the trial date that the documents were provided to the defense.” Negangard made Brewington a target of a grand jury investigation for what Negangard believed “over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements” against a Dearborn County judge and a professional psychological witness contracted by Negangard. Judge Brian Hill refused to continue Brewington’s trial while also failing to provide Brewington with a copy of the grand jury transcripts until less than two weeks before trial. The same transcripts that the prosecution stated Brewington could rely on for the specific charging information necessary to build a defense.

If you are a reporter interested in an easy investigation of abuses of the grand jury process, just follow the above instructions. Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Dan Brewington
contactdanbrewington@gmail.com 


Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Indiana Public Officials who are aware of Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard's Grand Jury Abuse Scandal

People who know.
The following is a list of State and Local officials that I have mailed and/or emailed regarding Special Judge Brian Hill’s recent order for the Dearborn County (IN) Superior Court II implicating Dearborn CountyProsecutor F. Aaron Negangard in a grand jury abuse scandal. These officials are likely to be aware of the illegal conduct so feel free to contact me or any of these officials with questions or concerns. Please stay tuned as the list is growing….

Indiana Supreme Court

(Please note that Ms. Meiring is also aware of misconduct by former Indiana Supreme Court Applicant, Dearborn County Superior Court II Judge Sally McLaughlin as Ms. Meiring communicated with me via email.)
Adrienne Meiring, Counsel
Division of State Court
Administration
30 S. Meridian Street, Ste. 500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Pho: 317-232-4706
Fax: 317-233-6586


Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutors (Note paralegals were not contacted directly):

Joeseph Kisor, Chief Deputy Prosecutor
Mary Miller, Paralegal, (812) 532-2095

Andrew Barde, Deputy Prosecutor
Amy Beckett, Paralegal, (812) 532-3209

Lynn Deddens, Deputy Prosecutor
Maria Bressert, Paralegal, (812) 532-2094
Cell: 513-967-0531 deddens@justice.com

Jeff Dornette, Deputy Prosecutor
Mary Miller, Paralegal, (812) 532-2095

Daniel S. Carraway, Deputy Prosecutor
Tammi Richter, Paralegal, (812) 532-8861

Arnie McGill, Deputy Prosecutor
Debbie Granatir, Paralegal, (812) 532-3288


Dearborn County Commissioners

Lynch, Kevin Commissioner, District 1 klynch@dearborncounty.in.gov  812-537-8824
McHenry, Shane Commissioner, District 3 smchenry@dearborncounty.in.gov 812-537-8737
Little, Art Commissioner, District 2 alittle@dearborncounty.in.gov       812-537-8851
Hayden, Sue Administrative Assistant shayden@dearborncounty.in.gov 812-537-8894


Dearborn County Council

Liz Morris
County Council Member, District 1
Phone: 812-637-0522

Dan Lansing
County Council Member, District 2
Phone: 812-537-7041

Ryan Brandt
County Council Member, District 3
Phone:
812-432-5482

Dennis Kraus
County Council Member, District 4
Phone: 812-623-2320

Allen Goodman
County Council Member, At Large

Charley Keyes
County Council Member, At-Large

Bill Ullrich
County Council Member, At-Large
Phone: 812-926-0575

Dearborn County Sheriff’s Department
Main phone: (812) 537-8700

Sheriff
Michael Kreinhop

Chief Deputy
David W. Lusby
Phone: (812) 532-2067

Major
Jack Prarat

Detective/Sgt
Barry Bridges

Detective/Sgt
John Vance

CSI / Sgt
Wally Lewis

CSI/ Sgt
Steve Jackson

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Court Ruling Implicates Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard in Grand Jury Abuse

Dearborn County, Indiana – In a recent court order from the Dearborn County Superior Court II, Special Judge Brian Hill ordered Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe to copy and paste portions the official audio from a grand jury investigation that took place on 2/28/11, 3/01/11, and 3/2/11. On 2/15/11, Dearborn Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard named Dan Brewington, of Norwood, Ohio (Cincinnati), a target of a grand jury investigation for criminal defamation arguing Brewington made (according to transcripts) “over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements” about Dearborn Court Officials. Brewington was named a target of the investigation just five days after the Indiana Supreme Court’s 2/10/11 dismissal of a complaint Brewington filed against Negangard. Brewington, whose story is featured in the documentary DivorceCorp currently on Netflix, was indicted, convicted, and served a 2.5 year prison sentence. Brewington is now crying foul and seeking access to the audio behind the grand jury transcripts submitted during Brewington’s trial claiming that the grand jury records were altered. After providing conflicting reasons why not to release the audio, Brewington filed a complaint to against Hill with the Office of the Indiana Public Access Counselor (PAC). The PAC’s advisory opinion agreed with Brewington that Judge Brian Hill erred in not ordering the release of the audio. Rather than provide the entire official audio record of the proceedings, in a filing dated 4/20/16, Judge Hill ordered Ruwe to cut and paste audio from Brewington’s three day grand jury proceeding. Hill ordered the reconstruction of the official record after an unnamed source advised Hill that Brewington’s grand jury “also heard evidence in four to five other Grand Jury proceedings during this time, often going back and forth between all of the cases” thus restricting the release of the audio to “only the matter regarding Daniel Brewington and no other Grand Jury proceedings.” In a recent blog on www.DanBrewington.blogspot.com, Brewington’s new request for public records allege the grand jury transcripts make no mention of Prosecutor Negangard instructing the grand jurors when he switched back and forth from Brewington’s case; making it impossible to determine whether Negangard presented unrelated evidence against Brewington, altered the grand jury record, or if the other grand jury proceedings ever took place. [Note: Transcripts from Brewington’s grand jury are void of any procedural instructions to jurors and demonstrate Negangard disappearing and reappearing from the record in the middle of witness testimony without explanation.] Transcripts from a 7/18/11 pretrial hearing in Brewington’s case show Deputy Prosecutor Kisor telling Judge Hill the prosecution would provide specific evidence of criminal activity if “particularly” requested by the court while advising Brewington’s attorney that the prosecution’s case relied on the complete transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. Now it appears the record that Kisor stated should form the foundation for building Brewington’s criminal defense was incomplete or altered from the beginning. As of the date of publication of this article, neither Negangard nor Hill have responded to Brewington’s latest request.  

Monday, May 2, 2016

Judge Hill's Order Finds Dearborn County Prosecutor Negangard Altered Grand Jury Records

Just when I thought it couldn't get any dumber, Rush Superior Court Judge Brian Hill issues an order alleging Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard manipulated the record of a grand jury proceeding. What's so crazy about that? Judge Hill didn't mean to do it. Hill was simply attempting to rationalize allowing Negangard to reconstruct the audio of the grand jury so it could match the incomplete transcripts. Here's my response to Hill explaining how he accidently admitted that Negangard and court reporter Barbara Ruwe altered grand jury records.

Amended request for All Audio from Grand Jury
May 2, 2016
Dearborn County Superior Court II 
Judge Sally A. McLaughlin (Formerly Blankenship)
Special Judge Brian Hill
215 W High St
2nd Floor
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
812.537.8800

Dear Judge Brian Hill/Judge Sally A. McLaughlin (Blankenship):

On April 20, 2016, Judge Brian Hill issued the Court’s ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RELEASING AUDIO COPIES (AS TO GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2011, MARCH 1, 1011, AND MARCH 2, 2011). Brewington now requests complete unedited copies of the grand jury audio pertaining to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-084. If the Court is unwilling to provide Brewington with an unaltered copy of the official audio from Brewington’s grand jury proceedings due to the Court’s recent allegation of misconduct by court staff and/or Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, then the court should respond appropriately and vacate Brewington’s convictions. The recent order from the Dearborn Superior Court II alleges misconduct on the part of the court’s own reporter and then denies Brewington the opportunity to investigate the extent of the misconduct. The order also gives Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard the ability to write the records of grand jury proceedings while removing any way for the public to prove misconduct. Judge Hill’s order inadvertently offers new evidence that the Dearborn Superior Court II omitted portions of an official proceeding in transcribing grand jury audio. Hill’s perseverance in denying the public and Brewington access the already public grand jury record causes Hill to overlook the obvious misconduct resting firmly in the Court’s reasoning in denying Brewington an exact copy of an official record. In orders filed in the Dearborn Superior Court II, dated April 20, 2016, Judge Hill wrote:

“It is the Court's understanding that the Grand Jury impaneled for this matter also heard evidence in four to five other Grand Jury proceedings during this time, often going back and forth between all of the cases. The audio recordings being released shall contain only the matter regarding Daniel Brewington and no other Grand Jury proceedings.”
Hill’s new claim of intertwined grand jury audio is quickly disproven by the transcripts of the grand jury audio as Negangard skipping back and forth between cases presented to the grand jury would require Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard to notify the grand jury when the focus of the investigation returned to Brewington’s case. Any such activity would have had to appear in the transcripts of the grand jury. [See Wurster v. State, 715 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 1999), re: maintaining record of all communication between prosecutor and jurors.] As the transcripts are void of any such notice, Hill’s contention that Negangard ran four to five concurrent grand jury investigations (in addition to Brewington’s) hinges on the notion that court reporter Barbara Ruwe omitted more of the grand jury record than originally alleged by Brewington. Despite the new findings, Hill ordered Ruwe to reconstruct an “official copy” of the grand jury audio by cutting and pasting segments from the official audio record that Hill now contends to contain audio from several other grand jury investigations occurring simultaneously on February 28, 2011, March 1, 2011, and March 2, 2011. The suggestion that a prosecutor would randomly jump around between as many as six criminal investigations during a three day grand jury proceedings is either laughable or horrifically frightening. If Hill maintains that the grand jury transcript is a complete and accurate transcription of the audio, it would be impossible for Ruwe to only cut and paste the audio pertaining to Brewington because Brewington’s grand jury proceedings are void of any cues from the prosecution to notify when Brewington’s case starts and stops. Hill bases his decision to limit Brewington’s access to records on private correspondence with unnamed people that are absent from any official record and without Brewington’s knowledge or participation. Hill’s new “findings” demonstrate that Negangard failed to specify which case the prosecution was presenting to the grand jury, or that Ruwe arbitrarily omitted the information from the record, OR someone is providing false information to the Court in an effort to save his or her backside. Any of the contentions beg for the release of the entire unedited audio containing Brewington’s grand jury proceedings. The new information may be plausible grounds to vacate Brewington’s convictions. As such, in addition to requesting an unedited copy of the official record of the audio from the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington, Brewington also requests the name(s) of the individuals responsible for providing this court with the information responsible for Hill’s excuse in denying Brewington’s right to access the official audio from the grand jury proceedings.

Judge Hill has issued several orders and letters, dating back to January 12, 2012, in response to multiple requests for the grand jury audio in question. Despite providing a plethora of excuses as to why the Court should ignore or deny requests for the audio behind an already public transcript, this is Hill’s first mention of the intertwining grand jury investigations. One only has to look at the witness testimony of Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop. Page 16 of the grand jury transcripts show Negangard stating, “We're back on record to so that we're addressing the handgun issue.” Prior to Negangard’s statement, the record is void of any indication of a break or an intention to go off the record yet Negangard suddenly announces that the record is back on. Negangard and Kreinhop went to great lengths in discussing a handgun legally purchased and owned by Brewington despite the absence of any claim that Brewington used the gun in any unsafe or unlawful manner. Without warning, the record shuts off and comes back on with Negangard and Kreinhop discussing concealed carry permits where Negangard informs the jurors, “I would point out that permits in Indiana, if you don't have a felony, they are relatively easy to obtain.” Ruwe, Negangard, Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop and possibly others share a potential stake in what transpired when the needle suddenly appeared to have slipped off the grand jury record and now Hill wants to trust Ruwe to accurately recreate the audio despite Ruwe being responsible for omitting portions of the grand jury proceedings from the transcripts.

“The legislature's requirement that a record be kept of grand jury proceedings can only be designed to serve as an important check on the potential of prosecutorial abuse of the grand jury process.” Wurster v. State, 715 N.E.2d at 347. Any contention that Brewington is pursuing an obscure procedural error in an attempt to seek relief from his convictions is misplaced. The Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor never provided Brewington with any explanation of what actions the State alleged to be in violation of law. The prosecution instructed Brewington to rely on the record of the grand jury transcripts knowing that Ruwe omitted portions of the official record from the transcripts. It is a violation of the rights of the public for this Court to continue any private investigation into the concerns of others regarding the release of the grand jury audio outside of a public hearing. It would be irresponsible, and potentially unconstitutional, for this Court to place the sole responsibility on the Dearborn County Superior Court II to recreate a copy of the official audio record in Brewington’s grand jury proceedings without Brewington’s participation, input, or the ability to call witnesses. Recreating the audio is virtually impossible in the absence of Negangard affirmatively stating, “We are back on record in the State’s investigation of Dan Brewington.” As the grand jury transcripts are void of any similar transition, Ruwe would have no idea what parts of the audio pertained to Brewington. If any alleged omissions from the written record were a result of Ruwe’s inability to understand or follow which investigation the prosecution was presenting at any given time, a grand jury of laymen would be even more lost especially with Negangard allegedly bouncing between the presentations of five to six criminal cases to the same grand jury in the span of three days. Given that Judge Hill’s current order prohibits Brewington from sharing, any of the grand jury audio with anyone the secrecy of other alleged grand jury investigations would not be compromised. The only potential harm in releasing the audio of other grand jury proceedings is if the audio were to contain additional examples of grand jury abuse by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard.

Brewington has remained consistent in requesting information and evidence and this Court has been consistent in providing new excuses in denying Brewington the evidence. Judge Hill’s animosity towards Brewington’s requests for information and constitutional protections date back over 4.5 years. During Brewington’s sentencing hearing on October 24, 2011, Hill made the following remarks about Brewington’s numerous verbal and written complaints about not having access to legal counsel and charging information prior to trial:

“I've never seen anyone better at manipulating or turning the facts around to make yourself out to be the victim.” -Judge Brian Hill Tr. 81
During the same hearing, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard also attacked Brewington for alleging misconduct on the part of the prosecution by stating:

“Brewington's convicted at a jury now, and his response was to say it was my fault. Um, it's the prosecutor's fault, we lied, we misrepresented the law, um, whatever, again, no acceptance of responsibility and that's ultimately what the Court is to determine at a sentencing is what it takes to get someone to accept responsibility for his actions” –Dearborn County Prosecutor Negangard Tr. 67-68
It is worthy to note that Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush wrote Negangard’s use of “criminal defamation” to prosecute Brewington was “plainly impermissible” but upheld Brewington’s convictions claiming Brewington’s public defender, Bryan Barrett, attempted to take advantage of Negangard’s unconstitutional prosecution and somehow invited the errors associated with it. Rush’s opinion is void of any mention of criminal defamation being the only argument Negangard presented to the grand jury, at least the only argument appearing in the transcripts. [The trial record demonstrates Barrett, who was appointed by Hill, failed to take any measures to determine the nature of the indictments against Brewington. Brewington still maintains Barrett refused to share evidence, gather evidence, question witnesses, meet with Brewington, or allow Brewington to play any role in preparing a defense strategy. The record is replete with examples where Brewington told Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill that Barrett refused to meet with Brewington, yet the record is void of ANY examples where Hill directly addressed Brewington’s concerns that Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with Brewington prior to trial. Meeting minutes from the Indiana Public Defender Commission demonstrate that on September 19, 2012, Judge Hill appeared with Bryan Barrett before the Commission because of Barrett’s non-compliance with caseloads maximums for the past four quarters. Ironically, it was during Brewington’s final pretrial hearing on September 19, 2011, exactly one year prior, where Hill refused to question Barrett about Brewington’s allegations that Barrett refused to meet or speak with Brewington about his case prior to trial. Two weeks later, Hill again refused to address Barrett about the matter and marched Brewington to trial without providing Brewington a fundamental explanation of the charges against him.] Not only did Judge Hill allow Negangard to misrepresent the law and prosecute Brewington for criminal defamation, Hill is currently denying Brewington access to an “official record” that Hill’s recent order acknowledges to be incomplete. Judge Hill’s current stance on transparency is that Brewington may have a copy of the audio after the people responsible for withholding indictment information from Brewington are finished recreating the audio from the grand jury. As such, Brewington requests an exact copy of the original and unedited grand jury audio, the name of any individual(s) responsible for the information behind the Court’s reasoning in denying Brewington’s request for an exact copy of the official record, and a public hearing giving Brewington the ability to respond and cross-examine those objecting to the release of the audio. Please note that Brewington is forwarding this request to the Indiana Public Access Counselor, local, state and federal officials, in addition to the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to help provide shelter from any further prosecutorial and/or judicial retaliation. Any further excuses not to release exact copies of the records should be viewed as further attempts to provide cover for the misconduct by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, Dearborn County Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe, and other officials within the Dearborn County Court System. If the Court believes this matter is better suited for post-conviction hearings or federal proceedings so Brewington can subpoena individuals and determine who is responsible for altering the grand jury transcripts, Brewington would respond accordingly. Brewington would also initiate the process of obtaining the names of individuals serving on the grand jury in an effort to reconstruct the incomplete record. If Judge Hill or any officer of the court believes the content of this document includes false statements or misrepresentations of fact, Brewington welcomes the Court to set a hearing on matters regarding the obstruction of public records where Brewington will gladly testify under oath to the truth of the statements. This hearing will also clear up any confusion as to the accuracy of the transcripts as Barbara Ruwe will be able to testify why the transcripts are void of any introduction to the proceedings and who instructed her to omit portions of the official record.   

According to the statute, you have seven (7) days to respond to this request. If you choose to deny the request, Brewington asks that the Dearborn County Superior Court II provide an explanation of the statutory exception authorizing the withholding of all or part of the public record that does not conflict with Indiana Code § 5-14-3-9(e). Given that Brewington is likely to notify Dearborn County of an intent to initiate civil action due to the Court’s recent findings that Ruwe failed to transcribe all the audio pertaining to Brewington’s grand jury proceeding, Ruwe nor any member of the Dearborn County Superior Court II should play any role in “recreating” the official audio record. As Special Judge Brian Hill based the Court’s latest restriction on Brewington’s access to public records on misconduct by Ruwe and/or Negangard, Brewington requests that Judge Hill or Judge McLaughlin seek the appointment of a new unbiased judge. Brewington should not be punished for the ineptitude of Ruwe and Negangard.

A copy of this request can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for your convenience. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

Respectfully, 

Daniel P. Brewington, Requester
2529 Sheridan Drive
Norwood, Ohio 45212
513.383.3136

cc:        Senator Mike Delph
District 29
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Senator Brent Steele Judiciary Chair
District 44
200 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Hon. Jonathan N. Cleary, Judge
Dearborn Superior Court I
215 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Hon. Sally A. McLaughlin, Judge
Dearborn Superior Court II
215 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

Barbara Ruwe Court Reporter
Dearborn Superior Court II
215 W. High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

Hon Brian Hill, Judge
Rush Superior Court
101 East Second Street, 3rd Floor
Rushville, Indiana 46173

F. Aaron Negangard
Dearborn County Prosecutor
215 W High St
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

Dearborn County Sheriff
Michael Kreinhop
DCLEC
301 West High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

Federal Bureau of Investigation Office
8825 Nelson B Klein Pkwy
Indianapolis, IN 46250

United States Attorney’s Office
10 W. Market St, Suite 2100
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Adrienne Meiring, Counsel
Indiana Supreme Court
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Indiana Attorney General's Office
Indiana Government Center South
302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204