In a Praecipe dated March 7, 2011, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard directed the “Court Reporter of the Dearborn Superior Court II to prepare and certify a full and complete transcript of the grand jury proceedings.” In a hearing, dated July 18, 2011, Deputy Prosecutor Kisor instructed defendant Brewington to rely on a “complete” transcription of the grand jury proceedings to develop a defense. On August 17, 2011, Negangard made the first mention of “witness testimony” in describing the transcripts. The table of contents from the grand jury transcripts show Page 1 as the beginning of witness testimony. There is no record of anyone instructing Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe to omit the opening and other portions of the grand jury proceeding. Negangard had Ruwe omit portions of grand jury proceedings without informing Brewington, thus depriving Brewington of indictment information and evidence. Negangard is now the second in command for Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Curtis Hill’s office now represents the Dearborn Superior Court II in Brewington’s Lawsuit seeking the grand jury audio behind the altered transcripts. And Attorney General Curtis Hill knows all of this.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Update on Brewington lawsuit seeking Grand Jury Audio (Filed February 21, 2017) - On March 1, 2017, Judge Sally McLaughlin (formerly Blankenship) filed the Court’s ORDER OF RECUSAL AND TRANSFER, recusing herself from the case involving my lawsuit seeking the audio from my grand jury investigation. McLaughlin’s order also “requests the Clerk to transfer this cause of action to Dearborn Superior Court 1 since Dearborn Superior Court 2, the judge of Dearborn Superior Court 2, and the Dearborn Superior Court 2 court reporter are named as defendants in said matter.” The case was originally assigned to McLaughlin’s court by the Dearborn County Clerk.
There is no word on whether Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill will continue to serve as Special Judge in my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”), filed February 22, 2017 as Hill is also name as a defendant in the public records case. There is also no word on whether the PCR will remain in the Dearborn Superior Court 2 as the lawsuit also names court report Barbara Ruwe as a defendant because it was Ruwe who altered grand jury transcripts and audio.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
The rules governing Post-Conviction Relief in Indiana allow a request for a change of judge if one can prove whether the judge has a bias against the person filing for relief. Prior to my criminal trial, Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush County (IN) Superior Court, refused to provide me with basic constitutional rights like access to indictment information and evidence. Hill appointed a public defender who refused to meet with me or prepare a defense for trial. After my conviction, Hill continued to obstruct the release of grand jury audio until the Indiana Public Access Counselor ruled the audio was a releasable public record. Then Hill alleged other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with the investigation of my case and ordered the court reporter to only prepare the audio from the grand jury investigation in my case. Dearborn Superior Court II Reporter Barbara Ruwe altered the audio format and the file names of the official grand jury audio in an attempt to match the audio up with transcripts that had been altered. The problem is the audio does not match the transcription of the same audio.
That's just a small part of how Hill worked against me throughout his involvement in my case. For more information, check out my Motion for a Change of Judge.
That's just a small part of how Hill worked against me throughout his involvement in my case. For more information, check out my Motion for a Change of Judge.
Friday, February 24, 2017
The State of Indiana prosecuted me for criminal defamation of court officials. I was given a $600,000 bond, denied charging information, denied evidence, and denied the ability to consult legal counsel prior to trial. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a hidden threat argument never made by the prosecution. Several years later, I discovered that Barbara Ruwe, Chief Court Reporter for the Dearborn County (IN) Superior Court II, altered grand jury transcripts to assist Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard in his unconstitutional prosecution against me. (Negangard is now the Chief Deputy Attorney General under Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill.) When the Indiana Office of the Public Access Counselor deemed the grand jury audio in my case to be a releasable public record, the Dearborn Superior Court II modified the grand jury audio to ALMOST match the transcripts but came up a little short. In modifying the audio, the “official” copy of the audio does not contain the same amount of information as the transcription of the same audio. Page one of the grand jury transcripts is void of any instruction from the prosecutor and begins with witness testimony. This gave Negangard the freedom to request indictments for any alleged conduct regardless of truth, because Negangard knew such instruction would be omitted from the official record. As such, I have refiled my public records lawsuit seeking grand jury audio and I have filed a motion for Post-Conviction Relief to have my convictions thrown out.
Here are links to my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, my refiled Lawsuit Seeking Public Records, and a letter to the clerk of the Dearborn Superior Court II. It is important to note that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is aware of the above information because I included the above information in a letter to Attorney General Hill sent via certified mail. Feel free to contact the Office of the Attorney General with any concerns about Negangard’s abuse of the grand jury process.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
For those questioning my recent Facebook and Twitter posts regarding Trump’s policies and actions, I can assure you none of my opinions or writings are politically motivated or agenda based. My frustration with the ignorance condemning me for speaking out and not blindly following government, while suggesting a wait and see approach to Trump’s presidency, is neither irrational nor misplaced. My passion for speaking out against Trump’s executive orders are rooted in a criminal case that occurred in the United States. This case involved a person who was investigated, indicted, arrested, and convicted while being denied any specific charging information, access to evidence, and legal counsel. The government made the following statements about this man:
“[W]e believe that the allegations are extremely serious and he does present a danger to the community.”
“He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and that's what we're asking you to do. You cannot allow our system to be perverted that way. The rule of law will fail and ultimately our republic. I submit to you that that is not a result that we want to have happen. That is why we are here today.”
The State argued the defendant was “paranoid, manipulative, exhibits a manic-like existence, is unwilling to accept responsibility for his behavior, he's self-centered, has difficulty seeing an issue from another perspective, likes to do things on his own as opposed to being more cooperative and compromising when needed.”
The Judge in the case told the defendant “I've never seen anyone better at manipulating or turning the facts around to make yourself out to be the victim.”
The Government argued the man suffered from a “degree of psychological disturbance” yet neither Government nor the defense attorney attempted to have the man evaluated to prove or disprove the allegation.
The State argued “He’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.”
The Prosecutor obtained indictments against the man for making “unsubstantiated statements” about the judge in the same district as well as a professional witness contracted by the Prosecutor. The man’s convictions were upheld by a state supreme court based on a different argument never presented to the grand jury and not raised until the end of trial, making it impossible to defend. Does this case sound familiar? It should to many. It’s the case of State of Indiana v. Daniel Brewington. This happened to me. This was an attack on my 1st amendment rights, which is made evident from the prosecution’s arguments during my arraignment.
“So, I think it's clear um, that he 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. But in any event, it's not appropriate.”
“[T]he postings he has, to me, show an absolute disdain for the Court and for the prosecution and certainly that's okay with the first amendment as long as it doesn't affect with everybody, affect everybody's right to a fair trial.” “So we're asking that that order be made no direct or indirect postings regarding this case.”
I was prosecuted for speaking out about government officials. The prosecution’s argument that I should be prohibited from writing about my criminal trial because it may be detrimental to my defense is beyond comprehension. Notice the prosecution never argued my continued writings were in any way harmful to the alleged victims. My writings could only be detrimental to my defense if my writings were beneficial the prosecution, which the prosecution would have gladly welcomed. The State knew publicizing the details of my criminal case was a threat to the prosecutor’s unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. The prosecution argued that I difficulties communication represented me a master manipulator. There was much testimony about me being a master manipulator despite the absence of any example where my alleged manipulation succeeded. The sole purpose of the Dearborn County Prosecutor in making me the target of an unconstitutional prosecution was to smother the voice of opposition. That prosecutor was F. Aaron Negangard, who is now the Chief Deputy Attorney General to Curtis Hill, Attorney General for the State of Indiana.
There are very few instances in history, if any, where government restriction and/or condemnation of public speech is beneficial to the public. This is happening now. A good leader should welcome criticism. I do not find Trump’s failure to tell the truth as disturbing as how Trump continues to defend his statements that everyone knows are untrue. I’m not talking about arguing “facts” of Benghazi or email scandals, I’m talking about Trump holding an umbrella in a hot and dry desert and arguing how it’s raining cats and dogs, and then attacking the media and people who are putting on sunscreen just to voice their opposition him or support for Hillary Clinton. That’s what he did in claiming 5 million people voted illegally. That’s what Trump did when he told the CIA that the press conspired against him in not acknowledging Trump’s inauguration was not the largest in history. This is behavior that raises concerns about Trump’s psychological well-being, while raising questions of whether he comprehends the ramifications of his actions. Like the prosecution in my case, Trump portrays a doom and gloom scenario in the United States simply to rationalize taking abrupt and controversial unilateral actions to boost approval ratings. Then he tells everyone to trust him as if none of us are smart enough to understand all the facts. Trump followed through with promises he made during the election prior to having the security clearance necessary to consider all of the facts required to make a competent decision. His brash actions in “shaking things up,” demonstrate Trump does not understand or care about the emotional and financial burdens incurred by many people who are legally allowed in the United States such as students, business people, religious missionaries, etc., but Trump is quick to attack anyone that questions the executive orders. These are all issues that people should be free to discuss without fear of being condemned or retaliated against by government officials.
So, you see, my opinions are not a product of a political agenda. My views are a product of my own mind and my right to express them as a citizen of the United States of America.
Friday, September 16, 2016
The following is a letter I sent to Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry. I wanted to make him aware of a few matters regarding the County Clerk's problems in appointing a Special Judge for my lawsuit seeking public records. One of the matters include Ripley Superior Court Judge and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard agreeing to a time served plea deal to a man who would "steal young girl's underwear and women's lingerie” and “would take pictures of feminine clothing and write fantasies and nickname the women whom he had visited." This was my former cell mate at the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Negangard struck a deal with Joseph McCaleb because he agreed to try to bait me into saying something incriminating while wearing a wire in the jail. To say the least they got nothing on me but they released a sexual predator on the streets. More information below.
September 16, 2016
Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry
Office of Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Telephone: (317) 233-6215
Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
Re: Special Judge Appointment in Cause No. 15D01-1607-PL-000050
This correspondence is to help provide some insight and/or transparency regarding the appointment process of a special judge in the above cause. On September 14, 2016, the Dearborn County Clerk of Courts, Rick Probst, left me the following voice mail:
“Mr. Brewington this is Rick Probst, Clerk of Courts in Dearborn County. I had a message to give you a call from yesterday. Um, you want to know what’s going on with the judge appointments, um, and basically it appears that, uh, the judge in Ripley county has recused himself. Uh, you have the opportunity with the other attorney to agree on a judge. I’m waiting for the seven days to pass. That will be tomorrow. Um, and I expect to appoint a replacement judge failing your agreement with the other attorney. Uh, I expect to appoint a replacement judge on the 19th. Uh, it’s delayed, uh, because I am unable to contact the Supreme Court representative. I want to talk to him, uh, about the previous referral to the Supreme Court. It appears that this action will be in rotation judges, uh, in our district, uh, but I don’t expect anything to occur or an order to be cut until the 19th. Um, okay, uh, if you have any questions you can give me a call 812-537-8867. Thank you”
Other than the Court’s Order Appointing a Special Judge filed July 19, 2016, I am unaware of any other order in this case pertaining to the appointment of a special judge. Probst’s actions following the July 19 order raise many questions, the first of which is by whose authority did Probst depart from the appointment procedure described in the Order Appointing a Special Judge. Judge Cleary’s order stated:
“If the parties are unable to agree upon a Special Judge, the Special Judge will be selected by the Clerk pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 79 (H) and Dearborn County Local Rule AR-8.”
I am somewhat at a disadvantage because the court and/or clerks have failed to provide me with copies of all orders and correspondence in this matter. I did not receive a copy of Ripley Circuit Judge Ryan King’s Order Declining Appointment as Special Judge, filed August 15, 2016. My only knowledge of such order came from Probst’s Request for Appointment of Special Judge by the Indiana Supreme Court, dated August 19, 2016. Probst cited Indiana Trial Rule 79(H)(3) in requesting an appointment from the Indiana Supreme Court. T.R. 79(H)(3) which states:
(3) [C]ertification to the Supreme Court of Indiana of cases in which no judge is eligible to serve as special judge or the particular circumstance of a case warrants selection of a special judge by the Indiana Supreme Court.
I have not received copies of any orders of recusal from any of the other eligible judges listed under AR-8. It would appear obvious that a couple of the listed judges would be ineligible due to their prior involvement with State of Indiana v. Brewington, Case No. 15D02-1103-FD-84, but I assume that would explain the necessity of having eight eligible judges for appointment of special judge. I have not received copies of any correspondence between Probst and the unnamed male representative from the Indiana Supreme Court referred to in Probst’s voice mail. I also did not receive a copy of the Order from Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush, filed September 2, 2016. Now I have a September 14, 2014 voice mail from the Dearborn County Clerk of Courts informing me that the deadline for the parties to agree on a judge is September 15, 2016, when the Clerk failed to provide the parties with any notice that the Clerk reverted to the local rules of court to appoint a special judge. The unknown variable in the equation is the unidentified male representative of the Indiana Supreme Court mentioned in Probst’s voice mail that appears to have some impact in whether Probst decides to follow the July 19, 2016 order to appoint a special judge per Indiana Trial Rule 79 (H) and Dearborn County Local Rule AR-8.
The Motion for Summary Judgment filed August 31, 2016, demonstrates how the transcripts do not match the audio from the grand jury proceeding in question. There is also no question that the Dearborn Superior Court II prepared an abridged version of the grand jury record while representing the transcripts to be complete. The transcripts and audio are not only void of any record of the proceedings prior to witness testimony, the audio and transcripts do not match in several places. Your clients will have to argue the Court abandoned the normal court recording process that automatically stores and names court audio in five-minute files, which in itself is a violation of Indiana Code § 35-34-2-3(d). In the alternative they will have to argue why it is acceptable to charge the public $300.00 for a “re-creation” of an official record that does not contain information included in the transcription of the official record. In serving as counsel for the Dearborn Superior Court II and Judge Brian Hill, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General finds itself in a position to argue why the public should not have the ability to see to what extent the Dearborn Superior Court II and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process.
Your clients’ opposition to transparency and the truth necessitated this action. The Indiana Public Access Counselor opined that Judge Brian Hill’s many excuses why not to release the grand jury audio were invalid. The Defendants’ newest claim that the grand jury audio from the investigation of Brewington intertwined with the investigations of “four to five” other grand jury proceedings is simply rebuked by the lack of notice in the record that the focus of the grand jury investigation switched away or back to Brewington’s case. In the wake of the Dearborn County Superior Court II altering grand jury records, which assisted Prosecutor Negangard by depriving a criminal defendant of charging information before trial, Dearborn County Clerk of Courts Rick Probst disregarded the order to follow the local rules of court and filed a request for appointment to the Supreme Court. Despite not being a party to the action, Probst copied Prosecutor Negangard to the filing, suggesting Negangard had an interest in this case. Adding suspicion to the Clerk’s actions is the order of the listing of eligible judges as seen below:
1. Judge of the Jefferson Circuit Court
2. Judge of the Jefferson Superior Court
3. Judge of Switzerland Circuit Court
4. Judge of the Ripley Circuit Court
5. Judge of the Ripley Superior Court
6. Judge of the Dearborn-Ohio Circuit Court
7. Judge of Dearborn Superior Court II
8. Judge of Dearborn Superior Court I
Following Ripley Circuit Judge Ryan King’s order declining appointment, Probst defied Trial Rule 79 and arbitrarily sought an appointment from the Indiana Supreme Court. Local rules instruct the Clerk of Courts to appoint the next judge in line when selecting a new special judge. According to the local rules of the Dearborn County Courts, the next appointment should have been Ripley Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Sharp. This might present a conflict, as Jeff Sharp was a Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutor prior to being elected Superior Court Judge. Prior to serving as a deputy prosecutor, Sharp was the public defender for Joseph McCaleb who, as a DirecTV installation technician, would “enter the homes of DirecTV subscribers and steal young girl's underwear and women's lingerie.” McCaleb “would take pictures of feminine clothing and write fantasies and nickname the women whom he had visited. He also would attempt to contact the subscribers via the Internet using Facebook or text message them.” Sharp negotiated a deal with Negangard to secure a “time served” plea bargain for McCaleb in exchange for what turned out to be unsuccessful attempts by McCaleb to bait his cellmate, Dan Brewington, into making threatening statements while recording the conversation through a hidden device. No illegal conduct was recorded and, in a county whose stratospheric incarceration rate made it the subject of a recent New York Times article, the deviant pervert was allowed to go free.
Following Sharp on the list of eligible judges are the three judges of Dearborn County. Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey was one of the alleged victims in Negangard’s criminal defamation case against Brewington. Dearborn Superior Court II Judge Sally McLaughlin, formerly Blankenship, was the original judge in Brewington’s criminal trial. McLaughlin set Brewington’s bond at $500,000 surety and $100,000 cash in the absence of any evidence that a crime had been committed. It was on McLaughlin’s watch that Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe altered the grand jury transcripts and represented the transcript to be complete and then oversaw the modification of the grand jury audio in an apparent attempt to match the altered transcripts. At position number eight is Judge Cleary, the original judge in this lawsuit seeking public records, which leads us back to one through three; the only three Democrat judges on the list and the only judges to have decades of experience in private practice rather than rising to the judicial position through the ranks of the county prosecutor’s office. Probst abandoned the local trial rules following Judge King’s admission that he was a fraternity brother and close friend of defendant Hill, rather than pass the case to judges of the opposite political party with careers not molded by the county prosecutor’s office.
Regardless of whether the actions of the Dearborn Clerk of Courts are malicious or due to incompetence, it falls in line with your clients’ actions in obstructing the release of tampered grand jury records that played a role in an unconstitutional criminal defamation trial. As such, I will be contacting the Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court and Counsel for the Indiana Supreme Court in the hopes of determining who is responsible for secretly advising Probst throughout this current debacle of finding a judge to hear this case. I intend to contact the FBI about these matters as well.
Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. A copy of this letter can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for your convenience.
Daniel P. Brewington
3 W Central Avenue
Delaware, Ohio 43015
Dearborn County Prosecutor Office
215 W High St
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Friday, September 2, 2016
Dearborn County, IN- Roughly a month after the filing of a public records lawsuit alleging the Dearborn Superior Court II altered grand jury transcripts and audio to assist Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard obtain criminal convictions, the New York Times featured Negangard in a front page story titled "This small county sends more people to prison than San Francisco and Durham, N.C., Combined. Why?". Below are excepts appearing in the article by John Keller and Adam Pearce:
"But the extraordinarily high incarceration rate here [Dearborn County, IN] — about one in 10 adults is in prison, jail or probation — is driven less by crime and poverty than by a powerful prosecutor, hardline judges and a growing heroin epidemic."
"Mr. Negangard has faced few obstacles to getting more convictions. He supervises his own police force, an unusual arrangement that allows him to investigate and prosecute most of the county’s serious crime."
“By 2014, Dearborn County sentenced more people to prison than San Francisco or Westchester County, N.Y., which each have at least 13 times as many people.”
“Mr. Negangard said the long sentences here are the envy of police officers in Cincinnati. If a suspect is willing to sell drugs in Dearborn County, the Cincinnati police will help steer the case here, where greater punishment is almost assured, he said.”
“’I am proud of the fact that we send more people to jail than other counties,’ Aaron Negangard, the elected prosecutor in Dearborn County, said last year.”
“To handle the expanded caseload, Dearborn County officials spent $11.5 million to double the size of the local jail and approved $11 million more to expand the county courthouse.”
“Mr. Negangard said he wished the county could find more money for drug treatment.”
Negangard claims he wished more money was available for drug treatment when Dearborn County spent $22.5 million on expanding the jail and county courthouse to help with the "expanded caseload," which Negangard alleges is partly due to the Cincinnati Police Department "steering" criminals toward Dearborn County, Indiana. Rather than arrest and convict drug dealers in Cincinnati, Ohio, Negangard claims Cincinnati Police have some sort of policy where the CPD "steers" the drug dealers to Dearborn County, Indiana. Negangard is an unchecked force gone mad. Those who question his authority subjected to vicious retaliation as seen by his closing arguments in State v. Brewington:
"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. He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and that's what we're asking you to do. You cannot allow our system to be perverted that way. The rule of law will fail and ultimately our republic."
Ironically it is Negangard who represents the perversion of the justice system.