Monday, October 30, 2017

Judge W. Gregory Coy’s Injustice Made Easy

Very few people could comprehend being incarcerated on $600,000 and forced to trial without any assistance of counsel in the United States but here's the role Switzerland County Circuit Judge W. Gregory Coy played in allowing Indiana to get away with it....

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

     These are the closing arguments by Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard explaining why he sought indictments and convictions against me when Negangard was the Dearborn County Prosecutor. I had no idea what actions I was supposed to defend because my public defender, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett, never met with me in jail to discuss my case. I told the special trial judge, Rush Superior Court Judge Brian Hill, that Barrett never met with me to discuss my case. I filed three motions addressing the issues but Judge Hill refused to question Barrett about it. Judge Hill said he wouldn't consider my motions because I had legal counsel to file them for me. I filed the motions because Barrett would not speak to me. Following my conviction, my appellate attorney Michael Sutherlin said I couldn’t raise Barrett’s non-existent representation on appeal because there was no record of trial strategy. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions, claiming Barrett’s "trial strategy" waived my right to relief from the unconstitutional guilty verdicts and the unconstitutional aspects of Negangard's prosecution. Chief Justice Loretta Rush speculated Barrett employed a "trial strategy" to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional arguments. Rush also claimed the motions I filed demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the First Amendment, but Rush failed to address the fact I filed the motions because Barrett refused to speak with me or provide me with any assistance in preparing a defense for trial. This year I filed a petition for post-conviction relief and raised numerous grounds, one of which pertained to the fact that Barrett refused to meet with me. Coy signed an order on September 25, 2017 denying my petition for post-conviction relief. Coy didn’t make any specific findings of fact as required by the Indiana Post-Conviction Rules. Coy simply dismissed all my claims by stating:

“There is no factual basis to support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and attorneys involved in his case.”  


No kidding? Of course, there’s no factual basis because the Indiana Courts continue to silence my complaints that my attorney never met with me to prepare for my case. Barrett submitted no evidence, called no witnesses, and even admitted during closing arguments that he wasn’t sure what two of the indictments were even about. The Indiana Supreme Court couldn't have known what Barrett’s trial strategy was because I didn’t know what Barrett’s trial strategy was. Trial strategy is determined in post-conviction proceedings but Coy deprived me of the ability to establish that Barrett did NOTHING by dismissing my petition. Current Dearborn County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens is fully aware of the situation but does nothing. The prosecutor’s pleadings were signed by Andrew Krumwied, a West Point Alum. As Krumwied’s brothers in arms are fighting and dying for our freedoms, Krumwied fights to take them away for political convenience in Dearborn County, Indiana. The same people who probably condemn kneeling NFL players are the people hiding behind closed doors, mocking the United States Constitution. Judge W. Gregory Coy took the path of least resistance rather than a path of justice, just to punish someone who had the courage, or stupidity, to challenge the “Indiana System of Justice.”

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Judge W. Gregory Coy Refuses to Protect Right to Counsel

For over six years the Indiana Courts have refused to address the fact that I was forced to trial without the assistance of counsel. In a 2.5-page Order dated September 25, 2017, Special Judge W. Gregory Coy continued this trend by denying all 20 grounds raised in my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”) in the Dearborn Superior Court II. Judge Coy, who normally serves as Circuit Court Judge for Switzerland County, Indiana, denied my petition without a hearing. Coy gave only the following rationale for dismissing my PCR petition: “There is no factual basis to support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and attorneys involved in his case.” Judge Coy told me that Summary Judgment was unavailable under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) and then turned around and awarded Summary Judgment in favor of the State despite the State never requesting Summary Judgment. In fact, the State actively argued AGAINST Summary Judgment claiming issues of material fact precluded the Court from granting Summary Judgment to either party. The Dearborn Superior Court II waited two weeks to provide me a copy of the order. Coy’s order is just another example of the Indiana Courts circling the wagons to protect their own. 

JUDGE COY REFUSES TO PROTECT DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

I have used the analogy that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. I have repeatedly explained how I was denied legal assistance and indictment information prior to trial but the Indiana Courts continue to obstruct my ability to present a case to support my claim. Judge Coy’s recent order is not unlike the problem of sexually harassment in corporate America, which has recently gained the proper attention following the recent findings of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein. Rather than address abuses in my case, Judge Coy decided to turn his head. Prior to my criminal trial, my public defender refused to meet with me outside of the courtroom. I communicated this to trial judge Brian Hill on numerous occasions, but Hill refused to ask Barrett if my allegations were true. Former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard stood silently, waiting to take full advantage of the unconstitutional error. I told my appellate lawyer Michael Sutherlin about not having any assistance of counsel, but Sutherlin refused to address it. The Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ignored my written and verbal concerns appearing in the trial record. In my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, I expressed the same concerns to Judge Coy but Coy claimed there was no factual basis to support my claim. In the case of Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 748, (2003), the court stated, “[W]hen a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, and the facts pled raise an issue of possible merit, the petition should not be summarily dismissed.” It is important to note that Judge Coy never argued that my claims lacked merit. Judge Coy did not allege my claim to be false. The State continues to ignore my claims. I could easily prove Barrett refused to meet with me or speak to me by obtaining visitor and/or phone records during my incarceration in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Unfortunately Judge Coy stripped me of any opportunity to obtain/present this evidence in an evidentiary hearing; a hearing that even the Dearborn County Prosecutor argued was necessary. 

COY “GIFTS” SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO STATE

 In the State’s response to my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, the Dearborn Prosecutor wrote, “It is without sufficient information to admit or deny paragraphs 1 AND 3 through 18.” In response to my Motion for Summary Judgment, the State claimed it “did not address every specific ground alleged and raised by Brewington in either his Petition or Motion for Summary Judgment, the State reserves the right to address these issues at an evidentiary hearing on the matter.” Not only did the State not address all my claims, the State asserted an evidentiary hearing was necessary per Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Rule 1(4)(g) states, “If an issue of material fact is raised, then the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably possible.” The facts gleaned from the pleadings are as such: 1) The State argued the existence of multiple issues of material fact throughout my PCR petition; 2) The State argued Ind. PC R. 1(4)(g) prohibited Summary Judgment because the issues of material fact triggered the requirement of an evidentiary hearing. 3) The State claimed it did not address every ground I raised and reserved the right to do so during an evidentiary hearing. Despite the State arguing against Summary Judgment while calling for an evidentiary hearing, Judge Coy refused to hold an evidentiary hearing and awarded Summary Judgment to the State. 
JUDGE COY’S SLIGHT OF HAND 

I originally requested Summary Judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 56. The State alleged the request to be improper under TR. 56. Believing to have made a technical error, I asked Coy to consider my request under Rule 1(4)(g). Judge Coy wrote, “The State argues that summary judgment is not available in a post conviction relief claim; this court agrees, but does find that summary disposition is still available pursuant to Indiana Rule PC 1 Sec. 4(g).” Coy premised the dismissal of my entire PCR petition on a non-existent technicality. In State v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 984 N.E.2d 704, (2013), the court wrote:

“The summary judgment procedure that is available under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) is the same as under Trial Rule 56(C).” Under both rules, summary judgment is to be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citing Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g); Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)).”

Indiana case law demonstrates Summary Judgment and Summary Disposition are the same in post-conviction proceedings. Judge Coy tried to take advantage of me as a self-represented litigant. As the State’s issue of material fact argument barred the State from receiving Summary Judgment, Coy drew a non-existent distinction between Summary Judgment and Summary Disposition and then buried the State’s issues of material fact argument as if the issues of material fact only applied to my denied Motion for Summary Judgment. But even Coy became confused with his own logic as Coy wrote:

“Even though the State did not move for summary judgment, based on the undersigned judge’s reading of the pleadings and the appellate cases mentioned above, judgment should be entered without a hearing.”

The State did not move for Summary Judgment because the State argued issues of material fact barred Coy from issuing Summary Judgment. Judge Coy dismissed the State’s arguments against Summary Judgment and awarded Summary Judgment to the State. Coy awarded Summary Judgment to the State immediately after explaining my request for Summary Judgment should be denied claiming Summary Judgment was not available to me in a post-conviction proceeding. In addition to making various false claims, Judge Coy’s Order failed to meet the basic requirements of Ind. PC R. (5):

“The court shall make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.”

Coy made no specific finding of fact to support the summary dismissal of all 20 grounds raised in my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, while Coy stripped me of any opportunity to obtain or present any evidence or facts to support my claims.

THE FACTS SUPPORT VACATING BREWINGTON’S CONVICTIONS

It’s an elementary concept that people have a constitutional right to legal counsel in criminal proceedings. During my trial, Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, appointed the Chief Public Defender of Rush County, Bryan Barrett, to be my public defender. Barrett refused to speak to me about the case prior to trial. Barrett even admitted during closing arguments that Barrett was unaware of exactly what actions were responsible for the indictments against me. Just like prior Indiana Courts, Judge W. Gregory Coy refuses to address this. Coy also refuses to address the fact that the grand jury transcript contains less information than the audio from which it was allegedly transcribed. The State told me to rely on the grand jury record for specific indictment information knowing the record had been altered. Leading the State’s prosecution at the time was former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. Negangard now serves as Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Coy’s efforts fall in line with the way Negangard retaliated against me for challenging “our system of justice.” Negangard boldly made the claim during closing arguments in my trial.

“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we want. That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable. 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.” -Negangard’s closing arguments. 10/06/2011 Tr. 504-505

For those unfamiliar with the law, prosecutors are not allowed to request a jury to return guilty verdicts for reasons other than a defendant’s guilt. Negangard went far beyond this fundamental principal by telling the trial jury to return guilty verdicts against me for a non-existent crime different than the indictments. This is the conduct that Judge Coy and the Indiana Courts seek to protect. Because the conduct is so egregious, the only way to protect the conduct is to pretend that it never happened.

Judge W. Gregory Coy doesn’t care about the rights he swore to uphold. I signed an affidavit standing behind my claims. If my statements were false, Judge Coy should take action against me, but Coy can’t. I don’t lie. Judge W. Gregory Coy is the liar. Coy cowers behind his black robe to protect misconduct while rather than give me an opportunity to voice my case. Now I’ll have to see how Coy rules on my Motion to Correct Error. I’m not holding my breath that an Indiana Court is going to demonstrate any integrity.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

The Indiana Courts Continue to Stall on Case Involving Tampered Grand Jury Records

The following is an except from my latest filing in my post-conviction relief case. On March 31, 2017, I filed a motion seeking summary disposition where I requested the court to vacate my convictions. The Dearborn Superior Court II has failed to issue a ruling on the matter. This seems par for the course especially as it was the Dearborn Superior Court II that altered grand jury records to assist former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecute criminal defamation. Negangard currently serves as Chief Deputy for Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Attorney General Hill's office is currently representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking the unaltered audio from my grand jury investigation. (The audio released by the Dearborn Superior Court II contains less information than the transcription of the same audio.) Below is the conclusion appearing at the end of my Request for Ruling on Summary Disposition, dated September 23, 2017:

This is not a John Grisham novel. This criminal case has done immeasurable harm to Brewington’s life. From the beginning of Brewington’s criminal proceedings, the State demonstrated how the entire action was simply a means to silence and punish Brewington for criticizing officials operating within the Dearborn County Court System. This is best demonstrated by the arguments of Chief Deputy Prosecutor Joeseph Kisor during Brewington’s arraignment on March 11, 2011:

“[W]e is asking that the Court consider making conditions of [Brewington’s] bond that he not access the internet, uh, or if the Court would believe that to be too broad, which I'm not sure the State would not concede that but if that were to be considered too broad, we would ask the Court to make a condition of bond that Mr. Brewington not continue to blog about the substance, uh, at least his version of the substance of the case that is here before this Court.” Tr. 19

Kisor later clarified the State’s concerns regarding Brewington blogging during the criminal proceedings:

“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”

Deputy Kisor clearly explained that the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor had an interest in censoring Brewington. Kisor tried to claim the censorship was somehow a means to protect Brewington’s right to a fair trial, despite the prosecution remaining silent at the beginning of trial when Brewington informed Judge Hill that Brewington had not received any assistance in preparing for trial. Kisor and the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor were never concerned about the alleged victims. Kisor was only concerned about Brewington sharing Brewington’s own “version of the substance of the case.” Brewington’s trial was never about the alleged victims in the case and Negangard explicitly stated such during closing arguments:

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

Brewington’s criminal proceedings were never about threats to reputation or safety, because Negangard explicitly said so. Negangard sought and obtained indictments against Brewington under the pretense of intimidation because Negangard argued convictions for intimidation were necessary to prevent Brewington from perverting our system of justice and to hold Brewington accountable like an attorney. These are simply the facts of this case. The State cannot merely retract Negangard’s statements. In an act of inane arrogance, Negangard openly admitted that the State of Indiana sought convictions against Brewington to prevent the fall of the rule of law and ultimately the United States of America. Brewington could not invite this error. Brewington could not defend himself against such. Negangard’s statement serves as a confession that Brewington’s criminal proceedings were beyond unconstitutional, while Judge Hill and Bryan Barrett allowed Negangard to seek convictions against Brewington for perverting the judicial system. Brewington was held on a $500,000 surety/$100,000 cash bond. Brewington was denied access to legal counsel. Brewington was denied the right to an impartial judge. Brewington was denied access to evidence and indictment information. The Dearborn Superior Court II excluded portions of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony. There is no contesting the fact that Negangard affirmatively stated that Negangard sought indictments and criminal convictions against Brewington, under the pretense of intimidation laws, for the “greater good” of protecting the integrity of the judicial system. These are the facts of the case as explained by former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard that appear on pages 504-505 of the official transcripts in Brewington’s criminal trial. Brewington is not twisting facts. These are facts of the case as alleged by Negangard, the man who currently serves as Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill.


If this Court should deem this action to be more appropriate for a federal jurisdiction due to reluctance in dealing with abuses by high ranking Indiana officials, Brewington requests the Court to issue an order consistent with such a concern.  

The following is a link to Brewington's Request for Summary Disposition 


Wednesday, May 31, 2017

5 Arguments used by Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill to Obstruct Access to Altered Grand Jury Records

This is an "either/or situation." Either Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard made Dan Brewington the target of an unconstitutional grand jury investigation for criminal defamation; or the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana omitted constitutionally permissible grounds for Brewington's indictments from the grand jury audio and transcripts to help former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard obtain criminal convictions against Dan Brewington. Rather than hold people accountable for the illegal conduct, the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill joined the fight for the Defense against Brewington’s lawsuit seeking access to the full record of his already public grand jury investigation. The following are easily disproved arguments and statements by Defendants and the Attorney General in their efforts to cover-up misconduct involving Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill’s new Chief Deputy, F. Aaron Negangard.    

1.)  "Brewington has, in fact, received the transcripts and audio recordings of the Grand Jury proceedings related to his investigation.” 

-- Page 28 of the Indiana Supreme Court opinion in Brewington v. State states, “Specifically, the prosecutor argued two grounds for Defendant’s convictions, one entirely permissible (true threat) and one plainly impermissible (‘criminal defamation’ without actual malice).” The record of the grand jury demonstrates Negangard provided the grand jury with only the unconstitutional “criminal defamation” ground for Brewington’s indictments. See page 338 of the transcription of the grand jury investigation of Dan Brewington. (Readers are encouraged to review the entire transcript if they have any doubts about Brewington’s claim that Negangard failed to provide any constitutional ground or instruction for making Brewington the target of a grand jury investigation. Readers should also note the investigation lacks any introduction as to the target and nature of the investigation currently before the grand jury, which Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill claims is not required.)

2.)  “The audio recordings of Grand Jury proceedings should never be disclosed, and should not have been disclosed.” 

-- The record of Brewington’s grand jury proceedings became public record during the course of Brewington’s 2011 criminal proceedings. The entities responsible for what the Indiana Attorney General argues to be the erroneous release of the grand jury record are Rush Superior Judge Brian Hill (Special Judge to the Dearborn Superior Court II) and former Dearborn Court Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; aka the a Defendant currently represented by the Indiana Attorney General, and the current Chief Deputy to the Indiana Attorney General.

3.)  “Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) allows the disclosure of transcript of testimony of a witness before a grand jury but ‘only after a showing of particularized need for the transcript.’ Even if Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) did apply, it clearly states that someone may only receive the transcript ‘after a showing of particularized need for the transcript.’” 

-- Defendants argued Brewington failed to show a “particularized need” for the grand jury record, yet Defendant Judge Hill did not place the same “particularized need” requirement on Negangard when the Chief Deputy Attorney General sought to admit the grand jury record as evidence during Brewington’s bond reduction hearing on August 17, 2011. According to the Indiana Attorney General, Defendant Hill and Chief Deputy Negangard essentially conspired to violate Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) because neither made any effort to inquire about or explain the relevancy of admitting the grand jury record as evidence in a public trial: 
MR. NEGANGARD: State's 4 is the Grand Jury testimony in this case your honor.
COURT: Any objection to that Mr. Barrett?
MR. BARRETT: No your honor.
COURT: State's 4 is offered and admitted.
MR. NEGANGARD: State's 5 is the internet postings and all the Grand Jury Exhibits that were presented during the course of the grand jury. It's on a CD.
COURT: And those postings were the exhibits in the Grand Jury?
MR. NEGANGARD: Yes
COURT: Okay. Any objection to 5?
MR. BARRETT: No objection your honor.
COURT: I'll show State's 5 offered and admitted. 
By arguing that a showing of a "particularized need" is required prior to disclosure of a transcript of witness testimony, the Indian Attorney General acknowledges that Brewington was denied additional charging information and/or evidence during Brewington's criminal proceedings. Defendant Judge Hill knew placing the same "particularized need" requirement on Negangard when submitting the grand jury record as evidence would have forced Negangard to provide Brewington with some understanding of the prosecution's case against Brewington.

4.)  “Brewington received the audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings ‘pertaining to the case of State of Indiana vs Daniel Brewington, Cause No: 15D02-1103-FD00084.’” 

-Attorney General Curtis Hill continues to emphasize that Brewington received all audio despite the claim being patently false. See this example of how one grand jury audio file cuts off before the end of the sentence appearing in what was supposed to be the transcription of the same audio. The 11-second file from the Dearborn Superior Court II appears “as-is”. If Brewington received all audio, then Chief Court Reporter Ruwe made up the last part of the sentence. If Ruwe didn’t make up parts of the transcription, the audio was altered to omit content.

5.)  “Brewington claims there is a conflict of interest ‘given that the release of the Grand Jury Audio will demonstrate how Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process ....’ Brewington's claim is based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of a conflict of interest. First, even if Brewington's hypothetical conspiracy theory were true, the interest would not be materially adverse, Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1. 7 - 1.11, but would actually be the same in both cases.” 

-- Page 338 of the grand jury transcript demonstrates Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard convened a grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington because Brewington made “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about officials operating within the Dearborn County Courts. If the grand jury record is complete, as the Office of the Indiana Attorney General argues, then Negangard failed to present a constitutionally sufficient ground for convening a grand jury. If Negangard argued the same “true threat” ground for Brewington’s indictment that was argued during trial, the “true threat” ground was omitted from the record of the grand jury. As the grand jury audio is void of the “true threat” ground for Brewington’s indictment, the grand jury audio had to be modified to exclude such. The only way for the conspiracy to not be true is if the Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe acted alone in modifying the transcription of the grand jury record and then later altered the grand jury audio to match; without the knowledge of the Defendants or (then) Dearborn County Prosecutor Negangard. Even if Chief Deputy Negangard and Defendant Judge Hill were unaware of Ruwe omitting indictment information at the time of Brewington’s trial, the petition filed by the Office of Attorney General Curtis Hill still contends that Brewington enjoyed a fair criminal process. The interests of the Indiana Attorney General are obviously averse to Defendants because it was only after being represented by the Attorney General did the Defendants begin to claim it was their own erroneous rulings that made the grand jury record public. If one objectively reviews the contention of the Indiana Attorney General regarding conflict of interest, a conflict only exists in the absence of a conspiracy where the judges acknowledge and release already releasable public records. Judges are not allowed to arbitrarily disregard their own rulings to restrict access to records on the advice of defense counsel, regardless of whether counsel is the Indiana Attorney General. Ignoring the fact that Brewington’s grand jury proceeding has been part of the public record since 2011 is simply an attempt to suppress the fallout resulting from both the unconstitutional grand jury investigation and criminal trial brought by former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; the current Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney Curtis Hill.

The following are links to some of the recent petitions filed in Brewington’s lawsuit seeking the complete grand jury audio under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) and Brewington’s action seeking Post-Conviction Relief from the unconstitutional grand jury and criminal proceedings:
Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum in APRA lawsuit.
Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, where Defendants seek relief from their own rulings by claiming the already public records are not public.
Brewington’s Amended Response to Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgement that proves the grand jury record is public record because it includes statements and rulings by the Defendants that verify the grand jury record has been public record since 2011.
Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum in Brewington’s Post-Conviction Relief case. The pleading demonstrates how Negangard forced Brewington to rely on the complete transcript of the grand jury investigation for specific indictment information and then demonstrates how Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe omitted Negangard’s opening arguments from the transcription of the grand jury proceedings; denying Brewington the ability to prepare a defense for trial.
Brewington’s Request for Order to Compel Release of Grand Jury Audio filed in the PCR court. Dearborn County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens represents the State in this case. Deddens is unable to claim the grand jury audio is not subject to release because Deddens lacks Attorney General Hill’s ability to ignore the fact that an Indiana trial court has already ruled that the grand jury proceedings in Brewington’s case are public record.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General Lied about Grounds for Prosecution

Constitutional law prohibits prosecutors from requesting convictions against defendants for reasons other than their guilt. The following is an interview from 2013 when Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard served as Dearborn County Prosecutor. Despite Negangard alleging that my convictions were based on true threats of physical harm and arson, Negangard made no such argument during trial. The altered grand jury transcripts, which were altered by the Dearborn Superior Court II, are void of Negangard giving any true threat instruction for my indictments. The quote scrolling across the top of the screen in the video is the argument Negangard made for my convictions.




The grand jury transcripts in my case demonstrate Negangard made me the target of a grand jury investigation in the absence of a crime. Negangard argued I made "unsubstantiated statements" about Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey and Dr. Edward J. Connor, a psychologist often used by Dearborn County Courts. Negangard did not prosecute me for making threats of physical harm. Negangard made me a target of a grand jury investigation and prosecuted me for criticizing officials in the Dearborn County Court System. Now Negangard's new boss, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, is representing the Defendants in my lawsuit seeking the audio from the grand jury proceedings in my case. If Negangard presented a true threat ground for my indictments, Negangard had the true threat ground omitted from the transcription of the audio to deprive me of charging information. If Negangard failed to present a true threat ground for returning intimidation indictments, then the above video is further evidence of Negangard doubling down in Negangard’s efforts to retaliate against my First Amendment Speech. Now, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is saddled with the task of not only representing the defendants in my public records lawsuit, but Hill also bears the responsibility of keeping the records out of the public eye to protect F. Aaron Negangard, Hill’s Chief Deputy Attorney General.

Monday, April 3, 2017

More Examples of Grand Jury Abuses by Officials under Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill

In addition to changing the official record of grand jury proceedings, Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process by viciously attacking and interrupting a grand jury witness whom Negangard claimed to suffer from psychological problems. That witness happened to be me. During opening arguments in my trial on October 3, 2011, Negangard read from a child custody evaluation released by Dr. Edward J. Connor on August 29, 2007:
“I'm going to read to you some findings about Dan Brewington because I think it's important to note that Dr. Connor hits the nail on the head when it comes to how he describes Dan Brewington…[Brewington] has a severe attention deficit disorder that affects his ability to focus and concentrate. He rambles and forgets, is given to impulsive and incoherent thought. He cannot communicate with the mother with the skills necessary to conduct joint custody. He also gave him a test. The test results said he had a degree of psychological disturbance that is concerning.” Trial transcript pg. 10
First thing to note is Negangard failed to mention the above referenced child custody evaluation recommended that I have near-equal parenting time with my 1 and 3-year-old daughters, which included overnights and weekends. If Negangard really believed I was unable to focus or concentrate and I rambled and forgot what I was saying, Negangard attempted to take advantage of my alleged disability during my voluntary testimony before the grand jury by constantly yelling at and interrupting me. If Negangard believed I was unstable, then Negangard tried his best to light the fuse. When I refused to be baited into Negangard’s trap, his tirades became so abusive that near the end of the below dialogue appearing in the grand jury transcripts, I tried to calmly address the members of the grand jury in an attempt to escape Negangard’s toxic attacks.
MR. NEGANGARD: And you didn't like his opinion either.
DAN: Well because, who?
MR. NEGANGARD: Judge Humphrey.
DAN: Well Judge Humphrey, well the problem was...
MR. NEGANGARD: Yes or no. Did you like Judge Humphrey's...
DAN: Well which opinion are you talking about?
MR. NEGANGARD: His final order.
DAN: The final order?
MR. NEGANGARD: Yes.
DAN: He terminated my parenting time with what Dr. Conner said...
MR. NEGANGARD: Well actually he didn't terminate your parenting time.
DAN: Yes he did.
MR. NEGANGARD: Did he?
DAN: Yes.
MR. NEGANGARD: No, he said, all you have to do, he said you have parenting time pursuant to, all you have to do is get a custody, is get a psychiatric evaluation.
DAN: That's why my case was on appeal. [Humphrey] said that he didn't have jurisdiction any more.
MR. NEGANGARD: [Humphrey] said all you have to do was get a psychiatric evaluation.
DAN: Yes and I was, I was, I tried to get a hearing for that and my hearing was set for June, June 14th...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...you never got a psychiatric evaluation. Correct?
DAN: It just got approved. It's Dr. [Lawlor] and uh, uh, well, let me back up. I had a hearing set for June 14th, it took a, by the final decree in my divorce, by the way there was no mentioning of terminating my parenting time.
MR. NEGANGARD: There was no mention of terminating your parenting time in the final decree.
DAN: Okay, what's the final decree say? Do I get any parenting time
MR. NEGANGARD: That you're not entitled to visitation. it doesn't say terminating visitation, now does it?
DAN: What's that mean? Did he terminate my visitation?
MR. NEGANGARD: No. Until you undergo a mental health evaluation. What is wrong with that?
DAN: Okay, then he terminated then...
MR. NEGANGARD: If you really cared about your children, why wouldn't you have gotten the evaluation?
DAN: Well because the burden of proof shouldn't be on
MR. NEGANGARD: ...if you really cared...
DAN: ...I did get an evaluation....
MR. NEGANGARD: ...about your children...
DAN: ...here's the problem...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...you didn't get an evaluation.. ,
DAN: Yes I did.
MR. NEGANGARD: No you didn't.
DAN: Because on March 13 th, March 17th, I had an attorney, well up until then, Judge Humphrey said he didn't...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...you represented yourself. Correct?
DAN: Well yes up until then, March 17 th, Judge Humphrey said he didn't have jurisdiction of the case because it was in appeal. I got an attorney. He filed a motion so we had a motion to approve a psychiatrist, a Dr. Henry Waite in Cincinnati where both me and my ex-wife reside and Judge Humphrey set a date, in fact, June 14, 2009 or 2010 Five days before that Judge Humphrey recused himself because of, this investigation I guess because I guess you spoke with him or somebody did.
MR. NEGANGARD: That was a long time after this order was issued.
DAN: Yes because he said that...
MR. NEGANGARD: You had plenty of time to get a psychiatric evaluation but instead you chose to appeal it. Correct?
DAN: Well that's the other thing it was he said I had to pay a hundred and twenty.-two thousand dollars ($122,000.00) for the future interest of a trust in farmland that I'm not entitled to so...
MR. NEGANGARD: But that wouldn't prevent you from getting a psychiatric evaluation so you could get your visitation...
DAN: Well I got a psychiatric evaluation. I got two (2) of them. I got one from a Hamilton County Court. I got one from Dr. Henry Waite. I wasn't allowed to bring those because I couldn't approve it. Here I got that...
MR. NEGANGARD: Isn't it true in your internet writings you said how you would not submit to a psychiatric evaluation?
DAN: That was at the very beginning because I was concerned. Okay, let's back up. The problem was, I wasn't given a copy of Dr. Conner's case file, which is...
MR. NEGANGARD: You got several documents...
DAN: Okay.
MR. NEGANGARD: ...you didn't get what you wanted. You didn't get your wife's stuff that you wanted to post on the....
DAN: I didn't get everything
MR. NEGANGARD: ...internet
DAN: ...I didn't get everything...
MR. NEGANGARD: Correct?
DAN: No. It had...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...so what...
DAN: ...nothing to do with that
MR. NEGANGARD: So what, you had this evaluation, you couldn't do a, you couldn't...
DAN: Mr. Negangard you got...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...no, I want you to try...
DAN: ...your facts wrong...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...and finally wake up. Everybody's at fault -- Judge Humphrey's at fault, Dr. Corner's at fault, Amy Streator's at fault, Tom Blondell's at fault, Mike Kreinhop's at fault...
DAN: ...see this is what he does...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...I'm. at fault, the Court of Appeals is...
DAN: ...that's what he does...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...at fault, the Indiana Supreme Court is at fault...
DAN: ...because that's what people like this do. They...
MR. NEGANGARD: ...is that whose all...
DAN: ...point at the person and say they're crazy.
MR. NEGANGARD: ...is that whose all at fault?
DAN: Well hold on.
MR. NEGANGARD: I mean because you've stated in your testimony that all those people are wrong and you're the only one that's right. Correct?
DAN: Let me just read this stuff real quick. Here's the history...
MR. NEGANGARD: Well answer the question. Are all those people wrong and you're the only one that's right? 
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill was aware of the above conduct but instead of taking action to protect the public from abuses of the grand jury process, Attorney General Hill rewarded Negangard’s conduct with a promotion. If Hill did address my case with Negangard, Negangard probably just brushed it off as Brewington being crazy; however, if Negangard believed that I suffered from psychological disorders, then Negangard sought to take full advantage of my disability behind closed doors. If Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard did not believe I suffered from the psychological dysfunction mentioned in Connor’s report, then Negangard knew I was correct in criticizing Dr. Edward J. Connor and Judge James D. Humphrey but made me a target of a grand jury investigation for doing so.
Therefore Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill does not want the Dearborn Superior Court II to release the full audio record from my grand jury proceedings. If the above is part of what Negangard allowed to be included in the record of the proceedings, there is no telling what information Negangard kept out of the record.
 Here is a link to more information regarding two separate court cases pertaining to the grand jury abuses committed by the right hand man of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. 

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Summary Judgment: Two Legal Proceedings, The Same Abused Grand Jury

DEARBORN COUNTY, IN- In documents dated March 31, 2017, an Ohio man filed motions for summary judgment in two separate court cases involving accusations of grand jury record tampering. In 2011, Daniel Brewington was convicted of intimidation of court officials and served 2.5 years behind bars. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld Brewington’s convictions claiming Brewington’s critical internet speech contained “true threats [that] were carefully veiled” and did not enjoy first amendment protections. Now Brewington is suing for access to grand jury audio and seeking relief from his convictions. Grand jury transcripts demonstrate former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard omitted a “true threat” argument from the record of the grand jury, while providing only an unconstitutional criminal defamation ground for indictments; leaving Brewington unable to mount a defense against the “true threat” ground the Indiana Supreme Court relied on to uphold Brewington’s convictions. In addition to being void of a “true threat” argument, the grand jury transcripts in Brewington’s case begin at witness testimony, requiring Negangard to either advise the court reporter to not record the entire proceedings, or to omit any opening arguments from the transcription of the grand jury audio. If Negangard failed to present a “true threat” ground for Brewington’s indictments, Negangard made Brewington a target of a grand jury investigation despite the absence of any criminal activity. Last year the Indiana Public Access Counselor issued an opinion deeming the grand jury audio to be a releasable public record and found the varying excuses for refusing to release the audio were invalid exceptions under Indiana law. Adding interest to the story is the fact Negangard now serves as Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. In the lawsuit seeking the audio, Brewington has also requested the Court to disqualify Attorney General Hill’s office from representing the Defendants due to Chief Deputy Negangard’s involvement in the matter. Hill’s office is arguing the Dearborn Superior Court II is entitled to immunity from civil actions seeking public records. No hearings have been set on either matter.