Monday, May 2, 2016

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


Thursday, April 28, 2016

Email to Indiana Public Access Counselor re: Judge Hill's Obstruction of Public Records

Below is a copy of my email to the Indiana Public Access Counselor. I wanted to provide some insight into why Judge Brian Hill is so adamant about obstructing the release of the audio record from a grand jury proceeding in which the transcripts are already public record.

April 28, 2016

Indiana Public Access Counselor,

I want to thank the Office of the Public Access Counselor for its professionalism in addressing my complaint. Unfortunately, others do not share your same level of professionalism as Judge Brian Hill has apparently decided not to comply with Advisory Opinion issued by your office. I have yet to receive a copy of an amended order directing the release of the grand jury audio in question. Hill has not provided any explanation why he has decided not to release the records per Hill's agreement with the PAC.  I included this information in a new complaint to the PAC that deals with Hill's failure to respond to my request for the entire transcription of the grand jury proceedings. The following is a link to my complaint to the PAC, dated April 27, 2016.

The delay or change of mind by Judge Hill does not come as a surprise. It was only recently I discovered the rules governing the reporting of trial court proceedings also apply to grand jury proceedings. At some point Dearborn County Superior Court II Reporter Barbara Ruwe and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard came to an agreement that Ruwe would not prepare an accurate and complete transcript of the proceeding because the transcripts are void of any procedural conversation prior to the transcripts opening with witness testimony. This of course put me at a tremendous disadvantage. The indictments in my case were void of any specific actions or dates. The prosecution informed Hill that any specifics of the State's case could be gleaned from the complete transcript of the grand jury proceeding and then the prosecution snuck in an abridged transcription of the proceedings. Any alteration of the grand jury record would have to be approved by a judge. It is unclear whether Judge McLaughlin or Judge Hill approved the secret alteration of the grand jury record. The notion that Ruwe made unauthorized changes to a grand jury record to assist the prosecution without the approval of a judge seems highly unlikely. Doing so would not only require conspiring with Prosecutor Negangard to deprive a criminal defendant of constitutionally sufficient charging information, a violation of federal civil rights laws, but it would also hinge on the assumption that neither Hill nor McLaughlin would report the criminal activity. Taking everything into account, Hill ordering Ruwe to prepare copies of the grand jury audio for public access is akin to Hill ordering Ruwe to dig Ruwe and Negangard's professional graves. The "X" factor in the scenario is whether Hill authorized the secret alterations. If Hill did approve of the unlawful modification of the grand jury record, ordering Ruwe to make the audio available to the public would be requesting Ruwe to dig a hole for Hill as well. Even if Ruwe accidently recorded only a portion of the grand jury proceedings, neither Ruwe, Negangard, nor Hill took any measures to notify Brewington so Brewington could take appropriate measures to determine what specific actions Negangard alleged to be unlawful.

I understand the PAC is not a disciplinary entity not does the PAC possess the authority to force Hill to honor Hill's own agreement to release the grand jury audio. I provided this addition information to the PAC for added perspective to why Judge Hill appears belligerently opposed to releasing an already public record. The PAC is free to add any content of this email to my April 27, 2016. If formality is required, I would gladly attach the email to an official complaint form. As this case involves the less than scrupulous actions of law enforcement and judicial officials, I also attached a cover letter to those entities listed as being copied to the complaint. The cover letter makes note of my concerns of further prosecutorial and/or judicial retaliation by Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Judge Brian Hill.  A copy of the cover letter and complaint to the PAC can be found at http://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2016/04/for-those-searching-for-my-latest.html.html


Thank you for your time and patience in this matter. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Dan Brewington

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Did Judge Brian Hill authorize "modifications" to official grand jury record to help Prosecution?

For those searching for my latest complaint to the Indiana Public Access Counselor click the below link. See how many people were copied to the complaint and supporting documents demonstrating that Judge Brian Hill knew Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard conspired with Barbara Ruwe, the Chief Court Reporter for the Dearborn County Superior Court II, to alter the record of a grand jury proceeding to unlawfully hinder a defendant's civil rights. The question remains, what judge authorized the modification of a normally secretive grand jury proceeding? Dearborn Superior Court II Judge Sally McLaughlin or Special Judge Brian Hill from Rush County Superior Court? Maybe the FBI or US Justice Department will figure something out because they were copied to the complaint too.

http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Public_Access_Complaint_Mailer.pdf

Stay tuned for more information.

Monday, April 4, 2016

Court may be forced to admit Grand Jury Fraud in Dearborn County, Indiana

It may come down to this. Judge Brian Hill denied my public records request to release the audio from the Grand Jury proceedings because it is likely that audio is different from the transcripts.I'm still waiting from a ruling from the Indiana Office of the Public Access Counselor on the matter. In the meantime, here's my request for the release of the entire Grand Jury transcripts. If Judge Hill claims that I am not entitled to the entire transcript, the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor lied when Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor told the Court that the transcripts were complete. Kisor instructed the Court that I was to rely on the complete transcript to determine what actions of mine the State alleged to be illegal. If Hill says the transcripts are complete, then Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard has to explain how Negangard began the proceedings without giving any instruction or comments to the grand jury or without making any other statements on record prior to calling the State's first witness. This is like whittling down a big oak tree with a dull pocket knife but it appears as if there may be a little light at the end of the tunnel with my Request for Complete Copy of Grand Jury Transcripts.  Stay tuned for more information.

Friday, March 4, 2016

Complaint against Dearborn Superior Court II for obstructing access to Grand Jury Records

This post is a must read to anyone interested in government transparency especially as it relates to the normally secretive grand jury process. The Dearborn County (IN) Superior Court II is refusing, in the absence of any statutory reason, to release the audio from a grand jury proceeding despite the grand jury exhibits and the transcription of the audio already being public record.

I filed a Formal Complaint to the Office of the Public Counselor for the State of Indiana regarding the refusal of the Dearborn County Superior Court II to release the audio record from a grand jury proceeding despite the transcripts of the proceedings already being public record. [In case of any doubts as to the record of the grand jury record being public, here are the transcripts from the proceedings.] Special Judge Brian Hill has issued three different orders regarding the release of the grand jury audio. In response to prior requests for public records, on January 12, 2012, Judge Hill ordered the court reporter to prepare compact disc recordings of the grand jury proceedings of February 28, 2011, March 1, 2011, and March 2, 2011. On February 2, 2012, Judge Hill issued a new order stating the grand jury audio was not admitted into evidence and since there were no audio recordings in the case, Hill rendered the request “moot.” When I requested the grand jury audio on January 29, 2016, Hill filed his February 4, 2016 order denying my request claiming “there’s been no sufficient reason set forth which would necessitate the release of said audio recordings”, despite Indiana statute requiring a public agency to “state the statutory exception authorizing the withholding of all or part of the public record.” The grand jury record is public because Hill admitted the transcripts as evidence during trial. Even holding that somehow the release of an audio record is different than the written record, Hill failed to mention how that affected the release of the audio. He just said I didn’t give a “good enough reason.”


The dirty secret is someone contacted Judge Hill and told him not to release the grand jury audio. Why else would Judge Hill suddenly remember three weeks later that no audio was admitted during trial? Hill also claimed a pretrial hearing on July 18, 2011 did not take place. So what is the problem? It appears that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard instructed Barbara Ruwe, court reporter for the Dearborn County Superior Court II, to transcribe only witness testimony and what Negangard wanted her to transcribe. [Barbara Ruwe is the court reporter for Judge Sally McLaughlin (formerly Blankenship). McLaughlin is the same judge who set my bond at $600K because the prosecution argued I did not respect the authority of the Courts.] There is no record of interaction between the grand jury and Prosecutor Negangard. The transcripts depict the jurors just appearing at the grand jury proceedings to listen to the first witness without any instruction. Negangard instructed the court reporter to prepare a transcript that was tailored to the advantage of the prosecution. A problem lies in the fact that during a pretrial hearing Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor stated there was a complete transcript of the grand jury proceedings. Even more suspicious is that the pretrial hearing happened to occur on July 18, 2011; same pretrial hearing Judge Hill claimed to have never taken place. The hearing was later “found” when Judge Brian Hill was informed that people prepared affidavits attesting to their presence at the July 18th hearing. This is clearly a situation where if nobody has anything to hide then just produce the record. Stay tuned for more details.  

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Committee advised me to commit a crime

I sent an email to the Indiana Supreme Court Commission on Judicial Qualifications in an effort to advise the Commission of the circumstances regarding less the than honest efforts of the Dearborn County Superior Court II in addressing requests for public records. Adrienne Meiring, legal counsel for the Commission stated, “The Commission cannot consider your concerns unless you file a complaint.” The problem is Ms. Meiring’s boss, Indiana Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush Chair of the Commission, upheld my criminal convictions by finding that my prior complaint against court psychologist Dr. Edward J. Connor to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology played a role in my alleged criminal intimidation and attempted obstruction of justice. Ms. Meiring’s email included a complaint form, which states I could not be held civilly liable for filing a complaint. Unfortunately, there are no provisions to protect people from being criminally liable for filing complaints against court officials. Of course, this all comes from Adrienne Meiring, the same person whom Judge Humphrey testified is the person that advised Humphrey to remain on my divorce case in an effort to protect other Indiana judges from me. Here is my response to the Commission that includes links to supporting documentation. 

Amended Request for Grand Jury Audio

It should come to no surprise that the Dearborn County Superior Court II disregards fact and Indiana law when addressing transparency through the release of public records. In the Court’s order denying my request, Special Judge Brian Hill stated, “Mr. Brewington has alleged that these audio recordings were admitted into evidence at his criminal trial, however, the Court finds that they were not, and there's been no sufficient reason set forth which would necessitate the release of said audio recordings.” Of course I never alleged the audio was admitted during trial and Indiana Code 5-14-3-1 clearly "place[s] the burden of proof for the nondisclosure of a public record on the public agency that would deny access to the record and not on the person seeking to inspect and copy the record." Please note that the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings in my case are already public record. The only reason NOT to release the audio from the grand jury is to protect public officials who have abused the grand jury process. Feel free to review the Amended Request for Grand Jury Audio.


In the alternative that the Court would make a claim that it does not maintain the record, I have also sent a public records request to Dearborn Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard for the Grand Jury Audio from the investigative file.