Friday, September 16, 2016

Letter to Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry

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

Mr. Lowry,

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.”[1] 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 for your convenience.


Daniel P. Brewington
3 W Central Avenue
Delaware, Ohio 43015

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


Friday, September 2, 2016

New York Times Article says Dearborn County, IN has one of the Highest Incarceration Rates in US

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.


Thursday, September 1, 2016

Dearborn County Court Alters Grand Jury Records to Assist Prosecutor

Dearborn county, Indiana: An Ohio man filed documents in the Dearborn Superior Court I alleging the Dearborn Superior Court II altered grand jury transcripts and audio to assist Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard obtain convictions for criminal defamation and then obstructed access to the grand jury records. Dan Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a lawsuit seeking release of public records, claims the recently released audio from a 2011 grand jury investigation does not match the transcription of the proceedings released over five years ago. Brewington’s petition also states the Dearborn Superior Court II omitted dialogue between Prosecutor Negangard and grand jurors, failed to provide any record of the proceedings that occurred prior to witness testimony, and the Court reformatted and renamed audio files. Brewington’s lawsuit, filed July 14, 2016, claims the Superior Court II improperly denied access to the grand jury audio for nearly 4.5 years and the Indiana Public Access Counselor issued an opinion agreeing with Brewington. The case is currently on hold pending the appointment of a special judge by the Indiana Supreme Court after Ripley Circuit Court Judge Ryan King declined the appointment of Special Judge following the recusal of Dearborn Superior Court I Judge Jonathan Cleary. Requests for copies of grand jury records can be address to

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Brewington files Motion for Summary Judgment due to Altered Grand Jury Audio

The following is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the case of Daniel Brewington v. Dearborn Superior Court II and Judge Brian Hill. Brewington’s motion seeks judgment claiming the material facts of the case are indisputable and Brewington is entitled to relief base on the facts presented. The Dearborn Superior Court II failed to release the entire audio record of the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington, which the Indiana Public Access Counselor deemed a releasable public record. The Dearborn Superior Court II altered the official audio grand jury proceedings as the Superior Court II omitted the entire record of the grand jury proceedings prior to witness testimony. Chief Court reporter Barbara Ruwe’s transcription of the grand jury proceedings differs from the audio of the proceedings. The most significant irrefutable fact addressed in Brewington’s petition is any attempt by the Defendants to argue the grand jury audio is unaltered and complete serves as an admission of criminal conduct by several Dearborn County Officials. For these and other reasons, the only remedy for Brewington is for an order demanding that the Dearborn Superior Court II release the entire unedited audio record from the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington.

Feel free to view the entire written content of Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment places Indiana Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry in the position to argue Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and the Dearborn Superior Court II selectively recorded the grand jury proceedings to assist the prosecution of Brewington or that the Dearborn Superior Court II erased portions of the grand jury audio. See below to read the motion without exhibits and appendix.





)           Case No. 15001-1607-PL050

Plaintiff Daniel Brewington (“Brewington”) files this MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT against Defendants Dearborn Superior Court II (“DSC”) and Special Judge Brian Hill (“Hill”) in accordance with Indiana Trial Rules of Trial Procedure and in support as follows.
1.            “Grand Jury Audio” as discussed in Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment refers to the audio record from the grand jury investigation of Daniel P. Brewington, which took place on February 28, 2011, March 1, 2011, and March 2, 2011.
2.            On July 14, 2016, Brewington filed his pro se COMPLAINT UNDER INDIANA ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (“APRA”) AND FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF seeking said audio per the advice of the Indiana Public Access Counselor (“PAC”).
3.            In a letter dated July 14, 2016 (postmarked July 15, 2016) Chief Court Reporter for DSC Barbara Ruwe (“Ruwe”) informed Brewington the audio disc containing the Grand Jury Audio was available at a cost of $300.00. A copy of Ruwe’s letter attached hereto as “Exhibit A”. [Ruwe’s letter claims Brewington never confirmed he wanted copies of the grand jury audio, despite Brewington sending three letters to Ruwe dated May 23, 2016, May 23, 2016, and July 5, 2016. Ruwe also estimated the costs of preparing the audio to be $150 - $300 despite the audio files already being prepared. See “Appendix I” for copies of Brewington’s letters to Ruwe as well as information regarding how the DSC altered the official record of the grand jury audio prior to Brewington receiving the DSC order to release the audio.
4.            Brewington obtained a CD-R allegedly containing the Grand Jury Audio on July 19, 2016. A copy of CD-R containing Grand Jury Audio attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.
5.            Review of the Grand Jury Audio establishes the Dearborn County Superior Court II altered the grand jury audio, thus obstructing public access to the official record of the proceedings.
6.            It should first be noted that Hill and the DSC were both aware that the written transcription of the grand jury proceedings in question were incomplete and non-compliant with IC 35-34-2-3(d), yet took no action to address the issue. To the contrary, rather than investigate why Ruwe custom tailored the transcription of the grand jury record that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard (“Negangard”) submitted to the trial court during a hearing on August 17, 2011, the Defendants continued to generate excuses as to why release of the official audio is not appropriate. The Defendants have also failed to provide any explanation for Ruwe making unauthorized changes to the official record of a grand jury investigation.
7.            Failure to order the release of an unaltered copy of the official audio record of the grand jury record removes what few safeguards are available to the public against abuses of the grand jury process.
8.            The audio sought is a public record subject to release per the Office of the Public Access Counselor.
9.            There is no order by any court of law authorizing the omission or redaction of any material from the record of the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington.
10.         There are no marked redactions in the transcription of the grand jury audio. A digital copy of transcripts attached hereto as “Exhibit C”.
11.         The audio is not [emphasis added] a copy of the official audio record. The DSC omitted all audio in the grand jury proceedings that occurred prior to witness testimony.
12.         The DSC changed the format of the original audio files, deleted file names and then combined and renamed the larger audio files. “Exhibit D” is a copy of the audio from regular court proceedings occurring on September 19, 2011 and October 24, 2011 in the Dearborn Superior Court II. See “Appendix II” for an explanation of the varying recording methods used by the DSC.   
13.         There are statements in the transcripts that do not appear in the audio, which means Ruwe added additional content while transcribing the record or the DSC omitted portions of the audio that were previously available during transcription. See “Appendix III”
14.         In one instance of where the DSC edited the grand jury audio to match the transcripts from the same proceedings, the DSC removed over five minutes of audio, despite the transcripts portraying the dialogue on either side of the omitted audio to be uninterrupted. See “Appendix IV” for an explanation of how the DSC omitted portions of the grand jury proceedings by cutting and pasting the official record.
15.         In an order dated April 20, 2016, Hill stated, “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.” Regardless of Hill’s order, the court reporter does not have the authority to make arbitrary alterations to the official record of a legal proceeding.
16.         Despite the claims of Hill and the DSC, there are no other grand jury proceedings intertwined with Brewington’s proceedings because the audio is void of Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard (“Negangard”) making any mention of being “back on record” in the investigation of Brewington. See “Appendix IV” for a table documenting how the DSC allows Negangard to disappear and reappear on the official grand jury record without notice.
17.         In Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (2014), current Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush wrote that during trial, “the prosecutor argued two grounds for Defendant's convictions, one entirely permissible (true threat) and one plainly impermissible (‘criminal defamation’ without actual malice). See Tr. 455-56.” at 973. The DSC omitted the true threat instruction from the grand jury record and only included the “plainly impermissible (‘criminal defamation’ without malice)” instruction. The Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor instructed Brewington to rely entirely on the grand jury transcripts in order to subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial testing, while withholding the constitutionally permissible grounds for prosecution. Negangard and the DSC allowed Brewington’s public defender to prepare a defense against a prosecutorial argument that both Negangard and the DSC knew, or should have known, was “plainly impermissible.”
18.         “Summary judgment is appropriate only where the designated evidence shows there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T.R. 56(C). For summary judgment purposes, a fact is ‘material’ if it bears on the ultimate resolution of relevant issues.” Sony Dadc U.S. Inc. v. Thompson, 84A01-1507-CT-892 (July 13, 2016)
19.         Over twenty [20] days have expired since the commencement of the above action, per Trial Procedure Rule 56(a)
Any arguments against the above declarations requires the admission of Defendant’s illegal conduct

20.          An attempt to dispute this Motion for Summary Judgment places Defendants’ Counsel, Deputy Attorney General Joshua R. Lowry, in a precarious situation because Lowry must argue his clients, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, and possibly others engaged in a conspiracy to deprive civil rights.
21.          No judge authorized the modification of the grand jury record during Brewington’s proceedings.
22.         Any contention that Hill’s April 20, 2016 order gave Ruwe the authority to arbitrarily modify the official audio from the grand jury audio in copying the official record is an oxymoron as the copy is no longer “official”.
23.         Hill and the DSC cannot encroach on the public’s right to access public records by simply claiming non-releasable records are intertwined with otherwise releasable records. The DSC cannot deny access to public records due to incompetence by the DSC court reporter’s failure to hit “stop” and “record” between any alleged unrelated grand jury proceedings, which would have automatically created separate digital files.
24.         The grand jury record shows Negangard instructing the grand jury that Negangard and his staff believed Brewington violated Indiana’s intimidation statute by making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated statements” about officials operating within the Dearborn County Court System, which the Indiana Supreme Court deemed to be an unconstitutional prosecutorial argument. The DSC excluded the “true threat” instruction given to the grand jury and forced Brewington to trial in the absence of any “true threat” accusation.
25.         Any claim Ruwe received judicial approval to modify the grand jury record would have been ex parte in nature. Such order could have only come from Judge Sally McLaughlin (“McLaughlin”) or Hill. An ex parte order limiting a criminal defendant’s access to charging information would amount to a conspiracy by the DSC and Negangard to sabotage a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
26.         Any argument by the Deputy Attorney General that the audio is complete acknowledges a conscious effort between Negangard and Ruwe to selectively record only portions of the official proceeding that Negangard deemed “beneficial” to the record. In the alternative, Negangard initiated a grand jury investigation and obtained indictments against Brewington under an unconstitutional criminal defamation premise then introduced an entirely different prosecutorial argument during trial, thus obliterating any potential defense by Brewington.
27.         Any contention the audio is complete also acknowledges the DSC employs a different process of recording grand jury proceedings than trial proceedings, which fails to meet the requirements of IC 35-34-2-3(d): “The evidence and proceedings shall be recorded in the same manner as evidence and proceedings are recorded in the court that impaneled the grand jury.” The official record in any DSC proceeding does not begin at witness testimony and includes all dialogue between the prosecutor, judge, and members of the jury, unlike the grand jury record in question.
28.         An argument that the audio is complete also implicates Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop in misconduct, as Kreinhop was the witness before the grand jury in the timeframe spanning the five minutes of grand jury audio removed by the DSC. If the audio record is complete, Sheriff Kreinhop observed Negangard eliciting questions from jurors for Sheriff Kreinhop off the record and then instructing Ruwe to begin recording the proceedings at Prosecutor Negangard’s discretion; giving the appearance in the transcription that the questions appeared in real-time. The record of the grand jury proceedings demonstrate how Sheriff Kreinhop touted his experience as a law-enforcement officer and experience with the court system to assist Negangard in seeking indictments against Brewington; however, that experience would also make Kreinhop aware of the criminal aspect of a court reporter selectively recording grand jury proceedings to assist future prosecutions.   
29.         This Motion for Su­­mmary Judgment has established the DSC withheld an unknown amount of the audio from the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington.
30.         There is no “greater-good” standard in the State of Indiana that allows a public agency to secretly alter and/or withhold portions of public records while simultaneously maintaining the records to be complete.
31.         The record of the grand jury proceeding is void of any indication of “four to five” other intervening grand jury proceedings as claimed by Hill and the DSC. Such claim requires a declaration on record of the present case being presented to the grand jury. The absence of such declaration makes it impossible to determine the target of the grand jury investigation at any given time, thus reducing the accuracy of any transcription, not to mention potential confusion to grand jurors. 
32.         Placing any further trust in Hill and the DSC to accurately represent the grand jury record maintained by the DSC is akin to placing Bernie Madoff in charge of auditing his own investment practices in the criminal investigation of Madoff’s investment fraud.  
33.         The only means to determine whether the DSC withheld portions of the grand jury audio or whether Ruwe selectively recorded the proceedings at the direction of Negangard, is to release the entire unedited record.
34.         Anything short of an order demanding the release of the audio in its original format, gives the DSC another opportunity to obstruct the release of records from a grand jury investigation where Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process in order to punish protected speech. Unless this Court wishes to accept the notion that the Dearborn County Superior Court II is exempt from maintaining a record of the entire grand jury process (minus deliberations) as required by Indiana law, the Dearborn Superior Court II sponsors unconstitutional and illegal grand jury investigations.
35.         Given the criminal nature associated with altering grand jury records, First Amendment retaliation, and the actions by Hill and the DSC to obstruct public inquiry into such actions, a potential conflict may arise with the Office of the Indiana Attorney General serving as counsel for the Defendants. Deputy Attorney General Joshua R. Lowry is faced with the potential conflict of representing the Defendants in a civil case where the existence of criminal conduct by the Defendants, or at least known by the Defendants, is likely, thus jeopardizing the ability of the Indiana Attorney General to investigate the matter. The best-case scenario in this situation is Ruwe and Negangard conspired to produce a partial record of a grand jury proceeding to advance the prosecution of protected speech. The worst-case scenario is Judge Brian Hill and Judge Sally McLaughlin (formerly Blankenship) played an active role in the First Amendment retaliation and then actively obstructed the public’s access to the audio from the grand jury proceedings to cover-up the illegal conduct.
36.         Defendants have a history of referring to alleged paranoia and Brewington’s criminal convictions rather than addressing the above issues. Brewington’s requests for the grand jury audio came as a member of the public. Brewington only raises the issue of his criminal proceedings as they are relevant to this request and Brewington’s above statements are far from baseless or excessive suspicions given the unauthorized modifications to the official record of the grand jury proceeding. Rather than listen to Defendants’ allegations of perceived paranoia or ulterior motives, Brewington requests this Court to keep the Defendants’ focus on issues relevant to this cause of action, such as the DSC making unauthorized modifications to the official record of grand jury proceedings.
37.         Brewington seeks disclosure of an unedited copy of the Official Audio Record from the Grand Jury proceedings relating to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084.
38.         Brewington requests all fees and expenses associated with bringing this action.
WHEREFORE, Brewington requests that this Court: (1) issue Summary Judgment in Brewington’s favor declaring that the DSC failed to comply with the laws of the State of Indiana and the rules and procedures defined by the APRA; (2) enter an injunction ordering the Court Reporter of the Dearborn Superior Court II to promptly produce the entire unedited audio record (in its original format) of the Grand Jury Proceedings relating to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084; (3) award Brewington any attorneys’ fees and costs in prosecuting this action; and (4) award Brewington any other appropriate relief.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel P. Brewington
3 W Central Avenue
Delaware, Ohio 43015

Monday, July 25, 2016

Judge Sally McLaughlin's Court Altered Grand Jury Audio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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