UPDATE 3:53 PM. NOTE: An IP address from the Indiana Supreme Court was on this blog today around 11:45 AM. This is the same IP address that is responsible for over 150 hits on www.danhelpskids.com since May 27, 2010. This could be someone investigating the matters involving Dr. Edward J. Connor, Judge Carl H. Taul, Judge James D. Humphrey, Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard, etc... or it could be the Indiana Appellate Court checking the blog and website before they rule on my current motion for a rehearing. The Indiana Appellate Court previously ruled that I was provided with everything from Dr. Connor's file that was required by statute. Funny how they could come up with that considering that Judge Humphrey and I couldn't figure out what part of Dr. Connor's case file that I was missing. BTW, on June 13, 2008, Judge Carl Taul stated, "The Order to [Dr. Connor] to release was to release that which he was obligated to do under Kentucky law." Either the Indiana Appellate Court is proficient in Kentucky law, or Judge Taul lied about an order to protect Dr. Connor. I'm going with the latter because there seems to be a lot of that going around.
This is one of the many reasons why I hate Judge James D. Humphrey. This is from the transcripts from the April 29, 2009 hearing on my motion dealing with the admissibility of Dr. Connor’s evaluation. Pardon my French, but what dumbass keeps asking what part of the case file I don’t have when I don’t have the case file? Judge Humphrey; that’s who. Judge Humphrey denied my motion stating, “The Court further places Mr. Brewington’s request in context of what appears to be threats to disclose information to cause harm to [Wife].” Funny, in over two years of going through a divorce, I had yet to do anything to cause harm to my, now, ex-wife. Judge Humphrey was trying to bait me into saying that I wanted her medical/psychological records but I wouldn’t bite. It didn’t matter, he went with it anyway. Nothing more than premeditated child abuse on the part of Judge Humphrey.
Court: What, in particular, are you requesting, sir, that you have not received?
Dan: The case file. I’m requesting what’s -- I’m requesting what’s required to be given, uh --
Court: Give me specifics. What are you requesting?
Dan: Uh, let’s see. In a custody preceding, after evidence is submitted --let’s see--
Court: Sir, I have the law here. Tell me what you’re requesting.
Dan: Okay. Well, I’m requesting --
Court: Tell me what you’re requesting that you don’t have.
Dan: I’m requesting the case file.
Court: What in the case file?
Dan: I’m requesting all of the information. I have some -- I have some of [Dr. Connor’s] notes that were blacked out. I don’t know what the blacked out sections are…(continued)… [Dr. Connor’s] claimed that this is -- that the petitioner signed an agreement for individual psychotherapy and he said it’s an adjunct document to a court order. Now I wasn’t provided the same information as the petitioner when we entered into this, so --
Court: Are you requesting your wife’s psychological and medical records? Is that what you’re asking for?
Dan: No, I’m requesting the case file, whatever is in the case file, because I’m entitled to it by law. It’s --
Court: I’m trying to find out from you, sir, exactly what in that case file you’re requesting that you do not have. That’s what -- I’m trying to find out what you’re requesting.
Dan: On December 15th, Dr. Connor sent me some notes that had been blackened out. I don’t know what the blackened out areas are. You know, I don’t have an opportunity to see that, so essentially I have none of it.
Court: So what you’re wanting to know is what’s blacked out on what was sent to you.
Dan: Well, I want all of the information, not blacked out, unaltered, because I’m entitled to it. That’s what I agreed to.
I don't think I could have made it any clearer.
No comments:
Post a Comment