Dear political candidates,
I am a 36 year old male with a college degree with no criminal or violent history and I am writing you and other elected officials to inform you that I probably will not be voting anymore. I have always been a socially conscience person and have participated in politics nearly all of my life. A year before I was born, my parents purchased their home and “inherited” the polling that took place in their basement from the previous owner. I used to get excited about sneaking into the basement on election days because a neighbor working the polls would show me how to vote. In 1981, elections moved out of our basement when my mother decided to run for city council. Even at an early age, I was involved in campaign fundraisers and door to door “lit drops”. I can remember being excited to vote for the first time in a presidential election in 1992. I’ve worked the polls for school levies. Unfortunately I have lost interest in voting. I have found that it doesn’t matter whom I vote for or which party I vote for because no one is interested in protecting my right to be a father. No one is interested in protecting my rights to defend my ability to be a father. I was blamed for dragging out my divorce because I questioned the ex parte communication between the judge and the custody evaluator even after the judge recused himself for violating the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct relating to ex parte communication. I was punished because I pointed out that the court and its unlicensed psychological expert were breaking the rules. I’ve tried to reach out to both Democrat and Republican elected officials but they say there is nothing that they can do. If elected officials cannot protect my children from judicial abuse, then what’s the point of voting? Education, health care, and the economy are irrelevant issues when compared to the fact that I am not able to see my children.
On August 18, 2009, Dearborn County (IN) Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey (R) terminated all of my visitation time with my three and five year old daughters. Prior to the termination of my parenting time, I had always played an equal role in raising my children. No one accused me of ever neglecting or abusing my children or their mother. There were no reports from the police or social services. I had a spotless parenting record. The custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor, recommended that the children’s mother have full custody but I should be able to continue to care for my daughters three days a week. It was only after I requested a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file that I became a “potential” hazard to my children’s emotion well being.
If a parent doesn’t have a constitutional right to be a part of their children’s lives, they should have a constitutional right to be able to properly defend their ability to be part of their children’s lives. On August 29, 2007, Dr. Edward J. Connor released his child custody evaluation report. On February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor contacted Ripley County (IN) Circuit Judge Carl H. Taul (D) to inform Judge Taul that Dr. Connor wanted to offer additional evaluation sessions because Dr. Connor claimed that his report contained “numerous errors and oversights”. Dr. Connor also stated that the parties were responsible for paying for the additional sessions to correct Dr. Connor’s “numerous errors and oversights”. When I requested a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from his evaluation report, per Dr. Connor’s contract and Indiana law, Dr. Connor sent a letter stating that he could not release the file. When I reminded Dr. Connor that his contract stated that I was entitled to the file, Dr. Connor stated that he would be “happy” to release the file to me once he confirmed that I was representing myself. After more ex parte communication with Judge Taul, Dr. Connor stated that he “interpreted” Judge Taul’s ruling to be that I was only entitled to the evaluation report and not the case file. In a letter to Judge Taul, dated April 16, 2008, Dr. Connor stated that his contract did state that the parties were entitled to the case file but he was not going to release the file to me because I did not have a lawyer. When I brought the matter to the Court, Judge Taul stated that the “Order to the Doctor to release was to release that which he was obligated to do under Kentucky law.” Judge Taul stated that he was not going to undertake ordering Dr. Connor to release Dr. Connor’s case file because Judge Taul stated he was not familiar with Kentucky law. On August 4, 2008, Dr. Connor stated in a letter that state and HIPAA laws prevented him from releasing the case file. During a hearing on November 24, 2008, Judge Taul claimed that he ruled that I was not entitled to Dr. Connor’s case file. On December 5, 2008, Judge Taul recused himself from the case.
Judge James D. Humphrey took over as Special Judge after the recusal of Judge Taul. Judge Humphrey denied my ability to review Dr. Connor’s case file. Over two and a half months after the final hearings of my divorce, without warning, Judge Humphrey terminated all of my parenting time with my children based on the testimony of Dr. Edward J Connor. Prior to Judge Humphrey’s order, no one had suggested that my parenting be terminated. Judge Humphrey wrote, “According to Dr. Connor’s testimony, Husband’s writings are similar to those of individuals who have committed horrendous crimes against their families.” None of these alleged writings were submitted as evidence and Judge Humphrey also wrote, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor.” When Dr. Connor began providing false information as to why he would not release the case file, I developed a website to share the information. There were no reports or testimony that I had ever placed my children in any emotion or physical danger yet Judge Humphrey terminated my parenting time because I publicized the actions of the Court’s expert.
Since the termination of my parenting time, I have run into several obstacles in trying to see my children. Judge Humphrey stated that I had to undergo another mental health evaluation, Dr. Connor’s evaluation report made no mention of me being a dangerous parent, by a mental health professional that first had to be approved by the Court. Judge Humphrey claimed he did not have the jurisdiction over the matter while the case was with the Indiana Court of Appeals. Judge Humphrey decided that he did have jurisdiction after I retained a lawyer. On March 17, 2010, Judge Humphrey set a hearing for June 13, 2010, on the approval of a psychiatrist. Just five days before the June 13, 2010 hearing, Judge Humphrey recused himself. Judge Humphrey informed my lawyer that there was an ongoing investigation that pertained to me.
On October 8, 2009, I was informed by Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit Detective Mike Kreinhop that I was under investigation for my internet writings. On November 2, 2009, Detective Kreinhop, who is currently the Republican candidate for Dearborn County Sheriff, drove to my mother’s house to speak to me. Detective Kreinhop tried to convince me that it was probably better that I did not pursue Dr. Connor because it would be better if I hired a lawyer to challenge Dr. Connor’s unethical and/or illegal practices. Detective Kreinhop refused to tell me any details of the investigation unless I would agree to meet in Dearborn County for questioning. I told Detective Kreinhop that my writings spoke for themselves and people could arrest me or sue me if I did something wrong, but I made sure that Detective Kreinhop was aware that any legal action against me would not go on without a jury of my peers. I did not hear anything about the investigation until Judge Humphrey recused himself. When I sent a request to Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard (R) for the records concerning the investigation of my internet writings, Prosecutor Negangard wrote, “Pursuant to Indiana Law, Investigatory records are confidential and are not to be disclosed.” When I notified Prosecutor Negangard and other elected officials about Prosecutor’s less than accurate account of the law, Prosecutor Negangard copied me to the following email:
Please be advised that Dan Brewington is currently under investigation by the Dearborn County Sheriff's department. Once he was advised of this by Judge James Humphrey who had to recuse himself from his case only recently he has attacked me or my office. [sic] I take this an effort to get me not to do my job of prosecuting those who violate the law.[sic] I assure you his efforts will not succeed. If he has violated the law then I will make every effort to prosecute him. However I will point out that this matter is still under investigation and until such time he is convicted he is presumed innocent. He is also incorrect regarding his request. He clearly asked for records pertaining to his investigation that are not to be disclosed under Indiana law. If any of you need any further information regarding this matter. Please do hesitate to contact me.[sic]
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blackberry
Not only did Aaron Negangard continue to claim that Indiana law prohibited the release of investigatory records, but he accused me of undermining his ability to prosecute people who violate the law and threatened to “make every effort to prosecute” me if I violate the law. All of this came after I sent documentation to Prosecutor Negangard’s office regarding Dr. Connor’s conduct. Detective Kreinhop had previously informed me that Dr. Connor’s conduct violated interstate mail and wire fraud laws.
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling that I was not entitled to Dr. Connor’s case file. The Appellate Court wrote, “We first note that I.C. § 31-17-2-12(c) does not require that Dr. Connor’s entire case file be provided to Daniel. All items specified by statute were provided.” Not only did the Indiana Court of Appeals state that “the investigator’s file of underlying data and reports” in I.C. § 31-17-2-12(c) did not include Dr. Connor’s case file, the Court went on to state that I was provided with all of the information from Dr. Connor’s case file that were required by statute while knowing that it would be impossible to determine if the requirements of the statute were met without releasing the file, or having a Judge review the contents of the file under camera. The Court went on to write, “During the pendency of the proceedings, Daniel posted information concerning the dissolution on his website and blog, in response to which [Wife] sought a protective order and a temporary restraining order on more than one occasion.” My wife filed only one protective/restraining order, requesting the Court to force me to take down my internet writings. After an hour long hearing, the Court denied her motion because the information was neither harassing nor harmful to her or the children. The Indiana Court of Appeals fabricated the information about the multiple filings. The Court also ruled “panel per curiam” so the names of the judges would not appear on the ruling.
Why should I vote? I talked to Republican Indiana State Senator Johnny Nugent’s office and they said there was nothing that they could do. I sent information to Democratic Indiana State Reprehensive Bob Bischoff and also met Mr. Bischoff in person but Mr. Bischoff never responded to my correspondence. I wrote to both US Senators from Indiana, Richard Luger (R) and Evan Bayh (D). Senator Lugar was kind enough to respond but stated that there was nothing he could do. Evan Bayh didn’t bother to respond. I even contacted President Barack Obama about my situation. President Obama is always preaching the importance of fathers being involved in their children’s lives. He just doesn’t want to deal with hard part of ensuring that fathers have the opportunity to fairly defend their parenting ability in a courtroom in the United States.
Elected officials do not want to get involved with fixing this problem because it is messy. The more you look at the situation, the messier it gets. Judge Humphrey’s wife was one of four advisors on the Ethics and Professionalism Committee for the Indiana Supreme Court. When I instructed people to send letters of concern to the Ethics and Professionalism Committee advisor located in Dearborn County, I became the subject of a secret investigation. Why should Heidi Humphrey be immune from getting letters of concern that pertain to her husband? The Humphrey family should have considered the possibility of a conflict of interest before the wife of a sitting judge took the role as an advisor on the Ethics and Professionalism Committee for the Indiana Supreme Court. It appears that the Committee realized that there was in fact a conflict of interest. Within a month or two of the time I encouraged people to contact the advisor for the Ethics and Professionalism Committee that was located in Dearborn County, Becky Goshorn, Ann Heimann, JoAnn Heimann, and Heidi Humphrey were replaced by a staff attorney from the Indiana Supreme Court. It appears that they were all wives of judges. The next question is did Indiana Appellate Judge Margret G. Robb preside over my appeal because she was on the Ethics and Professionalism Committee when all of the judges’ wives were removed from the committee. Dearborn County has a few ties to the higher courts in Indiana as Former Dearborn County Superior Court Judge Michael Witte was named executive secretary to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission this past May and Appellate Court Chief Justice John Baker is a native of Dearborn County.
Given the fact that the Indiana Appellate Court provided false information in their decision on my case, the above connections and events may seem a little suspicious. If you combine that with the fact that an IP address registered to the Indiana Supreme Court is responsible for 187 hits and 33 page views on www.danhelpskids.com and has also visited www.danbrewington.blogspot.com, there definitely seems to be something wrong going on. So who do I go to? Do I appeal to the Supreme Court? It appears that they have already conducted their own investigation of my website. Should I contact law enforcement? The last time I did that, Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard threatened to make every effort to prosecute me if I violated the law. I contacted members of the state and US congress and I was either ignored or told that there was nothing that could be done. President Barack Obama, whom preaches about fathers stepping up and playing an important role in their children’s lives, never got back with me.
That pretty much sums up why I won’t be voting anytime soon. That does not mean that I am giving up on my children or my responsibility to help other children and parents, it just means that I am giving up on my hopes that elected officials will take action to protect children and families from judicial impropriety and abuse. I will continue to face the threat of the Indiana Courts using my children as a means of extortion to pressure me into removing my web content. I will continue to face threats of prosecution from Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard and his year-long ongoing investigation of my internet writings. I can tell you that I have published nearly 100,000 words on the internet and I have yet to be sued or arrested. Judge Humphrey ruled that the writings were not harmful to the children. If I made any threats, I would have been arrested immediately. It appears that the Indiana Courts are upset because I publicly challenged their authority and the courts continue to punish my children for my actions. The Indiana Courts refuse to allow me to have access to the evidence that was used to terminate my parenting time and the elected officials refuse to take any action. It’s always “that’s the judicial branch; I’m in a different branch of government.” I know; I took government class. Child abuse by the judicial system is still child abuse. Unfortunately elected officials turn their heads when judges abuse little children. I cannot bring myself to vote for people who turn their backs on children.
 Judge Taul was the original judge in my case but later recused himself after engaging in numerous ex parte communications with Dr. Connor.
 Quote from the June 13, 2008 hearing on the release of Dr. Connor’s case file. Judge Taul claimed that there was an order from his Indiana court that instructed Dr. Connor to follow Kentucky law. Dr. Connor was not licensed to practice psychology in the state of Indiana. No such order is on the record.
 Indiana Code 31-17-2-12 states that the evaluator’s report may not be dismissed as hearsay if the investigator makes available to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel: the investigator’s file of underlying data and reports; complete texts and diagnostic reports made to the investigator; the names and addresses of all persons whom the investigator has consulted.
 Dr. Connor alleged in his report that he found my writings to be confusing and difficult to follow and Dr. Connor alleged that he had difficulties in understanding me because Dr. Connor claimed I had “severe” ADHD.
 Prosecutor Aaron Negangard also heads the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit. The Special Crimes Unit was designed to investigate serious crimes such as murder and drug trafficking.
 Prosecutor Negangard refers to IC 5-14-3-4(b) which states that investigatory records of law enforcement agencies are excepted from public release at the discretion of the public agency.