Notice of Claim for Tort Brought Against Dearborn County

Pursuant to Indiana Code 34-13-3-8 anyone who plans to sue the government and/or government officials, must notify the government of the tort claim prior to initiating legal action. So to comply with Indiana law, I have provided the Dearborn County Commissioners with my tort claim notice, alerting the Commissioners of my intentions of taking legal action against Dearborn County, Indiana and its elected and appointed officials for damages I have incurred as a result of my unlawful indictment, arrest, and incarceration. And a recent decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, filed July 19, 2011, truly demonstrates the malicious, vindictive, and criminal nature of Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and other Dearborn County officials. On July 19, 2011, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the district court’s ruling in the case of United States of America v. Walter Edward Bagdasarian (WB). The district court found WB guilty of two counts of “threatening to kill and inflict bodily harm upon a major candidate for the office of President of the United States “for comments that WB made on a Yahoo! Message board on the internet on October 22, 2008. Before I mention the content of WB’s posts, I want to emphasize that I detest racism and do not condone violence as WB’s comments are deplorable in nature. With that being said, WB made the following statements on a public internet message board regarding, then, presidential candidate Barack Obama:”Re:Obama fk the niggar, he will have a 50 cal in the head soon” and “shoot the nig.” On July 19, 2011 in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling and found that WB’s statements were considered to be free speech that is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The recent ruling out of the Ninth Circuit not only solidifies that I have been maliciously jailed for exercising my First Amendment right to free speech, but it demonstrates how Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and others have conspired “to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State… in the free exercise of enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under United States Statute 18 U.S.C section 2421, conspiracy against rights. Prosecutor Negangard and other officials have lied and manipulated the truth in an effort to portray a perceived threat to be a whimsical and arbitrary emotion such as the happiness one might encounter at the sight of a puppy, but constitutional law is much deeper and much more complex; and Dearborn County Officials like Prosecutor Negangard, Judge James D. Humphrey, Sheriff Mike Kreinhop, and Commissioner Shane McHenry are well aware of it.

The Ninth Circuit relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court ruling in Virginia v. Black in the Court’s decision to overturn WB’s conviction. In Black, the Supreme Court held “that under the First Amendment the state can punish threatening expression, but only if the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” The WB court stated “In order to affirm a conviction under any threat statute that criminalizes pure speech, we must find sufficient evidence that the speech at issue constitutes a ‘true threat’,” as defined in Black. Because the ‘true threat’ requirement is imposed by the Constitution, the subjective test set forth in Black must be read into all threat statutes that criminalize pure speech.” The Supreme Court rulings also require an objective test. One question under the objective test is whether a reasonable person who heard the statement would have interpreted it as a threat. This test requires the fact-finder to look at the entire factual context of the statements. Another test is determining whether the statement constitutes a threat in the ordinary meaning of the word: “an expression of an intention to inflict… injury… on another.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2382 (1976). Under the subjective test, it must be determined whether the speaker made the statements with the intention that the statements may be taken as a threat. The Ninth Circuit Court wrote, “In Black, the Court explained that the State may punish only those threats in which the “speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” So in order to criminalize pure speech, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a reasonable person would interpret a statement as a threat, as well as proving that the speaker made a statement with the intention that the statement be taken as a threat.

“Any person, law enforcement agency, etc… who takes action against the respondent for protecting the respondent’s children and the public from the child abducting tactics of Judge Humphrey will be held personally responsible for their actions.” This quote of mine appeared in the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit Case Report that was prepared by then, Detective Mike Kreinhop on October 28, 2009. Would a reasonable person find the statement as an expression of an intention to inflict injury on Judge James D. Humphrey. When I made the statement, did I intend to “communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence: against Judge James D. Humphrey? Of course not. I was informing people like Prosecutor Negangard that I would hold them personally responsible if they took action against me because I publicized the conduct of Judge Humphrey. As Prosecutor Negangard is trying to prosecute me because I warned the public of Judge Humphrey’s unethical and illegal behavior, I am holding him accountable by exposing the prosecutor’s illegal conduct and by taking civil action in a court of law. Unfortunately I am currently in jail because Judge Humphrey viewed the statement as “a threat to his and his family’s personal safety.” Negangard and Humphrey have the ability to determine that any statement is a personal threat to another individual’s safety if Negangard and Humphrey wish to imprison the speaker.

Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard loathes me because I stand up against corrupt government officials in Dearborn County, Indiana. Negangard’s prosecution strategy consists of demonstrating how much I despise Judge Humphrey and Dr. Edward J. Connor by providing a plethora of examples of where I claimed the men were evil, vindictive, unethical, criminal, liars, cheaters, etc… The problem with Negangard’s strategy is that it isn’t illegal to publicly express one’s opinions about public officials and it isn’t illegal to despise people who disregard the welfare of children of divorce. Negangard is simply using my critical expression in the hopes that he can trick a jury into thinking that my expression represents violent behavior. Fortunately the Ninth Circuit Court addressed this in its recent ruling. The Court wrote, “When our law punishes words, we must examine the surrounding circumstances to discern the significance of those words’ utterance, but must not distort or embellish their plain meaning so that the law may reach them.” Negangard and Humphrey are doing the exact opposite; they are distorting and embellishing my speech to rationalize my prosecution.

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.” Hold the phones. Before Prosecutor Negangard and Commissioner Shane McHenry begin to claim that I am writing about the spilled blood of judges, I am not the author of the gruesome quote. The quote belongs to blogger and internet radio host Harold Turner. Turner was charged with threatening a federal judge with intent to intimidate or retaliate; essentially the same charge that I am facing in Dearborn County, except Prosecutor Negangard is unable to produce any examples or evidence that I have ever communicated a threat to James Humphrey, Heidi Humphrey, or Edward J. Connor.

During the course of my 2 ½ year divorce, the only threat on record came from Judge James D. Humphrey. Following a hearing on my, then wife’s petition for a restraining order to force me to remove my internet content, Judge Humphrey denied her motion because my writings were neither harassing nor harmful to my children or their mother. Order Despite his ruling that my writings were not harmful to my children or their mother, Humphrey’s order, filed May 14, 2009, threatened that he would consider my writings to determine my parenting time in the future. In the final decree of my divorce, filed August 18, 2009, Humphrey terminated my parenting time stating that I continued to share information pertaining to the conduct of the court and the court’s expert, Dr. Edward J. Connor, even after Humphrey said he “warned” me that he would consider the writings when determining my parenting time. The Indiana Appellate Court took the matter a step further claiming that my writings made it necessary for my wife to file for a restraining order on more than one occasion. Despite the fact that my appeal was one of the only, if not the only case in 2010 where all fifteen members of the Appellate Court ruled on an appeal, not one of the fifteen Appellate justices seemed to notice that my wife filed only one petition for a restraining order and it was denied. Humphrey ruled that my internet writings were not harmful to my daughters or their mother. Humphrey threatened to use my free speech against me in determining my parenting time. Despite his findings that my First Amendment protected speech was not harmful to my daughters, Humphrey terminated my parenting time because I continued to exercise my constitutional right to free speech. Not only did all fifteen members of the Indiana Court of Appeals uphold Judge Humphrey’s ruling, all fifteen justices from the Indiana Court of Appeals cited fictitious motions that were never filed in my case. Despite the fact that the Indiana Courts terminated my parenting time because of my free speech, which was found to be not harmful to my kids, the courts did not order me to remove the writings from the internet. The courts ruled that I did not have to remove my writings to have supervised visitation. The Indiana Courts ruled that I was not allowed to exercise my free speech if I wanted to have unsupervised visitation with my children. When the Indiana Courts discovered that extortion, intimidation, and threats failed to deter me from exercising the most fundamental right that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, Dearborn County Prosecutor, F. Aaron Negangard imprisoned me claiming that my writings were threatening and intimidating. Unfortunately for Negangard, he’s discovering that threats of malicious prosecution will not deter my constitutionally protected free speech.

Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Dearborn County Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey are men who rule with terror and take vengeance upon those who question their authority except they finally ran into someone who wasn’t intimidated by their unethical and illegal tactics. When they discovered that they could not intimidate me, they claimed that I intimidated them. When I refused to take a time-served plea bargain for my release, Negangard decided to bring in Commissioner McHenry to testify against me in my bond reduction hearing. Prosecutor Negangard was only willing to let me go if I agreed to his terms. That’s why I am pursuing legal action against Dearborn County and its officials; their “terms” do not comply with the laws and the constitution of the United States of America.

Please stay tuned for updates on my criminal trial as well as information on the upcoming civil action against Dearborn County officials. If you feel that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and others are conspiring to deprive me of my First Amendment Rights, feel free to contact Governor Mitch Daniels, Attorney General Greg Zoeller, and/or even the FBI regarding Negangard’s crime against civil rights. Feel free to contact Dearborn County officials to voice your opinion of whether F. Aaron Negangard should resign as Dearborn County Prosecutor. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, feel free to contact me or my family at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com Thanks for the support. My continued bond hearing will be Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 1:30 in the Dearborn County Courthouse and my jury trial is scheduled to begin August 16, 2011 at 8:30AM in the same place.

My Public Defender 7/27/11

I’m beginning to have some serious concerns about the public defenders in Indiana. It’s Monday morning (July 25) and I just got off the phone with the second public defender that has been appointed to my case. Our conversation has left me wondering if it is possible for me to have a public defender who will not only provide fair representation, but also not mislead me or lie to me.

I know it is a cardinal sin to share uncomplimentary information about a lawyer who is currently representing you but I’m just being consistent in sharing my experiences in being prosecuted/persecuted by Dearborn County, Indiana. My first public defender, John Watson, told me in March that he didn’t have a conflict in representing me in a case where Judge James D. Humphrey is an alleged victim. Two months later, Watson filed a motion to withdraw stating he had a conflict because he had pending cases in Judge Humphrey’s court. The third judge in my case, Rush County Judge Brian Hill, granted Watson’ motion to withdraw, after a hearing on June 17, 2011. On June 20, 2011, Judge Hill appointed Rush County lawyer, Bryan Barrett, to be my new public defender.

I feel very lucky to have people working to help me on the outside. Both the Court and my two public defenders have failed to notify me of court dates, judicial appointments and/or the appointment of public defenders. If I didn’t have my mom and brother searching court records and reporting the status of my case I wouldn’t have a clue as to what was happening in my trial. If it wasn’t for the fact that my mom and brother told me that the Court appointed Bryan Barrett on June 20, 2011 to serve as my public defender, I wouldn’t have known who my new defender was until the day of my July 18, 2011 pretrial hearing; the first time Mr. Barrett contacted me.

In my initial meeting with Mr. Barrett, which was a few hours before my pretrial hearing, Mr. Barrett informed me that he had not reviewed my case. (I did have a bond reduction hearing scheduled for that date but during the July 18, 2011 hearing, Judge Hill stated that he contacted both parties by phone to inform them that the bond hearing would be continued to a later date, based on a Motion to Continue filed by Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard on June 28, 2011. Mr. Barrett gave no indication that he was aware of the continuance as we discussed strategies for the bond hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing on Monday, July 18, 2011, Bryan Barrett gave no indication that he was aware of the continuance as we discussed strategies for the bond hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing on Monday, July 18, 2011 Bryan Barrett gave me the mailing address of his office and his cell phone number. He also told me that I could contact him at the Rush County Public Defender’s Office and provided me with the address and phone number of the RCPDO. Mr. Barrett also said he would give me a copy of the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings. When I told him that if he sent a copy of the CD-Rom containing the transcripts to my mother, she might have been able to get a copy of the transcripts to me a little faster because she was available to print and mail the transcripts immediately. Mr. Barrett said he would give my mother a copy of the CD-Rom outside after the hearing. He also told me that we would be in touch and he would be in to see me later in the week.

One of the great mysteries of the universe is why do many lawyers get mad at their clients because their clients voice their frustrations about their lawyers not following through on promises made to their clients. A couple of hours after my July 18, 2011 hearing, I phoned my mother to see if Mr. Barrett gave her a copy of the CD-Rom bearing the transcripts from the grand jury hearing. Mom informed me that Bryan Barrett had failed to do so. As Mr. Barrett provided my mother with two business cards and two email addresses, she sent an email to Mr. Barrett informing him that she was willing to assist him in printing and delivering the transcripts to me. I had given Mr. Barrett permission to share information with my mother and my Ohio lawyer. The next day she emailed him this information about helping anyway she could and then followed with phone calls, later in the week. When she called the RCPDO Mr. Barrett was not in. A day or two later I called both Mr. Barrett’s mobile and the RCPDO. Mr. Barrett did not answer his phone and the RCPDO denied my call from the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. I was not calling collect. The RCPDO originally told my mom that I needed to call Mr. Barrett’s private practice because they claimed that I was a personal client, but my mother informed the RCPDO that Bryan Barrett was appointed by Rush County Judge Brian Hill to serve as my public defender. The staff at the RCPDO later told my mother that the RCPDO did not accept my call from the jail because Mr. Barrett was not available and the staff did not want to waste my phone minutes by answering the phone. As the jail phone system won’t allow me to leave a voice mail, and the RCPDO would not answer the phone if Bryan Barrett was not in, and since Mr. Barrett hadn’t returned any written/electronic correspondence, the only way that I could communicate with Mr. Barrett was by continuing to call with the hopes of catching him in the office. So I kept calling, and now my lawyer is mad at me.

I’m writing this on Monday, July 25, 2011 a little more than a week away from my bond hearing on August 3, 2011 and a few weeks away from my jury trial scheduled for August 16, 2011, which gives me very little time to review the grand jury transcripts if I received them today. I called the RCPDO but they wouldn’t accept my prepaid call from the jail. I called Bryan Barrett’s mobile phone but there was no answer so I decided to continue calling the RCPDO until someone accepted my call so I could leave a message for my lawyer. After several attempts someone finally answered; an angry Bryan Barrett.

“You just can’t keep calling!” exclaimed Mr. Barrett. If my Ohio lawyer is unavailable when I phone his office, the office manager politely says “He’s in court”, “He’s on another line”, He’s with another client”, etc. and will take a message and usually gives me an idea of when my lawyer will be available. If I get my Ohio lawyer directly and he’s busy, he’ll tell me to call back later or that he will return my call. Mr. Barrett and the RCPDO apparently were just dodging my calls.

Before the anti-Dan people have the chance to accuse me of driving off another lawyer, prior to July 25, 2011 my only contact with Mr. Barrett was on July 18, 2011. He stated that he would give my mother the grand jury transcripts and told me he’d be in to see me later in the week. In a week’s time his demeanor changed drastically. He changed his mind about giving my mother the grand jury transcripts. He wouldn’t release them to my Ohio lawyer. Barrett said he wouldn’t let me have a copy of the transcripts unless he received approval from Judge Hill. Needless to say he hadn’t filed a motion seeking the Court’s approval of giving me access to the evidence against me. Actually, it appears as he hasn’t done anything at all.

“Do you want to represent yourself or do you want me to represent you?” This seems to be a common response from lawyers when they have been less than diligent in representing their clients. Rather than admit that they haven’t done their jobs, some lawyers resort to the old “if you don’t like it, do it yourself”. Mr. Barrett attacked me when I told him that he needs to subpoena the case file from Dr. Connor’s August 29, 2007 Child Custody Evaluation Report. I explained to him that the Court set my high bond partially based on psychological testing from Dr. Connor’s report. Despite the fact that I was not a lawyer, Barrett readily concurred that I was correct. In fact, the entire legal fiasco began in March 2008 over the release of Dr. Connor’s case file in my divorce trial. Dr. Connor lied about the release of his case file. Judge Taul recused himself after communication with Dr. Connor outside the presence of the parties. Judge Humphrey took over and denied me access to evidence in Dr. Connor’s case file. I wrote about the events on the internet so Judge Humphrey terminated my parenting time with my 3 and 5 year old daughters. When I continued to write about the conduct of Dr. Connor and Judge Humphrey, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard had me arrested for exercising my First Amendment Right of free speech. Of course Barrett would have known this if he would have reviewed some of the prosecution’s evidence against me. The problem is that my public defender doesn’t even have a copy of the prosecution’s nearly 1,400 pages of evidence against me.

At the end of the hearing on my first public defender’s motion to withdraw, John Watson appeared noble in his statement to Judge Hill that he would work to send my case file to the next public defender as soon as possible. Watson even told me that Judge Hill already had my next public defender “lined up.” That was on June 17, 2011. Somehow my two public defenders have been unsuccessful in moving my case file from John Watson’s office to Brian Barrett’s office. In the 36 days since Barrett’s appointment, the two lawyers have been unable to coordinate the mailing of one CD-Rom from John Watson’s office to Bryan Barrett’s office. The real tragedy of the situation is that somehow I will be portrayed as a villain for writing about it. I can’t talk bad about lawyers.

I don’t know why a lawyer would take offense because their client wants to participate in the client’s own defense. While I had Bryan Barrett on the phone, I told him about the recent federal appellate case that dealt with the criminalization of free speech. (See my blog above on the appellate case.) When I told Barrett that the case was out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Barrett scoffed at the case because he said everyone laughs at the Ninth Circuit. Rather than listening to the content of the court case, Barrett was ready to dismiss it because the case was decided by the Ninth Circuit. It was only after I told him that there were numerous references to Virginia v. Black, a defining case that sets the standards for criminalizing pure speech that Barrett acknowledged that he would look at the case.

I have a bond reduction hearing set for August 3, 2011, I have a jury trial set for August 16^th, and I have a public defender who doesn’t have 1,400 pages of the prosecution’s potential evidence, who, refuses to give me access to evidence, and who is angry at me because I was persistent in trying to get in contact with him to check the status of my case. He told me that he had 14 other things going on and he would get to me when he had a chance. This is coming from a man who was reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court for failing to file documents on time. This doesn’t even account for the fact that he has to take a minimum of three hours out of his day if he wants to meet with me. Barrett’s office is roughly an hour and a half drive from the Dearborn County Jail.

The State of Indiana is trying to wreck any chance of me having a fair trial. I’ve had two public defenders whom either didn’t want to take on my case and/or didn’t have the time to allot to my case. There have been three judges on my case. When the state finally got its act together, the judge sets my bond reduction hearing just two weeks before my jury trial. I could always continue the final hearing to a later date but then the State can claim that I waived my right to a speedy trial and then keep me incarcerated indefinitely, while Prosecutor Negangard has the ability to stall the proceedings.

I’m having a difficult time believing that our founding fathers would have approved of the way my case has been handled. It’s just an ongoing roller coaster ride filled with civil rights violations. That’s why I’m speaking up. If the system wants to punish me for writing about my experiences, I’m going to force the system to say that I’m not allowed to tell the public about the misconduct of the professionals in the system. Today someone told me that I’m never going to get out of here but a lot of people may benefit from what I’m doing. The problems extend far beyond my situation but someone has to take a stand. My family, friends, and I are in it for the long haul; I hope the State of Indiana is up for the challenge. Thank you for the support. My bond reduction hearing is Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 1:30 in the Dearborn County Courthouse and my jury trial date is August 16, 2011 at 8:30AM in the same place.

Timeline

Let’s set the record straight on Dan Brewington

An inside view of the Dearborn County Justice System.

Timeline -Criminal case – Daniel P. Brewington – Dearborn County, Indiana

1. Norwood, Ohio Police served a warrant for Daniel P. Brewington on Monday, March 7, 2011, at 2:30PM and took him to the Hamilton County, Ohio, Justice Center. He stayed there until Wednesday at 2:00PM when he was bailed out for $1000.

2. On Thursday, March 10, 2011, Ohio attorney Robert G. Kelly spoke to Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and told him that Dan would need a public defender and that Mr. Kelly would like to represent Dan pro hac vice, since he is not licensed in Indiana. Mr. Kelly said that he would be doing this pro bono.

3. On Friday, March 11, 2011, Mr. Kelly and Sue Brewington delivered Dan to the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center (DCLEC) at 6:00AM.

4. Dan’s arraignment hearing was at 11:10AM before Judge Sally Blankenship and he did not have an attorney. The deputy prosecutor, Joseph Kisor, read the charges, asked for a restraining order to keep Dan away from the people that he is accused of intimidating and an order to keep Dan and his agents off the internet, as a condition of bail. The judge said that she will set bond by the end of the day.

Charges - 3 counts of intimidation: Intimidating Judge James D. Humphrey, Dr. Edward Connor, Heidi Humphrey, releasing grand jury information, perjury, and obstruction of justice. 3 Class D felonies, and 3 misdemeanors, 2A’s and 1 B. Dan has no criminal record and never did anything but tell his story on the internet. All his “adventures” can be found on danhelpskids.com and danbrewington.blogspot.com

5. The charges are a blatant attempt at nullifying Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment, to the United States Constitution.

6. Bond is set at $500,000 surety and $100,000 cash. Dan would need $150,000 to get out of jail. It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money to keep a person with absolutely no history of violence from pre- school on, in jail. He has only lived in two communities, Norwood, Ohio and Milan, Indiana, Ripley County. He has no criminal record in either place. He is no flight risk. He surrendered himself to jail.

7. Sheriff Kreinhop denied Mr. Kelly the ability to see Dan because Mr. Kelly was not licensed in Indiana. Mr. Kelly had visited other clients in this jail. When Dan asked Captain Dave Hall and Sheriff Mike Kreinhop for the written rule he was told it was just our policy.

8. On Thursday, March 17, 2011, 6 days after setting the bond for Dan, Judge Sally Blankenship wrote to Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard to disqualify herself and ask him to appoint another judge, although she obviously felt qualified to set the extremely high bond. Could that possibly be motivated by her relationship with the “victims?”

9. Prosecutor Negangard should disqualify himself.

a. Dan’s writings about Judge Humphrey and Dr. Connor are intertwined with writings about Negangard and the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s office.

b. Dr. Connor has served as an expert witness for the Dearborn County Courts and Prosecutor’s office.

c. Judge Blankenship declared that “no judicial officer in Dearborn County is able to hear this matter to avoid the appearance of bias or prejudice.” The same should apply to the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s office.

d. Negangard’s testimony is needed to determine the nature of the “attacks” and how it negatively impacted Negangard’s ability to prosecute suspected criminals.

e. Dan filed 2 complaints against Negangard with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

f. Negangard named Dan as a target of a grand jury investigation 5 days after the complaints against him were dismissed.

g. In an email, dated July 12, 2010 sent from his Blackberry, Negangard accused Dan of “attacking” his office in an attempt by Dan to get Prosecutor Negangard “not to do his job of prosecuting those who violate the law.” This was forwarded to 12 county officials and to Dan.

h. Negangard has administrative control over SCU, therefore Negangard is the lead investigator and may be required to testify; especially since Negangard received the initial complaint and initiated the investigation.

i. Negangard was involved with the investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel after Dan filed a complaint against former SCU detective Mike Kreinhop for potential Hatch Act violations.

j. The Prosecutor’s office would be less likely to drop charges if it adversely impacted the reputations of Dr. Connor or Judge James D. Humphrey.

k. State v. Tippecanoe County Ind 432 NE 2d1377 4/2/82. If Negangard is disqualified then the entire staff is disqualified because Negangard has administrative control over the entire staff of Deputy Prosecutors.

10. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed Judge John Westhafer of Decatur County.

a. After two months, he asked to be disqualified because he is a 25 year friend of Judge Humphrey. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed a 3^rd judge.

11. Dan is denied the medication that he has been taking for 9 years for ADHD. He had letters from his doctor and therapist from The Affinity Center in Cincinnati, Ohio.

a. First the jail officials would not let him have it.

b. Next Captain Dave Hall said he could have it.

c. Then Dr. Nadir Al-Shami, who has his office listed in Fairdale, KY and had never seen Dan before, declared that his dose was too high and changed the dosage and times that it was to be administered. Dan chose not to take the medication that way but as time for court got closer he tried a compromise. The doctor said he could have 30 mgs twice a day, morning and night. Dan asked if he could have 20 mg 3 times a day but not at night. They said no. They finally agreed on 30 mg in the morning and 30mg around 4:00PM. This is a ridiculous way to treat a person who had been under the care of the same therapy center specializing in ADHD for 9 years. Regulation of the proper dosage is critical to his care and now they are just guessing.

d. ADHD is recognized by the American Disabilities Act.

12. An attorney from Sunman, John Watson, was appointed the public defender.

a. First he had a death in his family and could not see Dan.

b. Second he totaled his car and could not see Dan.

c. Third he had to leave the courthouse on the day of a scheduled pre-trial conference because his son had been rushed from school to the hospital.

d. He filed a bond reduction application, on May 13, 2011, two months and two days after Dan arrived in jail. The document had 2 serious flaws.

(1) The name of the client was incorrect, totally.

(2) He added a Schedule C Felony, battery with a deadly weapon.

e. He filed a Motion to Withdraw because he had active cases in front of Judge Humphrey.

f. He had originally indicated that he would be willing to sponsor Mr. Kelly pro hac vice. Mr. Kelly wrote the public defender a letter indicating what he thought should be done by now. The public defender responded and then filed his motion to withdraw.

g. The public defender gave Sue Brewington the discoveries that he got from the prosecutor. He gave Dan a copy of Detective Michael Kreinhop’s report on his investigation. Kreinhop wrote the report on October 28, 2009. The discoveries consisted of copies of all of Dan’s internet postings on his blog and websites. He also gave Dan a list of witnesses.

(1). Sheriff Michael Kreinhop

(2). Dr. Ed Connor

(3) Judge James Humphrey

(4) Heidi Humphrey

(5) Attorney Angela Loechell

(6) Melissa Brewington

13. Judge James D. Humphrey remained as the Judge of record from August 24, 2009 until June 9, 2010 on Dan’s divorce case, ruling on motions and setting hearings even though he was intimidated and felt his family was intimidated by Dan’s writings. Dan never had any contact what so ever with the Judge or his family.

14. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed Judge Brian D. Hill from Rush County, as the 3^rd judge in this case. Judge Hill set a hearing for June 17, 2011 to rule on the public defender’s Motion to Withdraw. Judge Hill set 2 new dates for hearings.

a. July 18, 2011, a bond reduction hearing and the final pre-trial hearing.

b. August 16, 2011 beginning of a jury trial

c. He said that he would appoint another public defender soon.

15. The new public defender was appointed June 20, 2011. His name is Bryan E. Barrett and he is the public defender for Rush County. Today, July 18, 2011, is the first time Dan met with him. Dan felt their first meeting was productive. Dan would not have known that a public defender had been appointed if Sue and Matt Brewington had not checked the computer in the clerk’s office.

16. On June 28, 2011 Prosecutor Negangard filed a Motion to Continue the Bond Reduction Hearing scheduled for July 18, 2011 because Detective/County Commissioner Shane McHenry would not be available to testify on that date. Until this time there had been no mention of Shane McHenry as a witness. McHenry was scheduled to testify at the trial of Lonnie Ray Johnson on July 18, 2011.

a. There is an entry in the computer in the clerk’s office that is file stamped July 5, 2011 that says the court accepted a plea deal from Lonnie Ray Johnson and a sentencing hearing was set for August 2, 2011. A person might wonder why the prosecutor did not tell Judge Brian D. Hill that Shane McHenry would be available on July 18, 2011 and the bond hearing could go forward as scheduled.

17. Instead the judge came down from Rush County just for the pre-trial hearing and will have to return for the Bond Reduction Hearing and then for the Trial on August 16, 2011.

18. As of July 14, 2011, according to the computer in the clerk’s office, Judge Brian D. Hill had not ruled on Prosecutor Negangard’s Motion. He said in today’s hearing that he telephonically communicated that he would be continuing the bond reduction hearing.

19. On June 29, 2011 Prosecutor Negangard filed additional Supplemental Discovery Answers indicating that the Transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings has been emailed to public defender #2 and public defender #1 will send copies of the State’s preliminary Discovery Answer to the new public defender.

20. Dan has had no opportunity to subpoena or depose witnesses for his bond hearing or his trial.

21. Dan has been in jail on excessive bail for 4 months and has not seen an attorney since May 24, 2011 until today. He still cannot see Mr. Kelly with attorney client privilege.

22. Mr. Kelly is working on a suit to be filed in Federal Court.

23. Dan does not have any idea of the evidence against him except for 3 binders full of his own blog and website postings and Kreinhop’s report.

24. Dan continues to post on his blog, danbrewington.blogspot.com

25. Because of the proposed jail expansion we learned some interesting facts about Dearborn County courts and how they use the jail. The information below was found in the letter written by attorneys Miller and Garner and from RQAW’s study.

a. The majority of time the Dearborn County judges set bond in two parts, requiring both a cash bond and a surety bond. This has resulted in higher bonds for many people arrested and leaves these people unable to post bond so they sit in jail pending the resolution of their case.

b. Most of these people do not pose a danger to the community nor pose a high risk of failing to appear on the scheduled court dates and therefore should not be held in jail while their case is pending.

c. RQAW also compared counties of similar size and the number of beds that they had in jail. Dearborn County would be way out of line with the jail expansion project.

d. RQAW also found that the average length of stay at the Dearborn County Jail is 70-100% longer than average stays at other jails studied by RQAW.

e. The RQAW study said an expanded jail would require $1.34 million per year in operating expenses when it reaches 100% occupancy.

26. Tuesday, July 19, 2011. I checked the clerk’s office and an appearance had been filed Monday, July 18, 2011 by Bryan E. Barrett.

27. A Bond Reduction hearing has been scheduled for August 3, 2011.

Submitted by Sue Brewington - July 19, 2011.

Two Articles from The Dearborn County Register 7/14/11

Man Accused of Intimidation

Jail situation also shows county's violation of 6th, 8th amendment rights

Update 7/17/11

Dan has a hearing scheduled for tomorrow, Monday, July 18, 2011.

Here is a short recap.

1. We got some positive press this week in The Dearborn County Register, published Thursday, July 14, 2011. There is an article on p. 3A written by Erika Schmidt Russell and a guest column on p. 6A written by Chet Wolgamot, “Jail Situation also shows county’s violation of 6^th, 8^th amendment rights.” You can read his article on-line but you can only see a partial of Erika’s article. I’m going to ask about the rules for posting newspaper articles on line tomorrow.

2. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed Judge Brian D. Hill from Rush County, as the 3^rd judge in the case. Judge Hill set a hearing for June 17, 2011 to rule on the public defender’s Motion to Withdraw. Judge Hill set 2 new dates for hearings.

a. July 18, 2011, a bond reduction hearing and the final pre-trial hearing.

b. August 16, 2011 beginning of a jury trial

c. He said that he would appoint another public defender soon.

3. The new public defender was appointed June 20, 2011. His name is Bryan E. Barrett and he is the public defender for Rush County. Today is July 17, 2011 and Dan has still not heard from his new public defender. Dan would not have known about this appointment if Sue and Matt Brewington had not checked the computer in the clerk’s office. No appearance has been filed by Mr. Barrett.

4. On June 28, 2011 Prosecutor Negangard filed a Motion to Continue the Bond Reduction Hearing scheduled for July 18, 2011 because Detective/ County Commissioner Shane McHenry would not be available to testify on that date. Until this time there had been no mention of Shane McHenry as a witness. Dan of course knows nothing because he has not been contacted by his new public defender and a trial is scheduled to begin on August 16, 2011 at 8:30AM.

5. According to the computer in the clerk’s office at the courthouse Judge Brian D. Hill has not ruled on Mr. Negangard’s Motion.

6. On June 29, 2011 Prosecutor Negangard filed Supplemental Discovery Answer indicating that the Transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings has been emailed to the public defender (the one Dan has not heard from) and public defender #1 will send copies of the State’s preliminary Discovery Answers to the new public defender.

7. Dan has had no opportunity to subpoena or depose witnesses for his bond hearing or his trial.

8. Dan has been in jail on excessive bail for 4 months and has not seen an attorney since on or around May 24, 2011. He still cannot see Mr. Kelly with attorney client privilege.

9. Wish us luck tomorrow. I will let you know what happens.

Sue

Conspiracy in Dearborn County, Indiana

A few days ago, my mother was discussing my case with someone in the media who has been following my story. When my mother was providing the individual with information about my case the person had not seen a copy of the Special Crimes Unit report that was prepared by Detective Mike Kreinhop, now the Sheriff of Dearborn County, on October 28, 2009. I’m hoping that this post will help people realize the despicable measures that a few individuals are willing to take in an effort to destroy the relationship between a father and his little girls in their efforts to advance their own personal interests.

It is important to note that I had no knowledge of Kreinhop’s report until after my incarceration. During the investigation, Kreinhop refused to tell me who made a complaint against me or any specific information about the complaint. Kreinhop said he would only discuss the details of the complaint if I travelled to Dearborn County, Indiana to meet with him. Due to the suspicious nature of Kreinhop’s request, I declined to meet with him because Kreinhop refused to give me any information about his inquiry. The troubling thing is that everyone else who was involved with my custody case was aware of the nature of Kreinhop’s investigation a year and a half before I was made aware; especially my ex-wife and her attorney, Angela G. Loechel. It appears that Ms. Loechel may have been the person who made the complaint.

Kreinhop stated that Angela G. Loechel had previously contacted Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard because she felt that this blog “was a possible veiled threat to Judge Humphrey.” Ms. Loechel then informed Kreinhop that I tried to intimidate her by contacting “her husband, who is a police officer in Kentucky, at their residence, concerning firearms training. Kreinhop reported “Loechel suspected that this was an attempt by Brewington to intimidate her by showing her that he knew where she lived. Either Ms. Loechel “misled” Kreinhop or Kreinhop left out an important bit of information to skew his report. Apparently Ms. Loechel’s residence is the same location as K-TAC Inc. the gun training company that was listed on the internet.

Angela G. Loechel wasn’t the least bit concerned with the safety of Judge Humphrey; she just took advantage of the situation to help her and my ex-wife drive a bigger wedge between my daughters and me. From the beginning of my divorce Ms. Loechel and my ex-wife pushed the issue that I was a gun owner. My ex-wife had taken pictures of guns that were within reach of my daughters and Ms. Loechel reported it as dangerous behavior. What Ms. Loechel failed to mention was that the two unloaded guns that I stored under the couch were muzzle loaders. What Ms. Loechel and my ex-wife failed to explain was that the process of loading the guns was the same process as the firearms used during the Revolutionary War where you have to manually load black powder, a patch, and ball into the gun, pack it down with a decent amount of strength, and then create a spark to set the whole thing off. An untrained adult would have difficulties figuring out the process if given the proper materials. It would be nearly impossible for my daughters, who were 1 and 3 at the time to even lift the muzzle loaders. The irony is that Ms. Loechel was well aware that the muzzle loaders did not present a danger because she proudly displays a few muzzle loaders on the wall in her law office. No safe, no barriers, no key locks; just displayed out in the open where anyone could touch them. When I explained that I put the muzzle loaders in my gun safe, they express “concerns” that my daughter’s safety may still be compromised by the guns in the safe so I decided to make an extra effort to demonstrate that I was a responsible gun owner; I set out to find a place that offered gun safety courses. When I did a search on the internet I found two listings for gun ranges: Target World in Cincinnati, and K-TAC incorporated in Kentucky. Unfortunately the business listing for K-TAC Inc. made no mention that it was also the home address of Mr. and Mrs. Angela Loechel. Angela Loechel transformed my attempt to contact a seemingly legitimate business into a malicious attempt to bring fear to the Loechel household by calling their residence. Then Ms. Loechel made my inquiries about gun safety training appear as if I were seeking militant firearms training as if I were trying to join a radical militia organization. The fact is Angela Loechel took the opportunity to voice her “concerns” to Prosecutor Negangard to gain an advantage in my custody case because I was representing myself and Angle Loechel still represents my ex-wife even though Ms. Loechel is slated to testify against me for the prosecution. What I really find to be intriguing about Ms. Loechel’s self-righteousness is, rather than report her “concerns” about what she feels that I might do why isn’t Angela Loechel reporting the unethical and/or illegal actions of the other people involved in my situation?

Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard provided me with 1368 pages of discoveries which turned out to be all copies of information on my blog. Most of the documents detail and document the unethical actions of a few individuals. See the following examples.

1. Letter to both parties from Dr. Edward J. Connor dated 2/25/08. Dr. Connor’s letter stated that Judge Carl H. Taul contacted Dr. Connor on 2/22/08 to convey his agreement with Dr. Connor’s suggestion of additional evaluation sessions. Neither party of the divorce was a part of the alleged communication between Judge Taul and Dr. Connor, hence ex-parte communication, a violation of the judicial code of conduct.

2. Dr. Connor’s contract stated that I was entitled to the case file from his custody evaluation. After composing several letters stating why I could or could not have a copy of his case file, on 8/4/08, Dr. Connor claimed that state and HIPAA laws prohibited him from releasing the file. Dr. Connor sent his 8/4/08 letter to Judge Taul. Regardless of the law, Dr. Connor lied one way or another.

3. During a hearing on June 14, 2008 Judge Taul stated that he previously issued an order that the parties were to follow the laws of Kentucky in regards to the release of Dr. Connor’s case file. No such non-sense motion exists.

4. On 6/14/08, Angela Loechel submitted Dr. Connor’s office Policy Statement with my ex-wife’s signature claiming that the document prevented the release of Dr. Connor’s case file. In a letter copied to the Court dated 9/9/08, Dr. Connor stated that his office forgot to have me sign his Office Policy Statement but it didn’t matter because Dr. Connor stated the document was “an adjunct document” to the evaluation. In a letter to the Court dated 9/10/08, Dr. Connor attacked me for not understanding his policies concerning confidentiality. During Dr. Connor’s testimony on 5/27/09 Dr. Connor testified that his office mistakenly had my ex-wife sign his Office Policy Statement and he testified that his Office Policy Statement is NOT an “adjunct document” to the evaluation.

5. In Judge Humphrey’s final decree, filed on 8/18/09, Judge Humphrey stated that I tried to intimidate him and the court staff. If Judge Humphrey felt intimidated, he should have withdrawn. As for the court staff, no member of the court staff testified in Court so Judge Humphrey either came to his conclusion from evidence outside of the record or Judge Humphrey made it up.

6. On 8/18/09, Judge Humphrey terminated my parenting time. Judge Humphrey stated that he was most concerned about my writings about Dr. Edward J. Connor. Judge Humphrey claimed that I was irrational because I wrote about Dr. Connor’s conflicting statements on my website and blog.

Why didn’t Angela Loechel tell on Dr. Connor for lying to the Court: why didn’t she say anything about Judge Taul’s ex-parte communication or his make-believe order to follow Kentucky law? Why didn’t she tell anyone about Dr. Connor lying about his Office Policy Statement and the release of his case file? Rather than report the unethical and illegal actions of others, Ms. Loechel claimed that my writings that encouraged people to contact the Indiana Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Committee advisor located in Dearborn County were a “possible veiled threat to Judge Humphrey.” Judge Humphrey’s wife was the advisor in Dearborn County. Ms. Loechel would have never reported it if someone else would have contacted the Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Committee, but when I encouraged people to contact a public official to help reform ethics in the family court system, Angela Loechel took aim. She wasn’t concerned about Judge Humphrey; Ms. Loechel was just taking the opportunity to help my ex-wife further alienate my daughters from their father. If Ms. Loechel and my ex-wife were truly concerned about my daughters they would have told the new judge in my custody case about their “concerns” about my alleged threats to Judge Humphrey. They aren’t worried about my girls; they’re worried about punishing me for not giving up on being a dad.

Angela Loechel attacked me for filing numerous motions concerning Dr. Edward J. Connor. Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my parenting time because I wrote about Dr. Connor on the internet. Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard initiated a Special Crimes Unit investigation and instructed Detective (now Sheriff) Mike Kreinhop to investigate my writings. I have written about every aspect of my custody case concerning Dr. Connor, judges, and lawyers in legal pleadings on the internet forums on my website, and on this blog so there is no doubt that Prosecutor Negangard is fully aware of the unethical and/or illegal actions of the other people involved. There isn’t any debate about it as I have posted documentation to support my statements on this blog and on my website, www.danhelpskids.com. There is no doubt that Prosecutor Negangard and Sheriff Kreinhop are aware of all the misconduct because it is included in all of the prosecutions’ evidence against me. But rather than listen to the message, Negangard feels it’s easier to kill the messenger.

I have no idea what the future is going to bring. I really don’t see how Prosecutor Negangard is going to explain that I committed a crime by writing excessively about the crimes that Dr. Connor committed. I still cannot comprehend how the Dearborn County prosecutor is trying to prosecute me for the obstruction of justice in a Ripley County Court case. Even more troubling is the fact that Negangard is charging me with intimidating a witness in a Ripley County trial, who lives and works in Kentucky, and who wasn’t even licensed to practice psychology by the state of Indiana. But this is F. Aaron Negangard’s territory. Judge Humphrey is his friend, Dr. Connor is his professional witness, and Dan Brewington is just a father that exposed their misconduct so Negangard went on the warpath and is using Angle Loechel, Sheriff Kreinhop, and even Dearborn County Commissioner Shane McHenry to help stomp out Dan Brewington’s First Amendment Rights. Stay tuned to see how it goes. To contact me or my family, send emails to contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

P.S. – I love you M.B. and A. B. I’ll keep fighting to be your dad.

What evidence does Commissioner McHenry have against me?

In my previous blog post I mentioned how Dearborn County Commissioner Shane McHenry wears two hats in Dearborn County. One hat is that of a Dearborn County Commissioner who is a proponent of building a new jail in Dearborn County. The other hat is that of a Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit detective, who Prosecutor Negangard wants to testify against me because I publicly criticized some public officials who are also proponents of the jail expansion. Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, who is Commissioner McHenry’s boss when McHenry is not wearing his Commissioner’s hat, is trying to postpone my bond hearing scheduled for July 18, 2011 because Commissioner McHenry is unavailable to testify against me on that date.

I have been detained in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center on a $500,000 surety, $100,000 cash bond since March 11, 2011. I have been unable to receive a hearing for a bond reduction because it took the state nearly three months just to find a judge that could hear my case. Judge Brian D. Hill, the third judge assigned to my case, set a bond reduction hearing for July 18, 2011, less than thirty days before my scheduled jury trial, Prosecutor Negangard tried to delay my bond hearing because he doesn’t want me to be able to have a fair trial.

Dearborn County Sheriff Mike Kreinhop is telling the public that there is more to my case than what the public knows. Apparently there is more to this case than I am aware of as well. When Prosecutor Negangard released his list of potential witnesses, Commissioner McHenry was not included on the list. Actually, I did not see any mention of Commissioner McHenry’s name anywhere in the 1400 pages of the prosecution’s evidence against me. Federal law mandates that a defendant be provided with the evidence against him yet Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard seems to be denying me access to some evidence, a practice that is rumored to be not an uncommon occurrence in the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s Office. To the date of this blog, Prosecutor Negangard has yet to provide me any examples where I have illegally threatened people, lied to a grand jury, or released information from a grand jury proceeding; all of which are crimes that I have been accused of committing. So what evidence could Commissioner McHenry possible have against me?

Let’s first look at the facts. On 8/24/09, Sheriff Mike Kreinhop met with Judge James D. Humphrey where Judge Humphrey informed Sheriff Kreinhop, who was a SCU detective under Prosecutor Negangard at the time, that Judge Humphrey found my writings to be intimidating and “a threat to his and his family’s personal safety.” Despite his “feeling” that I was a potential danger to the safety of his family, Judge Humphrey continued to preside over my case until 6/9/10. During that time he scheduled and vacated hearings and denied motions which further obstructed my ability to see my little girls. Sheriff Kreinhop’s investigation report was composed on 10/28/09 and it is the only police/investigation report that was completed prior to my incarceration on March 11, 2011(at least it is the only report that Prosecutor Negangard will let me see.) Since there is no mention of Commissioner McHenry in the evidence provided by Prosecutor Negangard, Commissioner McHenry’s testimony would have to pertain to evidence discovered after my arrest, which probably means that Prosecutor Negangard commanded Commissioner McHenry to investigate my blog and/or phone calls since my incarceration.

I greatly appreciate everyone for stopping by my blog and those who have been following my blog would agree that I haven’t threatened anyone. I venture to guess that Commissioner McHenry, Prosecutor Negangard , and Judge Humphrey were pretty upset that I posted a lot of personal information about Judge Humphrey in my father’s day blog, but I simply copied the information from a public interview with Judge Humphrey that appeared on an Indiana Court web publication. Regurgitating public information is not a crime so maybe Commissioner McHenry has been using County tax dollars to listen to my phone conversations since I have been in jail. I’m sure Commissioner McHenry overheard me calling some Dearborn County officials S.O.B’s, pieces of s*#t, and maybe even the occasional Mf’er, but name calling on a private call is not against the law. Maybe Commissioner McHenry overheard me saying “I’m going to take them down”, “(So n So) is going down”, or something of the sort. If Commissioner McHenry thinks it is illegal to verbalize that a public official is “going down” by a legal means, then Dearborn County is going to have to build two new jails; one to relieve the alleged overcrowding and one for any little league, recreational, grade school, middle school, and high school coach who has ever uttered the words “We’re going to destroy the Spartans” or “Let’s kill the Tigers.”

Sheriff Mike Kreinhop is correct that there are aspects of my case that the public is unaware of. The public may be unaware that Prosecutor Negangard’s strategy is to comb my writings for negative statements and out-of-context quotes and claim that the writings as a whole constitute a violation of the law; thus destroying the First Amendment in Dearborn County. He’s even enlisted Commissioner McHenry to assist him. Why? Because I pose a threat to the “good ole boy” system that plagues Dearborn County, not a threat to anyone’s personal safety. So stay tuned to see how much taxpayer money Prosecutor Negangard can burn through in his efforts to nullify the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Feel free to contact me/my family at: contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

Now the Dearborn County Commissioners are After Me

Now it appears that the Dearborn County Commissioners are conspiring with Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Judge James D. Humphrey to deprive me of my First Amendment right to free speech. On June 28, 2011, Prosecutor Negangard filed a motion to continue my bond reduction hearing scheduled for July 18, 2011, because Negangard claimed that Dearborn County Commissioner Shane McHenry would not be available to testify against me on that date. Why does Commissioner McHenry have an interest in hindering my ability to be released on bond; because Commissioner Henry wants a new jail in Dearborn County.

Dearborn County has been trying to build a new jail because of overcrowding in the current jail. County officials ran into a snag in their plans to build the jail because the estimated cost to build the jail exceeded the twelve million dollar mark. Indiana law requires any public project over a $12 million bond amount to be decided by referendum. I think it goes without saying that the jail expansion interests of Commissioner McHenry and the Dearborn County Commissioners could be hampered if I was allowed to post bond so I would have the opportunity to prepare for my trial outside the walls of the current Dearborn County jail. Commissioner McHenry doesn’t want me to have the opportunity to prepare a defense for trial because it will be detrimental to the jail expansion plan if/when I prevail in the case against me. The jail expansion proposal will be a tougher sell to the Dearborn County taxpayers when I demonstrate how Dearborn County officials like Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Judge James D. Humphrey imprison people to carry out personal vendettas. Commissioner McHenry is simply helping to stack the deck against me. [The Dearborn county Commissioners have a history of strong arming people who question the actions of Dearborn County officials. Roughly a year ago during the public comment portion of a commissioners’ meeting, a woman in attendance was raising some concerns about government accountability when one of the commissioners abruptly asked the woman if the fence around her pool was up to code in an apparent attempt to harass and/or intimidate her, as the commissioner’s fencing inquiry had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is just another example of how some Dearborn County officials use strong armed intimidation tactics to retaliate against those who challenge their authority.] Many of you are probably wondering why a Dearborn County Commissioner would be testifying against me in a criminal trial. It’s simple. Dearborn County Commissioner Shane McHenry is also a detective for the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit, which is headed by no other than Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard.

I just cannot comprehend why a government would allow a government employee to run for an elected government position. Dearborn County Commissioner Shane McHenry’s boss is Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. When Commissioner McHenry is doing work for the Dearborn County Sheriff’s Department, his boss is Dearborn County Sheriff Mike Kreinhop; a key official who is pushing the jail expansion. This is exactly why modern governments have laws against public employees running for elected office. Commissioner McHenry cannot just arbitrarily choose which county job he is fulfilling at any specific point in time; Dearborn County Commissioner Shane McHenry is always a Dearborn County Commissioner just as Commissioner McHenry is always a Dearborn county Sheriff’s Deputy/Special Crimes Unit Detective. If Commissioner McHenry refused to testify, he could face disciplinary action from either or both of his bosses, Prosecutor Negangard and Sheriff Kreinhop. If Commissioner McHenry testifies in an attempt to deprive me of my First Amendment speech in order to advance the interests of the Dearborn County Commissioners, Commissioner McHenry may open up a whole new legal can of worms.

From what I have gathered in observing and talking to people about Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard is that the man blazes his own trails without fear of repercussions but now he seems to be sinking deeper and deeper into a hole and is dragging Dearborn County down with him. Prosecutor Negangard can claim that the Dearborn County Commissioners’ cannot be named in a First Amendment retaliation suit. He can argue that Commissioner McHenry’s absolute immunity as a Dearborn County Sheriff’s Deputy will protect Commissioner McHenry from civil action as a Dearborn County Commissioner. The truth is that Prosecutor Negangard doesn’t know. The County attorney probably doesn’t know either. What is certain is that it will cost county tax payers to determine the answer in a federal court. If a federal court were to find that the Dearborn County Commissioners conspired with Prosecutor Negangard in retaliation against someone who exercised their First Amendment right to free speech; rather than having to decide on how to fund a new jail, Dearborn County officials may be worrying about how to pay for extensive legal damages.

I encourage Dearborn County citizens to contact local and state officials and demand legislation that prohibits government employees from holding elected government positions. Feel free to contact the Dearborn County Commissioners with any questions or concerns you may have. Rather than going after individuals who speak out against the Dearborn County Court and Law Enforcement system, Commissioner McHenry and the Dearborn County Commissioners should focus on what people like N. Alan Miller III and Douglas A. Garner are saying about the proposed Dearborn County Jail expansion. A recent public letter released by the two lawyers from Zerbe, Garner, Miller, and Blondell, blames the jail overpopulation on excessive bonds, the detention of non-threatening defendants awaiting trial, and the fact that the average length of stay in the Dearborn County jail is 70% to 100% longer than the other jails studied by RQAW. It is gratifying to see a firm like Zerbe, Garner, Miller, and Blondell taking a stand against the Dearborn County machine. I just hope the firm and their clients do not become victims of retaliation because of their valiant position in reforming the Dearborn County Court System.

If you wish to contact me or my family, send emails to contactdanbrewington@gmail.com. Any emails addressed to me will be forwarded to me at the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Your identity will be kept confidential to protect you from potential retaliation from the Dearborn County Courts, Prosecutors’ office, Commissioners, etc…

Men must endure whatever ills the gods may send.- Sophocles.