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.