No right to representation in Dearborn County. Transcribed 8/28/11

“So noted”. This is Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop’s response to my 8/21/11 inmate request. I submitted the request in the hopes that the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center would change its unconstitutional policy of not allowing out of state lawyers to have confidential visits with clients who are incarcerated in the DCLEC. Rather than give a simple “yes” or “no”, Sheriff Kreinhop just dodged the question.

During my bond reduction hearing on August 17, 2011, Dearborn County Commissioner Shane McHenry testified that he participated in an inquiry into a “tip” from an inmate in the Hamilton County (OH) Justice Center. Inmate Keith Jones alleged that I approached him about finding someone to perform a “drive-by shooting” on Judge James D. Humphrey. Commissioner McHenry testified that after traveling to Hamilton County, Ohio and questioning Keith Jones with law enforcement officials from Cincinnati Police and the ATF, none of the law enforcement agencies pursued the “tip” from Mr. Jones. It appears that Mr. Jones not only has a long criminal history, but also has a long history of trying to snitch on people in order to get out of trouble. This isn’t the first time Dearborn County law enforcement has ventured out of state to investigate matters pertaining to me. On November 2, 2009, Michael Kreinhop traveled to Norwood, Ohio to question me even though my Ohio lawyer told Kreinhop that I would not be participating in any investigation if Kreinhop was unwilling to explain the nature of the investigation and who filed the complaint. Dearborn County law enforcement has the ability to investigate, issue arrest warrants for, and extradite people in other states, yet Sheriff Kreinhop and the DCLEC refuse to allow lawyers from those states to meet with their clients in the same confidential environment as Indiana attorneys.

This so called “policy” of the DCLEC is not a written one. In fact, the “policy” did not exist prior to my incarceration. The first time my Ohio attorney had been denied access to a client incarcerated in the DCLEC was when he attempted to visit me following my arraignment on March 11, 2011. Coincidently, it was the same Ohio lawyer whom Kreinhop ignored when Kreinhop traveled to Ohio to question me behind my lawyer’s back. Now Dearborn County is discovering that Sheriff Kreinhop’s seemingly immature and retaliatory actions can have severe constitutional ramifications, because Dearborn County is actively and knowingly obstructing inmates’ Constitutional rights to legal counsel.

A little while ago, I had a cell mate that was charged with fleeing from the police. The chase began in Indiana and ended with his arrest in Ohio. The man was charged and incarcerated in Hamilton County, Ohio. A short time later, similar charges were filed against him in Dearborn County, Indiana resulting from the same alleged incident. The man was extradited to Dearborn County, where he was held despite the pending case in Ohio. Now the only means of verbal communication that the man can have with his Ohio lawyer is by telephone or through a phone visitation booth both of which can be monitored by Dearborn County officials. Dearborn County forces inmates like this to discuss near, identical charges in another state through a medium that can be monitored by Dearborn County law enforcement. This isn’t the only way that the policies of Sheriff Michael Kreinhop imposed on the constitutional right of inmates in the DCLEC as Sheriff Kreinhop doesn’t allow some inmates to have legal counsel while being questioned/interrogated by law enforcement officials. In recent times Sheriff Kreinhop and the DCLEC allowed a detective from Florida to interrogate an inmate in the DCLEC regarding an alleged crime in Florida. Sheriff Kreinhop allowed the formal interrogation by the Florida law enforcement official to occur; however, Sheriff Kreinhop denied the inmate the ability to have a Florida attorney present to advise the inmate of his rights because Sheriff Kreinhop refuses to allow out of state lawyers to have confidential meetings with their clients.

I’m sure Dearborn County Sheriff Kreinhop will argue that the jail does not monitor phone conversations between lawyers and clients. He would also tell you that the jail does not monitor conversations between out of state attorneys in the phone visitation booth. (Inmates may only have two visits a week. Visits can only be scheduled 9am-11am and 1pm-3:30pm, Monday through Friday. Visiting times and dates must be scheduled on the prior weekend and time and dates are not guaranteed.) The concerning aspect is that Sheriff Kreinhop continues to defend his policy even though it does more harm than good.

Who does Sheriff Kreinhop allow to have confidential contact visits with inmates in the DCLEC? The obvious answer is attorneys that are licensed to practice law in the state of Indiana. The DCLEC also allows ordinary citizens to hold AA meetings with inmates. Sheriff Kreinhop allows personal GED tutors to have contact visits with inmates. The DCLEC allows spiritual leaders of any recognized religion to hold church sessions with inmates. So why is Sheriff Kreinhop so adamant about keeping lawyers from other states out of the DCLEC? Other than occasionally having to check the ID of an out of state lawyer and directing the lawyer to the contact visitation booth, allowing out of state lawyers to meet with their clients in a confidential setting poses absolutely no inconvenience to Sheriff Kreinhop and his personnel; unless Sheriff Michael Kreinhop is involved in illegal activity. The only things that Dearborn County stands to lose by permitting an out of state lawyer to visit inmates in the DCLEC are the ability to monitor otherwise confidential attorney/client conversations and the ability to fend off outside lawyers who may have an interest in protecting the civil rights of inmates detained in the DCLEC.

Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop did everything in his power to bar my Ohio lawyer from meeting with me in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Prior to my arrest, there were no policies that banned out of state lawyers from meeting with clients who were incarcerated in the DCLEC. My current Ohio lawyer was allowed to have confidential visits with clients in the DCLEC until I was arrested. When my Ohio lawyer was admitted to practice law in the Southern District of the US Federal Court, Sheriff Kreinhop still balked at allowing my lawyer to meet with me. It was only after Sheriff Kreinhop made a last ditch phone call to an “unknown” Dearborn County official that Sheriff Kreinhop allowed my lawyer to meet with me.

If you disregard the notion that Sheriff Kreinhop, who has over 30 years of law enforcement experience, was unaware that his policies violated the constitutionally protected rights of inmates in the DCLEC then Sheriff Michael Kreinhop and Dearborn County Indiana are maliciously and willfully conspiring to deprive inmates of their civil rights. Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop is also a key supporter of a new jail expansion proposal in Dearborn County. On one hand Sheriff Kreinhop is obstructing an inmate’s ability to get out of jail by depriving the inmate of his civil rights, and on the other hand, Sheriff Kreinhop is arguing that a new jail is necessary to relieve overcrowding in the current jail.

I encourgage people to voice their opinions and concerns about the unethical and/or illegal policies of Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop and the DCLEC. I would also suggest that Dearborn County taxpayers call their elected officials to relay any concerns of a potential legal cataclysm resulting from Dearborn County willfully obstructing the civil rights of inmates who are detained in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. To contact me or my family email: contactdanbrewington@gmail.com Thanks for the support.

Eagle News Article on Free Speech Lawsuit

Lawsuit Alleges Free Speech Violation by Dearborn Co. Officials

Trial date set

I called Judge Hill's office this afternoon and was told the following: the trial will begin on Monday, October 3, 2011 at 9:00AM and the pretrial hearing is set for Monday, September 19, 2011 at 1:00PM. I will keep you informed as we go. Sue Brewington

Federal Lawsuit Filed

Dan filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana on Friday, August 19, 2011 at 3:23PM naming F. Aaron Negangard, Michael Kreinhop, James Humphrey, Heidi Humphrey, Angela Loechel, Edward J. Connor, Dearborn County, Indiana, and John Does 1-25 names and addresses unknown, as defendants. To see the complete document see http://dearborncounty.blogspot.com/2011/08/brewington-federal-lawsuit-filed-august.html

update on bond hearing

Not good news but not surprising either. I called the Judge's office at 3:00PM today and was told that the Judge denied the bond reduction. Dan is doing fine with the news. I will call again tomorrow because the lady I spoke to said they were working on the trial dates today and they would know tomorrow. Thanks to everyone for your support. We will keep moving forward. I will have something else to report tomorrow. Sue Brewington

No news yet

The judge said he would rule no later than Friday on Dan's Bond Reduction Hearing. We didn't hear anything today so I guess we will hear tomorrow. I'll post as soon as I hear something. Thanks to everyone for their support. Sue Brewington

Bond Reduction Hearing 8/17/11

Dan's bond reduction hearing took place today but we don't know the ruling yet. The judge took information back to his office and will rule Thursday or Friday. We will let everyone know when we get the ruling. Sue Brewington

Trial Vacated

Dan's trial, which was set for Tuesday August 16th, at 8:30AM has been vacated. As far as I can tell that means cancelled but the charges still remain. Judge Brian Hill set a Bond Reduction Hearing for Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 10:00AM. Sue Brewington

The Public Needs Protection from the Prosecutors Office

In a move that can only be described as concerning, Dearborn County prosecutor Joseph Kisor, under the direction of Chief Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, is attempting to strip the public of our right to an open judiciary. They are asking that the names of all of the jurors in Dan Brewington’s trial be kept secret. (see Motion For Confidentiality Of Juror’s Names And Identities) They are saying that Dan is guilty of threatening witnesses, judges, and attorneys without any evidence or prior convictions. Mr. Kisor and Mr. Negangard are again using fear in order to try and influence the public; attempting to convince us, before a trial, that Dan is guilty of the charges against him and some sort of danger to society. The case they reference in support of their motion is one in which a man was convicted of murder. [873 N.E 2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)]

Matt Brewington

Prosecuting Dan instead of Dr. Connor 8/6/11

It’s pretty sad that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Deputy Prosecutor Joe Kisor have acknowledged that Dr. Edward J. Connor committed crimes in Dearborn County, Indiana. They are well aware that Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey is aware of Dr. Connor’s crimes but Dearborn County isn’t prosecuting Dr. Connor for his crimes. Prosecutors Negangard and Kisor are prosecuting me for speaking publicly about Dr. Connor’s crimes. As Negangard, Kisor, and others are conspiring to deprive me of my free speech in an effort to cover up Dr. Connor’s criminal activities, Negangard and Kisor’s conduct is a violation of federal criminal law.

Conspiracy against rights: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State…in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States,… They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned, not more than ten years, or both.” What is utterly amazing about the prosecutors’ conspiracy is, not only do they not hide the fact that they are aware of Dr. Connor’s criminal activity; Prosecutors Negangard and Kisor flaunt it.

During a hearing in my divorce in June, 2008, opposing counsel produced an unfamiliar document bearing my wife’s signature. Angela Loechel submitted this document from Dr. Connor’s office, titled Office Policy Statement, in an argument that the document prevented me from obtaining a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from the child custody evaluation. On July 30, 2008, I faxed a letter to Dr. Connor requesting “copies of any privacy agreement, release and/or consent form, office and/or patient confidentiality agreement(s) that I signed in relation to the evaluation.” In a fax dated August 4, 2008, I stated, “I still haven’t received copies of the agreements I signed at the beginning of the evaluation that I requested last week.” On August 5, 2008, I sent Dr. Connor a copy of his Office Policy Statement bearing my wife’s signature and requested that he produce a copy of the document with my signature. On a fax cover dated August 6, 2008, I wrote, “Please forward the material I requested.” The petition for contempt that I faxed to Dr. Connor on August 20, 2008, stated, “The fact that Dr. Connor had the [wife] sign two contracts, Provision to Serve as an Impartial Expert in a Custody Evaluation; and Connor and Associate’s Office Policy Statement relating to individual psychotherapy treatment, has caused additional conflict and controversy further hindering and delaying the Court process.” In a letter to Dr. Connor, dated September 2, 2008, I wrote, “You still haven’t forwarded copies of your office policy statement with my signature on it.” On September 3, 2008, I faxed Dr. Connor a letter stating “Please forward a copy of your office policy statement with my signature on it.” “If you never had me sign the document, please let me know.” Nearly a month and a half after my first request, Dr. Connor provided an explanation of his Office Policy Statement. In a letter dated September 9, 2008, Dr. Connor states, “With regard to the Office Policy Statement, we do not have a signed Office Policy Statement for you on file. It appears you were not provided with this document when you initially came to our office, which was an oversight on the part of the office staff. Nevertheless, the Office Policy Statement is simply an adjunct document to the court order in which you and Ms. Brewington agreed to participate fully in a custody evaluation to be conducted at this office.” The following day, Dr. Connor sent a letter to the Court With a copy of his September 9^th letter. Dr. Connor’s September 10^th letter to the Court contained some of the following statements: “At this point, [Dan] is sending frequent faxes and his language is becoming more repetitive and provocative, which is concerning.” I have patiently and repeatedly responded to Mr. Brewington’s concerns to this point; however, it is clear that he disregards any information that does not serve his agenda.” “[Dan’s] repeated remarks in letters and motions filed with the Court implying that I have engaged in some form of unethical or criminal behavior are patently false and disturbing.” “[Dan’s} voluminous letters and baseless allegations are intrusive to the point of being harassing and slanderous.” “As such, I am requesting that the Court provide me with some protection in that I will not further communicate with [Dan] outside of a formal deposition or Court testimony unless ordered to do so by the Court.” “I had hoped to avoid bringing this matter to the Court’s attention but at this point, Mr. Brewington has made it a necessity.”

Negangard and Kisor are well aware of how Dr. Connor claimed that his office staff forgot to have me sign Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement. They are aware that Dr. Connor wrote in his September 9, 2008 letter, which was copied to the Court, that his Office Policy Statement was “an adjunct document” to the custody evaluation. Of course the Prosecutors’ know about Dr. Connor’s letter to the Court, dated September 10, 2008, because Kisor submitted Dr. Connor’s letter as evidence during my March 11, 2011 arraignment hearing. Judge Blankenship considered Dr. Connor’s letter when setting my bond at $600,000. But here’s the punch-line; Dearborn County Prosecutors F. Aaron Negangard and Joseph Kisor are fully aware that during a hearing on May 27, 2009, Dr. Connor testified that his Office Policy Statement was NOT “an adjunct document” to the custody evaluation and testified that his office staff mistakenly had my wife sign the Office Policy Statement. How am I certain that Negangard and Kisor are aware of Dr. Connor’s conduct? Because they included the information in the prosecution’s evidence against me. I wouldn’t have been able to write this post if the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s Office wouldn’t have provided me with Dr. Connor’s testimony and all of the letters to and from Dr. Connor’s office.

“It’s an adjunct – It’s not an adjunct to a court order. It’s -- it’s adjacent to what we do when people come in.” That’s a direct quote from Dr. Edward J. Connor that appears in the transcripts from my divorce hearing on May 27, 2009; the same transcripts included in my 1368 pages of discovery information from the prosecutor’s office. The evidence from the Dearborn County Prosescutor’s office clearly demonstrated that Dr. Connor has engaged in criminal activity. If it is indeed true that Dr. Connor’s Office Policy Statement is not an adjunct document to the custody evaluation, then Dr. Connor has committed a number of crimes.

It is still up in the air if Dr. Connor had my ex-wife sign the office policy statement in an effort to obstruct my access to Dr. Connor’s case file. If it was intentional, it would be a conspiracy to defraud me and to commit fraud upon the court. If Dr. Connor’s office mistakenly had my wife sign the office policy statement, that Dr. Edward J. Connor used his position as a psychologist and court expert to maliciously harm and intimidate a participant in a legal proceeding. Dr. Connor willfully provided false information in letters to a judge in an effort to conceal misconduct. Since the letters were sent via fax or US mail, Dr. Connor’s actions constitute mail or wire fraud. This doesn’t even take into account the fact that Prosecutor Negangard was aware of Dr. Connor’s above conduct long before the grand jury investigation.

“Screw you Dan Brewington. We will bury you if you expose criminal conduct within our ranks.” That’s what Dearborn Prosecutors F. Aaron Negangard and Joseph Kisor are saying as they are trying to send me to prison for defending my rights and the rights of my children against the criminal actions of Dr. Edward J. Connor. Actually Negangard and Kisor are saying “Screw the children and families of divorce in Dearborn County because Negangard and Kisor are doing everything in their power to enable Dr. Connor to continue hurting children and families in Southeastern Indiana. If you have any questions about the accuracy of the statements in this post, please visit www.danhekpskids.com to view the documents referenced in this post. Feel free to contact F. Aaron Negangard, Joseph Kisor, Sheriff Mike Kreinhop and/or Commissioner Shane McHenry to voice your opinions and/or concerns about the criminal conduct of Dr. Edward J. Connor and demand that Dearborn County law enforcement take action against Dr. Edward J. Connor for his criminal actions in destroying the lives of children in Southeastern, Indiana. To contact me or my family, email us a contact danbrewington@gmail.com. I invite all members of the public to drop by my jury trial on August 16, 2011. The public will have the opportunity to see F. Aaron Negangard, Joseph Kisor, and the rest of the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s office conspire to deprive the public of their constitutional rights just to protect the criminal actions of Dr. Edward J. Connor. Thanks for the support.

If anyone sees my Public Defender and/or his assistant, please forward this message. 8/6/11

I have a jury trial scheduled for August 16, 2011 and I haven’t spoken with my public defender, Bryan Barrett about how he is going to prepare for trial. His assistant, Justin Kerr is handling my case because Mr. Barrett is out of town due to a family emergency and won’t be back until next week at the earliest. Mr. Kerr, who is not a lawyer, is handling my case, which is concerning because I have a constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer; not a legal assistant. What’s even more concerning is how Bryan Barrett and Justin Kerr have waived many of my rights without any concern for my defense and they refuse to subpoena relevant information pertaining to my case. For example Prosecutor Negangard and the Court have made several references to Dr. Edward J. Connor as well as his finding and opinions. Judge Sally Blankenship referenced Dr. Connor’s child custody evaluation in her bond order that set my bond at $100,000 cash and $500,000 surety. In fact, the bases of my criminal charges revolve around Dr. Connor’s controversial case file, but Bryan Barrett and Justine Kerr have refused to subpoena information and depose witnesses. They won’t file a motion to dismiss or a motion for a special prosecutor. I can’t even get in touch with them to make sure they file the paperwork to ensure that I can wear a suit and tie before the jury instead of my county orange. They didn’t even attempt to contact the Dearborn County Prosecutor in order to get a copy of the prosecution’s 1368 pages of evidence against me until Wednesday August 3, 2011; just 2 weeks before my jury trial.

Bryan Barrett left a non-attorney in charge of preparing my defense. Justin Kerr can’t even meet with me in the Dearborn County Jail because he isn’t a lawyer. He can’t subpoena information or file motions and Kerr isn’t even sure when Barrett will be available, so Kerr just told me that subpoenas and motions weren’t necessary. This is coming from a man who didn’t know that a defendant may not be detained in jail on a charge, without a trial for more than 6 months. (exceptions to the rule are court congestion, continuances filed by the defendant, etc…). This is the same guy who is waiving appealable issues because he determined that some motions weren’t worth filing. Justin Kerr isn’t basing his decisions on law; he’s basing them on time. When I told him that Barrett hadn’t even begun to work on my case, Kerr stated they talked about my case as far back as a “couple months” ago. Barrett was appointed as my public defender less than a month and a half ago.

The efforts of my defense resemble that of a 10^th grader, who is reading the Cliff’s Notes on Shakespeare’s Hamlet, just a period before he has to give an oral presentation in front of his English literature class. I can tell you from experience that it never works. I’m using this post to help reach my legal team and also to publicly document my concern, in the case they are more unprepared than expected. So if you read this Bryan Barrett and Justin Kerr, If you do nothing else in this case please just do the following two things before trial:1. Subpoena the case file from the child custody evaluation report that was completed by Dr. Edward J. Connor on August 29, 2007 and; 2. File the appropriate paperwork so I can appear in front of the jury in a professional looking suit rather than looking like a convict in my county orange. If you do those two things, I will be better prepared to handle my case in the event you should crash and burn because you waited until the last minute to prepare for a case consisting of a few thousand documents.

So if you see Justin Kerr or Bryan Barrett, please relay my message. Tell them to contact my mother with a time that I can call them or with a date that they will come and meet with me to help prepare for trial, hopefully before the day of the trial. It is impossible to prepare a defense against charges that reach back 4 and 1/2 years without even talking to the defendant. Since my mother received an email this morning saying that Justin Kerr would not be contacting her and the Rushville Public Defender’s Office will not pick up when they see I’m calling from jail (I’m not calling collect), and Justin Kerr will not pick up his cell when I call, I’m not sure how we are going to communicate. Here is a copy of the email.

Dear Sue,

I regretfully inform you that I will no longer be available to speak to you regarding Dan's case. The reason I have made this decision is directly related to your desire to post substantive portions of previous conversations (between you and I ) that took place earlier this week. The rules of professional conduct do not require any attorney or anyone working with an attorney to talk with family members when the defendant (or client) is no longer a minor child. Common courtesy is the sole reason I was willing to accept phone calls and emails from you while Dan's case was pending before the trial court. As I have previously stated, Mr. Barrett and I are continuing to review this case, the files contained therein, and all possible defenses in this cause. Finally, we will be prepared to try this matter on August 16th, 2011, as ordered by Honorable Special Judge Brian D. Hill.

Thank you in advance for your kind understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Justin

Thanks to everyone for their support. You can contact the Brewington family at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

Re: Dan’s Bond Reduction Hearing.

Tuesday morning as I was driving out to jail to see Dan, I got a phone call from a Justin Kerr who is Bryan Barrett’s (public defender#2) investigator. He tells me that Barrett had a family emergency and had to leave town late last week and didn’t know when he would be back. There would be no bond reduction hearing tomorrow, Wednesday, August 3, 2011. He also said that Dan would have to decide if he wanted to continue his trial that is scheduled to start Tuesday, August 16, 2011 and he would have to make the decision today because Judge Hill is ready to call the jury. So Dan has no chance to get out of jail and he has to decide if he wants a continuance. He could be in jail for a year without a chance of bail reduction without being convicted of anything, having no criminal record. He definitely does not want a continuance and I don’t think Judge Hill wants one either. Now the investigator is doing background work for the trial and we have no idea when he will be joined by an attorney. This all falls into the category of “I can’t make this stuff up”. Stay tuned for more information. Thanks to everyone for their support. Sue Brewington