On July 19, 2011 I published TIMELINE PART I, this is TIMELINE PART II published on August 29, 2011.
27. A Bond Reduction hearing was scheduled for August 3, 2011.
a. Dan had only talked to Mr. Barrett 1 time since July 18, 2011 and that was because Dan kept calling the public defender’s office until Barrett picked up. A rational call from Mr. Barrett to explain that he had a family emergency would have been a courtesy. But we were left to guess with the bond hearing approaching, as well as the trial.
b. On August 1, 2011 after not hearing from Mr. Barrett since seeing him at the July 18, 2011 hearing, I emailed him. I told him Dan did not want a continuance, that Dan had a lot of information and people that could be subpoenaed to testify as character and medical witnesses. I told him that Dan needed to talk to him that day and sent him my cell phone number, again. Dan had signed papers so Mr. Barrett could discuss his case with his Ohio attorney Robert G. Kelly or with me, Sue Brewington.
c. On August 2, 2011 I got a call from Mr. Barrett’s investigator, Justin Kerr, and he told me there would be no bond hearing because of Mr. Barrett’s family emergency.
d. He wanted Dan to continue his trial and he said that Dan had to decide today, Aug. 2, 2011.
e. If Dan were to continue his trial he could be in jail indefinitely because he would be giving up his right to a speedy trial and there would be all kinds of continuances, no bond reduction hearings…
f. Dan got information that was incorrect from Mr. Kerr
(1) Dan asked, through me, about filing a motion for him to be able to wear street clothes at trial. He responded with an email that explained that the CO that gave Dan the information about wearing street clothes to trial was either imaginary or didn’t know what he was talking about. I checked with Judges’ Cleary and Blankenship’s offices and was told that you did need something in writing to the court, from your attorney. In section 5.2 of the inmate handbook it says something in writing has to be submitted.
(2) Mr. Kerr told Dan that the state had 1 year to try someone but left out that they could only be kept in jail 6 months without trial if they did not file for any continuances. He tried to get Dan to file a continuance. There are 3 exceptions to this, see below.
28. I was reporting our story on the internet and Mr. Kerr didn’t like it so he wrote to say he couldn’t communicate with me anymore.
29. The trial was scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 8:30. Jury selection would be first.
a. Next – Dan’s counsel had to file a Motion to Vacate the Bond Reduction Hearing that was scheduled for August 3, 2011.
b. The judge ordered this because the public defender was out of town on a personal matter and since the trial is set for August 16, 2011 there is no need for a bond reduction hearing.
c. An order vacating the August 3, 2011 Bond Reduction Hearing was filed on August 4, 2011.
30. Judge Brian D. Hill filed a Voir Dire Order on August 4, 2011. That is to convene a jury.
31. On Monday August 8, 2011, Norwood, Ohio Attorney Robert G. Kelly became licensed to practice before the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana. He took his oath of office in Indianapolis and went straight to Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center to see Dan. After almost 5 months Mr. Kelly could finally see Dan under attorney-client privilege.
32. On Tuesday, August 9, 2011 Mr. Kelly filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana, in Indianapolis.
33. On August 9, 2011 Deputy Prosecutor, M. Joseph Kisor filed a Motion for Confidentiality of Juror’s Names and Identities.
a. Once again Prosecutor Negangard’s office uses the charges as fact when asking for this motion.
(1) The defendant has previously attempted to interfere with the judicial process, including continuous and long-term harassment of witnesses, judges, and attorneys involved.
(2) The defendant has previously made threats against witnesses, judges, and attorneys involved in the current court proceedings.
(3) Juror’s safety would be jeopardized…
(4) To support his argument Prosecutor Negangard’s office uses the case of Carl A. Major Appellant-Defendant vs. State of Indiana, Appellee- Plaintiff. This case involved the shooting of 5 people, 3 died and they were executed, 3 shots to the back of the head. The court ruled that the trial court erred in impaneling an anonymous jury but that such error was harmless, and that Major’s sentence of 175 years was not inappropriate.
(5) The Appellate Court ruled that the even considering the horrendous nature of the crime impaneling an anonymous jury was wrong in this case but it was a harmless error. How could it possibly be appropriate in Dan’s case?
34. On August 10, 2011 Deputy Prosecutor M. Joseph Kisor filed a Motion to Release Grand Jury Exhibits to the Prosecuting Attorney for Dan’s trial. We don’t even know what that means because we can’t talk to Dan’s attorney.
35. On August 11, 2011 there is an Order Vacating Jury Trial because the public defender had a family emergency, which he truly did, and Judge Brian D. Hill wanted to make sure the Defendant would get his right of effective assistance of counsel at trial.
36. As part of the above order, Judge Brian D. Hill also set a Bond Reduction Hearing for Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 10:00AM.
37. On Friday, August 12, 2011 Bryan E. Barrett called me in a 1 minute 17 second phone conversation to tell me that the trial had been vacated and that a bond reduction hearing was to be set for August 17, 2011 and he would be there.
38. There was not going to be any attempt to call character or medical witnesses for Dan.
39. No communication with the attorney until August 17, 2011
40. Bond Hearing – Wednesday, August 17, 2011
a. Dan came in with help from a CO trying to carry all of his documents because he didn’t know what counsel would want or what he intended to do. He was wearing pink handcuffs that would rub his wrists red because he had to constantly go through his 1400 pages of discoveries with no help and not being able to take off the handcuffs. No one even asked if that was possible.
b. Barrett never talked to Dan. Barrett sat in the spectator seats until the judge was ready to come in and then Mr. Barrett moved to his spot next to Dan.
c. Barrett had no witnesses to call for Dan. No character or mental health witnesses. They would have been available if there had been time to call them.
d. Negangard calls Det. Shane McHenry to the stand.
(1). He testified that they have a recorded interview with someone who was in Hamilton County Justice Center when Dan was there. The man’s name is Keith L Jones. The Cincinnati Police got a crimestopper’s call (they are all anonymous) with a story that someone in jail was trying to hire a person to do a drive by on a judge.
(2). That someone was “allegedly” Dan.
(3). The man supposedly had details so you would know that he talked to Dan, or overhead Dan talking to someone.
(4). Keith L. Jones supposedly said he knew someone and supposedly gave Dan 2 phone numbers.
(5). The police checked only one number and the person (the informant’s daughter) had never heard of Dan Brewington.
(6). Prosecutor Negangard gave the recording to the judge.
(7). Keith L. Jones has a criminal record pages long covering 2 counties in Ohio; Hamilton and Franklin and the Federal Government. Charges consist of taking the identity of another, forgery, insurance fraud, falsification, receiving stolen property, possession of criminal tools, multiple felony thefts, and probation violation.
(8). Keith L. Jones has been an informant for the police but is now serving a ten-year prison sentence.
(9). Cincinnati Police didn’t pursue this further.
(10). The ATF officer didn’t pursue this further.
(11). The Hamilton County Prosecutor didn’t file charges nor did the Dearborn County Prosecutor file charges.
(12). The Dearborn County Sheriff formed a protective unit around the clock for Judge Humphrey from March 11, 2011 through March 18, 2011.
(13). During this time Dan was in custody in their Jail but they didn’t interrogate him. They just listened in to all of his conversations for a week. They didn’t hear anything about a drive by.
(14). F. Aaron Negangard offered Dan a plea bargain in May through public defender #1, John Watson. Mr. Watson conveyed this information to Norwood attorney Robert G. Kelly. It was time served. Would Negangard offer time served to a person who tried to hire someone to do a drive by on a judge?????
(15). He used it at the Bond Hearing to try to promote his argument that Dan is dangerous.
(16). For unofficial transcribed minutes to this hearing see
41. On Friday, August 19, 2011 at 3:23PM Dan filed a complaint and jury demand(lawsuit), by his Norwood, Ohio Attorney Robert G. Kelly, in the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana naming:
a. Judge James D. Humphrey – Family Court Judge Dearborn County, Indiana
b. Edward J. Connor – Child Custody Evaluator from Erlanger, Kentucky working in Indiana without a license.
c. F. Aaron Negangard – Prosecutor of Dearborn County, Indiana
d. Michael Kreinhop – Sheriff of Dearborn County, Indiana
e. Heidi Humphrey – former member of the Indiana Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Committee in September,2009.
f. Angela Loechel – divorce attorney, Lawrenceburg, Indiana.
g. Dearborn County, Indiana
John Does 1-25 For a complete copy of the complaint and jury demand (lawsuit) go to
42. Order Denying Bond Reduction – filed August 23, 2011.
a. State presented evidence the Defendant has a history of refusing to follow court orders and disdain for authority of the court.
(1). Negangard made a point that Dan didn’t have the court ordered mental health exam and Dan’s attorney made no attempt to be able to ask Dan what he had done.
(2). Negangard made a point that Dan had not paid his ex $122,000 that he was ordered to pay to her immediately. Note: Dan has a public defender because he has no money.
(3). Dan has not paid Angela Loechel the $40,000 the court ruled he owed her.
(4). The first 3 all pertain to Dan’s divorce decree, filed August 18, 2009.
(5). He is current with child support payments and has never missed a payment.
(6). Disdain for the court is subjective. As far as bond goes, showing disdain for the court matters only if that disdain suggests that a defendant wouldn’t show for trial. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone, who doesn’t take a plea for time served and states that he wants to go to trial to proclaim his innocence, would run from trial.
(7). The state also presented evidence that since his arrest; the defendant may have contemplated violence towards at least one alleged victim in this case. See testimony of Det. Shane McHenry.
(8). The court concurs with Judge Sally Blankenship’s Bond. If she knew about the “alleged” drive by she didn’t mention it.
(9) What happened to Dan’s right to be released on or about September 11, 2011 because he has been in jail for 6 months and had not asked for a continuance? Judge Hill solved that issue by ruling that this case fell under the category of emergency so he invoked the emergency clause and Dan wasn’t going to get out in the 6 months the law demands through no fault of Dan’s.
43. Order to Release Grand Jury Exhibits – Filed August 23, 2011 – We still don’t know what that means.
44. There is an order that sets the Jury Trial for October 3, 2011 and the pretrial for September 19,
2011. There is a deadline for witness lists and subpoenas and Dan has only talked briefly to his attorney, who still hasn’t subpoenaed any witnesses, either character or medical. The attorney is supposed to visit this week, we will report later on this.
45. Judge Ted Todd, in Jefferson County, denied my motion to set aside the divorce decree even though it violates my right to due process regarding the money and the farmland so my finances are still frozen. It was filed with the Ripley County Clerk’s office on 9/6/11. I can’t sell land or borrow money because of the lien that was placed on my husband’s trust because of the divorce. For more information on this issue please see the blog post “When a Trust Becomes A Nightmare”. Judge Todd took over 6 months to rule on this.
Submitted by Sue Brewington 9/8/11