Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Dear NRA Members, Get rid of you Guns. 10/11/11

On October 6, 2011 a Dearborn County, Indiana jury found me guilty of three counts of intimidation because I criticized public officials via the internet. There were no threats of violence or illegal activity. My public speech that was peacefully transmitted from my computer did not incite panic nor was it a call for lawless action. My public speech consisted of my views, opinions, and experiences with/of the family court system. Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard convinced a jury that I said too much and used the wrong words in my public speech. But in the process of stripping me of my First Amendment rights, Prosecutor Negangard deprived me of my Second Amendment right as well.

“He’s got a gun” is a phrase that, if taken out of context, can incite fear. If you use the phrase at an NRA function someone will probably inform you of the fact that everyone at the function probably owns a gun. Rather than respect my Second Amendment right to own a firearm, Prosecutor Negangard used my gun ownership to instill fear in the members of the grand jury and trial jury in my case. If you yell “shark” at the beach, people will swim for their lives to get out of the water regardless of whether a shark is present. This was the tactic of Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. He yelled “Gun!” just to bring fear to the jurors.

I’ve never been accused of committing a gun-related crime. I’ve never been accused of having a gun related accident. It seems I am constantly being accused of owning firearms and people continue to punish me for it. During my divorce, my wife testified that I purchased a 357 Magnum after she filed for divorce. She testified that she wanted the handgun in the property settlement because she felt the gun was dangerous and should be destroyed. Despite the fact I purchased the gun after she filed for divorce and the fact that there were no reports of the gun being used improperly, Judge James D. Humphrey awarded a 357 Magnum handgun to someone who had never even fired a gun. Humphrey’s orders came out on August 18, 2009 and I have yet to turn over the handgun. Why? Because it may be against Indiana law.

Indiana law prohibits someone from transferring ownership of a firearm to someone they believe may be mentally ill. At the very least, my ex-wife wanted possession of my 357 magnum just to punish me. That’s not a very compelling reason to give someone a dangerous handgun especially a person with absolutely no experience in handling firearms. She wasn’t concerned about safety or violence because there were several other guns of mine that were listed in the property distribution that she had no interest in. Her hatred for me was so great that she wanted ownership of a handgun, which I purchased after she filed for divorce, just to punish me. I just don’t feel comfortable with turning over a handgun to someone whose only purpose in acquiring the gun was to, at the very least, cause me emotional harm.

“He’s got a 357 Magnum handgun and nobody knows where it is.” This was part of Prosecutor Negangard’s closing argument. Number one, the issue was irrelevant because it had nothing to do with the charges. Number two; he wouldn’t have raised the issue if it were kitchen utensils that I failed to return, rather than a 357 Magnum handgun. I feel comfortable in knowing that my ex-wife does not have the gun especially after listening to/reviewing her testimony to the court and grand jury in my criminal trial. She told the grand jury that I threatened her with physical violence on several occasions. She never made any such accusations during the custody evaluation and the 2 ½ year divorce. She never contacted the police about the alleged threats. I have not had any contact with her for over two years. These alleged threats never occurred. If she truly believes these things then she has some serious psychological issues. If she lied to the grand jury about the alleged threats of violence in the hopes of sending me to prison and further alienating her own daughters from their father, then her venomous and vindictive hatred for me has no boundaries. Neither of the above scenarios are characterizations of someone who I would deem to be psychologically fit to possess a firearm; especially around my daughters.

“You can’t go into a crowed room and yell fire.” Negangard used this analogy in an effort to portray my peaceful writings as an attempt to incite panic. It was Negangard who yelled “fire” except he used the word “gun.” Members of the NRA and gun owners across the United States should be very concerned about this situation. The government may not be able to take you guns, but Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negnagard is trying to set a precedence of using legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership as a means to scare juries into returning guilty verdicts. This sort of thing goes on in a county that has a state senator who is also on the Board of Directors of the NRA. Contact NRA Board Member Senator Johnny Nugent and other NRA officials and tell them to put pressure on prosecutors like F. Aaron Negangard who criminalized legal gun ownership. Please help prevent government officials like Prosecutor Negangard from desecrating the Constitution of the United States of America.

Contact Dan/family at: contactdanbrewington@gmail.com


  1. Dan keep doing what you are doing. The system is a freaking joke! Your wife is a criminal. Your girls will be told the truth when they are old enough to really understand. Dude your exwife is ruthless. Does she not understand someday she will stand trial, but before someone much larger than Indiana law?

  2. Do you know Dan Brewington on a personal level? How about his ex? Then BACK OFF! People that are bashing her w/o knowing her, or the entire story, only knowing what Dan wants you to read/know, then BACK OFF!
    I know her 1st hand and I can tell you this has been a nightmare for her and her whole family. Probably for Dan's as well! Do you think anyone wants to be a single parent, raising kids without support? Yes divorce is terrible, but it happens and people move on. Do you think the people on the jury were all wrong because they didn't side with Dan? When is he going to face up to the fact that he needs help, so he can move on with his life, and be part of the girls lives? Who has he helped with all the ranting? Has he helped his girls or anyone else? Would he have been better helping his girls by doing what the court ordered? Wouldn't you do whatever it took to be part of your children's lives? Please, if you do not have 1st hand knowledge of what is going on PLEASE don't respond to this, or his rantings, you are only giving him food to feed off of! The jury has spoken. They heard the case, did you? They had to make a decision and I am sure it was not easy for them, but they did what they were expected to do - find him guilty or not and they said guilty. At some point Dan is going to have to realize that he is not always right - sometimes he is in the wrong and this time 12 people said - enough - you are wrong and you have to pay. Who benefits from him being found quilty? Not Dan, not his children, not his family, not his ex. Knowone!! He could have listened to the court, did what they ordered, yes rant to people, but harass and rant and never let up?? It gets old Dan people can only take so much. Time for you to pay the piper. TIME FOR DAN TO MOVE ON SO AT SOME POINT HE GETS THE HELP HE NEEDS SO MAYBE HE CAN BE A PART OF HIS DAUGHTERS LIVES! WASN'T IT ALL ABOUT THEM? ALWAYS? OR WAS IT MORE ABOUT HIM TRYING TO BE IN CONTROL AGAIN?

  3. Sounds like she is the high conflict ex-who started it all. Wow. All this over people who can't get along in marriage. Couldn't she just sign the papers and be done with it. Shame that people have to act this way.

  4. Shake off all fears or servile prejudices,under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact,every oppinion. Question with boldness even the existense of God, because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded FEAR. (THOMAS JEFFERSON)

  5. @Robear, it wasn't the ex-wife protesting the divorce or custody battle, it was all Dan. He is the reason why things are still a battle today.

  6. @Anon October 13, 2011 6:16 PM

    And the good reason why he's shedding light on places corrupt people don't want light shed.

  7. For the person that said 12 people made the choice to convict him. There where only six. So that tells me you we not there either. My sister happened to be part of that jury and she felt he was railroaded. I yet to find out why her opinion didn't count. She said they considered her to be an alternive. Was she? Was this a hung jury? I'm going to find out.

  8. Uh did you not see where on the public forum where it said they made a typing error and yes I know it was only 6. So get over yourself, you dont have a a clue about what is really going on so quit trying to act like you do. You are only hearing what Dan and his family want you to hear. They are all delusional and believing what Dan has told them. He is in jail right where he needs to be.

  9. Well, the Governer just appointed a retired prosecutor to investigate why their are 8,000 people in jail in Indiana for non-violent class D felony`s! Its costing us tax payers hundreds of millions that could go toward education! Like teaching our kids the constitution of the USA!

  10. They heard the case, did you?

    No.. but I did hear OJ's case and Casey Anthony's case... See my point? (BTW.. If you think that PDs offer anyone a fair trial... well then there is no reason to discuss this with you...

    And if you think that parents (mostly moms but some dads too) don't deny access to children in order to punish the stranged spouse.. well.. again, no reason to discuss any divorce case with you.

    Finally, if you think that family law court is called "liar's court" for no reason...