Thursday, December 27, 2012

Officials in Dearborn County under Federal Investigation

Officials in Dearborn County under Federal Investigation

In February 2011 Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard convened a grand jury to listen to him present his case against Dan Brewington. Dan was blogging about the family court system in Dearborn County, Judge Humphrey, and the Kentucky custody evaluator Edward Connor. Dan witnessed the zeal that Prosecutor Negangard used to prosecute him.

 Now another government entity is convening a grand jury, the federal government. The FBI has served grand jury subpoenas on the Lawrenceburg, Indiana, officials and the feds want records regarding grants and loans made by the town and the council back as far as 2007 forward. Millions of dollars are involved. Where was Prosecutor Negangard and his federally funded Special Crimes Unit?

Dan Brewington is now waiting for the Indiana Court of Appeals to rule on his appeal. Oral Arguments were held on November 24, 2012 in Indianapolis.

 For more information on the federal investigation covered by Fox 19 News in an article posted by Matthew Nordin at the following links: Dearborn County Forum

Monday, December 10, 2012

Dearborn Superior Court II Finally Releases Arraignment Transcripts in the Dan Brewington Case

The question that I would like to address is misuse of the entire bond process in Dearborn County, Indiana. I’m posting the link to the entire transcript for the Arraignment of Daniel Brewington but have included an outline of the bond conversation section. The 8th amendment to the US Constitution says excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. We have a right to reasonable bail. There is nothing that transpired in this arraignment hearing that called for a $500,000 surety, $100,000 cash bond. It would have cost $150,000 for Mr. Brewington to get out of jail. The Prosecution knew that if Mr. Brewington had been able to participate in his own defense, he would never have been found guilty. In an unrelated criminal matter Lawrenceburg attorney Doug Garner filed a motion, December 3, 2012, stating that Mr. Negangard is using bail as an enforcement tool and a Judge is abdicating his duty to set bond to the Prosecutor. He holds people until they accept a plea bargain, or come forward with information about another case, and then there is a deal for them. Judge Sally Blankenship left the courtroom about 12:00pm Friday, March 11, 2011 and ruled in the Brewington bond case issue about 5:30pm Friday, March 11, 2011. The information she left court with was certainly not enough information to set a $600,000 bond for Daniel Brewington. Possibly Judge Blankenship used information from outside the bond hearing or perhaps she conferred with Mr. Negangard, before determining the $600,000 bond? Six days later she recused herself because of a conflict of interest. Did she have a conflict of interest when she set the bond? Of course if one follows the rules one cannot use information outside the hearing for the determination of bond. Dan Brewington has now spent 21 months in incarceration.
 The Prosecutor’s main argument was that Brewington’s release would jeopardize the state’s case against Brewington because Brewington promised to publicize the proceedings. 
P3-4 Mr. Kelly is introduced to the Court with emphasis on the fact that he is not licensed to practice in Indiana. 
P5-16 The Court (Judge Sally Blankenship) read Dan his rights, including a right to an attorney. Deputy Dearborn County Prosecutor Joseph Kisor read the charges and the laws from where the charges were drawn. Judge Blankenship read the possible penalties connected to the charges. 
P16-18 Brewington says he wants a public defender and Judge Blankenship asks him a series of financial questions. Judge Blankenship agrees to find a public defender.
P18-35 Discussion regarding bond.
Mr. Kisor:
  1. The Court has been given protective orders and is asked to enter in favor of Dr. Edward Connor and Judge James D. Humphrey and his family as a condition of bond at this time. (State’s Exhibit 1).
  2. State’s position is that a high bond would be appropriate
  1. Mr. Brewington is a resident of Ohio
  2. We believe the allegations are extremely serious and he does present a danger to the community.

  1. Ask the Court to make conditions of his bond
  1. That he not access the internet, or if the Court would believe that to be too broad, we would ask the Court to make a condition of bond that Mr. Brewington not continue to blog about the substance of the case that is here before this court. 
  2. Kisor –I personally reviewed the blog this morning and there was a post that says, ”if I am detained in Dearborn County jail because I do not receive a hearing or if Negangard gets a ridiculously high bond placed on me, facebook users can get updates from my family and friends from my facebook group, ’help Dan Brewington see his girls.’ I will have someone posting information on this case that Negangard tries to lock me up or in the case that Negangard tries to lock me up and throw away the keys. All are welcome to join. Thanks for the support.” So we’re asking that that order be made no direct or indirect postings regarding this case.” (Copies of Brewington’s blogs are submitted as State’s Exhibit 2)
  3. Kisor went on to read about another blog. The substance of it is that he’s (Dan) going to continue to write about this case on these blogs.
  4. Kisor – the day after Brewington testified to the grand jury he made another posting “I’m out silly Negangard. He thought jail would somehow intimidate me; more to come. So I think it’s clear that he intends to try this case on his blog and Kisor says he (Kisor) thinks that this will be detrimental to the State. Kisor says in any event it is not appropriate.

  1. Next- the famous leaking grand jury charge. The prosecutor claims that Brewington swore under oath that he would not disclose grand jury proceedings. Then Kisor cites Brewington’s blog (only partially of course) “I can’t say what happened in the grand jury but if Negangard takes the matter to trial, I will be sure to get the grand jury information on the public court”. Kisor says this is the court where this case needs to be tried; not the public court, your Honor. 
  2. State’s exhibit 3. Kisor submitted Brewington’s divorce decree written by Judge James D. Humphrey. 
  3. State’s exhibit 4. Kisor submitted the Court of Appeals opinion of Mr. Brewington’s appeal of that case
  4. State’s exhibit 5. Kisor submitted a letter from Dr. Ed Connor to Judge Taul who was the original Judge in his divorce court who recused himself, um, after being accused of conspiring with Dr. Connor.
  5. Kisor:  “the substance of them (the exhibits) are that you will see, Mr. Brewington has disdain for any court; anybody that he sees as an enemy, including his own former attorneys, he will attack. He will attack them in his blog, he will attack then in himself and through other people and I don’t think again, if that’s the proper way for this case to proceed. So the State is asking to admit State’s Exhibits 1 through 5 in consideration of setting the bond and the conditions and again the State’s request is for a high bond and with the provision that he not be permitted to use the internet or discuss this case in any other form.”
  6. P24 Mr. Brewington tells the Court that he only has until March 17th of this month to prepare something for the U.S. Supreme Court on issues dealing with his Decree of Dissolution and being incarcerated would really hamper his ability to do that. He states that he is representing himself on the divorce issue.
  7. P25 The Court allows Mr. Kelly to speak.
  1. Mr. Kelly explained that he was anticipating filing the necessary paperwork with Indiana to get appointed to appear on Brewington’s behalf pro bono to assist whoever the court appointed counsel is if that can be arranged and we couldn’t get it done by today because we couldn’t get the public defender appointed. (Note: Public defender #1 agreed to sponsor Mr. Kelly but then he quit, public defender #2 would not even return his calls, so Mr. Kelly never got to assist.)
  2. Mr. Brewington has no criminal record.
  3. No missed court dates and he voluntarily appeared, after waiting 6 hours, to appear before the grand jury proceeding. 
  4. Mr. Brewington voluntarily surrendered here this morning as a result of a bond being posted in the State of Ohio for his release on the extradition warrant and upon the representation to those court authorities that Mr. Brewington would surrender himself. He was released by Hamilton County and that was also discussed with Prosecutor Negangard, that he would be surrendered by 6:00 this morning.
  5. There are no threats of violence on any of these charges that have been filed which I think would be one of the big issues as far as intimidation. 
  6. There’s no in person contact between Mr. Brewington and Judge Humphrey or Judge Humphrey’s wife at any time other than in a courtroom where Mr. Brewington represented himself. That’s been the only in person contact with Judge Humphrey at any time. The only in person contact with Dr. Connor was either a result of his visit with Dr. Connor for an evaluation or if Dr. Connor was subpoenaed for a criminal action that was filed by his(Brewington’s) ex-wife in Ohio. We tried to subpoena Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor refused to appear in the Hamilton County Municipal Court. Those charges were thrown out by the Judge in Ohio.
  7. Some of these charges that are alleged in the indictment, even reviewing them you can’t identify what, the actual facts, the dates, the times, any of these things occurred.
  8. “If that woman in the back corner writes the wrong thing on her paper and the Prosecutor gets upset about it, she could be indicted.  It’s his(Brewington’s) first amendment right to get on there and type as long as he’s not threatening physical harm to someone.
  9. Kelly explains about the leaking grand jury information indictment. Explaining that it is hyperbole, that Brewington was referencing a Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise movie.
  10. Kelly - Brewington has an absolute first amendment right to get on the computer if he wants to blog, he can blog.
  1. Mr. Johnson – deputy prosecutor. Your honor, the only, the only concern would be um, it was stated explicitly to Mr. Brewington in the grand jury proceedings that he was not to put anything on his blog concerning anything that happened in the grand jury and he proceeded to go and whether he put on his blog information, you know, regarding the proceedings and whether people, people would not know whether that occurred or not. The problem is, is that Mr. Brewington Does not follow instruction that need to be followed that is our big issue here.
  2. Kisor – “I would just add that Mr. Kelly’s correct. You can go to that blog. …The postings he has, to me, show an absolute disdain for the court and for the prosecution and certainly that’s okay with the first amendment as long as it doesn’t affect with everybody right to a fair trial and that’s why we’ve asked for those conditions you Honor.”
  3. Kelly – “In the fact that Mr. Brewington may have disdain for the Prosecutor I think is actually his right. He could even have disdain for the Court and that would be his right. Now as an officer of the Court, if I had disdain for the Court or showed some lack of respect or didn’t urge somebody to be compliant with the Court’s order, that would absolutely be a problem but he’s got a right not to sit there if somebody says well don’t write anything bad about the Prosecutor. He’s got a right to put down whatever he wants. If it’s actionable slander or libel, they can, they can sue him but quite frankly they haven’t. What they’ve done is they’ve indicted him because they’re in control of that. 
  4. Court – conditions of bond.
  1. Maintain contact with your attorney
  2. Notify the court in writing of any change of address within 48 hours
  3. You may not commit any criminal offenses
  4. You appear at all scheduled court hearings.
  5. Court is going to grant protective order – standard rules (see P 31-32)
  6. You would have no firearms, deadly weapons or ammunition in your possession

  1. Brewington was given a $600,000 bond because:
  1. He is a resident of Ohio
  2. Mr. Kisor:
(1)  We believe his crimes are serious and he is a danger to the community.
(2)  Asked for protective orders for Dr. Ed Connor and Judge Humphrey and his family.
(3)  Said Dan is going to continue to post on his blog.
(4)  Said this is the court where this case should be tried, not the public court.
(5)  Said Mr. Brewington has disdain for the court.
(6)  Asked for a high bond and that he (Dan) not be permitted to use the internet or discuss  this case in any other form.
(7)  Said Mr. Brewington has shown an absolute disdain for the court and for the prosecution.
(8)  Said that is alright unless it affects everyone’s right to a fair trial... I (Sue Brewington) thought only Mr. Brewington was entitled to a fair trial but I guess Mr. Kisor thinks the prosecutor is entitled to a fair trial.
  1. Mr. Johnson said that the problem is Mr. Brewington does not follow instructions that need to be followed, that is our big issue here.
  2. Mr. Kelly said:
(1)  Mr. Brewington has no criminal record.
(2)  Mr. Brewington has never missed a court date.
(3)  Mr. Brewington voluntarily testified before the grand jury, even waiting six hours to do so.
(4)  There are no threats of violence on any of the charges that have been filed.
(5)  There has been no personal contact between Mr. Brewington and the people he is charged with intimidating, except in their professional capacities. He never had any contact with Heidi Humphrey.
(6)  In some of the charges in the indictments you can’t determine actual facts, dates and times any of these things occurred.
(7)  That Mr. Brewington has a constitutional right to have disdain for the Court and the Prosecutor as long as what he blogs is not actionable slander or libel, then he can be sued.

  1. Decision – is $600,000 bond, in this case, a violation of the 8th amendment?

Sue Brewington

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Dan Brewington's Case was cited In a Motion to Remove Judge Humphrey from a Criminal Trial in Dearborn County, Indiana

Dearborn County lawyer, Doug Garner, filed a motion requesting Judge James D. Humphrey remove himself in a case involving corrupt business, fraud, and identity deception. Garner's motion titled Motion for the Removal Of Judge James D. Humphrey Because He is Biased in Favor of Dearborn County Prosecutor, Aaron Negangard, cited Brewington's Case in section 8(a) of the Motion and in Sections 14, 15, and 16 in the Affidavit in Support of the Motion to Remove...

"Aaron Negangard successfully prosecuted Daniel Brewington who was alleged to be a threat to Judge Humphrey and his family." Section 8(a)

In the closing arguments of the Brewington trial Negangard argued Humphrey shouldn't have to bear the burden or expense of pursuing civil action against Brewington. Negangard advocated on behalf of Humphrey that the criminal prosecution of Brewington was the appropriate remedy to protect Judge Humphrey's reputation and character rather than civil action.

Garner also raised the issue of how bond was used in this particular case.

"Judge Humphrey acquiesed or participated in a procedure employed by Mr. Negangard to use bond as a tool of law enforcement to obtain statements from co-defendants Mr. Negangard would have been otherwise unable to attain." Section 8(b) of the Motion.

"Judge Humphrey ceded control of who is released on bond in the Acapulco Cases to Mr. Negangard" Section 8(c) of the Motion.

Garner noted that the denial of his client's bond reduction came just hours after Humphrey and Negangard both attended the Oral Arguments in Dan Brewington's Appeal in Indianapolis.

The consitutional right to a reasonable bond was also an issue in the Brewington case.

This story appeared in the Dearborn County Paper Tuesday, December 4, 2012.
Written by Staff
Monday, December 03, 2012 9:13 PM

Click here to read entire motion

A motion has been filed by Lawrenceburg attorney Doug Garner requesting Dearborn-Ohio Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey remove himself from the case of Marie and Adolfo Lopez.

The Lopezes are facing charges of corrupt business influence, forger and perjury following an investigation by Indiana State Excise Police. They and others allegedly did not pay enough sales tax to the State of Indiana.

According to the motion for removal filed by Garner Monday, Dec. 3, “Judge James D. Humphrey because he is biased in favor of the Dearborn County Prosecutor, Aaron Negangard,” noting “The issue is not whether the judge believes himself to be impartial, but whether a reasonable person aware of all the circumstances would question the judge’s impartiality. In re Wilkins, 780 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. 2003).”

There is a perception to “reasonable minds” that Humphrey’s ability to give the Lopezes due process is impaired because “(a) Aaron Negangard successfully prosecuted Daniel Brewington who was alleged to be a threat to Judge Humphrey and his family.

(b) Judge Humphrey acquiesced or participated in a procedure employed by Mr. Negangard to use bond as a tool of law enforcement to obtain statements from co-defendants Mr. Negangard would have been otherwise unable to obtain.

(c) Judge Humphrey ceded control of who is released on bond in the Acapulco Cases to Mr. Negangard.”

Garner also notes in the motion it “is belated because on November 28,2012 counsel reviewed the Chronological Case Summaries for the co-defendants and discovered the number of co-defendants who may have been forced to waive their 5th Amendment rights to secure their release from jail. Counsel could not have discovered this information with due diligence because the state has not produced copies of co-defendants statements.”
Last Updated on Monday, December 03, 2012 11:00 PM

The story was also reported on Eagle 99.3 News blog.




Wednesday, November 28, 2012

A Father's Letter to His Girls

Dear Girls,
Sorry it took a little while for me to write back. I loved hearing from you. I can’t believe how big you are getting. I love you so much and miss you more than you can imagine. First I want to answer all the cool questions you asked in your letters.

Sophia is doing great. Grandma Sue has been taking good care of her while I have been gone. Grandma says Sophia gets tired around 9 o’clock at night and Grandma says “Do you want to go to bed?” and Sophia runs into the back bedroom and jumps in bed. In the morning, Sophia goes potty, eats and then jumps into bed with Grandma & sleeps a little longer. I remember how Audrey used to call her “Soapie.” How Funny!
I listen to all kinds of music here in jail. I have a radio with headphones. It’s not as good as an I Pod but I get a lot of radio stations. One of my favorite songs is “God gave me you” by country music singer Blake Shelton. Some of it goes “God gave me you for the ups & downs. God gave me you for the days of doubt.” When I hear it I think of my Audrey and Mary. Whenever I feel bad I think about how lucky I am to have two precious daughters like you.

My favorite subject in school was science. We used to do a lot of science – related things together. Remember how we would look at the stars? One time we woke up early in the morning before sunrise so we could see the planets Mars & Venus shining bright on either side of the moon. Remember our hikes when we looked for fossils & flint? We talked about how Indians made tools out of flint rocks. Mary used to wade in the pond & catch things in her net. She brought a tadpole & water spider in the house, put them in jars with water, and labeled them like a real scientist.
My favorite ice cream is Graeter’s mint chocolate chip. I love the big chocolate chunks.

Mary, you guessed it right. My favorite sport is golf. Remember all of the golf balls I had? I bought them so we could hit them out in the field behind the house. We would act like we were on Easter egg hunts and go look for the balls after we hit them. I don’t get to play golf in jail but I do jog a lot & I play basketball. People want me on their team because I am a good shooter. I’m in very good shape because sometimes I run up to seven miles in a day.
When I was your age I went to North Norwood Elementary School. It was a public school & we used to pass it on the way to Grandma Sue’s house. I still have a lot of friends from North Norwood who stay in touch with me.

Of course I remember, XXXX silly. How are they doing? I have a funny story about XXX . When she was little, Uncle XXX and Aunt XXX needed a babysitter so I drove to their apartment in the city & watched her. It was the first time I ever changed a diaper & XXX Pooped! I laughed & asked her how she could do that to me on my first diaper change. We had a lot of fun that day. Tell XXX &  XXX I said hi. Audrey said there was XXX too. Tell little XXX I said hello.
I heard the funny story about Frederina. I thought it was funny that Mary named her bird Fred. That’s what you used to call Holly’s dad, Mike.

I remember Lou. He’s a Bassett hound isn’t he? Does he still bark a lot? Do you remember our friend Ace? He had a dog that was part Bassett hound & part beagle.
Mary, I’m so happy you are doing well with soccer. I was a goalie at North Norwood but I wasn’t as good as you. I see police dogs here at the jail. I take care of the grass around the dog kennels. There are coon dogs, German Shepherds, and Black labs. One of my bosses works with the dogs. I hope you had a fun birthday. My birthday was November 16th. I turned 39 & will be 40 next year. Can you believe it. I can’t believe you love Garfield books. Uncle Matt & I had lots of Garfield books when we were kids.

Audrey you sound very busy. How do you fit everything in? Girl Scouts, cheerleading, & basketball? Sounds great. I’ve been playing a lot of basketball so I’ll be ready to play you in a game. It sounds like you are losing all of your teeth! You must be getting rich off of the tooth fairy. When I was little, I lost a tooth when I was sleeping & swallowed it without knowing it. I was sooooo upset because I couldn’t get my money from the tooth fairy. Grandma Sue wrote a note to the tooth fairy, explained what happened and we put it under my pillow. The next morning there was money under my pillow!!!!! I was so happy.
I am glad to hear you girls are doing well in school. I hope you like your teachers. I have a lot of school teachers who keep supporting me. Grandma Sue say,XXX my 5grade teacher, always asks about how I’m doing & prays that I get to see my girls soon.

You girls like all the cool stuff!!! I Pods, I Pads, Kindles, & laptops. Those are the kind of things I love. That’s why I got you started early with laptops and the internet. It must have helped you out. When I went to parent-teacher conferences when Mary was in the 1st grade, her computer teacher said she was one of the best in the class. She said Mary knew how to change fonts in the program Word. I told her I taught Mary how to do it in pre-school. One of my favorite pictures of Audrey is one where Audrey is lying on her stomach on the bed working on her laptop at Grandma Sue’s. It’s a funny picture because she was on the internet and she still was wearing diapers! I think I have a couple of very smart daughters!!!!
I miss you two more than you could ever imagine. Hopefully I will be getting out of jail soon & start working again to see you.  Aunt XXX said she told you not to worry about me because I am doing OK. I’ve lost about 100 lbs since you saw me & I’m working to stay as healthy & physically fit as possible so I can be the best dad I can be for a long, long, time. I miss you very much & so do Grandma Sue & Uncle Matt & the rest of the family. You can call Grandma Sue. She would love to see you and talk to you. You could call her & tell her when you have sporting or school events so she can watch you like other grandparents. She is very proud of her sweet granddaughters. Grandma Sue’s phone number is XXX. I will tell her to look for your call. She will be very excited.

Please remember that I will always love my precious Mary & Audrey and I will always be your dad. I hope to see you soon & Grandma Sue will look forward to seeing you/ hearing from you!!!!
Love Always

P.S. I will always save copies of our letters so we can always go back and remember them. Love you!!!!

Friday, November 23, 2012

Oral Arguments in the Dan Brewington Case Can Be Viewed On Line, Plus Other Information Regarding the Arguments.

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 11:30am Oral Arguments were held in the case of Daniel Brewington vs. State of Indiana. The arguments were held in a Court of Appeals Courtroom in the Indiana Statehouse Building, Indianapolis.

 To watch the arguments go to CAUTION: You have to fast forward through 8 minutes of the main screen and then the hearing begins. Each side gets 20 minutes. Dan, represented by Michael K. Sutherlin and Sam Adams, chose to speak for 15 min and reserve 5 min. If you have never seen one of these you will probably be surprised. The judges can interrupt and question as often as they want. It must be frustrating for the lawyers arguing, but that is the way the process works. Dan was never scheduled to attend the proceedings. Sue and Matt Brewington, Dan’s Aunt Jane, and attorney Robert G. Kelly sat behind Sutherlin and Adams.

 A three judge panel of appellate judges are assigned to each case. The judges assigned to Dan’s case were Judge Carr Darden, Judge Elaine Brown, and Judge Ezra Friedlander. In what appeared to be a last minute change, two justices were replaced, no reason given. The new panel of judges consisted of Judges Baker, Riley, and Darden. Judge Darden was on the original panel. To read the biographies of the Judges see the following links; John Baker’s bio Patricia Riley Darden Ret. Special Judge

 Deputy Attorney General J. T. Whitehead represented the State. Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard sat next to Mr. Whitehead but did not speak. Deputy Dearborn County Prosecutor Joseph Kisor, Dearborn County Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey and his wife, Heidi Humphrey, and Edward and Sara Connor, custody evaluators from Erlanger, Kentucky sat behind Mr. Whitehead.

 At the end of the hearing Judge John Baker cautioned viewers, especially those in cyberspace, not to draw any conclusions from the questions asked by the judges.

Michael Sutherlin first questioned why a police officer was stationed in the courtroom because it was unexpected. Judge Baker’s response is on the tape but he said it wasn’t that odd, they do that frequently these days, it was holiday time and that the officer was there to keep the Judge awake.

 Mr. Sutherlin also asked about 11 court case summaries that Deputy Attorney General Whitehead filed on November 14, 2012 to be able to use in Oral Arguments. Dan’s attorneys did not receive these 11 cases until Monday, November 19, 2012 and they immediately filed asking that Mr. Whitehead not be able to use these cases at this late date. Mr. Whitehead’s deadline for his brief was around June 20, 2012 and now, at this late date, he wanted to add to his brief. I believe the judges said they would comment on the request later but this is also on the tape.

The presentations and questioning began. The court sticks to the time frame.

 When viewing the court hearing the camera apparently has two positions, the attorneys at the lectern and the judges as they are speaking. The observers on camera are Judge James and Heidi Humphrey, Deputy Dearborn County Prosecutor Joseph Kisor, two assistants, and a partial Edward Connor.

 The Judges and their clerks will also rely on the appellant brief, the appellee brief, and the appellant reply. These give a more in depth idea to what is being argued in this case.

 Any comments or questions can be directed to Once again thanks to everyone who has followed this case and been so supportive of Dan and our family.


Monday, November 19, 2012

Blogger’s freedom is on the line in Indiana, Wednesday, November 21, 2012.

The Indiana Court of Appeals is holding oral arguments in the case of Daniel Brewington vs. The State of Indiana on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 11:00am. Each side has 20 minutes to present and/or answer questions. The actual arguments can be viewed via video or podcast at:  For more details about the arguments and about the case see .  This entire post gives some insight into what has been going on with the case.  Dan’s case hinges on many issues that are before the court but one common thread that runs throughout is what constitutes freedom of speech and should Dan have been convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison for criminal charges that resulted from blogging. Dan is currently being held in the medium security prison at Putnamville, Indiana.
Below is from the summary page of the Indiana Court of Appeals. 

 Daniel Brewington vs. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals
Date and Time:
WED, NOV 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Case Number:

Case Summary:
Brewington appeals his convictions for two counts of class A misdemeanor intimidation, one count of class D felony intimidation, class D felony attempt to commit obstruction of justice, and class D felony perjury. Brewington asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury; the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for intimidation, attempted obstruction of justice, and perjury; his convictions constitute double jeopardy; the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence; and that the trial court abused its discretion in empanelling an anonymous jury.



Saturday, November 17, 2012

My ex and her lawyer, Angela G. Loechel, want me to go to jail… again

I just discovered that my ex wife’s divorce attorney Angela G. Loechel just filed a request for a hearing on their Amended Petition for Contempt that they originally filed Oct 7, 2010. It defies logic that the request was filed nearly a year prior to my earliest release date listed by the Indiana Department of Corrections, Sept. 9, 2013. It appears some people may be concerned that the Indiana Court of Appeals may overturn my convictions and end my prison stay prematurely. That’s probably why they requested a court date for as soon as I am released, rather than after Sept 9, 2013. 
I wrote a blog about something like this over 2 years ago. Ms. Loechel and her client seem to stop at nothing to keep my children fatherless. Before I even step foot out of prison they are plotting a way to punish me again.  Ms. Loechel was the person who initiated this whole criminal process and she and my ex played a major role in all stages of my criminal prosecution. Now that they believe my name might be cleared through the court of appeals they have become proactive in placing more obstacles in the way of my efforts to be a father. Feel free to read the contempt petition filed by Ms. Loechel and the blog I wrote 2 years ago, about how it seems that Ms. Loechel will stop at nothing in her efforts to portray me as a dangerous parent.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Prosecutor actively supporting a judge for re-election

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor in Dearborn County, Indiana is supporting his own particular choice for Judge in the race for Superior Court II at the Dillsboro Homecoming in May of 2012. (Click on link below) Judge Sally Blankenship is the Judge who set a $600,000 bond for Dan based on the Prosecutor asking for high bond because Dan did not have the proper respect for the prosecutor’s office or the court. The transcript for Dan’s arraignment hearing has been ordered and we have listened to the tapes. A few days after setting the bond she recused herself because of a conflict. I would ask every Dearborn County resident to consider Alan Miller for Superior Court II. A judge should be independent and ethical to truly represent all the citizens of any community.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Now Picture This:

If you, your son or your daughter have the misfortune to find themselves in Ms. Blankenship's Court, how much confidence will you have that the prosecution will be fairly adjudicated?



If you, your son or your daughter have the misfortune to find themselves in Ms. Blankenship's Court, how much confidence will you have that the prosecution will be fairly adjudicated?

Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor, at Dillsboro Homecoming, May 2012


If you, your son or your daughter have the misfortune to find themselves in Ms. Blankenship's Court, how much confidence will you have that the prosecution will be fairly adjudicated?


Thursday, September 13, 2012

Exorbitant Bond in Dearborn County, IN - Dan Brewington's Case

Exorbitant Bond in Dearborn County, IN – Dan Brewington’s Case

There is a huge distinction between protecting society, being tough on crime and bullying one’s own constituents. Using high bonds to keep people in jail longer has been a topic of discussion in the decision to increase the size of the jail and in the upcoming judicial race where Alan Miller is challenging Sally Blankenship for Superior Court II. This is one case of the high bond syndrome.

Dan Brewington’s Arraignment Hearing March 11, 2012

In looking at the Arraignment Hearing one needs to consider two documents: the Order Setting Bail and the transcripts for the hearing. Bail was set at $500,000 surety plus $100,000 cash.

A.    Order Setting Bail

1.     The charges are such that there “exists a threat to community and/or individual safety”.

2.     “State provided evidence that the Defendant has a history of not following Court orders and a general disdain for the authority of the Court and the legal system.

a.      Judge Blankenship puts issues stemming from the divorce decree in the Order Setting Bail as if there was some criminality involved. No charges, no police action, and most important no attempt at any time to alter the parenting schedule where Mr. Brewington cared for his children as much as 4 nights in certain weeks, were ever made. $600,000 bond.

b.     History of not following Court Orders – Mr. Kisor gave the example of Brewington posting information from the Grand Jury.

c.      Judge Blankenship quoted about Dan’s mental health from Dr. Connor’s report. The report that Dan has never been able to get the case file from, in order to refute anything Dr. Connor had to say. Without the case file Dr. Connor continues to have absolutely no checks and balances on his word.

d.     “this is like playing with gas and fire, and anyone who has seen me with gas and fire know that I am quite the accomplished pyromaniac” – (This had nothing to do with setting anything on fire. No evidence, charges, suspicious activity was ever reported. Again, suggesting what Dan might do.)

e.      “based on these findings and the evidence presented, the Court finds that the Defendant poses a significant risk to community safety and is unlikely to follow the conditions of bond as to the no contact order…

B.    The Arraignment Hearing March 11, 2011.

1.     Perjury, Attempted Obstruction of Justice, and Releasing Grand Jury Information, are not violent crimes.

2.     The Intimidation charges contained absolutely no specifics. Two intimidation charges were Misdemeanors and the Intimidation of the Judge was a felony. It was a felony because he was a Judge, not because the actions were different. Nothing was presented except for the indictments as they were written, no examples of intimidation.

3.     Mr. Kisor

a.      Protective Orders were presented for Dr. Ed Connor and Dr. James D. Humphrey and his family. The Orders listed numerous things that Brewington was not allowed to do (all things that he had never done before).

b.     Kisor said high bond would be appropriate. That Dan was a resident of the state of Ohio, and that “we believe that the allegations are extremely serious and he is a danger to the community.”

c.      Kisor presented two blogs posted on the Dearborn County Forum, March 10, 2011 and March 11, 2011 both light postings from Dan concerning his situation. Dan wrote that if Negangard got a high bond for him someone would continue to post about his story on his blog and on facebook under Help Dan Brewington See His Girls.

d.     High bond would be appropriate because he is a resident of the state of Ohio and we believe that the allegations are extremely serious and he does present a danger to the community.

e.      Mr. Kisor said the State asks that Mr. Brewington not access the internet or if the court would believe that to be to broad, order that Mr. Brewington cannot blog about the substance of his version of the case. I have personally reviewed a blog on the Dearborn County Forum and Mr. Brewington indicates that he will continue to have someone post his story if he is put in jail, indicating he is going to continue to write about this case.

f.       Mr. Kisor said the State believes that trying this case on his blog is detrimental to the state, maybe detrimental to him.

g.     Mr. Kisor still has a problem with Dan posting about the case. Dan should not be able to try the case in the public court.  

h.     Mr. Kisor said this is the court where the case needs to be tried, not the public court.

i.       States Exhibit 3 Divorce judgment (Even through no criminality was involved at all in the divorce, it too is being presented as evidence a high bond is needed.)

j.       Exhibit 4 Appeals Court decision affirming the trial court.

k.     Exhibit 5 Letter from Dr. Connor (Sept. 10, 2008) (where Dr. Connor claims to be an extension of the court, only to be told by Judge Taul on September 16, 2008 that he was not an extension of the court)

l.       Mr. Kisor said Brewington has disdain for any court or anyone that he sees as the enemy and he will attack, on his blog, anybody that he disagrees with. I don’t think this is the proper way for this case to proceed.

m.   Again, the State requests high bond and that Mr. Brewington not be permitted to use the internet, blog or discuss this case in any form.

4.     Judge Blankenship allowed Mr. Robert G. Kelly to speak on Brewington’s behalf with the understanding by all involved that he was not representing Brewington.

a.      Dan Brewington is 37 years old, lived in Norwood, Ohio or  Milan, Indiana all of his life.

b.     He has no criminal record, until now.

c.      Only record now is in this court.

d.     He has no missed court dates.

e.      He voluntarily waited for approximately 6 hours to speak to the Grand Jury.

f.      He voluntarily surrendered to Dearborn County, Indiana after being released on bond by Hamilton County, Ohio

g.     No threats of violence on any of these charges have been filed

h.     No in person contact between Brewington and Judge Humphrey or Judge Humphrey’s wife at any time other than in a courtroom.

i.       The only contact with Dr. Connor were visits with Connor for the evaluation.

j.        Regarding the releasing Grand Jury Information, Brewington wrote a parody using the dialogue from a Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise Movie, A Few Good Men. He did not release any grand jury information.

5.     Mr. Kisor – repeating the same argument.

a.      The only concern about the Grand Jury issue would be it was stated explicitly that he was not to put anything on his blog about the grand jury proceedings, the only concern about the Grand Jury… is Mr. Brewington does not follow instructions that need to be followed. That is our big issue here. The postings show an absolute disdain for the court, for the prosecution which is ok as long as it does not affect everybody’s right to a fair trial. (Who else is on trial besides Brewington?)

b.     Mr. Kisor claimed that people who read that might not know that it was from the movie A Few Good Men. (Maybe that would work except for the fact that Brewington explained what he was doing at the end of the blog.)

6.     Judge Blankenship

a.      On February 21, 2011 Dan Brewington wrote a blog letting people know that Judge Blankenship’s name was being used as an endorsement on the Midwest Data Site. Her name was removed in the next two days. This happened before the arraignment hearing.

b.     On March 17, 2011, six days after setting the $600,000 bond, Judge Blankenship disqualified herself from presiding because the “alleged victim in the case is the sitting judge of the Dearborn Circuit Court. To avoid the appearance of bias or prejudice, no judicial officer in Dearborn County is able to hear this matter.”

7.     Sue Brewington submitted a public records request for the audio from this hearing and received the audio with a warning that she might be held in contempt of court if she shared it with anyone. Sue Brewington placed two public records requests for the transcript from the arraignment hearing, she was more than willing to pay for, but she was totally ignored. For this article she has written a summary of the hearing from the audio.  The transcript is being requested by Brewington’s Indianapolis, Civil Rights attorney and will be posted.

8.     The following are links to the Order Setting Bail and the Post by Brewington about the Judicial endorsement.