Monday, June 25, 2012

The Indiana Attorney General’s office is misrepresenting facts in a brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals

Posted by Matt Brewington

Here is a link to the Indiana Attorney General’s Brief of Appellee

Deputy Attorney General James Whitehead is being untruthful in order to try and prove The State of Indiana’s absurd case against Dan Brewington. The entire Indiana judicial system should be ashamed of Attorney General Gregory Zoeller’s office for their malicious attempt at deceiving the Indiana Court of Appeals with untrue statements. Unfounded character assignations and factual distortions are bad enough but complete falsehoods are absolutely unacceptable. We should expect and demand more from a legal system that, in this case, is far more about justifying the vindictive behavior of a few of their own than participating honestly in the judicial process.

The first untrue statement from the State is seen on page 11 when they claim “Brewington also wrote that he wanted to beat Dr. Connor, and Dr. Jones-Connor senseless (Exh. 198; Tr. 158)” and on page 24 when they stated “Brewington called Dr. Connor a “son of a b---h” and said he would like to beat him senseless.” These statements are from a blog post entitled You wouldn’t lose your children because you criticized a plumber would you? This post was a commentary about how differently criticisms of a plumber vs. a child custody evaluator are perceived. In the hypothetical scenario Dan criticizes a generic plumber and a generic custody evaluator in the same fashion, pointing out that you wouldn’t have your kids taken away for criticizing a horrible plumber like you might if you criticized a horrible child custody evaluator. The Attorney General’s office tries to manipulate the Indiana Court of Appeals by simply replacing him/her with Dr. Connor and Dr. Sarah Jones-Connor. The attempts to replace a fictional character in a hypothetical scenario with actual real people for the purpose of trying to prove a threat of battery is nothing short of reckless on the part of Deputy Attorney General James Whitehead. In context, the blog post is completely understandable and even ends with this paragraph:
“No one has ever lost the ability to see their own children because they wrote an angry review of a plumbing company. Why should someone’s parenting abilities be questioned if they write an angry review of a custody evaluator? That’s what happened to me; except I have never written about any thoughts of causing physical harm to anyone.”

Yet another false statement in the Deputy Attorney General’s brief is found on page 13 when he stated “In the final order, Judge Humphrey stated that Brewington attempted to intimidate the court, court staff, Judge Humphrey’s wife, Dr. Connor, and anyone taking a contrary position;” The ACTUAL statement reads that Dan “attempted to intimidate the court, court staff, wife, Dr. Connor, and anyone taking a contrary position;” “Wife” means Dan’s ex-wife. This appears to be another subtle attempt by James Whitehead to manipulate the Court of Appeals by adding “Judge Humprey’s” to “wife” from the original statement in the divorce decree.

The Office of the Attorney General took the State’s conspiracy against the first amendment rights of Dan Brewington to new heights when they claimed Dan threatened Judge Humphrey with injury or damage to Humphrey’s personal property by committing arson. In a private facebook post Dan referenced that taking on the family court system was like “playing with gas and fire and anyone who has seen me with gas and fire knows that I am quite the accomplished pyromaniac”. The pyromaniac comment was no more than a joke between friends who had seen Dan build camp fires in the past. But to the State of Indiana it apparently was a threat to commit arson by burning down the home of Judge Humphrey. This is where the State’s case loses legal credibility. Not only is it ridiculous to claim that this statement was a threat against Judge Humphrey’s life or property, the State misrepresents the timing of the statement in order to try and make it fit into the intimidation statute. The detailed piece of the statute that they would like the appellate court to focus on is that Dan threatened Judge Humphrey “with the intent that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act.” The State claims that Dan retaliated against Judge Humphrey for his order in the divorce decree. On page 31 of the State’s brief, the State contends “it was after the final order that Brewington’s internet activities escalated. (Tr.80) He wrote the court’s findings were like playing with gasoline and fire, adding that anyone who has seen [Brewington] with gas and fire knows that [Brewington] is quite the accomplished pyromaniac (Tr. 241).” There’s only one problem… That statement was made well before the final order. Even worse, Judge Humphrey quoted that statement in the final order. This piece of evidence only validates Dan’s claim of Judge Humphrey’s unethical behavior. If the State is claiming that the pyromaniac statement was a threat in order to intimidate the Judge, then Humphrey sat in judgment of a father in a civil divorce case, ruling on child custody, visitation, and property division while feeling criminally threatened/intimidated.

Another issue that the AG’s office missed was when they conveniently claimed, on page 18, that  “The court correctly empanelled an anonymous jury. The record shows Brewington had no objection to the use of an anonymous jury. His failure to allege error at trial waives the issue for appellate review.” Here is an excerpt from the bond reduction hearing/ pre-trial hearing when Judge Brian Hill asked Brian Barrett (Dan’s public defender) for a response to the motion for confidentiality of juror’s names and identities:

Mr. Barrett: I do not object. My client does apparently object your honor…

Not only, contrary to the State’s claim, does Dan object to the anonymous jury, this statement further supports Dan’s claim of ineffective counsel. What kind of attorney doesn’t object to a potential prejudicial tactic that is normally reserved for organized crime syndicates who have been known to murder witnesses, especially when their client does object to such an obvious appealable issue?

The lengths to which the State of Indiana will go to protect a vindictive judge and prosecutor should be very concerning, not only to the residents of the State of Indiana, but also to all Americans. Victims rights will always suffer if a prosecutor, judge and Attorney General’s Office are allowed to completely ignore matters of civil law and manipulate a citizens words in order to criminally prosecute a person for calling attention to what he believes are abuses in his government. None of the “victims” in this case ever filed a restraining order against Dan Brewington. None of them were ever physically harmed. None of them ever took any civil action, nor did any court ever order any internet writings taken down. No court or law enforcement officials ever told him his writings were criminal until he was indicted on three felonies, three misdemeanors, slapped with a $600,000 bond (with no criminal record), convicted by an anonymous jury, and sentenced to five years in state prison. I only hope that the Indiana Court of Appeals puts an end to the embarrassment that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, Judge James D. Humphrey, Judge Brian Hill, and the Indiana Attorney General’s office have brought upon the Indiana judiciary.

Sunday, June 17, 2012


Dan Brewington’s appellant brief states “Aaron Negangard, the Dearborn County Prosecutor, took personal umbrage with Brewington exercising his First Amendment rights and silenced him by indicting Brewington with three misdemeanors and three felonies”…

No civil action was ever taken by the “victims”. None of the “victims” ever sought a restraining order and no court has ever ordered any of the alleged “intimidating” speech taken down from the Internet. Trial court Judge Brian D. Hill claimed Brewington was not a good candidate for probation saying that Brewington would just blog about the probation department. 

The attempts by the Indiana Judicial System to control internet speech could not be clearer. Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard told the jury that Brewington wrote too much. If the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s ruling political speech will be subject to prosecution at the discretion of prosecutors and judges.

Dan Brewington criticized the family court system and county government in Dearborn County, Indiana, on the internet.  Brewington was convicted of Intimidating a Judge, Judge James D. Humphrey with absolutely no threat of physical violence. Dan Brewington received a $600,000 bond and was later convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for publically criticizing judges and public officials. Now a man with no criminal history, no history of violence, and no history of drug or alcohol abuse sits in an Indiana State Prison. Some of the issues currently before the Appellate Court, found in the appellant’s brief filed May 22, 2012, are as follows:

Improper use of an anonymous jury
Erroneous instructions to the jury
Insufficient evidence
Ineffective counsel
Evidentiary errors
Constitutional limitations on intimidation
Abuse of discretion
Convictions under Counts I and IV Violate Double Jeopardy
Perjury Conviction, "affirming this conviction would condone the prosecutor's misconduct."


Please visit for continuing updates and a more in depth history of the case. Dan’s family can be contacted at

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Brief Update

Dan’s appellant brief was filed on May 22, 2012. That has been posted on line. We are now waiting for the Attorney General of the State of Indiana, Gregory Zoeller’s office to respond. Deputy Attorney General James Thomas Whitehead is charged with filing the response for the state.  The State has 30 days to respond. It will be posted on line as soon as it is filed.