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.
