INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS COULD RULE AS EARLY AS THIS SUMMER ON A CASE THAT MAY REGULATE/LIMIT FIRST AMENDMENT POLITICAL SPEECH.
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
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."