Reply In Support of Petition to Transfer

Dan's Indianapolis Attorneys have filed a Reply In Support of Petition to Transfer to The Indiana Supreme Court. It was limited to one thousand words and could never begin to address all of the misinformation, deception, and fear-mongering from the State of Indiana.

-Matt Brewington

Indiana Punishes Free Speech More Than Russia?

Links below

The Russian publication pravda.ru published an article titled "Can criminal punishment for blogging be possible in Russia?" in which they mention Dan's case. They discuss how internet free speech is not just a topic of discussion in Russia, but also in the United States. And, they seem to suggest that Dan's prison sentence was more harsh than those seen in Russia for similar offenses. As an American, I am embarrassed that our Russian friends are reading anything that gives the impression that Russian speech is more free than our own. It's not. It's true, however, when judicial processes are abused and law is manipulated for punitive purposes, our collective reputation suffers. From the family court judge who took two little girls' father away for the sole purpose of punishing their father, to the prosecutor who trumped up ridiculous criminal charges against an internet blogger with no criminal history, to the $600,000 bond, to the "lost" courthouse records, to the anonymous jury, to the five year prison sentence, to the State Attorney General's office simply lying in court briefs, to judges trying to protect the reputations of their own; it should embarrass us all.

Not to get too much into Russian politics, but there is a response to this article from a website titled Dying Russia, that claims that the author of the above article is lying. Unfortunately, Dying Russia gets their facts wrong. And they get their facts wrong because Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard manufactured his own literal meanings of a couple of rhetorical phrases from over two years worth of a blogger's writings. It is shameful that a vindictive and manipulative county prosecutor like Negangard is responsible for misinformation that prevents honest intellectual discussions of internet free speech, not only in our own country, but all over the world.

-Matt Brewington

Link to pravda.ru article
Link to Dying Russia post
Link to pravda.ru article in Russian

Latest Articles about Dan

UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh has an interesting take on the Indiana Attorney General's brief in response to Dan's petition to transfer. Link

Here is an article from The Indiana Lawyer in which Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard continues to vilify Dan with a complete lack of evidence concerning a made-up story of a "murder-for-hire" plot. Negangard's attempts to throw off the press and the public with deceptive statements is both unprofessional and reckless. The only mention of this "murder-for-hire" was the testimony of Detective/County Commissioner Shane McHenry at Dan's bond reduction hearing concerning McHenry's interview of a career criminal/longtime jailhouse snitch. (an audio recording was also presented, which Dan and his attorney never got a copy of) Prisoner movement logs proved that Dan never could have spoken with the "snitch" as they were never in the same place at the same time. You would think that the detective/county commissioner would have figured that out. Although, it's not good evidence if you are trying to fix a case for the prosecutor. Also, this was never mentioned at trial, yet Negangard is mentioning it now, to the press.

Eagle Country 99.3 has update as well. Link

Here is an article from The Angry Dad reminding us that this all started with criticisms of an abusive family court system.

The State’s Brief in Response to Petition to Transfer

This is the document the Indiana Attorney General’s office filed on Monday, March 11, 2013. Brewington has 10 days to respond and then the Indiana Supreme Court decides if they are going to hear the case.

http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/State%27s%20Response%20to%20Petition%20to%20Transfer.pdf

 

Brewington Case Still Attracting Attention from the Left, Right and Middle on the Political Spectrum.

Brewington Case Still Attracting Attention from the Left, Right and Middle on the Political Spectrum.

We rarely ever see folks on both ends of the political spectrum come together on any topic. Dan Brewington’s case seems to be doing just that. Friday, March 8, 2013 the following podcast was on the air at 10:00pm.

Radio Podcast Coverage

Dan Bimrose – The Liberal. President, Midwest Progressive Outreach Institute

He conducted phone interviews with James Bopp Jr., conservative Republican attorney, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, national First Amendment legal expert, and Gavin Rose, attorney for the ACLU of Indiana, all involved in filing amicus briefs in support of Dan Brewington’s Petition to Transfer to the Supreme Court. They all discuss the first amendment issues in Brewington’s case. To listen to the podcast click on http://tobtr.com/s/4375579. Dan Brewington’s story starts around the 4:45 minute mark and ends around the 24:06 minute mark. The podcast is also found on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/liberal-fix/2013/03/09/liberal-fix-radio-w-tv-host-john-fugelsang-ep-47

Dan Bimrose wrote about Brewington’s story on Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-bimrose/freedom-of-speech-at-stak_b_2808612.html and also on http://technorati.com/politics/article/indiana-blogger-serving-time-in-prison/

Mike Adams, columnist for Townhall.com, a conservative site, wrote about Dan Brewington’s case on Monday, March 11, 2013, “Abuse of Due Process.” He had also written about Brewington’s divorce decree in September, 2009. This article focuses on Judge James D. Humphrey. Adams is planning another article, next time critiquing Judge Brian D. Hill, the Judge in charge of the criminal trial. Two previous judges recused themselves. http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2013/03/11/abusing-due-process-n1529010

Mike Adams also wrote a column on Dan's divorce decree, September 21, 2009.
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2009/09/21/the_war_against_fathers/print  

For a quick overview of the recent press coverage scroll back over the last few blog posts.

For a quick overview of the local reporting from Dearborn County, Indiana, this is the last report from Eagle Country online. At the end of the article they have links to their reporting history with the Brewington case.

http://www.eaglecountryonline.com/news.php?nID=5138 February 27, 2013.

 

 

 

Clearing Up the "arson" and "beatings" Misinformation

Matt Brewington

As Dan Brewington's case gets more and more national attention, there are a couple of issues to clear up about talk of arson and beatings. On 6/25/12, I posted a blog titled The Indiana Attorney General's office is misrepresenting facts in a brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals. I am re-publishing excerpts from that post in order to show how a prosecutor, judges, and the Indiana Attorney General's office can create and then use misinformation in order to imprison a citizen for criticizing his government.

First, the topic of "beatings":

[....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.”]

Another excerpt on the topic of arson:

[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.]

The average person can certainly understand the danger to free expression when a county prosecutor has the power to decide what is "meant" by someone's published words. Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard said it best in this quote from the associated press: "But Negangard said Brewington used careful language to disguise actual threats."

The timing of the charges are also of great concern when discussing Dan's case. The two posts of "arson" and "beatings" that are the basis for the State's case were made well over a year before charges were brought. There is another post that Dan made that makes the State's case a little fishy... In late January of 2011 Dan posted a comment on Prosecutor Negangard's Facebook page asking the prosecutor who he (Negangard) had to know to make a complaint go away (a complaint Dan had filed against the prosecutor over six months prior).  Shortly thereafter, on February 10, 2011, Dan received a letter from The Chief Justice of The Indiana Supreme Court (at the time Randell T. Shepard), stating that Dan's complaint against Negangard had been dismissed. FIVE DAYS LATER, Dan was notified by prosecutor Negangard that Dan was the target of a grand jury investigation. Then, a six count indictment was handed down by a grand jury in a process that can only be described as a fear-mongering witch hunt, in which the county prosecutor paraded the county sheriff and a county judge in front of county residents to describe how "dangerous" a person with no criminal history and absolutely no history of violence was to the community. They made the same argument to another county judge who then set bond at $600,000. Dan has been imprisoned ever since. The case continues with a special judge appointed by the same chief justice who dismissed Dan's complaint against prosecutor Negangard. That special judge, Judge Brian D. Hill of Rush County, then appointed a public defender, Bryan Barrett also of Rush County, who took no depositions, called no witnesses, and entered no evidence. Then an ANONYMOUS six person jury convicted Dan and the judge sentenced him to five years in state prison. 

There are even more examples of how shady this entire legal process has been including the prosecutor using fabricated stories of drive-by shootings from a career criminal/jailhouse informant, as well as "missing" transcripts from hearings that the county courthouse said never happened, only to be "found" when citizens signed affidavits saying they were present at the hearings.

Unfortunately The Indiana Appellate Court has upheld three felony convictions including intimidation of a judge, which has legal scholars in the state and around the country shaking their heads. I will leave the details of the legal arguments up to the legal scholars while pointing out the obvious; the judicial system in Indiana seems to be more concerned with silencing criticisms of itself than upholding every citizens right to express criticisms of their government.  

Concerning quotes from the Indiana Appellate Court decision:

 "The truthfulness of the threatened disclosure is not necessarily relevant to prosecution because the harm, placing a victim in fear, occurs whether the publicized conduct is true or false." 

"We cannot conclude that Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1 substantially prohibits activities protected by the First Amendment, and Brewington’s claim fails."

"Substantially"?... I guess in Indiana you should be able to enslave a person for just a few minutes a day because it wouldn't "substantially" violate that person's 13th amendment rights...

Indiana Blogger At Center Of Free Speech Fight

Dan Brewington’s story has appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle in an article written by AP correspondent Charles Wilson.

Read quotes from Indianapolis Civil Rights Attorney Michael Sutherlin, UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh, Attorney James Bopp Jr., Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Indiana-blogger-at-center-of-free-speech-fight-4320832.php#ixzz2MKzA7aK9