Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Prosecutorial Misconduct in Dearborn County

Many people visit this blog understanding that Dan Brewington was sent to prison for his web writings, but often raise the question, "What is the other side of the story?"  This is a common question asked by individuals who think there is no way someone in the United States could be convicted for simply speaking their mind and challenging the court system. The following may provide some insight into the motivation for the prosecution of Dan Brewington. Here is the Target Notification Dan received from Dearborn County, Indiana Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, dated February 15, 2011, stating Dan was a target of a grand jury investigation concerning allegations of "Intimidation and Harassment that allegedly occurred in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 in Dearborn County, Indiana." Testimony from the grand jury transcripts document Dr. Edward J. Connor and Judge James D. Humphrey claiming they were afraid Dan might abduct or murder their family as early as 2008 and 2009.  An investigation was started in August 2009 after Dan's ex-wife's divorce attorney, Angela G. Loechel, went to Prosecutor Negangard with her own concerns about the safety of Judge Humphrey.  (Note: This was after Judge James D. Humphrey took away Dan's parenting time and ruled in favor of her client on every single measure except for a stained glass window, which was part of the house.)  Prosecutor Negangard, who also serves as the head of the federally funded Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit, initiated an investigation of Dan Brewington's web writings. It is important to make clear that all of the alleged victims claimed they did not make initial contact with Prosecutor Negangard or Dearborn County law enforcement, despite later testifying that they feared for the lives of their families. With all of the claims of Connor and Humphrey's fear from Dan's "intimidation" and "harassment," despite making no reports to Dearborn County law enforcement, Prosecutor Negangard waited until February 15, 2011 to initiate a grand jury investigation of the actions of Dan Brewington.  Many ask why Prosecutor Negangard would wait so long to convene a grand jury against Dan Brewington and what act(s) prompted him to do so.  This is a letter from, then, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T Shepard stating Dan's complaint against Dearborn Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard was dismissed, 239 days after Brewington filed the complaint.  Dan's complaint against Negangard was dismissed on Thursday February 10, 2011.  By the following Tuesday, Negangard made Dan a target of a grand jury investigation.

If these people were truly fearful, they would have reported it to the police and/or Prosecutor Negangard.  (Actually Dr. Edward J. Connor did testify he contacted the Erlanger, Kentucky police and the FBI.  They told Dr. Connor to ignore Dan.  If there was a crime, they would have investigated it.)  During Dan's arraignment on March 11, 2011, the prosecution offered restraining orders to "protect" the alleged victims from Dan.  If Dan was truly a danger or committed a crime, Negangard allowed a dangerous criminal to run free while he waited for a ruling on the complaint Dan filed against the prosecutor.  This should help shed light on the fact that this is nothing less than an horrific case of prosecutorial misconduct.  This isn't a case where a prosecutor convicted an innocent person of a crime they did not commit; this is Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard making up a crime in an effort to convict a man in retaliation for speaking out against the government.

If you find this to be unbelievable infringement of constitutional rights, please contact Executive Secretary G. Michael Witte of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission at the below contact information and encourage them to investigate Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. Please note that Mr. Witte is a former judge in Dearborn County, Indiana.

Executive Secretary
G. Michael Witte
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
30 S. Meridian St., Suite 850
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.232.1807  phone
317.233.0261  fax

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Dan Brewington on HuffPost Live 1/23/14

Here's a link to the HuffPost Live webcast segment with Nancy Redd where she talks with Divorce Corp participants Dan Brewington, Mark Byron, Deborah Singer, and attorney Dennis Braun. Runtime 20:06

I Lost 100 lbs. A Former Overweight Guy's Words of Encouragement

Dan on September 11, 2010 around the 290 mark
Dan on January 22, 2014 weighing in at 195lbs and running hard in the snow.
You can do it too!
Going to prison meant missing out on my daughters for an additional 2.5 years.  If there is a silver lining to my incarceration, it was the fact I lost nearly 100 lbs.  I tried to use my time constructively and began to carefully count calories and started exercising regularly.  When I was first arrested, I weighed 280 lbs (my all time high was 295 lbs) and now I weigh 195 lbs and I am currently training to run the Kentucky Derby Marathon on April 19. I've been training with the RunKeeper App on my iPhone 5s and have logged 82.9 miles so far in the month of January alone.  I've been bitten by the running bug so bad that even snowfall hasn't been able to deter me.  Two different times in the past week, I've run a path with my snowblower around the mile long block by my home to clear my jogging path.  To say the least, there are some pretty happy neighbors.

Being a parent is one of the most important responsibilities a person could ever have.  I've discovered it's important to be a healthy parent as well.  I made the decision early on that if I was going to miss time with my daughters I was going to do everything possible to extend my time with them on the other end of life.  Incarceration may have cost me 2.5 years with my kids, but I feel confident that turning my life around physically has added those years to the end of my life where there will be more time with my kids as adults and with their children as well.  As you see from the below photo, I was "fairly" overweight.  I took the bottom photo yesterday before heading out for a run at 10 pm when the wind chill was 5 degrees.  I can't tell people how good it feels to be 40 and in the best shape of my life.

If you read this and want more information into how I lost one hundred pounds and turned into a "road rat" feel free to contact me at  It's not easy but it can definitely be done.  I've been on diets and lost weight before but when the diet was over, the weight came back.  This time I used simple mathematics.  I took in less than what I burned daily.  No tricks or fads; I just ate less of everything and cut out unnecessary calories like soda, candy, sweets, etc.... (For you people with the dreaded "sweet tooth" like I used to have, you have to leave it behind.  It's like a recovering alcoholic rationalizing "just one" drink to wet their whistle)  I can't say that I will never gain weight again but I've put myself in the best position possible to stay healthy.  I know what it's like to be heavy and I know what it's like to by fit and I've travelled the long road in between.  I hope by sharing my experience I can help inspire others, not only to get healthy, but to enjoy a healthy life.  As much as I used to love food, it doesn't compare to loving the fact that I can run ten or eleven miles and then go play basketball with friends in our men's league on Sundays.  I love the fact how mowing the grass or even carrying groceries in the house doesn't wear me out.  Most of all I love the idea of being able to hit the ground running when I finally get to see my girls.

Contact me if you think I can give you any advise or even support on your healthy endeavors.  I'm not a professional; just a former fat guy.  Feel free to track my running on RunKeeper and Twitter.  Good luck!

Dan Brewington with Nancy Redd on HuffPost Live 1/23/2014

Dan Brewington will be sharing his experience and talking with Nancy Redd on HuffPost Live about the new documentary Divorce Corp, which sheds light on the troubling state of the divorce industry in the United States.  Tune in at 5:30 pm (EST) Thursday January 23, 2014 on HuffPost Live to watch and listen.   

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Prosecutor argues "unsubstantiated" internet comments are not protected speech

Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecuted Dan Brewington for making what he "felt was over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements against either Dr. Conner or Judge Humphrey."   The following are Negangard's closing statements to the grand jury in Dan Brewington's case. The truly disturbing thing is how the Cincinnati media, aside from the gracious professionals from 700WLW who have reported the story on numerous occasions, has ignored the fact that a local prosecutor indicted Dan Brewington for making "unsubstantiated statements" against public officials. Channel 12 New's "crime stopper" Deborah Dixon reported the  disturbing story of Joseph McCaleb who was arrested for stealing women's undergarments but failed to report how Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard reached a time served plea deal after McCaleb agreed to wear a wire and testify against Dan in Brewington's sentencing hearing.  Apparently Deborah Dixon and some of the other local Cincinnati media believe a panty burglar story is more of a pressing issue to the public than a local prosecutor violating the US Constitution by prosecuting a person for making "unsubstantiated" comments about public officials. See what you think of the strength of Negangard's closing arguments. 

MR. NEGANGARD: Okay we're on record. I want to present to the Grand Jury Exhibit 231 which is a summary of blog postings that he made of his blog in Dan's Adventures in Taking on the Family Court and what it is, is we highlighted where he said um, what we felt was over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements against either Dr. Conner or Judge Humphrey. This is not every, and as you can read, it's not every negative thing he said about Dr. Conner, but it's a step that we felt, myself and my staff, crossed the lines between freedom of speech and intimidation and harassment. Um, Grand Jury Exhibit 232 is a much smaller site that, Dan Helps Kids, that has a few things in there, um, you know, he says something in there like Judge Humphrey punished me for standing up to a man that hurts children and families for monetary gain, referring to Dr. Conner and uh, and that he called Judge Humphrey unethical, illegal, unjust, vindictive and that he abused my children. Um, again that's a summary in Grand Jury Exhibit 232 so that's for your review.  Click here to view Negangard's statements in grand jury transcripts. 

Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard allows ex-spouse to use grand jury proceedings to seek revenge

Combining criminal grand jury and divorce proceedings tend not to be a good combination; especially when one former spouse does not know the other is testifying against them.  The new documentary Divorce Corp highlights how the divorce industry actually encourages people to lie because there are rarely any negative consequences to statements lacking in truth.  Even more so in the case of the grand jury hearings involving Dan Brewington’s criminal indictments where Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard invited Dan’s ex-wife to testify in support of the prosecution of Dan.  Prior to Dan’s grand jury hearings, his ex-wife had contacted law enforcement officials on at least three different occasions and filed multiple contempt petitions and had yet to prevail in any of her efforts, to which Prosecutor Negangard was well aware.  Under supposed secrecy of the grand jury proceedings, Negangard allowed the former Mrs. Daniel Brewington to take aim at her ex-husband using words like “threatening,” “intimidating,” “retaliate,” and other words fitting into the flow of the prosecutor’s persecution.  What Mrs. Brewington failed to provide was any evidence of illegal conduct on the part of Dan Brewington.  To have Dan indicted on charges of intimidation, Prosecutor Negangard first had to convince members of a grand jury that Dan Brewington was an intimidating figure.  What better way to do this than to have an ex-spouse, with a history of failed attempts to have her ex-husband found in contempt and criminally prosecuted, testify with the understanding that all of her testimony and even her participation in the grand jury would remain confidential.  The only problem was to charge Dan Brewington with perjury, Prosecutor Negangard had to release the transcripts from the grand jury hearings, which made it possible to see the claims of Dan’s ex-wife.  The following are excerpts of Melissa Brewington's grand jury testimony.

“Yes. Um, and this is like a record of things that were happening at this time as well. When I filed the telephone communications harassment out of spite, Dan went ahead and he had the police come to our house which is pretty intimidating for a four (4) and six (6) year old to have the police come out to the house. He wanted them to come to check on the girls.”  -Following Judge Humphrey’s termination of Dan’s parenting time, Dan kept in contact with his 3 and 5 year old daughters by phone until their mother cut off all contact and refused to even acknowledge if the children were okay.  During the course of the children’s lives and the 2.5 year divorce, both Dan and his ex-wife never went for more than a couple days without communication with the children or at least communication about the wellbeing of the children.  After Dan’s ex refused to make any communication regarding the welfare of the children, Dan contacted the local police and let them know about the situation.  Dan explained that he did not feel anything was wrong but he was concerned that he had not heard anything from the children or their mother.  The Green Township Police responded and contacted Dan to let him know they had talked to the mother and the children were safe.  Dan’s ex had claimed Dan contacted the police in retaliation for her filing a telecommunications harassment charge when Dan’s contact with the police came two days prior to the filing of the criminal charge.  (The question remains would Prosecutor Negangard prosecute Dan’s ex-wife for lying to a grand jury just as he prosecuted Dan for stating that he was not sure if James Humphrey and Heidi Humphrey were husband and wife at the time Dan encouraged people to contact Heidi, who was an advisor to the Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Committee.  Because Dan stated he knew it was a possibility but didn’t know for sure that James Humphrey and Heidi Humphrey were husband and wife, Dan had to spend six months in prison on a perjury conviction despite there not being any definitive evidence proving he knew otherwise.)  The criminal charge against Dan Brewington in Hamilton County, Ohio was dismissed at the recommendation of the Hamilton County prosecutor and was expunged, yet Negangard used the original criminal affidavit from the dismissed and expunged case against Dan Brewington in Hamilton County, Ohio against Dan Brewington in Dearborn County, Indiana.

“It was grandiose idea, like he would do weird things like he would buy five thousand (5,000) used golf balls and then think that he was going to resell them and make a fortune.”  -Just another example of a statement she would not have gotten away with in a public proceeding.  It should not come as a secret that Dan enjoyed golf.  He’d bought used golf balls in bulk that he hit into the open field.  During the marriage when friends and family would hit a seemingly endless supply of golf balls into the field behind the yard, it was a good time.  During a grand jury hearing, an ex-spouse portrays the activity as delusional business adventure by someone suffering from severe mental illness.

“He also um, when I filed, he bought a 357 magnum and it was actually one of his friends that made me aware of this and told me that she said we really want you to watch your back, you know, that he just bought it and we fear for your safety.”  -This was another claim she made during the grand jury that she failed to mention previously.  Dan’s ex waited four years to verbalize this alleged warning that she should fear Dan taking her life with a 357 magnum handgun.  Through a 4.5 year marriage and 2.5 year divorce, Dan’s ex made no claim that Dan made her fear for her life or physical safety.  She did accuse Dan of yelling, screaming, name calling, punching walls, arguing, etc… but at no time did she make any mention actually being afraid of any of the alleged behavior until after Judge James D. Humphrey ruled Dan may be a potential danger to the children.  In fact, despite there being many statements in Dr. Connor’s report and the court record allegedly coming from Dan’s oldest daughter (who was five at time of final hearing) through Dan’s ex and her family, none of these second hand statements ever included a concern that the 5 year-old was afraid of or unwilling to see her father.  Apparently, Dan’s “angry” and “violent” outbursts as alleged by his ex-wife were not enough to scare a 5-year-old child.

“So when he was doing all this work from home, I gave him like six (6) months because he was supposed to be working on a business. So I had given him six (6) months and um, it was from May of '06 to like around October of '06 and at the end of October, I had had enough and I told him um, that things just weren't working out and at that time, I was going to be filing for divorce.”  
-Dan was working as a subcontractor from November 2004 to May 2006 when he lost work due to the decline in the housing market.  Effectively she claimed that as soon as he was out of work, she gave him an ultimatum get a business going or she would divorce Dan.  Dan’s ex-wife failed to mention he spent some of the summer working on major projects around the house.  In November 2006, around the same time when she told grand jury members that she “had enough,” she met with Dan’s mom on November 4, 2006 to extend her cell phone for another two years on her mother-in-law’s Verizon family plan which Dan’s mom paid for.

“I started seeing my attorney in November of '06. At that time, he specifically told me, he said if you don't like it, then you're more than welcome to leave but if you leave and follow through with the divorce, I will make your life a living hell, we will not be friends, we will be enemies.”  -Throughout the course of a 2.5 year divorce Dan picked up his daughters from his ex-wife every Wednesday, Friday, and every third Monday at 6:25 am and returned the girls to their mother the following morning at 8 am, unless on Dan’s weekends with the girls where he would return the children at 8 pm.  During approximately 70% of the exchanges of the children, Dan’s ex would have a family member present to “witness” the switchovers.  At no point did Dan’s ex attempt to call any family members, friends, co-workers, etc… as witnesses to testify to any harassing behavior by Dan.  In fact, she called no witness to testify that Dan did anything wrong; harassing her at work, in public, etc… during the course of their entire marriage and divorce.  She provided the grand jury with copies of Dan’s web writings; many of which she already presented to the office of the Hamilton County, Ohio prosecutor.  She petitioned Judge Humphrey to order Dan to take down these same writings which Judge Humphrey refused to do.  Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard used an ex-spouse with a history of unsuccessful legal attacks on her ex-husband to help make a case to a grand jury that Dan Brewington is a bad guy.  The main exception here is there was absolutely no pressure to tell the truth.  Please note that it has been over 6 years since Dan’s ex filed for divorce; 5 years since Dr. Edward J. Connor claimed fear of Dan; and 4.5 years since Judge James D. Humphrey terminated Dan’s parenting time while expressing his own fears that Dan might murder his family.  Dan still hasn’t done any of the things that these people keep crying they feel Dan “might” do.  These people didn’t have to demonstrate they were at risk of injury, they just had to act like they were afraid and put on a good show for Negangard’s grand jury.  Feel free to view all the transcripts of the grand jury to see how F. Aaron Negangard can indict a law abiding citizen.  

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Prosecution argued Dan was dangerous because "...Brewington does not follow instructions."

As the premier of the movie Divorce Corp is attracting attention to the criminal prosecution of Dan Brewington's speech opposing the Indiana family court system, it is import to take note of the measures Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and his office took to attack the constitutional rights of Dan Brewington and deprive him of the right to a fair trial.  There is little doubt the purpose of the prosecution of Dan Brewington in Dearborn County, Indiana was to silence him from criticizing public officials. The following are excerpts from the arraignment of Dan Brewington that took place on March 11, 2011, which include nothing more than complaints from the prosecutors that Dan Brewington will not shut up. Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor opened his argument with, “Uh, the State's position, your honor, is that a high bond would be appropriate; not only is Mr. Brewington a resident of the State of Ohio, um, we believe that the allegations are extremely serious and he does present a danger to the community.”  Despite the fact that Dan Brewington was arrested in Ohio, bonded out, and voluntarily reported to Dearborn County, Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutors Joseph Kisor and Brian Johnson claimed Dan Brewington was a danger to the community despite failing to present any supporting evidence. See some of the absurd quotes below that convinced Dearborn County Superior Court II Judge Sally Blankenship that Dan Brewington was dangerous enough to warrant a $600,000 bond (See Blankenship's bond order.  View complete transcripts from Dan’s arraignment.)  (All of the following are quotes from Dearborn County Prosecutors taken from the transcripts of Dan’s arraignment hearing. The regular text are portions of Dan’s writings as read by prosecutors. Words highlighted in italics are commentary provided by the prosecutors.  Also included are comments by Robert G. Kelly, Dan's Ohio attorney who accompanied Dan to Dearborn County when Dan turned himself in.)

“The problem is, is that Mr. Brewington does not follow instructions that need to be followed. That is our big issue here.”
       -Dearborn Co Deputy Prosecutor Brian Johnson on why high bond is necessary for        Brewington

“So I think it's clear um, that he intends to try this case on his blog and I think that not only could be detrimental to the State. It might even be detrimental to him.”
       –Dearborn Co Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor during Dan Brewington’s arraignment 3/11/11

“…we would ask the Court to make a condition of bond that Mr. Brewington not continue to blog about the substance, uh, at least his version of the substance of the case that is here before this Court.”
       - Deputy Kisor 3/11/11

“[Brewington posted] ‘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.”
       -Deputy Kisor 3/11/11 on Dan’s post made prior to arraignment hearing

“[Dan’s blog post] says ‘yesterday I swore under oath that I would not talk about what went on in the grand jury hearings. The Prosecutor, Negangard, seemed concerned that I would tell people what happened. Well I am going to tell people whether Negangard likes it or not.’ I'm going to ask; I'm going to show this to Mr. Brewington but I'm not going to offer it at this time.”
       -Deputy Kisor 3/11/11 did not admit the post into evidence. Probably because what Brewington claimed to be grand jury testimony was actually dialogue between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in the courtroom scene from A Few Good Men. (Link to what people claim to be one of Dan’s most entertaining blog posts.)

“’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’. This is the court where this case needs to be tried; not the public court, your honor.”
       -Deputy Kisor 3/11/11 re: Dan’s comment on grand jury arguing Dan’s case should not be tried in the public court.

“So the State is asking to, your honor, 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 prohibition that he not be permitted to use the internet.” “Or discuss this case in any other form.”
       -Deputy Kisor 3/11/11

Robert G. Kelly was on hand for Dan’s arraignment and Judge Blankenship allowed Mr. Kelly to speak on Dan’s behalf. Mr. Kelly stated the following:

"My name is Robert Kelley. I'm the attorney for Mr. Brewington and I'm licensed to practice in Ohio. I anticipate filing the necessary paperwork with Indiana to get appointed to appear on his 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. Mr. Brewington's thirty-seven (37) years of age. He's divorced at the present time. He's unemployed. He's lived in Norwood, Ohio or Milan, Indiana his entire life. He has no criminal record whatsoever in any court system. The only criminal record he has is now in this court. He's um, he has no missed court dates of any kind, whether for his divorce, whether as a result of the notice from Prosecutor, Negangard. He voluntarily appeared, voluntarily waited his turn for approximately six (6) hours to appear for that uh grand jury proceeding. He voluntarily surrendered here today, 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. He was surrendered by 6:00, so it would be impossible for him to make that post at 8 unless they're giving him access at the jail. So I said no prior criminal history. There's 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. Uh, 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 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 and he has had no contact, in person contact with Dr. Connor whatsoever. He's uh, participated in all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. He has filed complaints against Dr. Connor because he does have a valid claim against Dr. Connor that he's pursuing at the present time which we anticipate will be filed Monday in Federal Court concerning this matter and these charges here today. Um, he's represented himself throughout the litigation, done research on his case and reported that. Um, and 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 but I can guarantee you that Mr. Brewington's welcomed this date and will appear at every hearing. He presents no harm to anyone. I've known his family for over forty (40) years. I was a prosecutor in the city of Norwood. I'm a prosecutor in the village of Addyston at the present time and quite frankly your honor, I think that after Mr. Brewington has his day in Court, it's going to be quickly discerned that there's no substance to these charges and if everybody's going to be indicted who blogs on a post, they might as well start indicting everybody. 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. I mean it's his first amendment right to get on there and type as long as he's not threatening physical harm to someone and Dr. Connor has no relationship to any case that's pending at the present time; none whatsoever. Neither does Doctor, Judge Humphrey. Judge Humphrey doesn't have any involvement with any case involving Mr. Brewington at the present time except for maybe the appeal of his divorce case to the Supreme Court, the U. S. Supreme Court. And that's all we would say but he presents no risk to anybody other than the fact that when he has a computer, he likes to sit down and type and I, and if you take, I'll tell you what, if you take this document, the State's Exhibit where it states that he's gonna state what happened at the grand jury and if you can pull it up on your computer, you'll see that he didn't say anything about what occurred in the grand jury whatsoever. It was absolutely a play on words and a reference to a Jack Nicholson and um, Tom Cruise movie and he just switched the roles from Jack Nicholson to Negangard, uh Jack Nicholson was Mr. Brewington but I mean the, the whole process here, he's got an absolute first amendment right to get on the computer if he wants to blog, he can blog.”

Mr. Kelly went on to say:

“I just have, I just have one additional thing to say. 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 liable, 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.”

…And Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard claims Dan Brewington is the problem:

“This is a case of a person intentionally trying to undermine our justice system.”
       -10/3/11 Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard's opening statements in trial of Dan Brewington

Saturday, January 11, 2014

1/10/14 Podcast of Dan Brewington on 700WLW with Eddie and Tracy

Check out the Podcast of Dan Brewington speaking with Eddie and Tracy on 700WLW in Cincinnati.  Listen to Friday's Podcast (1/10/14) as Dan talks to Eddie and Tracy about his divorce, criminal trial, and the newly released documentary Divorce Corp that share's Dan's story.

Divorce Court 1/10/14 Hour 2

Friday, January 10, 2014

Memo to the Indiana Supreme Court: The State never argued Dan Brewington threatened arson

Dan Brewington's criminal case is currently before the Indiana Supreme Court.  The core argument of the Indiana Attorney General is that Dan threatened to commit arson or burn personal property of Judge James D. Humphrey in retaliation for a prior lawful act.  Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard continues to make public statements to media outlets claiming that Dan threatened to commit arson.  Now the subject is in the hands of the Indiana Supreme Court.  How will they rule?  If they read the record of the original trial they should overturn Brewington's intimidation charge.  Why?  Because during the course of Brewington's entire criminal trial, at no point did Prosecutor Negangard ever accuse Brewington of threatening to commit arson against anyone.

Below is a list of links to the transcripts of Dan Brewington's criminal trial from October 2011.  The transcripts were scanned and posted to the web server as a searchable PDF meaning a person is able to search for words within a document.  If you click within the document then press "control"+"F", a box will appear where you have the ability to type in the word to be searched.  If the word appears in the document, then it will appeared as highlighted text.  Arrows in the search box allow you to move to the next appearance of the word in the document.  Try this for yourself.  Open one or more links to the transcripts and search for a common word like "the" or "and".  Get the drift?  Now do a search on the words "arson" and "burn".  At first you may think your computer is not working because the search came up empty.  This is common, but there isn't anything wrong with your computer.  The fact is the words "arson" and "burn" do not appear anywhere in the record.  Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard never made the argument that Dan threatened arson against anyone.  If Prosecutor Negangard truly believed that Dan threatened arson against anyone, why is the record void of any mention of Negangard saying "Dan Brewington threatened to burn so n so's house?"  Because Negangard had no evidence of that.  That's why the Indiana Attorney General is arguing Brewington is too clever to make direct threats.

Check the links for yourself.  See how the State of Indiana is currently arguing to uphold a conviction using an argument the State never used during trial.  Dan never threatened arson.  If he did, Negangard would have argued it directly.  Prosecutors do not hold back that kind of evidence.  If Brewington would have made a threat of arson, Prosecutor Negangard would have said, "On 'X' date, Brewington wrote he was going to burn so n so's house down."  It never happened.  Negangard never made the accusation while presenting evidence and calling witnesses.  He did not even mention "burn" or "arson" during his closing arguments.  Why is the Indiana Attorney General and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard saying it is?  Because they have nothing else on Dan Brewington.  See for yourself how the Attorney General and Prosecutor Negangard are trying to obstruct justice in an effort to keep Brewington from clearing his name.  Feel free to contact federal and state officials about this injustice.

State Of Indiana vs. Daniel Brewington
Cause # 15D02-1103-FD-084
Trial Transcripts Part 1. Dan Brewington files three motions and addresses Judge Brian D. Hill. Opening statements from Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Public Defender Bryan E. Barrett. Angela Loechel – 1st Witness- Divorce attorney for Melissa Brewington.
Trial Transcripts Part 2. Dr. Edward J. Connor – 2nd Witness – Custody Evaluator from Erlanger, KY. He refused to release the case file for the Custody Evaluation Report. Dr. Sara Jones-Connor – 3rd Witness – Custody Evaluator from Erlanger, KY.
Trial Transcripts Part 3. Judge James D. Humphrey – 4th Witness – 2nd Judge in the divorce action. Wrote the decree that, among other things, saw to it that Dan would not be able to see his girls for an extended time period.
Trial Transcripts Part 4. Ms. Anne Jordan – 5th Witness - Program attorney from the Indiana Judicial Center. She testified about the Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Committee. Mrs. Heidi Humphrey - 6th Witness – Dearborn County advisor to the Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Committee, according to their website, at the time of the issuance of the Divorce Decree.
Trial Transcripts Part 5. Ms. Melissa Brewington - 7th Witness – Dan Brewington’s ex-wife.
Trial Transcripts Part 6. Sheriff Michael Kreinhop – Current Sheriff of Dearborn County. He was a Deputy with the SCU at the time he investigated Ms. Loechel’s complaint. He filed his report around October 27, 2009.
Trial Transcripts Part 7. Court Business
Trial Transcripts Part 8. Closing Arguments – Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor
Trial Transcripts Part 9. Closing Arguments – Public Defender Attorney Bryan E. Barrett
Trial Transcripts Part 10. Closing Arguments – Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Proof Dan Brewington's Public Defender colluded with Prosecutor Negangard

There is little doubt that Dan Brewington's public defender, Rush County Public Defender Bryan Barrett, had no intention of providing Dan with any kind of competent representation during his criminal trial in 2011.  A fresh review of documents from Brewington's trial demonstrate that Mr. Barrett colluded with Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard during the proceedings that kept Brewington incarcerated in Indiana for 2.5 years.  Judge Brian Hill, Special Judge from Rush County Circuit Court, was also aware of this information.

A closer review of the 531 pages of transcripts from the four day criminal trial of Dan Brewington reveals that Brewington's Public Defender, Bryan Barrett, agreed with Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard that it would be in the best interest of an ongoing investigation against Brewington to rephrase a line of questioning because it "...would probably be a good idea that Mr. Brewington not be specifically advised about [ongoing investigation of Brewington]." (Quote from Prosecutor Negangard, page 419 lines 15-24 of trial transcripts.)  This interchange transpired when Prosecutor Negangard interrupted Barrett's line of questioning during the cross-examination of Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop, on October 5, 2011 and asked Judge Hill if counsel could approach the bench.  It was at that point Negangard informed Judge Hill and Bryan Barrett that another inmate in Dearborn County alleged that Brewington had made additional threats against Judge James D. Humphrey and Negangard himself.  Barrett never told Brewington about the new allegations and investigation against him. Brewington was not aware of the accusations until his sentencing hearing on October 24, 2011 when Prosecutor Negangard called Brewington's cell mate, Joseph McCaleb, to testify.  (McCaleb was arrested in at least two states for stealing women's undergarments while working as a Direct TV installation technician.  See news story on 700WLW.  A copy of McCaleb's letter to Prosecutor Negangard, written September 25, 2011, can be found on the Dearborn County Blog)  Despite not having the evidence to charge Brewington with another crime, Negangard used McCaleb's testimony against Brewington to seek a tougher sentence.  The collusion between Bryan Barrett, Prosecutor Negangard, and even Judge Hill in denying Brewington access to evidence made it impossible for Brewington to defend himself.

It seems unthinkable that a lawyer would withhold information about an investigation against his client from his client in an effort to assist the prosecution's case against his client.  Bryan Barrett did just this.  There was no talk of an objection to Prosecutor Negangard's request to hinder Dan Brewington's case in the name of protecting another (unsubstantiated)  investigation of Brewington.  Judge Bryan Hill made no effort to protect Brewington's rights to competent representation.  If the prosecution does not want to share information with a defendant, then the prosecution will not tell the defendant's counsel.  Either Negangard and Bryan Barrett had an understanding that they would keep evidence away from Brewington or Negangard lied to Judge Hill about the information being sensitive and just used the opportunity to further obstruct Dan Brewington's ability to have a fair trial.  Please review the link to the 3 pages of trial transcripts concerning the obstruction of Brewington's right to competent counsel and fair trial.  Feel free to contact federal or state officials with any concerns or complaints.

Dan Brewington back on 700WLW to discuss Divorce Corp

     Once again, tune into the "Nation's Station" 700WLW on Friday, January 10, 2014 at 4:05 pm (EST) as Dan returns to "The Big One" to talk with Eddie and Tracy.  Listen as they discuss the upcoming documentary Divorce Corp, which shares some of Dan's experiences in the family court system and the Indiana criminal justice system that punished him for speaking out against what takes place in domestic courts. Tune in to learn about Dan's experiences and learn how the decisions of the Indiana Courts may affect you.  Many thanks go out to 700WLW for covering a story involving unscrupulous government officials that other local media outlets have been reluctant to report. Divorce Corp, narrated by Dr. Drew, opens in select theaters nationwide on Friday January, 10th. The Cincinnati premier will be held at the AMC on the Levee, in Newport,Kentucky. Go to for listening options.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Podcast of Dan Brewington with Scott Sloan on 700WLW

The following is a link to the podcast of Dan Brewington in-studio with 700WLW talk show host Scott Sloan.  Listen in as they discuss divorce, bad judges, corrupt prosecutors, and the upcoming documentary on the wasteful divorce system, Divorce Corp.  Listen past Dan's interview to the break to hear Sloan's further criticism of the system responsible for taking Dan's children and putting him in prison for 2.5 years.  700WLW Scott Sloan 1/7/14 2nd hour.

Welcome to Dan Brewington's Blog

     For those new to Dan's story, which is included in the new documentary Divorce Corp, feel free to browse this blog as it contains many links to legal documents, pleadings, trial transcripts, rare grand jury transcripts, and more information and documentation from the last several year of Dan's experiences in both the civil and criminal courts.  If you want background information on the nature of his divorce and tribulations in dealing with the family court systems in Ripley/Dearborn County, Indiana, go to, and see how a system deeply failed two little girls.  Dan's family was responsible for scanning and sharing much of this information during the course of Dan's 2.5 year prison term in an effort to keep the public informed about the unethical conduct of many involved with the Indiana "justice" system.  Please feel free to view all of Dan's information and decide for yourself if it should have been grounds to remove two young children from their father and then place him in prison for 2.5 years.  Transparency is key to the reformation of government.  Transparency is one of the main goals of Dan's blog and website.  Judge James D. Humphrey claimed this information was potentially dangerous to Dan's (at the time) 3 and 5 year-old daughters.  The only individuals who are negatively impacted by this information are those who failed to conduct themselves in a professional manner during the course of Dan's legal adventures.  Thanks for visiting.

Monday, January 6, 2014

Dan Brewington is On-Air with Scott Sloan on 700WLW

Tune into 700WLW on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 at 10:06 am to hear Dan Brewington in-studio with talk show host Scott Sloan.  Listen as they discuss the upcoming documentary Divorce Corp, which shares some of Dan's experiences in the family court system and the Indiana criminal justice system that punished him for speaking out against what takes place in domestic courts.  Come listen to the conversation as Dan will be able to share his story of how the State of Indiana took away his children and his freedom because of his online criticism of public officials. Go to for listening options.