This blog will be breaking down the latest ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court in my case Brewington v State of Indiana. Given the cut and paste hack-job, for the lack of a better word, in Justice Rush’s attempt to make me look like a mentally deranged individual, this is going to take some time to read, absorb, and cross-reference. This ruling is very dangerous to the average person because it strips him/her of the ability to criticize judges. This ruling, while claiming to separate threats to reputation and threats to personal safety as criminal acts, gives the State of Indiana the ability to determine what constitutes a “hidden” threat. The ruling then allows the State to use constitutionally protected speech as circumstantial evidence to make an argument that the speaker is angry and a potential threat, because without anger and an element of fear, there is no threat or intimidation. So when the State finds a statement or blog post it wants to deem a “hidden threat” against a judge or other elected official, the State can turn around and use any and all previous constitutionally protected writings to establish anger which is a key component in prosecuting someone for “hidden” or “secret” threats. The following is an example how Justice Loretta H. Rush, who wrote the opinion, pieced together partial quotes from my blogs to help bolster the Supreme Court’s argument against Dan Brewington.
On page 6 of the Supreme Court decision, Justice Rush wrote the following:
He wrote in one post that the Doctor “may be a [p]ervert,” Ex. 181; and in another about a supposedly hypothetical “Dr. Custody Evaluator” who “made me so mad I wanted to beat him/her senseless” and “punch Dr. Custody Evaluator in the face.” Then after that, Defendant showed up at an unrelated hearing where the Doctor was testifying, bragging afterward that his presence made the Doctor “a little nervous and from a psychological standpoint he probably should have been.”
Sounds a lot worse if taken out of context. In a blog post written on January 20, 2010 titled, “Dr. Edward J. Connor may be a Pervert” I questioned Dr. Connor’s practice of asking women sexually explicit questions during custody evaluations without asking men the same questions. I was simply questioning the fairness of only asking a woman sexual questions because the man would never be able to respond or give his perspective of the incident or situation in question. Then Justice Rush proceeds to provide partial quotes from two other writings of mine without providing any context or timeframe as to when they were written. On May 11, 2010 I wrote a blog titled “You wouldn’t lose your children because you criticized a plumber would you?” In this blog I addressed two emails I received from individuals who were concerned about my situation. I used an analogy that no one would think someone was crazy if, after a plumber failed to fix a plumbing problem, tracked mud through the house, while overcharging for the services, the person verbalized being so mad at a bad plumbing job that could punch the plumber “in the face.” I then said if the person said the same thing about a custody evaluator and evaluation, the person could lose their children. Justice Rush went on to write that I then wrote about seeing Dr. Connor at an unrelated court hearing where I wrote my presence caused Dr. Connor to appear “a little nervous from a psychological standpoint he probably should have been.” By itself it sounds like it could be a little over the top except I provided an extensive explanation of my statement. In the blog post “Sometimes Ed says the craziest things,” written November 17, 2010, my explanation was as follows:
“As a psychologist, he probably believes that aggression or violence would be a common reaction for parents who had their children ripped from them without any warning or justifiable reason. As Dr. Connor was the one who maliciously attacked my credibility in an effort to hurt my children and me after I informed the public that Dr. Connor conducted himself in an unethical and illegal manner, he was probably concerned that I would be in the majority of parents who would have let anger take over. Fortunately for Dr. Connor, I do not fit into the demographic that would want to cause physical harm to someone who lied to hurt their children. I was just taking a legal approach to getting a better perspective of how Dr. Connor operates in other situations.”
This is how Justice Rush and the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana legally suppress free speech while dragging me through the mud. Justice Rush took three out of context quotes from three blog posts written in a year’s time and pieced them together to make me look irrational. In issues concerning free speech, the best way to discourage potential supporters of my cause is to make me appear irrational. The Indiana Supreme Court is the irrational party here for attempting to compartmentalize political speech in an effort to punish those who pick on their own kind. What is even most disturbing is Justice Rush used this information to support the Court’s decision to uphold my conviction of Attempted Obstruction of Justice. These events occurred several months to well over a year after Dr. Connor’s testimony in my divorce case. The Supreme Court argued I tried to prevent Dr. Connor from testifying in my divorce hearing over a year after the hearing took place.
Stay tuned because I will be breaking down the Court decision to further demonstrate the atrocities Justice Loretta Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court have committed against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. I would like to thank all of the people who have continued to support me and my family through this whole ordeal. Feel free to contact Indiana officials with any concerns about how the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Brewington v State goes against the liberties protected by the US Constitution.