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.
Consider judges and politicians at the top of the county gang. Then psychs are the henchmen and federal Title IV d and e funds are the crack cocaine, and parents and children are fodder and totally unimportant to the business. Much like what Levitt describes here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UGC2nLnaes
ReplyDeletei have relevant and interesting things to add as comments here but I am keeping them to myself because the story of your persecution has chilled me.
ReplyDelete