The following is a letter I sent to Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry. I wanted to make him aware of a few matters regarding the County Clerk's problems in appointing a Special Judge for my lawsuit seeking public records. One of the matters include Ripley Superior Court Judge and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard agreeing to a time served plea deal to a man who would "steal young girl's underwear and women's lingerie” and “would take pictures of feminine clothing and write fantasies and nickname the women whom he had visited." This was my former cell mate at the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Negangard struck a deal with Joseph McCaleb because he agreed to try to bait me into saying something incriminating while wearing a wire in the jail. To say the least they got nothing on me but they released a sexual predator on the streets. More information below.
September 16, 2016
Deputy
Attorney General Joshua Lowry
Office
of Attorney General
Indiana
Government Center South, 5th Floor
302
West Washington Street
Indianapolis,
IN 46204-2770
Telephone:
(317) 233-6215
Facsimile:
(317) 232-7979
Re:
Special Judge Appointment in Cause No. 15D01-1607-PL-000050
Mr.
Lowry,
This correspondence is to help
provide some insight and/or transparency regarding the appointment process of a
special judge in the above cause. On September 14, 2016, the Dearborn County
Clerk of Courts, Rick Probst, left me the following voice mail:
“Mr.
Brewington this is Rick Probst, Clerk of Courts in Dearborn County. I had a
message to give you a call from yesterday. Um, you want to know what’s going on
with the judge appointments, um, and basically it appears that, uh, the judge
in Ripley county has recused himself. Uh, you have the opportunity with the
other attorney to agree on a judge. I’m waiting for the seven days to pass.
That will be tomorrow. Um, and I expect to appoint a replacement judge failing
your agreement with the other attorney. Uh, I expect to appoint a replacement
judge on the 19th. Uh, it’s delayed, uh, because I am unable to contact the Supreme
Court representative. I want to talk to him, uh, about the previous referral to
the Supreme Court. It appears that this action will be in rotation judges, uh,
in our district, uh, but I don’t expect anything to occur or an order to be cut
until the 19th. Um, okay, uh, if you have any questions you can give me a call
812-537-8867. Thank you”
Other than the
Court’s Order Appointing a Special Judge filed July 19, 2016, I am unaware of
any other order in this case pertaining to the appointment of a special judge.
Probst’s actions following the July 19 order raise many questions, the first of
which is by whose authority did Probst depart from the appointment procedure
described in the Order Appointing a Special Judge. Judge Cleary’s order stated:
“If the parties are unable to agree upon a
Special Judge, the Special Judge will be selected by the Clerk pursuant to
Indiana Trial Rule 79 (H) and Dearborn County Local Rule AR-8.”
I am somewhat at a
disadvantage because the court and/or clerks have failed to provide me with
copies of all orders and correspondence in this matter. I did not receive a
copy of Ripley Circuit Judge Ryan King’s Order Declining Appointment as Special
Judge, filed August 15, 2016. My only knowledge of such order came from
Probst’s Request for Appointment of Special Judge by the Indiana Supreme Court,
dated August 19, 2016. Probst cited Indiana Trial Rule 79(H)(3) in requesting
an appointment from the Indiana Supreme Court. T.R. 79(H)(3) which states:
(3) [C]ertification to the Supreme Court of
Indiana of cases in which no judge is eligible to serve as special judge or the
particular circumstance of a case warrants selection of a special judge by the
Indiana Supreme Court.
I have not
received copies of any orders of recusal from any of the other eligible judges
listed under AR-8. It would appear obvious that a couple of the listed judges
would be ineligible due to their prior involvement with State of Indiana v.
Brewington, Case No. 15D02-1103-FD-84, but I assume that would explain the
necessity of having eight eligible judges for appointment of special judge. I
have not received copies of any correspondence between Probst and the unnamed
male representative from the Indiana Supreme Court referred to in Probst’s
voice mail. I also did not receive a copy of the Order from Chief Justice
Loretta H. Rush, filed September 2, 2016. Now I have a September 14, 2014 voice
mail from the Dearborn County Clerk of Courts informing me that the deadline
for the parties to agree on a judge is September 15, 2016, when the Clerk
failed to provide the parties with any notice that the Clerk reverted to the
local rules of court to appoint a special judge. The unknown variable in the
equation is the unidentified male representative of the Indiana Supreme Court
mentioned in Probst’s voice mail that appears to have some impact in whether
Probst decides to follow the July 19, 2016 order to appoint a special judge per
Indiana
Trial Rule 79 (H) and Dearborn County Local Rule AR-8.
The Motion for
Summary Judgment filed August 31, 2016, demonstrates how the transcripts do not
match the audio from the grand jury proceeding in question. There is also no
question that the Dearborn Superior Court II prepared an abridged version of
the grand jury record while representing the transcripts to be complete. The
transcripts and audio are not only void of any record of the proceedings prior
to witness testimony, the audio and transcripts do not match in several places.
Your clients will have to argue the Court abandoned the normal court recording
process that automatically stores and names court audio in five-minute files,
which in itself is a violation of Indiana Code § 35-34-2-3(d). In the
alternative they will have to argue why it is acceptable to charge the public
$300.00 for a “re-creation” of an official record that does not contain
information included in the transcription of the official record. In serving as
counsel for the Dearborn Superior Court II and Judge Brian Hill, the Office of
the Indiana Attorney General finds itself in a position to argue why the public
should not have the ability to see to what extent the Dearborn Superior Court
II and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury
process.
Your clients’ opposition
to transparency and the truth necessitated this action. The Indiana Public
Access Counselor opined that Judge Brian Hill’s many excuses why not to release
the grand jury audio were invalid. The Defendants’ newest claim that the grand
jury audio from the investigation of Brewington intertwined with the
investigations of “four to five” other grand jury proceedings is simply rebuked
by the lack of notice in the record that the focus of the grand jury
investigation switched away or back to Brewington’s case. In the wake of the
Dearborn County Superior Court II altering grand jury records, which assisted
Prosecutor Negangard by depriving a criminal defendant of charging information
before trial, Dearborn County Clerk of Courts Rick Probst disregarded the order
to follow the local rules of court and filed a request for appointment to the
Supreme Court. Despite not being a party to the action, Probst copied
Prosecutor Negangard to the filing, suggesting Negangard had an interest in
this case. Adding suspicion to the Clerk’s actions is the order of the listing
of eligible judges as seen below:
1.
Judge of the Jefferson Circuit
Court
2.
Judge of the Jefferson Superior
Court
3.
Judge of Switzerland Circuit Court
4.
Judge of the Ripley Circuit Court
5.
Judge of the Ripley Superior Court
6.
Judge of the Dearborn-Ohio Circuit
Court
7.
Judge of Dearborn Superior Court II
8.
Judge of Dearborn Superior Court I
Following Ripley
Circuit Judge Ryan King’s order declining appointment, Probst defied Trial Rule
79 and arbitrarily sought an appointment from the Indiana Supreme Court. Local
rules instruct the Clerk of Courts to appoint the next judge in line when
selecting a new special judge. According to the local rules of the Dearborn
County Courts, the next appointment should have been Ripley Superior Court
Judge Jeffrey Sharp. This might present a conflict, as Jeff Sharp was a
Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutor prior to being elected Superior Court Judge.
Prior to serving as a deputy prosecutor, Sharp was the public defender for
Joseph McCaleb who, as a DirecTV installation technician, would “enter the
homes of DirecTV subscribers and steal young girl's underwear and women's
lingerie.” McCaleb “would take pictures of feminine clothing and write
fantasies and nickname the women whom he had visited. He also would attempt to
contact the subscribers via the Internet using Facebook or text message them.”[1]
Sharp negotiated a deal with Negangard to secure a “time served” plea bargain
for McCaleb in exchange for what turned out to be unsuccessful attempts by McCaleb
to bait his cellmate, Dan Brewington, into making threatening statements while recording
the conversation through a hidden device. No illegal conduct was recorded and,
in a county whose stratospheric incarceration rate made it the subject of a recent
New York Times article, the deviant pervert was allowed to go free.
Following Sharp on
the list of eligible judges are the three judges of Dearborn County. Dearborn
Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey was one of the alleged victims in Negangard’s
criminal defamation case against Brewington. Dearborn Superior Court II Judge
Sally McLaughlin, formerly Blankenship, was the original judge in Brewington’s
criminal trial. McLaughlin set Brewington’s bond at $500,000 surety and
$100,000 cash in the absence of any evidence that a crime had been committed.
It was on McLaughlin’s watch that Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe altered the
grand jury transcripts and represented the transcript to be complete and then
oversaw the modification of the grand jury audio in an apparent attempt to
match the altered transcripts. At position number eight is Judge Cleary, the
original judge in this lawsuit seeking public records, which leads us back to
one through three; the only three Democrat judges on the list and the only
judges to have decades of experience in private practice rather than rising to
the judicial position through the ranks of the county prosecutor’s office. Probst
abandoned the local trial rules following Judge King’s admission that he was a
fraternity brother and close friend of defendant Hill, rather than pass the
case to judges of the opposite political party with careers not molded by the
county prosecutor’s office.
Regardless of
whether the actions of the Dearborn Clerk of Courts are malicious or due to
incompetence, it falls in line with your clients’ actions in obstructing the
release of tampered grand jury records that played a role in an
unconstitutional criminal defamation trial. As such, I will be contacting the
Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court and Counsel for the Indiana Supreme Court in
the hopes of determining who is responsible for secretly advising Probst throughout
this current debacle of finding a judge to hear this case. I intend to contact
the FBI about these matters as well.
Thank you for your
time and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. A copy of this
letter can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com
for your convenience.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Brewington
3 W Central Avenue
Delaware, Ohio 43015
513.383.3136
Cc: Prosecutor
F. Aaron Negangard
Dearborn
County Prosecutor Office
215
W High St
Lawrenceburg,
IN 47025
