For those questioning my recent Facebook and Twitter posts regarding Trump’s policies and actions, I can assure you none of my opinions or writings are politically motivated or agenda based. My frustration with the ignorance condemning me for speaking out and not blindly following government, while suggesting a wait and see approach to Trump’s presidency, is neither irrational nor misplaced. My passion for speaking out against Trump’s executive orders are rooted in a criminal case that occurred in the United States. This case involved a person who was investigated, indicted, arrested, and convicted while being denied any specific charging information, access to evidence, and legal counsel. The government made the following statements about this man:
“[W]e believe that the allegations are extremely serious and he does present a danger to the community.”
“He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and that's what we're asking you to do. You cannot allow our system to be perverted that way. The rule of law will fail and ultimately our republic. I submit to you that that is not a result that we want to have happen. That is why we are here today.”
The State argued the defendant was “paranoid, manipulative, exhibits a manic-like existence, is unwilling to accept responsibility for his behavior, he's self-centered, has difficulty seeing an issue from another perspective, likes to do things on his own as opposed to being more cooperative and compromising when needed.”
The Judge in the case told the defendant “I've never seen anyone better at manipulating or turning the facts around to make yourself out to be the victim.”
The Government argued the man suffered from a “degree of psychological disturbance” yet neither Government nor the defense attorney attempted to have the man evaluated to prove or disprove the allegation.
The State argued “He’s convicted at a jury now, and his response was to say it was my fault. Um, it's the prosecutor's fault, we lied, we misrepresented the law.”
The Prosecutor obtained indictments against the man for making “unsubstantiated statements” about the judge in the same district as well as a professional witness contracted by the Prosecutor. The man’s convictions were upheld by a state supreme court based on a different argument never presented to the grand jury and not raised until the end of trial, making it impossible to defend. Does this case sound familiar? It should to many. It’s the case of State of Indiana v. Daniel Brewington. This happened to me. This was an attack on my 1st amendment rights, which is made evident from the prosecution’s arguments during my arraignment.
“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. But in any event, it's not appropriate.”
“[T]he postings he has, to me, show an absolute disdain for the Court and for the prosecution and certainly that's okay with the first amendment as long as it doesn't affect with everybody, affect everybody's right to a fair trial.” “So we're asking that that order be made no direct or indirect postings regarding this case.”
I was prosecuted for speaking out about government officials. The prosecution’s argument that I should be prohibited from writing about my criminal trial because it may be detrimental to my defense is beyond comprehension. Notice the prosecution never argued my continued writings were in any way harmful to the alleged victims. My writings could only be detrimental to my defense if my writings were beneficial the prosecution, which the prosecution would have gladly welcomed. The State knew publicizing the details of my criminal case was a threat to the prosecutor’s unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. The prosecution argued that I difficulties communication represented me a master manipulator. There was much testimony about me being a master manipulator despite the absence of any example where my alleged manipulation succeeded. The sole purpose of the Dearborn County Prosecutor in making me the target of an unconstitutional prosecution was to smother the voice of opposition. That prosecutor was F. Aaron Negangard, who is now the Chief Deputy Attorney General to Curtis Hill, Attorney General for the State of Indiana.
There are very few instances in history, if any, where government restriction and/or condemnation of public speech is beneficial to the public. This is happening now. A good leader should welcome criticism. I do not find Trump’s failure to tell the truth as disturbing as how Trump continues to defend his statements that everyone knows are untrue. I’m not talking about arguing “facts” of Benghazi or email scandals, I’m talking about Trump holding an umbrella in a hot and dry desert and arguing how it’s raining cats and dogs, and then attacking the media and people who are putting on sunscreen just to voice their opposition him or support for Hillary Clinton. That’s what he did in claiming 5 million people voted illegally. That’s what Trump did when he told the CIA that the press conspired against him in not acknowledging Trump’s inauguration was not the largest in history. This is behavior that raises concerns about Trump’s psychological well-being, while raising questions of whether he comprehends the ramifications of his actions. Like the prosecution in my case, Trump portrays a doom and gloom scenario in the United States simply to rationalize taking abrupt and controversial unilateral actions to boost approval ratings. Then he tells everyone to trust him as if none of us are smart enough to understand all the facts. Trump followed through with promises he made during the election prior to having the security clearance necessary to consider all of the facts required to make a competent decision. His brash actions in “shaking things up,” demonstrate Trump does not understand or care about the emotional and financial burdens incurred by many people who are legally allowed in the United States such as students, business people, religious missionaries, etc., but Trump is quick to attack anyone that questions the executive orders. These are all issues that people should be free to discuss without fear of being condemned or retaliated against by government officials.
So, you see, my opinions are not a product of a political agenda. My views are a product of my own mind and my right to express them as a citizen of the United States of America.