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.
