The following is an except from my latest filing in my post-conviction relief case. On March 31, 2017, I filed a motion seeking summary disposition where I requested the court to vacate my convictions. The Dearborn Superior Court II has failed to issue a ruling on the matter. This seems par for the course especially as it was the Dearborn Superior Court II that altered grand jury records to assist former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecute criminal defamation. Negangard currently serves as Chief Deputy for Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Attorney General Hill's office is currently representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking the unaltered audio from my grand jury investigation. (The audio released by the Dearborn Superior Court II contains less information than the transcription of the same audio.) Below is the conclusion appearing at the end of my Request for Ruling on Summary Disposition, dated September 23, 2017:
This is not a John Grisham novel. This criminal case has
done immeasurable harm to Brewington’s life. From the beginning of Brewington’s
criminal proceedings, the State demonstrated how the entire action was simply a
means to silence and punish Brewington for criticizing officials operating
within the Dearborn County Court System. This is best demonstrated by the
arguments of Chief Deputy Prosecutor Joeseph Kisor during Brewington’s
arraignment on March 11, 2011:
“[W]e is asking that the Court consider making conditions of
[Brewington’s] bond that he not access the internet, uh, or if the Court would believe
that to be too broad, which I'm not sure the State would not concede that but
if that were to be considered too broad, we would ask the Court to make a
condition of bond that Mr. Brewington not continue to blog about the substance,
uh, at least his version of the substance of the case that is here before this
Court.” Tr. 19
Kisor later clarified the State’s concerns regarding
Brewington blogging during the criminal proceedings:
“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”
Deputy Kisor clearly explained that the Office of the
Dearborn County Prosecutor had an interest in censoring Brewington. Kisor tried
to claim the censorship was somehow a means to protect Brewington’s right to a
fair trial, despite the prosecution remaining silent at the beginning of trial
when Brewington informed Judge Hill that Brewington had not received any
assistance in preparing for trial. Kisor and the Office of the Dearborn County
Prosecutor were never concerned about the alleged victims. Kisor was only concerned
about Brewington sharing Brewington’s own “version of the substance of the
case.” Brewington’s trial was never about the alleged victims in the case and
Negangard explicitly stated such during closing arguments:
“That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey.
It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was
challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to
let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held
accountable. 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.” Tr. 504-505
Brewington’s criminal proceedings were never about threats
to reputation or safety, because Negangard explicitly said so. Negangard sought
and obtained indictments against Brewington under the pretense of intimidation because
Negangard argued convictions for intimidation were necessary to prevent Brewington
from perverting our system of justice and to hold Brewington accountable like
an attorney. These are simply the facts of this case. The State cannot merely
retract Negangard’s statements. In an act of inane arrogance, Negangard openly
admitted that the State of Indiana sought convictions against Brewington to
prevent the fall of the rule of law and ultimately the United States of
America. Brewington could not invite this error. Brewington could not defend
himself against such. Negangard’s statement serves as a confession that
Brewington’s criminal proceedings were beyond unconstitutional, while Judge
Hill and Bryan Barrett allowed Negangard to seek convictions against Brewington
for perverting the judicial system. Brewington was held on a $500,000
surety/$100,000 cash bond. Brewington was denied access to legal counsel.
Brewington was denied the right to an impartial judge. Brewington was denied
access to evidence and indictment information. The Dearborn Superior Court II
excluded portions of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony.
There is no contesting the fact that Negangard affirmatively stated that Negangard
sought indictments and criminal convictions against Brewington, under the
pretense of intimidation laws, for the “greater good” of protecting the
integrity of the judicial system. These are the facts of the case as explained
by former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard that appear on pages
504-505 of the official transcripts in Brewington’s criminal trial. Brewington
is not twisting facts. These are facts of the case as alleged by Negangard, the
man who currently serves as Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis
Hill.
If this Court should deem this action to be more appropriate
for a federal jurisdiction due to reluctance in dealing with abuses by high
ranking Indiana officials, Brewington requests the Court to issue an order
consistent with such a concern.
The following is a link to Brewington's Request for Summary Disposition