If you have any doubts as to whether Indiana Chief Deputy
Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard conspired with with the Dearborn Superior Court II to maliciously
prosecute a criminal defendant, read the following argument included in my
recent filing in the Dearborn Superior Court II. The argument by the Office
of the Dearborn County Prosecutor rationalizes how court-altered grand jury
records didn’t negatively impact the constitutionality of my criminal prosecution:
“Finally, the State wishes to address the claim raised in
Brewington's Motion for Summary Judgment in Paragraph 2(A) that ‘[Prosecutor]
Negangard switched playbooks on Brewington'. This claim is, to put it bluntly,
nonsensical. Even if one is to assume that Brewington’s baseless assertion that
the grand jury transcripts were altered or otherwise incomplete, the evidence
contained therein is more than enough for even a layperson to discern a ‘true
threat.’”
That’s the argument by the regime of current Dearborn County
Prosecutor, Lynn Deddens, demonstrating the culture of corruption in the small
Indiana county, located a mere thirty minutes west of Cincinnati, Ohio. The
prosecution glosses over the fact that just by arguing even if the court altered any/or failed to maintain the grand jury record… acknowledges the existence
of both unethical and criminal conduct. There is no constitutionally permissible
amount of information that a trial court can arbitrarily omit from the record
of a grand jury.
It’s not a matter of if Dearborn County officials engaged in
criminal conduct, but rather a matter of how many crimes they committed. Negangard
prosecuted me for my public speech that was critical of Dearborn Circuit Judge
James D. Humphrey. Negangard’s office instructed me to rely on a complete transcription
of the grand jury investigation for an understanding of the general indictments.
Negangard, the trial judge, and my public defender waited until less than two
weeks before my criminal trial before providing me with a copy of the
transcript; a copy I later found to be incomplete. At the time I had no
understanding that Indiana law required a record to be kept of all portions of
the grand jury investigation, other than deliberations. The Dearborn Superior
Court II omitted all portions of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to
witness testimony. After serving 2.5 years of a 5-year prison sentence, I began
trying to obtain the grand jury audio through a public record request. After fighting
the release of the grand jury audio, the Dearborn Superior Court II released a
copy of the grand jury audio containing less information than the transcript.
It appears the court altered the transcript then tried to alter the audio to
match. Now the Superior Court II, under Judge Sally McLaughlin, claims there is
no more audio to release. The kicker is the missing records may be maintained
by a victim in the case, Judge James D. Humphrey.
I have two pending legal actions in Dearborn County, Indiana.
I’m challenging my convictions through post-conviction relief, while suing the
Dearborn Superior Court II for a certified copy of the grand jury audio. Both actions have been pending for over two years. Judge
McLaughlin’s court claims it is impossible to provide me with an exact copy of the audio because there were “four
to five” other grand jury investigations intertwined on the same recording. If
one assumes McLaughlin’s court isn’t lying just to rationalize copying and
pasting the audio to match the already altered transcription, Judge McLaughlin
still faces two major problems. If several grand jury investigations were
recorded on one ongoing audio file, it would require an intentional act for a portion
of the record to go missing. Judge McLaughlin’s court either intentionally shut
off the recording when Negangard gave the introduction in my case, or Judge
McLaughlin’s staff destroyed it. Any way you shake it, Negangard absolutely knew
the grand jury records were altered and he took full advantage of the situation.
There is no graceful exit strategy for the officials involved.
I included the above in my
reply to the State’s Response to my Motion for Summary Disposition in my
post-conviction case. I also included the dialogue between Judge Brian Hill and
former prosecutor Negangard during the final pre-trial hearing in my criminal
case, September 19, 2011. After telling Judge Hill that my public defender
refused to speak with me, I didn’t understand the nature of the indictments,
and I had yet to receive a copy of the grand jury transcript, Hill denied my
request to continue the jury trial scheduled two just weeks later, on October
3, 2011. Hill based his denial on a conversation Hill had with Negangard where
both men claimed I was adamant about not continuing the original jury trial set
for August 16, 2011, when my public defender had a family emergency. The problem
with the story by the two men is that there is no record of me making any such objection.
For one, it was impossible for me to go to trial if my public defender was unavailable.
Even more troubling is the fact that it was impossible for me to object because
Judge Hill vacated the hearing on his own motion. Negangard and Judge Hill
rehearsed the make-believe story prior to the hearing; probably to rationalize
incarcerating me for over six months without providing any explanation of what
actions I was required to defend. Negangard and Judge Hill didn’t change the
record, they just altered reality. As for my public defender, he remained silent
throughout; calling into question which side he was actually working for.
As for my public record lawsuit seeking the grand jury audio,
representing the court in the case is the Office of Indiana Attorney General
Curtis T. Hill. Attorney General Hill’s office is fighting the release of the
official grand jury audio to protect his own Chief Deputy. Hill’s office is
being remarkably vague about the grand jury record beginning at witness testimony.
Though claiming not to know the content of the grand jury audio, Curtis Hill’s
office is arguing there is no more audio to release. This is especially
problematic as the grand jury audio currently released to me contains less
information than the transcription.
Stay tuned for more details….
No comments:
Post a Comment