Conspiracy to Alter Grand Jury Records Involving Chief Deputy Negangard

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….

Sexual harassment allegations against Curtis T. Hill raise additional problems for the Office of the Indiana Attorney General

Recent allegations of sexual harassment against Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill pose a deeper problem for the law firm of the State. The leader of the Indiana Democratic Party, John Zody, and others are calling for the Republican Attorney General to resign in wake of allegations Hill inappropriately touched four women attending an end of legislative session party at AJ’s Lounge in Indianapolis. The question of Hill’s future as Attorney General and a potential replacement sheds light on another pending controversy involving the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

A July 2, 2018 filing in a public records lawsuit seeking grand jury audio, addresses the disturbing concession made by Hill’s office in a separate legal action currently before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The appellee brief filed on behalf of the State of Indiana, makes a default concession that the Dearborn Superior Court II engaged in a conspiracy to alter grand jury records to assist the prosecution. The public records lawsuit seeks the original audio from same grand jury proceeding mentioned in the State’s appellee brief. Hill’s office also represents defendants Judge Brian Hill and the Dearborn Superior Court II/Judge Sally McLaughlin in the public records lawsuit; the individuals who altered and/or obstructed the release of grand jury audio. Now the Attorney General is trying to convince the public records court that the admission of a conspiracy to alter grand jury records in the State’s appellee brief is not relevant to the public records lawsuit. Hill’s office simply claims the issues are irrelevant because the evidence regarding the admission of misconduct is being “appropriately litigated” in a separate appellate action. The common denominator linking the aforementioned public records lawsuit, the State’s brief in a pending appeal, and Hill’s recent sexual harassment allegations, lies in the identity of whom the Dearborn Superior Court II conspired to help. The Dearborn Superior Court II conspired to alter grand jury records to assist former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; current Chief Deputy and potential successor to Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill.

As of the publication of this article, Curtis T. Hill has not resigned from office.

Indiana Chief Deputy AG Faces Scrutiny for Violating Federal Law

The State of Indiana retaliated against me for criticizing the Indiana Court System. Here’s the common-sense analysis: If my conduct had any resemblance of being criminal, why did former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard instruct the trial jury to return guilty verdicts claiming I violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys?

“As to Count II, Intimidation of a Judge, that is more serious because it involves a Judge but because it involves a Judge, we do need to look at the first amendment issues because you are allowed to criticize judges. Right? I mean, I'm not. Defense counsel's not because we are attorneys. But remember he says he's acting like an attorney so we should treat it as he's acting like an attorney. Well if he's acting like an attorney, then he needs to accountable like an attorney. He could hire his own attorney but he didn't. So you know and he has to suffer the consequences." -Closing arguments by F. Aaron Negangard Trial transcripts page 515 (Appellant Appendix 22)

There is no such criminal law. Negangard made it up. The false ground for prosecution would normally warrant a mistrial or be grounds for vacating the convictions on appeal. Indiana officials continue to make excuses in rationalizing why my convictions are constitutional, while ignoring the conduct of Chief Deputy Negangard. My consequences for criticizing judges while “acting like an attorney” were nothing like those described in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. My consequences include serving a 2.5-year prison sentence and living with the label of being a convicted felon. Negangard’s actions are a federal crime. A prosecutor cannot convene a grand jury and prosecute someone for a non-existent crime to punish someone for protected speech. Doing so is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

F. Aaron Negangard is now Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has personally signed on to represent the State of Indiana in my appeal of Negangard’s unconstitutional prosecution. The above statement and many other ridiculous arguments by Chief Deputy Negangard appear in my Appellant Brief and attached appendices filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals. These filings prove both Attorney General Hill and the Indiana courts are fully aware of Negangard’s criminal conduct. Even an argument against Negangard’s conduct being criminal requires a contention that Negangard simply made up the argument to confuse the jury to obtain convictions, which is both unconstitutional and an act of malicious prosecutor misconduct. The Indiana courts continue to ignore Negangard’s conduct and now Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has signed on to help detract attention from a federal crime committed by his own chief deputy. Negangard even admitted my prosecution was not about the victims, as Negangard stated the prosecution was to prevent me from “perverting” the Indiana judicial system.

Stay tuned for updates. The office of Attorney General Curtis Hill is also representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking grand jury audio. I filed the lawsuit after discovering portions of the grand jury transcript and grand jury audio do not match; the same transcript that formed the basis of Negangard’s prosecution against me. If the Indiana Court System and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill continue to cover-up potential federal crimes committed by Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard, I’m going to make sure that the public knows about it.  

The Indiana Courts Continue to Stall on Case Involving Tampered Grand Jury Records

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