It seems unfathomable that someone in the
United States could be indicted, convicted, and serve a 2.5-year without being
provided with legal counsel or any knowledge of what actions the State alleged
to be unlawful. Even more disturbing is that someone could be found guilty of a
criminal defamation crime when no such crime exists. Combine that with the
Indiana Supreme Court upholding the verdict based on criminal activity never
argued during trial and you have my case.
My summary of argument for my Petition
for Post-Conviction Relief gives a sneak preview to how the State of
Indiana shows no shame or regard for the Constitution of the United States in
going after individuals who criticize individuals in the Indiana judicial
system. Before the naysayers suggest I am manipulating facts or statements, this
isn’t an attempt to twist the words of the Indiana Courts, it’s me untangling
the twisted arguments the Courts used to rationalize upholding my
unconstitutional convictions. My public defender, Rush County Chief Public
Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me before trial. Special Judge,
Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill refused to address why Barrett
would not meet with me and refused to tell me what actions I was supposed to
defend. Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecuted me for calling
court officials child abusers. Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H.
Rush said Negangard’s prosecution was constitutionally impermissible but denied
me relief from the unconstitutional convictions claiming my public defender
tried to take advantage of Negangard’s constitutionally impermissible criminal
procedure. At every turn I incur new hurdles which amount to little more than
petty excuses to cover for the fact Prosecutor Negangard made me the target of
a grand jury investigation for my statements Negangard and his staff “felt was
over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements against either Dr. Conner or Judge
Humphrey.” Yes. Those were Prosecutor
Negangard’s actual words to the grand jury when he had me indicted for
publishing statements about court officials without publishing supporting
evidence to back my claim. Now I’m forced to file a Petition for
Post-Conviction Relief so I can address the ever evolving excuses the State of
Indiana keeps providing as to why I cannot refer to Dearborn County Circuit
Court Judge James D. Humphrey as an unethical child abuser. Below are some
excerpts from the summary of argument from my Petition
for Post-Conviction Relief. I wanted to get this information out in the
hopes of garnering some interest in my case or in the least, shaming some legal
official in Indiana to take appropriate action. The petition is still a work in
progress but I wanted to leak some information so people can get a grasp of the
blatant disregard Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and
others have for the U.S. Constitution. Please share this information with
anyone who is passionate about abuses in government and protecting
constitutional rights.
Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor gave the
following reason for what would be Brewington’s $600,000 bond:
“[Brewington]
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.” [Arraignment
Tr. 20]
In describing my displeasure with my public
defender refusing to meet with me before trial, Dearborn County Prosecutor F.
Aaron Negangard told Judge Brian Hill:
“[Brewington]'s
um mad that his attorney hasn't talked to him.” [Final pretrial hearing
September 19, 2011 Tr. 78]
Chief Justice Rush claimed my public defender
invited the constitutional errors stemming from my unconstitutional prosecution
claiming Barrett:
“sought
to exploit the prosecutor’s improper reliance on ‘criminal defamation’ to the
defense’s advantage -- focusing the jury on the clearly protected aspects of
Defendant's speech, and on that basis to find the ambiguous aspects of his
conduct to be protected as well.”
Rush gives Negangard a free pass for an
unconstitutional malicious prosecution for criminal defamation then punishes me
by essentially claiming that my public defender “knew better” and took
advantage of the “ignorant” prosecutor. If the Indiana Courts rule I'm not entitled to legal counsel, evidence, and the charging information against me, then I hope to make the jump to the federal courts.
And it goes on and on…. Stay tuned.
