Combining criminal grand jury and divorce proceedings tend
not to be a good combination; especially when one former spouse does not know
the other is testifying against them.
The new documentary Divorce Corp highlights how the divorce industry
actually encourages people to lie because there are rarely any negative consequences
to statements lacking in truth. Even more
so in the case of the grand jury hearings involving Dan Brewington’s criminal
indictments where Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard invited Dan’s
ex-wife to testify in support of the prosecution of Dan. Prior to Dan’s grand jury hearings, his
ex-wife had contacted law enforcement officials on at least three different
occasions and filed multiple contempt petitions and had yet to prevail in any
of her efforts, to which Prosecutor Negangard was well aware. Under supposed secrecy of the grand jury
proceedings, Negangard allowed the former Mrs. Daniel Brewington to take aim at
her ex-husband using words like “threatening,” “intimidating,” “retaliate,” and
other words fitting into the flow of the prosecutor’s persecution. What Mrs. Brewington failed to provide was
any evidence of illegal conduct on the part of Dan Brewington. To have Dan indicted on charges of
intimidation, Prosecutor Negangard first had to convince members of a grand
jury that Dan Brewington was an intimidating figure. What better way to do this than to have an ex-spouse,
with a history of failed attempts to have her ex-husband found in contempt and
criminally prosecuted, testify with the understanding that all of her testimony
and even her participation in the grand jury would remain confidential. The only problem was to charge Dan Brewington
with perjury, Prosecutor Negangard had to release the transcripts from the
grand jury hearings, which made it possible to see the claims of Dan’s ex-wife. The following are excerpts of Melissa Brewington's grand jury testimony.
“Yes. Um, and this is
like a record of things that were happening at this time as well. When I filed
the telephone communications harassment out of spite, Dan went ahead and he had
the police come to our house which is pretty intimidating for a four (4) and
six (6) year old to have the police come out to the house. He wanted them to
come to check on the girls.” -Following
Judge Humphrey’s termination of Dan’s parenting time, Dan kept in contact with
his 3 and 5 year old daughters by phone until their mother cut off all contact
and refused to even acknowledge if the children were okay. During the course of the children’s lives and
the 2.5 year divorce, both Dan and his ex-wife never went for more than a
couple days without communication with the children or at least communication
about the wellbeing of the children.
After Dan’s ex refused to make any communication regarding the welfare
of the children, Dan contacted the local police and let them know about the
situation. Dan explained that he did not
feel anything was wrong but he was concerned that he had not heard anything
from the children or their mother. The
Green Township Police responded and contacted Dan to let him know they had
talked to the mother and the children were safe. Dan’s ex had claimed Dan contacted the police
in retaliation for her filing a telecommunications harassment charge when Dan’s
contact with the police came two days prior to the filing of the criminal
charge. (The question remains would
Prosecutor Negangard prosecute Dan’s ex-wife for lying to a grand
jury just as he prosecuted Dan for stating that he was not sure if James
Humphrey and Heidi Humphrey were husband and wife at the time Dan encouraged
people to contact Heidi, who was an advisor to the Supreme Court Ethics and
Professionalism Committee. Because Dan stated he knew it was a possibility but didn’t know for sure that James Humphrey
and Heidi Humphrey were husband and wife, Dan had to spend six months in prison
on a perjury conviction despite there not being any definitive evidence proving he knew otherwise.) The criminal charge against
Dan Brewington in Hamilton County, Ohio was dismissed at the recommendation of
the Hamilton County prosecutor and was expunged, yet Negangard used the original
criminal affidavit from the dismissed and expunged case against Dan Brewington
in Hamilton County, Ohio against Dan Brewington in Dearborn County, Indiana.
“It was grandiose
idea, like he would do weird things like he would buy five thousand (5,000)
used golf balls and then think that he was going to resell them and make a
fortune.” -Just another example of a
statement she would not have gotten away with in a public proceeding. It should not come as a secret that Dan
enjoyed golf. He’d bought used golf
balls in bulk that he hit into the open field.
During the marriage when friends and family would hit a seemingly
endless supply of golf balls into the field behind the yard, it was a good
time. During a grand jury hearing, an ex-spouse
portrays the activity as delusional business adventure by someone suffering
from severe mental illness.
“He also um, when I
filed, he bought a 357 magnum and it was actually one of his friends that made
me aware of this and told me that she said we really want you to watch your
back, you know, that he just bought it and we fear for your safety.” -This was another claim she made during the grand
jury that she failed to mention previously.
Dan’s ex waited four years to verbalize this alleged warning that she
should fear Dan taking her life with a 357 magnum handgun. Through a 4.5 year marriage and 2.5 year
divorce, Dan’s ex made no claim that Dan made her fear for her life or physical
safety. She did accuse Dan of yelling,
screaming, name calling, punching walls, arguing, etc… but at no time did she
make any mention actually being afraid of any of the alleged behavior until
after Judge James D. Humphrey ruled Dan may be a potential danger to the
children. In fact, despite there being
many statements in Dr. Connor’s report and the court record allegedly coming
from Dan’s oldest daughter (who was five at time of final hearing) through Dan’s
ex and her family, none of these second hand statements ever included a concern
that the 5 year-old was afraid of or unwilling to see her father. Apparently, Dan’s “angry” and “violent”
outbursts as alleged by his ex-wife were not enough to scare a 5-year-old
child.
“So when he was doing
all this work from home, I gave him like six (6) months because he was supposed
to be working on a business. So I had given him six (6) months and um, it was
from May of '06 to like around October of '06 and at the end of October, I had
had enough and I told him um, that things just weren't working out and at that
time, I was going to be filing for divorce.”
-Dan was working as a subcontractor from
November 2004 to May 2006 when he lost work due to the decline in the housing
market. Effectively she claimed that as soon as he was out of work, she gave him an ultimatum get a business going or she would divorce Dan. Dan’s ex-wife failed to mention
he spent some of the summer working on major projects around the house. In November 2006, around the same time when she told grand jury
members that she “had enough,” she met with Dan’s mom on November 4, 2006 to
extend her cell phone for another two years on her mother-in-law’s Verizon
family plan which Dan’s mom paid for.
“I started seeing my
attorney in November of '06. At that time, he specifically told me, he said if
you don't like it, then you're more than welcome to leave but if you leave and
follow through with the divorce, I will make your life a living hell, we will
not be friends, we will be enemies.”
-Throughout the course of a 2.5 year divorce Dan picked up his daughters
from his ex-wife every Wednesday, Friday, and every third Monday at 6:25 am and
returned the girls to their mother the following morning at 8 am, unless on Dan’s
weekends with the girls where he would return the children at 8 pm. During approximately 70% of the exchanges of
the children, Dan’s ex would have a family member present to “witness” the
switchovers. At no point did Dan’s ex
attempt to call any family members, friends, co-workers, etc… as witnesses to
testify to any harassing behavior by Dan.
In fact, she called no witness to testify that Dan did anything wrong;
harassing her at work, in public, etc… during the course of their entire marriage and divorce. She provided the grand jury
with copies of Dan’s web writings; many of which she already presented to the
office of the Hamilton County, Ohio prosecutor.
She petitioned Judge Humphrey to order Dan to take down these same
writings which Judge Humphrey refused to do.
Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard used an ex-spouse with a
history of unsuccessful legal attacks on her ex-husband to help make a case to
a grand jury that Dan Brewington is a bad guy.
The main exception here is there was absolutely no pressure to tell the
truth. Please note that it has been over
6 years since Dan’s ex filed for divorce; 5 years since Dr. Edward J. Connor
claimed fear of Dan; and 4.5 years since Judge James D. Humphrey terminated Dan’s
parenting time while expressing his own fears that Dan might murder his family. Dan still hasn’t done any of the things that
these people keep crying they feel Dan “might” do. These people didn’t have to demonstrate they
were at risk of injury, they just had to act like they were afraid and put on a
good show for Negangard’s grand jury. Feel
free to view all the transcripts of the grand jury to see how F. Aaron
Negangard can indict a law abiding citizen.
