 |
Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard (left)
|
My blog has provided the accounts of
my criminal prosecution stemming from public criticisms of Indiana court officials.
I was detained on a $600,000 bond, given a public defender that refused to meet
with or speak to me, and then forced to trial without an understanding of what
actions I was required to defend. The trial resulted in convictions requiring
me to serve a 2.5-year prison sentence. The former prosecutor of Dearborn
County, Indiana argued my writings violated non-existent criminal defamation
laws, yet no lawyer nor any Indiana court made any attempt to hold the
prosecutor accountable for the unconstitutional grounds he argued for my
convictions. The former prosecutor of Dearborn County responsible for my grand
jury investigation and criminal prosecution is the current Chief Deputy
Attorney General for the State of Indiana, F. Aaron Negangard.
I am representing myself in two
legal actions currently pending before the Indiana courts. I filed a petition
for post-conviction relief seeking the dismissal of my convictions for several
reasons; the most notable being that the trial court staff of the Dearborn
Superior Court II altered grand jury records to give the prosecution an
unconstitutional advantage. Without the entire grand jury record, I had no way
of knowing what actions I was required to defend. For those not familiar with
law or Indiana post-conviction procedures, the post-conviction process affords
people another means to contest their convictions besides the normal criminal
appeal process. The special judge in my post-conviction case, Switzerland
County Circuit Judge W. Gregory Coy, summarily dismissed my post-conviction
action without a hearing and granted summary judgment/disposition to the State
under Rule 1(4)(g) of the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Relief. I appealed
the decision and the case has been briefed by both parties and is now pending
review by the Indiana Court of Appeals. No order has been released on my motion
requesting oral arguments before the Court of Appeals.
My other case currently before the
Indiana courts is my lawsuit seeking public records, filed in the Dearborn
Superior Court I. After determining the Dearborn Superior Court II omitted
portions of the grand jury proceedings from the transcription of my grand jury
investigation, I requested a copy of the grand jury audio to see if the audio
record of the grand jury investigation in my case matched the transcription. Not
only did the records not match, the audio contained less information than the
transcription. I filed a lawsuit via the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) to
obtain the official audio. As both cases have progressed, the Office of the Indiana
Attorney General Curtis Hill has stumbled into an unthinkable situation; having
to argue against the interests of the Attorney General’s own clients in both of
my pending legal actions.
The “clients” of the Office of the
Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill, consist of the opposing parties in
both of my pending legal actions. In my APRA lawsuit, the AG represents Rush
County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill (Judge Hill served as special judge in
my criminal trial and held jurisdiction over the release of grand jury records),
and the Dearborn Superior Court II under Judge Sally McLaughlin. In the appeal
of the summary dismissal of my post-conviction action, the client of the
Attorney General is the State of Indiana.
 |
Deputy Stephen Creason |
In the appeal of my post-conviction
case, Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason argues the following in the State’s
Brief of the Appellee:
“The post-conviction court was also authorized to dispose
of the petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Brewington’s motion for
summary disposition was intentionally limited to his allegations related to the
grand jury”
The State’s brief specifically addresses my claim that the
trial court conspired to alter grand jury records:
“trial court staff allegedly manipulated the record of
the grand jury proceeding as part of a conspiracy against [Brewington]”
A key requirement to summary judgment/disposition
under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) is that there can be no genuine issue of
material fact. A material fact is a fact relevant to the legal proceeding. Rule
1(4)(g) also provides that “if an issue of material fact is raised, then the
court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably possible.” An
issue of material fact occurs when there are two conflicting claims of fact
relative to the legal proceeding. For a better understanding of how an issue of
material fact arises, consider my claim that the trial court engaged in a
conspiracy to alter grand jury records. If Deputy Creason would have argued
that my claim was untrue, it would create an issue of material fact because my claim
would conflict with Creason’s assessment of fact. To resolve the conflict, an
evidentiary hearing would have been necessary. If Deputy Creason would have
argued there was no conspiracy to alter grand jury records, the issue of
material fact would immediately prove that the order granting summary
judgment/disposition to the State was erroneous. Creason’s use of “allegedly”
in addressing my conspiracy claim does not relieve the Office of the Indiana
Attorney General from the culpability associated with knowing there was a
criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records. Even a claim of uncertainty as
to whether the grand jury tampering occurred, creates an issue of material
fact. In arguing that Judge Coy properly awarded summary judgment/disposition
to the State, Deputy Creason was required to accept my material facts as being
true, so Creason argued legal technicalities and procedural bars precluded me
from seeking relief from a conspiracy by the trial court to alter grand jury
records. Creason’s apparent attempt to capitalize on an erroneous ruling by the
post-conviction court inadvertently sabotaged the case of the Attorney General’s
client in my public records lawsuit. Creason’s appellate argument, by default,
affirms that the Defendant Dearborn Superior Court II, under Judge Sally
McLaughlin, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records with
the intent to sabotage my criminal trial.
Yesterday (06/05/18) I was notified
that the judge presiding over my APRA lawsuit granted my Emergency Motion to
Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. I requested the
emergency continuance for two reasons, the first of which being Judge Brian
Hill’s refusal to cooperate with simple admission requests. The second and more
disturbing reason for requesting the emergency continuance was that I did not
feel safe attending the hearing in the Dearborn County Courthouse following
Judge Hill’s false harassment allegation. In responding to my pretrial requests
for admissions, Judge Hill argued I tried to harass Hill as an opposing party
in a lawsuit:
 |
Judge Brian HillRush Superior Court |
"[Judge Brian Hill] objects to the term 'excuses' as the
term is derogatory and its use is intended to harass [Judge Brian Hill]. [Judge
Brian Hill] further object to the term 'excuses' as it fails to
adequately and specifically describe the subject matter sought and is vague and
ambiguous and, therefore, requires [Judge Brian Hill] to engage in conjecture
as to their meaning. As such, it is difficult to discern what Brewington is
asking [Judge Brian Hill] to admit or deny."
The following is the entire
statement from which Judge Hill bases his harassment allegation:
“Admit that in an opinion dated April 14, 2016, the
Indiana Public Access Counselor deemed Hill's excuses for withholding the grand
jury audio to be invalid.”
Deputy Attorney General Marley
Hancock currently serves as legal counsel for the defendants in my public
record lawsuit. Deputy Hancock and Judge Hill understand that harassing an opposing
civil litigant is a crime. No reasonable legal or non-legal person would
perceive the singular use of the word “excuses” as an attempt to harass;
however, even a baseless harassment claim from a judge could be used to rationalize
some form of criminal investigation. As the Indiana Attorney General does not
deny that a Dearborn County court altered grand jury records to obstruct my
access to indictment information and evidence in my criminal trial, Judge
Hill’s claim can only be viewed as a threat intended to place me in grave
danger of being subjected to another court-sponsored malicious prosecution in
Dearborn County.
The Office of the Indiana Attorney
General and other Indiana Court officials have backed themselves into a
metaphorical checkmate. Attorney General Curtis Hill’s Office cannot argue both
sides of this equation. If Deputy Attorney General Marley Hancock argues the
Dearborn Superior Court II did not alter grand jury records, it creates an
issue of material fact that decimates the appellate arguments made on behalf of
the State by Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason. Creason’s entire argument
before the Indiana Court of Appeals requires Deputy Hancock’s clients to have
engaged in a conspiracy to sabotage a criminal trial, which is a violation of
federal law, because no issue of fact may exist. As Deputy Hancock signed the
responses to Brewington’s admission requests on behalf of Judge Hill, the harassment
claim against Brewington may have originated from the Office of Curtis Hill,
and not Judge Brian Hill. Such a finding would solidify the true interest of
the Attorney General in fighting Brewington’s legal actions; protecting Curtis
Hill’s second-in-command. The biggest dilemma facing the Office of Indiana
Attorney General Curtis T. Hill is the fact that the prosecutor whom the Dearborn
Superior Court conspired to assist is the current Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney
General, F. Aaron Negangard.
For further information/evidence regarding the above claims, please feel free to review my Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. The
motion filed June 4, 2018 also contains the following documents attached as exhibits
A-E:
EXHIBIT A Brewington’s Request for Admissions to Judge
Hill
EXHIBIT B Judge Hill’s response to Brewington’s
admissions
EXHIBIT C The State of Indiana’s Brief of Appellee, filed
by Deputy Creason
EXHIBIT D Brewington’s Reply Brief in response to Creason’s
Brief of Appellee
EXHIBIT E Brewington’s Motion for Oral Arguments, filed
5/25/2018 with the Indiana Court of Appeals.
