Letter to Dr. Phil

A friend of mine, Michael Port, who is also a father fighting to see his children, sent me the following link to Dr. Phil's website Dr. Phil.com - Be on the Show - Accused of Trying to Harm Your Child? I whittled my story down as much as possible and sent in the following post. Hopefully Dr. Phil can help bring attention to my story. You can help me out by going to Dr. Phil's link and sharing your thoughts about my story. Even a couple of sentences would be great. Thanks for the help.

"I haven’t seen my four and six year old daughters for over a year. On August 18, 2009, Dearborn Circuit Court (IN) Judge James D. Humphrey terminated all of my parenting time with my, then, three and five year old children. I had always played an equal role in caring for my girls and I cared for them nearly half of the time during the course of a 2 ½ year divorce. There were no accusations of abuse or neglect. There were no reports from the police, pediatricians, CPS, etc… There were no accounts of the children being injured while in my care. There were no accusations that I ever harassed the children’s mother or that I presented a physical risk to anyone. There were no motions to modify my parenting time. During the first day of the final hearings, on May 27, 2009, Judge Humphrey asked custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor how my alleged “behaviors” reflect on my parenting and the safety of the children. Dr. Connor testified, “My concern is that if he -- it might not be necessary, the physical safety, but the psychological well-being of the children if he were to attempt to coach them in any way against the mother.”

My children lost the ability to have a father because Dr. Connor testified that my children could suffer psychological damages IF I were to attempt to coach them against their mother. There were never any allegations that I tried to manipulate the girls. The Court also listed concerns about the safety of my children because I have ADHD, despite there being no reports of me “forgetting” to care for or protect the children. Dr. Connor testified on May 27, 2009, and the final hearing was on June 3, 2009. Following the final hearings, I continued to care for my daughters every Wednesday, Friday, every third Monday and half of the weekends, as I had been doing during the entire 2 ½ year divorce. On August 18, 2009, without warning, Judge Humphrey terminated all of my parenting time. Prior to August 18, 2009, no one, including Dr. Connor, ever mentioned terminating my parenting time, leaving me unable to build a defense against it.

“The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor.” Judge Humphrey made this statement in the final decree. Dr. Connor filed his custody evaluation report with the Court on August 29, 2007. Dr. Connor’s report recommended that the children’s mother have full custody and I should be able to continue to care for the children three days a week. On February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor wrote a letter to the Court claiming that there were “numerous errors and oversights” in the report and wanted to offer additional sessions, at the clients’ expense, to correct his errors. On March 6, 2008, I requested a copy of the case file from Dr. Connor’s report. Dr. Connor stated that he was not allowed to release the file. When I informed Dr. Connor that his contract stated that I was entitled to the file, he began contacting the Court directly, asking if I was entitled to it. Despite there being no protective order from the Court that prohibited Dr. Connor from releasing the file to me, Dr. Connor stated that he “interpreted” the Judge’s ruling to be that I was entitled to the evaluation report but not the case file. Dr. Connor later stated that his contract stated that the parties were entitled to the file but he would not release it to me because I was not an attorney and then he claimed that there were state and HIPAA laws that prevented me from releasing the file. Dr. Connor continued to contact the first Judge in my case until Judge Taul recused himself because of the ex-parte communications.

I did not lose the ability to be a father because I was dangerous; I lost my children because I began sharing my story on the internet. I posted Dr. Connor’s conflicting letters where he said that he would be happy to release the file to me and then later stated that there were state and HIPAA laws that prohibited him from releasing the file. I wrote about how Dr. Connor was not licensed to practice psychology in the state of Indiana. I wrote about how Ripley Circuit (IN) Judge Carl H. Taul stated in a hearing that, “The order for the Doctor was to release that which he is obligated to do under Kentucky Law.” Of course there was no such order. Nowhere in the Court record or in any of my internet writings do I attack the mother or address the mother by name. There was a hearing on the mother’s motion for a protective order (non-physical) that requested the court to force me to take down my internet content. The Court properly denied her motion because the internet content was not harassing to her or harmful to the children.

Since the termination of my parenting time, the mother had me arrested in Cincinnati, Ohio for telecommunications harassment which was dismissed and expunged. I have been the subject of a yearlong “secret” investigation by the Dearborn County (IN) Special Crimes Unit (SPU), which began in October 2009. The only information that the SPU would share with me was that it pertained to my writings. Less than a week before the June 13, 2010 hearing to approve a psychiatrist to evaluate me, Judge Humphrey recused himself because he claimed that there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him. Since then, my attorney has been unable to get another hearing because of “miscommunications” between the courts and delays in filing information in the clerk’s office. An IP address from the Indiana Supreme Court has frequented my websites while my case was in appeal. My story was a topic of conversation on Cincinnati’s 700 WLW and the August 4, 2010 podcast of Eric Deters’ radio show can be found on the station’s website.

I have documentation and recordings to prove what I state and I cannot reiterate enough that I have never been accused of any sexual or violent abuse nor have I been accused of drug or alcohol abuse. I was not only denied the ability to be a parent; I was denied the ability to defend my parenting abilities because I was prohibited from seeing the evidence against me. For more information, go to www.danhelpskids.com and www.danbrewington.blogspot.com. Thank you."

Why haven't I seen my kids for over a year? This is why.

Many people question why I haven’t had the opportunity to see my children for over a year now. The reason is Judge James D. Humphrey did not want me to see my children and Judge Humphrey actively worked to prohibit me from being able to get back with my children. The following is an explanation of why/how I haven’t even had an opportunity to comply with Judge Humphrey’s orders so I can see my daughters.

In the final decree of my divorce, filed August 18, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey wrote:

“Respondent shall not be entitled to visitation until he undergoes a mental health evaluation with a Mental Health Care Provider approved by the Court. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if he is a possible danger to the children, Wife, and/or himself. Further, Husband shall follow all recommendations made by the Mental Health Care Provider.”

In the summer of 2007, I participated in a child custody evaluation that was performed by Dr. Edward J Connor. Connor’s evaluation, addendum, and psychological testing made no mention of me presenting any danger to children, Wife, and/or myself. Despite Dr. Connor reporting in his evaluation report that he had no concerns about me being a “potential danger” to anyone, Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children until he received a “second opinion” from a different mental health professional confirming that I do not present a risk to anyone. If Judge Humphrey, my ex-wife, or Dr. Connor felt that my mental health presented a danger to anyone, then why didn’t they attempt to review my records from the Affinity Center in Montgomery, Ohio? Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and my ex-wife were well aware that I had been under the care of a doctor and therapist for ADHD at the Affinity Center since January 2002. Despite knowing that I was (and still am) currently under the care of a doctor and a therapist for ADHD, Judge Humphrey ordered me seek an evaluation from another professional and ordered me to follow all of the recommendations rather than consult with my treating therapist and doctor. [An important thing to note here is that we are talking about Attention Deficit Disorder. If anyone can provide me with information relating to ADHD causing people to become dangerous or violent, please let me know.]

On the surface, it doesn’t look so bad. People think, “So what? Just go through an evaluation.” I can’t. First I have to have a mental health provider approved by the Court before I present an evaluation to the Court. On September 8, 2009, I filed a petition for contempt when my ex-wife stopped letting me talk to my children on the phone. Judge Humphrey set a hearing for the matter but later dismissed the hearing citing that he didn’t have jurisdiction over the case while it was in appeal. On January 19, 2010, I filed a motion to release Dr. Connor’s case file to a psychiatrist in order for me to be evaluated. Judge Humphrey denied my motion because he claimed he did not have jurisdiction. On March 11, 2010, my lawyer filed a motion to approve a psychiatrist and Judge Humphrey determined that he did have jurisdiction of the case and set a hearing on the matter for June 13, 2010. My attorney had to petition the Court to set a hearing because my ex-wife did not think that the psychiatrist that I chose was qualified to evaluate me. Judge Humphrey made me wait three months for a hearing just to approve a psychiatrist. Just five days before the hearing, Judge Humphrey recused himself claiming that there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him but Judge Humphrey refused to provide any details of the alleged investigation.

Following Judge Humphrey’s recusal, the matter went back to the original judge in the case, Judge Carl H. Taul, where Judge Taul arbitrarily appointed Judge John Westhafer, of Decatur County, to serve as the Judge in my case. Since Judge Taul did not follow the rules of his own court in appointing Judge Westhafer, my lawyer file a motion to correct error. Judge Taul wasn’t allowed to just arbitrarily pick who he wanted to be the next judge; he was supposed to name a panel of three judges, giving the parties an opportunity to strike two judges from the list. On July 9, 2010, Judge Taul named Judges Cleary, Todd, and Coy. My attorney had the first opportunity to strike from the panel. Considering Judge Cleary is in Dearborn County, there wasn’t much of a debate who we didn’t want to be judge. On July, 26, 2010, opposing counsel struck Judge Coy from the list leaving Judge Todd of Jefferson County. The Ripley Circuit Court did not issue an order naming Judge Todd until August 17, 2010. Judge Todd accepted the selection of Special Judge on September 3, 2010, but the Ripley County Clerk did not mail it out until September 8^th.

Nobody involved in this matter, except for my attorney and me, cares about my children. The people involved just want to keep putting off the inevitable; an outside professional appearing in court and stating that there is nothing in my history or psychological makeup that would suggest that I am a danger to anyone. Now that there is a new Judge, I can petition the Court to set a hearing to approve a psychiatrist. This is what I am required to do per Judge Humphrey’s orders. If the Court approves my psychiatrist, then I can go through an evaluation and then I have to petition the Court to set a hearing to approve the evaluation. If the Court approves the psychiatrist’s findings that I do not present a danger to anyone, I still can’t resume normal parenting. I have to find another mental health professional to observe me during two, two hour supervised visitation sessions a week with my daughters in a “therapeutic environment.” Before I can undergo supervised visitation in a therapeutic environment, I have to petition the court to set a hearing to approve the mental health professional. If the Court approves the mental health professional, I may see my children for two hours, two times a week. After I undergo supervised visitation with my children in a “therapeutic environment” and the mental health professional says that I do not present an emotional or physical risk to the children, then I can petition the Court to set a hearing to approve the findings of the mental health professional and I can request unsupervised visitation with my children. If the Court approves the findings, I can have unsupervised visitation with my children granted that I meet a list of guidelines, one of which is take down my internet content regarding the whole situation. Judge Humphrey wrote, “Because of the potential danger to the children, [Dan Brewington] must remove all postings created by him from the internet concerning the children before any unsupervised visitation may commence and/or continue.” [Please note all of the “if’s” and “approve’s”. If the Court were not to approve any of the above, I would have to repeat the step. Judge Humphrey made it clear that I am responsible for paying for all evaluations, supervised visitation sessions, etc… that are “necessary” in getting back to my children.]

None of this is about the safety or welfare of my children. It’s about protecting the people who hurt two little girls because the people hated what the girls’ father stood for. Judge James D. Humphrey was mad at me because he couldn’t force me to take down my internet content. At no point was there ever any testimony or evidence that my internet content presented any danger to the children. On April 29, 2009, Judge Humphrey held a hearing on my ex-wife’s motion for protective order requesting the Court to prohibit me from posting my experiences on the internet and requested that the Court to order me to remove my prior internet writings. On May 14, 2009, Judge Humphrey properly denied her motion because my writings were not harassing to Wife and they were not dangerous to the children. If my internet writings were truly dangerous, they would be dangerous regardless of whether or not I had unsupervised visitation with my kids. Judge Humphrey was not concerned that the children would read the internet content while in the care of their father because the children were only three and five years of age and had not even attended kindergarten. Judge Humphrey used my children as a means of extortion to try to censor me. Judge James D. Humphrey doesn’t like the fact that I call him an abuser of children. He could sue me for saying that if it isn’t true.

Nobody in the system cares about my children. If they were concerned about the safety of my daughters, wouldn’t they want the next evaluator to have the information that Dr. Connor used? Judge Humphrey denied my request to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children. No one requested my mental health records from the Affinity Center because they did not want outside professionals to be aware of the actions of Dr. Connor and Judge Humphrey. Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and my ex-wife acted as if I manipulated and misled the people who have treated me for ADHD so they aren’t qualified to determine if I present a “potential danger” to society. Why would I spend that much time and money in trying to manipulate my treating professionals when I was the one who voluntarily sought treatment for some issues regarding concentration and organization? Dr. Connor never mentioned any “concerns” about my stability until I began requesting a copy of his case file. Dr. Connor even testified, that if the Court would order another evaluation, “whoever would be appointed to conduct the evaluation, I think they should be forewarned of what he will do if you do not agree with him or if you see things differently than he does. I think this person should be warned and not go blind into an evaluation with Mr. Brewington.” Basically, Dr. Connor claims that I should not be entitled to an unbiased evaluation. Dr. Connor wants to tell the evaluator what a bad person I am and then have me work out of the hole.

So I will keep fighting. Rather than find reasons why my children should not be fatherless, these people are spending a great deal of time and money trying to find reasons why my daughters should not have a dad. The problem that the professionals and my ex-wife have is they will have two little girls to answer to when they ask why they didn’t get to see their dad for over a year. Why should I be responsible for telling them? I think Judge James D. Humphrey should have to tell them the truth. Judge Humphrey can tell my daughters, “I know that your dad was a very loving and caring father and that he never caused you any emotional or physical pain, but we had to keep him away from you for over a year just to make sure that he wouldn’t hurt you. Now we are absolutely sure that he won’t hurt you. No thanks needed girls; it’s all part of the job in protecting children in Dearborn County, Indiana."

Complaint against Judge James D. Humphrey

If anyone has any doubts about Dearborn County Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey being an abuser of children, I will soon be posting my complaint I am going to file against Judge Humphrey in the state of Indiana. Judge Humphrey dug and picked through the court record to find reasons to rationalize taking a father away from my children. I'm providing all of the evidence that he ignored (like the fact that in the time I care for the children during the course of a 2 1/2 year divorce, there were no allegations of abuse or injury and no one tried to modify or limit my parenting time.

Here is an example of some of the information that I am going to be providing. Throughout the Final Decree of the divorce, Judge Humphrey picked parts out of Dr. Connor's custody evaluation as reasons to terminate my parenting time; however, Dr. Connor recommended that I continue to care for the children 3 days a week. This is the section regarding the parts of Dr. Connor's evaluation report that Judge Humphrey dismissed (If you are aware of anyone that may be involved with Judge James D. Humphrey or Dr. Edward J Connor, please share this with them. If you live in the Greater Cincinnati area, please feel free to share this information with people involved in the domestic courts to help protect children from being abused by Dr. Edward J Connor and Judge James D. Humphrey):

1. Page 4 (F) Judge Humphrey makes the first reference to Dr. Connor’s child custody evaluation report Petitioner’s Exhibit #39. Approximately twenty-five percent of the Final Decree cites or refers to Dr. Connor’s evaluation/testimony.

a. On February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor sent a letter to the Court offering additional evaluation sessions because Dr. Connor found that his evaluation report contained, what Dr. Connor described to be, “numerous errors and oversights.”

b. Dan Brewington was never provided access to Dr. Connor’s case file from Dr. Connor’s child custody evaluation report.

c. The evaluation report does not contain the names and addresses of all the people whom Dr. Connor consulted with or interviewed during the course of the evaluation.

i. There is no mention of Dr. Connor having to consult with two professional peers who were experienced in diagnosing and treating people with ADHD.

ii. Dr. Connor alleged that he consulted with the two professionals in Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology.

1. In Judge Humphrey’s Order Denying Respondent’s Motion in Limine, filed May 14, 2009, Judge Humphrey references the December 22, 2008 letter that was attached to a motion of the Respondent.

d. The evaluation report states, “Dan was asked to provide a summary letter [of treatment for ADHD] from the Affinity Center but as of the date of this dictation has failed to do so.”

i. Dan Brewington has been treated for ADHD at the Affinity Center since January 2002.

ii. In Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, Dr. Connor stated, “With regard to Mr. Brewington’s allegations that I did not review his mental health records, in my second interview with Mr. Brewington on 7/05/07, I requested that he have his records sent to me from the Affinity Center where he was being treated.”

1. Dr. Connor’s letter also stated, “On 7/9/07, Mr. Brewington sent a letter to [redacted] of the Affinity Center along with a release of information in which he states, ‘Dr. Edward Connor said a faxed paragraph from you regarding me would be fine,’ although I had actually requested the records.”

2. Dr. Connor’s evaluation stated that Dan Brewington was asked to provide a summary of treatment from the Affinity Center, but as of the dictation of the August 29, 2007 evaluation report, Dan Brewington had failed to do so.

3. Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology indicates that Dan Brewington complied with Dr. Connor’s request for a summary of treatment during the evaluation.

iii. The record reflects that there was no mention of Dr. Connor requesting a copy of Dan Brewington’s health records from the Affinity Center until Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology.

1. Dr. Connor’s letter was written nearly a year and a half after Dr. Connor conducted the custody evaluation.

2. There are no letters or other evidence that Dr. Connor communicated to Dan Brewington, or any other person, that Dr. Connor requested Dan Brewington’s health records; only Dr. Connor’s request for a summary of treatment.

iv. The Final Decree states, “In sum, the Court finds [Dan Brewington] to be irrational, dangerous, and in need of significant counseling before he can conduct himself as a parent.”

1. The Court deemed Dan Brewington to be dangerous despite the fact that no one reviewed or requested Dan Brewington health records.

2. Prior to Final Hearing, there is no record of any claim that Dan Brewington’s mental health could possibly endanger the children, making it impossible for Dan Brewington to defend his mental health at trial.

e. Dr. Connor’s evaluation makes numerous references and comments to Dan Brewington’s ADHD and Ritalin dosages without any explanation how it negatively impacts the children.

i. In Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners, Dr. Connor stated, “In fact, several of the references to Mr. Brewington’s ADHD and medication dosages in the report reflect the mother’s statements or opinions and not mine”

1. The mother is neither a doctor of medicine nor a mental health professional.

2. On page 12 of Dr. Connor’s evaluation report, Dr. Connor notes how the mother falsely accused Dan Brewington of suffering from Bipolar Disorder.

f. In the section regarding Parent-Child Observation Session with Dan Brewington and the children, Dr. Connor’s evaluation stated, “Overall, the girls were well-behaved throughout this session and there was minimal need for limit setting; however, when a limit was needed, Dan readily corrected the girls and the girls tended to be compliant with his limit setting.”

g. In the section regarding Household Observation Session with Dan Brewington and the children, Dr. Connor’s evaluation made the following statements:

i. “[18 month old daughter] displayed an attachment to her father, going to him spontaneously and hugging him.”

ii. “[Dan and 3 year old daughter] pretended that the two dolls were dancing and pretended that they were at a McDonald’s and that [daughter] was a clerk and Dan was ordering food from her. [Daughter] seemed to enjoy this activity with her father very much as evidenced by her laughter and smiles.”

iii. “The girls were noted to mirror their father’s behavior such as when he pretended to write a letter to [3 year old daughter] and she in turn, pretended to write a letter to him. Dan was quite playful and creative with the girls and they seemed very comfortable and relaxed with him overall.”

iv. “[Dan Brewington] also appeared nurturing such as when [18 month old daughter] accidentally hit her head on something and Dan kissed her head and asked if she was okay.”

h. In the section regarding Home visit with Dan and the children, Dr. Connor’s evaluation report stated, “During the home visit, [3 year old daughter] was awake and interacted well with her father. She showed no approach or avoidance conflict with her father and responded well to his redirection. [3 year old daughter] seemed quite at ease in the environment. [18 month old daughter] was asleep throughout the home visit and therefore, no observation of [daughter’s] interaction with her father was observed. However, Dr. Connor did observe [daughter] in her crib asleep and she seemed to be very content.”

i. In the section regarding the Child History Questionnaire, Dr. Connor’s evaluation report stated, “Dan completed the Child History Questionnaire for both children. He seemed to have a good awareness of the children’s overall development milestones and attainments and also a good awareness of the children’s interests, desires and individual differences. He also showed a good awareness of various parenting strategies and techniques. In general, there are no significant deficits noted in Dan’s overall understanding of the children.”

j. Dr. Connor’s evaluation report makes numerous notations of Dan Brewington’s good awareness of parenting strategies and techniques, ability to relate to the children, calm and relaxed demeanor around the children, and Dan Brewington’s aptitude for interacting and communicating with children; even with an 18 month old child who was far from being able to communicate in complete sentences.

k. In his evaluation report, Dr. Connor claimed that Dan Brewington had a good aptitude for communicating, verbally and non-verbally, with Dan Brewington’s 18 month old daughter and 3 year old daughter.

i. In Dr. Connor’s December 22, 2008 letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, Dr. Connor stated, “I found Mr. Brewington to be very confusing and difficult to follow, despite my years of experience in interviewing numerous clients with varying forms and degrees of psychopathology. My personal notes reflect my difficulty in communicating with Mr. Brewington.”

ii. Dr. Connor claims that Dan Brewington can more than effectively communicate with 18 month and 3 three year old daughters, yet as a trained psychologist with many years of experience, Dr. Connor claims that he had difficulties communicating with Dan Brewington because of Dan Brewington’s ADHD.

iii. Despite admitting to not being able to communicate with Dan Brewington and the need to consult with “two professional peers” trained in diagnosing and treating people with ADHD, Dr. Connor interpreted Dan Brewington’s psychological test data for the child custody evaluation report.

1. During Dr. Connor’s testimony at the May 27, 2009 final hearing, Dr. Connor testified that ADHD could affect the reliability of psychological testing.

2. Judge Humphrey heavily relied on psychological testing that was interpreted by Dr. Edward J. Connor knowing that Dr. Connor:

a. Claimed he had difficulties communicating with Dan Brewington because of Dan Brewington’s ADHD.

b. Felt the need to consult with two alleged “professional peers” who had experience in diagnosing and treating people with ADHD.

c. Testified that ADHD could affect the reliability of the psychological testing that Judge Humphrey relied on.

l. The summary of Dr. Connor’s child custody evaluation makes the following statements:

i. Despite Dan and [Wife’s] differences, it is clear that the children are very attached to both parents. Both parents love their children dearly.”

ii. “We again believe that [Wife] should be the primary residential parent and that the children should have time with their father during the times that their mother works. If Dan can arrange his schedule accordingly, then we believe that this would be a benefit to the children.”

iii. “Currently, Dan has the children every Wednesday, Friday during the day and overnight and every third Monday during the day and overnight and equal weekend time. This schedule is reportedly based on the days that [Wife] works. Dan currently returns [daughters] to [Wife] at 8:00pm on the Sundays of his weekend time. Therefore, if our calculations are correct, [Wife] generally cares for the children four days a week. We see no reason why this schedule should not remain intact at this time.”

iv. “We strongly believe that the children need to have adequate time with their father to maintain the bond that they have with him.”

m. Despite Dr. Connor’s recommendations that it would be in the children’s best interest to be with Dan Brewington three days a week, Judge Humphrey disregarding Dr. Connor’s recommendations for the children and terminated all of Dan Brewington’s parenting time.

For more information, go to www.danhelpskids.com.

Here's to playing fair, Indiana.

I went 1 for 25 in my motions being granted by the court. That is the stat of the day. For the past four days, I have been going through all of my legal files; organizing and condensing. Yesterday I organized all of the orders from the court and I figured out that the court only granted one of my motions in over a year and a half. I got slammed by both the trial and appellate courts for filing many "frivolous" and "baseless" motions. The only motion that was granted was my Motion for a Change of Judge. That was probably due to the fact that Judge Taul was required to do so after violating the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by engaging in ex parte communications with custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor.

So that leaves about twenty-four other filings that Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey and the Indiana Appellate Court deemed to be frivolous. I wonder if that gives weight to a civil rights suit. Not only were my motions denied, but the Courts displayed a noticeable amount of animosity towards me for filing them. The Courts even accused me of intentionally delaying the trial because I filed a motion for a change of judge as if it were my fault that Judge Carl H. Taul violated the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by having private conversations with Dr. Connor. The only means that I had to respond to the ex parte communication was to address the problem in numerous motions.

The courts accused me of trying to intentionally run up my Ex's legal fees by filing frivolous motions. During the course of the divorce, I filed no contempt charges against her, didn't subpoena her or any of her family, didn't accuse her of being a bad parent, and I didn't attack her character. The only thing that I did was try to get a copy of Dr. Connor's case file from his custody evaluation per the law and Dr. Connor’s contract. They refused to provide me with a copy of the file claiming that they were afraid that I would release her medical/psychological information to the world. Dr. Connor, my Ex, and the Courts have convinced themselves that I am some kind of diabolical and evil villain whose only goal in life is to release my ex-wife's health records. It's rather ridiculous to think that the person that they accuse of not being able to focus and stay on track is the same person who they claim to be the mastermind of a two and a half year plan to misuse someone’s health records. Actually, I just want to know what information Dr. Connor used to come to the conclusion that I couldn't communicate and that my writings were confusing and difficult to follow. Dr. Connor refused to look at my health records when I offered them to him. He said I was entitled to the case file; it's not my problem that he put my Ex's health records in the file.

I find it troubling that the Indiana Appellate Court seems to have some kind of animosity towards Dan Brewington. I know it seems ridiculous to think that the Indiana Appellate Court would go after me for some reason but I can't figure out any other reason why the Appellate Court would fabricate information in their ruling. They claimed that my right to take possession of my parent's farmland was fixed and certain. No it isn't; it can be sold at anytime and there is nothing I can do about it. The Court claimed that my internet writings made it necessary for my Ex to file for protective orders (non-violent) on more than one occasion. Check the record. She filed one motion requesting Judge James D. Humphrey to force me to take down my internet content. There was a hearing and Judge Humphrey denied her motion. Why did they make this stuff up? Either they ruled on erroneous information or their bias prohibited them from accurately absorbing the information. My guess is that they were pissed off about my web site.

On July 26, 2010, I posted a blog regarding the Indiana Appellate Court’s decision in my case. I also made mention of quite a few IP addresses that recently visited my website from the Indianapolis/Indiana area. I wrote that if the appellate court didn't rule on my case using fact and law, then I would be subpoenaing the IP addresses that visited my website. For some reason, quite a few IP addresses suddenly stopped visiting my site on that day. I bet there are a few government officials and media personnel that would like to know who the IP addresses belong to. If the public discovered that the Indiana Appellate Judges were conducting their own investigations while they were on a case, it would fracture the integrity and public trust of the entire Indiana Judicial System which serves as the foundation for the judicial branch of government. It would call into question the integrity of all of the rulings by the Indiana Appellate Court. (On a side note, I do have all of those IP addresses and their history backed up)

So now I have to wait on a Petition for Rehearing. One of the best lines from my lawyer's Petition deals with the Courts' accusations that I tried to intimidate the staff of the trial court. My lawyer wrote:

"Absolutely no evidence or testimony from court staff was ever presented at final or other hearing regarding this finding, and Husband never had any chance to refute such an allegation. One can only surmise that such information was obtained ex parte creating grounds for retrial. See Garrard v. Stone, 624 N.E,2d 68 (Ind. App. 1993) where case was remanded for retrial for Judge’s failure to step down after receiving evidence outside the presence of the parties."

Either Judge Humphrey lied, his staff lied, or both. It doesn't even matter who was telling the truth because it is against the law for a judge to gather information outside of the proceedings. Besides, I didn't do anything harassing or menacing and I have proof. I had a recorder going every time that I stepped foot into the Dearborn County Courthouse just in case something like this would come up. Were they intimidated by me? Probably. Not because they felt that I presented a physical danger to them; they probably felt that I was a legal liability because they knew they were doing something illegal and they figured out that they couldn't bully me into submission.

Now we wait. Let the Indiana Appellate Court ponder if they want to punish my children even more because they hate my children's father. While they are pondering whether to continue to abuse my children, let them ponder what information that I have on the Indiana Court System and what contacts that I have gained. I wonder if they will continue to assume that they can continue to stomp on the rights of the little guy and his fatherless little girls. The scary thing for the Indiana Appellate Court is that no judge on the bench can say for sure that the IP address of the person next to them isn't saved on my external hard drive. It only takes one. If the Indiana Appellate Court chastises me for my internet writings while someone from the court has visited my website, it will be worthy of a Mike Wallace story on 60 Minutes. If anyone reading this thinks that I am attempting to intimidate the Indiana Appellate Court by writing this; I'm not. Why would they be intimidated? They aren't supposed to be here anyway. Here's to playing fair, Indiana.

A year without my daughters. Here's to you, Judge James D. Humphrey

I want to dedicate this blog post to Dearborn County Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey. A year ago today, Judge Humphrey delivered a devastating blow to two precious little girls; Judge Humphrey took away their daddy out of vengeance and spite for their father. Judge Humphrey punished the three and five year old girls because their dad questioned the ethics of the courts and the illegal actions of their expert, Dr. Edward J. Connor. Unfortunately for many families in the Southeastern Indiana area, one of the biggest child abusers is wearing a black robe and holding the gavel.

I have written and rewritten about almost every detail of my divorce hearings leading up to Judge Humphrey’s actions. The first judge in my case, Ripley Circuit Judge Carl H. Taul, recused himself because he violated the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by participating in ex parte communications with child custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor. Dr. Connor gave a variety of false statements and policies in an effort to obstruct my access to the case file from his child custody evaluation. When I publicized the conduct of Dr. Connor and the Court, Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my children’s ability to have a father in their lives.

The one thing that cannot be overstated enough is that throughout the course of a two and a half year divorce, I cared for my children every Wednesday, Friday, every third Monday, and half of the weekends in the year. During the course of that time, there were no injuries, reports of abuse or neglect, no intervention by police or social services, no petitions to modify custody, etc… During the course of that time, I never refused to pick up my children nor did I ask to trade days with their mother to “accommodate” any social life outside of being a father. When their mother filed for divorce, my daughters were only one and three so I dealt with diapers, bottles, potty training, and everything that goes along with being a parent. When the children’s mother changed her work schedule where she had to be at work at 7 A.M., I began waking up before 5 A.M. two or three times a week in order to drive over forty miles to pick up the girls by 6:25. There were many mornings where I drove ninety miles before 7:30 A.M. in the round trip from picking up my girls and returning home in Indiana. My three year old was adamant about my house being her house. When she said “I want to go home”, “her home” was my house. When my oldest started pre-school, I would pick up the girls at 6:25 A.M. and we would find ways to entertain ourselves until we had to drop her off at school. Sometimes we would go grocery shopping at Wal-Mart. If the weather was good, we would go to a park or go to the Ohio River to skip rocks and explore. Occasionally we would go out for breakfast. After dropping off her older sister for preschool, my youngest and I would have time to spend together. She was my sidekick when my oldest was at school. We would work together, go shopping together, play together, etc… I lived on a farm by myself. I did most of these things by myself. I didn’t pawn my children off on other people so I could have “me time” because my favorite thing to do with my “me time” was spend it with my daughters.

Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children even though no one even mentioned terminating my parenting time. I didn’t have an opportunity to defend my ability to keep the children safe because there was no evidence that demonstrated that I was dangerous. Dr. Connor and the children’s mother made allegations of what they believed were my “true” intentions and offered speculation of what I “may” be capable of doing. Dr. Connor said that I may begin to manipulate my children if I did not get my way, despite there being no evidence of such behavior during the course of a two and a half year divorce. The children’s mother accused me of teaching the children how to use a computer. Dr. Connor’s report claimed my daughters’ aunt stated she thought that I wanted custody just to hurt the girls’ mother. The only thing I ever requested was equal time. The children’s mother claimed that I needed supervised visitation because I let the girls watch Austin Powers and because there were ants in my kitchen. Surprisingly enough, no one claimed that my daughters were afraid of me and even Dr. Connor reported that the children loved me very much.

What did my children and I do? Most of the time we did what kids are supposed to do; be kids. We built club houses, went fishing, went hiking, dug fossils, and learned about the Native Americans that use to live around the farm. We had many “informal” classes. We talked about how the Indians would hunt deer and turkey for food. When my oldest said it was mean to kill deer and turkey, I told her that the Indians did not have Wal-Mart so they had to find their food. We found flint rocks and discussed how the Indians made arrowheads and tools. We grew vegetables in our garden and the girls developed an understanding of how people can feed themselves. My oldest understood that our friend raised cattle for people to eat. We camped in the backyard and cooked over an open fire. They learned fire safety while they were cooking their hotdogs and marshmallows. We pushed the limit on open fire cooking as we cooked pizzas, soup, bread, and pork. I pushed the limit on my back as I often heard, “one more night” of camping out where I would sleep on the ground in the tent while the girls slept on the mattress next to me. I would find myself waking up throughout the night to feel hands and toes to see if anyone was cold or needed covering up. We took trips around the farm on the four wheeler and bounced on the trampoline. We caught insects and snakes and rough housed with our big dogs. My five year old began rollerblading and skateboarding. My three year old learned how to climb door frames using the strength of her arms and legs. When there was a snow storm, my oldest would get bundled up and walk around in the wind and snow as if she was climbing Mt. Everest. At night we would look at Venus through our telescope and discuss how Venus was a goddess, a planet, and a Frankie Avalon song. If we weren’t having fun on the farm, we were having fun at Grandma Sue’s house in Cincinnati. They loved Grandma Sue. They loved seeing her, but I had a hard time leaving the girls with grandma even for a short trip to the store. They always wanted daddy. It didn’t matter where we went or what we did; we always were learning and having fun. If I told my daughters to jump, they would jump because they knew that daddy would always catch them and keep them safe. One thing that no one could every accuse me of was allowing the children to get injured. Even when I was married, the girls would come to me if they were sick or bruised. It wasn’t because they loved me more; I guess they just felt more comfortable in daddy’s arms. The only danger that I could not protect my children from was Judge James D. Humphrey.

I don’t have to go into what a vial and despicable man that Judge Humphrey is because the fact that he deprived my children of the above life experiences speaks for itself. Judge Humphrey left my children and me defenseless to refute their mother’s and Dr. Connor’s claims because Judge Humphrey refused to provide me with access to the evidence against me. I figured that the court system in the great state of Indiana would protect my rights as a parent and recognize that I have always played an equal and positive role in raising my children. For some reason, Judge Humphrey didn’t think that having a spotless record in caring for my children counted for anything. Judge Humphrey, the children’s mother, and Dr. Connor speculated and made up stories to justify their actions. Rather than believe that I was protecting my daughters’ right to grow up spending equal time with both parents, they claimed that I was out to get everyone. I was out to get the evidence that I was entitled to by Dr. Connor’s contract and by law. The record demonstrates that I never lied about my ex-wife’s parenting ability. I didn’t viciously attack her credibility or make up stories about mental illness. I wouldn’t do that to the children, even after my Ex continued to accuse me of suffering from bipolar disorder when even Dr. Connor said her accusations were unfounded. Humphrey’s hatred for me was so great, he did to me what he thought would drive me over the edge. Judge Humphrey wanted me to hurt someone or do something illegal just so he could say “we were right about him.” Unfortunately for Humphrey, I believe that way down deep inside, he understood the real me. The reason Judge Humphrey went to extremes to hurt me and my children is because he thought that it was his only chance at making me snap because he knew I wasn’t unstable or dangerous. Now Judge Humphrey is finding out that he can’t bait me into doing something illegal. I am fueled by my passion and love for my children; Judge Humphrey is fueled by his anger and hatred of someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the injustices of his court.

Judge Humphrey is no longer involved in my case. Humphrey wrote in the final decree that I had to undergo a mental health evaluation by a mental health professional that had to be approved by the court. For a while after the final decree, he claimed that he didn’t have jurisdiction to enforce the decree because the case was in the appellate court. When I retained an attorney, Humphrey suddenly remembered that he did have jurisdiction. If Humphrey was actually aware that he had jurisdiction during the appeal, then he lied. If he truly believed that he did not have the jurisdiction to enforce his rulings while they were being appealed, then Judge Humphrey knew that his order would keep my children fatherless during the pending appeal. When my lawyer filed a motion to approve a psychiatrist to evaluate me so I could see the children, on March 17, 2010, Humphrey finally set the matter for a hearing on June 14, 2010. On June 9, 2010, Judge James D. Humphrey recused himself because he claimed that there was an investigation of me that pertained to him. Humphrey is just a cowardly little man who was afraid to take responsibility for his actions.

A year is a long time to be away from your own children and there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t miss my girls with all of my heart. Writing helps me deal with the emotions associated with losing my girls. I find helping other parents to be therapeutic. People think that I am “going after” Judge James D. Humphrey because I am out for revenge. I am going after Judge Humphrey because it is the right thing to do. Child abusers should play no role in deciding what is best for children. Irony and oxymoron can’t even begin to describe the fact that Judge Humphrey is in a position to decide what is “best” for children when he is willing to punish innocent children by seeking vengeance on their parents. Many of you who are reading this are probably wondering if Judge James D. Humphrey can sue me for slander. He can; all he has to do is prove that what I am saying is false. For some reason Humphrey isn’t coming forward.

I want to thank everyone for their support and prayers over the past year. People like Judge Humphrey like to believe that I do not take responsibility for my actions. I do take responsibility and my responsibility grows every day. I owe it to my children to keep fighting to be their father but I also owe it to an ever growing number of family and friends that put their faith and trust in me and my efforts. I can’t afford to take a night off from being responsible. I can’t afford to let down my children, my family, or my friends. My efforts have helped to bring attention to the broken domestic courts in Dearborn County, Indiana and have shed light on the criminal actions of Dr. Edward J Connor. Greater Cincinnati Lawyer/700WLW radio personality Eric Deters recently publicized the unethical and perverted actions of psychologist Dr. Edward J. Connor on his radio show. (Click here for the link to the podcast of Eric Deters’ 8/04/2010 show. See hours 1 & 2) Public awareness is the only way to combat this kind of corruption. I’m not afraid to fail; only afraid of not trying. I hope for my children’s sake that this is all over soon. If it isn’t, I hope that the Indiana Court System understands that there is no way that they can outlast this father’s fight to see his children.

For more information on Judge Humphrey's conduct, go to www.danhelpskids.com.

"Serpico"; and how the good guys are somehow the bad guys

Last night I watched the 1973 film “Serpico” starring Al Pacino. “Serpico is based on a true story about an honest New York police officer, Frank Serpico, who blew the whistle on widespread police corruption. Serpico did not set out to bring down bad cops; the bad cops turned on him when he would not accept bribes and payoffs. Serpico’s actions in standing up to crooked officials in the police department and city government only got him labeled as a “bad cop.” When nobody in the system would do anything about rampant police corruption, Frank went to the newspaper. Shortly after the New York Times published a front page story about the corruption in the New York City Police Department, Serpico was sent to the dangerous ranks of the narcotics unit where he was shot in the face by a drug dealer while his fellow officers did nothing. Luckily Frank Serpico survived the incident and it brought forth sweeping reform to the department. Unfortunately, Serpico was still seen as a traitor amongst other police officers and received little recognition from the New York City Police Department for his bravery.

How can government spiral so far out of control to the point where the “majority rules” mentality kicks in and decides that if the bad guys outnumber the good guys, then the bad guys are right? “Serpico” is somewhat of a metaphor for government corruption on many different levels. I can liken it to my experiences in dealing with the Indiana Court System. One thing I feel that I share with Frank Serpico is a public perception of naivety. If individuals stand up against government corruption and civil rights violations in matters which the majority perceives to be impossible, the individuals are often labeled as being naïve. If the “naïve” individuals start asking too many questions, they are considered to be a threat. If the “threatening” individuals’ persistence begins to attract the ear of the public, then they are deemed dangerous. “Dangerous” is a label that dishonest officials place on people who pose a serious risk to their convenient unethical and/or illegal activity. In three simple steps, the new naïve guy in the system can somehow evolve into a danger to society. Corrupted officials need to label their opponents as being dangerous because it provides a means of justification to take almost any action necessary to eliminate the danger.

“You can’t beat the system.” I’ve heard that many times during the course of my dealings with the Indiana Court System and Dearborn County Law Enforcement. What people fail to understand is that I’m not trying to beat anything. I just want to be able to exercise all of my rights guaranteed to me by the US Constitution and I want those who are in a position to enforce the law to OBEY the laws they swore to protect. I was punished because I questioned the ethics of the Court’s expert, Dr. Edward J Connor. I was punished because I got Judge Carl H Taul to recuse himself because he violated the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by communicating with Dr. Connor outside the presence of the parties. I was punished for publicly writing about Dr. Connor and Judge Taul’s unethical/illegal conduct. Then I was punished for being persistent in trying to obtain the evidence against me. When I continued to question the system, I became the subject of a “secret” investigation by the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit. When I began to request public records pertaining to the secret investigation and Judge James D. Humphrey, Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard sent me an email where Mr. Negangard threatened to “make every effort to prosecute” me if I break any laws. Why is the Dearborn County Prosecutor threatening me? Is he threatening me because he believes I am dangerous, or is he threatening me because I am naïve? I guess it depends on what side of good or bad Mr. Negangard falls on.

Frank Serpico left the New York City Police Department after recovering from a gunshot wound to the face. The New York Times did an article on Mr. Serpico earlier this year. Frank Serpico was a victim of the NYPD yet he was viewed as a villain by many in the NYPD. The only thing Mr. Serpico was guilty of was failing to distinguish the difference between the criminals on the street and the criminals on the police force. Frank Serpico’s “inability” to differentiate the “good” criminals from the “bad” criminals prematurely ended his law enforcement career. In the January article by the New York Times, Frank Serpico said, “They took the job I loved most. I just wanted to be a cop and they took it away from me.” In a sense, I feel that I can relate to Mr. Serpico. Why should a person be punished because other people are angry that the person follows the law? I haven’t broken any laws in Indiana yet Indiana treats me as if I am a criminal. Indiana took the job I loved most. I just wanted to be a dad, and Indiana took it away from me.

The Indiana Appellate Court doesn't tell the truth

I think the Indiana Court of Appeals is under the impression that we live in a place like Russia or China. I got a ruling [Click here to see the Appellate decision] from the Indiana Court of Appeals and apparently they are in the business of abusing children and taking away First Amendment Rights as well. Rather than deny my appeal because I did not preserve my right to appeal matters while representing myself or claim that my lawyer did not make the correct argument, the Appellate Court did just what the two trial court judges did; they lied.

Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children on August 18, 2009, based primarily on the testimony and evaluation of child custody evaluator Dr. Edward J. Connor. The one thing that I have had difficulties understanding is why the state of Indiana makes laws if the state does not have to follow them. Indiana Code (IC) 31-17-2-12 deals with the procedures regarding custody evaluations for custody hearings. IC 31-17-2-12(b) states the evaluation and the testimony of the investigator may not be excluded in court on the grounds as hearsay if the requirements of subsection (c) are met. IC 31-17-2-12(c) states:

(c) The court shall mail the investigator's report to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel at least ten (10) days before the hearing. The investigator shall make the following available to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel:
(1) The investigator's file of underlying data and reports.
(2) Complete texts of diagnostic reports made to the investigator under subsection (b).
(3) The names and addresses of all persons whom the investigator has consulted.

I tried to get a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file for fifteen months before the final hearing. Judge Taul said he would not release the file because he was not aware of Kentucky law. I still wonder why an Indiana judge would think that the laws of Kentucky govern the release of information in Indiana trials. When Judge Taul recused himself after participating in ex parte communication with Dr. Connor, Judge Humphrey stepped in to take over violating my rights to due process. Judge Humphrey said he was not going to let me have Dr. Connor’s file because he thought that I wanted to use it to hurt the children’s mother. [Please note that throughout the two and a half year divorce, I was never accused of harassing or menacing behavior by any party.] Judge Humphrey allowed Dr. Connor’s report and testimony to be admitted as evidence despite my objections that the evidence is hearsay because I was not provided a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file. Judge Humphrey terminated my parenting time based on Dr. Connor’s testimony and report.

Appellate judges are fair, right? What motivation would they have not to perform their duties in an honest and unbiased manner? The Indiana Appellate Court sounded like they did not like me in their ruling. As a lot of people know, appellate rulings can take several months or even years. The Indiana Appellate Court took just eighteen business days from the time they received the trial court record to make a decision. How did they rule on my appeal regarding me not having access to Dr. Connor’s case file per IC 31-17-2-12(c)? They affirmed the trial court’s decision.

I thought the Indiana Code was pretty clear; if I did not have a copy of the case file, then the evaluation was not admissible to court because it was hearsay. The Appellate Court disagrees. The Indiana Appellate Court stated, “We first note that IC 31-17-2-17(c) does not require that Dr. Connor’s entire case file be provided to Daniel.” The Appellate Court did not offer any statute or case law to support their opinion that “investigator’s file of underlying data and reports” did not mean Dr. Connor’s entire case file. When I researched cases involving IC 31-17-2-12(c), I was unable to find any case precedence that defined exactly what the “investigator’s file of underlying data and reports” consisted of. Immediately after the Appellate Court stated that the “investigator’s file of underlying data and reports” did not mean Dr. Connor’s entire case file, the Appellate Court wrote, “All the items specified by statute were provided.” Somehow the Indiana Appellate Court ruled that the investigator's entire file of underlying data and reports, under IC 31-17-2-12(c), did not refer to Dr. Connor's entire case file.

Despite there being no definitive explanation as to what Dr. Connor’s file of underlying data and reports” represented, the Appellate Court stated I was provided all of the information. Apparently, the Appellate Court did not review the transcripts from the May 27, 2009 hearing. When I questioned Dr. Connor on the stand about why he did not give me a copy of my responses to the questionnaires I filled out for the evaluation, Dr. Connor responded, “I don’t know. That should have been included and I will see to it that you get that, if you like.” From a legal standpoint, I hope that the Indiana Appellate Court understands that the only way that they could be sure that I was provided with all of “the items specified by statute” is if I was provided with a copy of Dr. Connor’s entire case file or if a Judge reviewed the case file and determined what information that I was required to have under IC 31-17-2-12(c). Since I did not get a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file; and no judge reviewed the contents of Dr. Connor’s case file; and Dr. Connor admitted in testimony that he did not provide me with some information; the Indiana Appellate Court just conjured up a story in an effort to deny my appeal.

Why would the Indiana Appellate Court lie just to hurt me? It appears that they don’t take kindly to people exercising their rights to freedom of speech and exposing unethical and/or illegal conduct of the Indiana Court System. I am not a lawyer and I represented myself at the trial court level. When the trial court failed to protect my rights to due process and to a fair trial, I created a website and a blog page to share my experiences. The Indiana Appellate Court demonstrated their disapproval of my internet material in their decision by lying about the court record in an effort to “build” a case against me.

Near the end of the appellate decision, the Indiana Appellate Court wrote, “During the pendency of the proceedings, Daniel posted information concerning the dissolution on his website and blog, in response to which [Wife] sought a protective order and a temporary restraining order on more than one occasion.” During the course of a trial, all motions, orders, and everything else that is filed with the court is logged into the Chronological Case Summary or CCS. The CCS from my case demonstrates that my ex-wife only filed ONE motion for a protective order/restraining order that requested the Court to force me to take down my internet material. The motion was filed on April 16, 2009 and there was a hearing on the motion on April 29, 2009. On May 14, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey denied her motion because she failed to demonstrate how my writings were dangerous, harassing, and/or harmful to her or my children. Not only did the Appellate Court condemn me for something that the trial court already ruled did not harm my children or their mother, the Appellate Court fabricated a story that my ex-wife sought protective/restraining orders on more than one occasion, to strengthen their argument against me.

The Appellate Courts condemnation of my internet content that criticized the trial court came just three weeks after their June 29, 2010 decision, where the Indiana Appellate Court overturned a trial court ruling that prohibited a mother from exercising her First Amendment Rights in challenging the trial court. After the mother’s story about her court proceedings was published in the Indianapolis Recorder, the trial court issued a restraining order prohibiting her from speaking about the court hearings. In T.N. vs. B.D., the Indiana Appellate Court wrote:

“Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937). And the right to challenge the government, inherent in freedom of speech, is at the foundation of our Constitution. Thus, we decline to say that Mother’s right to freedom of speech must yield absolutely to all facets of what the juvenile court broadly described as “a confidential matter.”

So not only did the Indiana Appellate Court make up the story about my ex-wife having to file for multiple restraining/protective orders because of my web material that criticized the trial court, the Appellate Court condemned me for publicly challenging the government just three weeks after the Appellate Court wrote, “The right to challenge the government, inherent in freedom of speech, is at the foundation of our Constitution.”

So I guess the fight goes on. I’m researching options and talking to my lawyer because this is a matter that cannot be ignored. The Indiana Appellate Court is taking away my rights and the rights of my children because I exercised my fundamental right to freedom of speech, which is at the foundation of our Constitution. I can see why the Appellate Court doesn’t want me to talk about this, because people will know that the Court is vindictive and doesn’t tell the truth. Now they will probably punish me and my children even more for exercising my right to free speech. If the Indiana Appellate Court issues anymore rulings on my case containing information which is not in the official record and are not based on law, I will subpoena the IP information of the people in Indiana who have been frequenting my websites lately. I will be able to determine if anyone associated with the Indiana Appellate Court was doing their own research on a pending appellate case. It has been documented that an Indiana Supreme Court IP address has been frequenting my website. If you are a judge and you are reading this; there is a record of it. Subpoenaing Indiana IP addresses that have visited my websites can lead right to someone’s computer, Blackberry, netbook, IPad, etc... If we cower to corruption, what lesson does that teach our children? “The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” –Plato. I love you girls. Daddy is still fighting for you.

On a side note, page 14 of the Appellate decision states that my conduct during the trial court hearings made it necessary for a Sheriff's Deputy to be present in Judge Humphrey's courtroom for all three days of of the final hearing. Judge Humphrey lied about that in his brief as there was no special security in Humphrey's courtroom during the final hearing on May 27, June 2, and June 3 of 2009; just the normal bailiff. I am currently trying to obtain police and court records to prove that Judge Humphrey lied in his efforts to further deny my children of their father.