 |
| Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey |
“I think you better consider what you're doing because I may
consider this as reflecting on what's really important to you, making these
web-site postings or your children.” –Testimony
of Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey during criminal trial of Dan
Brewington. This is the ultimatum/warning
Judge James D. Humphrey claimed to have given Dan Brewington before stripping
Brewington of his ability to see his children.
Unfortunately, Brewington’s divorce record is void of Humphrey giving
Dan any such ultimatum.
On April 29, 2009 Judge James D. Humphrey held a hearing on
a petition for a protective/restraining
order filed on 4/16/2009 by the attorney of Dan Brewington’s ex-wife. Brewington’s ex-wife complained about Dan
sharing his experiences on the internet in dealing with lawyers, judges, and
psychologist through the course of the divorce was bad for her and the
children. Brewington
filed a Response to her petition and argued the writings were not harmful
to the children and their mother and the content was protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. On
May 14, 2009 Humphrey’s order on the petition for protective order stated
“said Motion should be and hereby is DENIED at this time.”
When a Judge rules in favor of a litigant, one would think
the law falls on the side of the litigant.
Humphrey also added the following to the order denying the protective
order:
“The Court may consider issuance of an Order regarding
public distribution of matters involving the Dissolution or Custody Evaluation
as part of the Court's Decree of Dissolution in considering the best interests
of the children. The Court may also consider evidence presented at this hearing
regarding the temporary restraining order in regard to the Court's decision as
to visitation and custody and how Respondent's actions may affect the best
interests of the children now and in the future.”
Judge Humphrey stated the motion should be and was denied,
and then went on to write how he “may” consider an issuance of a different
order regarding public distribution of the divorce case at another time. He also said he “may” take into consideration
Brewington’s actions in determining visitation and custody. What actions?
The actions Brewington took to demonstrate his writings were not harmful
to the children or his ex-wife were what caused Humphrey to deny her petition
asking Humphrey to force Dan to take down his internet content. What Brewington did not know at the time was
Humphrey was giving Dan an ultimatum; stop writing telling people what goes on
within the family court system in Southeastern Indiana or I will take your
children away from you. Humphrey had the
power to order Brewington to remove the internet content if it was dangerous to
his children. Humphrey refused to do so
because the web writings were not damaging to the children; they were damaging
to him.
During cross-examination
of Humphrey in Brewington’s criminal trial, Brewington’s public defender,
Bryan Barrett, asked Humphrey for his recollection as to why he denied the
petition for a protective order. Humphrey
had a different and more specific explanation as to why he denied the
protective order. Judge Humphrey stated:
“The reason that I denied it because, I think there were
probably two reasons: #1, your client was indicating this was my first
amendment right to say what I want to say and I was going to let him do it and the
second reason was and in my order I also indicated I think to paraphrase, I
think you better consider what you're doing because I may consider this as
reflecting on what's really important to you, making these web-site postings or
your children and I think by your client's continued actions, he made it very
clear he was more interested in his web-site postings than his children.”
James Humphrey may be a vindictive and evil judge be he is
not a dumb judge. Humphrey was well
aware of the fact that he could have ordered Brewington to remove his internet
content if the information was damaging to Dan’s children. Humphrey also knew he could have issued an
order protecting aspects of the divorce from public dissemination. Humphrey did not issue a protective order
because there was no evidence Brewington’s writings were dangerous to the
children or harassing to their mother. Judge
Humphrey’s testimony states the intention of his order was to tell Brewington
to choose between his children or his First Amendment protected criticisms of
the court system. Humphrey knew he
couldn’t give Brewington that kind of direct ultimatum in a court order because
it would have been a very appealable issue and would have likely brought some
media attention. Humphrey knew the
content was not dangerous to the children because the content is still on the
internet to this day. It was Humphrey’s
own contention that he sent Brewington a hidden message saying “stop writing or
you won’t see your children.” No
evidence was ever presented that Brewington’s writings were damaging to his
children. Humphrey’s own contention is
he felt Brewington should have heeded Humphrey’s warning that was hidden in the
order. Humphrey claimed Brewington chose
his writings over his children yet Humphrey did not make it clear to Brewington
that Humphrey even posed the ultimatum.
Brewington would have been better suited to choose one freedom over
another if Humphrey would have made it clear to Brewington that he was not
going to allow Dan to have both his free speech and his children.
The irony of the situation is, during Brewington’s criminal
trial, Humphrey testified his May 14, 2009 order contained hidden threats to
take away Brewington’s children if Brewington did not cease exercising his
First Amendment Right to criticize the family court system. Brewington was convicted of D Felony
Intimidation because Prosecutor Negangard successfully argued Brewington’s
writings about Judge Humphrey’s termination of Dan’s parenting time were
considered hidden threats and were made in retaliation for a prior lawful act;
Humphrey’s terminating Dan’s parenting time.
Because Brewington wrote about how Humphrey retaliated against him in
taking away his children because Brewington did not cease to exercise his First
Amendment Right in criticizing the courts, Dan was prosecuted for retaliating
against Judge James D. Humphrey. The
scary part to the story is if the Indiana Supreme Court upholds Brewington’s
conviction, all someone like Judge Humphrey has to do go to the local
prosecutor and cry about how a blog post like this scares him and claim he’s
intimidated and the writer can be prosecuted.
Only in Indiana.
