Judge Brian Hill; Another Black Eye for the Indiana Judicial System.
My family and I breathed a small sigh of relief when Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard appointed Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill to preside over my criminal trial. The appointment of Judge Hill seemed to be much better than the previous appointment of Decatur County Circuit Judge John Westhafer, who admitted to being a good friend of Judge Humphrey’s for 25 years. A little internet research demonstrated that Judge Hill was a relatively young family man that still worked the family farm who also took an interest in history. It appeared that I finally had a judge that possessed the constitutional intellectualism necessary to handle my case. It turned out Judge Brian Hill had the constitutional intellectualism of a turnip.
When Judge Hill handed me a five year sentence for my non-violent blogging about public officials, he said I was not a good candidate for probation because I would blog about the probation department as well. Judge Brian Hill denied my ability to serve any of my five year sentence on probation because he felt I would exercise my First Amendment right and blog about another government agency. He didn’t deny probation to protect the alleged victims in the case or to ensure the safety of the general public; Judge Brian Hill denied probation to protect a government agency from any potential, fair or unfair, public criticism. Judge Hill deprived me of many constitutional rights during my trial because he was afraid I would continue to exercise my right to free speech. He denied me a reasonable bond based partly on the likelihood of me continuing to exercise my First Amendment rights. Judge Hill ordered the jurors’ names in my case to remain confidential because he worried I would exercise my right to free speech to comment on the jury. (To put this in perspective, jurors’ names in the Casey Anthony murder trial were kept confidential during the trial to protect the integrity of the criminal proceedings but were released at the conclusion of the trial). The benefit of the jurors’ names remaining anonymous in the nation’s most publicized and controversial murder trial of 2011 did not outweigh the rights of the prosecution or the defense to be able to determine if there was any jury misconduct. All of the jury members on my case realized who the powerful people in their community were and what they were asking the jurors to do. The prosecutor’s office used the case of to defend their request for a confidential jury. In that case the appellate court had ruled that having a confidential jury in a 3 count murder trial was wrong but was considered harmless error and the guilty party’s sentence of 175 years was appropriate. The only way I can find out who was on the jury is by initiating another legal action, from prison, to have the identities of the jurors revealed. During my sentencing hearing, Judge Hill was upset that I continued to write about public officials while I was in jail even though the writings, in Judge Hill’s words, were “not criminal.” So why didn’t Judge Hill issue a gag order preventing me from writing about these things? Because it would be considered prior restraint to free speech and would be in violation of the First Amendment of the United State Constitution. Judge Brian Hill could not order me to stop writing about the same subjects that led to my conviction because the writings are protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. So how in the hell did I get convicted of engaging in constitutionally protected activity?
Judge Brian Hill’s actions have less to do with constitutional intellectualism and more to do with having the integrity and morality of an Illinois Nazi. (and as Jake Blues said in the Blues Brothers,”I hate Illinois Nazis.”) Judge Hill maliciously disregarded my constitutional rights, not to protect the public but to protect the “integrity” of public and government officials. One of the reasons Judge Humphrey gave for terminating my parenting time was I suffered from severe ADHD. During the course of my criminal trial I was accused of being delusional and psychologically disturbed. Rather than question my ability to stand trial, Judge Hill refused to ensure that I was given my proper medication for ADHD so my mind would operate normally at trial. Judge Hill’s only concern was to assist Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard protect the reputation of Judge James D. Humphrey.
Rush County Circuit Judge Brian Hill deprived me of my right to competent counsel as he was aware that my public defender, Rush County public defender Bryan Barrett (appointed by Judge Hill) never met with me nor spoke with me about trial preparation. Barrett never subpoenaed any witnesses or evidence and never took the depositions of any of the alleged victims or state witnesses. Judge Hill knew I did not receive a copy of the 350+ pages of grand jury transcripts until less than two weeks before trial and he was also aware that I never received some of the prosecution’s evidence at all. Before the trial, I tried to explain how I did not know what actions led to my charges. Judge Hill said if I didn’t like it, I could represent myself. During my sentencing hearing I questioned the validity of the indictments as Prosecutor Negangard was never able to produce any evidence during trial that I ever released information from the grand jury proceedings. I questioned how a grand jury could indict me for releasing grand jury information in the absence of ANY supporting evidence. Judge Brian Hill simply told me that I had a remarkable ability to manipulate information to make me appear to be a victim. No Judge Hill, I just have a tendency to challenge government officials who fail to follow the provisions set forth in the Bill of Right s of the U.S. Constitution.
If I am truly guilty of the crimes alleged by Prosecutor Negangard, I now run the risk of being convicted of the same crimes in Rush County if I criticize Judge Hill too much. Dearborn County had jurisdiction to prosecute me for criticizing Judge Humphrey as a special judge for a Ripley County Court so Rush County has the same ability to prosecute me for criticizing Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill while he was serving as a special judge for a Dearborn County court.
Judge Brian Hill doesn’t lack intelligence; he lacks honesty and moral fortitude. He chose the good ol’ boys over the founding fathers. He thought Judge Humphrey’s reputation was more important than the blood of the fallen soldier who made it possible to ink the Constitution of the United States of America. This is exactly why it is crucial to fight to protect First Amendment rights; so we have the ability to speak out against the Nazi-esque approach of officials like Prosecutor Negangard, Judge Humphrey, and Judge Hill, who seek to squash the voices of people that have the nerve to question authority.
Thanks for the support.
You can contact the family at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Judge James D. Humphrey's Own Holocaust
Dan wrote his first blog since leaving Dearborn County on October 27, 2011. That has already been posted. He continued to write as his journey took him to the RDC for over 4 weeks. This is a collection of the blogs that he wrote, during November, 2011, while at the RDC. That is where everyone in the prison system starts out to be classified for their permanent placement.
Judge James. D. Humphrey’s Own Holocaust – Written around 11/4/11
Ironically, one of the first books I read in prison was The First Amendment, The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America by Nat Hentoff. In reading the book, I discovered that it appears Judge James D. Humphrey believes his family’s emotions, which were allegedly upset due to my verbose blogging about the family court system containing already public information, have a much greater entitlement to protection than the survivors of Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. As a judge, he was well aware of the First Amendment, is required to uphold it, and most certainly knew about one of the most controversial First Amendment cases in U.S. history, the Village of Skokie v. the National Socialist Party of America.
In 1977, the Chicago-based National Socialist Party of America focused on organizing demonstrations in areas with high Jewish populations. The Nazis set their sights on a village on the outskirts of Chicago named Skokie. The village, whose population of 70,000 people consisted of 45,500 Jews, 7,000 of which were Holocaust survivors, obtained a circuit court injunction prohibiting the Nazi demonstration. The village also passed an ordinance requiring that public assemblies consisting of over 50 people were required to purchase a $350,000 insurance policy to cover any potential public liability and damages. The cost of such a policy would be up to $900 depending on the risk. It was up to the prospective demonstrators to find an underwriter willing to insure the groups and even then the village council had the power to deny a permit for a demonstration if they felt the proposed assembly might create a “breach of the peace.” The village also banned public demonstrations by members of political parties wearing military-style uniforms. In addition, the village banned demonstrations that “incite violence, hatred, abuse, or hostility toward a person or group of persons by reason or reference to religious, racial, ethnic, national, or religious affiliation.” Though not named directly in the ordinance, the ordinance was aimed at prohibiting any future Nazi demonstrations.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ definition of the most basic principle of the Constitution was the protection of all free thought, including thought we hate. In a controversial decision, the ACLU represented the Nazis because they agreed with the opinion of Justice Holmes and found the actions of the Village of Skokie to be unconstitutional. The decision of the ACLU to represent the Nazi organization caused a 15% - 20% drop in the ACLU’s national membership but the decision was one that the ACLU and its executive director, Aryeh Neier, felt was necessary to protect the rights of all citizens.
“As a Jew, and a refugee from Nazi Germany, I have strong personal reasons for finding Nazis repugnant. Freedom of speech protects my right to denounce Nazis with all the vehemence I think proper. Despite my hatred of their doctrine, I realize that it is in my best interest to defend their right to preach it.” Those were the sentiments of ACLU executive director Aryeh Neier. Neier felt passionately about protecting the rights of a Nazi organization that applauded Adolf Hitler’s efforts to exterminate Neier’s own people.
The Illinois Supreme Court tackled the issues pertaining to the Nazis’ right to demonstrate. The Court stated, “It is firmly settled that under our constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” As for the argument that the public display of the swastika represents “fighting words” the Court ruled, we do not doubt that the sight of this symbol is abhorrent to the Jewish citizens of Skoki and that the survivors of the Nazi persecutions, tormented by their recollections, may have strong feelings regarding its display. Yet…courts have consistently refused to ban speech on the possibility of unlawful conduct by those opposed to the speaker’s philosophy… It has become patent that a hostile audience is not a basis for restraining otherwise legal First Amendment activity.”
In February 1978, Federal District Judge Bernard M. Decker of Chicago struck down Skokie’s assembly ordinance as unconstitutional. Judge Decker stated the village of Skokie has “no power to prevent [the Nationalist Socialist Party] from stating [its] political philosophy including [its] opinions of black and Jewish people, however obnoxious and reprehensible that philosophy may be.” Judge Decker went on to say, “In resolving this case in favor of the plaintiffs, the court is acutely aware of doctrines of racial and religious hatred.” In terms of the First Amendment, “it is better to allow those who preach racial hate to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than [for us to] be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear…The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy even of the hateful doctrines espoused by the plaintiffs without abandoning its commitment to freedom of speech and assembly is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country.”
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sustained Judge Decker’s findings while taking troubling note of the many survivors of the Holocaust in Skokie, people with memories of family members being thrown into trains on the way to death camps. One Skokie resident had told of seeing his mother hurled on top of a mass of bodies in a hole in the ground and buried alive. The Court of Appeals stated it would be “grossly insensitive to deny, as we do not, that the proposed demonstration would seriously disturb, emotionally and mentally, at least some and probably many of the village’s residents.” But if the First Amendment rights “are to remain vital to all, they must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas it quite justifiable rejects and despises.” The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. A few years later and a couple hundred miles away, a young James D. Humphrey would study First Amendment law at Indiana University in the early eighties where I’m certain he learned about one of the most controversial First Amendment cases in U.S. history.
Judge James D. Humphrey and Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard are well aware that the First Amendment protects a person’s ability, as horrific as it may be, to publicly praise the practices of Adolf Hitler in Hitler’s quest to exterminate all people of the Jewish faith from the face of the earth; however they claimed the First Amendment did not protect my harsh criticisms of Judge Humphrey. Prosecutor Negangard told the jury I used “fighting words.” In Gooding v. Wilson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brenan defined “fighting words: as words that “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually the remark is addressed.” Put simply, Prosecutor Negangard accused me of typing words from my laptop that would “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by” Judge James D. Humphrey. But Judge Humphrey wasn’t tormented by memories of death camps, of family members being buried alive; he suffered emotional hardships because I blogged about public officials, which was sufficient to jail me for my speech. Judge Humphrey was worried about his home address being on my website. Unfortunately Judge Humphries home address is a public record because he lacks the legal acumen to place his home in a trust.
Unfortunately this isn’t a joke and my situation is as unbelievable and outrageous as it appears. The First Freedom makes no mention of anyone ever being jailed for non-threatening writings that were not in violation of any specific law or act. Now it’s time for the appellate process and I have very little faith in the high courts of the State of Indiana. To rule against Negangard and Humphrey would also be a condemnation of the duo’s malicious desecration of the law and the United States Constitution. It would be a move that Judge Brian Hill was unwilling to do or lacked the backbone to do as he gave me a five year prison sentence for peacefully voicing my concerns about the family court system from a computer, while Nazis are free to march into Jewish communities and praise Hitler for trying to exterminate an entire ethnic group. If or when the high courts of Indiana rule against me, my case will go through the same court that protected the rights of Nazi demonstrators and it will demonstrate the repressive and ignorant practices of the Indiana Court System. And just a reminder to the taxpayers of Dearborn County, Indiana, as long as the State of Indiana continues to argue that my speech presents a much greater danger than a Nazi rally in a village full of Holocaust survivors it will only add to the tens of thousands of Dearborn County tax dollars that have been wasted on the witch hunt of Dan Brewington’s internet writings.
Finally, love me or hate me, I am far from finished concerning my blogging and my refusal to submit to the authority of elected criminals.
Thanks for the ongoing support and keep checking back for updates.
Feel free to contact the Brewington family at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com
Judge James. D. Humphrey’s Own Holocaust – Written around 11/4/11
Ironically, one of the first books I read in prison was The First Amendment, The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America by Nat Hentoff. In reading the book, I discovered that it appears Judge James D. Humphrey believes his family’s emotions, which were allegedly upset due to my verbose blogging about the family court system containing already public information, have a much greater entitlement to protection than the survivors of Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. As a judge, he was well aware of the First Amendment, is required to uphold it, and most certainly knew about one of the most controversial First Amendment cases in U.S. history, the Village of Skokie v. the National Socialist Party of America.
In 1977, the Chicago-based National Socialist Party of America focused on organizing demonstrations in areas with high Jewish populations. The Nazis set their sights on a village on the outskirts of Chicago named Skokie. The village, whose population of 70,000 people consisted of 45,500 Jews, 7,000 of which were Holocaust survivors, obtained a circuit court injunction prohibiting the Nazi demonstration. The village also passed an ordinance requiring that public assemblies consisting of over 50 people were required to purchase a $350,000 insurance policy to cover any potential public liability and damages. The cost of such a policy would be up to $900 depending on the risk. It was up to the prospective demonstrators to find an underwriter willing to insure the groups and even then the village council had the power to deny a permit for a demonstration if they felt the proposed assembly might create a “breach of the peace.” The village also banned public demonstrations by members of political parties wearing military-style uniforms. In addition, the village banned demonstrations that “incite violence, hatred, abuse, or hostility toward a person or group of persons by reason or reference to religious, racial, ethnic, national, or religious affiliation.” Though not named directly in the ordinance, the ordinance was aimed at prohibiting any future Nazi demonstrations.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ definition of the most basic principle of the Constitution was the protection of all free thought, including thought we hate. In a controversial decision, the ACLU represented the Nazis because they agreed with the opinion of Justice Holmes and found the actions of the Village of Skokie to be unconstitutional. The decision of the ACLU to represent the Nazi organization caused a 15% - 20% drop in the ACLU’s national membership but the decision was one that the ACLU and its executive director, Aryeh Neier, felt was necessary to protect the rights of all citizens.
“As a Jew, and a refugee from Nazi Germany, I have strong personal reasons for finding Nazis repugnant. Freedom of speech protects my right to denounce Nazis with all the vehemence I think proper. Despite my hatred of their doctrine, I realize that it is in my best interest to defend their right to preach it.” Those were the sentiments of ACLU executive director Aryeh Neier. Neier felt passionately about protecting the rights of a Nazi organization that applauded Adolf Hitler’s efforts to exterminate Neier’s own people.
The Illinois Supreme Court tackled the issues pertaining to the Nazis’ right to demonstrate. The Court stated, “It is firmly settled that under our constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” As for the argument that the public display of the swastika represents “fighting words” the Court ruled, we do not doubt that the sight of this symbol is abhorrent to the Jewish citizens of Skoki and that the survivors of the Nazi persecutions, tormented by their recollections, may have strong feelings regarding its display. Yet…courts have consistently refused to ban speech on the possibility of unlawful conduct by those opposed to the speaker’s philosophy… It has become patent that a hostile audience is not a basis for restraining otherwise legal First Amendment activity.”
In February 1978, Federal District Judge Bernard M. Decker of Chicago struck down Skokie’s assembly ordinance as unconstitutional. Judge Decker stated the village of Skokie has “no power to prevent [the Nationalist Socialist Party] from stating [its] political philosophy including [its] opinions of black and Jewish people, however obnoxious and reprehensible that philosophy may be.” Judge Decker went on to say, “In resolving this case in favor of the plaintiffs, the court is acutely aware of doctrines of racial and religious hatred.” In terms of the First Amendment, “it is better to allow those who preach racial hate to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than [for us to] be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear…The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy even of the hateful doctrines espoused by the plaintiffs without abandoning its commitment to freedom of speech and assembly is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country.”
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sustained Judge Decker’s findings while taking troubling note of the many survivors of the Holocaust in Skokie, people with memories of family members being thrown into trains on the way to death camps. One Skokie resident had told of seeing his mother hurled on top of a mass of bodies in a hole in the ground and buried alive. The Court of Appeals stated it would be “grossly insensitive to deny, as we do not, that the proposed demonstration would seriously disturb, emotionally and mentally, at least some and probably many of the village’s residents.” But if the First Amendment rights “are to remain vital to all, they must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas it quite justifiable rejects and despises.” The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. A few years later and a couple hundred miles away, a young James D. Humphrey would study First Amendment law at Indiana University in the early eighties where I’m certain he learned about one of the most controversial First Amendment cases in U.S. history.
Judge James D. Humphrey and Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard are well aware that the First Amendment protects a person’s ability, as horrific as it may be, to publicly praise the practices of Adolf Hitler in Hitler’s quest to exterminate all people of the Jewish faith from the face of the earth; however they claimed the First Amendment did not protect my harsh criticisms of Judge Humphrey. Prosecutor Negangard told the jury I used “fighting words.” In Gooding v. Wilson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brenan defined “fighting words: as words that “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually the remark is addressed.” Put simply, Prosecutor Negangard accused me of typing words from my laptop that would “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by” Judge James D. Humphrey. But Judge Humphrey wasn’t tormented by memories of death camps, of family members being buried alive; he suffered emotional hardships because I blogged about public officials, which was sufficient to jail me for my speech. Judge Humphrey was worried about his home address being on my website. Unfortunately Judge Humphries home address is a public record because he lacks the legal acumen to place his home in a trust.
Unfortunately this isn’t a joke and my situation is as unbelievable and outrageous as it appears. The First Freedom makes no mention of anyone ever being jailed for non-threatening writings that were not in violation of any specific law or act. Now it’s time for the appellate process and I have very little faith in the high courts of the State of Indiana. To rule against Negangard and Humphrey would also be a condemnation of the duo’s malicious desecration of the law and the United States Constitution. It would be a move that Judge Brian Hill was unwilling to do or lacked the backbone to do as he gave me a five year prison sentence for peacefully voicing my concerns about the family court system from a computer, while Nazis are free to march into Jewish communities and praise Hitler for trying to exterminate an entire ethnic group. If or when the high courts of Indiana rule against me, my case will go through the same court that protected the rights of Nazi demonstrators and it will demonstrate the repressive and ignorant practices of the Indiana Court System. And just a reminder to the taxpayers of Dearborn County, Indiana, as long as the State of Indiana continues to argue that my speech presents a much greater danger than a Nazi rally in a village full of Holocaust survivors it will only add to the tens of thousands of Dearborn County tax dollars that have been wasted on the witch hunt of Dan Brewington’s internet writings.
Finally, love me or hate me, I am far from finished concerning my blogging and my refusal to submit to the authority of elected criminals.
Thanks for the ongoing support and keep checking back for updates.
Feel free to contact the Brewington family at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com
Friday, December 16, 2011
Dan's new address
Reporting in. Dan is doing fine. When he left Lawrenceburg on October 25, 2011 he was sent to Plainfield, Indiana to a facility known as the RDC. Everyone goes there to find their permanent placement. They are supposed to be there 2 to 4 weeks. Dan was there for over 4 weeks. While he was there he could have no visits and no phone contact. His attorney could visit. His new address is:
Putnamville Correctional Facility
Daniel Brewington DOC # 223028 Dorm 11N
1946 W US Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
I wasn't able to talk to him until he called Saturday, December 10, 2011. I am now on the visitors list and will be able to see him soon. During this time we have been working feverishly on devising a plan for the next step. Things seem to be falling into place. Thanks to everyone for all of your thoughts and prayers. The appeal process is the next step. If anyone wants to contact us please write contactdanbrewington@gmail.com . If anyone wants to donate to the Dan Brewington Legal Defense Fund we have a paypal account set up on the blog. I am the administrator.
http://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2011/11/dan-brewington-legal-defense-fund_6727.html
Once more. Thanks to everyone for all of their support. We have a plan and will be moving forward.
Sue Brewington
Putnamville Correctional Facility
Daniel Brewington DOC # 223028 Dorm 11N
1946 W US Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
I wasn't able to talk to him until he called Saturday, December 10, 2011. I am now on the visitors list and will be able to see him soon. During this time we have been working feverishly on devising a plan for the next step. Things seem to be falling into place. Thanks to everyone for all of your thoughts and prayers. The appeal process is the next step. If anyone wants to contact us please write contactdanbrewington@gmail.com . If anyone wants to donate to the Dan Brewington Legal Defense Fund we have a paypal account set up on the blog. I am the administrator.
http://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2011/11/dan-brewington-legal-defense-fund_6727.html
Once more. Thanks to everyone for all of their support. We have a plan and will be moving forward.
Sue Brewington
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Dan Brewington Legal Defense Fund
We have decided to hire a first amendment attorney for the appellate process. People have inquired about donating money to help with this, so we have set up the Dan Brewington Legal Defense Fund through PayPal. Any contributions would be greatly appreciated. Sue Brewington (Dan's mom) will be the administrator of the account. For any questions, please email contactdanbrewington@gmail.com. Thank you so much for all of your support, we couldn't do this without you.
Please click here to donate, or use the "donate" button on the right side of the page.
Thanks,
Sue Brewington
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Dan Brewington-Criminal Case-Dearborn County, Indiana
Additional Links:
Order Setting BailBench Warrant
Application for Reduction of Bail (defective)
Target Notification (Grand Jury)
Motion for Confidentiality of Jurors Names and Identities
Hamilton County OH Inmate Movement Log
Discovery Answers (witness list and Sheriff Kreinhop's report)
Order Appointing 1st Public Defender
Blankenship Recusal
1st Public Defender Motion to Withdraw and Order
Supplemental Discovery Answer 9/30/11
Order Setting Trial
Order Denying Bond Reduction
Motion in Limine (both def and state)
Appellate Decision (divorce)
Search Dan Brewington
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Dan’s First Blog from Prison. Written 10/27/11 Posted 11/3/11
About 8:00AM yesterday at the DCLEC, Sgt. Rod McGownd called into my cell and told me to pack up my things because I was shipping out to prison. Fortunately, the day before I had the ability to tell my family that I could be moved out at any time. When you go to prison in Indiana you first go to the Reception Diagnostic Center (RDC) to be evaluated to determine what prison is appropriate for each individual, based on the offense, security risk, etc…The stay at RDC lasts anywhere from 2-4 weeks. While at RDC, inmates are unable to make or receive phone calls, so snail mail is my only means of communication for the next few weeks. What is the topic of my first blog from Prison: The arrogance and vindictiveness of Dearborn County officials.
My detractors like to claim that I am obsessed and do not know when to quit. I’ll stop blogging about crooked public officials when they stop being crooked. You would think that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, Sheriff Mike Kreinhop, and Judge James D. Humphrey would be basking in their glory that they succeeded in sending me to prison. They took away my daughters, indicted me for writing about it, set a $600,000 bond, denied me of my right to competent counsel, and sentenced me to 5 years in prison (I’ll have to do less than two years) because Heidi Humphrey and Dr. Sara Jones-Connor were frightened because I wrote extensively about the incompetence of their husbands. Unfortunately this wasn’t enough for the crooked Dearborn County officials so they took extra measures to attempt to bring me harm in prison. Fortunately RDC officials disregarded Dearborn County’s last ditch effort to hurt me.
I don’t think anyone outside of Dearborn County is buying what they are selling. When I arrived at RDC, I was in the check-in area where new inmates are un-cuffed and prepared for processing. When they said “Dan Brewington,” it threw up a red flag where a few people came to the area with one demanding that I not be un-cuffed. He said he received an email from a Dearborn County official warning RDC officials about me. The Dearborn County C/O who transported me was as shocked as I was. Luckily he told the RDC officials that he had been around me on numerous occasions and never had any problems. He assured them that I wouldn’t cause any problems. When I was changing into my RDC jumpsuit, an inmate worker said “what the hell did you do?” He said they didn’t usually get advanced “warnings” about inmates. I had heard the Dearborn County C/O say something about it stemming from my divorce hearing but the hearing was a few years ago. Later in the day another worker who heard about the email told me the email explained that I had to be restrained during a court hearing. The verbal debate I had with Judge Humphrey during the first 5 minutes of my divorce hearing on 5/27/09 had reached mythical status. Exclaiming, “I demand justice in this courtroom: turned me into Hannibal Lecter 2 ½ years later. Not only did RDC officials not buy the story, Dearborn County officials set the stage for many inquiries as to why they would go to such lengths to try to cause a level of concern or panic. I just explained how Dearborn County is full of arrogant and vindictive public officials. People just shrug their shoulders and say, “You get that in small counties.”
I’m in here for blogging,” that’s what I tell RDC officials. “But isn’t that free speech?” they ask. “I blogged too much.” They’re just as puzzled as I am. They are even more puzzled when I tell them that two different jailhouse snitches have claimed that I was plotting to kill a judge yet no criminal action had been taken against me. Jail records demonstrate that I never came in contact with the first snitch. The second one was my former cell-mate for two and a half months at the DCLEC, Joseph McCaleb. After reading all of my legal paperwork, “Joey” wrote a very detailed letter to Prosecutor Negangard, claiming that I admitted everything, including confessing to a plan to kidnap, kill, and then deposit Judge Humphrey into the Ohio River with concrete. Of course “Joey” was no longer there when I returned from my sentencing hearing. McCaleb was arrested for stealing women’s underpants, while working as a satellite TV installer. He was referred to as the “Underpants Bandit” because he stole women’s underwear (He also photographed his “stash” and put the pictures on his computer.) Did Negangard strike a deal with a pervert in his efforts to punish free speech? It just makes the story more interesting, yet sad for the women who were victims of McCaleb’s crimes.
Keep checking for updates as the appeal process will be underway soon. Thanks for the support.
Contact Dan/family at: contactdanbrewington@gmail.com
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
A Note from Dan
November 2, 2011 (edited from a note I received from Dan on Monday, October 31, 2011.)
I was shipped out this morning (October 26, 2011). I’m doing fine at RDC (west of Indy). They told me to pack my things this morning around 8:00AM and told me I was heading out. The A-holes in Dearborn Co. sent an email telling the prison that I was dangerous. A team of guards approached me and told the driver not to un-cuff me. Like usual, the jackasses who try to hurt me only serve to help my “infamy”. I was here ten minutes before someone, who heard about the email, asked what I did to warrant a warning by email. When I got to my cell, I was talking to a nearby inmate who left Dearborn County 2 weeks ago. I was telling him about the warning and someone nearby blurted out, “yeah, they sent an email.” So the guy began telling people about how Dan Brewington fought Dearborn Co. and how he is suing them. Too funny.
I’m fine but I need money for commissary. (He has to have his paper and pencils) I think you can do it online at the Dept. of Corrections (DOC) website. My picture makes me look like an AIDS patient. I weighed 227 when I came in. Obviously I do not have paper and pencils. I can’t call and I may be here for a month. My money follows me from here so send money. Love you and don’t worry. Tell everyone I’m fine and tell them hi. Keep them posted on the Blog.
Dan
Submitted by Sue Brewington
We will continue to post and let people know what is going on and what we think. (Because that is the purpose of a blog: to inform and get a message out) We are disappointed in the trial results but will continue with our mission. A notice of appeal has been filed and we are going forward with the federal complaint with a jury request. This is the United States of America and we will try to get, not just our message out, but the message of lots of “forgotten” victims of the courts, too. The idea that you can’t criticize an elected official in Dearborn County is absurd. We are expanding our audience and will be asking for help. We want to thank everyone so very much for keeping us in your thoughts and prayers.
Sue Brewington
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)