Missing Records from the Brewington Case

State vs. Brewington, Daniel March 4, 2012

Cause No: 15D02-1103-FD-00084

Currently being appealed

Where are the transcripts, both audio and written, for the June 17, 2011 hearing and the July 18, 2011 hearing in the Daniel Brewington case from Superior Court II, Dearborn County, Indiana?

According to the Notice of Appeal from Trial Court, the court reporter of Dearborn Superior Court No. 2 is requested to transcribe, certify, and file with the Clerk of Dearborn County Courts the proceedings or hearings of record… Filed October 24, 2011.

Sue Brewington filed a public records request with the Superior Court II on January 12, 2012, pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act (Ind. Code 5-14-3).

Sue Brewington has a file stamped order, January 12, 2012, releasing everything that she requested, signed by Judge Brian D. Hill, the trial judge.

Matthew Brewington filed a public records request with the Superior Court II, requesting the same information. Everyone desiring to see the record has to make a separate request because Judge Brian D. Hill threatened each person with being held in contempt of court if they shared any of the information.

The Order Releasing Audio Copies to Matthew Brewington was filed January 24, 2012. It was the same order that Sue Brewington received with the name and date changed appropriately.

At that time Sue and Matthew Brewington were pleased with the order, minus the contempt threat, but they seemed to be getting everything they requested.

On February 2, 2012 the Order changed. See The Amended Order Releasing Audio Copies, signed by Judge Brian D. Hill.

1. The Grand Jury tapes would not be released, even though the transcripts had been released. Sue Brewington hand delivered a letter for Barbara Ruwe, Court Reporter for Judge Sally Blankenship, Superior Court II, (because she took Sue's previous request) asking for clarification for the Grand Jury audio ruling, on February 14, 2012. Without the audio there is no way to verify the written transcripts.

2. Judge Hill’s Amended Order stated that no recordings were made of the July 18, 2011 hearing, because “no hearing took place on that date”. Originally two hearings had been scheduled for July 18, 2011, a Bond Reduction Hearing and a Final Pre-Trial Hearing. Sue Brewington hand delivered a letter for Barbara Ruwe, on Feb 14, 2012, asking for clarification. She attached the following documents to her request for clarification.

a. Motion to Continue. Filed June 28, 2011. Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, Prosecuting Attorney in Dearborn County asked the Court to Continue the Bond Reduction Hearing. There was no mention of continuing the pre-trial hearing.

b. CCS Entry for June 17, 2011 hearing shows that Judge Hill set a Bond Reduction Hearing for 7/18/11 and a Final Pre-Trial Hearing for 7/18/11. Both hearings were set for 1:30PM.

c. CCS Entry for July 18, 2011 shows Final Pre-Trial Hearing; Def W/Atty B. Barrett; State By J. Kisor;

d. Judge Brian D. Hill conducted the Pre-Trial Hearing on July 18, 2011. Five people are willing to sign affidavits attesting to the fact they were present and witnessed a hearing conducted by Judge Brian D. Hill. Dan Brewington’s 2^nd public defender, Bryan E. Barrett, made his first appearance and spoke, at this hearing, and Daniel Brewington was in the courtroom. The hearing was held in Judge Humphrey’s Courtroom on the 2^nd floor of the Dearborn County, Indiana, Courthouse.

e. An Order to Continue the Bond Reduction Hearing was filed July 21, 2011. A new date and time was set for the Bond Reduction Hearing, August 3, 2011 at 1:30PM.

a. Each Amended Order said the “disc admitted into evidence containing the interview of the Keith L. Jones by Shane McHenry admitted into evidence on August 17, 2011 and letter read by Daniel Brewington at the September 19, 2011 Pretrial Hearing should be released. A disc was released entitled the Eddie Jones interview.

b. The audio began with a lengthy static section and then a voice is heard, then more voices in question and answer format. There is no opening concerning the date, topic, or people participating.

3. On February 14, 2012, Sue Brewington hand delivered another Public Records Request. This time Sue Brewington requested the written transcripts of the March 11, 2011 arraignment hearing, the June 17, 2011 hearing, and the July 18, 2011 hearing. She should have received a 24 hour answer yes or no, according to Public Access Rules.

4. On Friday February 24, 2012 Sue Brewington received a phone call from Barbara Ruwe, Court Reporter for Judge Sally Blankenship, Superior Court II, Dearborn County and she said that Sue Brewington’s request for the public records was ready and she could pick them up in the Auditor’s Office. Barbara Ruwe gave Sue the total cost for Sue and Matt’s requests. ($115.50)

a. Monday, morning, February 27, 2012 Sue Brewington picked up the tapes that were ordered in the Amended Order, EXCEPT for the audio for the June 17, 2011 hearing. After being told the July 18, 2011 hearing that Sue Brewington attended did not take place she was now being informed that the June 17, 2011 hearing that she attended only took place in the Judge’s chambers and no recordings were made. Sue Brewington received this information on a post it note on one document in her packet. Copy of Post It Note

1) Daniel Brewington was sworn in by Judge Brian Hill at this hearing.

a) Brewington questioned if Judge Blankenship had a conflict of interest and recused herself and 1^st public defender John Watson had a conflict of interest and withdrew as counsel, how could Aaron Negangard continue as prosecutor?

b) Brewington told the judge that he was not getting his medication as prescribed for his ADHD, in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center.

2) It was the only time Sue and Matt Brewington saw Dan’s 1^st public defender, John Watson. Mr. Watson told the Judge, in open court, the reasons that he wanted to withdraw from the case (he had cases pending in Judge Humphrey’s Courtroom) and said that he would forward any information that he had to the next public defender.

3) He also told Judge Brian D. Hill that he was almost ready for trial. This hearing also took place in Judge James D. Humphrey’s Courtroom, on the 2^nd floor of the Dearborn County, Indiana Courthouse.

4) John Watson had filed a Request for Reduction of Bail, 2 months after Brewington was jailed, on May 13, 2011. In it, he did not have Daniel Brewington’s name. The name on the document was a woman’s name, Nancy Kruthaupt. He also included an additional charge: Schedule C Felony, assault with a deadly weapon. Upon researching Ms. Kruthaupt’s name, Matt Brewington found that it matched a case that took place in Batesville, Indiana in the mid 2000s. In open court, Mr. Watson had to inform Judge Brian D. Hill of the mistake and ask that the record be corrected. There is still no record of the corrections without the record from the hearing.

5) There was an attachment “response to request on February 14, 2012 from Sue Brewington”, with no name of the preparer of the document.

a) Reiterated that there was “no audio of July 18, 2011 hearing as that hearing was continued as indicated on the Amended Order… signed February 2, 2012.”

b) Reiterated that the “Grand Jury audio recordings are not a record in these proceedings as indicated on the Amended Order signed on February 2, 2011. Also Grand Jury proceedings are confidential and cannot be released to anyone.”

c) Sue Brewington's public records request for the March 11, 2011 arraignment hearing was “forwarded to counsel for the Defendant”. Sue Brewington made a public records request for the transcript and but Barbara Ruwe forwarded it to Dan Brewington’s counsel.

d) New information. “Request for transcript from June 17, 2011 – This was a pre-trial hearing held in the Judge’s Chambers that was not recorded and there is no audiotape of that hearing. Therefore a transcript cannot be made.” This is not accurate and Sue Brewington will produce signed affidavits to the contrary.

e) “Request for transcript from July 18, 2011 – Hearing was continued and no hearing held. Therefore a transcript cannot be made.”

5. The judge would have told the court reporter not to turn on the tape, the reporter would have had to decide on her own, not to record the audio, or the audio was erased which is a violation of Indiana Law.

Where is the accountability in our court system? Sue Brewington is being told by Dearborn County that no hearing took place. Sue Brewington was in the courtroom witnessing the hearings along with others. People’s very lives depend on the record keeping in the courts to be accurate. This is a controversial case that is being appealed and people are being told that two hearings that multiple people attended, did not take place. This case was considered so important that Daniel Brewington had to be held for months because his bond was set for $600,000, then someone considered the pre-trial hearings so inconsequential that they were not recorded or even worse, that they did not even happen. Who made that call? Brewington was in the courtroom participating in these two hearings. There should be a truthful explanation as to how two hearings in Brewington’s case just are not there.

Thank you for your time,

Sue Brewington

contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

Timeline of Dan Brewington’s case since the Notice of Appeal was filed on October 24, 2011

A. Notice of Appeal – October 24, 2011 – Filed by Bryan E. Barrett, Brewington’s Trial Attorney

1. “Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 11, the Clerk of Dearborn Superior Court No.2 is requested to transcribe, certify, and file with the Clerk of Dearborn County Courts the proceedings or hearings of record, …

B. Letter from Jeffrey Stratman - November 3, 2011.

1. After writing in a letter “I will value, respect and request your insight and opinion on issues to raise in the appeal…” without even speaking to Brewington, he arbitrarily reduces the appealable issues by limiting the information that he is even going to review for the appeal.

2. The last paragraph says “If you cannot read or write and are reviewing this letter…”.

3. Brewington’s entire case was about his writings on the internet. Apparently Mr. Stratman didn’t know anything about Daniel Brewington’s case and yet he had a “verbal discussion” with Barbara Ruwe, Court Reporter for Judge Sally Blankenship, and somehow a decision was made to ignore the directives in the filed Notice of Appeal.

4. According to Mr. Stratman’s letter he knew very little or almost nothing about the Brewington case and yet according to Ms. Ruwe decided that there was no need to have ALL of Brewington’s records in order to prepare an appeal.

5. Common sense might tell a person to get everything that was requested and then disregard what was not deemed needed. Mr. Stratman seemed to do the reverse. He decided what was needed even though he admitted in the letter to Brewington that he didn’t know anything about the case.

6. In November and December Brewington still thought that all of the hearings were to be included in the transcripts because that was what the Notice of Appeal asked for.

7. There are no other written documents according to the certified CCS that the Notice of Appeal filed on October 24, 2011 was ever changed.

C. Brewington’s letter to Jeffrey Stratman – November 24, 2011

1. I am not comfortable being represented by a Dearborn County attorney assigned out of Judge Sally Blankenship’s office since, she had already recused herself in regards to my case, citing conflict of interest, after setting my bond at $600,000.

2. I want all appealable issues preserved so they may be heard at the federal court level if all state appeals are exhausted. Brewington wrote this before he even knew about the changes to the Notice of Appeal discussed and decided on as per Stratman’s and Ruwe’s conversation.

D. Request for Public Records. January 12, 2012 – Sue Brewington’s request.

1. Request made for all audio so the written transcripts could be checked for accuracy.

E. Order to Release the requested audio and 2 pieces of evidence. January 12, 2012

1. Judge Brian Hill released all of the material that Sue Brewington requested. Then he ordered that if she shared or published any of the material she may be held in contempt of court.

2. Sue Brewington was not pleased with the contempt information but was relieved that they would finally have a complete record of Dan Brewington’s entire case.

F. Finding out that we would not be getting the transcripts from every hearing as per the filed Notice of Appeal. Around January 24, 2012

G. Motion to Grant an Extension for the transcripts, filed by Barbara Ruwe, Judge Sally Blankenship’s (Judge who set Dan’s bail at $600,000 and then recused herself because of conflict of interest issues), Court reporter. After waiting for the transcripts until January 24, 2011 we find Ms. Ruwe asking for a 90 day extension to finish what the Notice of Appeal asked for on October 24, 2011. That would have made it impossible to start on the appeal for a total of 180 days after the Notice of Appeal was filed. Filed January 25, 2012 with the Court of Appeals.

1. Ms. Ruwe stated that the only transcripts that Jeffrey Stratman requested were the Trial and the Sentencing Hearing. “Through verbal discussion” they arbitrarily changed the Notice of Appeal instructions that cited Indiana Appellate Rule 11 and that is all she prepared.

2. She writes in the extension request “On January 20, 2012, … the transcript was complete and a bill for the remainder due”.

3. “On January 23, 2012, I was prepared to file the transcript of the jury trial and the sentencing hearing (not what was requested in the Notice of Appeal) but had not received the balance due for the transcript”.

4. Note: January 20, 2012 was a Friday and January 23, 2012 was the following Monday, of course no payment was received over the weekend and the transcripts that she had “finished” were not complete.

5. She asked for and received in writing a request for additional transcripts made by Brewington’s appellate attorneys.

H. The transcripts for two more hearings are received in less than two weeks but the extension was filed with the Court of Appeals.

I. Attorneys accept the transcript as complete but reserve the right to request the missing hearings.

J. The Court Reporter’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Transcript is granted, in part, to and including March 12, 2012. Margret G. Robb, Chief Judge. Found on Indiana Clerk of Court: Online Docket Search Results.

K. Petition for Bail Pending Appeal – Filed January 24, 2012

L. Corrected Memorandum in Support of Petition for Bail Pending Appeal – Filed January 31, 2012.

M. Order Denying Petition for Bail Pending Appeal. – Filed February 2, 2012

N. Amended Order to Release the Audio, February 2, 2012

1. “Subsequent to the issuance of those two Orders, the Court has discovered that no audio recordings of the Grand Jury Proceedings for February 28, 2011, March 1, 2011 and March 2, 2011 were admitted into evidence in this cause, therefore, these audio recordings are not a record in these proceedings.” Sue’s Brewington’s response.

2. “The final Pretrial Conference/Bond Reduction Hearing which had originally been set on July 18, 2011 was continued on the State’s Motion and no hearing took place on the date. If a telephonic conference with counsel was held on that date, it was merely an effort to reschedule and find an agreeable date and no recordings were made. Therefore, no audio recording exists for July 18, 2011.” Sue Brewington’s response with attachments one, two, and three.

a. The hearing was in two parts: Bond Reduction Hearing and Final Pretrial Hearing.

b. F. Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor, Dearborn County, on June 28, 2011, filed a Motion to Continue the bond reduction hearing, the reason being, Shane McHenry, who is scheduled to testify is unavailable.

c. As of July 18, 2011, according to the certified CCS record, Judge Hill had not ruled on Negangard’s Motion. Judge Hill began the “hearing that didn’t take place” by taking care of the Bond Reduction Continuance. Judge Hill stated that he telephonically communicated his intention to grant the Order to Continue the bond reduction hearing until August 3, 2011, asking the attorney’s if they would be available. After taking care of that business Judge Hill went on with the pretrial hearing portion for the day. The court reporter was present and the entry in the certified CCS is as follows: Final Pre-Trial Hearing; Def W/Atty B Barrett; State by J Kisor.

d. This hearing took place in the Dearborn County Circuit Courtroom on the 2^nd floor of the Courthouse, Judge Humphrey’s Courtroom. Sue Brewington was present along with at least 4 other people that would sign an affidavit stating that they were there.

O. Another Public Records Request, February 14, 2012. This time for the written Transcripts for the Arraignment Hearing, March 11, 2011, the June 17, 2011 hearing, and the July 18, 2011 hearing, that Judge Hill’s amended order says doesn’t exist because no hearing took place.

Timeline written and submitted by Sue Brewington 2/22/2012

Why is it so difficult to get all the transcripts from everything regarding my trial?

Why wasn’t the Notice of Appeal in my case, filed October 24, 2011, followed?

More Corruption In Dearborn County, Indiana?

During my sentencing hearing on October 24, 2011, after Judge Brian Hill sentenced me to five years in prison, my public defender, Bryan Barrett, filed a notice of appeal in my case. The notice of appeal states, “Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 11, the court reporter of Dearborn Superior Court No. 2 is requested to transcribe, certify, and file with the Clerk of Dearborn County Courts the proceedings or hearings of record.” For some reason, the court reporter is doing everything in her power NOT to include the transcripts from ALL proceedings and hearings.

On January 25, 2012, the court reporter from the Dearborn County Superior Court No 2, Barbara Ruwe, filed a request for an extension with the Indiana Court of Appeals. Ms. Ruwe claimed the extension was necessary because she was not aware she was supposed to transcribe all proceedings and hearings. In her motion for extension of time, Barbara Ruwe informed the Court that around the filing of the notice of appeal on October 24, 2011 “Mr. Jeff Stratman was appointed as appellate counsel and through a verbal discussion with him, he only requested a transcript of the jury trial and the sentencing hearing.” Prior to my family retaining the services of civil rights and constitutional law experts, the Superior Court No. 2 appointed Dearborn County attorney Jeffrey E. Stratman as my appellate lawyer. Barbara Ruwe claimed she and Jeffrey Stratman came to a verbal agreement that she would not include transcripts from all hearings. The hearings they allegedly decided not to include were those which include my testimony explaining my ineffective counsel, not having evidence, not understanding the charges against me, etc... The “verbal discussion” that allegedly occurred between Barbara Ruwe and Jeffrey Stratman on or around, October 24, 2011, almost waived my ability to raise those issues on appeal. Even more disturbing is the fact Jeffrey Stratman was not appointed as my appellate lawyer until November 1, 2011. On November 3, 2011, Mr. Stratman acknowledged he knew nothing about my case because Mr. Stratman stated he was unaware if I could either read or write.

“If you cannot read or write and are reviewing this letter with assistance from someone, please try to notify me somehow and I will try to schedule an earlier teleconference to explain the case to you.” This is an excerpt from a letter I received from Jeffrey Stratman dated November 3, 2011. Mr. Stratman also stated, “I will generally do very little to prepare a case for the appeal prior to receiving the transcripts.” Despite the fact Jeffrey Stratman was not appointed until 11/1/11 and, as of 11/3/11, he was unaware of the nature of my case because Mr. Stratman was unsure if I could read or write, Dearborn County Superior court No. 2 court reporter Barbara Ruwe claimed that on or about 10/24/11, she and Jeffrey Stratman came to a “verbal” agreement not to follow the terms of the original notice of appeal. No motions, formal letters, or any written record of the change; just a “verbal discussion.”

It is frightening to know the extent of the corruption that runs rampant in Dearborn County. Either the Dearborn County Superior Court No. 2 appointed a lawyer to represent me who tried to waive appealable issues without having any knowledge of my case, without ever speaking to me, or court reporter Barbara Ruwe lied to the Indiana Court of Appeals about her unwritten agreement with Jeffrey Stratman to exclude documents that are critical to my appeal. A complaint to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission against Jeffrey Stratman would determine if Mr. Stratman’s actions were truly negligent or if Dearborn Superior Court No. 2 court reporter Barbara Ruwe lied to the Indiana Court of Appeals in a malicious attempt to obstruct justice in my case. If Barbara Ruwe is guilty of trying to sabotage my appeal, I highly doubt she was acting alone. Until it is determined whether the claims of Barbara Ruwe are truthful, anyone doing business with Dearborn Superior Court No. 2 should be very leery of its court reporting practices. People should also steer clear of legal services provided by Dearborn County lawyer, Jeffrey Stratman, until it is verified that Barbara Ruwe was lying about Mr. Stratman’s legal services being reckless and negligent.

Petition for Bail Pending Appeal... Denied

An update on Dan's case:

Petition for Bail Pending Appeal

Corrected Memorandum in Support of Bail Pending Appeal

Order denying Petition for Bail Pending Appeal

It's Part of My Heritage

Maybe my Aunt Martha is on to something. My father’s sister sent me copies of memoirs written by a relative of mine, Daniel J. Hancock. The memoirs composed in 1900 and 1908 indicate that some of my family has a history of being imprisoned and/or being threatened with imprisonment for not following “the law.” It appears I may have a genetic “flaw” which causes me to stand strong behind my beliefs and convictions.
Daniel J. Hancock’s memoirs recollect his family history from their move from Snow Hill, Maryland in 1818. Hancock, whose Aunt Elizabeth (Hancock) married Elijah Brewington, told of 17 family members and 3 “negroes” (Prior to leaving Snow Hill, father William Hancock “gave all negroes all their freedom,) (all that would accept it), before leaving Maryland, and those that came out refused to be separated from the family.”) travelling by land from Snow Hill to Brownsville, PA, “and then purchased a flat boat on which the wagons, horses, and all other property, were embarked and floated down the Monongela River, to the Ohio River, thence down the Ohio to Cincinnati, and after remaining a few days then decided to locate in Dearborn County, Indiana, and disembarked at Aurora and located at Wilmington.” Hancock’s first mention of a family member running into legal problems was that of his grandfather Daniel Hancock. “Grandfather Daniel Hancock was a Baptist preacher and the negro, James, was his body-servant, who often related to me his adventures with Grandfather on his preaching circuits, and ministering to his bodily wants when in prison for preaching in Virginia, contrary to the law which only permitted ministers of the established church (Episcopalian) to preach.” Grandfather Daniel Hancock did not enjoy the First Amendment right to freedom of religion because the Constitutional right had yet to be established in the United States. Over 200 years prior to being convicted of exercising my First Amendment right to free speech, my relatives were First Amendment trailblazers.
Daniel J. Hancock’s first formal education came in a school his father William helped build in 1826. The schoolhouse my relative helped build in Wilmington (outside of Aurora) was one of the first schools to be constructed in Dearborn County, Indiana. When farm duties prevented young Daniel from attending school, he began borrowing books from “Mr. Harris of Aurora,” who had a large library.
In 1833, at the age of fifteen, Daniel left the farm to “commence merchandising” for his father “and at 17 did most of the buying and was sent South to sell the produce taken down in flat boats, and for three years spent six months of each year South (as far as New Orleans) and one month East, buying goods, the other four months selling goods and collecting.” In 1839, Daniel was stricken with yellow fever and was “not capable of active outdoor life for more than a year.” In that time he began “reading Law and commenced the practice of law in 1841.
In 1846, Daniel left Dearborn County to settle in St. Louis. Daniel’s father did not agree to accompany him to St. Louis because William was not “content to dwell in a slave state, after having removed from one.” Daniel wrote, “Father seemed to have something like a forecast of the coming slavery troubles and was extremely desirous that I should keep out of the hands of what he called “iniquitous human bondage.” He noted, “After my arrival at St. Louis, and witnessing the sale of, and separation of families of negroes at auction at the East door of the Court House I was forcibly reminded of Father’s oft predictions that the “Lord had a day of reckoning in store for our nation.” Daniel’s views on race would subject him to threats of fines and imprisonment.
“The negroes had a Baptist Church on Almond Street.” “I was a teacher in this school for two years, and soon after I began teaching was waited upon a constable named Maxwell, who asked me if I was aware that I was violating the laws of Missouri and liable to fine and imprisonment, to whom I replied I could not think it possible any such law could exist in Christian America, and at his solicitation accompanied him to his office and then read the law in the Statutes of the State. I said to him, “Mr. Maxwell, I am obeying the laws of God in teaching the Gospel to the negroes and shall not desist, so if you think proper, prosecute me for it.” Daniel Hancock stood firm in his convictions and did not cower to threats of prosecution. He went on to write, “I was not, however molested.”
Daniel Hancock’s work with African-Americans would continue through the Civil War. “About 1848 another African Baptist Church was organized on Morgan near Ninth street, and I was given charge of the Sunday School and continued with the school for nearly twenty years, and have always regarded this work with the negroes as the most profitable part of my Church work in St. Louis.”
Daniel J. Hancock wasn’t only courageous in his stance on African-Americans, during the Asiatic Cholera outbreak in 1850 & 1851, he sent his family to Indiana while he “stayed throughout the entire time of the scourge, attending almost every night on the sick and was mercifully preserved from even a tendency of an attack, though [he] was frequently nursing those attacked, a number of whom died.” He also “did much transportation for the Government during the war, both of troops and army stores and lost three steamboats while doing such services.” Hancock’s efforts help secure St. Louis for the Union.
Over two centuries and several generations since Daniel Hancock was imprisoned for preaching the Baptist faith in Virginia during the latter part of the 1700’s another Daniel sits in prison for exercising his First Amendment right in speaking out against the family court system. Over 150 years after Daniel J. Hancock told law enforcement officials to prosecute him for teaching African-Americans, Daniel Brewington sits in prison because he encouraged Dearborn County officials to prosecute him if they felt his opinions were not protected by the First Amendment. I can’t help but ponder what might have happened if Daniel J. Hancock decided to stay in Dearborn County and continue to practice law. Maybe Dearborn County officials would have been able to comprehend the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the Untied States of America
I want to thank Aunt Martha for sending me the memoirs of Daniel J. Hancock. (Also a big thanks to Uncle Bob who has trekked many a church, library and cemetery, with his wife, in search of genealogy of my father’s family.) I would also like to advise Aunt Martha and Uncle Bob not to travel to Dearborn County because now they are probably wanted for questioning in their roll of conspiring to assist me with blogging material. Maybe it’s genetic or maybe, as Aunt Martha suggested, just a coincidence, but I hope Daniel J. Hancock’s memoirs and this blog help demonstrate the absurd and repressive nature of the modern Dearborn County government and the duty of individuals to stand strong against challenges to civil rights.

Judge Brian Hill Threatened Sue Brewington with Contempt of Court

Judge Brian Hill Threatened Sue Brewington with Contempt of Court

A couple of weeks ago, someone suggested to my mom, Sue Brewington, that she make a public records request for the audio from the hearings/proceedings of my criminal trial. On January 12, 2012, Sue personally delivered a written public records request to the Office of the Dearborn County Superior Court II, Judge Sally Blankenship. On Saturday, January 14, 2012, Sue received an order from Judge Brian Hill. The order stated Sue was allowed to obtain the public records. Judge Hill’s order threatened Sue Brewington with criminal contempt if she shared the public records with any other member of the public. (See #4 in the order)

“The release of these audio records is hereby specifically limited to the personal review of said recordings to Sue A. Brewington.” “The recipient Sue A. Brewington is barred from broadcasting or any way publishing these recordings in any manner. Violation of this order may result in contempt proceedings.” The same judge who sentenced me to prison for intimidation is the same judge who is threatening Sue Brewington in an attempt to intimidate her from sharing public records with other members of the public.

Judge Hill’s “ruling” is disturbing because it discriminates against my family. Anyone is entitled to the audio from my criminal trial; Judge Hill just decided to set the precedence that each member of the public had to receive the public records through the Dearborn County Superior Court II and not from another member of the public; especially Sue Brewington. Judge Hill’s “ruling” basically states that every U.S. citizen is entitled to the court audio from the criminal trial of Dan Brewington but Judge Brian Hill has decided to force every U.S. citizen who is interested in reviewing the audio from my trial to pay Dearborn County for the right to listen to the public records and to wait an estimated 30 days for their public records request to be processed. If Judge Hill fails to place the broadcasting/publishing restrictions on future public requests for my trial audio, then it will prove that Judge Hill’s ruling on my mother’s public record request was discriminatory and threatening. If Judge Hill continues to rule that every U.S. citizen who is interested in obtaining the audio from the public record of my trial, then Judge Hill is effectively placing a public tax on acquiring public records in my case.

The record of my case is no different than thousands of other criminal cases. Aside from issuing a gag order or sealing records, trial records are public record. The premise of releasing public records is to promote transparency in efforts to maintain checks and balances on government. The public is entitled to acquire and share documents from my trial. The public is free to do the same with transcripts from the hearings. The public was free to sit in on the hearings and listen to witnesses and the overall court proceedings. Now Judge Brian Hill doesn’t want the public to have the same access to the audio. Judge Hill threatened Sue Brewington with contempt if she shared the audio from my trial; even with people who attended the original proceedings. What does Judge Hill and Dearborn County have to hide? Are the transcripts accurate? Is the court audio incriminating? Is Judge Hill claiming to “protect” the alleged victims in the case? If so, does he protect all victims in criminal trials when it comes to the release of public records or just judges and officers of the Court? Judge Hill sentenced me to prison for blogging “too much” about public officials. He said I was a bad candidate for probation because I would probably blog about the probation department. Judge Hill threatened to jail Sue Brewington if she shared public records from the trial. Judge Hill’s record of protecting public officials while disregarding constitutional rights is distressing, but it appears that Judge Brian Hill is threatening members of my family with criminal contempt in an effort to stifle free speech.

If you feel strongly about free speech, access to public records, please download a copy of Sue's public records request and mail the request to the address on the form. If Judge Hill fails to respond to new requests in the same manner as he did in the first order to Sue Brewington, it will only further demonstrate his discriminatory practices and disdain for the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Thank you for your support.

"Frivolous Lawsuit," Eagle Country News Reports

“Frivolous Lawsuit” Eagle Country News Report.
The website of Eagle Country Radio 99.3 listed my story as its number five news story of 2011. I have followed the Eagle News stories throughout my incarceration and have found the reporting to be fairly unbiased but not entirely accurate; though the misleading information may not have been a result of bad reporting, just bad sources.
The Eagle Country 99.3 website reported that a federal civil rights lawsuit, filed on my behalf, against Dearborn County and other individuals was dismissed as being frivolous, which is unequivocally false. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice upon motion by my lawyer, Robert Kelly. Either Eagle Country made a mistake in their reporting or someone lied to them. Civil Rights lawsuits against government officials cannot be dismissed as being frivolous on the surface. In my suit against the County and some of its agents, people like Judge Humphrey and Prosecutor Negangard do not have the ability to claim that a lawsuit against them is frivolous prior to any hearings or fact finding. It would make it nearly impossible for any civil rights lawsuit against government officials to prevail if the official only needed to resort to a “frivolous” defense claim. The United States Supreme Court has not issued a rubber stamp ruling or opinion on such a defense. Why would the courts and law libraries of the United States be filled with intricate findings in the rulings of civil rights cases if judges were allowed to toss suits based on simple “frivolous” arguments by the defense? However, courts may dismiss suits if the Plaintiff fails to cite a violation of civil law or if a suit is brought against someone who enjoys absolute immunity from civil action; like a judge.
Now before the detractors rush out and start blogging about how I admitted that I can’t sue Judge James D. Humphrey in a civil court, I want to make it clear that I never named Judge James D. Humphrey, in his professional capacity, as a defendant in a civil law suit; only the private citizen, Mr. James D. Humphrey. Judge Humphrey has the ability to victimize children and families in the domestic courts while enjoying absolute immunity from any civil responsibility. Judge Humphrey can hide behind his black robe while violating my Fourteenth Amendment right to be a parent. Unfortunately Mr. James D. Humphrey does not enjoy the same immunities as his judicial counterpart as defending public criticism does not fall under the judicial capacity of Judge James D. Humphrey.
“This was sick revenge dragging my wife and kids into the matter,” Humphrey said during his testimony. “I don’t know of many cases where a subject has more clearly expressed his intent to do harm.” These statements as reported in the Eagle’s October 25, 2011 story is exactly why James Humphrey is named as a defendant in a civil rights case. This is coming from a man with over two decades of service as a judge and prosecutor. Despite the fact that my writings contained no threats of illegal harm or conduct, Humphrey testified that my case surpasses nearly all of the murder, rape, assault, stalking, harassment, and other intimidations cases he has come across over the past twenty plus years when it comes to an expression of intent to do harm. I never involved his, nor anyone else’s children in the matter. James Humphrey involved his children when he contacted their schools because I blogged too much about their father. I spoke generally about Humphrey being a family man and having the opportunity to enjoy spending time with his children and grandchildren. (I overestimated Humphrey’s age when I assumed he had grandchildren.) The first specific mention of his two sons in my case did not come until Prosecutor Negangard sought a restraining order against me and placed the names and ages of Humphrey’s children on the order. I was ordered to stay away from people who I did not know existed. As for the wife of James Humphrey, Heidi Humphrey was listed as a public official by the website for the Indiana Supreme Court. Heidi Humphrey involved herself in judicial activities when she became an advisor to the Judicial Ethics and Professionalism Committee of the Indiana Supreme Court. She claimed she didn’t recall serving on the committee. I wonder how it would fly if someone testified in Judge Humphrey’s court that they could not remember being in a gang? “Sorry for the misunderstanding sir. You’re free to go.” Ignorance seems to be a defense reserved for his wife.
The October 25, 2011 article on the Eagle website justifies my federal lawsuit. The website quotes Dr. Sara Jones-Connor as saying “For over four years we have dealt with his attacks on a daily basis.” Dr. Edward J. Connor condemned my family for supporting my “harmful views.” What is worthy to note is Dr. Jones-Connor lied under oath about how long I had been expressing my views and at no point in the trial did anyone offer any evidence to disprove my views and opinions. The fact that Dr. Connor acknowledged my family supported my public opinions demonstrates how the criminal action was brought to undermine my First Amendment rights. Since the Connor’s and Humphrey’s realized they would lose if they brought a civil libel/defamation suit against me, they utilized the Dearborn County criminal justice system to conspire to deprive me of my civil rights. “Nothing that has been done has stopped Dan Brewington in his attacks on Dr. Connor and Judge Humphrey”, Negangard echoed. “He needs a sentence that demonstrates the severity of his actions.” Translation – Dan Brewington will not cease exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and he should be given a severe prison sentence for continuing to exercise his constitutional rights. To this date, no one has ordered or even asked me to stop writing. Why? It would constitute prior restraint of free speech; a violation of the United States Constitution. No civil or criminal court order demanding me to stop; just a five year prison sentence punishing me for my political and social opinions.
That’s why a federal civil rights lawsuit cannot be dismissed with simple “frivolous” claim. I would hope Eagle Country will address the error and question who made the false statement. As it appears that the Dearborn County Register/Birdcage liner operates out of the Dearborn County Prosecutor’s office, Eagle Country 99.3 seems to be the only credible news source in Dearborn County. Hopefully Eagle Country will have the courage to take county officials to task for constitutional violations. Unfortunately for all media groups and public voices who criticize Dearborn county officials, their speech is only as free as Judge Humphrey and Prosecutor Negangard allow it to be. That’s why Eagle Country and the other county news organizations should take great interest in the re-filing of my civil rights lawsuit because if I fail, they will only be able to report the news as Negangard sees fit.