Brewington files Motion for Summary Judgment due to Altered Grand Jury Audio

The following is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the case of Daniel Brewington v. Dearborn Superior Court II and Judge Brian Hill. Brewington’s motion seeks judgment claiming the material facts of the case are indisputable and Brewington is entitled to relief base on the facts presented. The Dearborn Superior Court II failed to release the entire audio record of the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington, which the Indiana Public Access Counselor deemed a releasable public record. The Dearborn Superior Court II altered the official audio grand jury proceedings as the Superior Court II omitted the entire record of the grand jury proceedings prior to witness testimony. Chief Court reporter Barbara Ruwe’s transcription of the grand jury proceedings differs from the audio of the proceedings. The most significant irrefutable fact addressed in Brewington’s petition is any attempt by the Defendants to argue the grand jury audio is unaltered and complete serves as an admission of criminal conduct by several Dearborn County Officials. For these and other reasons, the only remedy for Brewington is for an order demanding that the Dearborn Superior Court II release the entire unedited audio record from the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington.

Feel free to view the entire written content of Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment places Indiana Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry in the position to argue Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and the Dearborn Superior Court II selectively recorded the grand jury proceedings to assist the prosecution of Brewington or that the Dearborn Superior Court II erased portions of the grand jury audio. See below to read the motion without exhibits and appendix.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA

DANIEL BREWINGTON,

            Plaintiff,

v.

DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT II

JUDGE BRIAN HILL

            Defendants.

)

)

)           Case No. 15001-1607-PL050

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Daniel Brewington (“Brewington”) files this MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT against Defendants Dearborn Superior Court II (“DSC”) and Special Judge Brian Hill (“Hill”) in accordance with Indiana Trial Rules of Trial Procedure and in support as follows.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

1.            “Grand Jury Audio” as discussed in Brewington’s Motion for Summary Judgment refers to the audio record from the grand jury investigation of Daniel P. Brewington, which took place on February 28, 2011, March 1, 2011, and March 2, 2011.

2.            On July 14, 2016, Brewington filed his pro se COMPLAINT UNDER INDIANA ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (“APRA”) AND FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF seeking said audio per the advice of the Indiana Public Access Counselor (“PAC”).

3.            In a letter dated July 14, 2016 (postmarked July 15, 2016) Chief Court Reporter for DSC Barbara Ruwe (“Ruwe”) informed Brewington the audio disc containing the Grand Jury Audio was available at a cost of $300.00. A copy of Ruwe’s letter attached hereto as “Exhibit A”. [Ruwe’s letter claims Brewington never confirmed he wanted copies of the grand jury audio, despite Brewington sending three letters to Ruwe dated May 23, 2016, May 23, 2016, and July 5, 2016. Ruwe also estimated the costs of preparing the audio to be $150 - $300 despite the audio files already being prepared. See “Appendix I” for copies of Brewington’s letters to Ruwe as well as information regarding how the DSC altered the official record of the grand jury audio prior to Brewington receiving the DSC order to release the audio.

4.            Brewington obtained a CD-R allegedly containing the Grand Jury Audio on July 19, 2016. A copy of CD-R containing Grand Jury Audio attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.

5.            Review of the Grand Jury Audio establishes the Dearborn County Superior Court II altered the grand jury audio, thus obstructing public access to the official record of the proceedings.

FACTS SURROUNDING THE INCOMPLETE RECORD

6.            It should first be noted that Hill and the DSC were both aware that the written transcription of the grand jury proceedings in question were incomplete and non-compliant with IC 35-34-2-3(d), yet took no action to address the issue. To the contrary, rather than investigate why Ruwe custom tailored the transcription of the grand jury record that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard (“Negangard”) submitted to the trial court during a hearing on August 17, 2011, the Defendants continued to generate excuses as to why release of the official audio is not appropriate. The Defendants have also failed to provide any explanation for Ruwe making unauthorized changes to the official record of a grand jury investigation.

7.            Failure to order the release of an unaltered copy of the official audio record of the grand jury record removes what few safeguards are available to the public against abuses of the grand jury process.

8.            The audio sought is a public record subject to release per the Office of the Public Access Counselor.

9.            There is no order by any court of law authorizing the omission or redaction of any material from the record of the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington.

10.         There are no marked redactions in the transcription of the grand jury audio. A digital copy of transcripts attached hereto as “Exhibit C”.

11.         The audio is not [emphasis added] a copy of the official audio record. The DSC omitted all audio in the grand jury proceedings that occurred prior to witness testimony.

12.         The DSC changed the format of the original audio files, deleted file names and then combined and renamed the larger audio files. “Exhibit D” is a copy of the audio from regular court proceedings occurring on September 19, 2011 and October 24, 2011 in the Dearborn Superior Court II. See “Appendix II” for an explanation of the varying recording methods used by the DSC.   

13.         There are statements in the transcripts that do not appear in the audio, which means Ruwe added additional content while transcribing the record or the DSC omitted portions of the audio that were previously available during transcription. See “Appendix III”

14.         In one instance of where the DSC edited the grand jury audio to match the transcripts from the same proceedings, the DSC removed over five minutes of audio, despite the transcripts portraying the dialogue on either side of the omitted audio to be uninterrupted. See “Appendix IV” for an explanation of how the DSC omitted portions of the grand jury proceedings by cutting and pasting the official record.

15.         In an order dated April 20, 2016, Hill stated, “It is the Court's understanding that the Grand Jury impaneled for this matter also heard evidence in four to five other Grand Jury proceedings during this time, often going back and forth between all of the cases. The audio recordings being released shall contain only the matter regarding Daniel Brewington and no other Grand Jury proceedings.” Regardless of Hill’s order, the court reporter does not have the authority to make arbitrary alterations to the official record of a legal proceeding.

16.         Despite the claims of Hill and the DSC, there are no other grand jury proceedings intertwined with Brewington’s proceedings because the audio is void of Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard (“Negangard”) making any mention of being “back on record” in the investigation of Brewington. See “Appendix IV” for a table documenting how the DSC allows Negangard to disappear and reappear on the official grand jury record without notice.

17.         In Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (2014), current Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush wrote that during trial, “the prosecutor argued two grounds for Defendant's convictions, one entirely permissible (true threat) and one plainly impermissible (‘criminal defamation’ without actual malice). See Tr. 455-56.” at 973. The DSC omitted the true threat instruction from the grand jury record and only included the “plainly impermissible (‘criminal defamation’ without malice)” instruction. The Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor instructed Brewington to rely entirely on the grand jury transcripts in order to subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial testing, while withholding the constitutionally permissible grounds for prosecution. Negangard and the DSC allowed Brewington’s public defender to prepare a defense against a prosecutorial argument that both Negangard and the DSC knew, or should have known, was “plainly impermissible.”

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE

18.         “Summary judgment is appropriate only where the designated evidence shows there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T.R. 56(C). For summary judgment purposes, a fact is ‘material’ if it bears on the ultimate resolution of relevant issues.” Sony Dadc U.S. Inc. v. Thompson, 84A01-1507-CT-892 (July 13, 2016)

19.         Over twenty [20] days have expired since the commencement of the above action, per Trial Procedure Rule 56(a)

Any arguments against the above declarations requires the admission of Defendant’s illegal conduct

20.          An attempt to dispute this Motion for Summary Judgment places Defendants’ Counsel, Deputy Attorney General Joshua R. Lowry, in a precarious situation because Lowry must argue his clients, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, and possibly others engaged in a conspiracy to deprive civil rights.

21.          No judge authorized the modification of the grand jury record during Brewington’s proceedings.

22.         Any contention that Hill’s April 20, 2016 order gave Ruwe the authority to arbitrarily modify the official audio from the grand jury audio in copying the official record is an oxymoron as the copy is no longer “official”.

23.         Hill and the DSC cannot encroach on the public’s right to access public records by simply claiming non-releasable records are intertwined with otherwise releasable records. The DSC cannot deny access to public records due to incompetence by the DSC court reporter’s failure to hit “stop” and “record” between any alleged unrelated grand jury proceedings, which would have automatically created separate digital files.

24.         The grand jury record shows Negangard instructing the grand jury that Negangard and his staff believed Brewington violated Indiana’s intimidation statute by making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated statements” about officials operating within the Dearborn County Court System, which the Indiana Supreme Court deemed to be an unconstitutional prosecutorial argument. The DSC excluded the “true threat” instruction given to the grand jury and forced Brewington to trial in the absence of any “true threat” accusation.

25.         Any claim Ruwe received judicial approval to modify the grand jury record would have been ex parte in nature. Such order could have only come from Judge Sally McLaughlin (“McLaughlin”) or Hill. An ex parte order limiting a criminal defendant’s access to charging information would amount to a conspiracy by the DSC and Negangard to sabotage a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

26.         Any argument by the Deputy Attorney General that the audio is complete acknowledges a conscious effort between Negangard and Ruwe to selectively record only portions of the official proceeding that Negangard deemed “beneficial” to the record. In the alternative, Negangard initiated a grand jury investigation and obtained indictments against Brewington under an unconstitutional criminal defamation premise then introduced an entirely different prosecutorial argument during trial, thus obliterating any potential defense by Brewington.

27.         Any contention the audio is complete also acknowledges the DSC employs a different process of recording grand jury proceedings than trial proceedings, which fails to meet the requirements of IC 35-34-2-3(d): “The evidence and proceedings shall be recorded in the same manner as evidence and proceedings are recorded in the court that impaneled the grand jury.” The official record in any DSC proceeding does not begin at witness testimony and includes all dialogue between the prosecutor, judge, and members of the jury, unlike the grand jury record in question.

28.         An argument that the audio is complete also implicates Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop in misconduct, as Kreinhop was the witness before the grand jury in the timeframe spanning the five minutes of grand jury audio removed by the DSC. If the audio record is complete, Sheriff Kreinhop observed Negangard eliciting questions from jurors for Sheriff Kreinhop off the record and then instructing Ruwe to begin recording the proceedings at Prosecutor Negangard’s discretion; giving the appearance in the transcription that the questions appeared in real-time. The record of the grand jury proceedings demonstrate how Sheriff Kreinhop touted his experience as a law-enforcement officer and experience with the court system to assist Negangard in seeking indictments against Brewington; however, that experience would also make Kreinhop aware of the criminal aspect of a court reporter selectively recording grand jury proceedings to assist future prosecutions.   

NO ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE

29.         This Motion for Su­­mmary Judgment has established the DSC withheld an unknown amount of the audio from the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington.

30.         There is no “greater-good” standard in the State of Indiana that allows a public agency to secretly alter and/or withhold portions of public records while simultaneously maintaining the records to be complete.

31.         The record of the grand jury proceeding is void of any indication of “four to five” other intervening grand jury proceedings as claimed by Hill and the DSC. Such claim requires a declaration on record of the present case being presented to the grand jury. The absence of such declaration makes it impossible to determine the target of the grand jury investigation at any given time, thus reducing the accuracy of any transcription, not to mention potential confusion to grand jurors. 

32.         Placing any further trust in Hill and the DSC to accurately represent the grand jury record maintained by the DSC is akin to placing Bernie Madoff in charge of auditing his own investment practices in the criminal investigation of Madoff’s investment fraud.  

33.         The only means to determine whether the DSC withheld portions of the grand jury audio or whether Ruwe selectively recorded the proceedings at the direction of Negangard, is to release the entire unedited record.

34.         Anything short of an order demanding the release of the audio in its original format, gives the DSC another opportunity to obstruct the release of records from a grand jury investigation where Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process in order to punish protected speech. Unless this Court wishes to accept the notion that the Dearborn County Superior Court II is exempt from maintaining a record of the entire grand jury process (minus deliberations) as required by Indiana law, the Dearborn Superior Court II sponsors unconstitutional and illegal grand jury investigations.

35.         Given the criminal nature associated with altering grand jury records, First Amendment retaliation, and the actions by Hill and the DSC to obstruct public inquiry into such actions, a potential conflict may arise with the Office of the Indiana Attorney General serving as counsel for the Defendants. Deputy Attorney General Joshua R. Lowry is faced with the potential conflict of representing the Defendants in a civil case where the existence of criminal conduct by the Defendants, or at least known by the Defendants, is likely, thus jeopardizing the ability of the Indiana Attorney General to investigate the matter. The best-case scenario in this situation is Ruwe and Negangard conspired to produce a partial record of a grand jury proceeding to advance the prosecution of protected speech. The worst-case scenario is Judge Brian Hill and Judge Sally McLaughlin (formerly Blankenship) played an active role in the First Amendment retaliation and then actively obstructed the public’s access to the audio from the grand jury proceedings to cover-up the illegal conduct.

36.         Defendants have a history of referring to alleged paranoia and Brewington’s criminal convictions rather than addressing the above issues. Brewington’s requests for the grand jury audio came as a member of the public. Brewington only raises the issue of his criminal proceedings as they are relevant to this request and Brewington’s above statements are far from baseless or excessive suspicions given the unauthorized modifications to the official record of the grand jury proceeding. Rather than listen to Defendants’ allegations of perceived paranoia or ulterior motives, Brewington requests this Court to keep the Defendants’ focus on issues relevant to this cause of action, such as the DSC making unauthorized modifications to the official record of grand jury proceedings.

Remedy

37.         Brewington seeks disclosure of an unedited copy of the Official Audio Record from the Grand Jury proceedings relating to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084.

38.         Brewington requests all fees and expenses associated with bringing this action.

WHEREFORE, Brewington requests that this Court: (1) issue Summary Judgment in Brewington’s favor declaring that the DSC failed to comply with the laws of the State of Indiana and the rules and procedures defined by the APRA; (2) enter an injunction ordering the Court Reporter of the Dearborn Superior Court II to promptly produce the entire unedited audio record (in its original format) of the Grand Jury Proceedings relating to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084; (3) award Brewington any attorneys’ fees and costs in prosecuting this action; and (4) award Brewington any other appropriate relief.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

Daniel P. Brewington

3 W Central Avenue

Delaware, Ohio 43015

contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

Judge Sally McLaughlin's Court Altered Grand Jury Audio

Part 1 of a two blog series on tampering grand jury audio.

Judge Sally A. McLaughlin
Superior Court IIDearborn County Indiana

The recent release of grand jury audio by the Dearborn Superior Court II (“Court”), under Judge Sally A. McLaughlin, provides conclusive evidence that the Court altered grand jury records, renamed audio files, while billing Dan Brewington for expenses incurred by the Court in altering grand jury audio. The Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor, under Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard, made Brewington the target of a grand jury investigation just five days after the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed a complaint against Negangard that was filed by Brewington. Brewington became the target of a grand jury investigation for making “unsubstantiated statements” on the internet about Dearborn County Court Officials filed by Brewington. During Brewington’s trial, the Court and Prosecution provided Brewington with only the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings to determine what aspects of Brewington’s conduct that the Prosecution alleged to be unlawful while knowing the Court altered the records of the grand jury proceedings.

It is important to note that the grand jury audio begins at witness testimony as Judge McLaughlin’s Court omitted Negangard’s introduction to the grand jury from the audio record. The following excerpt from the grand jury transcripts by Prosecutor Negangard is just one example of where the Court altered the record of the grand jury proceedings. The statements in question allegedly occurred on March 1, 2011, in the closing moments of the second day of the grand jury investigation of Brewington. Page 336, lines 23-25 of the grand jury transcripts represent Negangard stating,

“I don't have any further questions at this time. Okay one of the Grand Jurors has a question for Sheriff Krieinhop.”

At first glance, nothing seems out of the ordinary; however, the transcripts fail to show that Negangard’s second statement comes from a later point in the proceedings. The following visual provides insight into one section of the altered record:

The box in the lower left hand corner shows Negangard’s statements as they appear in the transcripts but Negangard’s second statement exists in a separate audio file later in time. The green audio frequency wave represents a real time account of Negangard’s statements, with one exception. For the purpose of this demonstration, the two separate audio files received from the Court were spliced “as-is” to match Negangard’s dialogue in the transcripts. The placement of Negangard’s spoken words is where the individual words appear in the appropriate digital wavelength. As shown in the diagram, approximately 19 seconds of ambient noise occupy the space between Negangard’s statements. The circled point represents the point where the two audio files are spliced. The transcripts give no indication of the 19-second gap in the audio demonstrated in the wavelength above. Neither the transcripts nor the digital representation of the audio give any indication that the Court secretly removed at least one entire audio file existing in the 19-seconds of silence between Negangard’s two statements. 

Here is where it gets a little technical. Though the file structure is not rocket science, it is impossible to prove Judge McLaughlin’s Court altered the audio without figuring out the file naming structure of the court recording system. In reviewing audio files from public court proceedings, the audio recording systems in place for court reporting in Dearborn County Courts automatically store audio from court proceedings in individual five-minute files. In addition, the date and time are included in the automated file naming process. If an hour-long hearing occurs in the Superior Court II on July 4, 2016 at 10:00am, the first audio file name would include “Superior 2_20160704_1000”. In five minutes, the recording system automatically creates a new audio file, which would include “Superior 2_20160704_1005” in the following new file name. Every five minutes the name changes with the time: 1010, 1015, 1020 and so on. If you request public trial audio from a specific date, the court will provide a CD-R with similarly named five-minute files. When the Indiana Public Access Counsel issued his opinion (April 14, 2016) in favor of releasing the grand jury audio, the Court filed an order to release an edited version of the grand jury audio. The Court’s April 20, 2016 order made a new allegation that the audio of “four to five” other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with Brewington’s proceedings. Due to the new claim of confidential grand jury audio allegedly intertwined with Brewington’s grand jury proceedings, the Court’s order directed McLaughlin’s court reporter to edit the grand jury audio to include only portions of audio pertaining to Brewington. The Court changed the file format of the audio to an editable .wav file and combined the individual audio files. When the Court combined audio files, it retained the file name of the first audio file in the compilation. When the Court cut out segments of the audio, it began a new compilation of audio files and retained the name of the next audio segment that the Court decided to include in the "official" record. Negangard's statement on line 23 is the last statement appearing on the file named “Superior 2_20110301-1606_01cbd82ab1003d00”. Negangard's statement appearing on line 24 is located in the file named “Superior 2_20110301-1622_01cbd82cedc39690”. The first file began at 16:06 (4:06 pm) and the second at 16:22 (4:22 pm). The length of the audio in the first file is 10 minutes and 36, which would end at roughly 16:17. The earliest point that Negangard's statement on line 24 could have occurred is at 16:22. The audio is void of Negangard making any verbal recognition of the beginning or end of the record. Because a gap of over five minutes exists between the two audio files, the Court deleted at least an entire audio file from the grand jury audio released to Brewington. A problem arises if Judge McLaughlin claims the audio files from the grand jury proceedings do not adhere to the five-minute file structure employed by normal record keeping by the Court. If McLaughlin contends that the Court has the ability to control the length of time by which files are stored simply by switching the recording on and off, any confidentiality concerns about intertwining grand jury investigations are rendered moot, because the audio from the other proceedings would be stored in their own individual files. The argument would completely debunk the Court’s rationalization for altering grand jury audio. The fact Judge McLaughlin’s Court did not physically splice the audio does not make the crime any less egregious. Not splicing the audio is far more insidious as only altering the grand jury transcripts requires a joint effort by the prosecutor and the court. The release of grand jury transcripts is extremely rare and the release of audio is almost unheard of. If not for the release of the grand jury audio and an understanding of the file structure produced by Dearborn County Court reporting, Negangard and McLaughlin could continue to abuse the grand jury process.

Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard
Dearborn County, Indiana

There should be little doubt as to whether Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard and Judge Sally A. McLaughlin are aware of the procedures involved with recording grand jury proceeding. For several years, Negangard served as Chief Deputy Prosecutor under McLaughlin until McLaughlin’s 2006 appointment to her current position of Superior Court II Judge, where Negangard was subsequently appointed take over McLaughlin’s position of Dearborn County Prosecutor. According to Negangard’s recent endorsement of Indiana Attorney General Candidate Curtis Hill, Negangard served as Chairman and President of both the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council and the Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council. In early 2016, McLaughlin went through the interview process as an applicant for a vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court. Any claim of ignorance about simple court reporting procedure is not a defense in this case.

This is Part 1 of a two-blog series on the analysis of the release of the grand jury audio. Part 2 takes aim at the conflicting orders and letters in the Court’s attempts to obstruct access to the tampered records. There are many other examples where the transcripts and audio do not match up. As the Dearborn County Superior Court II threatened to hold Brewington in contempt for sharing the grand jury audio (altered by the Superior Court II), the audio is not available online but may be shared with individuals who express interest via email. Feel free to contact Dan Brewington at contactdanbrewington@gmail.com with any questions or comments. Feel free to share with others, especially law enforcement. 

Brewington files Lawsuit Seeking Grand Jury Records

Dearborn County, Indiana – Convicted Blogger Files Civil Complaint seeking Grand Jury Audio. In a civil petition filed July 14, 2016, Dan Brewington of Cincinnati, Ohio named Special Judge Brian Hill and the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana as Defendants in a civil action seeking audio from grand jury proceedings in early 2011.  In the forty-four page “Complaint Under Indiana Access to Public Records Act ("APRA") and for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief,” Brewington alleges court officials failed to accurately transcribe the official record from a three-day grand jury investigation initiated by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. Transcripts indicate Negangard made Brewington the target of the grand jury investigation because Brewington made “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about Dearborn County Court Officials which ultimately led to indictments, conviction and a five-year prison sentence.  On April 14, 2016, the Office of the Indiana Public Access Counselor (“PAC”) issued an opinion in favor of releasing the audio. In an email dated May 6, 2016, the PAC advised Brewington to file suit against Judge Hill. Brewington’s petition includes several court orders dating back to January 2012 that provide conflicting reasons for denying access to the audio. Brewington's complaint alleges the prosecution instructed Brewington to rely on the "complete" transcription of the grand jury proceedings to determine the nature of the non-specific indictments, while knowing the transcripts were incomplete; hindering any opportunity for a fair trial. A hearing has not been set in the matter. 

Letter to Dearborn County Superior Court II Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe

Update: 3:40 PM

I accidentally attributed a quote to the wrong document from Special Judge Hill. Normally it would not be an issue but I do not want to give these officials any excuse to deny me access to information. I sent another letter to Dearborn Superior Court II Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe explaining the error. 

Re: Grand Jury Audio in Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084

May 23, 2016

Dearborn County, Indiana Superior Court II 

Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe

215 W High St

2nd Floor

Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

812.537.8800

Dear Ms. Ruwe,

I apologize for any potential confusion but this is the second of two letters, dated May 23, 2016. In referencing a quote by Special Judge Brian Hill in my previous letter, I accidently cited the wrong document from which the quote appeared. I stated the following in the first letter:

“Pursuant to the order of Special Judge Brian Hill order dated, April 20, 2016, I am interested in obtaining the audio record from the grand jury proceedings pertaining to Cause No. 15D02-1103-FD-00084; however, I am seeking clarification as to what information will be provided. Judge Hill’s order stated that I was entitled to receive ‘all audio recordings regarding your proceedings.’”

Though Judge Hill’s April 20, 2016 order authorized the release of the grand jury audio, the correct source of the quote is a letter I received from Special Judge Brian Hill, dated May 6, 2016 stating [Attached hereto]:

“Pursuant to the Court's Order following the opinion of the Public Access Counselor, you are entitled to receive all audio recordings regarding your proceedings.”

Sorry for any confusion but I am just seeking clarity in determining if you are providing me with all the audio from the entire grand jury proceeding or only the audio from which  transcripts of the proceedings. Regardless of which you provide, I still request the name of the entity responsible for authorizing the partial transcription of the official grand jury record.

A copy of this letter can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for your convenience. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Very truly yours, 

Daniel P. Brewington

contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

Attachments:

Judge Hill order filed April 20, 2016

Judge Hill letter dated May 6, 2016

Original letter to Barbara Ruwe dated May 23, 2016

_______________________________________________________________________

Original post

The following letter to Dearborn Superior Court II Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe simply asks whether she plans to provide me with all of the audio from my grand jury proceedings or only the portions of the audio represented by the incomplete transcription of the hearings. In addition, I requested the name of the authority authorizing the partial transcription of the grand jury proceedings that the prosecution represented as being complete. I'm not expecting an answer as either way acknowledges Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard withheld charging information from me prior to my criminal trial.

Re: Grand Jury Audio in Cause No. 15D02·1103·FD-00084

May 23, 2016

Dearborn County, Indiana Superior Court II
Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe
215 W High St
2nd Floor
Lawrenceburg, IN 4 7025
812.537.8800

Dear Ms. Ruwe,

Pursuant to the order of Special Judge Brian Hill order dated, April 20, 2016,
I am interested in obtaining the audio record from the grand jury proceedings
pertaining to Cause No. 15D02·1103-FD-00084; however, I am seeking clarification
as to what information will be provided. Judge Hill's order stated that I was entitled
to receive "all audio recordings regarding your proceedings." Will you be providing
only the portions of the audio transcribed for the criminal trial or will the audio also
include the audio record of all interaction between the prosecution and members of
the grand jury prior to witness testimony? Please pardon any confusion on the
matter but I was initially told the transcripts were complete. In addition, can you
please provide me with the name of the judge, or other authority, authorizing the
transcription of only certain segments of the grand jury record?

A copy of this letter can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com for
your convenience. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Very truly yours,

Daniel P. Brewington
contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

Easy 3 Step Process for Media of How To Uncover and Report Grand Jury Abuse Scandal in Dearborn County, Indiana

Are you a journalist looking for an investigative exposé piece involving a court reporter and county prosecutor fixing Grand Jury Records that includes a judicial cover-up? Well look no further. This isn’t a joke. It really is this easy.

STEP ONE: Read Judge Brian Hill’s order to release grand jury records following the Indiana Public Access Counselor’s advisory opinion stating Hill erred in denying requests for the grand jury audio. However, Hill’s order directs Dearborn Superior Court II court reporter Barbara Ruwe to not prepare exact copies of the audio from the criminal defamation grand jury investigation of Dan Brewington but gives Ruwe the authority to copy and paste the audio to recreate the record at Ruwe’s discretion. Despite already providing multiple excuses why not to release the audio behind the transcripts, Hill raises a new argument. Hill now claims the Court just became aware that the audio from Brewington’s proceedings also include Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard frequently switching between “four to five” other grand jury proceedings during the same period thus requiring Ruwe to cut and paste the from the original audio recording so the copy would only include audio from Brewington’s proceeding.

STEP TWO: Follow the link to an “official” transcription of the grand jury audio from Brewington’s grand jury proceedings certified by Barbara Ruwe. Hit “Ctrl F” and do a search for words like “record” or “Brewington case” or any similar words that demonstrate Negangard advising the grand jurors he was switching back to Brewington’s case. You will find no evidence of Negangard frequently switching back and forth from Brewington’s case. [Please note that the grand jury transcripts also begin at witness testimony and do not include a record of the actual beginning of the proceedings (introductions, instruction to grand jurors, etc.,) as required by law.]

STEP THREE: Fill in your name and contact information and submit the following public records request form to the Superior Court II in Dearborn County, Indiana. The form requests the entire unedited grand jury record relating to the case of the State of Indiana v Daniel Brewington. Listen to the audio and then report your findings. You’ve done it! It really is just that easy.

The above may sound like a cheesy “infomercial” but the apparent ease of the three-step process demonstrates how egregious the grand jury abuse actually is in Dearborn County, Indiana. In a hearing on August 17, 2011, Judge Hill admitted the transcripts from the audio into evidence so they are public record. If the audio matches the transcripts, it will prove that Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard omits the prosecution’s arguments to grand jurors from the official record, thus ignoring constitutional and Indiana law and giving Negangard a god-like ability before grand juries. If the audio does have the required opening of the grand jury, in the absence of the authority of any court (at least not official authority) Ruwe omitted the opening from the transcription of the grand jury while the prosecution represented the record as complete during trial. Now Hill is giving Ruwe the authority to “recreate” an official audio record that Ruwe failed to accurately transcribe from the beginning.

This is not an isolated incident as there is a pattern of abuse by Negangard involving grand jury proceedings. In an article by Mike Perleberg appearing on the website of Eagle Country News, Perleberg reported on a story involving a nurse indicted by Negangard for reckless homicide. Perleberg wrote, “After weeks of asking for the grand jury documents, Kathy Hess’ attorney requested a judge to order the state to share the documents with the defense. The judge granted that order, but it wasn’t until just days before the trial date that the documents were provided to the defense.” Negangard made Brewington a target of a grand jury investigation for what Negangard believed “over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements” against a Dearborn County judge and a professional psychological witness contracted by Negangard. Judge Brian Hill refused to continue Brewington’s trial while also failing to provide Brewington with a copy of the grand jury transcripts until less than two weeks before trial. The same transcripts that the prosecution stated Brewington could rely on for the specific charging information necessary to build a defense.

If you are a reporter interested in an easy investigation of abuses of the grand jury process, just follow the above instructions. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Dan Brewington

contactdanbrewington@gmail.com 

Indiana Public Officials who are aware of Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard's Grand Jury Abuse Scandal

People who know.

The following is a list of State and Local officials that I have mailed and/or emailed regarding Special Judge Brian Hill’s recent order for the Dearborn County (IN) Superior Court II implicating Dearborn CountyProsecutor F. Aaron Negangard in a grand jury abuse scandal. These officials are likely to be aware of the illegal conduct so feel free to contact me or any of these officials with questions or concerns. Please stay tuned as the list is growing….

Indiana Supreme Court

(Please note that Ms. Meiring is also aware of misconduct by former Indiana Supreme Court Applicant, Dearborn County Superior Court II Judge Sally McLaughlin as Ms. Meiring communicated with me via email.)

Adrienne Meiring, Counsel

Division of State Court

Administration

30 S. Meridian Street, Ste. 500

Indianapolis, IN 46204

adrienne.meiring@courts.in.gov

Pho: 317-232-4706

Fax: 317-233-6586

Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutors (Note paralegals were not contacted directly):

Joeseph Kisor, Chief Deputy Prosecutor

Mary Miller, Paralegal, (812) 532-2095

Cell: 812-584-2605 jkisor@dearbornohioprosecutor.com

Andrew Barde, Deputy Prosecutor

Amy Beckett, Paralegal, (812) 532-3209

Cell: 513-602-0321 abarde@dearbornohioprosecutor.com

Lynn Deddens, Deputy Prosecutor

Maria Bressert, Paralegal, (812) 532-2094

Cell: 513-967-0531 deddens@justice.com

Jeff Dornette, Deputy Prosecutor

Mary Miller, Paralegal, (812) 532-2095

jdornette@lycos.com

Daniel S. Carraway, Deputy Prosecutor

Tammi Richter, Paralegal, (812) 532-8861

Cell: 812-584-1527 dcarraway@dearbornohioprosecutor.com

Arnie McGill, Deputy Prosecutor

Debbie Granatir, Paralegal, (812) 532-3288

Dearborn County Commissioners

Lynch, Kevin Commissioner, District 1 klynch@dearborncounty.in.gov  812-537-8824

McHenry, Shane Commissioner, District 3 smchenry@dearborncounty.in.gov 812-537-8737

Little, Art Commissioner, District 2 alittle@dearborncounty.in.gov       812-537-8851

Hayden, Sue Administrative Assistant shayden@dearborncounty.in.gov 812-537-8894

Dearborn County Council

Liz Morris

County Council Member, District 1

Phone: 812-637-0522

Email: liz.morris210@gmail.com

Dan Lansing

County Council Member, District 2

Phone: 812-537-7041

Email: dlansing1967@yahoo.com

Ryan Brandt

County Council Member, District 3

Phone:

812-432-5482

Email: ryanbrandt78@yahoo.com

Dennis Kraus

County Council Member, District 4

Phone: 812-623-2320

Email: dmkraus@etczone.com

Allen Goodman

County Council Member, At Large

Email: awgoodman@fuse.net

Charley Keyes

County Council Member, At-Large

Phone812-747-7057Emailkeyescharles@comcast.net

Bill Ullrich

County Council Member, At-Large

Phone: 812-926-0575

Email: billullrich@embarqmail.com

Dearborn County Sheriff’s Department

Main phone: (812) 537-8700

Sheriff

Michael Kreinhop

Email: mkreinhop@dearborncounty.in.gov

Chief Deputy

David W. Lusby

Phone: (812) 532-2067

Email: dlusby@dearborncounty.in.gov

Major

Jack Prarat

Email: jprarat@dearborncounty.in.gov

Detective/Sgt

Barry Bridges

Email: bbridges@dearborncounty.in.gov

Detective/Sgt

John Vance

Email: jvance@dearborncounty.in.gov

CSI / Sgt

Wally Lewis

Email: wlewis@dearborncounty.in.gov

CSI/ Sgt

Steve Jackson

Email: sjackson@dearborncounty.in.gov

Court Ruling Implicates Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard in Grand Jury Abuse

Dearborn County, Indiana – In a recent court order from the Dearborn County Superior Court II, Special Judge Brian Hill ordered Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe to copy and paste portions the official audio from a grand jury investigation that took place on 2/28/11, 3/01/11, and 3/2/11. On 2/15/11, Dearborn Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard named Dan Brewington, of Norwood, Ohio (Cincinnati), a target of a grand jury investigation for criminal defamation arguing Brewington made (according to transcripts) “over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements” about Dearborn Court Officials. Brewington was named a target of the investigation just five days after the Indiana Supreme Court’s 2/10/11 dismissal of a complaint Brewington filed against Negangard. Brewington, whose story is featured in the documentary DivorceCorp currently on Netflix, was indicted, convicted, and served a 2.5 year prison sentence. Brewington is now crying foul and seeking access to the audio behind the grand jury transcripts submitted during Brewington’s trial claiming that the grand jury records were altered. After providing conflicting reasons why not to release the audio, Brewington filed a complaint to against Hill with the Office of the Indiana Public Access Counselor (PAC). The PAC’s advisory opinion agreed with Brewington that Judge Brian Hill erred in not ordering the release of the audio. Rather than provide the entire official audio record of the proceedings, in a filing dated 4/20/16, Judge Hill ordered Ruwe to cut and paste audio from Brewington’s three day grand jury proceeding. Hill ordered the reconstruction of the official record after an unnamed source advised Hill that Brewington’s grand jury “also heard evidence in four to five other Grand Jury proceedings during this time, often going back and forth between all of the cases” thus restricting the release of the audio to “only the matter regarding Daniel Brewington and no other Grand Jury proceedings.” In a recent blog on www.DanBrewington.blogspot.com, Brewington’s new request for public records allege the grand jury transcripts make no mention of Prosecutor Negangard instructing the grand jurors when he switched back and forth from Brewington’s case; making it impossible to determine whether Negangard presented unrelated evidence against Brewington, altered the grand jury record, or if the other grand jury proceedings ever took place. [Note: Transcripts from Brewington’s grand jury are void of any procedural instructions to jurors and demonstrate Negangard disappearing and reappearing from the record in the middle of witness testimony without explanation.] Transcripts from a 7/18/11 pretrial hearing in Brewington’s case show Deputy Prosecutor Kisor telling Judge Hill the prosecution would provide specific evidence of criminal activity if “particularly” requested by the court while advising Brewington’s attorney that the prosecution’s case relied on the complete transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. Now it appears the record that Kisor stated should form the foundation for building Brewington’s criminal defense was incomplete or altered from the beginning. As of the date of publication of this article, neither Negangard nor Hill have responded to Brewington’s latest request.