Chief Deputy Attorney General Negangard's Failing Grand Jury Conspiracy

The puzzle is finally coming together. In 2011, former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard made me the target of a grand jury investigation because of my writings criticizing officials operating within the Dearborn County Courts. The Dearborn Superior Court II under Judge Sally McLaughlin altered grand jury records to help Negangard obtain convictions. Luke Brit, the Indiana Public Access Counselor, issued an opinion stating the audio from my grand jury proceedings was a releasable public record. Judge Brian Hill, Special Judge for the Dearborn Superior Court II, issued an order to release the grand jury audio. Judge McLaughlin's staff released a copy of the audio containing LESS dialogue than the transcription of the investigation. Judge McLaughlin's court claimed other intertwining grand jury investigations made it necessary to alter the audio to prevent the release of audio from other investigations. The released audio lacks any content of the proceedings prior to witness testimony. Since McLaughlin's court claimed several investigations were intertwined on one audio record, it means that McLaughlin's court either intentionally omitted Negangard's introduction to the grand jurors or McLaughlin unlawfully withheld the information that was to be used during my trial and McLaughlin is now lying about it. Now everyone in Indiana seems to be fighting the release of a certified copy of the audio from the grand jury investigation; audio that the Dearborn Superior Court II already authorized to be released to me. Here's my latest filing in my public records lawsuit against the Dearborn Superior Court II. The Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is helping the fight against the release of the audio because Curtis Hill knows a certified copy of the grand jury audio will implicate Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard in a criminal conspiracy to maliciously prosecute free speech.

Special Judge W. Gregory Coy Admits to Dismissing My Post-Conviction Action for No Reason

It's true. Switzerland County, Indiana Judge W. Gregory Coy, Special Judge for the Dearborn County Superior Court II, just issued an order accidentally admitting that his reasoning behind his 2017 summary dismissal of my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was a complete fabrication.  Judge Coy's motivation is simple; he's trying to cover for Judge Sally McLaughlin's court staff altering grand jury records to help former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard obtain convictions in my case. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in my favor and remanded the case back for an evidentiary hearing before Coy. When I tried to obtain a certified copy of the grand jury audio for the evidentiary hearing, Coy refused to compel the clerk of the Dearborn Superior Court II to produce it, despite there being an order stating that I'm entitled to the complete audio. Then Judge Coy ruled that matters concerning the grand jury audio are more properly before the court in my public records lawsuit, where Judge McLaughlin's court is a defendant. Judge Coy is trying to give the person who authorized the tampering of grand jury records the ability to fight the release of evidence in my legal action because a certified copy of the grand jury audio would be incriminating to McLaughlin and Chief Deputy Attorney General Negangard. The release of a certified copy of the grand jury audio will determine if Judge McLaughlin instructed her court staff to selectively transcribe the record of the grand jury investigation or if Judge McLaughlin instructed her court staff to selectively record the proceedings conducted by Negangard. There's no scenario where Judge McLaughlin's court could NOT have altered grand jury records. This means every attempt to obstruct my access to the record is another act in furtherance of Judge McLaughlin's conspiracy to alter records. Check out my Request for Ruling to see a copy of Judge Coy's rulings and for a complete explanation of the inane.

Conspiracy to Alter Grand Jury Records Involving Chief Deputy Negangard

If you have any doubts as to whether Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard conspired with with the Dearborn Superior Court II to maliciously prosecute a criminal defendant, read the following argument included in my recent filing in the Dearborn Superior Court II. The argument by the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor rationalizes how court-altered grand jury records didn’t negatively impact the constitutionality of my criminal prosecution:

“Finally, the State wishes to address the claim raised in Brewington's Motion for Summary Judgment in Paragraph 2(A) that ‘[Prosecutor] Negangard switched playbooks on Brewington'. This claim is, to put it bluntly, nonsensical. Even if one is to assume that Brewington’s baseless assertion that the grand jury transcripts were altered or otherwise incomplete, the evidence contained therein is more than enough for even a layperson to discern a ‘true threat.’”

That’s the argument by the regime of current Dearborn County Prosecutor, Lynn Deddens, demonstrating the culture of corruption in the small Indiana county, located a mere thirty minutes west of Cincinnati, Ohio. The prosecution glosses over the fact that just by arguing even if the court altered any/or failed to maintain the grand jury record… acknowledges the existence of both unethical and criminal conduct. There is no constitutionally permissible amount of information that a trial court can arbitrarily omit from the record of a grand jury.

It’s not a matter of if Dearborn County officials engaged in criminal conduct, but rather a matter of how many crimes they committed. Negangard prosecuted me for my public speech that was critical of Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey. Negangard’s office instructed me to rely on a complete transcription of the grand jury investigation for an understanding of the general indictments. Negangard, the trial judge, and my public defender waited until less than two weeks before my criminal trial before providing me with a copy of the transcript; a copy I later found to be incomplete. At the time I had no understanding that Indiana law required a record to be kept of all portions of the grand jury investigation, other than deliberations. The Dearborn Superior Court II omitted all portions of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony. After serving 2.5 years of a 5-year prison sentence, I began trying to obtain the grand jury audio through a public record request. After fighting the release of the grand jury audio, the Dearborn Superior Court II released a copy of the grand jury audio containing less information than the transcript. It appears the court altered the transcript then tried to alter the audio to match. Now the Superior Court II, under Judge Sally McLaughlin, claims there is no more audio to release. The kicker is the missing records may be maintained by a victim in the case, Judge James D. Humphrey.

I have two pending legal actions in Dearborn County, Indiana. I’m challenging my convictions through post-conviction relief, while suing the Dearborn Superior Court II for a certified copy of the grand jury audio. Both actions have been pending for over two years. Judge McLaughlin’s court claims it is impossible to provide me with an exact copy of the audio because there were “four to five” other grand jury investigations intertwined on the same recording. If one assumes McLaughlin’s court isn’t lying just to rationalize copying and pasting the audio to match the already altered transcription, Judge McLaughlin still faces two major problems. If several grand jury investigations were recorded on one ongoing audio file, it would require an intentional act for a portion of the record to go missing. Judge McLaughlin’s court either intentionally shut off the recording when Negangard gave the introduction in my case, or Judge McLaughlin’s staff destroyed it. Any way you shake it, Negangard absolutely knew the grand jury records were altered and he took full advantage of the situation. There is no graceful exit strategy for the officials involved.

I included the above in my reply to the State’s Response to my Motion for Summary Disposition in my post-conviction case. I also included the dialogue between Judge Brian Hill and former prosecutor Negangard during the final pre-trial hearing in my criminal case, September 19, 2011. After telling Judge Hill that my public defender refused to speak with me, I didn’t understand the nature of the indictments, and I had yet to receive a copy of the grand jury transcript, Hill denied my request to continue the jury trial scheduled two just weeks later, on October 3, 2011. Hill based his denial on a conversation Hill had with Negangard where both men claimed I was adamant about not continuing the original jury trial set for August 16, 2011, when my public defender had a family emergency. The problem with the story by the two men is that there is no record of me making any such objection. For one, it was impossible for me to go to trial if my public defender was unavailable. Even more troubling is the fact that it was impossible for me to object because Judge Hill vacated the hearing on his own motion. Negangard and Judge Hill rehearsed the make-believe story prior to the hearing; probably to rationalize incarcerating me for over six months without providing any explanation of what actions I was required to defend. Negangard and Judge Hill didn’t change the record, they just altered reality. As for my public defender, he remained silent throughout; calling into question which side he was actually working for.

As for my public record lawsuit seeking the grand jury audio, representing the court in the case is the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill. Attorney General Hill’s office is fighting the release of the official grand jury audio to protect his own Chief Deputy. Hill’s office is being remarkably vague about the grand jury record beginning at witness testimony. Though claiming not to know the content of the grand jury audio, Curtis Hill’s office is arguing there is no more audio to release. This is especially problematic as the grand jury audio currently released to me contains less information than the transcription.

Stay tuned for more details….

Court-Altered Grand Jury Records Poses Dilemma for Indiana Prosecutor

In a criminal case out of the Dearborn Circuit Court involving former NFL player Adam Jones, Dearborn Prosecutor Lynn Deddens has taken offense to the public statements made by Jones's attorney in defense of his client. Prosecutor Deddens now seeks to prohibit further public comments on the matter. In a motion currently before Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey, Deddens argued:

“Further, Attorney Weldon has given on camera interviews to local television stations which have been broadcast and are on their websites, in which he elaborates on these allegations, in a manner which implicitly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Court and the Prosecuting Attorney” 

The dilemma facing Prosecutor Deddens is evidence of her knowledge of a motion filed in the Dearborn Superior Court I. The motion implicates Judge James D. Humphrey in a controversy involving the tampering of grand jury records. On March 19, 2019, I sent the below letter to Dearborn County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens with the attached motion detailing grand jury record tampering by Dearborn County officials; specifically, Dearborn Superior Court II Judge Sally McLaughlin and Dearborn Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey. Prosecutor Deddens has long been aware that Dearborn County officials altered grand jury records to obtain convictions in Dearborn County Courts, but now the Dearborn Superior Court II is pointing at Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey as potential suspect in withholding grand jury information in a criminal proceeding where Humphrey was an alleged victim.

Judge Humphrey set a hearing in the Jones's case for March 21, 2019 on Deddens's motion. Deddens will be tasked with arguing why Adam Jones's attorney should be restricted from commenting on the fairness of the criminal process in Dearborn County when Deddens has a reasonable belief that Judge Humphrey's court is complicit in the altering of grand jury records.

The letter to Deddens states as followed:

Prosecutor Lynn Deddens
Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor
165 Mary St
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

March 19, 2019

Dear Prosecutor Deddens,

Please see the attached petition filed in the Dearborn Superior Court I, Cause No. 15D02-1702-PL-00013. I am forwarding copies of the plaintiff’s Request for Ruling on Motion to Compel Release of Grand Jury Audio to law enforcement, attorneys, and other appropriate entities as the pleading details an ongoing conspiracy involving the tampering of grand jury records in Dearborn County. The list of Dearborn County officials involved in the grand jury record scandal includes, but is not limited to, Dearborn Superior Court II Judge Sally McLaughlin, Dearborn Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey, Superior Court II court reporter Barbara Ruwe, and former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard.

Cause No. 15D02-1702-PL-00013 is a public records lawsuit seeking the audio record from the grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington. The main issue before the court is not whether the grand jury audio is a releasable record. In an opinion dated April 14, 2016, the Indiana Public Access Counselor deemed the audio to be a releasable record. On April 20, 2016, the Dearborn Superior Court II issued an order authorizing the release of the grand jury audio. Problematic is the fact that some of the grand jury audio has been altered, withheld and/or destroyed by Dearborn County courts. In 2011, court reporter Barbara Ruwe prepared a transcription of the grand jury investigation. In 2016, the Dearborn Superior Court II prepared and released a copy of grand jury audio that failed to contain as much information as the original transcription of the proceedings. By default, at least one of the records were altered, while both records omit all content of the grand jury investigation prior to witness testimony. The Defendants in the public records lawsuit argue the Dearborn Superior Court II has no more grand jury records to release in the matter. During a September 14, 2018 status conference in Cause No. 15D02-1702-PL-00013, Special Judge Darrell Auxier stated he was informed that another court maintained a portion of the audio record, which would prolong the production of the official audio for in-camera review. As Cause No. 15D02-1702-PL-00013 is a case in the Dearborn Superior Court I, by default, the court maintaining the additional grand jury audio is the Dearborn Circuit Court, under Judge James D. Humphrey. This is especially problematic as Judge Humphrey testified as a victim before the same grand jury on the first day of the three-day investigation. The first day of the investigation occurred in the courtroom of the Dearborn Juvenile Court, which falls under the jurisdiction of Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey. The Dearborn Superior Court II claims to have no more audio to release. By default, the missing audio from the opening of the grand jury investigation would fall under the responsibility of Judge James D. Humphrey.

In State of Indiana v. Daniel Brewington, cause no. 15D02-1103-FD-000084, the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor instructed the defendant to rely on the complete transcription of the grand jury investigation for specific indictment information and evidence in a case involving alleged defamatory speech about Judge James D. Humphrey. Evidence suggests that Judge James D. Humphrey withheld grand jury records to sabotage the criminal defense in a case where former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard named Humphrey as a victim. Regardless of which court or individual(s) altered the records, there is an ongoing conspiracy by Dearborn County Courts to coverup and obstruct access to the missing grand jury audio. Even an argument that the opening to the grand jury investigation was never recorded requires the understanding that Dearborn Superior Court II Judge Sally McLaughlin and Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey enable the Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor to conduct grand jury investigations under the cover of darkness.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions. The failure to hold Dearborn County officials accountable for tampering with grand jury records implicitly casts valid aspersions on the integrity of the Court and the Prosecuting Attorney.

For your convenience, a copy of this letter with attachments is available at www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

     Very truly yours,

     Daniel Brewington

     contactdanbrewington@gmail.com

cc: Del Weldon

Can a criminal defendant waive rights to relief from a conspiracy to alter grand jury records?

Indianapolis, Indiana – A petition for rehearing currently before the Court of Appeals requests the COA to consider an odd legal question: “Can a criminal defendant waive his right to relief from a trial court altering grand jury records in an effort to sabotage the defendant’s defense?”

In 2011, Daniel Brewington became the target of a grand jury investigation and criminal trial where Brewington was found guilty of three felonies stemming from Brewington’s critical speech of Dearborn County (IN) court officials. After serving a 2.5-year prison sentence, Brewington, while serving as his own attorney, challenged his convictions via the post-conviction relief process. Among several other grounds raised in his petition, Brewington claimed the Dearborn Superior Court II altered grand jury records in a conspiracy to help the State prosecute Brewington. Special Judge W. Gregory Coy issued an ex parte order summarily dismissing Brewington’s petition in favor of the State. Brewington challenged Judge Coy’s order by filing his own appeal. Surprisingly enough, the appellate arguments by the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill conceded that the trial court did in fact attempt to sabotage Brewington’s defense; however, the AG’s office argued procedural waiver precluded Brewington from obtaining relief from the conspiracy between the Dearborn Superior Court II and former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard (Negangard now serves as Chief Deputy to Curtis T. Hill). In an opinion dated July 10, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the arguments of the State and remanded the case back to Judge Coy for a “factfinding” hearing. In a filing dated July 23, 2018, Brewington filed a petition for rehearing requesting the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse Brewington’s convictions. Since the Indiana Attorney General conceded Brewington’s assertion of facts to be true, Brewington argues a factfinding hearing is now unnecessary. Brewington requests the Indiana Court of Appeals to decide whether procedural technicalities can disqualify Brewington’s right to relief from a trial court sabotaging Brewington’s defense. (The prosecution instructed Brewington to rely on the “complete” transcription of the grand jury investigation for an understanding of the indictments.) If the COA finds a Defendant cannot waive his right to relief from a trial court assisting the prosecution, Brewington’s petition argues the Indiana Court of Appeals should reverse his convictions.

To date, the Court of Appeals has not ruled on Brewington’s Petition for Rehearing.

Sexual harassment allegations against Curtis T. Hill raise additional problems for the Office of the Indiana Attorney General

Recent allegations of sexual harassment against Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill pose a deeper problem for the law firm of the State. The leader of the Indiana Democratic Party, John Zody, and others are calling for the Republican Attorney General to resign in wake of allegations Hill inappropriately touched four women attending an end of legislative session party at AJ’s Lounge in Indianapolis. The question of Hill’s future as Attorney General and a potential replacement sheds light on another pending controversy involving the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

A July 2, 2018 filing in a public records lawsuit seeking grand jury audio, addresses the disturbing concession made by Hill’s office in a separate legal action currently before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The appellee brief filed on behalf of the State of Indiana, makes a default concession that the Dearborn Superior Court II engaged in a conspiracy to alter grand jury records to assist the prosecution. The public records lawsuit seeks the original audio from same grand jury proceeding mentioned in the State’s appellee brief. Hill’s office also represents defendants Judge Brian Hill and the Dearborn Superior Court II/Judge Sally McLaughlin in the public records lawsuit; the individuals who altered and/or obstructed the release of grand jury audio. Now the Attorney General is trying to convince the public records court that the admission of a conspiracy to alter grand jury records in the State’s appellee brief is not relevant to the public records lawsuit. Hill’s office simply claims the issues are irrelevant because the evidence regarding the admission of misconduct is being “appropriately litigated” in a separate appellate action. The common denominator linking the aforementioned public records lawsuit, the State’s brief in a pending appeal, and Hill’s recent sexual harassment allegations, lies in the identity of whom the Dearborn Superior Court II conspired to help. The Dearborn Superior Court II conspired to alter grand jury records to assist former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; current Chief Deputy and potential successor to Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill.

As of the publication of this article, Curtis T. Hill has not resigned from office.

Indiana Attorney General Recognizes Conspiracy to Alter Grand Jury Records

       Recent court filings demonstrate that the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill acknowledges the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana conspired to alter grand jury records to assist the prosecution convict me. The record tampering takes on much more sinister implications, when considering the that the prosecution instructed me to rely on the grand jury record to prepare my defense. The court filings also show the Indiana Attorney General signed and delivered the legal documents where Rush Superior Court Judge Brian Hill, under penalties of perjury, falsely accused me of harassing Judge Hill. The evidence of the misconduct is currently before the Dearborn Superior Court I and the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard (left)
w/Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill

My blog has provided the accounts of my criminal prosecution stemming from public criticisms of Indiana court officials. I was detained on a $600,000 bond, given a public defender that refused to meet with or speak to me, and then forced to trial without an understanding of what actions I was required to defend. The trial resulted in convictions requiring me to serve a 2.5-year prison sentence. The former prosecutor of Dearborn County, Indiana argued my writings violated non-existent criminal defamation laws, yet no lawyer nor any Indiana court made any attempt to hold the prosecutor accountable for the unconstitutional grounds he argued for my convictions. The former prosecutor of Dearborn County responsible for my grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution is the current Chief Deputy Attorney General for the State of Indiana, F. Aaron Negangard.

I am representing myself in two legal actions currently pending before the Indiana courts. I filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking the dismissal of my convictions for several reasons; the most notable being that the trial court staff of the Dearborn Superior Court II altered grand jury records to give the prosecution an unconstitutional advantage. Without the entire grand jury record, I had no way of knowing what actions I was required to defend. For those not familiar with law or Indiana post-conviction procedures, the post-conviction process affords people another means to contest their convictions besides the normal criminal appeal process. The special judge in my post-conviction case, Switzerland County Circuit Judge W. Gregory Coy, summarily dismissed my post-conviction action without a hearing and granted summary judgment/disposition to the State under Rule 1(4)(g) of the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Relief. I appealed the decision and the case has been briefed by both parties and is now pending review by the Indiana Court of Appeals. No order has been released on my motion requesting oral arguments before the Court of Appeals.

My other case currently before the Indiana courts is my lawsuit seeking public records, filed in the Dearborn Superior Court I. After determining the Dearborn Superior Court II omitted portions of the grand jury proceedings from the transcription of my grand jury investigation, I requested a copy of the grand jury audio to see if the audio record of the grand jury investigation in my case matched the transcription. Not only did the records not match, the audio contained less information than the transcription. I filed a lawsuit via the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) to obtain the official audio. As both cases have progressed, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has stumbled into an unthinkable situation; having to argue against the interests of the Attorney General’s own clients in both of my pending legal actions.

The “clients” of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill, consist of the opposing parties in both of my pending legal actions. In my APRA lawsuit, the AG represents Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill (Judge Hill served as special judge in my criminal trial and held jurisdiction over the release of grand jury records), and the Dearborn Superior Court II under Judge Sally McLaughlin. In the appeal of the summary dismissal of my post-conviction action, the client of the Attorney General is the State of Indiana.

Deputy Stephen Creason

In the appeal of my post-conviction case, Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason argues the following in the State’s Brief of the Appellee:

“The post-conviction court was also authorized to dispose of the petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Brewington’s motion for summary disposition was intentionally limited to his allegations related to the grand jury”

The State’s brief specifically addresses my claim that the trial court conspired to alter grand jury records:

“trial court staff allegedly manipulated the record of the grand jury proceeding as part of a conspiracy against [Brewington]”

A key requirement to summary judgment/disposition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) is that there can be no genuine issue of material fact. A material fact is a fact relevant to the legal proceeding. Rule 1(4)(g) also provides that “if an issue of material fact is raised, then the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably possible.” An issue of material fact occurs when there are two conflicting claims of fact relative to the legal proceeding. For a better understanding of how an issue of material fact arises, consider my claim that the trial court engaged in a conspiracy to alter grand jury records. If Deputy Creason would have argued that my claim was untrue, it would create an issue of material fact because my claim would conflict with Creason’s assessment of fact. To resolve the conflict, an evidentiary hearing would have been necessary. If Deputy Creason would have argued there was no conspiracy to alter grand jury records, the issue of material fact would immediately prove that the order granting summary judgment/disposition to the State was erroneous. Creason’s use of “allegedly” in addressing my conspiracy claim does not relieve the Office of the Indiana Attorney General from the culpability associated with knowing there was a criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records. Even a claim of uncertainty as to whether the grand jury tampering occurred, creates an issue of material fact. In arguing that Judge Coy properly awarded summary judgment/disposition to the State, Deputy Creason was required to accept my material facts as being true, so Creason argued legal technicalities and procedural bars precluded me from seeking relief from a conspiracy by the trial court to alter grand jury records. Creason’s apparent attempt to capitalize on an erroneous ruling by the post-conviction court inadvertently sabotaged the case of the Attorney General’s client in my public records lawsuit. Creason’s appellate argument, by default, affirms that the Defendant Dearborn Superior Court II, under Judge Sally McLaughlin, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to alter grand jury records with the intent to sabotage my criminal trial.

Yesterday (06/05/18) I was notified that the judge presiding over my APRA lawsuit granted my Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. I requested the emergency continuance for two reasons, the first of which being Judge Brian Hill’s refusal to cooperate with simple admission requests. The second and more disturbing reason for requesting the emergency continuance was that I did not feel safe attending the hearing in the Dearborn County Courthouse following Judge Hill’s false harassment allegation. In responding to my pretrial requests for admissions, Judge Hill argued I tried to harass Hill as an opposing party in a lawsuit:       

Judge Brian Hill 

Rush Superior Court 

"[Judge Brian Hill] objects to the term 'excuses' as the term is derogatory and its use is intended to harass [Judge Brian Hill]. [Judge Brian Hill] further object to the term 'excuses' as it fails to adequately and specifically describe the subject matter sought and is vague and ambiguous and, therefore, requires [Judge Brian Hill] to engage in conjecture as to their meaning. As such, it is difficult to discern what Brewington is asking [Judge Brian Hill] to admit or deny."

The following is the entire statement from which Judge Hill bases his harassment allegation:

“Admit that in an opinion dated April 14, 2016, the Indiana Public Access Counselor deemed Hill's excuses for withholding the grand jury audio to be invalid.”

Deputy Attorney General Marley Hancock currently serves as legal counsel for the defendants in my public record lawsuit. Deputy Hancock and Judge Hill understand that harassing an opposing civil litigant is a crime. No reasonable legal or non-legal person would perceive the singular use of the word “excuses” as an attempt to harass; however, even a baseless harassment claim from a judge could be used to rationalize some form of criminal investigation. As the Indiana Attorney General does not deny that a Dearborn County court altered grand jury records to obstruct my access to indictment information and evidence in my criminal trial, Judge Hill’s claim can only be viewed as a threat intended to place me in grave danger of being subjected to another court-sponsored malicious prosecution in Dearborn County.

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General and other Indiana Court officials have backed themselves into a metaphorical checkmate. Attorney General Curtis Hill’s Office cannot argue both sides of this equation. If Deputy Attorney General Marley Hancock argues the Dearborn Superior Court II did not alter grand jury records, it creates an issue of material fact that decimates the appellate arguments made on behalf of the State by Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason. Creason’s entire argument before the Indiana Court of Appeals requires Deputy Hancock’s clients to have engaged in a conspiracy to sabotage a criminal trial, which is a violation of federal law, because no issue of fact may exist. As Deputy Hancock signed the responses to Brewington’s admission requests on behalf of Judge Hill, the harassment claim against Brewington may have originated from the Office of Curtis Hill, and not Judge Brian Hill. Such a finding would solidify the true interest of the Attorney General in fighting Brewington’s legal actions; protecting Curtis Hill’s second-in-command. The biggest dilemma facing the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill is the fact that the prosecutor whom the Dearborn Superior Court conspired to assist is the current Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General, F. Aaron Negangard.

For further information/evidence regarding the above claims, please feel free to review my Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions. The motion filed June 4, 2018 also contains the following documents attached as exhibits A-E:

EXHIBIT A Brewington’s Request for Admissions to Judge Hill

EXHIBIT B Judge Hill’s response to Brewington’s admissions

EXHIBIT C The State of Indiana’s Brief of Appellee, filed by Deputy Creason

EXHIBIT D Brewington’s Reply Brief in response to Creason’s Brief of Appellee

EXHIBIT E Brewington’s Motion for Oral Arguments, filed 5/25/2018 with the Indiana Court of Appeals.