tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2139322184821131942024-03-18T17:31:47.375-04:00Dan's Adventures in Taking on the Family CourtsDan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.comBlogger403125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-13903436293579726012019-07-10T13:51:00.001-04:002019-07-10T13:51:20.695-04:00Chief Deputy Attorney General Negangard's Failing Grand Jury ConspiracyThe 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 <i>LESS</i> 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 <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/MOTION_TO_COMPEL_DEFENDANTS_TO_APPEAR.pdf" target="_blank">latest filing in my public records lawsuit</a> 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.Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-56287640067543222652019-06-19T16:08:00.003-04:002019-06-19T16:08:50.501-04:00Special Judge W. Gregory Coy Admits to Dismissing My Post-Conviction Action for No ReasonIt'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 <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/REQUEST_FOR_RULING.pdf" target="_blank">Request for Ruling</a> to see a copy of Judge Coy's rulings and for a complete explanation of the inane.Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-9880690472225402202019-04-26T11:51:00.000-04:002019-04-26T12:10:29.963-04:00Conspiracy to Alter Grand Jury Records Involving Chief Deputy Negangard<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/REPLY_TO_STATES_RESPONSE_TO_MOTION_FOR_SUMMARY_DISPOSITION_stamped.pdf">my
recent filing</a> 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:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">“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.’”</span></i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><b>even if the court altered any/or failed to maintain the grand jury record…</b> </i>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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s not a matter of <b><i>if</i> </b>Dearborn County officials engaged in
criminal conduct, but rather a matter of <i><b>how many</b></i> 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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I included the above in <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/REPLY_TO_STATES_RESPONSE_TO_MOTION_FOR_SUMMARY_DISPOSITION_stamped.pdf">my
reply to the State’s Response to my Motion for Summary Disposition</a> 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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Stay tuned for more details….<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-60275149997946141382019-03-19T13:57:00.001-04:002019-03-19T14:04:44.469-04:00Court-Altered Grand Jury Records Poses Dilemma for Indiana ProsecutorIn 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, <a href="https://www.eaglecountryonline.com/news/local-news/adam-jones-attorney-asks-judge-to-dismiss-verbally-combative-behavior-during-arrest/?fb_comment_id=2035271593236678_2035462079884296" target="_blank">Deddens argued</a>:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "asap" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">“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” </span><br />
<br />
The dilemma facing Prosecutor Deddens is evidence of her knowledge of a <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/BREWINGTON%20REQUEST%20FOR%20RULING.pdf" target="_blank">motion filed in the Dearborn Superior Court I</a>. 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/PROSECUTOR_LYNN_DEDDENS_RE_GJ_RECORD_TAMPERING.pdf" target="_blank">letter to Deddens</a> states as followed:<br />
<br />
<span style="text-indent: -1in;">Prosecutor</span><span style="text-indent: -1in;"> Lynn Deddens</span><br />
<span style="text-indent: -1in;">Office of the Dearborn County Prosecutor</span><br />
<span style="text-indent: -1in;">165 Mary St</span><br />
<span style="text-indent: -1in;">Lawrenceburg, IN 47025</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
March 19, 2019<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
Dear Prosecutor Deddens,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/BREWINGTON%20REQUEST%20FOR%20RULING.pdf" target="_blank">Request for Ruling on Motion to Compel Release of Grand Jury Audio</a>
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For your convenience, a copy of this letter with attachments
is available at <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="http://www.danbrewington.blogspot.com/">www.danbrewington.blogspot.com</a></span>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Very truly yours,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Daniel Brewington</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="mailto:contactdanbrewington@gmail.com">contactdanbrewington@gmail.com</a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 3.0in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 3.0in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
cc: Del Weldon<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-line-break-override: restrictions; mso-outline-level: 1; punctuation-wrap: simple; text-align: center; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-58796022429665344522018-07-26T18:08:00.003-04:002018-07-26T18:08:53.831-04:00Can a criminal defendant waive rights to relief from a conspiracy to alter grand jury records?<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Indianapolis, Indiana</b> – A <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/PETITION_FOR_REHEARING_stamped.pdf" target="_blank">petition for rehearing</a> 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?” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/ORDER_DENYING_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf" target="_blank">ex parte order</a> 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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To date, the Court of Appeals has not ruled on Brewington’s Petition
for Rehearing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-12371061751163321612018-07-03T17:48:00.000-04:002018-07-03T17:53:25.499-04:00Sexual harassment allegations against Curtis T. Hill raise additional problems for the Office of the Indiana Attorney General<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://time.com/5328948/indiana-curtis-hill-groping-allegations/">Recent
allegations of sexual harassment</a> 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, <a href="https://twitter.com/johnzody">John Zody</a>,
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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">A July 2, 2018 <a href="https://t.co/XMdtfVa3ex">filing in a public records</a> 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 <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/BREWINGTON_V_STATE_Brief_of_Appellee.pdf">appellee
brief filed</a> 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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: large;">As of the publication of this
article, Curtis T. Hill has not resigned from office. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-57883692575130425952018-06-07T00:03:00.001-04:002018-06-07T00:11:02.082-04:00Indiana Attorney General Recognizes Conspiracy to Alter Grand Jury Records <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/EMERGENCY_MOTION_TO_CONTINUE.pdf" target="_blank">Recent court filings</a><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> 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.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Uc6nLlb9Jq8/WxipRunJm-I/AAAAAAAAIQk/PP8rvst2VYM0yGqXa_hRYYvwPw2KtJ41wCLcBGAs/s1600/HILL%2BAND%2BFAN.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="949" data-original-width="1000" height="303" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Uc6nLlb9Jq8/WxipRunJm-I/AAAAAAAAIQk/PP8rvst2VYM0yGqXa_hRYYvwPw2KtJ41wCLcBGAs/s320/HILL%2BAND%2BFAN.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><h3>
Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard (left)<br />w/Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill</h3>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--eBIcOLw2Ao/Wxip2J7-YZI/AAAAAAAAIQs/lcZUQkq5Lq8KgGVKJu3VWUKzZ9V22PVWwCLcBGAs/s1600/CREASON.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="225" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--eBIcOLw2Ao/Wxip2J7-YZI/AAAAAAAAIQs/lcZUQkq5Lq8KgGVKJu3VWUKzZ9V22PVWwCLcBGAs/s1600/CREASON.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><h3>
Deputy Stephen Creason</h3>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
In the appeal of my post-conviction
case, Deputy Attorney General Stephen Creason argues the following in the State’s
Brief of the Appellee: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
“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” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The State’s brief specifically addresses my claim that the
trial court conspired to alter grand jury records:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
“trial court staff allegedly manipulated the record of
the grand jury proceeding as part of a conspiracy against [Brewington]”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><br /></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ftsOx5EUx0o/Wxistiy0vSI/AAAAAAAAIQ4/pRaYpQMsyXEfsSOUR0tkC-HkyOctLRmUQCLcBGAs/s1600/BRIAN%2BHILL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="540" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ftsOx5EUx0o/Wxistiy0vSI/AAAAAAAAIQ4/pRaYpQMsyXEfsSOUR0tkC-HkyOctLRmUQCLcBGAs/s200/BRIAN%2BHILL.jpg" width="171" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><h3>
Judge Brian Hill </h3>
<h3>
Rush Superior Court </h3>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
"[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."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The following is the entire
statement from which Judge Hill bases his harassment allegation:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
“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.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
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. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
For further information/evidence regarding the above claims, please feel free to review my <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/EMERGENCY_MOTION_TO_CONTINUE.pdf" target="_blank">Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing and Request for Order Compelling Admissions</a><span id="goog_1314184515"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_1314184516"></span>. The
motion filed June 4, 2018 also contains the following documents attached as exhibits
A-E:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
EXHIBIT A Brewington’s Request for Admissions to Judge
Hill <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
EXHIBIT B Judge Hill’s response to Brewington’s
admissions<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
EXHIBIT C The State of Indiana’s Brief of Appellee, filed
by Deputy Creason<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
EXHIBIT D Brewington’s Reply Brief in response to Creason’s
Brief of Appellee<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
EXHIBIT E Brewington’s Motion for Oral Arguments, filed
5/25/2018 with the Indiana Court of Appeals.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<br />Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-21399564351456035182018-02-13T16:04:00.003-05:002018-02-13T16:04:51.213-05:00Indiana Appellate Court Punishes Me for Trial Clerk's Mistake<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Just when you think it couldn't get any dumber, the Indiana Court of Appeals deems my Appellant Brief and Appendix untimely because the Dearborn Superior Court II screwed up again. On February 5, 2018, I filed my appellant brief
and appendices with the Indiana Court of Appeals. On February 12, 2018, the Clerk
of the Indiana Court of Appeals filed two notices in my appeal: a <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Notice_of_Defect_Brief_web.pdf">Notice
of Defect re: untimely Appellate Brief</a>, and a <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Notice_of_Defect_Appendix_web.pdf">Notice
of Defect re: untimely Appendix</a> from the Indiana Supreme Court stating, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
The Clerk’s Office has received
your Appellant's Brief [and Appendix] tendered on 02/05/18, for filing in the
above-referenced appeal. Your document has not been filed because it has been
tendered after its due date. See Appellate Rule 45(B).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
I checked Appellate Rule 45(B):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
Appellant's Brief. The appellant's
brief shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after: (a) the date the
trial court clerk or Administrative Agency serves its Notice of Completion of
Clerk's Record on the parties pursuant to Appellate Rule 10(C)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-right: 1.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-right: 1.0in;">
So, then I checked Appellate
Rule 10(C):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-right: 1.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
C. Notice of Completion of Clerk's
Record. On or before the deadline for assembly of the Clerk's Record, the trial
court clerk or Administrative Agency shall issue and file a Notice of
Completion of Clerk's Record with the Clerk and shall serve a copy on the
parties to the appeal in accordance with Rule 24 to advise them that the
Clerk's Record has been assembled and is complete.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-right: 1.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-right: 1.0in;">
And then I checked Appellate
Rule 24:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-right: 1.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
24(C). Manner and Date of Service.
All E-Filed documents will be deemed served when they are electronically served
through the IEFS in accordance with Rule 68(F)(I). Documents exempted from
E-Service will be deemed served when they are: (2) deposited in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
The Case Summary of my appeal on the website of the
Indiana Supreme Court provides the following as to when the Notice of Completion
of Clerk’s record was filed: <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/MyCase_12FEB18.pdf">“File
Stamp 01/04/18.”</a> I called the clerk for the Indiana Court of Appeals to get
a grasp on the logic. The woman explained my filings were untimely because my 30-day
time frame to file my appellant brief and appendix began on 01/03/18; the date
listed on the <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/NOTICE_OF%20COMPLETION_OF_CLERKS_RECORD.pdf">Notice
of Completion of Clerk’s Record and attached Certificate of Service</a> filed
by Rick Probst, Clerk of the Dearborn Superior Court II:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;">
I certify that on January 03, 2018,
I served a copy of this document upon the following person(s) by MAIL.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-right: 1.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
The certificate of service listed the Office of the
Indiana Attorney General, Daniel Brewington, and Clerk of the Appellate Court
as recipients of the clerk’s Notice. The problem is Probst failed to mail the
Notice until the day after the date Probst certified the Notice as being mailed
and served.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Appellate Rule 25 states the
computation of time for deadlines begins on the day following an order or
applicable act. Thirty days after the January 4<sup>th</sup> filing of the
Notice of Completion landed on Saturday February 3, 2018, which advances the
deadline to the following business day; Monday February 5, 2018. When I called
the Clerk of the Indiana Court of Appeals, she said I missed the deadline. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The woman claimed I should have begun
computation of time from the date stamped on the trial clerk’s Notice, not the
date shown as being filed with the Indiana Supreme Court/Court of Appeals. After
inquiring as to why the Clerk of the Appellate Courts showed the Notice as
being filed on January 4<sup>th</sup> She told me the Appellate Court filing
date was dictated by the date of the postmark, which was January 4<sup>th</sup>.
She then suggested that Rick Probst may have been a day late mailing the Notice
to the Court of Appeals. I told her both the Appellate Court and I were copied
to the certificate of service and my envelope was also was <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/POSTMARKED_ENVELOPE.pdf">post-marked
January 4, 2018</a>. The woman instructed me to be sure to include a copy of
the postmarked envelope in my Motion to File a Belated Appeal. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
“Belated Appeal?” I can’t make
this up. I get punished because the Dearborn Superior Court II mailed the
Notice of Completion the day after the date listed on the Certificate of
Service. The Indiana Court of Appeals said my appellate filings were untimely claiming
my computation of time began on the day before the Court could recognize the
Notice as being filed. Seriously. “Documents exempted from E-Service will be
deemed served when they are...deposited in the United States Mail.” The Notice
of Completion of Clerk’s Record was postmarked January 4, 2018. The entry on
the case summary from the Indiana Court of Appeals also includes a memo
stating, “Certificate of Service-Mailed 01/03/18.” If the Notice was mailed on
01/03/18, the Court’s case summary would also show the Notice as being filed on
01/03/18. The absurdity of the situation is beyond comprehension:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure precluded the Indiana Supreme
Court from file stamping the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record prior to
the postmark date; however, the Court ruled my Appellant Brief and Appendix
were untimely because I should have recognized that the computation of time
started the day before the Supreme Court could recognize the Notice as being
filed.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
There really are no words. I
guess I’ll just keep fighting the good fight and file what I need to file.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Stay tuned for more information.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-30135883576711232292018-02-09T11:39:00.001-05:002018-02-09T17:12:21.373-05:00Indiana Chief Deputy AG Faces Scrutiny for Violating Federal Law<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The State of Indiana retaliated
against me for criticizing the Indiana Court System. Here’s the common-sense analysis: If my
conduct had any resemblance of being criminal, why did former Dearborn County
Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard instruct the trial jury to return guilty verdicts
claiming I violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>“As to Count II, Intimidation of a Judge, that is more
serious because it involves a Judge but because it involves a Judge, we do need
to look at the first amendment issues because you are allowed to criticize
judges. Right? I mean, I'm not. Defense counsel's not because we are attorneys.
But remember he says he's acting like an attorney so we should treat it as he's
acting like an attorney. Well if he's acting like an attorney, then he needs to
accountable like an attorney. He could hire his own attorney but he didn't. So
you know and he has to suffer the consequences." </i>-Closing arguments by F. Aaron Negangard Trial transcripts page 515 (Appellant Appendix 22)<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is no such criminal law. Negangard made it up. The false
ground for prosecution would normally warrant a mistrial or be grounds for vacating the convictions on appeal. Indiana officials
continue to make excuses in rationalizing why my convictions are constitutional,
while ignoring the conduct of Chief Deputy Negangard. My consequences for criticizing
judges while “acting like an attorney” were nothing like those described in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. My consequences include serving a 2.5-year prison sentence
and living with the label of being a convicted felon. Negangard’s actions are a federal crime. A
prosecutor cannot convene a grand jury and prosecute someone for a non-existent crime to punish someone for protected speech. Doing so is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
F. Aaron Negangard is now Chief Deputy to Indiana
Attorney General Curtis Hill. Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has personally
signed on to represent the State of Indiana in my appeal of Negangard’s
unconstitutional prosecution. The above statement and many other ridiculous arguments
by Chief Deputy Negangard appear in my <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Brewington_v_State_15A04-1712-PC-02889_Appellant_Brief_web.pdf">Appellant
Brief</a> and <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Brewington_v_State_15A04-1712-PC-02889_Appendix_web.pdf">attached
appendices</a> filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals. These filings prove
both Attorney General Hill and the Indiana courts are fully aware
of Negangard’s criminal conduct. Even an argument against Negangard’s conduct
being criminal requires a contention that Negangard simply made up the argument
to confuse the jury to obtain convictions, which is both unconstitutional and
an act of malicious prosecutor misconduct. The Indiana courts continue to ignore
Negangard’s conduct and now Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has signed on
to help detract attention from a federal crime committed by his own chief deputy.
<a href="https://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2018/02/indiana-attorney-general-curtis-hill-to.html">Negangard
even admitted my prosecution</a> was not about the victims, as Negangard stated
the prosecution was to prevent me from “perverting” the Indiana judicial system.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Stay tuned
for updates. The office of Attorney General Curtis Hill is also representing
the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking grand jury audio. I filed
the lawsuit after discovering portions of the </span><a href="https://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2016/07/judge-sally-mclaughlins-court-altered.html" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">grand
jury transcript and grand jury audio do not match</a><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">; the same transcript that
formed the basis of Negangard’s prosecution against me. If the Indiana Court System
and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill continue to cover-up potential federal
crimes committed by Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard, I’m going
to make sure that the public knows about it. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-30932216474687177572018-02-07T21:49:00.002-05:002018-02-07T21:49:24.291-05:00Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill to Defend Civil Rights Violations<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
The State of Indiana offers a post-conviction remedy to
“[a]ny person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court
of this state, and who claims that the conviction or the sentence was in
violation of the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws
of this state. I filed a petition for Post-conviction but <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/ORDER_DENYING_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf">Judge
W. Gregory Coy summarily denied my petition</a>. In an order lacking any
foundation in law, Judge Coy ruled there was no factual basis to any of my 20 claims,
granted summary judgment in favor of the State (in spite of the State arguing summary judgment was not available), and dismissed my entire petition
without hearing. On 02/05/2018, I filed my <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Brewington_v_State_15A04-1712-PC-02889_Appellant_Brief_web.pdf">appellant
brief</a> and <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Brewington_v_State_15A04-1712-PC-02889_Appendix_web.pdf">supporting
appendices</a> in the appeal of Judge Coy’s ruling.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Indiana Courts continue to ignore the fact I had no
assistance of counsel in preparing for trial and how no one would explain
what illegal acts were responsible for my indictments and convictions. Complicating matters is the prosecutor in my trial is now Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney
General Curtis T. Hill. Attorney General Hill has taken on the case himself on
behalf of the State and on behalf of the personal interests of his chief
deputy, F. Aaron Negangard.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
The evidence clearly demonstrates that the prosecution by
Negangard was an illegal act to punish my critical speech directed at Dearborn
County court officials, under the guise of a grand jury investigation and criminal
prosecution. Negangard admitted to such in his closing arguments to the trial
jury: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we
want. That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't
about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan
Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it,
not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable.” Tr.
504-505 -Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
These are Negangard’s statements. This is a federal crime.
Negangard admitted the purpose of obtaining grand jury indictments and criminal
convictions were just a means to stop me from perverting the Indiana’s system
of justice. Negangard made up crimes to prosecute me for speech Negangard did
not like. There were no objections by the trial judge or my public defender, only
supporting the fact that they had no interest in protecting me from Negangard’s
malicious prosecution. Adding fuel to the malicious prosecutorial fires were
the allegations by deputy prosecutor Joeseph Kisor. During closing arguments,
Kisor told the trial jury that I could potentially murder someone in the
courtroom <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">during trial</i> with a .357
Magnum handgun:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
“Would you be afraid if you knew right now, based on what
you've seen and what you've heard, the distorted thinking, the almost maniacal
attacks that he will go, the steps he will go to, to attack people. Would you
be afraid if you knew and I hope to God he doesn't but if he had a .357 in his
pocket right now, would you be in a little bit of fear? Man, I would.” Tr. 451 -Deputy
Prosecutor Joeseph Kisor.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
These are acts of official misconduct that Indiana Attorney
General Curtis T. Hill seeks to defend. Negangard admitted to such. There is no
other side of the story. Any claim that Negangard’s statements were rhetoric
meant to inflame the passions of the jury is still an allegation of misconduct:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in;">
“[I]t is misconduct for a
prosecutor to request the jury to convict a defendant for any reason other than
his guilt or to phrase final argument in a manner calculated to inflame the
passions or prejudice of the jury.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Neville</i>,
976 N.E.2d at 1264<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Judge Coy lied in his contention there was no factual
basis to my claim. Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard doesn’t shy
away from retaliating against people under color of law. Now Negangard’s boss,
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has accepted the task of covering up Chief
Deputy Negangard’s misconduct, while arguing that the Indiana Court of Appeals
should uphold my unconstitutional convictions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Stay tuned for more information.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-49343149091466166982018-01-29T14:04:00.000-05:002018-01-29T14:04:11.425-05:00Guest Contributor for "The Legal System and All Things Related Blog"<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ejHukEhnjJM/Wm9oMpbc5HI/AAAAAAAAHcc/G9etw7R_1m0WsR8c3PtD3Gn52GCkC0nKACLcBGAs/s1600/book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="313" data-original-width="249" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ejHukEhnjJM/Wm9oMpbc5HI/AAAAAAAAHcc/G9etw7R_1m0WsR8c3PtD3Gn52GCkC0nKACLcBGAs/s1600/book.jpg" /></a><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">The authors of the book, "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor", Tom Scott and Sara Naheedy, were gracious enough to ask me to be a <a href="http://www.stloiyf.com/blog/post/experience-of-someone-in-the-corrupt-indiana-courts/" target="_blank">guest contributor on their blog</a>. The post includes my introduction to arguments appearing in the appellate brief I'm filing with the Indiana Court of Appeals. I am still fighting the good fight against a less than honest Indiana Judicial System. </span></span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor"</span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"> is available through the book's <a href="http://www.stloiyf.com/" target="_blank">website</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0996592903?tag=amz-mkt-chr-us-20&ascsubtag=1ba00-01000-org00-win10-other-nomod-us000-pcomp-feature-scomp&ref=bit_scomp_sav0" target="_blank">Amazon</a>, <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Stack_the_Legal_Odds_in_Your_Favor.html?id=GtgGswEACAAJ" target="_blank">Google Books</a>, etc. </span></span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Positive reviews of "Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor" include those written by </span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Dr. Ron Paul, Senator Marco Rubio</span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">, and former CIA </span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">Officer </span></span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">John Kiriakou.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: white; border-spacing: 33px 24px; border: 1px solid rgb(192, 192, 192); color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; margin: 24px; width: 93%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td align="center" style="vertical-align: top;" width="33%"><div align="left" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i>"This is a must-read for anyone who wants access to a variety of practical and not idealistic tools to help increase his chances of emerging from a run-in with our corrupt legal system with his liberty and/or property intact."</i></div>
</td><td rowspan="2" style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(192, 192, 192);" width="0.5%"></td><td align="center" style="vertical-align: top;" width="33%"><div align="left" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i>"Not just a book, but a public service. The good guys—the innocent—don't always win. With this book's help, you can learn exactly how to defend yourself and ensure justice prevails despite our system."</i></div>
</td><td rowspan="2" style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(192, 192, 192);" width="0.5%"></td><td align="center" style="vertical-align: top;" width="33%"><div align="left" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i>"Thank you so much for your book. America is truly blessed with individuals who offer their time and resources to educate others in their community about important issues facing our nation."</i></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" style="background-color: #fafafa; padding: 12px;"><span style="color: #3c355f; font-family: trebuchet MS;"><b>Doctor Ron Paul</b></span></td><td align="center" style="background-color: #fafafa;"><div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-top: 1px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #3c355f; font-family: trebuchet MS;"><b>Former CIA Officer</b></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-top: -3px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #3c355f; font-family: trebuchet MS;"><b>John Kiriakou</b></span></div>
</td><td align="center" style="background-color: #fafafa; padding: 12px;"><span style="color: #3c355f; font-family: trebuchet MS;"><b>Senator Marco Rubio</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><a href="http://www.stloiyf.com/blog/post/experience-of-someone-in-the-corrupt-indiana-courts/">http://www.stloiyf.com/blog/post/experience-of-someone-in-the-corrupt-indiana-courts/</a></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-17876441951158270612018-01-05T21:13:00.000-05:002018-01-07T11:50:07.138-05:00The Executive Director of the Indiana ACLU Knows I sent the following<a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/BREWINGTON_LETTER_TO_ACLU_JANE_HENEGAR.pdf" target="_blank"> letter to Jane Henegar,</a> Executive Director of the Indiana ACLU. In the letter I explained how I was forced to trial without the assistance of a lawyer and without any knowledge of the indictments against me. I was told by the prosecution to rely on the complete transcription of the grand jury to prepare for trial and then the 340-page transcript was withheld from me until a week before the trial. What I did not know at the time was the prosecutor used grand jury transcripts that were altered by the trial court. When I sought the audio from the grand jury, the Dearborn County Superior Court II altered the grand jury audio in an attempt to match the transcripts. I am waiting for a hearing in my lawsuit against the Dearborn Superior Court II that seeks the original audio of the grand jury investigation. Complicating matters even more is the fact the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in the matter because Hill's chief deputy is F. Aaron Negangard, the former Dearborn County Prosecutor who used the altered records to convict me. This is not speculation but fact because the transcripts contain more information that the audio from which it was originally transcribed. And now the Indiana ACLU knows.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">January 5, 2018<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Jane
Henegar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Executive
Director<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">ACLU
of Indiana<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">1031
East Washington Street<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Indianapolis,
IN 46202-3952<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Dear Executive Director Henegar,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> I
am contacting the Indiana ACLU to make you aware of the legal situation
regarding grand jury investigations in Dearborn County, Indiana. In 2011, I was
indicted and convicted on a variety of crimes stemming from my public criticism
of officials within the Dearborn County Court System. I was marched to trial
despite, on multiple occasions, informing the trial judge that my public
defendant refused to ever meet with me to discuss my case. A week before my
trial, my public defender mailed a copy of the 340-page grand jury transcript
to me while I was incarcerated in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center on
a $500,000 surety/$100,000 cash bond. I was given only a week to read the
340-page transcript, which served as the only means by which I was to determine
what actions I was required to defend. As the indictments of my case covered
several years and mentioned no specific actions, and since my public defender
refused to meet with me, I appeared at my criminal trial with no understanding
of my case. On several occasions, I explained to Special Judge Brian Hill, Rush
Superior Court, that my public defender, Rush County Chief Public Defender
Bryan Barrett, refused to speak to me outside of the courtroom. I explained I
had no idea what actions I was required to defend. I filed three pro-se motions
addressing these issues on the morning of my trial. Judge Hill refused to even
ask Barrett if my accusations were true. Judge Hill only offered me the opportunity
to represent myself. As I had no understanding of my case, I obviously
declined. After serving a 2.5-year sentence, I discovered I was not provided a
copy of the entire transcript from the grand jury proceeding because the
transcript began at witness testimony. As the prosecution offered the
transcription into evidence during a hearing in my criminal proceedings, in
2012 my family requested a copy of the grand jury audio per the Access to
Public Records Act (“APRA”), but was denied. I made the same request in 2016
but again was denied. After filing a complaint with the Indiana Public Access
Counselor, the PAC issued an advisory opinion dated April 14, 2016 stating the
audio was a releasable record. It was then that the Dearborn Superior Court II began
claiming that other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with mine and
Special Judge Brian Hill directed the court reporter to prepare a copy of audio
that pertained only to my investigation. The Court changed the file format and
names of audio files and copied and pasted the grand jury audio; presumably to
match the transcript that was prepared five years prior. Most concerning is the
fact the transcripts contain more information than the audio from which it was
originally transcribed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> I
am currently taking two legal paths in trying to clear my name. The
criminal/PCR courts have no interest in protecting my rights. I am currently
appealing the blanket denial of my verified petition for post-conviction
relief. <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/ORDER_DENYING_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf">Special
Judge W. Gregory Coy</a> denied all twenty grounds I raised for post-conviction
relief without a hearing by simply stating: “There is no factual basis to
support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and
attorneys involved in his case.” [See attached order] Of course my petition
explained I had no assistance of counsel outside of the courtroom and I had no
understanding of the indictments when the trial started. Just like Judge Hill,
Judge Coy ignored my claims and granted summary disposition in favor of the
State, on the Court’s own motion. Judge Coy granted summary disposition in
favor of the State despite the State arguing a hearing was necessary because
issues of material fact made summary disposition/judgment unavailable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> I
am pursuing a second avenue via an APRA lawsuit against the Dearborn Superior
Court II. I’ve just filed a motion to set a hearing on the matter. <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/MOTION_TO_SET_HEARING.pdf">[See
attached petition]</a> To this date, the Defendants claim there is no record of
the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony. Complicating
matters is the prosecutor who conducted the grand jury investigation was F.
Aaron Negangard, current Chief Deputy to Attorney General Curtis Hill. During
my criminal trial, the prosecution instructed me to rely on the “complete”
transcription of the grand jury investigation to determine what actions the
State alleged to be criminal. Unbeknownst to me at the time, Barbara Ruwe,
court reporter for the Dearborn Superior II, omitted Negangard’s opening
statements and instructions to the grand jury occurring prior to witness
testimony. Now the Defendants claim that there is no record of my grand jury
investigation prior to witness testimony. The Dearborn Superior Court II claims
a record of the investigation prior to witness testimony does not exist but the
court is fighting the release of the original audio files claiming that other
grand jury proceedings are intertwined with my proceeding. For this to be true,
the court reporter would have had to let the recording device run throughout
all the proceedings without stopping. This contention might be plausible if
there were verbal cues in the record such as “we are back on the record of
Brewington.” In the absence of such cues, it would be impossible to accurately
transcribe any one investigation that was intertwined with others. Of course,
the Dearborn Superior Court II has made no mention of whether the grand jury
record was never recorded, deleted, or whether Negangard simply began
presenting evidence and witnesses without any explanation of the alleged
crime(s). It seems apparent that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has no
intention of protecting the public from this type of activity because the
Indiana Attorney General is serving as opposing counsel in both the appeal of
my post-conviction petition and my APRA lawsuit. Despite clinging to the claim
that I face a fair criminal trial and appellate process, no one wants to
address how the missing grand jury records prohibit me from knowing exactly why
Negangard made me a target of a grand jury investigation and being able to
defend which of my actions Negangard argued were unlawful.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> At
every turn, Indiana judges and lawyers have done everything to steer clear of
this situation because it represents what is known in some circles as the
“Indiana way” of doing things. I’m not overly optimistic that the Indiana
Chapter of the ACLU has the “resources” (aka: legal and political capital) to
address a case as toxic as this. Any assistance on these issues would be
greatly appreciated but not expected.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Very truly yours,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Daniel P.
Brewington</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="mailto:contactdanbrewington@gmail.com">contactdanbrewington@gmail.com</a> </span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Enclosed:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Copy
of <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/MOTION_TO_SET_HEARING.pdf">Brewington
Motion to Set Hearing</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Copy of <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/ORDER_DENYING_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf">PCR
Court’s Order</a> granting sua sponte summary disposition in favor of State<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-602655045222254412017-10-30T16:48:00.001-04:002017-10-30T17:14:18.847-04:00Judge W. Gregory Coy’s Injustice Made Easy<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Very few people could comprehend being incarcerated on $600,000 and forced to trial without any assistance of counsel in the United States but here's the role Switzerland County Circuit Judge W. Gregory Coy played in allowing Indiana to get away with it....</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<i>“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we want.
That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't about
Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan
Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it,
not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable. He's
held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and
that's what we're asking you to do.”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These are the closing arguments by Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney
General F. Aaron Negangard explaining why he sought indictments and convictions
against me when Negangard was the Dearborn County Prosecutor. I had no idea
what actions I was supposed to defend because my public defender, Rush County Chief
Public Defender Bryan Barrett, never met with me in jail to discuss my case. I told the special trial judge, Rush Superior
Court Judge Brian Hill, that Barrett never met with me to discuss my case. I filed three motions addressing the issues but Judge Hill
refused to question Barrett about it. Judge Hill said he wouldn't consider my motions because I had legal counsel to file them for me. I filed the motions because Barrett would not speak to me. Following my conviction, my appellate
attorney Michael Sutherlin said I couldn’t raise Barrett’s non-existent
representation on appeal because there was no record of trial strategy. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions,
claiming Barrett’s "trial strategy" waived my right to relief from the
unconstitutional guilty verdicts and the unconstitutional aspects of Negangard's prosecution. Chief Justice Loretta Rush speculated Barrett employed a "trial strategy" to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional arguments. Rush also claimed the
motions I filed demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the First Amendment,
but Rush failed to address the fact I filed the motions because Barrett refused to
speak with me or provide me with any assistance in preparing a defense for trial. This year I
filed a petition for post-conviction relief and raised numerous grounds, one of
which pertained to the fact that Barrett refused to meet with me. Coy signed an
<a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/ORDER_DENYING_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf">order
on September 25, 2017</a> denying my petition for post-conviction relief. Coy
didn’t make any specific findings of fact as required by the Indiana
Post-Conviction Rules. Coy simply dismissed all my claims by stating: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<i>“There is no factual
basis to support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the
judges and attorneys involved in his case.” <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
No kidding? Of course, there’s no factual basis because the
Indiana Courts continue to silence my complaints that my attorney never met with
me to prepare for my case. Barrett submitted no evidence, called no witnesses,
and even admitted during closing arguments that he wasn’t sure what two of the
indictments were even about. The Indiana Supreme Court couldn't have known what Barrett’s
trial strategy was because I didn’t know what Barrett’s trial strategy was.
Trial strategy is determined in post-conviction proceedings but Coy deprived me
of the ability to establish that Barrett did NOTHING by dismissing my petition. Current Dearborn
County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens is fully aware of the situation but does
nothing. The prosecutor’s pleadings were signed by Andrew Krumwied, a West
Point Alum. As Krumwied’s brothers in arms are fighting and dying for our
freedoms, Krumwied fights to take them away for political convenience in
Dearborn County, Indiana. The same people who probably condemn kneeling NFL
players are the people hiding behind closed doors, mocking the United States
Constitution. Judge W. Gregory Coy took the path of least resistance rather
than a path of justice, just to punish someone who had the courage, or
stupidity, to challenge the “Indiana System of Justice.”<o:p></o:p></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-54979973828478309152017-10-28T20:32:00.000-04:002017-10-28T20:32:29.956-04:00Judge W. Gregory Coy Refuses to Protect Right to Counsel<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
For over six years the Indiana
Courts have refused to address the fact that I was forced to trial without the
assistance of counsel. In a 2.5-page <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/ORDER_DENYING_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf">Order
dated September 25, 2017</a>, Special Judge W. Gregory Coy continued this trend
by denying all 20 grounds raised in my <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/BREWINGTON_PETITION_FOR_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf">Verified
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”)</a> in the Dearborn Superior Court
II. Judge Coy, who normally serves as Circuit Court Judge for Switzerland
County, Indiana, denied my petition without a hearing. Coy gave only the
following rationale for dismissing my PCR petition: “There is no factual basis
to support any of Brewington’s claims and/or allegations against the judges and
attorneys involved in his case.” Judge Coy told me that Summary Judgment was
unavailable under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) and then turned around
and awarded Summary Judgment in favor of the State despite the State never
requesting Summary Judgment. In fact, the State actively argued AGAINST Summary
Judgment claiming issues of material fact precluded the Court from granting
Summary Judgment to either party. The Dearborn Superior Court II waited two
weeks to provide me a copy of the order. Coy’s order is just another example of
the Indiana Courts circling the wagons to protect their own.<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">JUDGE COY REFUSES TO PROTECT DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL</span> </span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
I have used the analogy that you
can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. I have repeatedly
explained how I was denied legal assistance and indictment information prior to
trial but the Indiana Courts continue to obstruct my ability to present a case
to support my claim. Judge Coy’s recent order is not unlike the problem of
sexually harassment in corporate America, which has recently gained the proper
attention following the recent findings of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein. Rather
than address abuses in my case, Judge Coy decided to turn his head. Prior to my
criminal trial, my public defender refused to meet with me outside of the
courtroom. I communicated this to trial judge Brian Hill on numerous occasions,
but Hill refused to ask Barrett if my allegations were true. Former Dearborn
County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard stood silently, waiting to take full
advantage of the unconstitutional error. I told my appellate lawyer Michael
Sutherlin about not having any assistance of counsel, but Sutherlin refused to
address it. The Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ignored my written
and verbal concerns appearing in the trial record. In my Verified Petition for
Post-Conviction Relief, I expressed the same concerns to Judge Coy but Coy
claimed there was no factual basis to support my claim. In the case of <i>Allen v. State</i>, 791 N.E.2d 748, (2003),
the court stated, <i>“[W]hen a petitioner
alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, and the facts pled raise an issue of
possible merit, the petition should not be summarily dismissed.”</i> It is
important to note that Judge Coy never argued that my claims lacked merit. Judge
Coy did not allege my claim to be false. The State continues to ignore my claims.
I could easily prove Barrett refused to meet with me or speak to me by
obtaining visitor and/or phone records during my incarceration in the Dearborn
County Law Enforcement Center. Unfortunately Judge Coy stripped me of any
opportunity to obtain/present this evidence in an evidentiary hearing; a
hearing that even the Dearborn County Prosecutor argued was necessary.<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">COY “GIFTS” SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO STATE</span><o:p></o:p></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p> </o:p><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">In the State’s response to my Verified
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, the Dearborn Prosecutor wrote, </span><i style="text-indent: 0.5in;">“It is without sufficient information to
admit or deny paragraphs 1 AND 3 through 18.”</i><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> In response to my Motion for
Summary Judgment, the State claimed it </span><i style="text-indent: 0.5in;">“did
not address every specific ground alleged and raised by Brewington in either
his Petition or Motion for Summary Judgment, the State reserves the right to
address these issues at an evidentiary hearing on the matter.”</i><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> Not only did
the State not address all my claims, the State asserted an evidentiary hearing
was necessary per Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Rule 1(4)(g) states, “If
an issue of material fact is raised, then the court shall hold an evidentiary
hearing as soon as reasonably possible.” The facts gleaned from the pleadings
are as such: 1) The State argued the existence of multiple issues of material
fact throughout my PCR petition; 2) The State argued Ind. PC R. 1(4)(g)
prohibited Summary Judgment because the issues of material fact triggered the
requirement of an evidentiary hearing. 3) The State claimed it did not address
every ground I raised and reserved the right to do so during an evidentiary
hearing. Despite the State arguing against Summary Judgment while calling for
an evidentiary hearing, Judge Coy refused to hold an evidentiary hearing and
awarded Summary Judgment to the State.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">JUDGE COY’S SLIGHT OF HAND</span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
I originally requested Summary
Judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 56. The State alleged the request to be
improper under TR. 56. Believing to have made a technical error, I asked Coy to
consider my request under Rule 1(4)(g). Judge Coy wrote, <i>“The State argues that summary judgment is not available in a post
conviction relief claim; this court agrees, but does find that summary
disposition is still available pursuant to Indiana Rule PC 1 Sec. 4(g).”</i>
Coy premised the dismissal of my entire PCR petition on a non-existent
technicality. In <i>State v.
Gonzalez-Vazquez</i>, 984 N.E.2d 704, (2013), the court wrote:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
“The summary judgment procedure that is available under
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g) is the same as under Trial Rule 56(C).”
Under both rules, summary judgment is to be granted when there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Id. (citing Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g); Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)).”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Indiana case law demonstrates
Summary Judgment and Summary Disposition are the same in post-conviction
proceedings. Judge Coy tried to take advantage of me as a self-represented
litigant. As the State’s issue of material fact argument barred the State from
receiving Summary Judgment, Coy drew a non-existent distinction between Summary
Judgment and Summary Disposition and then buried the State’s issues of material
fact argument as if the issues of material fact only applied to my denied
Motion for Summary Judgment. But even Coy became confused with his own logic as
Coy wrote:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<i>“Even though the
State did not move for summary judgment, based on the undersigned judge’s
reading of the pleadings and the appellate cases mentioned above, judgment
should be entered without a hearing.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The State did not move for Summary Judgment because the
State argued issues of material fact barred Coy from issuing Summary Judgment. Judge
Coy dismissed the State’s arguments against Summary Judgment and awarded
Summary Judgment to the State. Coy awarded Summary Judgment to the State
immediately after explaining my request for Summary Judgment should be denied claiming
Summary Judgment was not available to me in a post-conviction proceeding. In
addition to making various false claims, Judge Coy’s Order failed to meet the
basic requirements of Ind. PC R. (5):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
“The court shall make specific findings of fact, and
conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Coy made no specific finding of fact to support the summary
dismissal of all 20 grounds raised in my Verified Petition for Post-Conviction
Relief, while Coy stripped me of any opportunity to obtain or present any
evidence or facts to support my claims.</div>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">THE FACTS SUPPORT VACATING BREWINGTON’S CONVICTIONS</span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
It’s an elementary concept that
people have a constitutional right to legal counsel in criminal proceedings.
During my trial, Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, appointed
the Chief Public Defender of Rush County, Bryan Barrett, to be my public
defender. Barrett refused to speak to me about the case prior to trial. Barrett
even admitted during closing arguments that Barrett was unaware of exactly what
actions were responsible for the indictments against me. Just like prior
Indiana Courts, Judge W. Gregory Coy refuses to address this. Coy also refuses
to address the fact that the grand jury transcript contains less information
than the audio from which it was allegedly transcribed. The State told me to
rely on the grand jury record for specific indictment information knowing the
record had been altered. Leading the State’s prosecution at the time was former
Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard. Negangard now serves as Chief
Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Coy’s efforts fall in line with
the way Negangard retaliated against me for challenging “our system of
justice.” Negangard boldly made the claim during closing arguments in my trial.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
“I submit to you that that is not a judicial system we
want. That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey. It isn't
about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was challenged by Dan
Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to let him pervert it,
not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held accountable. He's
held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held accountable and
that's what we're asking you to do.” -Negangard’s closing arguments. 10/06/2011
Tr. 504-505<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
For those unfamiliar with the law,
prosecutors are not allowed to request a jury to return guilty verdicts for
reasons other than a defendant’s guilt. Negangard went far beyond this
fundamental principal by telling the trial jury to return guilty verdicts
against me for a non-existent crime different than the indictments. This is the
conduct that Judge Coy and the Indiana Courts seek to protect. Because the
conduct is so egregious, the only way to protect the conduct is to pretend that
it never happened.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Judge W. Gregory Coy doesn’t care about
the rights he swore to uphold. I signed an affidavit standing behind my claims.
If my statements were false, Judge Coy should take action against me, but Coy
can’t. I don’t lie. Judge W. Gregory Coy is the liar. Coy cowers behind his
black robe to protect misconduct while rather than give me an opportunity to
voice my case. Now I’ll have to see how Coy rules on my <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/BREWINGTON_MOTION_TO_CORRECT_ERROR.pdf">Motion
to Correct Error</a>. I’m not holding my breath that an Indiana Court is going
to demonstrate any integrity.<o:p></o:p></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-16860394461081124622017-09-24T20:47:00.000-04:002017-09-24T20:47:16.391-04:00The Indiana Courts Continue to Stall on Case Involving Tampered Grand Jury Records<div class="MsoNormal">
The following is an except from my latest filing in my post-conviction relief case. On March 31, 2017, I filed a motion seeking summary disposition where I requested the court to vacate my convictions. The Dearborn Superior Court II has failed to issue a ruling on the matter. This seems par for the course especially as it was the Dearborn Superior Court II that altered grand jury records to assist former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecute criminal defamation. Negangard currently serves as Chief Deputy for Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill. Attorney General Hill's office is currently representing the Dearborn Superior Court II in my lawsuit seeking the unaltered audio from my grand jury investigation. (The audio released by the Dearborn Superior Court II contains less information than the transcription of the same audio.) Below is the conclusion appearing at the end of my Request for Ruling on Summary Disposition, dated September 23, 2017:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">This is not a John Grisham novel. This criminal case has
done immeasurable harm to Brewington’s life. From the beginning of Brewington’s
criminal proceedings, the State demonstrated how the entire action was simply a
means to silence and punish Brewington for criticizing officials operating
within the Dearborn County Court System. This is best demonstrated by the
arguments of Chief Deputy Prosecutor Joeseph Kisor during Brewington’s
arraignment on March 11, 2011:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Insert" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="text-align: justify;"><i>“[W]e is asking that the Court consider making conditions of
[Brewington’s] bond that he not access the internet, uh, or if the Court would believe
that to be too broad, which I'm not sure the State would not concede that but
if that were to be considered too broad, we would ask the Court to make a
condition of bond that Mr. Brewington not continue to blog about the substance,
uh, at least his version of the substance of the case that is here before this
Court.” Tr. 19</i></span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Insert" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Kisor later clarified the State’s concerns regarding
Brewington blogging during the criminal proceedings:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Insert">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>“So I think it's clear um, that he intends to try this case on
his blog and I think that not only could be detrimental to the State. It might
even be detrimental to him. But in any event, it's not appropriate”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Insert">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Deputy Kisor clearly explained that the Office of the
Dearborn County Prosecutor had an interest in censoring Brewington. Kisor tried
to claim the censorship was somehow a means to protect Brewington’s right to a
fair trial, despite the prosecution remaining silent at the beginning of trial
when Brewington informed Judge Hill that Brewington had not received any
assistance in preparing for trial. Kisor and the Office of the Dearborn County
Prosecutor were never concerned about the alleged victims. Kisor was only concerned
about Brewington sharing Brewington’s own “version of the substance of the
case.” Brewington’s trial was never about the alleged victims in the case and
Negangard explicitly stated such during closing arguments:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Insert">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>“That's what this case is about. It isn't about Judge Humphrey.
It isn't about Dr. Connor. It is about our system of justice that was
challenged by Dan Brewington and I submit to you that it is your duty, not to
let him pervert it, not to let him take it away and it happens if he's not held
accountable. He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how he's held
accountable and that's what we're asking you to do. You cannot allow our system
to be perverted that way. The rule of law will fail and ultimately our
republic. I submit to you that that is not a result that we want to have
happen. That is why we are here today.” Tr. 504-505</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Insert">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Brewington’s criminal proceedings were never about threats
to reputation or safety, because Negangard explicitly said so. Negangard sought
and obtained indictments against Brewington under the pretense of intimidation because
Negangard argued convictions for intimidation were necessary to prevent Brewington
from perverting our system of justice and to hold Brewington accountable like
an attorney. These are simply the facts of this case. The State cannot merely
retract Negangard’s statements. In an act of inane arrogance, Negangard openly
admitted that the State of Indiana sought convictions against Brewington to
prevent the fall of the rule of law and ultimately the United States of
America. Brewington could not invite this error. Brewington could not defend
himself against such. Negangard’s statement serves as a confession that
Brewington’s criminal proceedings were beyond unconstitutional, while Judge
Hill and Bryan Barrett allowed Negangard to seek convictions against Brewington
for perverting the judicial system. Brewington was held on a $500,000
surety/$100,000 cash bond. Brewington was denied access to legal counsel.
Brewington was denied the right to an impartial judge. Brewington was denied
access to evidence and indictment information. The Dearborn Superior Court II
excluded portions of the grand jury proceedings occurring prior to witness testimony.
There is no contesting the fact that Negangard affirmatively stated that Negangard
sought indictments and criminal convictions against Brewington, under the
pretense of intimidation laws, for the “greater good” of protecting the
integrity of the judicial system. These are the facts of the case as explained
by former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard that appear on pages
504-505 of the official transcripts in Brewington’s criminal trial. Brewington
is not twisting facts. These are facts of the case as alleged by Negangard, the
man who currently serves as Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis
Hill.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">If this Court should deem this action to be more appropriate
for a federal jurisdiction due to reluctance in dealing with abuses by high
ranking Indiana officials, Brewington requests the Court to issue an order
consistent with such a concern. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The following is a link to Brewington's <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/REQUEST_FOR_RULING_ON_SUMMARY_DISPOSITION.pdf" target="_blank">Request for Summary Disposition </a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-64271286354183062072017-05-31T12:25:00.000-04:002017-06-01T15:54:41.797-04:005 Arguments used by Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill to Obstruct Access to Altered Grand Jury Records<div class="MsoNormal tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is an "either/or situation." Either Chief Deputy F. Aaron Negangard made Dan Brewington the target of an unconstitutional grand jury investigation for criminal defamation; or the Superior Court II of Dearborn County, Indiana omitted constitutionally permissible grounds for Brewington's indictments from the grand jury audio and transcripts to help former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard obtain criminal convictions against Dan Brewington. Rather than hold people accountable for the illegal conduct, the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill joined the fight for the Defense against Brewington’s lawsuit seeking access to the full record of his already public grand jury investigation. The following are easily disproved arguments and statements by Defendants and the Attorney General in their efforts to cover-up misconduct involving Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill’s new Chief Deputy, F. Aaron Negangard. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1.) <i> "Brewington has, in fact, received the transcripts and audio recordings of the Grand Jury proceedings related to his investigation.”</i></span> </h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-- Page 28 of the Indiana Supreme Court opinion in <a href="https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05011401LHR.pdf" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">Brewington v. State</a> states, “Specifically, the prosecutor argued two grounds for Defendant’s convictions, one entirely permissible (true threat) and one plainly impermissible (‘criminal defamation’ without actual malice).” The record of the grand jury demonstrates Negangard provided the grand jury with only the unconstitutional “criminal defamation” ground for Brewington’s indictments. See page 338 of the<a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Grand_Jury_Transcript.pdf" target="_blank"> transcription</a> of the grand jury investigation of Dan Brewington. (Readers are encouraged to review the entire transcript if they have any doubts about Brewington’s claim that Negangard failed to provide any constitutional ground or instruction for making Brewington the target of a grand jury investigation. Readers should also note the investigation lacks any introduction as to the target and nature of the investigation currently before the grand jury, which Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill claims is not required.)</span></blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2.) <i>“The audio recordings of Grand Jury proceedings should never be disclosed, and should not have been disclosed.”</i></span> </h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-- The record of Brewington’s grand jury proceedings became public record during the course of Brewington’s 2011 criminal proceedings. The entities responsible for what the Indiana Attorney General argues to be the erroneous release of the grand jury record are Rush Superior Judge Brian Hill (Special Judge to the Dearborn Superior Court II) and former Dearborn Court Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; aka the a Defendant currently represented by the Indiana Attorney General, and the current Chief Deputy to the Indiana Attorney General.</span></blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3.) <i> “Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) allows the disclosure of transcript of testimony of a witness before a grand jury but ‘only after a showing of particularized need for the transcript.’ Even if Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) did apply, it clearly states that someone may only receive the transcript ‘after a showing of particularized need for the transcript.’”</i></span> </h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-- Defendants argued Brewington failed to show a “particularized need” for the grand jury record, yet Defendant Judge Hill did not place the same “particularized need” requirement on Negangard when the Chief Deputy Attorney General sought to admit the grand jury record as evidence during Brewington’s <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/JUDGE_HILL_MAKES_GRAND_JURY_PROCEEDING_PUBLIC_RECORD.pdf" target="_blank">bond reduction hearing on August 17, 2011</a>. According to the Indiana Attorney General, Defendant Hill and Chief Deputy Negangard essentially conspired to violate Indiana Code § 35-34-2-10(b) because neither made any effort to inquire about or explain the relevancy of admitting the grand jury record as evidence in a public trial:</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>MR. NEGANGARD: </b>State's 4 is the Grand Jury testimony in this case your honor.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>COURT:</b> Any objection to that Mr. Barrett?</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>MR. BARRETT: </b>No your honor.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>COURT:</b> State's 4 is offered and admitted.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>MR. NEGANGARD:</b> State's 5 is the internet postings and all the Grand Jury Exhibits that were presented during the course of the grand jury. It's on a CD.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>COURT</b></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>:</b></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And those postings were the exhibits in the Grand Jury?</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>MR. NEGANGARD:</b> Yes</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>COURT:</b> Okay. Any objection to 5?</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>MR. BARRETT: </b>No objection your honor.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>COURT:</b> I'll show State's 5 offered and admitted. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By arguing that a showing of a "particularized need" is required prior to disclosure of a transcript of witness testimony, the Indian Attorney General acknowledges that Brewington was denied additional charging information and/or evidence during Brewington's criminal proceedings. Defendant Judge Hill knew placing the same "particularized need" requirement on Negangard when submitting the grand jury record as evidence would have forced Negangard to provide Brewington with some understanding of the prosecution's case against Brewington.</span></blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">4.) <i> “Brewington received the audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings ‘pertaining to the case of State of Indiana vs Daniel Brewington, Cause No: 15D02-1103-FD00084.’”</i></span> </h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-Attorney General Curtis Hill continues to emphasize that Brewington received all audio despite the claim being patently false. <a href="https://youtu.be/PEHsu_oTjmw" target="_blank">See this example</a> of how one grand jury audio file cuts off before the end of the sentence appearing in what was supposed to be the transcription of the same audio. The 11-second file from the Dearborn Superior Court II appears “as-is”. If Brewington received all audio, then Chief Court Reporter Ruwe made up the last part of the sentence. If Ruwe didn’t make up parts of the transcription, the audio was altered to omit content.</span></blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">5.) <i> “Brewington claims there is a conflict of interest ‘given that the release of the Grand Jury Audio will demonstrate how Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process ....’ Brewington's claim is based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of a conflict of interest. First, even if Brewington's hypothetical conspiracy theory were true, the interest would not be materially adverse, Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1. 7 - 1.11, but would actually be the same in both cases.”</i></span> </h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">-- <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/GRAND_JURY_TRANSCRIPT_PAGE_338.pdf" target="_blank">Page 338 of the grand jury transcript</a> demonstrates Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard convened a grand jury investigation of Daniel Brewington because Brewington made “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about officials operating within the Dearborn County Courts. If the grand jury record is complete, as the Office of the Indiana Attorney General argues, then Negangard failed to present a constitutionally sufficient ground for convening a grand jury. If Negangard argued the same “true threat” ground for Brewington’s indictment that was argued during trial, the “true threat” ground was omitted from the record of the grand jury. As the grand jury audio is void of the “true threat” ground for Brewington’s indictment, the grand jury audio had to be modified to exclude such. The only way for the conspiracy to not be true is if the Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe acted alone in modifying the transcription of the grand jury record and then later altered the grand jury audio to match; without the knowledge of the Defendants or (then) Dearborn County Prosecutor Negangard. Even if Chief Deputy Negangard and Defendant Judge Hill were unaware of Ruwe omitting indictment information at the time of Brewington’s trial, the petition filed by the Office of Attorney General Curtis Hill still contends that Brewington enjoyed a fair criminal process. The interests of the Indiana Attorney General are obviously averse to Defendants because it was only after being represented by the Attorney General did the Defendants begin to claim it was their own erroneous rulings that made the grand jury record public. If one objectively reviews the contention of the Indiana Attorney General regarding conflict of interest, a conflict only exists in the absence of a conspiracy where the judges acknowledge and release already releasable public records. Judges are not allowed to arbitrarily disregard their own rulings to restrict access to records on the advice of defense counsel, regardless of whether counsel is the Indiana Attorney General. Ignoring the fact that Brewington’s grand jury proceeding has been part of the public record since 2011 is simply an attempt to suppress the fallout resulting from both the unconstitutional grand jury investigation and criminal trial brought by former Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard; the current Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney Curtis Hill.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The following are links to some of the recent petitions filed in Brewington’s lawsuit seeking the complete grand jury audio under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) and Brewington’s action seeking Post-Conviction Relief from the unconstitutional grand jury and criminal proceedings:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Brewington’s <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/MOTION_SUMMARY_JUDGMENT_AND_MEMORANDUM_PUBLIC_RECORDS_LAWSUIT.pdf" target="_blank">Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum</a> in APRA lawsuit.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Defendants’ <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/DEFENDANTS_CROSS_MOTION_FOR_SUMMARY_JUDGMENT_WEB.pdf" target="_blank">Cross Motion for Summary Judgment </a>filed by the Office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, where Defendants seek relief from their own rulings by claiming the already public records are not public.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Brewington’s <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/PLAINTIFFS_AMENDED_RESPONSE_TO_CROSS_MOTION_FOR_SUMMARY_JUDGMENT.pdf" target="_blank">Amended Response to Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgement</a> that proves the grand jury record is public record because it includes statements and rulings by the Defendants that verify the grand jury record has been public record since 2011.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Brewington’s <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/MOTION_SUMMARY_JUDGMENT_AND_MEMORANDUM_POST-CONVICTION.pdf" target="_blank">Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum </a>in Brewington’s Post-Conviction Relief case. The pleading demonstrates how Negangard forced Brewington to rely on the complete transcript of the grand jury investigation for specific indictment information and then demonstrates how Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe omitted Negangard’s opening arguments from the transcription of the grand jury proceedings; denying Brewington the ability to prepare a defense for trial.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Brewington’s <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/REQUEST_FOR_ORDER_TO_COMPEL_RELEASE_OF_GRAND_JURY_AUDIO.pdf" target="_blank">Request for Order to Compel Release of Grand Jury Audio</a> filed in the PCR court. Dearborn County Prosecutor Lynn Deddens represents the State in this case. Deddens is unable to claim the grand jury audio is not subject to release because Deddens lacks Attorney General Hill’s ability to ignore the fact that an Indiana trial court has already ruled that the grand jury proceedings in Brewington’s case are public record.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-37171456613626739622017-04-05T13:20:00.001-04:002017-04-05T13:38:46.734-04:00Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General Lied about Grounds for Prosecution<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Constitutional law prohibits prosecutors from requesting convictions against defendants for reasons other than their guilt. The following is an interview from 2013 when Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard served as Dearborn County Prosecutor. Despite Negangard alleging that my convictions were based on true threats of physical harm and arson, Negangard made no such argument during trial. The altered grand jury transcripts, which were altered by the Dearborn Superior Court II, are void of Negangard giving any true threat instruction for my indictments. The quote scrolling across the top of the screen in the video is the argument Negangard made for my convictions.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VblE3ZIcRXw/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VblE3ZIcRXw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
The grand jury transcripts in my case demonstrate Negangard made me the target of a grand jury investigation in the absence of a crime. Negangard argued I made "unsubstantiated statements" about Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey and Dr. Edward J. Connor, a psychologist often used by Dearborn County Courts. Negangard did not prosecute me for making threats of physical harm. Negangard made me a target of a grand jury investigation and prosecuted me for criticizing officials in the Dearborn County Court System. Now Negangard's new boss, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, is representing the Defendants in my lawsuit seeking the audio from the grand jury proceedings in my case. If Negangard presented a true threat ground for my indictments, Negangard had the true threat ground omitted from the transcription of the audio to deprive me of charging information. If Negangard failed to present a true threat ground for returning intimidation indictments, then the above video is further evidence of Negangard doubling down in Negangard’s efforts to retaliate against my First Amendment Speech. Now, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is saddled with the task of not only representing the defendants in my public records lawsuit, but Hill also bears the responsibility of keeping the records out of the public eye to protect F. Aaron Negangard, Hill’s Chief Deputy Attorney General.Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-31559511389218755532017-04-03T21:51:00.000-04:002017-04-03T22:06:10.669-04:00More Examples of Grand Jury Abuses by Officials under Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In addition to
changing the official record of grand jury proceedings, Chief Deputy Attorney
General F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury process by viciously attacking
and interrupting a grand jury witness whom Negangard claimed to suffer from
psychological problems. That witness happened to be me. During opening
arguments in my trial on October 3, 2011, Negangard read from a child custody
evaluation released by <a href="http://connorpsych.com/">Dr. Edward J. Connor</a> on August 29, 2007:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">“I'm going to read to you some
findings about Dan Brewington because I think it's important to note that Dr.
Connor hits the nail on the head when it comes to how he describes Dan
Brewington…[Brewington] has a severe attention deficit disorder that affects
his ability to focus and concentrate. He rambles and forgets, is given to
impulsive and incoherent thought. He cannot communicate with the mother with
the skills necessary to conduct joint custody. He also gave him a test. The
test results said he had a degree of psychological disturbance that is
concerning.” Trial transcript pg. 10<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">First thing to note is Negangard
failed to mention the above referenced child custody evaluation recommended
that I have near-equal parenting time with my 1 and 3-year-old daughters, which
included overnights and weekends. If Negangard really believed I was unable to
focus or concentrate and I rambled and forgot what I was saying, Negangard attempted
to take advantage of my alleged disability during my voluntary testimony before
the grand jury by constantly yelling at and interrupting me. If Negangard
believed I was unstable, then Negangard tried his best to light the fuse. When
I refused to be baited into Negangard’s trap, his tirades became so abusive
that near the end of the below dialogue appearing in the <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Grand_Jury_Transcript.pdf">grand jury transcripts</a>,
I tried to calmly address the members of the grand jury in an attempt to escape
Negangard’s toxic attacks. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: And
you didn't like his opinion either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well because,
who?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
Judge Humphrey.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well Judge
Humphrey, well the problem was...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: Yes
or no. Did you like Judge Humphrey's...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well which
opinion are you talking about?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: His
final order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: The final
order?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: He terminated
my parenting time with what Dr. Conner said...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
Well actually he didn't terminate your parenting time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Yes he did.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: Did
he?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Yes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: No,
he said, all you have to do, he said you have parenting time pursuant to, all
you have to do is get a custody, is get a psychiatric evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: That's why my
case was on appeal. [Humphrey] said that he didn't have jurisdiction any more.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
[Humphrey] said all you have to do was get a psychiatric evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Yes and I
was, I was, I tried to get a hearing for that and my hearing was set for June,
June 14th...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...you never got a psychiatric evaluation. Correct?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: It just got
approved. It's Dr. [Lawlor] and uh, uh, well, let me back up. I had a hearing
set for June 14th, it took a, by the final decree in my divorce, by the way
there was no mentioning of terminating my parenting time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
There was no mention of terminating your parenting time in the final decree.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Okay, what's
the final decree say? Do I get any parenting time<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
That you're not entitled to visitation. it doesn't say terminating visitation,
now does it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: What's that
mean? Did he terminate my visitation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: No.
Until you undergo a mental health evaluation. What is wrong with that?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Okay, then he
terminated then...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: If
you really cared about your children, why wouldn't you have gotten the
evaluation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well because
the burden of proof shouldn't be on <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...if you really cared...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...I did get
an evaluation....<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...about your children...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...here's the
problem...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...you didn't get an evaluation.. ,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Yes I did.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: No
you didn't.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Because on
March 13 th, March 17th, I had an attorney, well up until then, Judge Humphrey
said he didn't...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...you represented yourself. Correct?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well yes up
until then, March 17 th, Judge Humphrey said he didn't have jurisdiction of the
case because it was in appeal. I got an attorney. He filed a motion so we had a
motion to approve a psychiatrist, a Dr. Henry Waite in Cincinnati where both me
and my ex-wife reside and Judge Humphrey set a date, in fact, June 14, 2009 or
2010 Five days before that Judge Humphrey recused himself because of, this
investigation I guess because I guess you spoke with him or somebody did.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
That was a long time after this order was issued.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Yes because
he said that...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: You
had plenty of time to get a psychiatric evaluation but instead you chose to
appeal it. Correct?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well that's
the other thing it was he said I had to pay a hundred and twenty.-two thousand
dollars ($122,000.00) for the future interest of a trust in farmland that I'm
not entitled to so...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: But
that wouldn't prevent you from getting a psychiatric evaluation so you could
get your visitation...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well I got a
psychiatric evaluation. I got two (2) of them. I got one from a Hamilton County
Court. I got one from Dr. Henry Waite. I wasn't allowed to bring those because
I couldn't approve it. Here I got that...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
Isn't it true in your internet writings you said how you would not submit to a
psychiatric evaluation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: That was at the
very beginning because I was concerned. Okay, let's back up. The problem was, I
wasn't given a copy of Dr. Conner's case file, which is...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: You
got several documents...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Okay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...you didn't get what you wanted. You didn't get your wife's stuff that you
wanted to post on the....<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: I didn't get
everything<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...internet<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...I didn't
get everything...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
Correct?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: No. It had...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...so what...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...nothing to
do with that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: So
what, you had this evaluation, you couldn't do a, you couldn't...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Mr. Negangard
you got...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...no, I want you to try...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...your facts
wrong...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...and finally wake up. Everybody's at fault -- Judge Humphrey's at fault, Dr.
Corner's at fault, Amy Streator's at fault, Tom Blondell's at fault, Mike
Kreinhop's at fault...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...see this
is what he does...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...I'm. at fault, the Court of Appeals is...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...that's
what he does...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...at fault, the Indiana Supreme Court is at fault...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...because
that's what people like this do. They...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...is that whose all...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: ...point at
the person and say they're crazy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
...is that whose all at fault?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Well hold on.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD: I
mean because you've stated in your testimony that all those people are wrong
and you're the only one that's right. Correct?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DAN: Let me just
read this stuff real quick. Here's the history...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">MR. NEGANGARD:
Well answer the question. Are all those people wrong and you're the only one
that's right?</span><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Indiana Attorney
General Curtis Hill was aware of the above conduct but instead of taking action
to protect the public from abuses of the grand jury process, Attorney General
Hill rewarded Negangard’s conduct with a promotion. If Hill did address my case
with Negangard, Negangard probably just brushed it off as Brewington being
crazy; however, if Negangard believed that I suffered from psychological
disorders, then Negangard sought to take full advantage of my disability behind
closed doors. If Chief Deputy Attorney General F. Aaron Negangard did not
believe I suffered from the psychological dysfunction mentioned in Connor’s
report, then Negangard knew I was correct in criticizing Dr. Edward J. Connor and
<a href="http://www.dearborncounty.org/department/division.php?structureid=102">Judge James D. Humphrey </a>but made me a target of a grand jury investigation for
doing so.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Therefore Indiana
Attorney General Curtis Hill does not want the Dearborn Superior Court II to
release the full audio record from my grand jury proceedings. If the above is
part of what Negangard allowed to be included <i>in</i> the record of the proceedings, there is no telling what
information Negangard kept out of the record. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><a href="http://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2017/04/summary-judgment-two-legal-proceedings.html" style="font-family: "New Century Schoolbook", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Here
is a link</a><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> to more information regarding two separate court cases pertaining to
the grand jury abuses committed by the right hand man of Indiana Attorney
General Curtis Hill. </span></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-87525142435764022342017-04-02T21:23:00.001-04:002017-04-02T21:23:31.535-04:00Summary Judgment: Two Legal Proceedings, The Same Abused Grand Jury<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "New Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">DEARBORN COUNTY, IN- In documents dated March
31, 2017, an Ohio man filed motions for summary judgment in two separate court cases
involving accusations of grand jury record tampering. In 2011, Daniel Brewington
was convicted of intimidation of court officials and served 2.5 years behind
bars. The Indiana Supreme Court <a href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05011401LHR.pdf">upheld
Brewington’s convictions</a> claiming Brewington’s critical internet speech contained
“true threats [that] were carefully veiled” and did not enjoy first amendment
protections. Now Brewington is <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/BREWINGTON_LAWSUIT_GRAND_JURY_AUDIO.pdf">suing
for access to grand jury audio</a> and <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/BREWINGTON_PETITION_FOR_POST_CONVICTION_RELIEF.pdf">seeking
relief from his convictions</a>. Grand jury transcripts demonstrate former Dearborn
County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard omitted a “true threat” argument from the
record of the grand jury, while providing only an unconstitutional criminal
defamation ground for indictments; leaving Brewington unable to mount a defense
against the “true threat” ground the Indiana Supreme Court relied on to uphold
Brewington’s convictions. In addition to being void of a “true threat”
argument, the <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Grand_Jury_Transcript.pdf">grand
jury transcripts</a> in Brewington’s case begin at witness testimony, requiring
Negangard to either advise the court reporter to not record the entire
proceedings, or to omit any opening arguments from the transcription of the
grand jury audio. If Negangard failed to present a “true threat” ground for
Brewington’s indictments, Negangard made Brewington a target of a grand jury
investigation despite the absence of any criminal activity. Last year the
Indiana Public Access Counselor <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/ExhibitA_PAC_Opinion_14APR16.pdf">issued
an opinion</a> deeming the grand jury audio to be a releasable public record
and found the varying excuses for refusing to release the audio were invalid
exceptions under Indiana law. Adding interest to the story is the fact Negangard
now serves as</span> <span style="font-family: "New Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Chief Deputy to Indiana Attorney General Curtis
Hill. In the lawsuit seeking the audio, Brewington has also requested the Court
to disqualify Attorney General Hill’s office from representing the Defendants
due to Chief Deputy Negangard’s involvement in the matter. <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/IN_Attorney_General_Curtis_Hill_Public_Record_Complaint_Answers.pdf">Hill’s
office is arguing</a> the Dearborn Superior Court II is entitled to immunity
from civil actions seeking public records. No hearings have been set on either
matter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "New Century Schoolbook",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The following are links to Brewington’s <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/MOTION_SUMMARY_JUDGMENT_AND_MEMORANDUM_POST-CONVICTION.pdf">Motion
for Summary Judgment on Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief</a>
and <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/MOTION_SUMMARY_JUDGMENT_AND_MEMORANDUM_PUBLIC_RECORDS_LAWSUIT.pdf">Motion
for Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff/Motion to Disqualify the Office of Indiana
Attorney General Curtis Hill</a>. Both motions include supporting memorandums. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-67928883189835293922017-03-04T22:07:00.000-05:002017-03-06T12:17:16.832-05:00Grand Jury Record Tampering by Indiana Deputy Attorney General, explained in Under 200 Words<div class="MsoNormal">
In a <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/Praecipe_to_Prepare_Grand_Jury_Transcripts.pdf">Praecipe dated March 7, 2011</a>, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard directed
the “Court Reporter of the Dearborn Superior Court II to prepare and certify a
full and complete transcript of the grand jury proceedings.” In a hearing,
dated July 18, 2011, <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/Kisor_Mentioning_Complete_Grand_Jury_Transcript.pdf">Deputy
Prosecutor Kisor instructed</a> defendant Brewington to rely on a “complete”
transcription of the grand jury proceedings to develop a defense. On August 17,
2011, Negangard made the first mention of “witness testimony” in describing the
transcripts. <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/Grand_Jury_Transcript_Table_of_Contents.pdf">The
table of contents</a> from the grand jury transcripts show Page 1 as the
beginning of witness testimony. There is no record of anyone instructing Court
Reporter Barbara Ruwe to omit the opening and other portions of the grand jury
proceeding. Negangard had Ruwe omit portions of grand jury proceedings without
informing Brewington, thus depriving Brewington of indictment information and
evidence. Negangard is now the second in command for <a href="http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/2354.htm">Indiana Attorney General Curtis
Hill</a>. Curtis Hill’s office now represents the Dearborn Superior Court II in
Brewington’s Lawsuit seeking the grand jury audio behind the altered
transcripts. And Attorney General Curtis Hill knows all of this.<o:p></o:p></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-29175460418416228492017-03-04T19:46:00.003-05:002017-03-04T19:50:01.373-05:00Judge McLaughlin Recuses and Requests Transfer of Public Records Lawsuit<div class="MsoNormal">
Update on Brewington lawsuit seeking Grand Jury Audio (Filed
February 21, 2017) - On March 1, 2017, Judge Sally McLaughlin (formerly
Blankenship) filed the Court’s <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/ORDER_OF_RECUSAL_AND_TRANSFER.pdf">ORDER
OF RECUSAL AND TRANSFER</a>, recusing herself from the case involving my lawsuit
seeking the audio from my grand jury investigation. McLaughlin’s order also “requests
the Clerk to transfer this cause of action to Dearborn Superior Court 1 since
Dearborn Superior Court 2, the judge of Dearborn Superior Court 2, and the Dearborn
Superior Court 2 court reporter are named as defendants in said matter.” The
case was originally assigned to McLaughlin’s court by the Dearborn County
Clerk. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is no word on whether Rush County Superior Court Judge
Brian Hill will continue to serve as Special Judge in my Petition for Post-Conviction
Relief (“PCR”), filed February 22, 2017 as Hill is also name as a defendant in
the public records case. There is also no word on whether the PCR will remain in
the Dearborn Superior Court 2 as the lawsuit also names court report Barbara
Ruwe as a defendant because it was Ruwe who altered grand jury transcripts and
audio. <o:p></o:p></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-74589166071715760762017-03-02T15:31:00.001-05:002017-03-02T15:50:29.953-05:00Brewington Motion for Change of JudgeThe rules governing Post-Conviction Relief in Indiana allow a request for a change of judge if one can prove whether the judge has a bias against the person filing for relief. Prior to my criminal trial, Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush County (IN) Superior Court, refused to provide me with basic constitutional rights like access to indictment information and evidence. Hill appointed a public defender who refused to meet with me or prepare a defense for trial. After my conviction, Hill continued to obstruct the release of grand jury audio until the Indiana Public Access Counselor ruled the audio was a releasable public record. Then Hill alleged other grand jury proceedings were intertwined with the investigation of my case and ordered the court reporter to only prepare the audio from the grand jury investigation in my case. Dearborn Superior Court II Reporter Barbara Ruwe altered the audio format and the file names of the official grand jury audio in an attempt to match the audio up with transcripts that had been altered. The problem is the audio does not match the transcription of the same audio.<br />
<br />
That's just a small part of how Hill worked against me throughout his involvement in my case. For more information, check out my <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Brewington_Motion_Change_of_Judge.pdf" target="_blank">Motion for a Change of Judge</a>.<br />
<br />
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-34876650514558204602017-02-24T09:15:00.000-05:002017-02-24T09:15:50.029-05:00Brewington takes new Legal Action in light of Altered Grand Jury Records<div class="MsoNormal">
The State of Indiana prosecuted me for criminal defamation of court officials. I was given a $600,000 bond, denied
charging information, denied evidence, and denied the ability to consult legal
counsel prior to trial. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based
on a hidden threat argument never made by the prosecution. Several years later,
I discovered that Barbara Ruwe, Chief Court Reporter for the Dearborn County
(IN) Superior Court II, altered grand jury transcripts to assist Dearborn
County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard in his unconstitutional prosecution
against me. (Negangard is now the Chief Deputy Attorney General under Indiana Attorney
General Curtis Hill.) When the Indiana Office of the Public Access Counselor
deemed the grand jury audio in my case to be a releasable public record, the
Dearborn Superior Court II modified the grand jury audio to ALMOST match the
transcripts but came up a little short. In modifying the audio, the “official”
copy of the audio does not contain the same amount of information as the
transcription of the same audio. Page one of the grand jury transcripts is void
of any instruction from the prosecutor and begins with witness testimony. This
gave Negangard the freedom to request indictments for any alleged conduct
regardless of truth, because Negangard knew such instruction would be omitted
from the official record. As such, I have refiled my public records lawsuit
seeking grand jury audio and I have filed a motion for Post-Conviction Relief
to have my convictions thrown out. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here are links to my <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Brewington_Post_Conviction_Relief.pdf">Petition
for Post-Conviction Relief</a>, my refiled <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Lawsuit/Brewington_Lawsuit_Refiled.pdf">Lawsuit
Seeking Public Records</a>, and a <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Brewington_Letter_to_Clerk.pdf">letter
to the clerk of the Dearborn Superior Court II</a>. It is important to note
that Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is aware of the above information
because I included the above information in a <a href="http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/PCR/Letter_to_Attorney_General_Curtis_Hill.pdf">letter
to Attorney General Hill</a> sent via certified mail. Feel free to contact the
Office of the Attorney General with any concerns about Negangard’s abuse of the
grand jury process. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-83060940513480985722017-01-28T13:25:00.000-05:002017-01-28T13:41:55.793-05:00Why it is Important to Criticize Trump<div class="MsoNormal">
For those questioning my recent Facebook and Twitter posts regarding
Trump’s policies and actions, I can assure you none of my opinions or writings
are politically motivated or agenda based. My frustration with the ignorance condemning
me for speaking out and not blindly following government, while suggesting a
wait and see approach to Trump’s presidency, is neither irrational nor
misplaced. My passion for speaking out against Trump’s executive orders are
rooted in a criminal case that occurred in the United States. This case
involved a person who was investigated, indicted, arrested, and convicted while
being denied any specific charging information, access to evidence, and legal
counsel. The government made the following statements about this man:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
“[W]e believe that the allegations are extremely serious and
he does present a danger to the community.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
“He's held accountable by a verdict of guilty. That's how
he's held accountable and that's what we're asking you to do. You cannot allow
our system to be perverted that way. The rule of law will fail and ultimately
our republic. I submit to you that that
is not a result that we want to have happen. That is why we are here today.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The State argued the defendant was “paranoid, manipulative,
exhibits a manic-like existence, is unwilling to accept responsibility for his
behavior, he's self-centered, has difficulty seeing an issue from another perspective,
likes to do things on his own as opposed to being more cooperative and
compromising when needed.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Judge in the case told the defendant “I've never seen
anyone better at manipulating or turning the facts around to make yourself out
to be the victim.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Government argued the man suffered from a “degree of
psychological disturbance” yet neither Government nor the defense attorney attempted
to have the man evaluated to prove or disprove the allegation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The State argued “He’s convicted at a jury now, and his
response was to say it was my fault. Um, it's the prosecutor's fault, we lied,
we misrepresented the law.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Prosecutor obtained indictments against the man for
making “unsubstantiated statements” about the judge in the same district as
well as a professional witness contracted by the Prosecutor. The man’s convictions were upheld by a state supreme court
based on a different argument never presented to the grand jury and not raised
until the end of trial, making it impossible to defend. Does this case sound
familiar? It should to many. It’s the case of <i>State of Indiana v. Daniel
Brewington</i>. This happened to me. This was an attack on my 1<sup>st</sup>
amendment rights, which is made evident from the prosecution’s arguments during
my arraignment.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
“So, I think it's clear um, that he intends to try this case
on his blog and I think that not only could be detrimental to the State It
might even be detrimental to him. But in any event, it's not appropriate.”<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
“[T]he postings he has, to me, show an absolute disdain for
the Court and for the prosecution and certainly that's okay with the first
amendment as long as it doesn't affect with everybody, affect everybody's right
to a fair trial.” “So we're asking that that order be made no direct or
indirect postings regarding this case.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was prosecuted for speaking out about government officials. The prosecution’s argument that I should be prohibited
from writing about my criminal trial because it may be detrimental to my
defense is beyond comprehension. Notice the prosecution never argued my
continued writings were in any way harmful to the alleged victims. My writings could
only be detrimental to my defense if my writings were beneficial the prosecution, which
the prosecution would have gladly welcomed. The State knew publicizing the
details of my criminal case was a threat to the prosecutor’s unconstitutional
criminal defamation prosecution against me. The prosecution argued that I
difficulties communication represented me a master manipulator. There was much
testimony about me being a master manipulator despite the absence of any
example where my alleged manipulation succeeded. The sole purpose of the
Dearborn County Prosecutor in making me the target of an unconstitutional
prosecution was to smother the voice of opposition. That prosecutor was F.
Aaron Negangard, who is now the Chief Deputy Attorney General to Curtis Hill,
Attorney General for the State of Indiana. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are very few instances in history, if any, where
government restriction and/or condemnation of public speech is beneficial to
the public. This is happening now. A good leader should welcome criticism. I do not find Trump’s
failure to tell the truth as disturbing as how Trump continues to defend his statements that everyone knows are untrue. I’m not talking about arguing
“facts” of Benghazi or email scandals, I’m talking about Trump holding an
umbrella in a hot and dry desert and arguing how it’s raining cats and dogs, and
then attacking the media and people who are putting on sunscreen just to voice
their opposition him or support for Hillary Clinton. That’s what he did in
claiming 5 million people voted illegally. That’s what Trump did when he told
the CIA that the press conspired against him in not acknowledging Trump’s inauguration
was not the largest in history. This is behavior that raises concerns about Trump’s
psychological well-being, while raising questions of whether he comprehends the
ramifications of his actions. Like the prosecution in my case, Trump portrays a
doom and gloom scenario in the United States simply to rationalize taking abrupt and controversial
unilateral actions to boost approval ratings. Then he tells everyone to trust him as if none of us are smart enough to understand all the facts. Trump followed through with
promises he made during the election prior to having the security clearance
necessary to consider all of the facts required to make a competent decision. His
brash actions in “shaking things up,” demonstrate Trump does not understand or
care about the emotional and financial burdens incurred by many people who are
legally allowed in the United States such as students, business people,
religious missionaries, etc., but Trump is quick to attack anyone that
questions the executive orders. These are all issues that people should be free
to discuss without fear of being condemned or retaliated against by government
officials.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, you see, my opinions are not a product of a political
agenda. My views are a product of my own mind and my right to express them as a
citizen of the United States of America. <o:p></o:p></div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-213932218482113194.post-64118847017165433392016-09-16T12:47:00.000-04:002016-09-17T12:52:38.425-04:00Letter to Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The following is a letter I sent to Deputy Attorney General Joshua Lowry. I wanted to make him aware of a few matters regarding the County Clerk's problems in appointing a Special Judge for my lawsuit seeking public records. One of the matters include Ripley Superior Court Judge and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard agreeing to a time served plea deal to a man who would "</span><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: 48px;">steal young girl's underwear and women's lingerie” and “would take pictures of feminine clothing and write fantasies and nickname the women whom he had visited." This was my former cell mate at the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Negangard struck a deal with Joseph McCaleb because he agreed to try to bait me into saying something incriminating while wearing a wire in the jail. To say the least they got nothing on me but they released a sexual predator on the streets. More information below.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">September 16, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Deputy
Attorney General Joshua Lowry<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Office
of Attorney General<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Indiana
Government Center South, 5th Floor<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">302
West Washington Street<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Indianapolis,
IN 46204-2770<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Telephone:
(317) 233-6215<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Facsimile:
(317) 232-7979<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">E-mail:
</span><a href="mailto:Joshua.Lowry@atg.in.gov"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Joshua.Lowry@atg.in.gov</span></a><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Re:
Special Judge Appointment in Cause No. 15D01-1607-PL-000050<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Mr.
Lowry,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This correspondence is to help
provide some insight and/or transparency regarding the appointment process of a
special judge in the above cause. On September 14, 2016, the Dearborn County
Clerk of Courts, Rick Probst, left me the following voice mail:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“Mr.
Brewington this is Rick Probst, Clerk of Courts in Dearborn County. I had a
message to give you a call from yesterday. Um, you want to know what’s going on
with the judge appointments, um, and basically it appears that, uh, the judge
in Ripley county has recused himself. Uh, you have the opportunity with the
other attorney to agree on a judge. I’m waiting for the seven days to pass.
That will be tomorrow. Um, and I expect to appoint a replacement judge failing
your agreement with the other attorney. Uh, I expect to appoint a replacement
judge on the 19th. Uh, it’s delayed, uh, because I am unable to contact the Supreme
Court representative. I want to talk to him, uh, about the previous referral to
the Supreme Court. It appears that this action will be in rotation judges, uh,
in our district, uh, but I don’t expect anything to occur or an order to be cut
until the 19th. Um, okay, uh, if you have any questions you can give me a call
812-537-8867. Thank you”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Other than the
Court’s Order Appointing a Special Judge filed July 19, 2016, I am unaware of
any other order in this case pertaining to the appointment of a special judge.
Probst’s actions following the July 19 order raise many questions, the first of
which is by whose authority did Probst depart from the appointment procedure
described in the Order Appointing a Special Judge. Judge Cleary’s order stated:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">“If the parties are unable to agree upon a
Special Judge, the Special Judge will be selected by the Clerk pursuant to
Indiana Trial Rule 79 (H) and Dearborn County Local Rule AR-8.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I am somewhat at a
disadvantage because the court and/or clerks have failed to provide me with
copies of all orders and correspondence in this matter. I did not receive a
copy of Ripley Circuit Judge Ryan King’s Order Declining Appointment as Special
Judge, filed August 15, 2016. My only knowledge of such order came from
Probst’s Request for Appointment of Special Judge by the Indiana Supreme Court,
dated August 19, 2016. Probst cited Indiana Trial Rule 79(H)(3) in requesting
an appointment from the Indiana Supreme Court. T.R. 79(H)(3) which states: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(3) [C]ertification to the Supreme Court of
Indiana of cases in which no judge is eligible to serve as special judge or the
particular circumstance of a case warrants selection of a special judge by the
Indiana Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I have not
received copies of any orders of recusal from any of the other eligible judges
listed under AR-8. It would appear obvious that a couple of the listed judges
would be ineligible due to their prior involvement with State of Indiana v.
Brewington, Case No. 15D02-1103-FD-84, but I assume that would explain the
necessity of having eight eligible judges for appointment of special judge. I
have not received copies of any correspondence between Probst and the unnamed
male representative from the Indiana Supreme Court referred to in Probst’s
voice mail. I also did not receive a copy of the Order from Chief Justice
Loretta H. Rush, filed September 2, 2016. Now I have a September 14, 2014 voice
mail from the Dearborn County Clerk of Courts informing me that the deadline
for the parties to agree on a judge is September 15, 2016, when the Clerk
failed to provide the parties with any notice that the Clerk reverted to the
local rules of court to appoint a special judge. The unknown variable in the
equation is the unidentified male representative of the Indiana Supreme Court
mentioned in Probst’s voice mail that appears to have some impact in whether
Probst decides to follow the July 19, 2016 order to appoint a special judge per</span>
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Indiana
Trial Rule 79 (H) and Dearborn County Local Rule AR-8. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Motion for
Summary Judgment filed August 31, 2016, demonstrates how the transcripts do not
match the audio from the grand jury proceeding in question. There is also no
question that the Dearborn Superior Court II prepared an abridged version of
the grand jury record while representing the transcripts to be complete. The
transcripts and audio are not only void of any record of the proceedings prior
to witness testimony, the audio and transcripts do not match in several places.
Your clients will have to argue the Court abandoned the normal court recording
process that automatically stores and names court audio in five-minute files,
which in itself is a violation of Indiana Code § 35-34-2-3(d). In the
alternative they will have to argue why it is acceptable to charge the public
$300.00 for a “re-creation” of an official record that does not contain
information included in the transcription of the official record. In serving as
counsel for the Dearborn Superior Court II and Judge Brian Hill, the Office of
the Indiana Attorney General finds itself in a position to argue why the public
should not have the ability to see to what extent the Dearborn Superior Court
II and Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard abused the grand jury
process.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Your clients’ opposition
to transparency and the truth necessitated this action. The Indiana Public
Access Counselor opined that Judge Brian Hill’s many excuses why not to release
the grand jury audio were invalid. The Defendants’ newest claim that the grand
jury audio from the investigation of Brewington intertwined with the
investigations of “four to five” other grand jury proceedings is simply rebuked
by the lack of notice in the record that the focus of the grand jury
investigation switched away or back to Brewington’s case. In the wake of the
Dearborn County Superior Court II altering grand jury records, which assisted
Prosecutor Negangard by depriving a criminal defendant of charging information
before trial, Dearborn County Clerk of Courts Rick Probst disregarded the order
to follow the local rules of court and filed a request for appointment to the
Supreme Court. Despite not being a party to the action, Probst copied
Prosecutor Negangard to the filing, suggesting Negangard had an interest in
this case. Adding suspicion to the Clerk’s actions is the order of the listing
of eligible judges as seen below:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">1.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of the Jefferson Circuit
Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">2.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of the Jefferson Superior
Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">3.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of Switzerland Circuit Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">4.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of the Ripley Circuit Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">5.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of the Ripley Superior Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">6.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of the Dearborn-Ohio Circuit
Court<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">7.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of Dearborn Superior Court II<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">8.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Judge of Dearborn Superior Court I<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Following Ripley
Circuit Judge Ryan King’s order declining appointment, Probst defied Trial Rule
79 and arbitrarily sought an appointment from the Indiana Supreme Court. Local
rules instruct the Clerk of Courts to appoint the next judge in line when
selecting a new special judge. According to the local rules of the Dearborn
County Courts, the next appointment should have been Ripley Superior Court
Judge Jeffrey Sharp. This might present a conflict, as Jeff Sharp was a
Dearborn County Deputy Prosecutor prior to being elected Superior Court Judge.
Prior to serving as a deputy prosecutor, Sharp was the public defender for
Joseph McCaleb who, as a DirecTV installation technician, would “enter the
homes of DirecTV subscribers and steal young girl's underwear and women's
lingerie.” McCaleb “would take pictures of feminine clothing and write
fantasies and nickname the women whom he had visited. He also would attempt to
contact the subscribers via the Internet using Facebook or text message them.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Dan/Google%20Drive/Lawsuit%20against%20Hill/CORRESPONDENCE/Letter%20to%20Deputy%20Attorney%20General%20Lowry.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Sharp negotiated a deal with Negangard to secure a “time served” plea bargain
for McCaleb in exchange for what turned out to be unsuccessful attempts by McCaleb
to bait his cellmate, Dan Brewington, into making threatening statements while recording
the conversation through a hidden device. No illegal conduct was recorded and,
in a county whose stratospheric incarceration rate made it the subject of a recent
New York Times article, the deviant pervert was allowed to go free.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Following Sharp on
the list of eligible judges are the three judges of Dearborn County. Dearborn
Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey was one of the alleged victims in Negangard’s
criminal defamation case against Brewington. Dearborn Superior Court II Judge
Sally McLaughlin, formerly Blankenship, was the original judge in Brewington’s
criminal trial. McLaughlin set Brewington’s bond at $500,000 surety and
$100,000 cash in the absence of any evidence that a crime had been committed.
It was on McLaughlin’s watch that Chief Court Reporter Barbara Ruwe altered the
grand jury transcripts and represented the transcript to be complete and then
oversaw the modification of the grand jury audio in an apparent attempt to
match the altered transcripts. At position number eight is Judge Cleary, the
original judge in this lawsuit seeking public records, which leads us back to
one through three; the only three Democrat judges on the list and the only
judges to have decades of experience in private practice rather than rising to
the judicial position through the ranks of the county prosecutor’s office. Probst
abandoned the local trial rules following Judge King’s admission that he was a
fraternity brother and close friend of defendant Hill, rather than pass the
case to judges of the opposite political party with careers not molded by the
county prosecutor’s office. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Regardless of
whether the actions of the Dearborn Clerk of Courts are malicious or due to
incompetence, it falls in line with your clients’ actions in obstructing the
release of tampered grand jury records that played a role in an
unconstitutional criminal defamation trial. As such, I will be contacting the
Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court and Counsel for the Indiana Supreme Court in
the hopes of determining who is responsible for secretly advising Probst throughout
this current debacle of finding a judge to hear this case. I intend to contact
the FBI about these matters as well. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Thank you for your
time and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. A copy of this
letter can be found on </span><a href="http://www.danbrewington.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">www.danbrewington.blogspot.com</span></a><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">
for your convenience. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Daniel P. Brewington<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">3 W Central Avenue<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Delaware, Ohio 43015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">513.383.3136<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<a href="mailto:contactdanbrewington@gmail.com"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">contactdanbrewington@gmail.com</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Cc: Prosecutor
F. Aaron Negangard<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Dearborn
County Prosecutor Office<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">215
W High St<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "new century schoolbook" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Lawrenceburg,
IN 47025<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Dan/Google%20Drive/Lawsuit%20against%20Hill/CORRESPONDENCE/Letter%20to%20Deputy%20Attorney%20General%20Lowry.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/09/42099.htm<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Dan Brewingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09813186050029927111noreply@blogger.com3