Humphrey to Brewington, “It’s either the First Amendment or your kids!”

Dearborn Circuit Judge
James D. Humphrey

“I think you better consider what you're doing because I may consider this as reflecting on what's really important to you, making these web-site postings or your children.” –Testimony of Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey during criminal trial of Dan Brewington.  This is the ultimatum/warning Judge James D. Humphrey claimed to have given Dan Brewington before stripping Brewington of his ability to see his children.  Unfortunately, Brewington’s divorce record is void of Humphrey giving Dan any such ultimatum.

On April 29, 2009 Judge James D. Humphrey held a hearing on a petition for a protective/restraining order filed on 4/16/2009 by the attorney of Dan Brewington’s ex-wife.  Brewington’s ex-wife complained about Dan sharing his experiences on the internet in dealing with lawyers, judges, and psychologist through the course of the divorce was bad for her and the children.  Brewington filed a Response to her petition and argued the writings were not harmful to the children and their mother and the content was protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. On May 14, 2009 Humphrey’s order on the petition for protective order stated “said Motion should be and hereby is DENIED at this time.”

When a Judge rules in favor of a litigant, one would think the law falls on the side of the litigant.  Humphrey also added the following to the order denying the protective order:

“The Court may consider issuance of an Order regarding public distribution of matters involving the Dissolution or Custody Evaluation as part of the Court's Decree of Dissolution in considering the best interests of the children. The Court may also consider evidence presented at this hearing regarding the temporary restraining order in regard to the Court's decision as to visitation and custody and how Respondent's actions may affect the best interests of the children now and in the future.”

Judge Humphrey stated the motion should be and was denied, and then went on to write how he “may” consider an issuance of a different order regarding public distribution of the divorce case at another time.  He also said he “may” take into consideration Brewington’s actions in determining visitation and custody.  What actions?  The actions Brewington took to demonstrate his writings were not harmful to the children or his ex-wife were what caused Humphrey to deny her petition asking Humphrey to force Dan to take down his internet content.  What Brewington did not know at the time was Humphrey was giving Dan an ultimatum; stop writing telling people what goes on within the family court system in Southeastern Indiana or I will take your children away from you.  Humphrey had the power to order Brewington to remove the internet content if it was dangerous to his children.  Humphrey refused to do so because the web writings were not damaging to the children; they were damaging to him.

During cross-examination of Humphrey in Brewington’s criminal trial, Brewington’s public defender, Bryan Barrett, asked Humphrey for his recollection as to why he denied the petition for a protective order.  Humphrey had a different and more specific explanation as to why he denied the protective order.  Judge Humphrey stated:

“The reason that I denied it because, I think there were probably two reasons: #1, your client was indicating this was my first amendment right to say what I want to say and I was going to let him do it and the second reason was and in my order I also indicated I think to paraphrase, I think you better consider what you're doing because I may consider this as reflecting on what's really important to you, making these web-site postings or your children and I think by your client's continued actions, he made it very clear he was more interested in his web-site postings than his children.”

James Humphrey may be a vindictive and evil judge be he is not a dumb judge.  Humphrey was well aware of the fact that he could have ordered Brewington to remove his internet content if the information was damaging to Dan’s children.  Humphrey also knew he could have issued an order protecting aspects of the divorce from public dissemination.  Humphrey did not issue a protective order because there was no evidence Brewington’s writings were dangerous to the children or harassing to their mother.  Judge Humphrey’s testimony states the intention of his order was to tell Brewington to choose between his children or his First Amendment protected criticisms of the court system.  Humphrey knew he couldn’t give Brewington that kind of direct ultimatum in a court order because it would have been a very appealable issue and would have likely brought some media attention.  Humphrey knew the content was not dangerous to the children because the content is still on the internet to this day.  It was Humphrey’s own contention that he sent Brewington a hidden message saying “stop writing or you won’t see your children.”  No evidence was ever presented that Brewington’s writings were damaging to his children.  Humphrey’s own contention is he felt Brewington should have heeded Humphrey’s warning that was hidden in the order.  Humphrey claimed Brewington chose his writings over his children yet Humphrey did not make it clear to Brewington that Humphrey even posed the ultimatum.  Brewington would have been better suited to choose one freedom over another if Humphrey would have made it clear to Brewington that he was not going to allow Dan to have both his free speech and his children.

The irony of the situation is, during Brewington’s criminal trial, Humphrey testified his May 14, 2009 order contained hidden threats to take away Brewington’s children if Brewington did not cease exercising his First Amendment Right to criticize the family court system.  Brewington was convicted of D Felony Intimidation because Prosecutor Negangard successfully argued Brewington’s writings about Judge Humphrey’s termination of Dan’s parenting time were considered hidden threats and were made in retaliation for a prior lawful act; Humphrey’s terminating Dan’s parenting time.  Because Brewington wrote about how Humphrey retaliated against him in taking away his children because Brewington did not cease to exercise his First Amendment Right in criticizing the courts, Dan was prosecuted for retaliating against Judge James D. Humphrey.  The scary part to the story is if the Indiana Supreme Court upholds Brewington’s conviction, all someone like Judge Humphrey has to do go to the local prosecutor and cry about how a blog post like this scares him and claim he’s intimidated and the writer can be prosecuted.  Only in Indiana.

How do you file a complaint with the Indiana Supreme Court against the Indiana Supreme Court?

The following is a letter to the Indiana Supreme Court asking where someone can file a complaint against the Indiana Supreme Court. Sounds crazy but how do you figure out where to file a complaint against a state supreme court that investigates cases outside of the courtroom? I'll start by asking. I guess the Indiana Courts cheat at all levels. No wonder they want me to take down my internet content.

December 2, 2010

Supreme Court of Indiana

315 Indiana State House

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

317.232.1930

317.232.8372 [fax]

Re: Indiana Supreme Court complaint

To whom it may concern: I am looking for information/insight as to the venue that would be appropriate for filing a complaint against the Indiana Supreme Court. On August 18, 2009, Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my parenting time with my children after I publicly questioned the ethics of the Court’s expert, Dr. Edward J. Connor. Though there were no allegations of abuse or neglect and no party raised the issue of terminating parenting time, Judge Humphrey terminated my parenting time and stated, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor.” Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children because I created a website and a blog explaining how the Court obstructed my access to the investigator’s file that was used against me. In fact, Judge Humphrey ruled that I could not regain unsupervised visitation unless I removed the internet content, which also dealt with Dr. Connor’s ex parte communication with Ripley Circuit Judge Carl H. Taul and Judge Taul’s subsequent recusal.

I am aware of the proper venue to file complaints against Judge Humphrey and Judge Taul but I am leery of filing a complaint against Supreme Court Justices while my case is still pending transfer to the high Court of the state. Before my case was transmitted to the Appellate Court, an IP address registered to “Indiana Supreme Court” began to frequent my website and blog. An “IP address” is a computer’s numeric address on the internet. To date, the IP addresses of the Indiana Supreme Court have accounted for 227 hits on 43 web pages on my website. The IP addresses appeared prior to, during, and after the Appellate Court hearing of my case. In timeline form, many of these page views correlate with filings and rulings listed on the Appellate/Supreme Court docket, and they also seem to correlate with events on the county level. What is most disturbing about the Court IP addresses appearing on my website, other than the obvious nature of the ex parte investigation, is that the website that the IP addresses have been frequenting was not created until six months after the final hearing in my case and the website does not appear anywhere on the Court record. The original website was removed when the new one was created, thus bringing into question how the Supreme Court came about the new site.

The Appellate Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and my case is pending transfer to the Supreme Court. The Appellate Court wrote, “During the pendency of the proceedings, Daniel posted information concerning the dissolution on his website and blog, in response to which [Wife] sought a protective order and a temporary restraining order on more than one occasion.” My ex-wife filed one motion for a restraining order and, following a hearing, the motion was denied because the internet content was neither dangerous to my children nor harassing to their mother. For whatever reason, the Appellate Court fabricated the information regarding the numerous restraining orders in an apparent attempt to demonize my public writings even after the trial court previously denied the one and only motion requesting the Court to remove the writings. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on July 20, 2010. The Supreme Court appeared on my website on July 20, 21, and 22. When I filed a petition for a rehearing, the Appellate Court denied the petition on September 8, 2010. After staying away from my website for over a month, the Supreme Court reappeared on September 9, 2010; the day after the Appellate Court filed its opinion.

As there are not any guidelines on how to deal with the Supreme Court investigating ex parte evidence, I am contacting different entities and agencies in an effort to find the appropriate course of action to handle the matter. I am trying to discern whether this matter should be handled by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Governor’s office, or possibly an agency like the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If there are questions of whether the IP addresses belong to individual justices, the subpoenaing of web histories, emails, etc… would determine exactly who has been following my internet writings while my case has been pending. Any information would be greatly appreciated. I would hope that the state will act immediately to help protect the integrity of Indiana’s court system. Thank you.

Respectfully,


Daniel P. Brewington

dan@danhelpskids.com

www.danhelpskids.com

cc:

Governor Mitch Daniels

Office of the Governor

Statehouse

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2797

FBI Indianapolis Field Office

575 North Pennsylvania Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317.639.3301

317.321.6193 (fax)

Mr. F. Aaron Negangard
Dearborn-Ohio County Prosecutor
Courthouse
215 West High Street
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
812.537.8884

812.537.4295 (fax)

Even Dr. Edward J Connor couldn't lie about a reason to restrict my parenting time.

Judge James D. Humphrey felt that maliciously traumatizing my children was a small price to pay in his efforts to punish me. My ex-wife continues to fight to hinder my daughters’ ability to see their father. She is wrapped up in Judge Humphrey’s make believe opinions and bogus orders that try to portray me as a “potential danger” to my children. Dr. Connor did his best to hurt me through private letters to the Court, in responses to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, backdoor deals with opposing counsel Angela Loechel, and in his bogus testimony in the final hearing. Unfortunately for Dr. Connor, and the other people who want to deprive my little girls of a father, Dr. Connor could not skate past the facts at the end of his testimony at the final hearing. Dr. Connor is unable to find a reason why I should not have been able to care for my children. Despite Dr. Connor’s below testimony, Judge Humphrey ignored Dr. Connor’s recommendations and ripped my daughters of a father while citing, “The Court is most concerned about Husband’s irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor.” In the below testimony, the only concern stated by Dr. Connor is that the children could suffer emotional trauma if their time with their father was reduced or eliminated.

Dan : In closing, do you think that the children, given the fact that they spend equal time with each parent, could suffer some emotional trauma by reducing or eliminating the amount of time that they have with their father or their daily scheduled -- routine?

Dr. Connor: I do.

Dan: And do you think that since there’s no examples of abuse, neglect, the children are not wanting their father or their mother, either way, do you think there would be any reason why all efforts shouldn’t be made to ensure that both parents play an active role, if possible?”

Dr. Connor: I think that our recommendation indicates that the children do love you and that you love the children. There is a bond there and that the time that we recommend, we believe would sustain that bond. The issues, again, as I’ve stated previously, is that to have joint custody with you, I think, would be an extreme challenge and I think the prognosis is very poor, even with treatment.

Dan: You stated that -- With this being said, you said you believe that the Petitioner should be the primary resident and the children should have time with their father during the times that their mother works, if Dan can arrange his schedule accordingly, we believe that this would be or benefit to the children, so you stated that it would be beneficial to the children for [Dan] to be as big a part as possible, it seems, and then you on to say, ‘we see no reason why the schedule should not remain intact at this time.’ And then you go on to say that minimizing the time would in fact sustain their existing bond. How can the bond of a one year old and a parent be sustained by minimizing the time they have?

Dr. Connor: Well, again, I think with -- I don’t know your work schedule or if you’re working at this time. I don’t know the mother’s work schedule. But we recommend, perhaps a parenting coordinator or mediator or some type to look at the schedule, because we do believe that the children enjoy their relationship with you. As they get older and start to school, this would become more of a problem, then, because they would need to be in school.

Dan: Just one last question. Indiana time guidelines state that -- the parenting time guidelines state--

Dr. Connor: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear what you said.

Dan: The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines state that frequency versus duration is important in raising young children.

Dr. Connor: Right

Dan: Why wouldn’t that apply to your evaluation report, given that at the time of release the youngest daughter was one year old, and you state that minimizing the time would, in fact, sustain the existing bond, when the State of Indiana, if effect, stated that, you know, frequency is more important than not interrupting the schedule.”

Dr. Connor: Because I do not feel that you all can have joint custody, given the difficulty that you have between you. I believe that the work schedules have to be factored into this to really determine the parenting time that would be appropriate for the children.

Dan: But if it could be worked out, then as equal time as possible, then it would be the best scenario?

Dr. Connor: I believe that the mother would be the better primary residential parent.

Dan: But if it could be worked out that, uh, sharing -- you know, as equal time as possible, that would be beneficial to the children?

Dr. Connor: I don’t agree with that, because sharing equal time requires a lot of cooperation, negotiation, clean communication, and I don’t think that’s possible between you and Ms. Brewington, so therefore, I think there needs to be a primary residential parent and a sole custodian. And when the mother’s working, if the children can be with their father, then I think that’s fine.

Dan: So that means that, you know, if there’s a need for childcare, if there’s the opportunity, then there wouldn’t be any -- you don’t see any problems with dad being --

Dr. Connor: Provided the children aren’t in some type of pre-school or things like this, because children do benefit from that, as well.

Dan: Even if the Respondent takes the children to pre-school? I mean, is there a problem with that?

Dr. Connor: No, I don’t --

Dan: I have no further questions. I’m done.

Why do people keep going to such extremes to keep my little girls from being able to be with their father and his family; because there are people who hate me for who I am and they allow that anger and hatred to override the fact that my children are suffering long term emotional damage because my girls are being denied of a father without any reasonable explanation. Now I have to go back to court to face contempt charges because some people believe it is harassing or dangerous that I keep writing about the fact that my children were deprived of a father even though my ex-wife’s witness testified that I should be able to care for my children on the days that their mother works. One of the last times I spoke with my oldest daughter on the phone, she told me that she was being told that Daddy had to “work harder.” She was right. Of course she doesn’t know that Daddy has to work very hard to overcome the everyday obstacles that mean and vindictive people construct to hinder my ability to see my daughters. The hatred that these people have for me is greater than any love or concern that they have for my children. Don’t worry girls; Daddy will keep fighting for you no matter how hard other people try to keep you from your dad. For more information, go to www.DanHelpsKids.com.

Why haven't I seen my kids for over a year? This is why.

Many people question why I haven’t had the opportunity to see my children for over a year now. The reason is Judge James D. Humphrey did not want me to see my children and Judge Humphrey actively worked to prohibit me from being able to get back with my children. The following is an explanation of why/how I haven’t even had an opportunity to comply with Judge Humphrey’s orders so I can see my daughters.

In the final decree of my divorce, filed August 18, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey wrote:

“Respondent shall not be entitled to visitation until he undergoes a mental health evaluation with a Mental Health Care Provider approved by the Court. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if he is a possible danger to the children, Wife, and/or himself. Further, Husband shall follow all recommendations made by the Mental Health Care Provider.”

In the summer of 2007, I participated in a child custody evaluation that was performed by Dr. Edward J Connor. Connor’s evaluation, addendum, and psychological testing made no mention of me presenting any danger to children, Wife, and/or myself. Despite Dr. Connor reporting in his evaluation report that he had no concerns about me being a “potential danger” to anyone, Judge Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children until he received a “second opinion” from a different mental health professional confirming that I do not present a risk to anyone. If Judge Humphrey, my ex-wife, or Dr. Connor felt that my mental health presented a danger to anyone, then why didn’t they attempt to review my records from the Affinity Center in Montgomery, Ohio? Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and my ex-wife were well aware that I had been under the care of a doctor and therapist for ADHD at the Affinity Center since January 2002. Despite knowing that I was (and still am) currently under the care of a doctor and a therapist for ADHD, Judge Humphrey ordered me seek an evaluation from another professional and ordered me to follow all of the recommendations rather than consult with my treating therapist and doctor. [An important thing to note here is that we are talking about Attention Deficit Disorder. If anyone can provide me with information relating to ADHD causing people to become dangerous or violent, please let me know.]

On the surface, it doesn’t look so bad. People think, “So what? Just go through an evaluation.” I can’t. First I have to have a mental health provider approved by the Court before I present an evaluation to the Court. On September 8, 2009, I filed a petition for contempt when my ex-wife stopped letting me talk to my children on the phone. Judge Humphrey set a hearing for the matter but later dismissed the hearing citing that he didn’t have jurisdiction over the case while it was in appeal. On January 19, 2010, I filed a motion to release Dr. Connor’s case file to a psychiatrist in order for me to be evaluated. Judge Humphrey denied my motion because he claimed he did not have jurisdiction. On March 11, 2010, my lawyer filed a motion to approve a psychiatrist and Judge Humphrey determined that he did have jurisdiction of the case and set a hearing on the matter for June 13, 2010. My attorney had to petition the Court to set a hearing because my ex-wife did not think that the psychiatrist that I chose was qualified to evaluate me. Judge Humphrey made me wait three months for a hearing just to approve a psychiatrist. Just five days before the hearing, Judge Humphrey recused himself claiming that there was an ongoing investigation of me that pertained to him but Judge Humphrey refused to provide any details of the alleged investigation.

Following Judge Humphrey’s recusal, the matter went back to the original judge in the case, Judge Carl H. Taul, where Judge Taul arbitrarily appointed Judge John Westhafer, of Decatur County, to serve as the Judge in my case. Since Judge Taul did not follow the rules of his own court in appointing Judge Westhafer, my lawyer file a motion to correct error. Judge Taul wasn’t allowed to just arbitrarily pick who he wanted to be the next judge; he was supposed to name a panel of three judges, giving the parties an opportunity to strike two judges from the list. On July 9, 2010, Judge Taul named Judges Cleary, Todd, and Coy. My attorney had the first opportunity to strike from the panel. Considering Judge Cleary is in Dearborn County, there wasn’t much of a debate who we didn’t want to be judge. On July, 26, 2010, opposing counsel struck Judge Coy from the list leaving Judge Todd of Jefferson County. The Ripley Circuit Court did not issue an order naming Judge Todd until August 17, 2010. Judge Todd accepted the selection of Special Judge on September 3, 2010, but the Ripley County Clerk did not mail it out until September 8^th.

Nobody involved in this matter, except for my attorney and me, cares about my children. The people involved just want to keep putting off the inevitable; an outside professional appearing in court and stating that there is nothing in my history or psychological makeup that would suggest that I am a danger to anyone. Now that there is a new Judge, I can petition the Court to set a hearing to approve a psychiatrist. This is what I am required to do per Judge Humphrey’s orders. If the Court approves my psychiatrist, then I can go through an evaluation and then I have to petition the Court to set a hearing to approve the evaluation. If the Court approves the psychiatrist’s findings that I do not present a danger to anyone, I still can’t resume normal parenting. I have to find another mental health professional to observe me during two, two hour supervised visitation sessions a week with my daughters in a “therapeutic environment.” Before I can undergo supervised visitation in a therapeutic environment, I have to petition the court to set a hearing to approve the mental health professional. If the Court approves the mental health professional, I may see my children for two hours, two times a week. After I undergo supervised visitation with my children in a “therapeutic environment” and the mental health professional says that I do not present an emotional or physical risk to the children, then I can petition the Court to set a hearing to approve the findings of the mental health professional and I can request unsupervised visitation with my children. If the Court approves the findings, I can have unsupervised visitation with my children granted that I meet a list of guidelines, one of which is take down my internet content regarding the whole situation. Judge Humphrey wrote, “Because of the potential danger to the children, [Dan Brewington] must remove all postings created by him from the internet concerning the children before any unsupervised visitation may commence and/or continue.” [Please note all of the “if’s” and “approve’s”. If the Court were not to approve any of the above, I would have to repeat the step. Judge Humphrey made it clear that I am responsible for paying for all evaluations, supervised visitation sessions, etc… that are “necessary” in getting back to my children.]

None of this is about the safety or welfare of my children. It’s about protecting the people who hurt two little girls because the people hated what the girls’ father stood for. Judge James D. Humphrey was mad at me because he couldn’t force me to take down my internet content. At no point was there ever any testimony or evidence that my internet content presented any danger to the children. On April 29, 2009, Judge Humphrey held a hearing on my ex-wife’s motion for protective order requesting the Court to prohibit me from posting my experiences on the internet and requested that the Court to order me to remove my prior internet writings. On May 14, 2009, Judge Humphrey properly denied her motion because my writings were not harassing to Wife and they were not dangerous to the children. If my internet writings were truly dangerous, they would be dangerous regardless of whether or not I had unsupervised visitation with my kids. Judge Humphrey was not concerned that the children would read the internet content while in the care of their father because the children were only three and five years of age and had not even attended kindergarten. Judge Humphrey used my children as a means of extortion to try to censor me. Judge James D. Humphrey doesn’t like the fact that I call him an abuser of children. He could sue me for saying that if it isn’t true.

Nobody in the system cares about my children. If they were concerned about the safety of my daughters, wouldn’t they want the next evaluator to have the information that Dr. Connor used? Judge Humphrey denied my request to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children. No one requested my mental health records from the Affinity Center because they did not want outside professionals to be aware of the actions of Dr. Connor and Judge Humphrey. Judge Humphrey, Dr. Connor, and my ex-wife acted as if I manipulated and misled the people who have treated me for ADHD so they aren’t qualified to determine if I present a “potential danger” to society. Why would I spend that much time and money in trying to manipulate my treating professionals when I was the one who voluntarily sought treatment for some issues regarding concentration and organization? Dr. Connor never mentioned any “concerns” about my stability until I began requesting a copy of his case file. Dr. Connor even testified, that if the Court would order another evaluation, “whoever would be appointed to conduct the evaluation, I think they should be forewarned of what he will do if you do not agree with him or if you see things differently than he does. I think this person should be warned and not go blind into an evaluation with Mr. Brewington.” Basically, Dr. Connor claims that I should not be entitled to an unbiased evaluation. Dr. Connor wants to tell the evaluator what a bad person I am and then have me work out of the hole.

So I will keep fighting. Rather than find reasons why my children should not be fatherless, these people are spending a great deal of time and money trying to find reasons why my daughters should not have a dad. The problem that the professionals and my ex-wife have is they will have two little girls to answer to when they ask why they didn’t get to see their dad for over a year. Why should I be responsible for telling them? I think Judge James D. Humphrey should have to tell them the truth. Judge Humphrey can tell my daughters, “I know that your dad was a very loving and caring father and that he never caused you any emotional or physical pain, but we had to keep him away from you for over a year just to make sure that he wouldn’t hurt you. Now we are absolutely sure that he won’t hurt you. No thanks needed girls; it’s all part of the job in protecting children in Dearborn County, Indiana."

How Judge James D. Humphrey protects Dr. Connor and punishes me.

UPDATE 3:53 PM. NOTE: An IP address from the Indiana Supreme Court was on this blog today around 11:45 AM. This is the same IP address that is responsible for over 150 hits on www.danhelpskids.com since May 27, 2010. This could be someone investigating the matters involving Dr. Edward J. Connor, Judge Carl H. Taul, Judge James D. Humphrey, Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard, etc... or it could be the Indiana Appellate Court checking the blog and website before they rule on my current motion for a rehearing. The Indiana Appellate Court previously ruled that I was provided with everything from Dr. Connor's file that was required by statute. Funny how they could come up with that considering that Judge Humphrey and I couldn't figure out what part of Dr. Connor's case file that I was missing. BTW, on June 13, 2008, Judge Carl Taul stated, "The Order to [Dr. Connor] to release was to release that which he was obligated to do under Kentucky law." Either the Indiana Appellate Court is proficient in Kentucky law, or Judge Taul lied about an order to protect Dr. Connor. I'm going with the latter because there seems to be a lot of that going around.

This is one of the many reasons why I hate Judge James D. Humphrey. This is from the transcripts from the April 29, 2009 hearing on my motion dealing with the admissibility of Dr. Connor’s evaluation. Pardon my French, but what dumbass keeps asking what part of the case file I don’t have when I don’t have the case file? Judge Humphrey; that’s who. Judge Humphrey denied my motion stating, “The Court further places Mr. Brewington’s request in context of what appears to be threats to disclose information to cause harm to [Wife].” Funny, in over two years of going through a divorce, I had yet to do anything to cause harm to my, now, ex-wife. Judge Humphrey was trying to bait me into saying that I wanted her medical/psychological records but I wouldn’t bite. It didn’t matter, he went with it anyway. Nothing more than premeditated child abuse on the part of Judge Humphrey.

Court: What, in particular, are you requesting, sir, that you have not received?

Dan: The case file. I’m requesting what’s -- I’m requesting what’s required to be given, uh --

Court: Give me specifics. What are you requesting?

Dan: Uh, let’s see. In a custody preceding, after evidence is submitted --let’s see--

Court: Sir, I have the law here. Tell me what you’re requesting.

Dan: Okay. Well, I’m requesting --

Court: Tell me what you’re requesting that you don’t have.

Dan: I’m requesting the case file.

Court: What in the case file?

Dan: I’m requesting all of the information. I have some -- I have some of [Dr. Connor’s] notes that were blacked out. I don’t know what the blacked out sections are…(continued)… [Dr. Connor’s] claimed that this is -- that the petitioner signed an agreement for individual psychotherapy and he said it’s an adjunct document to a court order. Now I wasn’t provided the same information as the petitioner when we entered into this, so --

Court: Are you requesting your wife’s psychological and medical records? Is that what you’re asking for?

Dan: No, I’m requesting the case file, whatever is in the case file, because I’m entitled to it by law. It’s --

Court: I’m trying to find out from you, sir, exactly what in that case file you’re requesting that you do not have. That’s what -- I’m trying to find out what you’re requesting.

Dan: On December 15^th, Dr. Connor sent me some notes that had been blackened out. I don’t know what the blackened out areas are. You know, I don’t have an opportunity to see that, so essentially I have none of it.

Court: So what you’re wanting to know is what’s blacked out on what was sent to you.

Dan: Well, I want all of the information, not blacked out, unaltered, because I’m entitled to it. That’s what I agreed to.

I don't think I could have made it any clearer.

The Indiana Appellate Court doesn't tell the truth

I think the Indiana Court of Appeals is under the impression that we live in a place like Russia or China. I got a ruling [Click here to see the Appellate decision] from the Indiana Court of Appeals and apparently they are in the business of abusing children and taking away First Amendment Rights as well. Rather than deny my appeal because I did not preserve my right to appeal matters while representing myself or claim that my lawyer did not make the correct argument, the Appellate Court did just what the two trial court judges did; they lied.

Dearborn Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey terminated my ability to see my children on August 18, 2009, based primarily on the testimony and evaluation of child custody evaluator Dr. Edward J. Connor. The one thing that I have had difficulties understanding is why the state of Indiana makes laws if the state does not have to follow them. Indiana Code (IC) 31-17-2-12 deals with the procedures regarding custody evaluations for custody hearings. IC 31-17-2-12(b) states the evaluation and the testimony of the investigator may not be excluded in court on the grounds as hearsay if the requirements of subsection (c) are met. IC 31-17-2-12(c) states:

(c) The court shall mail the investigator's report to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel at least ten (10) days before the hearing. The investigator shall make the following available to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel:
(1) The investigator's file of underlying data and reports.
(2) Complete texts of diagnostic reports made to the investigator under subsection (b).
(3) The names and addresses of all persons whom the investigator has consulted.

I tried to get a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file for fifteen months before the final hearing. Judge Taul said he would not release the file because he was not aware of Kentucky law. I still wonder why an Indiana judge would think that the laws of Kentucky govern the release of information in Indiana trials. When Judge Taul recused himself after participating in ex parte communication with Dr. Connor, Judge Humphrey stepped in to take over violating my rights to due process. Judge Humphrey said he was not going to let me have Dr. Connor’s file because he thought that I wanted to use it to hurt the children’s mother. [Please note that throughout the two and a half year divorce, I was never accused of harassing or menacing behavior by any party.] Judge Humphrey allowed Dr. Connor’s report and testimony to be admitted as evidence despite my objections that the evidence is hearsay because I was not provided a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file. Judge Humphrey terminated my parenting time based on Dr. Connor’s testimony and report.

Appellate judges are fair, right? What motivation would they have not to perform their duties in an honest and unbiased manner? The Indiana Appellate Court sounded like they did not like me in their ruling. As a lot of people know, appellate rulings can take several months or even years. The Indiana Appellate Court took just eighteen business days from the time they received the trial court record to make a decision. How did they rule on my appeal regarding me not having access to Dr. Connor’s case file per IC 31-17-2-12(c)? They affirmed the trial court’s decision.

I thought the Indiana Code was pretty clear; if I did not have a copy of the case file, then the evaluation was not admissible to court because it was hearsay. The Appellate Court disagrees. The Indiana Appellate Court stated, “We first note that IC 31-17-2-17(c) does not require that Dr. Connor’s entire case file be provided to Daniel.” The Appellate Court did not offer any statute or case law to support their opinion that “investigator’s file of underlying data and reports” did not mean Dr. Connor’s entire case file. When I researched cases involving IC 31-17-2-12(c), I was unable to find any case precedence that defined exactly what the “investigator’s file of underlying data and reports” consisted of. Immediately after the Appellate Court stated that the “investigator’s file of underlying data and reports” did not mean Dr. Connor’s entire case file, the Appellate Court wrote, “All the items specified by statute were provided.” Somehow the Indiana Appellate Court ruled that the investigator's entire file of underlying data and reports, under IC 31-17-2-12(c), did not refer to Dr. Connor's entire case file.

Despite there being no definitive explanation as to what Dr. Connor’s file of underlying data and reports” represented, the Appellate Court stated I was provided all of the information. Apparently, the Appellate Court did not review the transcripts from the May 27, 2009 hearing. When I questioned Dr. Connor on the stand about why he did not give me a copy of my responses to the questionnaires I filled out for the evaluation, Dr. Connor responded, “I don’t know. That should have been included and I will see to it that you get that, if you like.” From a legal standpoint, I hope that the Indiana Appellate Court understands that the only way that they could be sure that I was provided with all of “the items specified by statute” is if I was provided with a copy of Dr. Connor’s entire case file or if a Judge reviewed the case file and determined what information that I was required to have under IC 31-17-2-12(c). Since I did not get a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file; and no judge reviewed the contents of Dr. Connor’s case file; and Dr. Connor admitted in testimony that he did not provide me with some information; the Indiana Appellate Court just conjured up a story in an effort to deny my appeal.

Why would the Indiana Appellate Court lie just to hurt me? It appears that they don’t take kindly to people exercising their rights to freedom of speech and exposing unethical and/or illegal conduct of the Indiana Court System. I am not a lawyer and I represented myself at the trial court level. When the trial court failed to protect my rights to due process and to a fair trial, I created a website and a blog page to share my experiences. The Indiana Appellate Court demonstrated their disapproval of my internet material in their decision by lying about the court record in an effort to “build” a case against me.

Near the end of the appellate decision, the Indiana Appellate Court wrote, “During the pendency of the proceedings, Daniel posted information concerning the dissolution on his website and blog, in response to which [Wife] sought a protective order and a temporary restraining order on more than one occasion.” During the course of a trial, all motions, orders, and everything else that is filed with the court is logged into the Chronological Case Summary or CCS. The CCS from my case demonstrates that my ex-wife only filed ONE motion for a protective order/restraining order that requested the Court to force me to take down my internet material. The motion was filed on April 16, 2009 and there was a hearing on the motion on April 29, 2009. On May 14, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey denied her motion because she failed to demonstrate how my writings were dangerous, harassing, and/or harmful to her or my children. Not only did the Appellate Court condemn me for something that the trial court already ruled did not harm my children or their mother, the Appellate Court fabricated a story that my ex-wife sought protective/restraining orders on more than one occasion, to strengthen their argument against me.

The Appellate Courts condemnation of my internet content that criticized the trial court came just three weeks after their June 29, 2010 decision, where the Indiana Appellate Court overturned a trial court ruling that prohibited a mother from exercising her First Amendment Rights in challenging the trial court. After the mother’s story about her court proceedings was published in the Indianapolis Recorder, the trial court issued a restraining order prohibiting her from speaking about the court hearings. In T.N. vs. B.D., the Indiana Appellate Court wrote:

“Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937). And the right to challenge the government, inherent in freedom of speech, is at the foundation of our Constitution. Thus, we decline to say that Mother’s right to freedom of speech must yield absolutely to all facets of what the juvenile court broadly described as “a confidential matter.”

So not only did the Indiana Appellate Court make up the story about my ex-wife having to file for multiple restraining/protective orders because of my web material that criticized the trial court, the Appellate Court condemned me for publicly challenging the government just three weeks after the Appellate Court wrote, “The right to challenge the government, inherent in freedom of speech, is at the foundation of our Constitution.”

So I guess the fight goes on. I’m researching options and talking to my lawyer because this is a matter that cannot be ignored. The Indiana Appellate Court is taking away my rights and the rights of my children because I exercised my fundamental right to freedom of speech, which is at the foundation of our Constitution. I can see why the Appellate Court doesn’t want me to talk about this, because people will know that the Court is vindictive and doesn’t tell the truth. Now they will probably punish me and my children even more for exercising my right to free speech. If the Indiana Appellate Court issues anymore rulings on my case containing information which is not in the official record and are not based on law, I will subpoena the IP information of the people in Indiana who have been frequenting my websites lately. I will be able to determine if anyone associated with the Indiana Appellate Court was doing their own research on a pending appellate case. It has been documented that an Indiana Supreme Court IP address has been frequenting my website. If you are a judge and you are reading this; there is a record of it. Subpoenaing Indiana IP addresses that have visited my websites can lead right to someone’s computer, Blackberry, netbook, IPad, etc... If we cower to corruption, what lesson does that teach our children? “The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” –Plato. I love you girls. Daddy is still fighting for you.

On a side note, page 14 of the Appellate decision states that my conduct during the trial court hearings made it necessary for a Sheriff's Deputy to be present in Judge Humphrey's courtroom for all three days of of the final hearing. Judge Humphrey lied about that in his brief as there was no special security in Humphrey's courtroom during the final hearing on May 27, June 2, and June 3 of 2009; just the normal bailiff. I am currently trying to obtain police and court records to prove that Judge Humphrey lied in his efforts to further deny my children of their father.

Two Lawyers; Two arguments

Somehow the opposing party is making two separate arguments about limiting my parenting time. My ex-wife has two lawyers; one for the appeal, Leanna Weissmann, and one for the trial court, Angela Loechel. Ms. Weissmann made the argument to the appellate court that Judge James D. Humphrey did not error in ordering supervised visitation time. Unfortunately, Judge Humphrey ordered that I have NO visitation time. Leading up to the upcoming hearing in the trial court on June 14, 2010, Ms. Loechel is making arguments against potential experts who can evaluate me. I have to undergo an evaluation so I can see my children. One attorney fails to mention the no visitation order to the appellate court and the other attorney is still arguing that I am a potential danger to the trial court.

If my ex truly felt that I was a danger to my children, her appellate lawyer would have argued that the trial court did not error in ordering no visitation time. Rather than defend the Judge's decision, Ms. Weissmann made an argument for a court ruling that did not exist. Now heading into the June 14th hearing, my ex's trial lawyer, Angela G. Loechel, is objecting to the psychiatrist I have chosen to evaluate me. Ms. Loechel is still arguing that I am dangerous to my children. Rather than cooperate in an effort to return the my children to their father, the other side has decided to further obstruct my ability to be a dad.

One lawyer fails to make the argument that I should have no visitation while my ex's other lawyer is still arguing that I should have no visitation. My ex-wife and her lawyers continue to argue that I should not be allowed to see Dr. Edward J Connor's case file. They want me to prove that I am not a danger to my children yet they keep fighting to deny me the ability to see the evidence against me. They have even resorted to lying to the courts in an effort to deny me the ability to be a father. My ex's hatred for me is greater than the love for her own children. I love you girls. Daddy won't stop fighting for your ability to grow up with both parents.

***If anyone is interested in seeing family court corruption at its worst, feel free to come to my hearing on the second floor of the Dearborn County Courthouse on June 14, 2010 at 1:30PM.