The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Committee advised me to commit a crime

I sent an email to the Indiana Supreme Court Commission on Judicial Qualifications in an effort to advise the Commission of the circumstances regarding less the than honest efforts of the Dearborn County Superior Court II in addressing requests for public records. Adrienne Meiring, legal counsel for the Commission stated, “The Commission cannot consider your concerns unless you file a complaint.” The problem is Ms. Meiring’s boss, Indiana Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush Chair of the Commission, upheld my criminal convictions by finding that my prior complaint against court psychologist Dr. Edward J. Connor to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology played a role in my alleged criminal intimidation and attempted obstruction of justice. Ms. Meiring’s email included a complaint form, which states I could not be held civilly liable for filing a complaint. Unfortunately, there are no provisions to protect people from being criminally liable for filing complaints against court officials. Of course, this all comes from Adrienne Meiring, the same person whom Judge Humphrey testified is the person that advised Humphrey to remain on my divorce case in an effort to protect other Indiana judges from me. Here is my response to the Commission that includes links to supporting documentation. 

Amended Request for Grand Jury Audio

It should come to no surprise that the Dearborn County Superior Court II disregards fact and Indiana law when addressing transparency through the release of public records. In the Court’s order denying my request, Special Judge Brian Hill stated, “Mr. Brewington has alleged that these audio recordings were admitted into evidence at his criminal trial, however, the Court finds that they were not, and there's been no sufficient reason set forth which would necessitate the release of said audio recordings.” Of course I never alleged the audio was admitted during trial and Indiana Code 5-14-3-1 clearly "place[s] the burden of proof for the nondisclosure of a public record on the public agency that would deny access to the record and not on the person seeking to inspect and copy the record." Please note that the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings in my case are already public record. The only reason NOT to release the audio from the grand jury is to protect public officials who have abused the grand jury process. Feel free to review the Amended Request for Grand Jury Audio.

In the alternative that the Court would make a claim that it does not maintain the record, I have also sent a public records request to Dearborn Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard for the Grand Jury Audio from the investigative file. 

Request for Grand Jury Audio from the Court of Sally A. McLaughlin

     Below is a Public Record Request for the audio from the grand jury proceedings initiated by Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard on January 15, 2011 to investigate the internet writings of Dan Brewington. Negangard initiated the investigation, five days after the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed a complaint that Brewington filed against Negangard. Negangard initiated the grand jury proceedings through the court of Dearborn Superior Court II Judge Sally A. McLaughlin (Blankenship at the time) to determine if making “unsubstantiated” and “over the top” statements about officials operating within the Dearborn County Court System violated First Amendment law. Brewington was indicted and convicted for criminal defamation but Brewington’s convictions were upheld upon a hidden threat argument first raised by Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court, despite the term “hidden threat” never appearing in the record of the trial or the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings. Prior requests for public records regarding Brewington’s case have prompted Judge McLaughlin’s (Blankenship) court to issue claims of lost documents and missing records, while responding to requests for public record with unsigned and untitled documents. Judge McLaughlin (Blankenship) is now one of thirty applicants to fill an Indiana Supreme Court position becoming available with the retirement of Justice Brent E. Dickson.

     Brewington’s case is flooded with constitutional violations that the Indiana Supreme Court claimed were waived by the trial strategy of Brewington’s public defender, Bryan E. Barrett, whom refused to speak with Brewington prior to trial and prohibited Brewington from any participation in the preparation of Brewington’s own defense strategy. The CCS in the case demonstrates how the Trial Court and Prosecution attempted to try Brewington prior to Brewington receiving the evidence from the grand jury, which the State claimed to form the basis of the non-specific general indictments. The grand jury evidence was not released until August 23, 2011, seven days after the original vacated trial date. As the trial court already authorized the release of the transcripts of the grand jury [Brewington Grand Jury Transcripts], the release of the audio only serves as an appropriate check on transparency of the courts and provides the public an educational insight to an otherwise very secretive prosecutorial process.

     Feel free to read Brewington’s Public Records Request for the Grand Jury Audio addressed to Dearborn County Superior Court II Judge Sally A. McLaughlin (Blankenship), current applicant to the Indiana Supreme Court. See also Brewington’s Public Records Request for the Court Audio  from Brewington’s trial addressed to Judge McLaughlin (Blankenship), which includes an order from the Dearborn County Superior Court II denying that previous hearings in Brewington’s criminal proceedings actually occurred. Any questions or concerns about the transparency of Indiana Courts or about Dearborn County Superior Court II Judge Sally A. McLaughlin (Blankenship) or any other current applicant seeking to fill the position of retiring Indiana Supreme Court Justice  Brent E. Dickson can be directed to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. Judge McLaughlin has seven days to respond to Brewington’s public records requests and responses from Dearborn Superior Court II will be posted on this blog. A denial of the request will be challenged in a hearing pursuant to Indiana law. See below for more information on the contact and member information of the Indiana Supreme Court Commission and a list of the thirty applicants for the open position of the Indiana Supreme Court. Check out the Indiana Law Blog for scheduling of public interviews for the below candidates.    

Indiana Supreme Court Commission on Judicial Qualifications

Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush, Chair

David Tinkey, First District

Charlie Berger, First District

Lynette Long, Second District

Lee Christie, Esq., Second District

John O. Feighner, Esq., Third District

Rudy Yakym III, Third District

Staff Contact

Division of State Court Administration

30 S. Meridian St., Ste. 500

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-232-4706

317-233-6586 [fax]

Lilia G. Judson, Esq., Interim Chief Administrative Officer

David J. Remondini, Esq., Interim Executive Director

Adrienne L. Meiring, Counsel

adrienne.meiring@courts.in.gov

Robin Meyers, Paralegal

robin.meyers@courts.in.gov

Applicants for Indiana Supreme Court Justice

Mr. Thomas P. Yoder

Mr. Geoffrey G. Slaughter

Mr. Thomas E. Wheeler, II

Hon. Thomas J. Felts

Mr. Peter J. Rusthoven

Hon. Vicki L. Carmichael

Mr. David E. Cook

Mr. Curtis E. Shirley

Mr. Mark A. Lienhoop

Hon. James R. Ahler

Hon. Sally A. McLaughlin (Blankenship)

Hon. Matthew C. Kincaid

Ms. Jaime M. Oss

Hon. Larry W. Medlock

Mr. John H. Shean

Hon. Steven L. Hostetler

Mr. E. Nelson Chipman, Jr.

Ms. Leanna K. Weissmann

Hon. Frances C. Gull

Hon. Darrin M. Dolehanty

Ms. Elizabeth C. Green

Mr. Bryce D. Owens

Mr. Ted A. Waggoner

Hon. Kit C. Crane

Hon. Paul R. Cherry

Rep. Thomas W. Washburne

Mr. Thomas M. Fisher

Mr. Lyle R. Hardman

Ms. Karen A. Wyle

Hon. Steven R. Nation

Brewington Petition for Post-Conviction Relief...I'm still fighting

It seems unfathomable that someone in the United States could be indicted, convicted, and serve a 2.5-year without being provided with legal counsel or any knowledge of what actions the State alleged to be unlawful. Even more disturbing is that someone could be found guilty of a criminal defamation crime when no such crime exists. Combine that with the Indiana Supreme Court upholding the verdict based on criminal activity never argued during trial and you have my case.

My summary of argument for my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief gives a sneak preview to how the State of Indiana shows no shame or regard for the Constitution of the United States in going after individuals who criticize individuals in the Indiana judicial system. Before the naysayers suggest I am manipulating facts or statements, this isn’t an attempt to twist the words of the Indiana Courts, it’s me untangling the twisted arguments the Courts used to rationalize upholding my unconstitutional convictions. My public defender, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me before trial. Special Judge, Rush County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill refused to address why Barrett would not meet with me and refused to tell me what actions I was supposed to defend. Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard prosecuted me for calling court officials child abusers. Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush said Negangard’s prosecution was constitutionally impermissible but denied me relief from the unconstitutional convictions claiming my public defender tried to take advantage of Negangard’s constitutionally impermissible criminal procedure. At every turn I incur new hurdles which amount to little more than petty excuses to cover for the fact Prosecutor Negangard made me the target of a grand jury investigation for my statements Negangard and his staff “felt was over the top, um, unsubstantiated statements against either Dr. Conner or Judge Humphrey.” Yes. Those were Prosecutor Negangard’s actual words to the grand jury when he had me indicted for publishing statements about court officials without publishing supporting evidence to back my claim. Now I’m forced to file a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief so I can address the ever evolving excuses the State of Indiana keeps providing as to why I cannot refer to Dearborn County Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey as an unethical child abuser. Below are some excerpts from the summary of argument from my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. I wanted to get this information out in the hopes of garnering some interest in my case or in the least, shaming some legal official in Indiana to take appropriate action. The petition is still a work in progress but I wanted to leak some information so people can get a grasp of the blatant disregard Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and others have for the U.S. Constitution. Please share this information with anyone who is passionate about abuses in government and protecting constitutional rights.

Deputy Prosecutor Joseph Kisor gave the following reason for what would be Brewington’s $600,000 bond:

“[Brewington] 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.” [Arraignment Tr. 20]

In describing my displeasure with my public defender refusing to meet with me before trial, Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard told Judge Brian Hill:

“[Brewington]'s um mad that his attorney hasn't talked to him.” [Final pretrial hearing September 19, 2011 Tr. 78]

Chief Justice Rush claimed my public defender invited the constitutional errors stemming from my unconstitutional prosecution claiming Barrett:

“sought to exploit the prosecutor’s improper reliance on ‘criminal defamation’ to the defense’s advantage -- focusing the jury on the clearly protected aspects of Defendant's speech, and on that basis to find the ambiguous aspects of his conduct to be protected as well.”

Rush gives Negangard a free pass for an unconstitutional malicious prosecution for criminal defamation then punishes me by essentially claiming that my public defender “knew better” and took advantage of the “ignorant” prosecutor. If the Indiana Courts rule I'm not entitled to legal counsel, evidence, and the charging information against me, then I hope to make the jump to the federal courts.

And it goes on and on…. Stay tuned.

Back at work. Post Conviction Relief petition in progress.

It's been a while since I've written a blog as I took a little break after the US Supreme Court denied hearing my case. I needed a little time to reflect on the path my life was on and whether I should continue forward with the Indiana courts or just call it quits. I decided to keep pushing and file a petition for post conviction relief because, among many things, I was forced to go through trial with a public defender who refused to meet with me before trial. That's a hard thing to walk away from, especially in light of the growing support from people who have viewed Divorce Corp since the documentary was released on Netflix earlier this month. You grow up with the belief you have a right to an attorney, unless you stand trial for criticizing a judge. The more I dig back into my case the harder I find myself having to work to argue the obvious. I have to provide strategic well considered legal arguments with the understanding that the State of Indiana can cheat at their convenience. So as I continue to work on my current legal petition, let me leave you with an example of the uphill battle before me.  Here's and example of the infinite wisdom of Indiana Appellate Judges Carr Darden, Patricia Riley, and Dearborn County native John Baker in the Appellate decision in my case. They claimed I knew I was was lying when I said Judge Humphrey was unethical. The Indiana Supreme Court disregarded the appellate court's ruling, and found me guilty of making hidden threats despite the fact the prosecution sought indictments for "making over the top" "unsubstantiated statements" against Judge James D. Humphrey and Dr. Edward J. Connor with absolutely no mention of hidden threats to personal safety. Funny how the state of Indiana keeps changing their story.


"Even if the State was required to prove that Brewington knew his internet postings and other communications about Judge Humphrey were false, there is ample evidence of Brewington’s knowledge. His public comments went well beyond hyperbole and were capable of being proven true or false. Over the course of at least a year, Brewington repeatedly called Judge Humphrey a “child abuser.” State’s Ex. 170; see also State’s Ex. 162 (“Judge Humphrey’s actions constitute child abuse”), State’s Ex. 168 (“abuser of children”), State’s Ex. 173 (Judge Humphrey “abuse[s] children who are part of the family court system”). Brewington also called Judge Humphrey “corrupt,” State’s Ex. 160, and accused him of engaging in “unethical/illegal behavior.” State’s Ex. 170.

Brewington argues he was merely stating his opinion that, in constraining his right to see his children, Judge Humphrey was essentially committing child abuse. However, it is clear from the divorce decree that Judge Humphrey, in the exercise of lawful judicial discretion and out of concern over Brewington’s history of “irrational behavior,” State’s Ex. 140, p. 8, imposed reasonable visitation restrictions upon Brewington out of a desire to protect the children’s well-being. Only by willfully misinterpreting the terms of the divorce decree in bad faith could one argue that Judge Humphrey’s conduct constituted an intentional act to harm Brewington’s children. Thus, even if the State was required to prove that Brewington knew his public statements about Judge Humphrey were false, there was ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Brewington accused Judge Humphrey of child abuse and professional misconduct while knowing that the accusations were false."


This is why I refuse to be bullied by cowards claiming to be victims. I'm not manipulating information. This is an exact quote from the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in my case. I'd call the above appellate judges anti-American except they may try to arrest me for knowingly stating false opinions. This is why people should speak out. Stay tuned for more ridiculous quotes from Indiana judicial officials.

How Judge Humphrey and the State of Indiana rationalizes stripping parents of guns

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush claimed I was dangerous because I refused to give my ex-wife a .357 Magnum handgun per my divorce decree as ordered by Dearborn County Judge James D. Humphrey.  Chief Justice Rush cited this as a explanation why Judge Humphrey had a justifiable reason to fear me. Judge Humphrey ordered I give my ex-wife my .357 Magnum because she said, "I had asked for it was because I don't even want it near our children."  My ex testified she had no gun training. She testified I had other firearms. When asked why she was worried about the .357 Magnum and not the other firearms I owned, she replied, "This is something that could be easily handled by our children. I want it out of their reach." When asked what she was planning to do with the .357 Magnum she replied, "Getting rid of it." When asked if she thought a young child could shoot a .357 Magnum, my ex replied, "I don't know." She testified she was unaware my daughter had ever fired anything other than a BB gun. During cross-examination I asked my ex, "Have they ever received any kind of medical attention for anything the respondent has done, you know, the dangerous activities that you accuse respondent of engaging in with the children?"  What was the response of my ex-wife?  "No, they have not."

That's why Judge James D. Humphrey ordered me to hand over a firearm to a person who was not even aware of whether a five year old was capable of shooting the .357 Magnum handgun my ex testified she had never seen.  No evidence of abuse, injury or neglect. She did not even claim my possession of a .357 Magnum caused her to fear me. The fact I did not give the .357 Magnum to an irrational parent was used against me to obtain criminal indictments, a conviction in a criminal trial, and was later used by Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court to rationalize upholding the convictions. There are no Second Amendment Rights in Indiana in a divorce. If you try to exercise your First Amendment Rights and complain about the actions of Indiana judges, you will quickly lose those rights as well.  Feel free to check out the above excerpts in pages extracted from the transcripts from my divorce. 

IN Court of Appeals: We can't read minds like the IN Supreme Court

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General recently requested the Indiana Court of Appeals to do the absurd; read someone’s mind. In the recent Court of Appeals opinion in Derrick Weedman v. State of Indiana, authored by Judge Michael P. Barnes (filed November 26, 2014), the Indiana Attorney General argued Weedman waived his right to seek relief from improperly admitted evidence at trial because the AG claimed the failure of Weedman’s attorney to object to the unfairly prejudicial evidence was clearly a trial strategy on the part of the defense counsel; thus waiving Weedman’s right to raise the issue during appeal. The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the AG’s request in footnote 3 of the opinion, “We simply have no information regarding Weedman’s trial counsel’s thoughts on his strategy.” Weedman v. State, 90A04-1311-CR-549. Where would the Indiana Attorney General get the idea that the higher courts of the State of Indiana are in the business of reading the minds of defense attorneys in order to deny defendants the ability to appeal fundamental errors in trial? From the case of Daniel Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014). Apparently Appellate Judge Michael P. Barnes and the Indiana Court of Appeals lack the mind reading abilities of Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court.

“[Brewington] is correct that the instructions were erroneous and created a general-verdict error—but he affirmatively invited those errors as part of a perfectly reasonable trial strategy. When an error is invited for such legitimate reasons, it is neither fundamental error nor ineffective assistance of counsel.” Justice Rush wrote it was impossible to determine if the guilty verdict in Brewington’s trial was based on constitutionally protected activity because the jury instructions were constitutionally incomplete. Previous rulings by the United States Supreme Court mandate the reversal of a conviction based on constitutionally protected activity. Justice Rush wrote the general verdict error was a result of “the prosecutor’s improper reliance on ‘criminal defamation’” and “constitutionally incomplete jury instructions” but ruled the Indiana Supreme Court would “not grant relief from what by all indications was a deliberate and eminently reasonable strategic choice” by defense counsel. Rush wrote Brewington’s defense counsel “sought to exploit the prosecutor’s improper reliance on ‘criminal defamation’ to the defense’s advantage.” The Indiana Supreme Court ruled the failure to object to “constitutionally incomplete jury instructions” and a “plainly impermissible” criminal defamation argument by the prosecution was not ineffective assistance of counsel, rather a sound defense strategy. Justice Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court opined that defense counsel’s failure to object to the constitutionally flawed trial was “part of a reasonable defense strategy, and therefore may not raise it as grounds for relief.” Rush further justified the Supreme Court’s trial strategy argument by writing Brewington’s, “decision not to testify, thus letting the case hinge solely on the sufficiency of the State’s proof, was also consistent with an ‘all or nothing’ defense. What also distinguishes Weedman from Brewington is the Attorney General raised the trial strategy argument in Weedman. Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court raised the issue on their own when they either speculated or read the mind of Brewington’s defense attorney in order to reach the Court’s conclusion because there was simply no information regarding Brewington’s trial counsel’s thoughts on his strategy on the record. [Note: Transcripts of the beginning of trial demonstrate Brewington informing the trial court Brewington had not met with his public defender to discuss his case and he, himself, was not aware of his own trial strategy nor was he aware what conduct led to the indictments against him.]

Brewington filed a writ of certiorari on October 29, 2014 so his case is now in the hands of the United States Supreme Court.  At this point, no attorneys, groups, or organizations have stepped forward to publicly support Brewington’s writ that addresses how Brewington was denied proper constitutionally relief because the Indiana Supreme Court did what the Indiana Court of Appeals refused to do; get into the business of reading minds in order to justify not following the Constitution of the United States of America. Brewington was denied probation and completed a 2.5 year prison sentence on 9/5/2013.