EXCERPTS FROM BREWINGTON'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

EXCERPTS FROM:

PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY
Daniel P Brewington v Sheriff Michael Kreinhop
Filed 11 August 2011with the Southern District of Indiana Federal Court

DEARBORN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT II, DEARBORN COUNTY, INDIANA, 215 W. HIGH STREET,
LAWRENCEBURG, INDIANA 47025.

I AM NOT CONVICTED AT THE PRESENT TIME. I AM BEING
HELD IN THE DEARBORN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER AWAITING— SEE ATTACHED…CONTINUED RESPONSE:
trial in the Dearborn Superior Court II on charges no knowledgeable prosecutor would consider filing based on the discovery provided or the current law. The Court has assigned two attorneys on separate occasions to my case to represent me and the attorneys failed to meet with me to discuss trial preparation, witnesses, or strategy concerning my case. The first attorney withdrew from my case alleging he had a conflict of interest after I refused to accept a plea agreement. The attorney alleged he had a conflict because the attorney had other cases pending before the Judge who is a witness on the current charges. The second attorney has failed or refused to meet with me to discuss trial preparation, there are no witnesses subpoenaed on my behalf, and the trial is one week away. A copy of the docket sheet is attached. I have been deprived of the ability to meet with my Ohio attorney since I was incarcerated in Dearborn County, Indiana, because of a change in the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center rules restricting access to Indiana attorneys only. My Ohio attorney obtained admission to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and the Sheriff refused to admit the Ohio attorney licensed by the Federal District Court until checking with "someone" to determine whether admission by the Federal District Court was sufficient to permit the attorney to meet with me.

(b) Criminal docket or case number (if you know): 15D02-1103-FD-084

I AM NOT CONVICTED OF ANY CRIMES AT THE PRESENT TIME. I AM CHARGED WITH THREE COUNTS OF INTIMIDATION BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCACY BLOG/WEBSITES THAT I MAINTAINED SINCE SEPTEMBER 2008. THERE IS NO THREAT TO ANYONE ON THE BLOGSITE. THE PROSECUTOR, F. AARON NEGANGARD, HAS COBBLED TOGETHER ALL INFORMATION ON MY BLOG/WEBSITE ALLEGING THE TOTALITY OF MY PUBLIC WRITINGS ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH PERMITTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE WRITINGS WERE INTIMIDATING— SEE ATTACHED…CONTINUED RESPONSE:
to public officials; thus restricting my free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment and violating the Constitution of the United States. I am also charged with attempting to commit obstruction of justice, perjury, and unlawful disclosure of grand jury proceedings. The crimes are alleged to be committed in a two year period and a more targeted period has not been identified by the prosecutor or obtained by any attorney assigned to represent me in the case.



If you entered a guilty plea to one count or charge and a not guilty plea to another count or charge, what did you plead guilty to and what did you plead not guilty to?
I DID NOT PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY CHARGE AND I WILL NOT PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY CHARGES. I AM BEING DETAINED IN VIOLATION OF LAW (FIRST AMENDMENT), DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO A REASONABLE BOND, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT. THE JUDGE WHO SET MY BOND IS AN ACQUAINTANCE OF THE PROSECUTING WITNESS AND THE JUDGE SET MY BOND AT $600,000.00 AND THEN RECUSED HERSELF FROM
MY CASE ALLEGING THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I HAVE BEEN INCARCERATED SINCE MARCH 11, 2011 WITHOUT A PRETRIAL HEARING UNTIL JULY 18, 2011, NO MEDICATION, AND WITHOUT EFFECTIVE COUNSEL TO ASSIST ME OR REPRESENT ME_ I ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN A BOND REDUCTION HEARING FOR MONTHS AND MY COURT — SEE ATTACHED…CONTINUED RESPONSE:
attorneys failed and refused to obtain a hearing on the bond reduction request. I have attempted to obtain medication through the jail and I have been denied medication prescribed by my physicians for years to assist in the preparation of my case. I pleaded not guilty to all charges.

I DID NOT APPEAL AS I HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED. I AM BEING HELD IN THE DEARBORN COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO PREPARE MY CASE. I WAS ARRAIGNED WITHOUT A PUBLIC DEFENDER OR ANYONE TO ASSIST ME AT THE INITIAL BOND HEARING OR ARRAIGNMENT. THE COURT APPOINTED ONE PUBLIC DEFENDER WHO DID NOTHING TO ASSIST ME AND THE SECOND PUBLIC DEFENDER REFUSES
TO MEET WITH ME CONCERNING MY CASE TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL. SEE ATTACHED… CONTINUED RESPONSE:
I am unable to obtain a bond hearing because I am denied effective assistance of counsel or the counsel appointed failed to take any affirmative steps to represent me. The first counsel/public defender appointed withdrew from my case alleging a conflict of interest with the prosecuting witness but it took the attorney nearly two months for the attorney to appreciate the conflict existed and during the two month period, the attorney did nothing. Due to the recusal of the first two judges in the case, it took another month for the third judge appointed to set a hearing and grant the first attorney's motion to withdraw. The third judge set a trial date knowing that I did not have counsel at the time the trial date was set and that I never had effective assistance of counsel at any time during the period of my incarceration.

I DID NOT APPEAL. DEARBORN COUNTY PROSECUTOR NEGANGARD FAILS TO
UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND INDICTED ME FOR WRITING AOBUT
PUBLIC OFFICIALS. THE PROSECUTOR HAS DELIVERED APPROXIMATELY 1,400
PAGES OF DISCOVERY, MANY PAGES DEAL WITH JUSTICES FROM THE APPELLATE AND SUPREME COURTS, THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON ADVISERS AND MEMBERS, AND SUPREME COURT IP ADDRESSES--- SEE ATTACHED… CONTINUED RESPONSE:
that visited my websites during the course of the appeal of my divorce case in 2010; all of which could be subject to subpoenas, testimony, etc., if any of the attorneys would meet with me. The Appellate and Supreme Court of Indiana are unable to rule on matters where the prosecution's evidence requires the defendant to subpoena information from the high courts in order to prepare a defense for trial.


GROUND ONE:
VIOLATION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. I WAS ARRESTED FOR MAINTAINING A COURT—REFORM ADVOCACY WEBSITE AND PUBLISHING MY INTERNET WRITINGS.
(a) Supporting facts (Do not argue or cite law. Just state the specific facts that support your claim.):
I HAVE NOT INTIMIDATED ANYONE AT ANYTIME CONCERNING MY INTERNET WRITINGS. THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT IDENTIFY SPECIFIC ACTS OR INCIDENTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
MY INTERNET POSTINGS CONCERN THE FOLLOWING: DEARBORN CIRCUIT JUDGE JAMES HUMPHREY SERVED AS SPECIAL JUDGE IN MY DIVORCE CASE WHICH ORIGINATED IN RIPLEY COUNTY, INDIANA. HUMPHREY ASSUMED THE ROLE OF SPECIAL JUDGE WHEN JUDGE CARL H. TAUL, THE ORIGINAL JUDGE IN THE DIVORCE CASE, RECUSED HIMSELF AFTER EX PARTE CONTACT WITH THE CUSTODY EVALUATOR, EDWARD CONNER, ASSIGNED TO MY DIVORCE CASE.
CRITICIZED THE SLOPPY EVALUATION OF EDWARD CONNER, WHO ADMITTED THE REPORT HE SUBMITTED CONTAINED "NUMEROUS ERRORS AND OVERSIGHTS." THE EVALUATOR WAS NOT LICENSED BY THE STATE OF INDIANA AT THE TIME ASSIGNED BY JUDGE TAUL TO PRACTICE PSYCHOLOGY IN THE STATE OF INDIANA AND THE EVALUATOR DENIED ME ACCESS TO THE
CUSTODY EVALUATION FILE DURING THE PERIOD I REPRESENTED MYSELF- SEE ATTACHED… CONTINUED RESPONSE:
as a pro se litigant in the divorce case, petitioner began expressing his views and opinions on websites and public forums. Judge Humphrey held a hearing on my internet writings after petitioner's wife filed a motion concerning his postings on the internet. At the time of the hearing on petitioner wife's motion on the internet postings, Judge Humphrey denied petitioner wife's request to remove the writings from the internet after finding that petitioner's writings were neither harassing nor threatening to petitioner's children or his wife. A few months later, Judge Humphrey terminated petitioner's parenting time stating: "The court is most concerned about husband's irrational behavior and attacks on Dr. Connor," who was the unlicensed custody evaluator appointed by the Court that submitted a custody evaluation report containing "numerous errors and oversights," gave conflicting excuses why he would not release the case file contrary to his own contract with the petitioner, and IC 31-17-2-12. Despite Connor being the only professional to participate in the divorce proceedings, Judge Humphrey disregarded Dr. Connor's recommendations of near equal parenting time and terminated all of petitioner's parenting time on August 18, 2009. One of the stipulations of the petitioner regaining normal parenting time was that the petitioner was required to remove petitioner's internet content that criticized the court system and Dr. Conner. When the petitioner continued to exercise his right to free speech through continued internet postings, Judge Humphrey filed a criminal complaint against petitioner with the Dearborn County Prosecutor on or about August 24, 2009. Judge Humphrey failed to disclose the fact that he filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and continued to preside over petitioner's divorce case for nearly ten months, setting and vacating hearings; and further denying the petitioner's ability to regain parenting time with his children.
…….

At the petitioner's arraignment, the deputy prosecutor, Joseph Kisor, argued that petitioner should have a high bond because petitioner had no respect for the prosecutor in petitioner's public views and writings. The Dearborn County elected officials believe they are bullet proof from criticism and merely jail or indict people who refuse to refrain from criticizing their job performance.
I was arrested for maintaining court—reform advocacy websites and my public internet writings…..

(b) If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground One, explain why:
THE STATE APPELLATE COURT AND INDIANA SUPREME COURT ACCESSED MY WEBSITE INADVANCE OF CONSIDERING MY DIVORCE CASE AND BEFORE THE RECORD WAS TRANSMITTED TOTHE APPEALS COURT. FURTHER THE APPELLATE COURT AND SUPREME COURT UPHELD THEDENIAL OF MY VISITATION RIGHTS WITH MY CHILDREN CONDITIONED ON THE SURRENDER OF MYFIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BLOG CONCERNING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

GROUND TWO:
DENIAL OF MY RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT ARRAIGNMENT AND ALL PERIODS DURING MY INCARCERATION.
(a) Supporting facts (Do not argue or cite law. Just state the specific facts that support your claim.):
I WAS DENIED A PUBLIC DEFENDER AT MY ARRAIGNMENT IN THE DEARBORN COUNTY COURTS AND THE JUDGE REFUSED TO APPOINT COUNSEL AT MY ARRAIGNMENT. THE JUDGE, WHO HAD A CONFLICT, SET MY BOND AT $600,000.00. THE SAME JUDGE WHO RECUSED HERSELF DUE TO A CONFLICT ASSIGNED COUNSEL TO ME WHO FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL,
ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE BOND REDUCED, OR AT ANY TIME MEET WITH ME TO DISCUSS TRIAL STRATEGY. THE ATTORNEY WITHDREW FROM MY CASE TWO MONTHS AFTER BEING APPOINTED ALLEGING HE HAD A CONFLICT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN READILY APPARENT UPON HIS APPOINTMENT. THE ATTORNEY PERMITTED ME TO SIT IN JAIL WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE TO
RESOLVE MY CASE. FURTHER, THE DELAYED WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL IMPAIRED MY ABILITY TO OBTAIN A BOND HEARING. THE SECOND ATTORNEY APPOINTED HAS FAILED TO MEET WITH ME TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL AND SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TRIAL, I HAVE NO WITNESSES SUBPOENAED, NO ONE HAS BEEN DEPOSED, NO EXPERTS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, AND I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
REVIEW ANY DISCOVERY PROVIDED BY THE PROSECUTOR WITH THE ATTORNEY.
I am attaching a copy of the computer Chronological Case Summary from my case which reflects the activity or lack of activity on my case in Dearborn County, Indiana, by the attorneys assigned to my case.
(b) If you did not exhaust your state remedies on Ground Two, explain why:
THERE IS NO STATE REMEDY WHEN THE PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE ARE AWARE I AM INCARCERATED AND AWAITING TRIAL. THE PROSECUTOR IS ATTEMPTING TO GET ME TO TAKE A DEAL TO RESOLVE THE CASE AND I REFUSE. THE PROSECUTOR KNEW WHEN HE REQUESTED A HIGH BOND THAT I DID NOT POSE A RISK TO ANYONE. I HAVE A PRIOR ARREST FOR OVI APPROXIMATELY 16 YEARS AGO AND NOTHING ELSE ON MY RECORD. THE DIE WAS CAST WHEN THE INITIAL JUDGE SET MY BOND AT A HIGH LEVEL AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROSECUTOR.

GROUND THREE:
I HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF MY LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AS I WAS NOT PERMITTED TO DEFEND MY PUBLIC POSTINGS DURING THE GRAND JURY…..

To date, the only accusation/allegation of a written threat is found in the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit report dated 10/28/2009. The Special Crimes Unit report included the petitioner's statement: "Any person, law enforcement agency, etc., who takes action against [Daniel Brewington] for protecting [Daniel Brewington's] children and the public from the child abducting tactics of Judge Humphrey will be held personally responsible for their actions." The report stated that Judge Humphrey viewed the statement "as a threat to his and his family's personal safety." It was on 8/24/09 that Judge Humphrey claimed that my comment caused him to fear for the personal safety of his entire family. Rather than withdraw from the case out of his alleged concern for his family, Judge Humphrey continued to preside over petitioner's case until, on or about, June 9, 2010, when he sought revenge against petitioner by setting and vacating hearings and denying petitioner access to the courts. It wasn't until February 15, 2011, which happened to be five days after the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's complaint against Prosecutor Negangard, that Negangard made petitioner the target of a grand jury investigation. Despite there being no evidence of any illegal threats, on March 11, 2011, Judge Blankenship set my bond at $600,000 in Dearborn County's state sponsored criminal libel suit against petitioner on behalf of both appointed and elected public officials. Rather than placing the burden of proof on public officials to demonstrate in a civil court that petitioner's writings were libelous, Dearborn County violated petitioner's rights to due process by incarcerating petitioner until petitioner can prove that petitioner's public opinions of public officials are not libelous. It is unconstitutional to place the burden on petitioner to convince a jury that petitioner's opinions are facts because an opinion is purely subjective.
The Judge who recused herself set my bond at $500,000 surety and $100,000 cash with a restriction that petitioner could not post anything about the case on the internet, while leaving the prosecutor's office with the freedom to publicly express its own views and opinions on the case. The bond set by Judge Blankenship makes no mention of how I may be a threat to society. The Judge rationalized the highly excessive bond by citing the 2007 custody evaluation, which stated that petitioner's psychological test results indicate that petitioner had a "degree of psychological disturbance that is concerning and does not lend itself to proper parenting," despite the evaluation recommending that petitioner exercise parenting time with his one and three year old daughters at least three days a week.
The sole purpose of the highly excessive bond was to punish petitioner and prevent petitioner from expressing his political and social views in a public forum.

GROUND FOUR:
JAMES HUMPHREY, HEIDI HUMPHREY, EDWARD CONNOR, ANGELA LOECHEL, SHERIFF MICHAEL KREINGHOP, PROSECUTOR F. AARON NEGANGARD, AND SALLY BLANKENSHIP CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE THE PETITIOF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
(a) Supporting facts (Do not argue or cite law.Just state the specific facts that support your claim.):
THE FOREGOING INDIVIDUALS CONSPIRED TO INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR INTIMIDATE THE PETTITIONER TO DENY PETITIONER HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIS GOVERNMENT. THE ACTIONS OF THE PETITIONER ARE SO CLEARLY PROTECTED BY LAW A HIGH SCHOOL AMERICAN HISTORY STUDENT WOULD UNDERSTAND THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS SET FORTH HEREIN. THE PETITIONER HAS NOT THREATENED HARM TO ANY ONE IN ANY INTERNET POSTING OR REQUESTED ANYONE TO HARM ANYONE. THE FOREGOING INDIVIDUALS WANT THE PETITIONERS INTERNET POSTINGS REMOVED BECAUSE THE POSTINGS ARE NOT ONLY TRUTHFUL BUT SHINE A LIGHT ON A DYSFUNCTIONAL COURT SYSTEM AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATION THAT LACKS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR A WELL ORDERED SOCIETY AS ENVISIONED BY THE FOUNDERS.


Therefore, petitioner asks that the Court grant the following relief:
THE DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER, OR THE APPOINTMENT OF A
COMPETENT PUBLIC DEFENDER TO ASSIST THE PETITIONER, AND THE SETTING OF A REASONABLE BOND TO SECURE THE PETITIONER'S APPEARANCE AT TRIAL.
or any other relief to which petitioner may be entitled.

Signed by Robert G Kelly
4353 Montgomery Road
Norwood Ohio 45212
513-531-3636: 513-531-0135 Fax
Executed 8/9/11
Signed by Petitioner
Daniel P Brewington