Blogger Wants Ind. Supreme Court To Reconsider His Case, With One Less Justice
By Mike Perleberg
(Indianapolis, Ind.) – An internet blogger who served more than two years in prison after his conviction for intimidating a Dearborn County judge is trying to get his case before the Indiana Supreme Court for a second time.
Last month, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold Brewington’s 2011 jury trial convictions for Intimidation of a Judge and Obstruction of Justice. Brewington had blogged extensively about the handling of his divorce and child custody case by Dearborn Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey and a doctor asked to perform the custody evaluation. Prosecutors said – and justices have unanimously agreed – that the posts went beyond protected free speech and crossed into threats.
“Fear for one’s reputation is often the price of being a public figure, or of involvement in public issues. But fear for one’s safety is not,” Justice Loretta H. Rush wrote in the May 1 opinion for Brewington v. State of Indiana.
In a 36-page pro se request filed with the Indiana Supreme Court last week, Brewington asks that Rush be disqualified from hearing the case, citing a personal experience she had.
Brewington had not raised the issue prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
“After receiving the opinion authored by Justice Rush in this matter, it came to Brewington’s attention that Justice Rush was a victim of a crime involving a home invasion and the attempted murder of her husband by a former ward of the state, for whom Justice Rush formerly served as a (guardian ad litem),” Brewington wrote in the motion.
“Given the already difficult position of the Court to balance First Amendment protections of speech and the safety or reputations of Indiana judges, Justice Rush’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ by any reasonable person.
In his motion, Brewington also points out that Rush served with Humphrey on the Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee and that they had graduated together from the Indiana University School of Law in 1983.
Brewington raises three more points of contention with the Supreme Court decision. He said there are new structural errors that were not able to be addressed prior to the court’s ruling last month.
“As the Court did not officially rule that the criminalization of harsh criticism of public officials was unconstitutional or establish the parameters of determining ‘veiled threats’ until May 1, 2014, Brewington has not been able to address the constitutional flaws littering the entire criminal proceedings until now,” said Brewington.
He also claims the justices erred in applying particular case law to Brewington’s appeal when his case was not based on a procedural rule, but on the everyday right of a U.S. citizen.
The blog writer also alleges that the opinion by Rush is “replete with factual inaccuracies and confusion of events in time, many of which are a product of the fouled trial process.”
The Indiana Supreme Court has not made a decision on Brewington’s latest attempt at clearing his criminal record, according to online case records.
Can nobody see this man has been through numerous court systems and they all agree. If it was one court system I could understand but it has been numerous!!! For the love of god be done already! This guy could of had visitation with his children years ago but with his wisecrack decisions he gave up these rights. I am all about fighting corruption but it is time for him to look at the big picture, find a counselor, and try to get his kids back the right way!
A once prominent and highly respected judge appears to have fallen from Grace. It happens, I suppose. It is with hope he acknowledge his mistakes and take responsibility for his actions. No fault for Mr. Brewington to call him out!
Clearly the fix is in, the judicial system combined with the payoffs to so called "court professionals", including unlicensed persons are terrorizing this country. Family court across the nation is a rigged deal. These are the new nazi's, domestic terrorism for profit at work. They will not get away with this no longer, there are too many of us speaking out about the abuse and corruption.
@TheRealist1975 Hey realist. Check out my blog. I posted my psychological evaluation that recommends immediate unsupervised visitation because I am not a danger to anyone. Now it seems that all the courts I have criticized were erroneous in claiming that I was a danger. If the psychological evaluation is not enough evidence, look at my 40 year existence in this world and the lack of any physical violence should be a pretty good indicator that I am not dangerous. As for the "big picture," submitting just because bullies in black robes abuse their power is not something that sits well with me. You have a choice to sit on the sidelines and play armchair quarterback. I choose to not back down from corruption; even if it's difficult.