I heard someone conclude that Dan Brewington's conviction was upheld because his lawyer made a mistake. That is not accurate.
The Indiana supreme court did say that his lawyer "invited error", but the errors were that the Indiana legislature passed an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, the grand jury brought a vague indictment, the prosecutor brought unconstitutional charges, the judge incorrectly instructed the jury, and the appellate court flagrantly misstated the facts and the applicable constitutional principles. That is what the high court decided.
When any of those things happen, the conviction is usually reversed and the defendant goes free. The prosecutor can still try him again, by getting a new indictment and doing it right.
But sometimes the high court does not want to let a dangerous criminal out on a technicality, so it rules that there was "harmless error", and sufficient evidence to convict the man anyway. However even the vindictive Indiana judges could not really say that the constitutional violations were "harmless". So they said that the defense lawyer "invited" the error by not anticipating the erroneous appellate court and not providing a sufficient trial record for the Indiana supreme court to uphold the conviction on harmless error.
Yeah, it still doesn't make sense. When judges are out to screw you, they can usually find a way.
13 comments:
George, have you heard of a challenge underway in federal court contesting Rule 1.6? According to one source, the American Bar Association is the originator of Rule 1.6, and it's been adopted and implemented to varying decrees in all 50 states by the Attorneys General, courts and state bar associations.
Basically, Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information by lawyers and judges and prosecutors and attorneys general where the information:
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
- would expose individual liability.
I'd like to put this out there for you and others following your blog to comment on - is Rule 1.6 at the heart of the growing corruption and lack of accountability in our judiciary and legal system for the past 30 years?
The Indiana Supreme Court considering my public defender's non-action a strategy is laughable at best. It's the same as calling an old sleeping coon dog a hero because a burglar just happened to trip over the sleeping dog as the burglar was running across the front porch. The SC claimed the prosecutor failed to differentiate what was considered threatening to the "victims'" reputation and the "victims'" safety and said my public defender's (Bryan Barrett) failure to instruct the jury on the same was calculated strategy. Absurd doesn't even begin to describe the fact that the Indiana Supreme Court is suggesting that is was an error on the part of Prosecutor Negangard because he failed to advise the jury what NOT to consider in returning a guilty verdict. Then the Court turned around and credited my public defender's non-action as a strategy in combating the prosecution's non-action. This is the same public defender that failed to call any witnesses, depose anyone, submit any evidence, or even contact my Ohio lawyer who offered to help with my defense at no charge. Barrett met with me for an hour when he was first appointed and then never met with me again.
This doesn't even account for the Court's claim that I had a history of violence. The Supreme Court decision was the first time I had ever been accused of having a violent history. I have no arrests for violence, no restraining orders, no accounts of domestic violence, no bar fights, etc... The Indiana Supreme Court just made it up as they went. Another important thing to note is the Court considered blog posts made well over a year after my divorce as evidence in upholding my attempted obstruction of justice conviction. The Court claimed blog posts made in November of 2010 were an attempt to deter Dr. Connor from testifying in my final hearing on May 27, 2009. Yes... roughly a year and a half after he testified. This just scratches the surface....
I don't know anything about Rule 1.6. Send me the info, and I will post it.
Dan, the judges were out to get you. The only violence I found was a claim that you once slammed some books on table. Were you doing violence to the books or the table? Was either harmed in the process? I almost expected them to say that you must not want to see your kids, because if you did, then you would have put the books down gently on the table.
Maybe the most outrageous statement is "And Defendant had also demonstrated mental disturbance, volatility, violence, and genuine dangerousness directly to both of his victims during his years-long vendetta against them."
Don't they have any real violence in Indiana?
"Throwing books" was never mentioned until this opinion. I was accused of throwing papers at a different hearing. The following might explain all the fears of violence and inaccurate information. Amazing new revelation. Just found this and haven't written about it. Justice Rush was a GAL for someone who later broke into her home and tried to kill her husband. She broke her shoulder jumping out of a window trying to get help. The guy received a 70 year sentence for burglary and attempted murder. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/indiana/inndce/3:2008cv00122/53773/19. She thought it was relevant enough to put on her application for Supreme Court Justice. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/loretta-rush-is-indiana-s-next-justice/PARAMS/article/29740. And she was in the same graduating class as Judge Humphrey at IU Bloomington, 1983. I think they may serve on the same juvenile boards but haven't found conclusive evidence. Wanted to pass this along ASAP
Sorry. I didn't make it clear that Justice Rush wrote the decision.
George, here are several links pertaining to Rule 1.6 and the Constitutional challenge in federal court,
http://challengerule16.blogspot.com
http://work2bdone.com/live/2014/05/rule-1-6-discretion-and-utility/
http://work2bdone.com/live/2014/03/the-answer-to-every-issue-in-the-corruption-faq-rule-1-6-caused-it/
Do these arguments expose an underlying source of the greater judicial corruption, "bizarre" court decisions (e.g. Brewington I.S.C. ruling), questionable legal representation, and injustices we're seeing in case after case?
Indeed, if ABA and statutory guidelines of professional conduct codified in Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information by lawyers, judges, prosecutors and attorneys general where the information:
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
- would expose individual liability;
then would it be a plausible explanation to what we observe in Dan Brewington's case and countless other family court cases across this country?
Maybe these plaintiffs are on to something many are wondering about. Thanks for offering to post this for broader audience review and comments.
Thanks for the links on Rule 1.6, but I don't get it. Those sites do not explain the harm from the rule.
Thanks for the links on Rule 1.6, but I don't get it. Those sites do not explain the harm from the rule.
Thanks for the links on Rule 1.6, but I don't get it. Those sites do not explain the harm from the rule.
George, they claim the harm comes from the mandate in Rule 1.6 to protect above all else the interests of the judicial system and its members from charges of misconduct, violations of civil liberties, and the laws themselves. That's why it might be interesting to air this out in light of Dan Brewington's ISC decision, as well as the countless other violations cited in your blog and others' about magistrates, judges and lawyers going off-constitutional in family courts around the country.
Here's an excerpt from one of the links someone provided earlier:
"RULE 1.6 MANDATES NO JUDGE OR LAWYER TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH EXPOSES THE INJUSTICE. THERE IS NO HELP AVAILABLE BECAUSE RULE 1.6 MAKES THAT HELP ILLEGAL.
RULE 1.6 MANDATES LEGAL PROFESSIONALS TAKE NO ACTION TO HELP AS IT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, IMPACT THE LAWYERS REPUTATION, OR BE SELF_INCRIMINATING, OR HURT THEIR CLIENTS SUCCESS. RULE 1.6 EXCUSES THEIR INACTION. RULE 1.6 EXCUSES THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTIONS EVEN WHERE IT VIOLATES YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. YOUR SITUATION IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES WHO CAUSED IT ARE MANDATED TO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF THEIR MISDEEDS.
RULE 1.6 PREVENTS PROSECUTION OF DISHONEST AND CRIMINAL JUDGES. THE IRONIC THING IS THE RULE WHICH PURPORTS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, SACRIFICES THE INTEGRITY OF EACH JUDGE THAT BECOMES INVOLVED IN YOUR CASE.
RULE 1.6 MANDATES THE PROTECTION OF THE REPUTATION OF CROOKED LAWYERS AND JUDGES. RULE 1.6 WAS AUTHORED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. THE BAR ASSOCIATION MANDATES REGULAR TRAINING OF ITS MEMBER LAWYERS AND JUDGES – THAT TRAINING TEACHES THEM TO AVOID AND IGNORE THE INJUSTICE CAUSED BY THEIR RULE 1.6.
RULE 1.6 MANDATES THAT A LAWYER IGNORE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION. ANY LAWYER TAKING ON A CASE TAINTED BY CORRUPTION KNOWS THEY CAN NOT WIN. THE LAWYER WILL BE REQUIRED TO MISLEAD THEIR CLIENT, OR DELIBERATELY FAIL TO PROPERLY REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS INTERESTS. WHERE THAT MISREPRESENTATION IS ACTIONABLE AND A CLIENT BRINGS THE LAWYER INTO COURT, THE JUDGE IGNORES THE CRIME BECAUSE THE LAWYER WAS MANDATED BY RULE 1.6 TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS, OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT.
RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANY INJUSTICE WHICH OCCURS IN THE COURT. MISCONDUCT IS IGNORED BY THE DISCIPLINARY BOARDS WHICH DISMISS COMPLAINTS TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.
RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANY INJUSTICE WHICH OCCURS IN THE COURT. ANY LAWYER IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING THE CORRUPTION WITH THEIR CLIENT.
WHERE POSSIBLE RULE 1.6 MANDATES THE LAWYER TAKE THE BLAME FOR THE FAILURE OF YOUR CASE. THE LAWYER IS INDEED ‘ACTING’ WEAK, TIMID AND STUPID BECAUSE ANY OTHER TYPE OF ACTION RISKS EXPOSING THE INJUSTICE AND CORRUPTION. "
Upon further reading of the material contained in these links, the harm to the general public becomes obvious when considering the extent of judicial abuses reported in family courts and other administrative courts.
If what these folks claim is true, even if it's only in some cases that Rule 1.6 enables this injustice and corruption, then the next question should also be fairly obvious ...
I read all that, but I still don't see the connection between Rule 1.6 and the injustice. Can you give some example of Rule 1.6 protecting some crooked judge?
You should start by reading your own posts about judicial and legal system corruption, then ask yourself why little really gets done to bring justice and reform ... ROFL, seriously!
After all that's been laid out by these guys on Rule 1.6, along with all the corresponding write-ups here and in other blogs about crooked judges, magistrates, prosecutors, lawyers and judicial system players getting away with misconduct, extortion and deliberate violations of law and civil rights - if even after researching on your own you don't see where the harm and injustice occur, then I challenge you to explain how there's no connection.
If these guys are correct in their hypothesis and allegations, then we have the proverbial smoking gun to what's allowing judicial corruption to expand largely unchecked.
Guess the saying still applies, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" ... ROFLMAO!
you ever find yourself in a position like Dan's then it may make sense to ONLY request a public Defender as assistance of counsel visa vi U.S. SUPREME COURT FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 1975. This will allow you to control the litigation and the public defender is relegated to an assistant role, but strategy & tactics are at DEFENDANTS CONTROL. THIS TACTIC SAVED ME WHEN I DEALT WITH RETALIATION & A FALSE ARREST BECAUSE OF A JUDGE. See my story at http://njcourtcorruption.com
Post a Comment