Mommy, Grandma, and Grandpa had me arrested for calling my girls on the phone. -Updated 4/13/2010

Dr. Connor lied, Judge Humphrey didn't care. Click here to read Dr. Connor's false testimony.

Follow DanBrewington on Twitter

dan brewington's blog

Follow Me on Blogger


See how the Circuit Court of Dearborn County Indiana uses law enforcement to discourage the inspection of public records.


Please click here to join the Facebook group "Help Dan Brewington see his girls"



Judge James D Humphrey

Judge James D Humphrey served as a special judge in my case after the Judge Carl H Taul recused himself after communicating with Dr. Connor outside the presence of the parties.  What can you say about a man who is willing to punish two little girls out of spite of their father?

Judge Humphrey hates me because I brought common sense and responsibility to the Dearborn County Circuit Court.

Judge James D Humphrey of the Dearborn Circuit Court served as Special Judge in my case after Judge Taul recused himself from the case after participating in ex parte communications with Dr. Connor.  Judge Humphrey had a deep seated animosity toward me because I challenged the system.  Judge Humphrey blamed me for the divorce lasting 2.5 years, even though I didn’t file for the divorce and the only thing I was trying to do was obtain a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from the custody evaluation so I could prepare for court. Judge Humphrey ruminated on the fact that the divorce lasted 2.5 years yet Judge Humphrey failed to acknowledge that in that 2.5 years, no one suggested that my time with my daughters be reduced or eliminated.  There was no evidence of abuse, neglect, or injury.  There was no mention of terminating my ability to be a parent.  If I was truly a threat to the children, why did Judge Humphrey deny my motion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the girls?  Almost three months after the final hearing on the divorce, without warning, Judge Humphrey terminated all my parenting time with the girls.  Why would Judge Humphrey do something like this?  Because he was concerned about the welfare of his expert, Dr. Edward J Connor.

My track record with the girls was flawless.  I picked them up at 6:25 A.M. every Wednesday, Friday, and every third Monday to accommodate my Ex’s work schedule. I returned the girls to my Ex at 8:00 A.M. the following day except for the weekends I had the girls where I would take them back to their mother at 8:00 P.M. on Sunday nights.  When she ask me to trade weekends to accommodate her private life, I never objected.  In two and a half years there were few arguments and there was no evidence that the girls didn’t adore their daddy.  Judge Humphrey ripped my children of a father because Judge Humphrey was angered because I held his expert accountable for his actions.  Judge Humphrey even wrote in the Final Decree that his biggest concern was Dr. Connor’s welfare.  Judge Humphrey wrote:


I didn’t do anything illegal.  I never questioned Dr. Connor taking a position regarding custody contrary to mine.  I simply tried to hold Dr. Connor accountable for lying about not being able to release the case file.  I did not know that it was considered an irrational attack to question the credibility of a witness in court.  Why did Judge Humphrey feel that it was bad to question his expert?  It probably had something to do with the fact Judge Humphrey appointed Dr. Connor as a licensed psychologist in civil and criminal cases when Dr. Connor was not licensed by the state of Indiana.  Judge Humphrey was probably fearful of what may happen if it were discovered his expert was involved in criminal/unethical activity.  The criminal activity would include all of Dr. Connor’s conflicting/false statements sent by fax and US Mail.  Since Dr. Connor sent his letters across state lines, it’s a federal offense.  Judge Humphrey accused me of trying to intimidate the Court staff.  From a logical standpoint, it would be impossible for the Judge to know if I tried to intimidate his staff without me testifying to trying to do that.  It would be impossible for Judge Humphrey to know if his staff was being intimidated unless he was conducting his own investigation outside of the courtroom which is a violation of the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct.

Judge Humphrey got mad at me for subpoenaing Judge Taul

I asked, begged, and pleaded for a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file.  In a letter dated February 25, 2008 Dr. Connor wrote:


Dr. Connor claimed that Judge Taul contacted him on 2/22/08 yet Judge Taul did not include the parties in on the conversation.  I still don’t know if Dr. Connor really talked to Judge Taul.  It would be a violation of the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct for Judge Taul to contact Dr. Connor outside the presence of the parties.  The Indiana Judical Canon states:


If they weren’t going to allow me to see the case file, the only way I could determine what was said during Judge Taul’s private conversation with Dr. Connor was to subpoena Judge Taul to testify.  When I subpoenaed Judge Taul, the Indiana Attorney General, Gregory F. Zoeller and Deputy Attorney General, Betsy M Isenberg, filed a motion to quash the subpoena of Judge Taul.  When I looked at the motion filed by the Attorney General, it was the first time I got the “what have I got myself into” feeling in my gut.  That feeling went away in less than a minute when I read the whole motion.

The arguments the Attorney General made did not fit the circumstances.  The first argument they made was that I failed to provide “the fees for [1] day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by laws.”  I’m no legal scholar, but the under Compensation and Reimbursement the Indiana Judicial Canon states:

“A judge may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the extra-judicial activities permitted by this Code, if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge's performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety.”

Giving a judge cash to testify is a pretty sketchy situation.  The next argument the Attorney General made was “Any action that Judge Taul may have taken as a Judge can and should be gleaned from the orders and records of the case”, while citing O’Malia v State (1934).  The argument of the Attorney General may have some bearing if there was a record of the ex parte communication between Judge Taul and Dr. Connor.

The Attorney General went on the offensive against me when they wrote:

“Because the subpoena is an attempt to circumvent the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, it is unreasonable and oppressive within the meaning of Trial Rule 45 and is annoying, oppressive and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Trial Rule 26(C).”

I did not violated the Judicial Code of Conduct.  It was Judge Carl H Taul that decided to talk to his unlicensed expert outside the presence of the parties.  The only record of the conversation was by Dr. Connor’s accounts.  This is why judges are prohibited from having casual conversations with potential witnesses.  “Unreasonable and oppressive” could be used to describe the measures both judges took to obstruct my access to my own evaluation file.  I filed a response to the motion filed by the Attorney General making the above argument but Judge Humphrey quashed the subpoena of Judge Taul.  I filed a motion to reconsider, citing the following opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court:

“Only in the rarest of circumstances should a judge be called upon to give evidence as to matters upon which he [or she] has acted in a judicial capacity, and these occasions, we think, should be limited to instances in which there is no other reasonably available way to prove the facts sought to be established” McCool, 657 A.2d at 281, citing State ex. rel. Junker, Wash. Supr., 482 P.2d 775, 781 (1991). 

“There are circumstances in which a judge might be allowed to testify concerning a judicial matter.  While this issue has not been addressed in Delaware, one likely example  is testimony by a judge regarding allegations that he or she acted improperly, such as engaging in inappropriate ex parte conversations.  See, e.g., People v. Montgomery, Ill. Supr., 642 N.E.2d 1260, 1262 (1994) (reversing decision to prohibit cross-examination of judge because the issue of whether the judge made an inappropriate promise to defend in an inappropriate ex parte communication went to the heart of the controversy).”

Judge Humphrey denied my motion to reconsider.  I have been trying to obtain a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file since March 6, 2008.  Dr. Connor claimed that Judge Carl H Taul contacted him privately on February 22, 2008 after Dr. Connor informed Judge Taul that the custody evaluation contained “numerous errors and oversights.”  Aside from Judge Taul testifying to his alleged conversation with Dr. Connor, there would be no way to determine if the conversation took place or if Judge Taul agreed with Dr. Connor’s proposal.  The idea of a non-party contacting the court directly to modify the terms of an order is troubling in itself.  Judge Humphrey considered my attempt to subpoena Judge Taul as some kind of personal vendetta when I was only trying to find out the content of Judge Taul and Dr. Connor’s conversation and why it wasn’t shared with the parties to the divorce.  During the Final Hearing, when I was presenting part of my argument, Judge Humphrey said something along the lines of “Does this have something to do with the problem you have with Judge Taul?” and made me drop what I was saying.  Judge Humphrey took it upon himself to protect Judge Taul as well as Dr. Connor.

Judge James D Humphrey was mad because I brought the world into his little courtroom.  The biggest fish in the pond is only the biggest until the dam breaks and he washes down to the stream.  Then he may have to contend with the big fish in the stream, the river, and the ocean.

I filed motions to compel Dr. Connor to release his case file.  I filed complaints with the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology (Dr. Connor wasn’t licensed in Indiana).  I got Judge Carl Taul to recuse himself.  If they thought they could snub me, fine.  I was going to tell the world about it.  People like Judge Humphrey can get away with what they are doing because people are afraid of retaliation.  As people can see from the complexity of this website, I am unable to tell someone the chain of events in less than five minutes.  That’s the way the system likes it, legally complicated so it makes it harder for the peasants to grasp. 

On April 16, 2009, my Ex filed for a temporary restraining order requesting Judge Humphrey to order me to take down my internet content because it was "potentially dangerous" to the children.  My Ex wasn’t concerned about the children’s welfare as she used the motion to emphasize a quote from Dr. Connor’s evaluation.  My Ex claimed the following quote was so detrimental to the children that she mentioned it four times in her April 16, 2009 motion:

“Mr. Brewington can certainly provide child care for the children, but we believe that minimizing the time that he has with the children, will in fact, sustain their existing bond.”

My Ex mentioned that quote four different times in her motion and submitted all of my web material in nothing more that an attempt to tattle to the Judge, in her attempts to restrict/eliminate my time with the girls.  Judge Humphrey probably resented my response which stated:

“Dr. Connor’s statement ‘We believe that minimizing the time that (the Respondent) has with the children, will in fact sustain their existing bond’ is, in itself harmful to the children according to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines as the Guidelines state ‘When a very young child is accustomed to receiving regular, hands-on care from both parents, the child should continue to receive this care when the parents separate.”

Judge Humphrey punished my children because I attempted to write well prepared legal pleadings.

I filed a response to my Ex’s attempts to have the Court order me to take down my website.  I cited case law regarding the First Amendment and then explained how my writings were advancing ideas in the market place:

"The Respondent’s internet publications are not casual “chit chat” between two persons or confined to a small group; rather the Respondent believes his writings are central to the “advancement of knowledge, the transformation of taste, political change, cultural expression, and other objectives, values, and consequences of the speech that is protected by the First Amendment.”  The Respondent has gone to great lengths to protect the Petitioner’s identity as any internet web search of the Petitioner’s name will not direct the search engine to any of the Respondent’s postings; which is consistent with all of the information brought before the Court that the Respondent has never engaged in any harassing, threatening, slanderous, and/or illegal behavior.  The Respondent accepts full legal liability for any of the Respondent’s writings and any publications regarding Dr. Connor, former attorneys, misconduct of prior judges and/or public officials are subject to separate litigation if the parties mentioned deem the writings to be slanderous and/or defaming.  The Respondent has the right to forward to the public/marketplace, the Respondent’s ideas, comments, and experiences regarding the unethical/unlawful conduct of Dr. Connor, Amy Streator, Thomas Blondell, Judge Carl H. Taul and any other professional associated with the family court system to advance knowledge and help bring political change to a system that has allowed an unlicensed psychologist to conduct himself in gross, malicious and discriminating conduct in Dr. Connor’s personal attacks on the Respondent for questioning why Dr. Connor has offered many excuses as to why Dr. Connor could or could not release the case file from his custody evaluation that Dr. Connor claimed to contain “numerous errors and oversights”; as long as the information is not harmful to the parties’ children or harassing to the Petitioner.  However; the Petitioner shouldn’t be granted “immunity” from any potential unforeseen consequences resulting from the Petitioner’s intentional negligent conduct in conspiring to defraud the rights and best interests of the parties’ children by entering into an agreement for individual psychological services with Dr. Connor, agreement attached hereto as part of “Exhibit E”,  while Dr. Connor was conducting an evaluation for the parties and continued to conspire to obstruct the Respondent’s access to Dr. Connor’s evaluation case file."

Judge Humphrey hated me because I didn’t fear him.  What Judge Humphrey hated the most was when he figured out that I would never become the bad father he tried to make me out to be.