Re: Attempted Murder of Justice Rush's Husband -- Dearborn County Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

Subject: Re: Attempted Murder of Justice Rush's Husband

Author:
Dan Brewington (Common sense)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:24:47 05/13/14 Tue
In reply to: hiswords 's message, "Re: Attempted Murder of Justice Rush's Husband" on 18:54:54 05/12/14 Mon

Humphrey mentioned my Facebook reference to being a pyromanic in the final decree of my divorce, meaning the statement had to have been made prior to the final hearing. Why would I have made a threat to Humphrey when he hadn't made any major ruling? Why would it have been a direct threat to Humphrey when it was on my private Facebook page? The only way Humphrey knew about the statement was my ex raised the issue in court and even then the only question was whether I posted the comment. Nothing more. Better question is why would Humphrey hear my case then rule on it if he felt I was a serious risk to committing arson against him. Why did he wait more than a year after the statement was made before he recused himself. It was simply an analogy about how I felt I was equipped to take on the less than honest court system in Southeastern Indiana. As the person above stated, Negangard never even mentioned the words "arson" or "burn" in the trial. The attorney general made the arson argument after the trial so I was never able to defend myself against the ridiculous statemet. No one made the arson argument until 4 years after the comment was made. Then Justice Rush started the history of violence lie. The only mention of violence in my case is when Kreinhop testified he found no violence in his investigation of me. And the detractors still wonder why I continue to criticize such a broken system. Humphrey is a coward but wasn't afraid of me committing a crime against him. He was afraid of his reputation being tarnished, and it should be. Judge James D. Humphrey is a criminal and child abuser who cowers behind his gown,family, and laws he allows himself to bend and break.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]