| Subject: Re: DO YOU KNOW DAN BREWINGTON ON A PERSONAL LEVEL? |
Author:
Matt Brewington
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08:38:06 10/13/11 Thu
In reply to:
El Krauft
's message, "DO YOU KNOW DAN BREWINGTON ON A PERSONAL LEVEL?" on 18:42:19 10/12/11 Wed
Who says Dan needs help? The psychologist he criticized for not following the law? The vindictive judge he criticized for abruptly taking a father away from two little girls? Or the prosecutor who yells it to the jury in an attempt to get a conviction? His ex-wife? Her attorney who hasn't been payed? There is absolutely NO evidence of him needing help. Dan has hundreds of friends and family members who support him 100%; professional members from differing communities; police, firefighters, doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers and fathers... I don't buy this poor single mom story for a bit. What kind of mother takes the stand in her children's father's trumped up criminal trial for the sole purpose of attacking his character in hopes that he is convicted so she won't ever have to let her daughters see their father? I'll answer that... The WORST kind! She never testified to any illegal activity. It was simply character assassination for the jury, ignorantly veiled as "concern" for Dan. Yea right. Read the transcripts. She claimed he was a slob. He didn't do the dishes when she was at work. He didn't have a job. He yelled at her. (I'm sure she never did any yelling) Mental illness is not appropriately defined by someone who makes an non-valid opinion of someone and tries to rationalize their own ignorance and defensiveness by simply continuing to say "he needs help". Any by the way, Dan's ex objected to having Dan evaluated by a Cincinnati psychiatrist who has been practicing for 30 years. I guess she wanted it to be performed by someone she thought might give her more of the opinion she wanted. I don't know. While I'm on the topic of a mental health evaluation, I need to make clear something, AGAIN, that the prosecutor, judge and others seem to want to twist around. Dan was trying to get a hearing on an evaluation but Judge Humphrey said he didn't have jurisdiction. Then he said he did have jurisdiction after Dan's appellate attorney pointed it out to Humphrey. Then Humphrey set a hearing for three months away and a week before the hearing he stepped down citing the bogus "investigation" from ten months prior. And, when asked about setting that hearing date at Dan's trial, Humphrey's response was "honestly councilor, I can't recall." Clear vindictive behavior in obstructing Dan's ability to follow Humphrey's own court orders. And they keep yelling "ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS GET A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION!"; yea, to see his children supervised for two hours every two weeks. Then he would have to petition the court for more time, and then again for more time. They are not telling the whole truth about "seeing" his children and they are definitely not telling the public how both the judge and the mother intentionally stood in the way of that "mental health" evaluation that was "all he had to do". When will this extreme defensive and manipulative behavior end? Unfortunately, probably not until the entire matter gets to federal court.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 