August 10, 2009
Re: July 31, 2009 letter from the Board
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
I am in possession of a letter from the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology dated July 31, 2009. The letter indicates that the Board concluded that the facts alleged in my complaint did not constitute any apparent violation of the law governing psychology. I am writing this letter in good faith to allow the Board to reconsider the Board’s decision or to clarify the grounds for the Board’s decision before the August 17, 2009 Board meeting.
I feel that I have given the Board a multitude of documentation implicating Dr. Edward J. Connor in numerous acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and/or corruption, relating to the practice of psychology. The Board is in possession of many documents from Dr. Connor suggesting that Dr. Connor has committed unfair, false, misleading, and/or deceptive acts or practices on a number of occasions.
I understand that the Board has concluded that Dr. Connor has not committed any act that would warrant an investigation. As Dr. Connor has not provided me a copy of the case file, from the child custody evaluation, I would have to respectfully disagree. This coupled by the fact that Dr. Connor appears to have provided the Board with false information, in response to the initiating complaint against him, and has failed to address many of the issues within the complaint, raises ethical questions of the Board.
The Board is in possession of over three hundred pages of documentation regarding Agency Case No. 08-15 and it would be redundant to rehash said information. If the Board still contends that Dr. Connor has not violated any law governing psychology, as set forth by KRS 319.082, or the Board fails to provide a valid explanation of how the Board came to this conclusion; I will be filing a suit in the appropriate court against the Board members. As I believe this is a case involving negligence and possible fraud, I will be naming all of the Board members and staff to the suit as individuals. Given Mr. Brengelman’s attempts to stall me while advising the Board to act in a manner of self-preservation rather than the best interest of the public, any actions based on Mr. Brengelman’s advice may be negligent. If it is determined through discovery, subpoenas, depositions, etc… that any Board member, Board staff, and/or legal counsel was aware of any professional misconduct of Dr. Edward J. Connor, then fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud will be added to the suit as well. In the case that it becomes evident that there has been any fraudulent or malicious conduct committed by the Board or counsel, it will be reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If further investigation determines that there may be a substantial conflict of interest arising from the Attorney General’s intervention in the Marco Chapman trial, it may be necessary to move the Court to disqualify the Office of the Attorney General from representing the Board in this matter. Considering that Ripley Circuit Court Judge Carl H. Taul recused himself due to ex-parte communications with Dr. Connor, I will probably be requesting a jury trial. Please forward any legal correspondence directly to me as I plan to represent myself in this matter and will be conducting any discoveries, depositions, etc…
I want to stress to the members of the Board that all I ever requested was a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from the child custody evaluation. Dr. Connor refused to release the case file to me despite there being no protective order and without providing good medical cause as to how the release of the health record would pose a potential physical risk to me or someone else. If the Board still determines that there is no apparent wrongdoing, then it will be up to a judge/jury to decide if the Board has acted in good faith.
Please contact me with any questions.
Daniel P Brewington
 Dr. Connor stated on numerous occasions that Dan Brewington was entitled to the case file. Dr. Connor made this evident in his contract, Dr. Connor’s March 26, 2008 letter to Dan Brewington, and in Dr. Connor’s April 16, 2008 addendum to the child custody evaluation. Dr. Connor has failed to produce any protective order preventing him from releasing the file. Dr. Connor has failed to produce any agreement where Dan Brewington waived his right to Dr. Connor’s evaluation case file/health record.
 Dr. Connor was one of the psychologists involved in determining whether Mr. Chapman was competent to fire his counsel and request the death penalty.