This letter makes an argument against Jack Conway and the Office of the Attorney General's ability to represent the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology in any matter involving Dr. Edward J. Connor due to a conflict of interest involving the execution of Marco Chapman.
August 14, 2009
Re: The Office of the Attorney General
Re: The Office of the Attorney General
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,
Please see the attached Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ and Request for Emergency Relief, filed by the Commonwealth by and through Jack Conway, Attorney General. The Motion deals with the Commonwealth’s plea to the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent the Department for Public Advocacy from representing Marco Chapman and to stop any future competency testing. The Commonwealth argued, by and through Jack Conway, Kentucky Attorney General that:
“Finally, although not a named party, the Commonwealth does have an interest in the proceedings below: ultimately, what is being attacked is the people’s right, including Mr. Chapman’s right, to see a valid and final criminal sentence carried out. The Attorney General, pursuant to KRS 15.020, has a duty to appear on behalf of the Commonwealth. The lower court’s delay effectively precludes such appropriate representation. Whether or not a “real party in interest” according to rule, the Commonwealth certainly has a direct interest in the action.”
The Office of the Attorney General represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky in this matter; however, “the Commonwealth” is not a tangible client and cannot request or order the Office of the Attorney General to represent “the Commonwealth” in any particular manner. The Attorney General, Jack Conway, is responsible for any opinions, interpretations of law, actions, and decisions the Office of the Attorney General makes on behalf of “the Commonwealth.” Mr. Conway’s above statements indicate that it is in the opinion of Jack Conway and the Office of the Attorney General that Office of the Attorney General has a “direct interest” in the case of Marco Chapman. The Attorney General’s contention was that issue of Chapman’s competency to discharge his counsel had been finally settled by the Court in Chapman v. Commonwealth, ___S.W.3d___ (Ky. 2008) and stated that a further competency evaluation is in no way proper.
Marco Chapman was executed on November 21, 2008, at approximately 7:30 PM EST. This was probably a few hours before the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology received my initiating complaint against Dr. Edward J. Connor. The initiating complaint included many documents composed by Dr. Connor detailing Dr. Connor’s alleged difficulties in communicating with me during the course of a child custody evaluation due to, what Dr. Connor claimed to be, severe ADHD. Dr. Connor came to this conclusion based on the interview sessions of the two parents and psychological testing not specific to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Dr. Connor made numerous references to Ritalin dosages and addictive properties of Ritalin while not being a medical doctor and without contacting my treating therapist and prescribing doctor. Dr. Connor stated in the April 16, 2008 addendum to the original custody evaluation that he found my writings confusing and difficult to follow, yet failed to provide any examples of these alleged documents. Overall, Dr. Connor’s documents fixated on the alleged difficulties Dr. Connor had communicating with me and Dr. Connor stated that it was due to, what Dr. Connor determined to be severe ADHD. Dr. Connor included many incomplete and sometimes seemingly incoherent quotes in the evaluation and presented them as exact quotations taken from me during the evaluation sessions. If my writings in Dr. Connor’s case file are not consistent with the broken quotations Dr. Connor alleged in his report, it would suggest that Dr. Connor provided inaccurate statements in his evaluation report or Dr. Connor failed to consult with a speech-language pathologist to assist Dr. Connor in “understanding” an adult with ADHD. As Dr. Connor’s curriculum vitae had very little mention of training or experience with testing or working with adults with ADHD, which is a neurological disorder, it would seem that Dr. Connor was not qualified to perform testing and to evaluate an adult with “severe ADHD”, given the difficulties that Dr. Connor stated he had communicating with me. This brings into question how Dr. Edward J. Connor could be qualified to have performed an evaluation of the competency of Marco Chapman, who suffered from a wide array of severe disorders and emotional and physical turmoil. [i] (See endnote below)
In the Commonwealth’s Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ and Request for Emergency Relief, filed October 29, 2008 (attached hereto), it is clear that the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Kentucky and Attorney General Jack Conway that the competency of Marco Chapman was settled and that further competency testing was not warranted. If it were determined that Dr. Edward J. Connor had difficulties communicating with adults who had ADHD, it could have negative impact on the Office of the Attorney General, Jack Conway, and the Commonwealth given Dr. Connor’s involvement in competency testing/evaluations for Marco Chapman. If it were determined that Dr. Connor’s statements about his difficulties communicating with me and understanding my writings were false, there would be serious consequences.
In consideration of the above circumstances, I feel that it would be inappropriate for the Office of the Attorney General to provide legal counsel to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, in any capacity, in matters concerning Dr. Edward J. Connor. Dr. Connor has refused to release a copy of my client file from the evaluation preventing me from inspecting my written correspondence, which Dr. Connor deemed to be confusing and difficult to follow. I feel confident that there are no such writings and Dr. Connor has failed to provide any examples of these alleged documents. The Board has stated that there are no apparent violations of the laws governing psychology in Dr. Connor’s actions and the information in the complaint does not warrant an investigation under KRS 319.082. I filed a petition for the release of my client record with the Court in my divorce hearing and Judge Carl Taul stated that he was not familiar with Kentucky law so he was not going to order the release of the file. Dr. Connor stated, “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates we would provide the file to the representing attorney, however, given the circumstances, we believe that a Court order is necessary to release the file to Mr. Brewington given that he is representing himself pro se.” There is still no protective order forbidding Dr. Connor from releasing the file and Dr. Connor still refuses to provide me a copy of my client record. The Board members have determined that this does not constitute any “apparent violation” of law. Unless Dr. Connor has provided the Board with a protective order forbidding him from releasing my client record or a document bearing my signature waiving my right to my record, then the Board must assume that Dr. Connor is in violation of the law or at the least assume it is an apparent violation of KRS 319.082 and investigate the matter.
I am giving official notice to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology and the Office of the Attorney General that I believe that the Office of the Attorney General’s representation of the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology in any matter regarding Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D constitutes a conflict of interest. Given Attorney General Jack Conway’s statements in the October 29, 2008 motion filed on behalf of the Commonwealth, Mr. Conway believes that the issue of Mr. Chapman’s competency, which included evaluations by Dr. Edward J. Connor, has been settled. Any negligent and/or willful misconduct by Dr. Connor would raise questions of whether the State of Kentucky accidently executed a man who was mentally disabled or handicapped and would reflect poorly on the Office of the Attorney General and Jack Conway if Dr. Connor were found guilty of ethical and/or criminal misconduct.
Please contact me with any questions. I would be willing to meet with the Board or Mr. Conway to discuss the issues.
Daniel P Brewington
 The initiating complaint filed with the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology was dated November 18, 2008. The Board stamped the complaint received on November 21, 2008.
[i] The following information was taken from the Appellant Brief filed with the Kentucky Supreme Court, on March 1, 2006, on behalf of Marco Chapman. The brief contained Dr. Connor’s report of Marco Chapman and included the following: Marco Chapman was depressed as a baby due to the emotional detachment of his parents. Chapman’s parents suffered from depression, serious alcohol abuse, depression, and mental disorders. Chapman’s father sexually abused him and routinely beat him unconscious. His parents gave Chapman alcohol in his baby bottle. A babysitter molested Chapman. Chapman began to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol at the age of eight and became sexually active and suicidal as a child. Chapman experienced dissociative states. He was plagued by conduct disorders and dysthymia and Chapman’s emotional disturbances had physical manifestations. Around the age of 14, Chapman attempted suicide by hanging himself and cutting his wrists. This was around the same time Chapman began to abuse LSD, embalming fluid, and PCP. Chapman suffered from gender identity issues. He abused heroin, cocaine, crack, and methamphetamines and drank alcohol in binges. Chapman was in acute psychological turmoil suffering from substance dependence, Dysthymic Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, intrusive thoughts, odd sensory experiences, including visual and auditory hallucinations, dramatic mood swings, troubling thoughts and dreams, and personality disorders (he had symptoms of both Borderline and Anti-social Disorder.