Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Please see the following attachment. This is the motion I filed with the Court last week. I’m contacting you because you are the newest member of the Board and you seem to have an impressive résumé when it comes to helping people. I’m sure that you are aware that Mr. Brengelman obstructed the Board’s access to a mailed copy of my complaint concerning Agency Case No 08-15. Mr. Brengelman made a point to ask Julie Jackson if the Board had received a mailed copy of my complaint. Mr. Brengelman said that because the Board didn’t receive a mailed copy of my complaint, the Complaints Screening Committee was slow to receive a copy of the complaint and couldn’t address the complaint at the April 13, 2009 Board meeting. Mr. Brengelman later tried to get rid of the May meeting because he didn’t feel that it was necessary.
In a letter dated March 16, 2009, Mr. Brengelman wrote:
Dear Mr. Brewington:
Your recent request for the names and addresses of the members of the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology is being responded to by the Board staff directly. As a courtesy to you, please feel free to mail to me, at the address on this letterhead, and
Assistant Attorney General
After Mr. Brengelman instructed me to forward any “
To: Brengelman, Mark (KYOAG); Jackson, Julie G (Finance
Occupations & Professions); Velez, Jan (KYOAG)
Subject: Public Records Dr. Edward J Connor
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:42:25 -0400
was deleted without being read on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:47:54 -0400
To: Jackson, Julie G (Finance Occupations & Professions); Velez,
Jan (KYOAG); Brengelman, Mark (KYOAG)
Subject: Public records request
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:57:08 -0400
was deleted without being read on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:47:54 -0400
To: Brengelman, Mark (KYOAG); Jackson, Julie G (Finance
Occupations & Professions); Velez, Jan (KYOAG)
Subject: New initiating complaint against Edward J. Connor
Sent: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:46:16 -0400
was deleted without being read on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:08:13 -0400
To: Brengelman, Mark (KYOAG)
Subject: New initiating complaint against Edward J. Connor
Sent: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:22:58 -0400
was deleted without being read on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:24:42 -0400
To: Brengelman, Mark (KYOAG)
Subject: I thought you wanted me to communicate with your office.
Sent: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:30:48 -0400
was deleted without being read on Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:14:28 -0400
To: Brengelman, Mark (KYOAG); Velez, Jan (KYOAG); Jackson, Julie
G (Finance Occupations & Professions);
Subject: Request to address Board and additional information against
Dr. Edward J Connor
Sent: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:49:36 -0400
was deleted without being read on Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:22:03 -0400
I am well aware of Mr. Brengelman’s tactics in trying to direct any subpoenas to go through his office. The problem arises when Mr. Brengelman attempts to “protect” the Board from me and then serves as counsel to the Complaints Screening Committee for my complaint. There are now severe ethical and legal issues to consider now that Mr. Brengelman has conspired to obstruct the Board’s access to a complaint. This is very concerning since Mr. Applegate provided false information to the Board during the March 2, 2009 meeting when he recommended that the Board not reopen Agency Case No 08-15 because there was no new evidence. I sent the Board copies of altered health records for the psychologist in question. I had never addressed this information in previous correspondence with the Board. I have a copy of the altered health records that the Board stamped “Received February 20, 2009.” This information could not have been dismissed as the Board didn’t ask for a response from the psychologist in question. It appears that Mr. Applegate arbitrarily dismissed my new evidence. It would be illegal for Mr. Applegate to dismiss evidence/a complaint based on Mr. Applegate’s rendered opinion of me, without ever meeting with me.
Dr. Markham, I am a father who is fighting for the right to spend equal time with my children. This whole situation demonstrates how broken the family court system is. I have been representing myself for over a year and I have been attacked by the “professionals” in the system for questioning the system. I didn’t set out to represent myself, but I was forced to go at it alone when I couldn’t find a lawyer who wanted to challenge the ethical conduct of the psychologist in question. The “professionals” would like to portray me as an irrational, out of control, renegade who is just trying to cause trouble. I’m not irrational or out of control and if someone feels that I am a renegade who is trying to cause trouble then they probably have done something wrong. I wasn’t the one who was having a hard time answering the question of whether my office received a mailed copy of a complaint. I have written over 200,000 words during the course of my divorce/custody hearing and no one has been able to find anything that I have done that is illegal or unethical. You will never find any derogatory statements about my soon to be ex-wife. The only thing you hear are the petty arguments the “professionals” are using in an attempt to make me seem irrational. Solving problems in ways that the legal system isn’t familiar with is creative and seemingly effective. Having an Assistant Attorney General of the State of
I’m not irrational. If I really were irrational and/or out of control, do you think Mr. Brengelman would be going to such measures to protect the Board from me? It wouldn’t be irrational for me to get an attorney to sue the Board and the Office of the Attorney General for conspiring to commit fraud. I don’t want to do that. That’s not me. I want to be able to spend the summer concentrating on having fun with my two daughters, but I refuse to give a free pass to anyone who engages in malicious and illegal conduct to protect a psychologist that brings considerable harm to children. If the Complaints Screening Committee would have acted in a responsible manner, none of this would have been necessary.
I would invite anyone who thinks that my actions are harassing, illegal, etc… to take the appropriate legal action against me. In his response to Agency Case No 08-15, the psychologist in question wrote “I believe it is Mr. Brewington who is potentially dangerous given his profile and behavior thus far. As such, I have consulted with an attorney with regard to filing a restraining order against Mr. Brewington and/or filing charges of harassment, defamation of character or slander but have not taken these steps as of yet and would prefer not to do so.” The Board didn’t even consider the ethical/legal violations of a custody evaluator threatening legal action against a party while serving as an impartial psychological expert. The psychologist in question isn’t refraining from taking legal action because he’s a nice guy; he’s just making statements like this in an attempt to convince people that I’m a dangerous person. Whether or not Dr. Connor believes that I am a dangerous person is irrelevant to the complaint. The Board is in possession of many of this psychologist’s documents and nowhere does it state that I pose a threat to my children or their mother. He just got caught doing something very bad and for some reason Mr. Brengelman and some of the Board members are trying to protect him. The problem is this is the first time that a person has tried to hold people accountable for their actions while their divorce was pending. The problem is that a non-lawyer seems to have infiltrated the system outside of formal legal action. I have found that it is easy to keep “my story” straight because I always tell the truth and I always try to walk a straight line. If someone doesn’t play by the rules, they may find themselves stuttering and stammering for words trying to explain why they didn’t provide the Board with a mailed copy of a complaint.
If people get offended by the content of this letter they have either done something wrong or they have a hard time accepting responsibility for the actions of the Board and the Office of the Attorney General of Kentucky. Getting angry because someone is exposing unethical and or illegal conduct by people who are supposed to protect the public is self centered and irresponsible. Ask Mr. Brengelman and Mr. Applegate why there weren’t any apparent violations of law in a 237 page complaint about a psychologist who said that there were HIPAA laws prohibiting him from releasing a custody evaluation case file to one of the participants of the child custody evaluation because the participant didn’t have a lawyer. Mr. Brengelman and Mr. Applegate would probably just get mad. Who’s irrational now?
Thank you for you time
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
April 14, 2009
Dear Ms. Velez,
Please have Mr. Conway’s office contact me regarding the conduct of Assistant Attorney General Mark Brengelman. Mr. Brengelman serves as counsel to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology. Mr. Brengelman is allowed to protect the Board members from potential subpoenas. Mr. Brengelman can advise the Board on matters regarding complaints against psychologists. Mr. Brengelman cannot actively protect the Board from potentially being subpoenaed by a person while simultaneously advising the Complaints Screening Committee on a complaint against a psychologist that was filed by that same person. Mr. Brengelman informed the Board, during the public comment portion of the April 13, 2009, that he failed to provide the Board with a mailed copy of the complaint, postmarked March 17, 2009. Earlier in the meeting Mr. Brengelman recommended not addressing Agency Case No. 08-15 because the Board only had an emailed copy of the complaint and not a mailed copy; which held up the complaint from being distributed to the members of the Complaints Screening Committee. The Board members can attest to the events described above.
I filed a 237 page complaint with Board regarding Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D in November 2008. My primary complaint was the fact that Dr. Connor refuses to provide me with a copy of the case file from the custody evaluation he conducted for my wife and me. Dr. Connor stated that he wouldn’t release it to me because I wasn’t an attorney. The Board stated that this was not “an apparent violation” of law. After I reviewed Dr. Connor’s response to the complaint, I found that Dr. Connor failed to address the matter, yet the Board didn’t find anything worthy of an investigation. My March 16, 2009 complaint deals with Dr. Connor’s false statements.
At the least, Mr. Brengelman’s actions are unintentionally protecting Dr. Connor. Worst case scenario is that Mr. Brengelman and the Complaints Screening Committee have intentionally protected Dr. Connor. Both of which have caused further harm to my children during my divorce/custody hearing. These actions also make the State of
If I don’t hear from someone from the Attorney General’s office by this evening, I will be posting this letter on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com. If I don’t feel comfortable that this matter is being handled properly, I will be attending the 2009 Kentucky Crime Victims’ Rights Rally Day to represent people whom have been victims of crimes committed by the people we trust to protect us. I won’t be coming alone.
Dr. Connor wrote “We believe that minimizing the amount of time Dan has with the children will in fact sustain their existing bond.” My girls were 1 and 3 at the time. All I wanted was a copy of the evaluation case file from Dr. Edward J. Connor so I could represent myself in court. I requested the case file on March 6, 2008. The Judge tried to protect Dr. Connor. I got Judge Taul to recuse himself because of the ex-parte communication he had with Dr. Connor. Mr. Brengelman and the Board are working diligently to delay/obstruct an investigation of Dr. Connor. I want this to be over. The only way I’m going to give up on my children is if someone gives me the Kentucky Statute that justifies Dr. Connor being able to lie about why he cannot release a case file/health record to a client. If there is no such statute; the State of
Loving father of two girls
Sunday, April 5, 2009
If you live in the Greater Cincinnati Area, there is a good chance you have heard of the ongoing situation concerning Jeni Lee Dinkel. Jeni Lee Dinkel’s rise to infamy came from her arrest and guilty plea for having sex with a fifteen year old friend of her son. She had also provided alcohol to minors at her home. Ms. Dinkel has made the news once again as she is fighting to be allowed to attend her son’s graduation at Covington Catholic High School but the school is not allowing her to attend. Good call.
This woman raped a minor. Jeni Lee Dinkel is a registered sex offender. This wasn’t a lapse in judgment. She provided alcohol to minors and then had sex with a minor. Now she is claiming that Covington Catholic’s decision not to allow her to attend only punishes her son. Yeah, it’s the school’s fault that’s she’s a registered sex offender.
One of the underlying chapters in this story that many people are not aware of is the psychological evaluation of Jeni Lee Dinkel that was performed, for the defense, by Dr. Edward J. Connor and Associates. Dr. Connor, as you know, submitted a “less than adequate” child custody evaluation to the Court in my divorce. Dr. Connor wrote “we believe that minimizing the amount of time that Dan has with the children will in fact sustain their existing bond.” My girls were one and three at the time. Dr. Connor recommended that Jeni Lee Dinkel not receive any jail time because it would be hard on her 15 year old son, who was dealing with some serious health problems.
I feel badly for what this woman put her family through. I feel even worse for the victim of her crime and his family. I don’t feel bad for Ms. Dinkel. What I find to be very disturbing is that a psychologist and child custody evaluator, Dr. Edward J. Connor, would suggest that a father, who has committed no crime, should have his time minimized with his children while recommending that a confessed rapist avoid jail time because it would be hard on her 15 year old son. Dr. Connor provided absolutely no evidence to why my girls would be better served with their dad playing a minor role in their lives. On the other hand, Dr. Connor went on and on about how Jeni Lee Dinkel was at “very low risk” to reoffend in any manner. It’s rather amazing that a child custody evaluator can almost write off alcohol, sex and minors as if it were some type of youthful indiscretion. What would Dr. Connor’s recommendations be if he performed a custody evaluation for the Dinkel family? Would minimizing the amount of time a sex offender had with her teenage son sustain their existing bond?
Many of us face tough choices in life. Most of us are never faced with making a decision about a possible sexual encounter with a minor when alcohol is involved. That’s because responsible people don’t find themselves in those positions. Most people wouldn’t have to think about what they would do in the presence of alcohol and minors because usually morality has already made the decision. In the case of a “moral lapse”; an understanding of severe legal ramifications usually kicks in. If you put yourself in the compromising situation and forget about moral and legal responsibility; you probably don’t fall into the category of being a very low risk to reoffend.
This sickens me. What if one of my children was very sick? Should I get more time with them? What about the time leading up to their sickness? Then there is always the question of what would have happened if I would have had sex with a 15 year old girl? They have a TV show called To Catch a Predator, with Chris Hanson, set up to catch men who do that. Jeni Lee Dinkel is fighting for the right to go to her son’s high school graduation. If I did the same thing with a 15 year old girl, I’d be fighting for the ability to see my girls before they were adults. Of course this would follow a jail sentence that would probably be much longer than Jeni Lee Dinkel’s 59 days.
I always try to do the right thing. I don’t put myself in compromising situations. I fight for the right to spend equal time with my girls by taking on someone who has a lot of influence in the tri-state legal system, Dr. Edward J. Connor. I’ve gotten a Judge to recuse himself and I’m taking on the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology and Kentucky Assistant Attorney General, Mark Brengelman; all in an effort to spend equal time with my daughters. When you turn on 700 WLW, you hear some people calling in to Willie Cunningham and Mike McConnell talking about how we should feel sorry for Jeni Lee Dinkel. Unfortunately a sex scandal involving a minor and a
Friday, April 3, 2009
April 2, 2009
Re: Request to address the Board/Additional information for March 17, 2009 Complaint
Dear Mr. Brengelman and Members of the Board,
I would like the opportunity to address the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology at the Board’s April 13 meeting. I’d like to get an understanding of the procedures and guidelines that the Board follows regarding the complaint process.
On December 9, 2008, I received a letter from the Board stating:
“A copy of your complaint will be forwarded to Dr. Connor. He will be given fifteen (15) business days in which to respond to the complaint. Once this complaint is received, the complaint and the response will be reviewed by the Complaints Screening Committee of the Board and placed on the agenda for the next scheduled Board meeting.”
On February 5, 2009 I received a letter from the Board stating the facts alleged in my complaint do not constitute an apparent violation of the law governing psychology. In Mr. Brengelman’s letter dated February 23, 2009, Mr. Brengelman stated:
“Please also be advised that your request to the Board for reconsideration of its dismissal of your initiating complaint in Agency Case No. 08-15 will be reviewed by the Board at its March 2009 meeting.”
In a letter dated March 6, 2009, the Board stated:
“The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology has reviewed the supplemental information that you filed with the Board dated February 17, 2009 by initiating complaint, regarding a
The Board reviewed your new initiating complaint to determine whether any new factual information was presented that would warrant reopening the matter.”
“After careful consideration of the concerns raised in your initiating complaint received February 24, 2009 (actually stamped February 20, 2009), the Board concluded that the facts as you alleged in this matter did not raise any new issues not already considered by the Board.”
The Board’s online complaint EForm states that complaints will be acknowledged immediately by letter and a copy of the complaint will be sent to the psychologist for a response. The Board’s March 6, 2009 letter refers to my February 17, 2009 correspondence as a new “initiating complaint” on three different occasions. The Board stated that my new initiating complaint didn’t raise any new issues not already considered by the Board. My February 17, 2009 letter included a copy of notes that had been altered by Dr. Connor. These altered notes had never been presented to the Board prior to my February 17, 2009 letter yet during the March 2, 2009 Board meeting, the complaint screening committee reported that there was no new evidence regarding the matter and recommended not to reopen the case. If the new initiating complaint was handled in a manner consistent with the procedures described in the online EForm, then a copy of my letter and the altered health record should have been sent to Dr. Connor for a response. If the Board followed the complaint procedures as stated in KAR 201 26:130, the Board would first determine if the initiating complaint warranted an investigation and then the Board would contact the psychologist to inform them of the pending investigation. This was not the procedure the Board used in dealing with my first initiating complaint dated November 18, 2008. I presented the Board with altered records from Dr. Connor’s office. The Board could only dismiss my complaint/evidence if the Board received, at the very least, an explanation from Dr. Connor as to why the records were altered. A dismissal of the evidence based on any Board member’s perception of me or my complaint would be unethical and/or illegal as none of the members of the Board could render a decision on the complaint based on their opinions of me as I have not met with any of the Board members at a professional level. Even if that were the case, the Board members would have to recuse themselves from this matter if they had any kind of personal/professional relationship with me.
Dr. Connor stated on page 3 of his response to initiating complaint 08-15 that, during the evaluation process, Dr. Connor consulted with two professional peers experienced with ADHD treatment. Though Dr. Connor claimed he consulted with these peers “while protecting Mr. Brewington’s confidentiality”, this does not relieve the professional peers of their right to cross-examination as stated in KRS 403.300 as it relates to the investigation of child custody arrangements. On March 9, 2009 I sent a letter to Dr. Connor requesting the names of these professional peers. As of this date, Dr. Connor has failed to respond. In reviewing Dr. Connor’s consistency in providing the Board with false information, it should be questioned if Dr. Connor really did consult with other “professional peers” regarding ADHD. Dr. Connor’s admission that he had to consult “professional peers” experienced in treating people with ADHD would also be an admission that Dr. Connor may not have had the necessary experience and training to administer psychological testing to and evaluate someone with ADHD. Since Dr. Connor has failed to provide me with the names of these “professional peers” in accordance with KRS 403.300, the Board should consider the information regarding the two “professional peers” to be fictitious until these “professional peers” can be properly deposed and subjected to cross-examination.
In the Board’s December 9, 2009 letter to Dr. Connor, the Board states “it may be to your advantage to respond to the complaint in as full and complete manner as possible.” The Board’s 2004 Summer Newsletter reads:
WHAT SHOULD I DO? A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST ME !
News that a complaint has been initiated against you is anxiety provoking. It can trigger panic, fear of the worst happening, and anger. It may be reassuring to know that almost half of all complaints made against psychology credential holders in
? Do not panic or become defensive or haughty. Act professionally.
? Be open and candid in your response to the complaint, even if it means admitting you made a mistake.
? Read the relevant regulation carefully and frame your response accordingly.
? Respond to a complaint thoroughly and carefully, addressing each point raised by the person complaining.
? Organize your response in a concise and readable form.
? Substantiate your points with supporting documentation.
? Before responding to the complaint, consider consulting with an attorney familiar with licensing boards.
Dr. Connor’s response to Agency Case No. 08-15 consisted of 54 pages. Dr. Connor provided many pages of evidence to the Board to help demonstrate that he believes that I have victimized him in some way for trying to obtain a copy of the case file, which Dr. Connor said I was entitled to on several different occasions. Of the 54 pages of Dr. Connor’s response, 7 pages consisted of Dr. Connor’s written response where Dr. Connor willfully provided the Board with false information, as has been documented in my March 17, 2009 initiating complaint. The rest of the documentation breaks down as follows:
- Dr. Connor included a copy of my January 15, 2009 letter and a copy of the Board’s Spring 2006 Newsletter to support Dr. Connor’s January 16, 2009 letter that states “(Mr. Brewington’s) letter provides further indication of his inability to comprehend the basic concept of confidentiality that prevents me from releasing his wife’s records to him. It is further indicative of his tendency to misconstrue and/or distort information to suit his personal agenda.”
- Dr. Connor provided Attachment A to demonstrate that he based some of his recommendations and diagnosis of my ADHD on one paragraph of a 12 page letter written in November of 2006. Dr. Connor failed to request and/or review my mental health records. [Note: Dr. Connor stated in the evaluation that he found my letters to be confusing and hard to follow but failed to provide the Board with evidence of this.]
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment B is a release of information from The Affinity Center and a letter I wrote to my treating therapist stating that Dr. Connor wanted a faxed paragraph regarding my treatment. Dr. Connor provided this information while stating that he actually requested a copy of my mental health records. In the evaluation Dr. Connor stated that he reviewed the mother’s mental health file from two therapists while he stated that he only requested a summary letter of treatment from The Affinity Center from me.
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment D is evidence that he initiated ex-parte communication in his March 26, 2008 letter to the Judge in the divorce and requested that the Judge make a ruling outside the presence of the parties.
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment E is the Judge’s March 26, 2008 letter that verifies that there are no protective orders prohibiting Dr. Connor from releasing the custody evaluation case file to me.
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment F is a copy of the April 16, 2008 addendum to the custody evaluation. Dr. Connor scheduled the additional sessions for this addendum because the original evaluation contained “numerous errors and oversights.” Dr. Connor also demonstrated how he discriminated against me when he wrote “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates that we would provide the file to the representing attorney’s; 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.”
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment G is the Court’s July 21, 2008 order that further demonstrates that the Court didn’t issue a protective order prohibiting Dr. Connor from releasing the case file.
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment H is Dr. Connor’s letter stating “Without (the mother’s) consent or a Court order from (the Judge) I am prohibited from releasing the confidential information contained within the file per state and HIPAA laws and regulations.” In Dr. Connor’s Attachment F (above) Dr. Connor stated that the only reason he wouldn’t release the file to me was because I wasn’t an attorney. Dr. Connor also sent a copy of this letter to the Judge and opposing counsel which violates psychologist/client confidentiality or Dr. Connor failed to fairly provide me with copies of the correspondence he had with opposing counsel.
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment I is a letter from my treating therapist at The Affinity Center where my therapist wrote “In general, I have read this report several times and I find much of it confusing because of extraneous information. Comments about the cost of Ritalin, potential safety hazards around your home without evidence of neglect, repeated reports about your diagnosis and incorrect information about current treatment standards for ADD all lead the reader to further confusion and distraction from the purpose of the evaluation.”
- Dr. Connor’s Attachment J consists of 18 pages from my website www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com which has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the complaint against him. Instead of providing the Board with evidence or documentation to disprove the allegations against him, Dr. Connor dedicates several pages of his written response trying to portray himself as a victim.
- Dr. Connor’s Attachments K-L are copies of internet business listing review sites where I left less than favorable reviews of Dr. Connor. Dr. Connor wrote “Mr. Brewington has posted comments on at least two additional Internet sites in which he falsely accuses me of being a ‘very dangerous man who abuses his power’ and a ‘criminal’.” Dr. Connor intentionally misleading a State Psychology Board by portraying the victim of Dr. Connor’s actions to be “potentially dangerous” in an effort to get out of trouble would be considered a crime committed by a very dangerous man who abuses his power.
- Dr. Connor’s unmarked attachments include a copy of an email I sent Ms. Jackson on December 16, 2008 and a copy of the Court order dated December 5, 2008. I am unaware of how Dr. Connor received a copy of this information. I requested a copy of all correspondence that the Board had with Dr. Connor yet I didn’t receive a letter that would have accompanied this information if it was sent to Dr. Connor.
Members of the Board and Mark Brengelman, I would hope that you would see the incredible lengths that Dr. Connor has gone to in an attempt to bring harm to a family. Most or all of Dr. Connor’s 54 page response contains irrelevant or false information. I would also hope that the Board understands that I will take every legal measure possible to prevent Dr. Connor from bringing further harm to my family. I will also hold any attorney, judge, board member, or individual(s) who appeared to have “protected” or “enabled” Dr. Connor responsible for any damages suffered by my family. As the Board has voted not to take action against Dr. Connor on two different occasions, it may appear that the Board has a vested interest in keeping Dr. Connor safe from disciplinary action. If the Board still doesn’t feel that Dr. Connor willfully providing false information in a response to an initiating complaint is an “apparent violation” of KRS 319.082, then I would hope the Board would be able to provide the statutes and/or declaratory rulings which condone this type of behavior. If Dr. Connor would have done his job this wouldn’t have been an issue. Please add this letter to my March 17, 2008 complaint. A copy of this letter can be found at www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.
Daniel P. Brewington