How Dr. Edward J Connor conducts himself in an unethical and illegal manner and the people who enable him to do so.

This is a collection of some statements and/or opinions that Dr. Edward J Connor has given in several different legal proceedings. Dr. Connor claimed that he could not understand me in a child custody evaluation because I had ADHD, yet Dr. Connor doesn’t have a problem evaluating child porn addicts, violent offenders, rapists, and murders. Dr. Edward J Connor is not only a danger to children; Dr. Connor presents a real danger to the integrity of criminal and civil trials to which Dr. Connor is involved.

“The doctor testified that when Conley killed his 10-year-old brother, Conner, in November he was likely in a dissociative state – a condition in which the mind seems different than the body.” -WLWT report of Dr. Edward Connor’s testimony at the 9/20/2010 Sentencing Hearing for convicted murder Andrew Conley

“[Dr. Edward Connor] attributed Mullikin’s addiction to child pornography to being sexually confused after becoming aroused while being spanked by a nun in fifth grade.” -Cincinnati Enquirer report of Dr. Connor’s testimony at the sentencing hearing in Kenneth Mullikin’s child pornography case.

In the 2007 rape trial of Jeni Lee Dinkel, Dr. Connor recommended that Ms. Dinkel not do jail time for having sex with her son’s 15 year old friend. Dr. Connor stated that Ms. Dinkel took full responsibility for her actions and was a very low risk to reoffend in any manner. Ms. Dinkel pled guilty to having sex with a 15 year old boy after providing alcohol to teenagers. Dr. Connor felt that if Ms. Dinkel went to jail, it would be hard on her son. In 2008, Ms. Dinkel was arrested for a probation violation and her case worker claimed that Ms. Dinkel placed blame on the 15 year old victim.

In the Death Row trial of Marco Chapman, Dr. Connor stated, “Marco Chapman was depressed as a baby due to the emotional detachment of his parents. Chapman’s parents suffered from depression, serious alcohol abuse, 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.” Marco Chapman had a marginal IQ yet Dr. Connor understood Mr. Chapman well enough to come to the above conclusion.

In the May 21, 2010 appellate ruling of Seth Smith v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Mr. Smith argued that the trial court erred in excluding proposed testimony from psychologist Dr. Edward Connor. The ruling states, “Appellant states that Dr. Connor would have testified that Appellant “acted in a manner which he felt was necessary to defend himself’.” The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s opinion that “Dr. Connor could not have testified to such because ‘he would be testifying as to what was actually in the Defendant’s mind at the time he committed the offense’.”

After I began publicly questioning the conduct of Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor’s involvement in previous trials, Dr. Connor attacked me and claimed that I may present an emotional danger to my children. When Judge Humphrey asked Dr. Connor how my behavior reflected my ability to parent and the safety of my children, Dr. Connor stated, “My concern is that if he -- it might not be necessary, the physical safety, but the psychological well-being of the children if he were to attempt to coach them in any way against the mother. If he doesn’t get what he wants in this way, my concern is that he’ll start to work on the children, try to coach them or influence them in some way to get what he wants. I would be more concerned about that.” When Judge Humphrey asked Dr. Connor to describe what Dr. Connor observed that led him to that conclusion, Dr. Connor replied, “His manipulativeness, his tendency to not see things objectively for another’s perspective. Pretty much, if he doesn’t get what he wants, then he’ll go to many different extents or means to try to get his way, such as I said, all of the information that he puts up on the internet. He’s threatened -- I feel like he’s threatened the courts, I feel like he’s made threats to me. He’s made very negative comments about myself publicly. There’s a lot of manipulation on his behalf that I think would pre-dispose him, then, to trying to manipulate the children, as well, if he does not get what he wants.”

Psychologist Dr. Edward Connor is a hired gun that will say anything for a buck and will go to extremes to crush those who question his conduct. Judge Humphrey wrote in the final decree in my divorce, “According to Dr. Connor’s testimony, Husband’s writings are similar to those of individuals who have committed horrendous crimes against their families.” That was the best that Dr. Connor could make up. He didn’t have any evidence that I was anything but a good father so he had to make something up. Albert Einstein once said, “Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.” It makes you wonder why judges like Judge James Humphrey keep appointing Dr. Edward J Connor. For more information on the conduct of Dr. Edward J Connor, visit www.danhelpskids.com and www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

The following is a list of some of the professionals, organizations, and government officials that are aware of the unethical and/or illegal conduct of Kentucky psychologist, Dr. Edward J Connor. Many on the below list are aware that Dr. Connor has brought harm to clients and children, has committed perjury, and has committed mail and wire fraud, yet they either cannot nor will not do anything to protect the public or their clients from Dr. Connor. Please feel free to contact the people/organizations below and ask them to help put a stop to Dr. Connor's unethical and illegal conduct.

The Children’s Home of Northern Kentucky -Dr. Connor oversees their psychological staff.

Dearborn/Ohio County Indiana Circuit Judge James D. Humphrey

Dearborn/Ohio County Indiana Prosecutor Aaron Negangard

Dearborn County Indiana Attorney Jack Gay

Dearborn County Indiana Sheriff David Lusby

Dearborn County Indiana Special Crimes Unit Detective and Sheriff Candidate Mike Kreinhop

The Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit

Dearborn County Indiana Commissioners

Ripley County Indiana Circuit Court Judge Carl H. Taul

Ripley County Indiana Prosecutor Richard Hertel

Indiana State Representative Johnny Nugent

Leanna Weissmann, Attorney at Law

Barbara Wyly, Attorney at Law

Angela G. Loechel, Attorney at Law

Thomas Blondell, Attorney at Law, Zerbe, Garner, Miller and Blondell

Jeff Rollman, Attorney at Law

Indiana Deputy Attorney General Betsy Isenberg

Kentucky Attorney General and US Senate Candidate Jack Conway

Assistant Kentucky Attorney General Mark Brengleman

Assistant Kentucky Attorney General Tad Thomas

The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology

Kentucky Psychologist Dr. Sara Jones-Connor

Kentucky Psychologist Dr. Jean Deters

The State of Kentucky allows Dr. Edward J Connor to harm children

Hey Kentucky, I know you are aware of the illegal actions of Dr. Edward Connor so do something about it. The IP address belonging to "Commonwealth of Kentucky Dept. of Information Syst" has been on my website for nearly an hour this morning. Kinda takes the "we weren't aware of Dr. Connor's actions" argument out of the equation doesn't it? Just keep ignoring the problem so more children can be injured. Attorney General Jack Conway knows. The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology knows. The Kentucky Psychological Association knows. The Kentucky Cabinet of Health and Family Services knows. Why are they allowing Dr. Connor to continue to hurt children? Because it's easier than doing something about it.

My Office Staff Ate My Homework

Sounds like a pretty pathetic excuse. The people involved with the family court system often preach about people taking responsibility for their actions. Dr. Edward J Connor chooses to blame everyone else.

“With regard to the Office Policy Statement, we do not have a signed Office Policy Statement for you on file. It appears you were not provided with this document when you initially came to our office, which was an oversight on the part of the office staff.” -Dr. Edward J Connor September 9, 2009.

“There was a form that was incorrectly given to Ms. Brewington from our secretary at the time, who is no longer with us.” -Dr. Edward J Connor’s testimony in the transcripts from the May 27, 2009 hearing.

“The form [Office Policy Statement] that Ms. Brewington signed is -- was incorrectly given to her by my secretary at the time.” -Dr. Edward J Connor’s testimony in the May 27, 2009 hearing.

“I don’t recall. My secretary would have done that.” -Dr. Edward J Connor’s testimony in the May 27, 2009 hearing. This was in response to my question asking Dr. Connor whom he contacted first when he discovered there were “numerous errors and oversights” in his report.

Ed Connor- “I don’t recall that – I – I did not contact her. My secretary may have, at that time. It’s possible that she might have called to see if she wanted an interview time. I don’t recall.”
Dan Brewington- “That’s not in the evaluation, the attempted phone call.”
Ed Connor- “Okay. Then apparently my secretary did not call.” -Dr. Connor claimed my mother was scheduled to be interviewed but never showed up. That may be because he never contacted my mother.

Dr. Connor blamed his office staff for failing to provide me with a copy of the Office Policy Statement. Then Dr. Connor blamed his secretary for having my Ex sign the document. Dr. Connor testified that his secretary was to blame for many of the communication problems during the course of the evaluation yet Dr. Connor still attacked me for questioning his ethics. Another problem Dr. Connor had with his office staff was his office manager was the subject of an FBI investigation for making $126,558.13 of unauthorized credit card charges with Dr. Connor’s corporate credit card. Not only did Dr. Connor fail to oversee his secretary’s practices during the course of conducting evaluations, Dr. Connor failed to notice that his office manager was using his credit cards until the total reached $126,558.13. The following is a press release from the US Department of Justice, dated Friday March 20, 2009:

FLORENCE RESIDENT PLEADS GUILTY TO CREDIT CARD FRAUD
COVINGTON, KY—Catherine Cahill, 47, of Florence, Ky., pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning to an Information which charged her with Unlawful Use of a Credit Card.
Cahill was employed as office manager at Edward Connor & Associates, a general psychological services firm. She was authorized to make necessary purchases with a corporate credit card for the functioning of the business. Cahill used the corporate credit card to make authorized business purchases along with unauthorized personal purchases. These unauthorized personal purchases totaled $126,558.13.
The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The United States was represented in the case by Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin G. Dusing.

In a letter to Judge Carl H Taul, dated April 1, 2008, Dr. Connor wrote, “I am concerned as to Mr. Brewington’s intentions regarding this case file.” Dr. Connor testified that his “office staff” was not competent to schedule interviews or to provide documents to participants in custody evaluations and Dr. Connor’s office manager was investigated by the FBI for over a hundred thousand dollars worth of credit card fraud. I believe that is reason enough to question the accuracy of the information behind a report that affects the lives of my children.

If you have any questions about the welfare of children who are victims of Dr. Connor’s evaluations, please feel free to contact the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology at 502-564-3296. Feel free to contact Assistant Attorney General Mark Brengelman at 502-696-5627. You can also email Mr. Brengelman at Mark.Brengelman@ag.ky.gov and express your concerns regarding the Board’s ruling that Dr. Connor’s conduct is not an “apparent violation” of the laws governing psychology. For more information, please check out www.DanHelpsKids.com.

Public Records Request to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,

Please provide me with the following information:

1. All written correspondence with Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. by any member of the Board and/or the Office of the Attorney General concerning the complaint(s) filed by Daniel Brewington. Please provide any documentation of any verbal communication the Board and/or the Office of the Attorney General have had with Dr. Connor regarding said complaint(s).

2. A list of the names and addresses of any persons involved in reviewing initiating complaint(s), filed by Dan Brewington.

3. The Kentucky Statue or Regulation stating that a child custody evaluation case file prepared by a psychologist is not considered a health record and is not subject to inspection by the psychologist’s patient/client.

4. Any prior complaints filed against Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor’s subsequent responses.

5. A copy of the complaint dated 3/16/09, filed by Daniel Brewington that was received by Mr. Brengelman’s office by mail. Mr. Brengelman stated during the April 13, 2009 Board meeting that he failed to provide the Board with the mailed copy of the complaint.

6. Board minutes involving complaint agency case no. 08-15.

Given the volume of the public records request, please be aware that this information is essential in protecting the public from further harm from Dr. Connor. The only correspondence that I am aware that the Board has had with Dr. Connor is in a letter to Dr. Connor dated 12/9/08 and Dr. Connor’s subsequent responses, dated 12/22/08 and 1/16/09. The complaints deal largely with Dr. Connor’s refusal to provide me with a copy of the case file from the child custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Connor. The Board is aware that Dr. Connor stated in the April 16, 2008, addendum to the custody evaluation, “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.” The Court never issued a protective order preventing Dr. Connor from releasing the file and I am unaware of any law limiting a client’s access to an evaluation performed by a psychologist because the client does not have an attorney. The only way Dr. Connor could legally obstruct my access to the evaluation case file is with a protective order from the Court or if there is an existing law stating that a psychologist can arbitrarily decide to obstruct a client’s access to an evaluation case file/health record. Considering that the Court didn’t issue a protective order prohibiting the release of the case file, would the Board please direct me to the Kentucky Statute stating that a psychologist’s file from a child custody evaluation is not considered a health record and is not available for inspection by the client? Dr. Connor testified in court that it was debatable as to whether a case file, from a child custody evaluation, was a health record and subject to inspection. Clarification from the Board on this issue is essential in protecting the rights of parents and children. Clarification from the Board could possibly eliminate the need for court interpretation of the matter.

As the Board is in possession of Dr. Connor’s letters, reports, and responses to the Board containing false and conflicting statements, please provide me with copies of any other complaints filed against Dr. Connor and Dr. Connor’s subsequent responses. Understanding that protecting the privacy of individuals in complaints filed with the Board is a major concern, I would assume that the Board would separate the excepted material protected by privacy and make the non-excepted material available for examination. With that being said, the release of public records of a personal nature would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy given that Dr. Connor appears to have deceived the Board on many of the issues raised in initiating complaint 08-15. The release of public records concerning previous complaints against Dr. Connor would only serve to protect the health and safety of the public.

Please send me a copy of my March 16, 2009 initiating complaint against Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. During the April 13, 2009 Board meeting, members of the Board and Mr. Brengelman discussed that they didn’t have the opportunity to address the complaint because the Board hadn’t received a mailed copy. During the public address portion of the Board meeting, Mr. Brengelman stated that he did receive a copy of the complaint by mail but failed to forward the mailed complaint to the Board. I am requesting a copy of the complaint to verify when it was received by the Board and/or Mr. Brengelman’s office.

I expect that the Board would promptly respond to the public records request in accordance with KRS 61.880. If the agency and the Office of the Attorney General deny the request for public records, I will be appealing the matter in the Circuit Court. Given the Office of the Attorney General (Kentucky) and (Jack) Conway’s indirect connection to Dr. Connor, I would name Mr. Conway and the Office of the Attorney General any action filed in the Circuit Court regarding the release of public records. Mr. Conway’s intervention into the trial of Marco Chapman, where Dr. Connor’s evaluation played a role in determining the competency of Mr. Chapman, would warrant an explanation for denying a request for public records involving Dr. Connor.

Please feel free to contact me at 513-xxx-xxxx with any questions. I would also be willing to schedule a meeting to discuss the matter.

Daniel P. Brewington

[Marco Chapman was executed by the State of Kentucky on November 21, 2008. Dr. Connor performed an evaluation of Marco Chapman but claimed he had a hard time understanding me because of I had ADD. Somehow, the powers that be in Kentucky don't find it troubling that a psychologist can understand a death row inmate but not a father in a custody evaluation. If you are new to the story you can check out www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com]

Letter to The State of Kentucky

To: Julie Jackson; Mark Brengelman; Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology; Jack Conway; and to others it may concern,

Please forward the Motion to Withdraw Appearance to the Board and to Mr. Jack Conway. This may seem like a joke but I can assure you that it is not. Judge James Humphrey is serving as the Special Judge assigned to my divorce because the former Judge, Carl H. Taul recused himself because of the ex parte communication he had with Dr. Connor. I have found this to be rather consistent behavior in dealing with anyone who has been associated with Dr. Connor or would be negatively impacted by Dr. Connor's professional demise. I have also found that the people who try to protect Dr. Connor often do ridiculous things they think they can get away with because I am not a lawyer; when actually they can get away with less in the end.

Some of Judge Humphrey’s actions are rather questionable. I would think that any of the people associated with the State of Kentucky who have dealt with me would believe that I am "competent." I would say that Judge Humphrey would assume the same. The problem that Judge Humphrey has is Dr. Connor stated that I just could not comprehend the policies and law pertaining to health records no matter how many times he patiently explained it to me. If Judge Humphrey says that I am competent to represent myself, then he will have to answer to why he protected Dr. Connor for so long. If he even rules on the above motion, it will be on the public record that Judge Humphrey is aware that Dr. Connor is a liar. If you combine this with the fact that Judge Humphrey just found out that the psychologist he regularly appoints as a professional expert was not licensed to practice psychology in the State of Indiana until July 8, 2008, Judge Humphrey could be subject to disciplinary action.

Try to put yourself in the Judge's position. His evaluator said I am dangerous. The Judge knows that I know he is aware that Dr. Connor is a liar. The Judge is aware that it "appears" that the State of Kentucky is protecting Dr. Connor. The Judge is aware of the Marco Chapman and Jeni Lee Dinkel incidents. Judge Humphrey is aware that Dr. Connor was not licensed to practice psychology by the State of Indiana when he was serving as a psychological expert appointed by an Indiana Court. The Judge knows that he is the special Judge because the former Judge recused himself due to ex parte communications with Dr. Connor. Judge Humphrey is aware that the Indiana Judicial Canon implies that he has a responsibility to report the actions Judge Taul; and the list goes on. Given that most people aren't aware that IP addresses are stored and can be subpoenaed, I would be willing to bet money that if I subpoenaed the IP addresses of all the people who visited my website and the records from the appropriate internet providers, I may find the names of people who shouldn't have been investigating the matter on their own. So what do you do if you are the Judge? Try to stomp out the opposition in an effort to save your own hide.

This is not going to end well. The final hearing of my divorce is still set for May 27, 2009. I think you understand that there is no chance that this ordeal concerning Dr. Connor is going to end on May 27. In fact, if the hearing goes forward, it will probably be much worse because you can count on people, who have protected Dr. Connor, to self-destruct; and you can count on me to continue to do what I do. After the May 27 hearing, I will begin preparing for a hearing on June 5 as I have been requested to testify against Dr. Connor in another father's custody hearing. I will be presenting Dr. Connor's December 22, 2008 response to the Board as evidence that Dr. Connor lies. That will make two legal proceedings involving Dr. Connor where his December 22, 2008 response to the Board will be part of the record. There is also the chance that two Judges will actively work to protect Dr. Connor. If anyone were to look at my original 237-page complaint, which was stamped "received" on November 21, 2008, it would be clear that the Board had all of the information necessary to determine that Dr. Connor lied in his December 22, 2008 response to the Board.

It may be too late for the Board to do anything before May 27, 2009 to prevent Dr. Connor from trying to cause further damage to my children. What is going to make the situation worse is that the Judge will probably rule on my Motion to Withdraw Appearance to represent myself. If he grants it, I will petition the Court to provide me someone to explain Dr. Connor's policies as I expect some difficulties in trying to find a lawyer and/or psychologist that will not think that Dr. Connor is lying about his policies and laws relating to the release of health records. I think these same people will probably have a hard time trying to figure out why the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology ignored the information in my 237-page complaint. If the Judge denies my Motion, I will contact the ACLU because the Court violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it was Dr. Connor, the Court's own expert, who said that I could not communicate and understand the basic concepts of confidentiality. I think it is appalling to play the disabled card, but it was Dr. Connor who said I suffered from "severe" ADHD.

Ask the Governor or Mr. Conway if there is a way to prevent Dr. Connor from continuing to hurt families before the May 27 and June 5 hearings. If there is not, tell them that the State of Kentucky will have to answer to why they protected Dr. Connor by stating that there were no "apparent violations of law" in my 237-page complaint.

Feel free to contact me with any questions. As usual I will be posting this letter on my blog @ www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

Dan Brewington

My latest attempt to reach out to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology

Dr. Markham, 

      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 Indiana court or legal document you wish to be received by any member of the Board.  I will acknowledge receipt of any such document by U.S. Mail on behalf of any member of the Board to whom you direct such a document. 

Sincerely yours, 

Jack Conway

Attorney General 

Mark Brengelman

Assistant Attorney General 

After Mr. Brengelman instructed me to forward any “Indiana court or legal document” that I wished to be received by the any member of the Board (as a courtesy to me), Mr. Brengelman failed to acknowledge that he received a copy of my mailed complaint.  Mr. Brengelman’s courteous actions seem to conflict with the fact that Mr. Brengelman deleted the following email messages without reading them: 

  To:      Brengelman, Mark (KYOAG); Jackson, Julie G (Finance

Occupations & Professions); Velez, Jan (KYOAG)

  Cc:     

  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)

  Cc:     

  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)

  Cc:     

  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)

  Cc:     

  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)

  Cc:     

  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); genrlpsych@aol.com

  Cc:     

  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 Kentucky crying foul and resorting to trickery in an attempt to throw off a parent fighting for the right to spend equal time with his children is disappointing.  

      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 

Dan Brewington

Dr. Connor Recommends More Parenting Time for Sex Offenders than he does for Me.

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 Hollywood makeup artist, who is married to a former NFL player, makes for better ratings than addressing problems with the family court system and “professionals” like Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. 

Letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners

Here's a copy of my April 2, 2009 letter to the Board:

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 Kentucky psychologist, Ed Connor at the Board’s last regularly scheduled meeting on March, 2009.  As you know, the Board has already reviewed an initiating complaint from you about the matter as well as a written response from the psychologist.  Based on these two documents, the Board had already decided to close the matter without further action being taken, and you were notified by the Board in writing of this dismissal.

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 Kentucky are ultimately dismissed. Should you become the object of a complaint, the Board offers the following advice:

? 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. 

Sincerely,

Daniel P. Brewington

Dan vs the State of Kentucky (and they just spotted me 30 points)

I found out today what I hoped wouldn’t be true.  The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology is corrupt.  I’m not saying that every member of the Board is aware of malicious conduct, but they are part of it. 

I wrote in my last blog that the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology was going to review whether or not to reconsider my 237 page complaint.  I thought it was worth the trip to Frankfort, KY, in an attempt to keep them honest.  I have been trying to get a copy of Dr. Edward J. Connor’s case file for the child custody evaluation he performed since March 6, 2008.  I am entitled to the case file from the custody evaluation under Kentucky Revised Statute 403.300.  The case file is considered a health record which I am entitled to by law.  I drove all the way to Frankfort, KY to find out that Richard (Applegate, I believe) stated that he reviewed my request to reconsider the complaint and recommended that there wasn’t any reason to reconsider it.  He also said that there was no new evidence to support the complaint.  The Board voted unanimously to not reconsider my complaint.  Game over; thanks for playing… right?  Not so fast.

I wasn’t mad.  I was frustrated because I felt that I had to go up against the Kentucky Psych Board now.  I didn’t storm out.  (I did hold a small sign on my lap for a short time that read KRS 403.300.  That’s the Kentucky law that says I’m entitled to the case file.)  I just sat there.  At one point the assistant attorney general’s boss, I’m still trying to figure out who he is, asked me if I was there to represent another psychologist.  I guess if I act like it long enough people may just assume that I am an attorney.  I wasn’t just going to walk out of the meeting room because I didn’t want to take the chance of missing something.  The Board had to go into “executive session” so I had to leave the room for a little while because whatever they were going to talk about was supposed to be double top secret or something.

COME ON, do you think I’m a sucker?  Executive session my arse.  Do you know how many suspicious and/or unethical things have happened during this whole ordeal with the custody evaluator?  IT’S MY JOB TO HEAR WHAT HAPPENS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.  Mark Brengelman, Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, sounded like the apocalypse was upon them.  He told the Board that I threatened to subpoena them to the final hearing in my divorce.  He kept saying that he didn’t want to see this happen because he couldn’t represent them in Indiana because he wasn’t licensed to practice law in Indiana.  He told the Board to contact him immediately if they receive a subpoena.  He told the board that this was a very unusual situation.  I never considered myself to be a usual guy.  If you look up “thinking outside of the box” you may see my picture.

I have to tell you that it was rather hard to keep from smiling when Mr. Brengelman let me back into the room.  He was very nice.  At the end of the meeting he told me that he would be with me in a minute because he said that I had wanted to meet with him.  Gee, that’s funny; I never requested to talk to him.

Mr. Brengelman was super nice to me.  He said that his office would be happy to provide me with any documentation I needed and they would prepare it so it would be worthy to submit to court.  I told Mr. Brengelman that I still had some concerns that the Board ruled that there were no apparent violations in my complaint.  KRS 403.300 states that I am entitled to the custody evaluation case file.  Dr. Connor’s contract says I am entitled to the case file.  Dr. Connor still hasn’t provided me with a copy of the case file and the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology still doesn’t see any “apparent violations”?  Mr. Brengelman said he couldn’t speak for the Board but kept trying to shake my hand and make some kind of deal that I would only talk to his office.  Mr. Brengelman gave me the old “we’re just trying to help you out” bit.  He also suggested that I get an attorney to deal with the matter.  I’m sure he’d like that.  Attorneys don’t subpoena judges, entire psychological boards, and try to hold people to a level of accountability.  I did get to tell Mr. Brengelman that I wasn’t lawyer or psychologist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.  I love that one.  He just looked at me with a stone face and said that he had seen the commercial. 

Something occurred to me.  I sent a letter to Mr. Brengelman a couple of weeks ago with copies of altered health records that came from Dr. Connor’s office.  I received a letter from Mr. Brengelman confirming that he received my correspondence and that the Board was going to review reopening my complaint during their March 2, 2009 meeting.  When they brought up my complaint they said that there was no new evidence.  What happened to my altered health record?  Mr. Brengelman was responsible for supplying the Board with additional evidence and he was responsible for telling the Board in a closed session that I had threatened to subpoena the whole Board and he would not be able to represent them.  This was after the Board voted against reopening my complaint upon the advice of “Richard” and Mr. Brengelman.  Good call counselor.  It’s good advice to keep the Board from having any further contact with me.  It doesn’t do anything to protect the public, but it’s a good strategy to keep the Board safe; at least in theory because I’m sure he didn’t count on anyone else knowing what went on in the secret meeting.

What is in Dr. Edward J. Connor’s case file?  What has this guy done?  I’ve had an attorney, a judge, a psychologist, the Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, and the entire Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology work hard to keep this guy safe.  I will give the benefit of the doubt to a few of the Board members because if the person “reviewing” the complaint says the complaint is not worth investigating, why would they question their colleague.  Unfortunately this does not excuse the board members from any potential liability for their colleagues’ actions.  Unfortunately for them, I’m not planning on only communicating with Mr. Brengelman’s office, and I am not getting a lawyer right now.

People, I can’t make this stuff up.  The people I’m going up against have close to a hundred years of college education more than me and they’re the ones stuck in a corner.  “The big bad unrepresented dad is going to get us.  Oh the humanity!”  I guess they shouldn’t have picked on the kid with an Associates Degree in General Studies.  If anyone from the Board reads this, I hope you understand that your legal counsel may have counseled you into a hole.  If you are reading this Mr. Mark Brengelman, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Kentucky, could you please explain to my readers why your office condones health care providers refusing to provide people with their health records as required by law?  Readers, your families will be safe with me.