August 10 letter to the KY psych board

Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology

P.O. Box 1360

Frankfort, KY 40602

August 10, 2009

Re: July 31, 2009 letter from the Board

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,

I am in possession of a letter from the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology dated July 31, 2009. The letter indicates that the Board concluded that the facts alleged in my complaint did not constitute any apparent violation of the law governing psychology. I am writing this letter in good faith to allow the Board to reconsider the Board’s decision or to clarify the grounds for the Board’s decision before the August 17, 2009 Board meeting.

I feel that I have given the Board a multitude of documentation implicating Dr. Edward J. Connor in numerous acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and/or corruption, relating to the practice of psychology. The Board is in possession of many documents from Dr. Connor suggesting that Dr. Connor has committed unfair, false, misleading, and/or deceptive acts or practices on a number of occasions.

I understand that the Board has concluded that Dr. Connor has not committed any act that would warrant an investigation. As Dr. Connor has not provided me a copy of the case file, from the child custody evaluation, I would have to respectfully disagree.[1] This coupled by the fact that Dr. Connor appears to have provided the Board with false information, in response to the initiating complaint against him, and has failed to address many of the issues within the complaint, raises ethical questions of the Board.

The Board is in possession of over three hundred pages of documentation regarding Agency Case No. 08-15 and it would be redundant to rehash said information. If the Board still contends that Dr. Connor has not violated any law governing psychology, as set forth by KRS 319.082, or the Board fails to provide a valid explanation of how the Board came to this conclusion; I will be filing a suit in the appropriate court against the Board members. As I believe this is a case involving negligence and possible fraud, I will be naming all of the Board members and staff to the suit as individuals. Given Mr. Brengelman’s attempts to stall me while advising the Board to act in a manner of self-preservation rather than the best interest of the public, any actions based on Mr. Brengelman’s advice may be negligent. If it is determined through discovery, subpoenas, depositions, etc… that any Board member, Board staff, and/or legal counsel was aware of any professional misconduct of Dr. Edward J. Connor, then fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud will be added to the suit as well. In the case that it becomes evident that there has been any fraudulent or malicious conduct committed by the Board or counsel, it will be reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If further investigation determines that there may be a substantial conflict of interest arising from the Attorney General’s intervention in the Marco Chapman trial[2], it may be necessary to move the Court to disqualify the Office of the Attorney General from representing the Board in this matter. Considering that Ripley Circuit Court Judge Carl H. Taul recused himself due to ex-parte communications with Dr. Connor, I will probably be requesting a jury trial. Please forward any legal correspondence directly to me as I plan to represent myself in this matter and will be conducting any discoveries, depositions, etc…

I want to stress to the members of the Board that all I ever requested was a copy of Dr. Connor’s case file from the child custody evaluation. Dr. Connor refused to release the case file to me despite there being no protective order and without providing good medical cause as to how the release of the health record would pose a potential physical risk to me or someone else. If the Board still determines that there is no apparent wrongdoing, then it will be up to a judge/jury to decide if the Board has acted in good faith.

Please contact me with any questions.

Daniel P Brewington

---

[1] Dr. Connor stated on numerous occasions that Dan Brewington was entitled to the case file. Dr. Connor made this evident in his contract, Dr. Connor’s March 26, 2008 letter to Dan Brewington, and in Dr. Connor’s April 16, 2008 addendum to the child custody evaluation. Dr. Connor has failed to produce any protective order preventing him from releasing the file. Dr. Connor has failed to produce any agreement where Dan Brewington waived his right to Dr. Connor’s evaluation case file/health record.

[2] Dr. Connor was one of the psychologists involved in determining whether Mr. Chapman was competent to fire his counsel and request the death penalty.

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]

Judge Humphrey

Well I'm done with three days of Court and I have to say that I was impressed with Judge Humphrey's courtroom presence. I disagree with some of his rulings prior to the hearing on the final hearing (I think that's what they call it) but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I don't take it personal if people think that I am just trying to cause trouble. I do cause trouble but it is a side effect of questioning the system. He didn't give any indication in the last couple days of court how he may rule, which is the way it should be. I have no idea how this will turn out but I know I don't have any regrets. I don't think that any attorney could have presented me any better. I wanted to present myself; not a case. I want the Judge to rule for me not against her. Actually I want the Judge to rule for the children.

We'll see how this turns out. I think the Judge may look at me like a train wreck; a shock and awe sort of thing. It almost seemed like he may have been intrigued as to how I hung around for the whole thing. I don't think that he hated me in the end. He may not have liked me but I think he understood that my only motivation in everything I did was my children.

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

Thank you Sheriff Grills

Hats off to the Sheriff of Ripley County, Thomas Grills. I sent out a packet of information to Sheriffs’ Departments and Prosecutors’ offices of Dearborn and Ripley County to let them know about Dr. Edward J. Connor providing psychological services to the County Courts while not being licensed to practice psychology by the State of Indiana. Sheriff Grills spoke with me for twenty minutes about my concerns with Dr. Connor and the family court system.

I don’t know what Sheriff Grills will do or can do but at least he demonstrated his professionalism in contacting a concerned citizen about an issue, unlike the other officials who received the information. Thanks Sheriff Grills.

Judge James Humphrey "forgot" about my motion.

I showed up for a hearing on April 29, 2009 to find out that Judge Humphrey, the special judge assigned to my case, forgot about my Motion in Limine (Motion to get Dr. Connor the heck out of out my case). He said we were there to hear the opposing parties' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and then didn't say anything else. (Someone filed a motion trying to get the Court to force me to take down my internet content.) Opposing counsel said "... and the Respondent's Motion in Limine?" to which the Judge replied "I thought I already ruled on that." I filed my motion on December 15, 2008. The motion got "lost" in transit between the Ripley County Courthouse and the Dearborn County Courthouse so the April 29, 2009 hearing wasn't even set until February 24, 2009. Then a couple of months later Judge James Humphrey stated that he thought he already took care of my motion.

I'm not saying that there is corruption involved; I'm just saying that I haven't figured out what to call it. Maybe it has just been a long series of "accidents" that could explain why these judges don't seem to make sense in dealing with Dr. Connor's arbitrary decision to withhold the child custody evaluation case file from me. Did I mention that both judges regularly appoint Dr. Connor as an custody evaluator in their courtrooms? I was just throwing it out there; talk about it amongst yourselves. It would be in Judge Humphrey's best interest to order me to take down my internet content dealing with this debacle, but given that he has an interest in the matter, he should recuse himself; as stated in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct from the Indiana Rules of Court. The law can be a dangerous thing when it falls into the hands of the little guy.

Don't forget www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com

I'm currently working on posting a copy of a letter on my website that I wrote to several elected officials. I included a copy of this letter in my Motion for Mistrial I filed with the Court yesterday. I have tried just about everything in trying to obtain a copy of the evaluation case file from the child custody evaluation performed by Dr. Edward J Connor yet Dr. Connor and two judges have failed to provide me with an explanation or law as to why I am not entitled to the file. It may not be corruption, but I can't figured out what that other option may be. If you are reading this because you received a copy of the letter; the situation is worse than you think. www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com