Mar 15

Letter to Blumenthal 01/09/10

P.O. Box 1385 - Fairfield, CT 06825
Telephone (203) 367-8779
January 9, 2010

Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
State of Connecticut
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105-2294

Dear Mr. Blumenthal:

This letter pertains to recent public announcements of your intention to seek the Democrat party nomination to be U.S. Senator for the State of Connecticut.  The Connecticut Post of January 7, 2010 reports you as describing yourself as a fighter and that “I will make a priority the people of the state of Connecticut and I will fight for them”.  You further state that “I will be reaching out to citizens, regardless of political party, all around the state who have stake in someone who will fight for them and put them first, and stand strong against special interests and scams”. For reasons which I explain here, I vigorously oppose your political objective.

As you are aware, I have been long known in the State of Connecticut for being a whistleblower of state activities in resource recovery (See attached article of April 6, 1987 of the Bridgeport Telegram). It was in that role that I early found substantive information of bid-rigging by officials and associates of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) and other matters. As is apparent from the attached letter which I sent on October 23, 1997 to Senator Joseph Lieberman, your predecessor as Connecticut Attorney General and your mentor, willfully overlooked politically-sensitive issues of great public interest. My efforts to obtain reasonable relief in state courts were not successful [re: Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al., 19 Conn.App. 489(1989); a case in which I properly sought access to the bids given to the CRRA in 1983 for the $300 million redevelopment of the Greater Bridgeport Resource Recovery Project].

In a setting of a series of other and apparently related governmental wrongs, on July 10, 1995, I filed in federal court a lawsuit against the CRRA and several other entities including the Office of the Attorney General and First Boston Corporation (Book v. CRRA et al., Case No. 3:95-cv-1344).  In that, I presented well-supported claims of mail fraud, bond fraud, bid-rigging and other substantive claims.  On July 31, 1995, Assistant Attorney General Charles Walsh (one whom was not hired by the Office of the Attorney General in accord with the requirements of the State Personnel Act) presented a Motion to Dismiss.  In that he used wholly expansive arguments to challenge the lawsuit with respect to various issues including service of the complaint, statutes of limitations and my standing.  Without a proper resolve of these issues, on April 17, 1996, District Judge Dominic Squatrito (who less than six months prior to being assigned the case was the official campaign treasurer for Senator Lieberman) ruled to dismiss the lawsuit.  My appeal of that case went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (where Judge Jon O. Newman, with whom you had formally worked as law clerk, was the Chief Judge).  As of this date, I have not received meaningful relief for the substantial claims of that lawsuit.

 It is curious that in late 1995 (five months after the filing of the federal lawsuit against the CRRA, also during the first year of the first term of office of former Governor John Rowland), I was contacted by officials of the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) regarding a decision to select my small business in limousine service for a sales and use tax audit.  Because of the manner and timing of that decision, I was suspicious.  Through various means including the Freedom of Information Act, I sought information as to how and why I was selected for such an audit.  Based on what was provided, I became convinced that the decision was arbitrary. I resisted the audit upon which the DRS deducted complete areas of business expenses amounting to more than $13,000 and assessed me the corresponding amount plus interests and penalties.  I timely presented an administrative appeal.  Without ever reasonably addressing the key issue of unlawful action of selecting me for an audit, on November 21, 1997, Scot R. Anderson (whom was not hired by the DRS in accord with the requirements of the State Personnel Act) issued a notice of denying my appeal and further giving notice of an adjusted assessment of $13,692.60 plus interests and penalties for a total requested amount of $24,779.76.  I have properly challenged that unlawful action, yet without success.

 For consequences of on-going prejudice to me of unresolved state issues, in June of 2003, a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit was presented against me regarding residential/commercial property owned by me in the Town of Fairfield.  Despite my proper and timely notice to the mortgage company of a temporary change of address, the agents for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) served the complaint at the address of the subject property.  I did not receive meaningful notice of the lawsuit until late October of 2003.  Despite that and other jurisdictional issues of the lawsuit, and despite unaddressed defects of the DRS tax assessment, the DRS defectively presented a lien against the Fairfield property and became an added Defendant in that mortgage foreclosure lawsuit.  Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ventre has used expansive arguments on behalf of the DRS to enforce an unlawful lien regarding an unlawful assessment.  Substantive issues of that lawsuit continue to be before both state and federal courts.

Further, for defective action of a misdemeanor matter administered in Stamford Superior Court in 2001 (one dealing with a yet unaddressed issue of freedom of commercial speech), on March 16, 2004 I filed in federal District Court a civil lawsuit against Judges Richard Tobin and Martin L. Nigro (Book v. Tobin et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-0442; It is curious that Judge Tobin received an annual pension of $53,000 from Cummings & Lockwood, a law firm of which you were formerly partner and which during the “trial” was formally contracted as outside legal counsel for the CRRA; an arrangement which was shortly thereafter terminated with the emergence of the CRRA/Enron debacle).  On October 13, 2004, Assistant Attorney General Daniel R. Schaefer (whom was not hired by the Office of the Attorney General in accord with the requirements of the State Personnel Act and who in 1987 authored a curious Attorney General opinion regarding CRRA bidding) presented a Motion to Dismiss.  Primary issues were jurisdictional objections regarding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (which generally directs federal court review of a state court judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court) and judicial immunity.  While it would not be a surprise that a defense attorney would raise such issues at the stage of a motion to dismiss, once I filed my Opposition on February 27, 2005, it should have been clear that established exceptions to the general principles of Rooker-Feldman and judicial immunity applied to the lawsuit such that there should have been acceptance that the federal District Court had jurisdiction.  However, to this date in various stages of case review before the District Court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney Schaefer has continued to explicitly or impliedly argue that the mere general principles of the doctrines should bar federal court jurisdiction in the case.

In addition to these substantive patterns of excess observed of the Office of the Attorney General under you, it is apparent that you and officials under your authority abuse your positions to influence officials of state agencies and state courts as collateral attack against citizens who might have legitimate federal claims against state officials or against the state.

In summary for which I am able to provide more detail, my experience in the State of Connecticut as a direct and long result of your role as Attorney General, for me merely peaceably attempting to do what is right in the protection of individual, family and business interests has been one of glaring continuing abuse and oppression.  In my view, my situation in the State rises to the level of human rights abuse.  What you have actively contributed to me or passively allowed has been cruel and properly described as “political water-boarding”.

I provide here several important references.  Connecticut General Statutes at Section 1-25 gives the oath of office which is required to be administered to members of the General Assembly and the Executive Branch (of which the Office of the Attorney General is a part).  The text follows:

You do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the state of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof; and that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, the duties of the office of . . . to the best of your abilities; so help you God.

 Also, the Preamble to the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys begins as follows:

 A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

Chief Justice James Marshall wrote in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176 (1803) the following:

The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.  To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed in writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?  The distinction, between government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed.

Federal Judge Kenneth Starr stated that “[i]t is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost”.

President Woodrow Wilson stated the following:

The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberty.

For all the above, I vigorously oppose any intention that you might have to become United States Senator.  Seeking to protect reckless or corrupt state officials from legitimate claims of injury of a citizen does not satisfy your responsibilities as are described above or your oath of office and the code of professional conduct.  When the interest of government organization (or a private political agenda) are pursued at the expense of individual rights, liberty is lost.  Some of the fights in which you have engaged as Attorney General have been selected without good discretion and your above-quoted objective as a political candidate is hollow and disingenuous.  You (and former Appellate Judge William Lavery) are to the State of Connecticut what former Bishop Edward Egan was to the Bridgeport Catholic Diocese (re: Connecticut Post of December 2, 2009).  You have not properly satisfied your basic responsibilities as Attorney General.  You should by no means be promoted!

I welcome your reasonable comments.


Ethan Book Jr. 

P.S. I bring your attention also to my letter presented to you on July 30, 2002 (copy attached).


c:  Christopher Healey, Chairman of Republican State Committee

Author: administrator
Print PDF