Mar 24

Letter to Lieberman 10/23/97

Telephone (203) 367-8779
October 23, 1997



Joseph I. Lieberman
United States Senate
One State Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT  06103

Dear Mr. Lieberman:

I refer to my letter to you of October 14, 1997 (copy attached), one in which I presented substantive information and legal references regarding campaign contributions and political preferences.  Of particular note is my proper accounting of a meeting which you and I had in

early 1986 wherein I presented to you information regarding an antitrust conspiracy with the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA), a quasi-state entity with intended funding being revenues from operating projects.  Specifically, under very questionable circumstances, as a banking specialist in regulated industries financings, I was harshly fired from an officer position with Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. after I gave an objective and professional opinion which was critical of state activities in resource recovery.  At that time, then in your role as Connecticut Attorney General, you told me that there was nothing of what I presented to you that was within the scope of your official authority.  In my recent letter, I also referred to public record of large political campaign contributions made to you by officials and companies associated with CRRA activities.  In addition, in my letter I referred to the 1991 failure of the merged Connecticut Bank

& Trust Co./Bank of New England, the largest commercial bank failure on record and one which followed the 1983/84 preferential treatments given by the Connecticut Banking Commissioner and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board in approving the merger.  In this present letter, I give additional information and questions for which I respectfully ask for your formal, written reply.

After our meeting of early 1986, I persisted in obtaining relevant information and in review of relevant legal references, I determined that a follow-up to our meeting was in order.  So on February 5, 1988, I presented a letter (copy attached) to Susan T. Pearlman, Associate Attorney General (also later known to be the wife of Mitchell Pearlman, Executive Director of the Freedom of Information Commission).  The letter clearly begins by describing the CRRA as a monopoly. 

It also describes material misrepresentation of CRRA bonds, a situation also described in my attached letter of June 30, 1987 to First Boston Corporation, which served together with Lazard Freres & Co. as the CRRA investment bank.  Of interest is that on February 19, 1988, James J. Grady, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, sent me a letter (copy attached) in which he advised that my CRRA complaint was being referred to the Auditors of Public Accounts.  In writing, I questioned such a move, nonetheless it was done.  Mr. Grady’s letter is clear in ending,

"You will either hear from the Auditors or this office when their review has been completed."

After the break-up of my family and a complete shift of livelihood pursuits, in 1994, I followed up with the state auditors on these matters.  On December 19, 1994, State Auditor Robert Jaekle sent to me a letter which had some interesting attachments.  Apparently following the 1988 referral by the Office of the Attorney General to the auditors of my CRRA complaint dealing with securities law violations, the auditors contacted the State Treasurer and the CRRA bond counsel, Hawkins, Delafield & Wood (an active political contributor).  The auditors obtained of these entities replies (with surprising contents in themselves) and on May 23, 1988, [they] sent to James J. Grady, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, a letter (copy attached) in which it was stated by the chief state auditors that the respective replies of the State Treasurer and Hawkins, Delafield & Wood “were unresponsive”.

This information prompted me to do initial review.  On January 25, 1995, I sent to the Office of the Attorney General a letter (copy attached) in which I inquired of my earlier CRRA antitrust complaint and about the state auditor’s position.  I never received a direct reply.  However, in May of 1995, I obtained a copy of an interesting memorandum (copy attached).  Dated January 31, 1995, it was prepared by James J. Grady, Special Counsel to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.   With apparent reference to mine of January 25, Mr. Grady states the following:

As I advised you some time ago, Mr. Book originally raised the matter which is the subject of his present letter as far back as 1987-1988.  As that time, the matter was responded to by the Auditors of Public Accounts in a letter to this office of May 23, 1988 and thereafter by us.

As I informed you earlier, it became apparent that there was no way to satisfy Mr. Book and we, as well as other state agencies, became involved in a constant letter writing campaign.  Ultimately, we stopped correspondence with him and he stopped also.

For some reasons, in recent months, he has resumed both the issue and the letter writing campaign and I recommend now, as I did earlier, that you not respond to his letters.

I have no idea what was meant by Mr. Grady in saying that the earlier matter, having been responded to by the state auditors, was also thereafter responded to by (us), whomever that refers to.  Also, there is absolutely no indication that the critical issues raised in mine of February 5, 1988 and affirmed by the state auditors on May 23, 1988 were ever properly resolved.  What is equally serious is the abject, wanton disregard by Mr. Grady for his earlier written assurance that I would receive a response regarding my CRRA complaint.

There is more.  On December 4, 1996, I sent to the state auditors a letter (copy attached).  The letter was in the context of a formal request of the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (DRS) for an audit of my small business sales tax records.  Because the initial request for the audit came at a time that I had just initiated a legal action in federal court against the CRRA and associated entities, also a case in which I had just learned about apparent conflicts of interest for Judge Dominic Squatrito, the Campaign Treasurer for your 1994 re-election campaign, I was suspicious of the manner that I was selected for an audit.  I inquired of the manner that I was selected. From the responses that I obtained, I was even more suspicious.  So I filed a complaint with the state auditors.  Of particular present interest is Paragraph 2 on Page Two of that letter.  That follows:

This (complaint) is also in the context of a report that I have been given that another, Paula Crone, had been asked by the state for a tax audit at a time that she was actively involved in litigation that pertained to apparent misappropriation of state-administered federal funds.  That legal action was Gail Harrison, et al. v. Hartford Courant, et al., Docket CV-86-0044131-S  (Litchfield).  In that, some parties who claimed to have been prejudiced by newspaper reports that the Courant published about information given by such as P. Crone presented such legal action for dafamation.  P. Crone was contacted by the DRS during the course of that proceeding. Because P. Crone, a native American, is sensitive to matters of constitutional matters, she was curious as to the DRS desire for the audit.  I am told that she persisted in knowing where the order came from.  I am told that she was eventually advised that the order came from then Attorney General Joseph Lieberman. I am told that the legal action was eventually dismissed on all counts.  However, there was never any ensuing complete investigation.  At that time, there was apparently an FBI agent, Dick Callahan, in the FBI Waterbury office who showed good interest in the misappropriation issue which involved at least $500,000.  However, he was suddenly transferred (I believe to New Haven) and another indigenous was given by the FBI an explanation that there wasn’t enough money in the matter to merit their attention.

What adds further interest to this situation is the manner that the DRS responded to an action that I presented against it before the Freedom of Information Commission regarding its statement that: During the examination of one of your customers records, an examiner found that you had not properly charged sales tax and therefore recommended you be audited.

Very revealing information is contained in my motion for re-hearing presented to the Freedom of Information Commission on October 7, 1997 (copy attached).

What is of further interest is that just yesterday, I received of the U.S. District Court notices of adverse rulings for three related actions which I pursue:  E. Book v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Case No. 3:94-cv-1651(AVC), a matter presented pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act; E. Book v. FDIC as Receiver for Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., Case No. 3:95-cv-0001(AWT), an action involving a claim of wrongful discharge: and E. Book v. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Case No. 3:95-cv-0838(AVC), an action seeking a court mandamus for securities law enforcement action.  Among other points, it is of interest that Judge Alvin W. Thompson was [recommended] to President Clinton for the federal bench by you during 1994.  It is also of interest that before his position on the federal bench, Judge Thompson was a managing partner for the law firm of Robinson & Cole, the legal counsel for First Boston Corporation, a co-defendant with the CRRA in a separate legal action before the U.S. Court of Appeals (This action was administered by Judge Dominic Squatrito, the Campaign Treasurer for your 1994 re-election campaign.).  Robinson & Cole was also the legal representative for Connecticut National Bank, the trustee for CRRA bonds (Connecticut National Bank was subsequently purchased by Shawmut Bank which was later purchased by Fleet Bank, also the bank which purchased from the FDIC certain assets of the failed Connecticut Bank & Trust Co.).  Copies of the three recent court rulings are attached.  It is also of interest [that] I received these concurrently, shortly after my yet unanswered letter to you of October 14, 1997 (A similar observance of concurrent adverse rulings on these cases was made early this year as I was actively pursuing with the Second Circuit Judicial Council a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Squatrito.  I now consider what follow-up actions I should take regarding the recent rulings which appear not to properly contemplate all the relevant facts and legal references.).

With this glaring situation, Senator Lieberman, I have some important comments and questions for you.  These follow:

  1. I have various evidences that bribes were given for the 1983 award by the CRRA for contracting with Signal Environmental Systems, Inc. for the redevelopment of the estimated $300 million Greater Bridgeport Resource Recovery Project.  Were you a recipient of any such bribes or other types of favors for your support of that endeavor?
  2. Do you know of anyone who has received bribes or other types of favors for supporting that endeavor?
  3. Was it a matter of political expediency/political ambitions that you looked the other way when I presented to you in 1986 information of a CRRA antitrust monopoly?
  4. Were you aware that during 1987-88, I was in contact with the FBI office in New Haven about CRRA matters?
  5. If alleged price-fixing of several local garbage haulers was of great interest to you in 1986 (re: last full paragraph of mine to A[ssistant] A[ttorney] G[eneral] Rutstein of 1/25/97, copy attached), then should you not also have had active interest in illegal subcontracting for the CRRA’s Bridgeport Project to an out-of-state company with known associations to organized crime?
  6. Were you aware that during a political fundraising event of 1990, I was harassed by the U.S. Secret Service?
  7. Have you spoken to or otherwise communicated with Judges Squatrito or Thompson about me or about the issues in which I am involved?
  8. Have you spoken to or otherwise communicated with Congresswoman Barbara Bailey Kennelly about me or about the issued in which I am involved?
  9. With reference to my unanswered letter to Congresswoman Kennelly of October 6, 1997 (copy attached), have you consulted with or advised her not to answer my communications?
  10. During or near the time that you and Dominic Squatrito were classmates at Yale Law School, did William Clinton offer to assist you in local and state political endeavors?
  11. In the attached letter of June 2, 1988 that I sent to Deputy Attorney General Clarine Nardie Riddle, I refer to a sudden cancellation of plans for an official of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to speak in a public forum [in Bridgeport, CT] about resource recovery issues.  If Ms. Riddle’s failure to answer the letter was a part of a general Attorney General policy to not deal with antitrust issues of quasi-state agencies, should that policy not have been communicated with me directly?  Or was the non-response particular for me?
  12. The attached photograph was taken of me on May 3, 1993, just after a felony assault committed against me, one which involved extensive breakage of delicate facial bone structure.  The local police detective who investigated the matter agrees with me that it was a hired hit.  If so, it was a matter of direct causation for the lack of support and protection of your office.  Do you have any comment?
  13. Were you aware of the false arrest executed against me on August 22, 1997 by the Department of Motor Vehicles, an action accomplished in conjunction with the Department of Transportation (The DOT Commissioner serves as an ex officio member of the CRRA board of directors), and an action involving various violations of the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment?
  14. Are you aware that the State Treasurer approved CRRA Bridgeport Project bonds without any public hearing, unlike the official procedure used for the earlier approval of bonds for the Mid-Connecticut (Hartford) Project and also without public notice as would be required.
  15. Are you aware that there is no official record for any CRRA board of directors vote for selecting Signal Environmental Systems, Inc. as the preferred vendor for the Bridgeport Project, and also no record of a board vote for approving the contract between the CRRA and Signal, among other material and legal deficiencies?

Sen. Lieberman, I believe it is appropriate to give here some particulars of the legal doctrine of conspiracy.  It is of great interest that the first known formal statute dealing with conspiracy was part of the Statute of Westminster the Second, 1285, 12 Edw., Ch. 12.  That was “a law intended to control the abuse of the recently introduced grand jury procedure.  The law sought to prevent malicious prosecutions by penalizing those who “’through Malice intending to grieve other, do procure false Appeals to be made of Homicides and other Felonies . . . .’”  [re: “Acts of Concealment and the Continuation of Conspiracy”, Georgia Law Review, Vol. 17:539 (1983)]. 

In other words, the very first conspiracy law was directed at abuse of government office!

It was then in 1832 that the doctrine was expanded such that a conspiracy charge consisted of “a conspiracy either to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means” (re: Lord Denman in Rex v. Jones, 4 B & Ad. 345, 349, 110 Eng.Rep.R. 485, 487).

Our Model Penal Code also establishes that complicity in a conspiracy involves a failure to take action to prevent the commission of an offense [re: Sec. 2.06(3)(a)(iii)].

In addition, the Model Penal Code establishes that a conspiracy is deemed to continue until its full objectives are satisfied or until the objectives are abandoned [re: Sec. 5.03(7)(a)].

Further, there is a very interesting Connecticut case decision which gives commentary of conspiracy.  I find relevant portions to be very consistent with federal case references.  It is State v. Hayes, 127 Conn. 543 (1941).  That case involved charges of criminal conspiracy “to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury and taxpayers thereof . . . .” (p. 548).  It is also of great interest that this case quoted from State v. Murphy, 124 Conn. 554, 564, 1 A.2d 274 as follows:

The proof of this [conspiracy] is not often made, by direct, open and positive evidence; but more generally and more naturally, by proving a repetition of acts of a character conducing to show a mutual purpose.  In such case, it is seldom true, that any one act, taken by itself, can be detected as tending to prove a combination; but when it is seen in connexion with other acts, its true nature may be discovered.  And so, as this species of proof is multiplied, a strong case of unlawful conspiracy is often established.

Senator Lieberman, are you an active participant in an antitrust conspiracy?

Finally, the Connecticut case of Ardmare Construction Company, Inc. v. Elisah C. Freedman, Commissioner of Administrative Services, et al., 467 A.2d 674, 678 (1983) gives an interesting quote.  It follows:

We substantially adopted the position in Scanwell [Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970)] that “[t]he public interest in preventing the granting of contracts through arbitrary or capricious action can properly be vindicated through suit brought by one who suffers injury as a result of the illegal activity, but the suit itself is brought in the public interest by one acting essentially as a ‘private attorney general’”.

Senator Lieberman, wouldn’t you agree that I fit the profile of a “private attorney general”?

Please reply fully, promptly and professionally.




Ethan Book Jr.

cc: Congressman Christopher Shays
   Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (MD)
   Senator Christopher Dodd
   Senator Fred Thompson
   Senator Orrin Hatch
   CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
   US Attorney General Janet Reno
   Legal Counsel
   The Media
Author: administrator
Print PDF