Ethan Book for U.S. Senate | Connecticut

Nov 27

Update November 27, 2011

Hello, Friends,
This letter just sent to retired Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is a development of the issue of "weed-gate", a matter which for me began with my letter of November 20, 2009 to Senator Dodd (at website).  The letter deals with credible, developing and unchallenged information that during the late 1970's or early 1980's, then as a U.S. Congressman, Mr. Dodd was a partner in an illegal venture to transport a large planeload of marijuana from Latin America to the United States.  When the plane landed in South Carolina, the operation was busted by the feds. Mr. Dodd's reported partner, Nick Romano, was allowed to take the rap and he served a federal prison sentence of about five years, all while Mr. Dodd craftily evaded prosecution.  This matter as well as the deliberate indifference if not cover-up by the Obama administration just before the late 2009 Congressional approval of the hotly-contested Obama health care plan and also the curiously-timed public announcement by Mr. Dodd on January 7, 2010 that he would not seek re-election, an announcement made concurretly with the public announcement by Richard Blumenthal that he would seek the Democrat Party nomination for U.S. Senate (with Mr. Blumenthal having served as U.S. Attorney precisely during the time period that the smuggling operation took reportedly took place) have much to do with the very weak and crumbling political power base which brought Mr. Blumenthal to be the presumed victor in the November 2010 election for the U.S. Senate, and an election process which is subject of my pending federal court challenge.
Regards,
Ethan Book
Print PDF
Nov 04

Update November 4, 2011

Dear Friends,
You may find interest in the attached notice of a letter which I sent yesterday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (with cited copies for Senator Chuck Grassley and  Congressman Jim Himes) expressing objection to the assignment of Richard Blumenthal to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sincerely,
Ethan Book
Print PDF
Jun 04

Update June 4, 2011

The attached letter deals with several important issues including of the need for the Obama administration to give a full explanation of the objective for the curiously-timed $100 million federal grant reportedly for the construction of a university hospital in Connecticut and understood to have been a favor for then-Senator Christopher Dodd (that at a time that the Obama administration was vigorously active in seeking support for the heavily-contested health-care legislation although Sen. Dodd was never one of the known hold-out votes), of the very important issue of the need for judicial reform (that in the context of very clear matters of systematic biases in our nation's courts) and of affirmation of a recent federal Freedom of Information Act request of Mr. Obama for a copy of the letter which is required of both state and federal statutes that former Governor M. Jodi Rell was to have sent to him to confirm the results of the recent statewide election for the position of U.S. Senator (a matter which we timely requested directly of Gov. Rell but of which we never received a reply).  The enclosure to this letter of our Motion of February 11, 2011 for Reconsideration of District Judge Peter Dorsey's decision to grant the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is separately available at this website.  Cited copy distribution of this letter include Senator Patrick Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Nancy Erickson, Secretary of the U.S. Senate; Senator John McCain (AZ): Congressman Jim Himes (CT); District Judge Peter C. Dorsey and Attorney Robert Snook at the Office of the Attorney General.
Author: administrator
Print PDF
Jun 01

Update June 1st, 2011

As is apparent from the Notice, Judge Peter Dorsey's ruling briefly explains that while the Motion for Reconsideration was granted, the requested relief was denied as he had already considered the arguments raised.  What we comment in the Notice is that the issue is not if our arguments were considered but rather if they were correctly decided.
Author: administrator
Print PDF
Mar 10

Update Mar. 10th, 2011




The attached the text of the 10-page (plus attachments) Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration includes focal points of (1) our rebuttal to Attorney Robert Snook's statement that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was timely, (2) our re-assertions to the unchallenged matters that errors of the statewide election process were not simply random but were both multiple and in patterns and often intentional, and that there is not adequate remedy in state forums (factors which allow for federal court jurisdiction) and (3) the inclusion of details of my 1995 federal lawsuit against the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority and of the significance of those unresolved matters to the present lawsuit.  For the nature of the legal debate which is apparent from this Reply, it is clear that this case is winnable!
Author: administrator
Print PDF