The recent Fairfield Citizen article reporting on my candidacy to the United States Senate is a good step for announcing the candidacy, in describing several positive points of my political positions and in broaching some sensitive political matters which relate to my candidacy. There are some points which deserve elaboration.

The article speaks about issues of apparent government corruption which I observed in 1985 as a specialized bank officer working with Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. (CBT). That pertained mainly to activities of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) which sponsored the $300 million Greater Bridgeport Resource Recovery Project of which the town of Fairfield is a contracted participant. For unresolved issues, I pursued several Freedom of Information matters including a request for access to the bids given to the CRRA for the redevelopment of the Bridgeport Project. Although the Freedom of Information Commission ordered full disclosure of the bids, the CRRA appealed that to Superior Court. The Superior Court however exceeded guidelines of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act to curiously reverse that decision. Various factors of an appeal of that Superior Court decision are found in a published decision of the Appellate Court, CRRA v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al.

Other legal issues pertaining to the CRRA pertain to a memorandum that was sent on July 9, 1985, by then CRRA President Michael Cawley and Leonard O'Neill, chairman of the Greater Bridgeport Solid Waste Commission (also Fairfield director of public health). In seeking the towns' participations in the $300 million Greater Bridgeport, the memorandum states "the [Request for Proposals] reflected the recommendations resulting from a series performed in 1982 by CSI Resource Systems, Inc." The town of Fairfield made a heavily contested decision to participate in the CRRA plan in late August of 1985.

In 1986, I made a formal request of the CRRA for a copy of the CSI consulting studies referred to in the memorandum. My request was ignored and I filed a formal complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission. Following a formal hearing, on September 19, 1986, the CRRA provided me an affidavit in which it was explained that CRRA officials had searched their files and had not located a CSI consulting report. This is very serious!

Without other resolve of the matters, in 1995 I presented a federal lawsuit against the CRRA. Mail fraud, bond fraud and bid-rigging were among the well-described claims. Named defendants included the Office of the Attorney General (for actions taken while Joseph Lieberman was attorney general) and the Office of the Chief State's Attorney. The state defendants in the lawsuit were represented by Charles Walsh, an Assistant Attorney General working under the supervision of Attorney Gen. Richard Blumenthal. It is curious that the lawsuit was dismissed by District Judge Dominic Squatrito, who less than six months before receiving the case, was Sen. Lieberman's campaign treasurer, yet he failed to recuse himself.

I appealed the case to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. For procedural considerations which in were a result of the impacts to me for the unresolved issues, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice. (At that time, the chief judge of that court was Jon Newman, with whom Blumenthal had worked as a legal assistant during 1973--74.). Although there was other provision for me to pursue the appeal, I felt that the manner of the dismissal placed me at an unfair disadvantage so I requested reconsideration of the decision. That was denied and I presented another request, which was denied on March 16, 2000, I presented another such request. The request included specific information that Walsh had not been hired by the Office of the Attorney General in accord with the State Personnel Act.

On about March 21, 2000, three uniformed and armed officials of the Department of Motor Vehicles came to my residential/commercial property on Kings Highway East. Their purpose was to confiscate commercial plates of my business vehicles, a small transportation business which has been an alternative to my banking career. There was not proper lawful cause for such action. I later learned that Attorney Walsh was the designated counsel for the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Transportation.

The mentioned petty misdemeanor matter pertained to peaceable communications which were primarily for the purpose of collecting $1,500 in a receivable owed to me by the operator of a Stamford-based limousine service company. There are yet unaddressed issues of constitutional protection of commercial speech which were early presented to Stamford Superior Court.

In addition, a timely notice of appeal presented to the Court in February of 2003 remains there without endorsement and return to me which are the usual and necessary steps for proceeding with an appeal. With respect to the mentioned mortgage foreclosure lawsuit, the Bridgeport Superior Court has yet to reasonably address the jurisdictional issue of me not having been served notice in accord with the statutory requirements.

Also, when I timely attempted to get the deficiency amount from Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems Inc. for the purpose of reinstating the mortgage, I never received any answer. These matters are fully relevant to pertinent national issues of transparency and accountability in government, of the need for judicial reform, and of clear deficiency in the declared opposing candidacy of Blumenthal.

Ethan Book Jr.

Fairfield