Author: Jon Lender

Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele Friday said that a Courant story “raises serious questions” about sweeping claims of business success by his leading rival for this weekend’s Republican gubernatorial nomination, Greenwich multimillionaire Tom Foley.

Fedele issued a statement saying: “Today’s Hartford Courant story that Tom Foley’s business practices contrast sharply with his campaign rhetoric raises serious questions about his job creation claims and it suggests that Tom has distorted his record as a job creator.”

The Courant reported that one of Foley’s claimed success stories — his ownership of The Bibb Co., a textile manufacturer that he bought through a junk-bond-financed leveraged buyout in 1985 — ended with him relinquishing executive control and most of his 95 percent stake in Bibb 11 years later.

Bibb — whose Bibb City plant on the outskirts of Columbus, Ga., was once known as the largest cotton mill in the world — went through a “prepackaged bankruptcy reorganization” in 1996 that removed Foley from executive control. It never recovered and was sold in 1998 by its new management, and the renowned Bibb City plant closed forever in 1998.

Foley responded to Fedele’s criticism, saying that “my record of success in business speaks for itself,” and that Fedele should read the Courant article “more carefully.”

“The Bibb City Plant referred to in the article was very much open and providing jobs and income to its employees at the time I relinquished control of Bibb,” Foley said. “After four years as Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, our state is still one of only two states with net job losses since 1989. If Mike Fedele is going to create jobs in Connecticut, why hasn’t he done so already?”

Foley’s Greenwich-based holding company, the NTC Group, collected management fees from Bibb of $4 million each year from 1992 to 1994, then $3.4 million in 1995, even as Bibb struggled and began losing money in 1994, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He estimates he personally collected about 20 percent of those fees.

Fedele also said in his statement Friday: “I hope he will explain how he can justify making millions of dollars on the backs of long-time employees of this company which failed under his leadership. We certainly don’t want what happened to Bibb City to happen here in Connecticut.”

While Foley has enjoyed success in business overall, his Bibb venture contrasts starkly with the rosy-hued picture painted in his campaign literature. In an interview carried in the Courant story, Foley defended both his campaign’s positive characterization of the Bibb deal and the collection of the multimillion-dollar management fees from Bibb by his Greenwich-based holding company, the NTC Group.

Here is part of a 2009 Foley campaign biography that dealt with the Bibb venture: “Tom’s record in business is impressive. His primary operating companies, The Bibb Company, T.B. Woods, Inc., and Stevens Aviation, each more than doubled in revenues and each expanded employment by more than fifty percent while under Tom’s leadership,” said one of his campaign biographies. “Tom believes the same expertise and problem-solving skills he uses to manage and grow businesses can be used to help government improve the economy and expand jobs for Connecticut citizens.”

Foley said he didn’t think his campaign account was misleading “because when I bought The Bibb Co. it was losing $14 million a year, and shortly after I acquired it we got it turned around and we were earning money. And the company was doing quite well in 1988 so we bought a bigger … textile business from J.P. Stevens.” That acquisition increased the number of the company’s employees, he said.

But then things turned sour for the business, whose main products included towels and sheets.

“In the late ’80s, valuations on businesses were pretty high — the economy was very good — and we overpaid for that part of the business,” he said. “We integrated the two businesses. … I think from a management point of view things were doing pretty well. … But we just couldn’t bear the weight of the debt that had been taken on, and so that was the reason for the [bankruptcy] restructuring.”

“Over the 10-year period I owned The Bibb Co., the textile business was under tremendous pressure from products coming in from overseas,” Foley said. “I think we certainly did much better than the management team that was in place before I bought the business would have done. So I think you have to compare the performance [on the basis of] how long we were able to keep business and hold on under different circumstances.”

Foley said the annual management fees of up to $4 million, which were collected by NTC as the Bibb Co. struggled, were for “a lot of employees … helping to run the company” out of NTC’s Greenwich office.

Foley said he is “not really a finance person by background” and instead has specialized in managing companies he buys and improving their performance.

“I think the image of a slash-and-burn person is more of a trader, somebody who comes in and buys something, and does a quick fix-it-up or face-lift and then tries to sell it for a quick profit or sell of the parts and make money — and that’s done quickly,” Foley said. “I was an investor. I came into these companies, and I tried to make them perform better. I was involved with developing plans to … meet the challenges they were facing.”

Former state Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen of Ridgefield became the favorite to win the state Democratic Party’s nomination for attorney general when the state Supreme Court Tuesday found Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz ineligible to run for the office.

Later Tuesday, Jepsen issued a statement in reaction to the 7-0 ruling – which reversed a lower court finding that Bysiewicz was qualified under a state statute requiring that the state’s attorney general have 10 years’ experience in the “active practice” of law in Connecticut.

Jepsen said: “I believe my broad legal experience and record as a legislator will make me the best possible Attorney General candidate going forward. I want to welcome Susan’s supporters to be a part of my campaign team. This is a surprise and I had expected the voters would make the final decision in the August primary.”

He continued: “As Attorney General, I will work hard every day for Connecticut by fighting against corrupt business practices, guarding consumers, enforcing laws against polluters and working to hold the line on insurance and utility costs.”

He said his campaign “is participating in the new clean elections program that requires candidates to raise small individual donations in order to qualify for public financing.” He pledged his “commitment to the AG’s office,” and said he “will not seek higher office while in his first term.”

The party’s nominating convention is Friday and Saturday in Hartford, with the attorney general’s nomination on Saturday’s schedule.
 
 

 

   

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously reversed a lower court ruling that would have allowed Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz to run for attorney general.

The ruling shockingly ends one of the most unusual chapters in Connecticut’s political history. Bysiewicz had been one of the leading candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination until January, when Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s decision to run for the U.S. Senate prompted her to run for the office that he was vacating.

Bysiewicz, who was not at the Tuesday afternoon proceeding in the ornate Supreme Court building opposite the state Capitol, issued a statement within an hour of the 4:30 p.m. ruling: “I am tremendously disappointed with the court’s decision overturning Judge [Michael] Sheldon’s ruling and I strongly disagree with the decision both on the eligibility and the constitutionality issue. However, I do respect the rule of law and will abide by it.”

Bysiewicz, the state’s top official in charge of running elections and registering corporations, was not available to clarify the statement or elaborate on any plans that she has — but it apparently means that she will withdraw as a candidate for the party’s nomination as attorney general at Saturday’s Democratic state nominating convention in Hartford. She had been considered by many to be a favorite to win delegates’ support as the party-endorsed candidate.

Now the strong favorite to win the convention endorsement is former state Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen of Ridgefield. He had been expected to win enough delegate support to force an Aug. 10 primary against Bysiewicz.

Democratic Party officials said they expect that Bysiewicz will withdraw from consideration at the weekend’s convention. “Based on her statement that she will abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling today, we anticipate that her name will not be placed in nomination for attorney general,” said Kevin Reynolds, the party’s attorney.

But the question remained Tuesday night as to whether Bysiewicz would go back and try to run for her present office at the convention at this late date.

“She certainly could if she chooses to, but we haven’t heard from her on that,” Reynolds said.

As of now, the three contenders for the Democratic nomination for secretary of the state are state House Majority Leader Denise Merrill of Mansfield, state Sen. Jonathan Harris of West Hartford and Gerald Garcia of New Haven.

As soon as Bysiewicz launched her bid for attorney general in January, questions arose over whether she met the requirements of a state statute that says a person must have engaged in the “active practice” of law for 10 years in the state before holding the office. The statute does not define what “active practice” means — and Bysiewicz sued her own office and the state Democratic Party in Superior Court in search of a judge’s ruling to clarify the question. Sheldon ruled earlier this month  that she was eligible — a decision overturned Tuesday, 7-0, on appeal from the state Republican Party.

The Supreme Court ruling apparently cannot be appealed to a higher jurisdiction, lawyers said afterward. One of Bysiewicz’s lawyers, Daniel Krisch, said he believed that the only legal avenue open would be to file a motion for reconsideration by the high court — but, because the court ruled unanimously against her, success would be highly unlikely.

Eliot Gersten, the Hartford lawyer who successfully argued the case for the state GOP, said he believed that, theoretically, Bysiewicz could still run for attorney general but, if she won, “the court would find … that she couldn’t serve.”

The Supreme Court justices were clearly troubled by the minimal standards set by Sheldon in his ruling that Bysiewicz, who has rarely set foot in a courtroom and never argued a case, met the statutory eligibility requirement.

Justice Richard N. Palmer asked Krisch some pointed questions during the 78-minute hearing. Apparently responding to Bysiewicz’s claims that her telephone advice to constituents and local officials constituted the practice of law, Palmer set up a hypothetical situation in which a radio talk-show host, who happened to be a lawyer, told his listeners that they shouldn’t talk to a police officer without an attorney present.

Palmer asked Krisch: Would that talk-show host be practicing law if he gave that advice to his radio audience?

Krisch said yes.

Then, another judge reversed the hypothetical with a follow-up question. Appellate Court Judge Thomas A. Bishop — pinch-hitting for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who was out of the country — asked Krisch: If that same radio host were not a lawyer and gave his listeners the same advice, would he then be practicing law without a license?

Yes, Krisch said.

It is highly unusual — but not unheard-of — for the Supreme Court to issue its ruling the same day as its hearing. But Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr., who presided Tuesday in Rogers’ absence, said that time was of the essence with the the convention coming up Friday and Saturday. At the close of arguments, the seven justices withdrew behind closed doors for 67 minutes while scores of interested parties and observers milled around and filled the space beneath the 35-foot-high muraled ceiling with vociferous speculation.

The din turned to a hush as Norcott announced the decision: Sheldon had “improperly determined” that Bysiewicz was eligible to serve as attorney general, and the “judgment is reversed,” Norcott said.

A written decision will follow, he added, but he did not say when.

Advocates of a bill to give victims of child sexual abuse more time to file civil lawsuits plan a press conference Friday at 12:45 in the state Capitol complex to acknowledge that their legislation will not go forward this year, a high-ranking Capitol source said.

As reported in Friday’s Courant, the bill to extend the statute of limitations on such crimes as in severe trouble Thursday night for lack of support in both the state House of Representatives and Senate — but its supporters were not yet ready to concede that it was dead.

However, that is expected to happen at the press conference at which three supporters of the bill are to appear: Rep. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford; Sen. Mary Ann Handley, D-Manchester; and Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislative judiciary committee.

For a more complete account of the bill’s problems in a Thursday-night Capitol Watch post, click here.

Governor M. Jodi Rell said that she will appeal the Obama administration’s denial Tuesday of her request for individual aid to homeowners, renters and employers hurt by last month’s heavy storms and flooding.

“The storms that battered our state last month left a trail of astonishing devastation in their wake – crushed cars, homes struck by trees, week-long power outages and staggering flooding,” Rell said. “This decision is not only disappointing – it’s wrong, and I will appeal it.”

President Obama Friday approved Rell’s request for a “major disaster declaration” allowing financial aid to the state and municipal governments in Fairfield, Middlesex and New London counties.

But Rell also had made a broader request covering New Haven and Windham counties in addition to the other three. She sought federal aid for individuals in those five counties, in which her office said 1,315 homes and 116 business suffered estimated damages of $10.6 million.

The broader request was denied Tuesday. A Federal Emergency Management Agency administrator told Rell in a letter that preliminary assessments in the five counties “revealed that the damage to the private sector was not of the severity and magnitude to warrant the designation of individual assistance under the major disaster declaration. … This denial may be appealed within 30 days.”

That’s what Rell will do. “I have directed our state emergency management officials to immediately gather whatever information may be needed to further support our application for assistance,” Rell said. “I will also work with our Congressional delegation and with [FEMA] to continue pursuing this matter until all avenues for aid are exhausted.”

 

In a quarrelsome end to an extraordinary trial, the lawyer for the Republican Party said Thursday that a judge should throw out the lawsuit in which Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz seeks a ruling that she is eligible to run for state attorney general.

“Waah, waah, waah! I want to be attorney general, and I’m going to get my way in court!” is how the GOP’s lawyer, Eliot Gersten, characterized Bysiewicz’s stance as plaintiff in her lawsuit against her own office and the Democratic Party, which she wants to nominate her for attorney general on May 22.

Gersten’s comment touched off an animated finale to lawyers’ arguments in the Hartford Superior Court trial that began April 14. The judge, Michael Sheldon, didn’t commit himself on when he’ll make a decision, but it won’t be this week.

Gersten said that Bysiewicz and her lawyers didn’t produce a single witness to demonstrate that anyone in state government or the Democratic Party would deny her the right to be a candidate for the attorney general’s nomination. Thus, he said, she hasn’t been aggreived legally and had no right to put everyone through the turmoil – he used the Yiddish term “mishigas” – of the lawsuit and trial.

Gersten said Bysiewicz wants to use Sheldon as a political tool – by showing off his ruling to Democratic convention delegates as an “endorsement” validating her candidacy.
The Democrats’ state nominating convention is May 21 and 22, and Gersten said there’s no legal issue for Sheldon to rule on until at least after that.

Bysiewicz’s lawyer, Wesley Horton, indignantly responded that Gersten had contradicted his own claims about whether the judge should rule on the case. Horton said Gersten had argued both that Bysiewicz’s lawsuit has been brought too early and too late to be considered.

Horton said he didn’t need to call any witnesses to demonstrate to Sheldon that there is urgent issue that needs to be ruled on; he said the Republicans’ vigorous intervention in the lawsuit – what he called the GOP’s “sound and fury” in an effort to show Bysiewicz as qualified — has been proof enough that “there is a cloud” of doubt over her.

The contentious exchange broke out during nearly an hour of arguments Thursday, bringing the total length of final arguments since Tuesday to nearly five hours – among the longest in the history of Connecticut civil cases. Sheldon didn’t commit himself on when he’ll issue a ruling; he said he’ll work with “all deliberate speed.”

Before Thursday, the trial had delved into other questions Sheldon also is considering: whether Bysiewicz has the 10 years experience in the “active practice” of law in Connecticut that a state statute requires the attorney general to have; and whether that 10-year requirement is constitutional.

But Thursday was reserved for Republicans’ “jurisdicational” claims — the argument that, in effect, there is no legitimate issue yet over which the court has any jurisdiction to even make a ruling.

Gersten filed a legal memorandum before Thursday’s proceeding. “Fear and speculation do not equate to jurisdiction,” he wrote. He said Bysiewiecz, as the plaintiff, has “failed to present any evidence from any member of the Democratic Party that there was a question or uncertainty as to her legal right to be a candidate for Attorney General.”

“Indeed, the plaintiff offered no evidence, other than her baseless ‘fears,’ that someone, anyone, with the authority to do so, acted or even intended to act to stop her from having her name placed on the ballot in the … Democratic Convention,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s fear or speculation is not sufficient to invoke the legal remedy of a declaratory judgment.”

In court, he said that all Bysiewicz wants is a “pre-emptive” ruling from Sheldon to show off at the state convention in an effort to overcome delegates’ doubts that she has enough legal experience to qualify. He said this would allow her to say, “Who cares about what the media says? Judge Sheldon says this is OK.”

Horton said this is the first time in his long career that he’s heard an opposing counsel argue that a lawsuit has been brought too early and too late at the same time.

The “too early” argument, he said, is when Gersten said there’s been no harm done to Bysiewicz’s nomination hopes with the convention still a month away. The “too late” argument, according to Horton, was a statement by Gersten that before Bysiewicz declared her candidacy for attorney general in January, she should have resolved the issue of whether she has 10 years’ experience in the “active practice” of the law in Connecticut.

The only way to resolve that question, though, Horton said, was to bring the lawsuit for a judge’s “declaratory ruling” that she is qualified. That was the very remedy recommended by the current attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, in his recent written opinion that it’s unclear what “active practice” means and that only a judge could define it, Horton said — so that’s what Bysiewicz is doing.

He said that Gersten, by arguing that it’s too early for a ruling about Bysiewicz’s eligibility, seems to be arguing for potential confusion and the waste of citizens’ votes. He noted that Gersten says it’s too early for a ruling, but hasn’t specified when Bysiewicz would finally have the right to get her answer in court — whether it would be after the Democrats’ convention, or after their Aug. 10 nominating primary, or even after the November election and her possibly taking office in 2011.

Horton said the final scenario opens the possibility that citizens could vote someone into office, and then see their votes wasted by a lawsuit that knocks out the candidate afterwards as ineligible. The replacement for the ousted attorney would be appointed by the new governor, taking the decision away from the voters, he said.  And so, Horton said, it’s a question that should be resolved up-front — now.

But Gersten said the burden is on Bysiewicz to show the judge that the case is rupe for a decision now — something Horton did not dispute.  Gersten said he is amazed that Bysiewicz and her legal team didn’t feel the need to put any Democratic party officials, or one of thousands of delegates, on the stand to testify that Bysiewicz needs a court ruling.

Final arguments will continue — and probably will end — Thursday afternoon in the trial in Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s lawsuit to be declared eligible to run for state attorney general.

The four hours of final arguments made Tuesday in the week-old trial are already among the longest in Connecticut history for a civil case, experts say.

The final area of argument, scheduled Thursday at 2 p.m., is about whether Bysiewicz has established a need for Judge Michael Sheldon to even make a ruling about her eligibility. This question — about the question of what lawyers call the “ripeness” of the issue for a ruling — has been mentioned on and off for weeks. But Thursday will bring it to the forefront.

In search of a ruling to validate her candidacy, Bysiewicz has sued her own office and the Democratic Party that she wants to nominate her for attorney general at its May 21-22 convention.  But now the state Republican Party, which has intervened in the case to challenge her legal qualifications, will argue that with the convention still a month off the whole question is speculative.

They say that she has not been denied the right to get on the ballot, and thus she has not been aggrieved legally — and, by extention from that, they say that has no real issue to sue over.
 
“Fear and speculation do not equate to jurisdiction,” lawyer Eliot Gersten said in a memorandum filed in advance of Thursday’s arguments.  He wrote that Bysiewiecz, the plaintiff, has “failed to present any evidence from any member of the Democratic Party that there was a question or uncertainty as to her legal right to be a candidate for Attorney General.”

He added: “Indeed, the plaintiff offered no evidence, other than her baseless ‘fears,’ that someone, anyone, with the authority to do so, acted or even intended to act to stop her from having her name placed on the ballot in the state Democratic Convention.  Indeed, the plaintiff’s own trial testimony supports an opposite conclusion. If there is any doubt, it resides as a matter of her concern within her mind.”

“Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s fear or speculation is not sufficient to invoke the legal remedy of a declaratory judgment,” Gersten wrote.

Bysiewicz’s lawyers have made assertions to the contrary — that the threat to her ability to run is very real — and they are expected to that again in court Thursday.  

Democratic lawmakers are pressing Gov. M. Jodi Rell to pull back her nine remaining judicial nominations. About 90 signed a letter Tuesday asking House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, not to allow a vote on the nominees.

With a legislative judiciary committee hearing on the Superior Court nominees scheduled for Friday, the Democrats are pressing the issue raised months ago by the committee’s co-chairmen, Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, and Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford.

Lawlor and McDonald say the state cannot afford the more than $2 million it would cost to hire the judges, which they say are unneeded, because the state’s judicial branch is in such a financial crisis that is closing courthouses and law libraries, and lacks adequate security and support personnel.

Rell vetoed a bill last year that would have given the judicial branch an additional $8 million to deal with its problems, Lawlor said. He said unless legislation is approved with Rell’s support to help the judicial branch, his committee will hold the Friday hearing that is its legal duty but will give the nominees negative reports when it sends them on for votes in the General Assembly.

Lawlor said the nominees are well qualified and he knows several personally but “they will not be approved by the House … until the budget issues are addressed.”
Tuesday’s letter asks Donovan to refuse to take up the nominations for a vote in the House until Rell relents. Donovan said he would discuss the letter with Rell as part of budget talks.

Rell’s office declined comment.

Lawlor said Rell could spare the nominees embarrassment by withdrawing their names now and submitting them again after the legislative session when the budget issues have been addressed.

Rell originally nominated 10 as judges but one of them, state prosecutor Brian Leslie, withdrew his name after a Sunday Courant column by Kevin Rennie said Leslie had been accused of “subverting” the prosecutor’s unit he was in when he was passed over for a promotion. Among Rell’s other nominees are her state budget director, Robert Genuario, and Public Safety Commissioner John Danaher.

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, said he thinks Democrats want to stall until Rell leaves office early next year and fill judicial vacancies themselves. Democratic leaders denied that.

When final arguments began Tuesday morning in Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s Superior Court trial, it quickly became clear that Tuesday wouldn’t be the case’s final day.

Judge Michael Sheldon announced that he would permit a second day of final arguments Wednesday — in which lawyers could potentially offer “subject matter” arguments about whether the court even needs to issue a ruling, which Bysiewicz is seeking, on whether she is eligible to run for attorney general.

Beyond that, Sheldon said he would accept additional, short legal briefs to be submitted by the parties.  He didn’t give a deadline during the morning session, but one of the lawyers in the proceeding thought it might be Friday, which would mean no decision would be issued this week.

Whether the Bysiewicz case will serve as some kind of legal landmark is uncertain, but one thing seems sure: It has served up an abundance of fodder for lawyers’ debate — and Sheldon is an unusually patient judge who seems willing to hear all of it. The length of the closing arguments in this case is becoming extraordinary.

Starting at 10:12 a.m., lawyers for Bysiewicz and the state Republican Party argued back and forth for about two-and-a-half hours, periodically being questioned by Sheldon on points of law. It was scheduled to continue Tuesday afternoon on the constitutionality of the 10-year “active practice” requirement — which Bysiewicz wants thrown out as unconstitutional.

Neither side had the clear upper hand — and Sheldon indicated to each that he didn’t buy significant parts of what they had been saying since the trial began last Wednesday.

Here is what the case is about: Although Bysiewicz has been registered as an attorney for 24 years, she held two lawyers’ jobs for a total of only six years in the state before winning her current office more than 11 years ago.

She seeks a ruling that those 11 years as secretary of the state count as the “active practice” of law — based on reasons including her continual advice in phone calls to local officials about election laws, and her testimony before the General Assembly about such laws. She even claims she’s practicing law when she holds a press conference.

Sheldon indicated skepticism about Bysiewicz’s broad claim that she qualifies under the statute by virtue of being registered as a lawyer in good standing for 24 years.

He said it seems that a lawyer has to do more than that to be considered in “active practice” — potentially good news for the state Republican Party, which is opposing her in the case and arguing that she’s not qualified.

But the potential bad news for the Republicans was that Sheldon also said he thinks it is possible that Bysiewicz could practice law by draftiing, or participating in the drafting of, legal opinions that state statutes say her office is authorized to issue in its role as the supervisor of state elections.

And so a big question, it appears, is whether each side can convince Sheldon that the record of evidence in the two days of trial testimony — mostly by Bysiewicz — establishes her participation in collaborative efforts among lawyers in the office to issue such opinions.

The Republicans’ lawyer, Eliot Gersten, said no — that the evidence introduced doesn’t prove that. Bysiewicz’s lawyer, Daniel Krisch, said it does.

Another potential plus for Bysiewicz was Sheldon’s repeated comment that Connecticut law and past cases have not established a “quanititative” standard for how much legal work an attorney must have peformed during any given period of time to be considered as engaged in the “active practice” of law.

The final arguments will go on for another day, and briefs will be written, before Sheldon grapples with the decision.

Updates later. Click here to read another blog post relative to final arguments.

 

With final arguments scheduled for Tuesday morning in Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s Superior Court trial to be declared eligible to run for state attorney general, the state judicial branch’s chief disciplinary counsel, Mark DuBois, filed an “amicus,” or friend-of-the-court, brief that largely contradicts Bysiewicz’s legal arguments.

A state statute requires that the attorney general have 10 years’ experience in the “active practice” of law in Connecticut.  Although Bysiewicz has been registered as an attorney for 24 years, she held two lawyers’ jobs for a total of only six years in the state before winning her current office more than 11 years ago. She seeks a ruling that those 11 years as secretary of the state count as the “active practice” of law — based on reasons including her continual advice in phone calls to local officials about election laws, and her testimony before the General Assembly about such laws. She even claims she’s practicing law when she holds a press conference.

But DuBois, whose job includes jurisdiction over the unauthorized practice of law, raised arguments to the contrary. He said if an attorney tells a lie or gives bad advice while practicing law, he or she can be subject to professional discipline by the Statewide Grievance Committee.  But if Bysiewicz tells an untruth or gives incorrect advice, that doesn’t happen; it’s dealt with in a political setting.

Also, he said, when Bysiewicz “appears in her official capacity before legislative committees to advocate for or against some public enterprise or initiative, she is not practicing law, but rather carrying out the duties of her office.”

He said it’s better for “what are essentially political questions” to be handled without dragging them unnecessarily into the arena of lawyers’ discipline.

He even included a footnote citing The Courant’s Government Watch column: “The Hartford Courant of April 18, 2010 reported an investigation of the plaintiff concerning the use of her office computer to track holiday cards. The undersigned hopes he does not get a grievance complaint to investigate over the same issue.”

The column can be read by clicking here.

In another footnote, DuBois leaves an opening for Bysiewicz; “This is not to say that the plaintiff can never be practicing law when she pursues her constitutional and statutory duties. As discussed below, to the extent that the plaintiff visits … with her staff attorneys  and works with them on legal issues she may well be practicing law.”

He went on to explain that “a much different analysis would apply when the Secretary interacts with her staff attorneys. Whether she seeks their advice as a client of a lawyer…or as a colleague is not for the undersigned to comment on. How these questions should be answered in the present case is a matter for advocacy by the parties, and decision by the Court.”

“However” he added, “it may well be that the answer to these questions resolves around whether the conduct in question is that of a political figure who also happens to be a lawyer, or a lawyer who also happens to be a constitutional officer of the state.”

Brian Leslie of Wallingford, a state prosecutor picked by Gov. M. Jodi Rell as one of her 10 new nominees for Superior Court judgeships, abruptly asked Monday that the governor withdraw his nomination — and she did so, the legislature’s judciary committee co-chairman said. 

Leslie’s judicial hopes were put in serious jeopardy Sunday by Courant columnist Kevin Rennie, who reported that Leslie was passed over for a promotion in 2002 — and later began “subverting” the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the chief state’s attorney’s office, according to sworn testimony in a 2005 deposition by Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Paul Murray.
 
Rennie’s column — which said that Leslie’s nomination shows that Rell “has become an egregious hack” — can be read by clicking here.

Leslie had been scheduled for a confirmation hearing before the legislature’s judiciary committee Friday in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. Rennie said legislators should reject the nomination. But now it will not come to that.

General Assembly judiciary committee co-chairman Michael Lawlor said Monday afternoon that Rell’s office had informed him of Leslie’s request and the governor’s response.

“There’s definitely something wrong with the governor’s vetting process,” Lawlor said. “Among other things, she does not reach out to people to solicit input — and I think if she had reached out, she would have had more input on this particular nomination.”

 

    

Democratic Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz faces possible questioning under oath by the office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in its investigation of a citizen’s complaint that she misused her office’s 36,000-name “constituent database” for political advantage — a claim that Bysiewicz denies.

Blumenthal told The Courant Friday that members of the secretary of the state’s office staff will likely be interviewed. So will Bysiewicz, herself, he said, “if there are questions that are appropriate and necessary for her to answer — as is likely.” He added: “Generally our interviews are conducted under oath,” though not always.

A Sunday Courant Government Watch column, which can be read by clicking here, reported on Bysiewicz’s potential testimony in that probe, and provided details about two other issues now facing her:

•The lingering question of why her taxpayer-funded “constituent database” of 36,000 names identifies 2,500 Democratic convention delegates, but no Republican delegates.

•And the new question of why the database also contains a special category headed “holiday card,” with about 5,400 names noted. Bysiewicz says that this wasn’t used to send holiday cards, and that the 5,400 people had sent cards to her office. But about 170 of those people told The Courant they never sent her a card — and, moreover, got a card or cards from her.

One of her opponents for the Democratic attorney general’s nomination, George Jepsen, said he doesn’t believe her and thinks that the database was used to send holiday cards. “This is yet another example of public resources and tax dollars being used directly for partisan politics,” he said.

Bysiewicz already has testified under oath recently during her Superior Court trial in her lawsuit to be declared eligible to run for state attorney general. She also gave sworn testimony in videotaped depositions before the trial, which have been made public. In her suit, Bysiewicz has named her own office and the state Democratic Party as defendants

Final arguments have been scheduled Tuesday. However, her lawyers filed a motion Friday to reopen the evidentiary phase of the trial, which closed last Thursday.

They want Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo to testify briefly on Tuesday morning that there is uncertainty within the party about Bysiewicz’s eligibility to be nominated as a candidate for attorney general, thus establishing a need for Judge Michael Sheldon to issue a ruling on her qualifications. The move apparently is intended to ensure that the case doesn’t get thrown out for lack of legal “standing,” or a lack of the “ripeness” of the issue. The Democratic nominating convention will be held May 21-22.

One of Bysiewicz’s lawyers, Daniel Krisch, said Sunday that the request for DiNardo’s testimony “definitely will not set back the argument schedule.”

He said: “Judge Sheldon has issued an interim order that our motion will be heard first thing Tuesday morning.  If it is granted, Nancy will testify quickly and then we’ll have final arguments. If it is denied, we’ll go right to the arguments. But, either way, the final arguments still will happen on Tuesday.”

The state Republican Party has intervened in the lawsuit  to challenge Bysiewicz’s claim that she qualifies under a state statute that requires the attorney general to have 10 years’ “active practice” as a lawyer in Connecticut. There’s no word as to whether its lawyer, Eliot Gersten, will oppose the request to reopen the evidentiary phase for DiNardo to testify.

Blumenthal will be vacating the attorney general’s post after he runs for the U.S. Senate this year.

Brian Leslie of Wallingford, a state prosecutor who now is one of Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s 10 new nominees for Superior Court judgeships, was passed over for a promotion in 2002 and later began “subverting” the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the chief state’s attorney’s office, according to sworn testimony in a 2005 deposition by Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Paul Murray.
 
Courant columnist Kevin Rennie made that disclosure, and called Leslie’s judicial nomination into question, in his Sunday Courant column – which can be read by clicking here.
 
Leslie, who declined making any comment to Rennie for the column,  is up for a confirmation hearing before the legislature’s judiciary committee Friday at 10 a.m. in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.
 
Rennie reported on problems Leslie had because of his prosecution of a Stamford ophthalmologist, Richard Weber, who was arrested in 2002 on a charge of making false Medicaid claims. The case, which Weber’s lawyer called a “travesty,” was dismissed in 2003.  Weber sued the state over his prosecution and won a $725,000 payment in 2008 to compensate him, Rennie reported.

The negative comments from Murray about Leslie’s actions were included in a deposition transcript that was among documents from the Weber lawsuit file that Rennie reviewed.
 
Rennie also has his own blog site, called Daily Ructions, on which he posted a separate item Sunday about Leslie. The Daily Ructions item, which can be read by clicking here, includes links to a four-part copy of Leslie’s 2005 deposition in the Weber lawsuit.

Courtroom questions from the state Republican Party’s lawyer Thursday morning rankled the lawyer for Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz so much that he objected angrily and called the queries “outrageous.”

Wesley W. Horton, Bysiewicz’s lawyer in her Hartford Superior Court lawsuit to be declared eligible to run for for attorney general, said that the GOP’s lawyer, Eliot Gersten, was asking overly repetitive questions about something that Bysiewicz had already admitted: that she has never tried a case, or represented any client, in court.

“It’s outrageous,” Horton said loudly.  He accused Gersten of arguing “to the press and not to the court.”  Several reporters were present on the second day of the trial, as they had been on Wednesday’s first day. Horton said that Gersten had already established “six ways to Sunday” that Bysiewicz agrees she has “represented no clients” in court.

Gersten was allowed to continue his questioning although Judge Michael Sheldon encouraged him more than once to speed up and move on to other areas, in his effort to show that she lacks the experience needed for eligibility to serve as state attorney general.

Bysiewicz ended a day and a half of testimony as the trial’s first witness about 12:30 p.m. Thursday.

Then Horton’s partner, Daniel Krisch, called Lesley Mara, Bysiewicz’s deputy secretary of the state, in an effort to corroborate Bysiewicz’s claim that she practices law in some form or other every day in her post.

Bysiewicz says part of what she does to practice law in her office is to provide advice in phone calls to local officials about election laws and procedures. Mara testified about a couple of occasions in recent years when she was on the same phone call with Bysiewicz and local election officials.

Gersten established in questioning Bysiewicz that she rarely documents such phone calls in which she says she gives legal advice — especially ones in which she said that she is on the phone alone with a local official. Bysiewicz also could not recall many specific times in which she had spoken to particular officials — although Sheldon, the judge, noted after a while that very few people can remember whom they talked to on a certain day several years ago.

Witnesses’ testimony is scheduled to conclude Thursday afternoon — at this point, anyway — with final arguments to be held next Tuesday.

Bysiewicz claims that her 11 years as Secretary of the State qualify her under a state statute requiring that the state’s attorney general have at least 10 years’ experience in the “active practice” of law in Connecticut.

The Courant’s account of the first day of the trial can be read by clicking here.

 

A chance encounter with a Courant reporter Thursday afternoon provided a sign of how Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s mind is occupied with her ongoing lawsuit to be declared eligible to run for attorney general.

It happens that Bysiewicz encountered Courant Capitol bureau chief Chris Keating in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on the same day that videos were released of her testimony in a recent deposition — which was part of her ongoing fight to convince a judge that her 11 years in office count as the the practice of law.

A state statute says you need to have 10 years’ “active practice” in the legal profession in Connecticut to run for state attorney general – and the Republican Party’s lawyer spent hours in the deposition trying to show that Bysiewicz doesn’t. A number of observers have noted that she doesn’t seem too happy about the whole thing.

So, anyway, Keating was walking down a flight of stairs in the LOB while Bysiewicz walked up from the bottom alone, talking on a cell phone. As they passed halfway up the stairs, he greeted her but she didn’t respond as the phone stayed glued to her ear.

Once she reached the top, she turned and called down to him: “Pardon me.  I’m actively practicing law.”

The latest in a series of extraordinary episodes emerged Thursday from Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s controversial lawsuit to be declared eligible run for attorney general – with the release of  hours of videotape showing Bysiewicz under questioning from the state Republican Party’s attorney, admitting that she has rarely been in a courthouse and never tried a case.

Despite that significant concession during a three-day deposition, the camera showed Bysiewicz clearly determined to yield no ground on her overall claim: that she is qualified to serve as attorney general, no matter how little legal case work she has done, for the simple reason that she has been registered as an attorney and paid her annual lawyers’ fees for 24 years.

Bysiewicz remained composed, repeatedly asked for clarification of questions and made the GOP’s lawyer, Eliot Gersten, work for her answers. The drama in the proceeding came out of several flare-ups between Bysiewicz lawyer Wesley Horton and Gersten.
“I think this is getting to the border of harassment of the witness,” Horton broke in at one point during the first day of the proceeding, March 31.

Gersten fired back: “I’m telling you, stop it … because I think you’re harassing me and interrupting me, with all respect, so stop it.”

Bysiewicz and Gersten went back and forth doggedly, but calmly, as he picked away at her contention that she meets the state eligibility statute calling for the state attorney general to have accumulated 10 years’ “active practice” of law in Connecticut.

Bysiewicz has described her job of secretary of the state as, in effect, the chief of a public-service law firm – but Gersten tried to depict her as a figurehead who relies almost completely on other lawyers – either office subordinates, or several private lawyers who support her campaign and provide free advice – for legal research and written documents to which she puts her name.   

Bysiewicz and Gersten went back and forth doggedly, but calmly, as he picked away at her contention that she meets the state eligibility statute calling for the state attorney general to have accumulated 10 years’ “active practice” of law in Connecticut.

Bysiewicz has described her job of secretary of the state as, in effect, the chief of a public-service law firm – but Gersten tried to depict her as a figurehead who relies almost completely on other lawyers – either office subordinates, or several private lawyers who support her campaign and provide free advice – for legal research and written documents to which she puts her name.       

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rob Simmons said Wednesday that a national controversy over a federal appellate court nominee’s personal background questionnaire highlights the seriousness of “false and misleading answers” given by opponent Linda McMahon gave on a questionnaire she filled out to gain appointment to the State Board of Education in 2009.

Noting that Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week are criticizing appellate court nominee Goodwin Liu for omitting information about his background from his questionnaire, Simmons called the situation is similar to that of McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, his opponent for the Republican Senate nomination this year.

Simmons referred to a Courant Government Watch column Sunday said that McMahon answered “no” five times on the questionnaire in January 2009 when she should have, or arguably should have, answered “yes.”  In addition, she listed her 1969 degree from East Carolina University as a bachelor’s in education, when it was in French.

“Critics are right to question Mr. Liu’s fitness for high office after he omitted key information from his background questionnaire, and Mr. Liu is right to apologize for his actions,” Simmons said.  “However, an honest accounting of one’s record and background as part of the vetting process is a requirement of public service and those who fail to do so raise serious red flags about both about their record and their integrity.”

Simmons said that “unlike Liu, who has apologized for certain omissions, Linda McMahon has brushed aside questions about outright false answers provided by her about her professional and educational background on her application to the Board of Education.  But the Liu incident serves to remind us that honesty is not an option, it is the standard that must be met by all who seek high office.  Regrettably, Linda McMahon has already begun the process of lowering the bar.”

“McMahon needs to answer whether or not she would join the Republican criticism of Liu, or apply the same standard she has set for herself,” Simmons said.

McMahon spokesman Ed Patru fired back with a statement of his own, saying: “I think a lot of people who have followed this campaign cringe when they hear Rob Simmons accuse anyone of being dishonest or misleading. In the past few months alone, he has changed his position on most every core belief he’s ever held in order to pander to Republican voters. That’s not honesty.”

Patru added: “When he needed to sound credible on the issue of job creation, he plagiarized an economic plan and passed it off as his own work. That’s not honesty.” In March, a Simmons spokesman conceded that “one of our young staffers” who helped draft the plan “made the mistake of borrowing words from another source” for a “small section of the plan.”

Patru continued: “A few weeks later we found out that, as a Congressman, he assigned levels of importance to his constituents based on whether they contributed to his campaign coffers and he encouraged other Members of Congress to do the same. That’s not honesty.” That was a reference to an earlier Government Watch column about Simmons.

Among questions McMahon answered “no” to on the questionnaire were whether she had been “publicly identified” with a “controversial national, state, or local issue” — and whether she’d “submitted oral or written views to any governmental authority … on any particular controversial issue.” The sexually suggestive content, foul language and violence of WWE programming have been controversial for years. Also, McMahon was interviewed under oath as part of a congressional investigation into the use of steroids in professional wrestling.

McMahon also answered “no” to the question “Have you ever written any books or articles?” McMahon acknowledged in a Courant interview last week that she used to write for the WWE’s wrestling magazines under a pseudonym, “Linda Kelly.”

McMahon told The Courant last week that she had answered “no” to the background questions under the assumption that everyone already knew of her activities with WWE and its past controversies.

Patru elaborated on that defense Wednesday, saying: “Linda’s association with WWE has been an open book by virtue of the fact that WWE has been heavily covered by print and electronic media for years, and it’s programming is carried on live TV every week. Every person involved in the confirmation process was aware of Linda’s association with WWE.

“Liu isn’t being attacked because he failed to mention that he wrote wrestling updates for a fan magazine 20-30 years ago; he’s under assault because he failed to disclose major public policy positions on issues like affirmative action that have relevancy to the work he would be doing on the bench.”

McMahon resigned from the State Board of Education last week, saying a new ruling by a state elections attorney might create legal complications for her Senate candidacy.  The resignation came a day after The Courant indicated it would be writing about her questionnaire answers, but she said one had nothing to do with the other.

Despite Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s public claim that she is as qualified to hold the office of state attorney general as its current occupant, Richard Blumenthal, she conceded in newly-released sworn testimony that she has rarely set foot in a courthouse and never tried a case there in her life. 

Bysiewicz, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, was questioned under oath by the state Republican Party’s lawyer, Eliot Gersten, in a deposition on March 31. It was part of her pending lawsuit seeking a judge’s ruling that she is qualified to serve as attorney general under a state eligibility statute for the office.

She initially tried to block release of the testimony, but gave up that effort Tuesday after opposition from The Courant’s lawyers.

“You’ve actually said you’re every bit as qualified as Dick Blumenthal was [in 1991] when he took this position, based upon your legal experience, correct?” Gersten asked during the March 31 desposition.

“Yes,” she answered.
 
“And you’re aware, aren’t you, that prior to the time Mr. Blumenthal became attorney general, he actually, in contrast to you, appeared in court, correct?”

“Yes,” she said.

“In fact, he tried a bunch of cases, didn’t he?” Gersten said. “You never tried any cases?”

“No,” Bysiewicz said.

PDF: Transcript of Testimony, Day 1

PDF: Transcript of Testimony, Day 2

PDF: Transcript of Testimony, Day 3

 

 

 

However, Bysiewicz said she still is eligible under a statute statute that requires the attorney general to have accumulated 10 years’ “active practice” of law in Connecticut. “I’m a corporate lawyer, not a litigator,” she said.

She also said she represented herself once in small claims court – “and I did win.”

A transcript of Bysiewicz’s testimony was released to news organizations late Tuesday afternoon by Blumenthal’s office, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. The deposition continued Monday and Tuesday, for a total of about 10 hours’ testimony over the three days.

Blumenthal’s office received copies because, by law, it represents Bysiewicz’s office — which she is suing as an individual in hopes of being declared eligible for attorney general.

Videos also were taken of the deposition testimony, and Blumenthal’s office is copying them for release to news organizations Wednesday. 

Bysiewicz’s lawyer, Wesley Horton, had filed a motion Monday for a “protective order” in Hartford Superior Court to block disclosure of the transcript and video. But Horton withdrew the motion Tuesday, after conceding that lawyers for the Courant were right in their arguments against sealing the testimony from public view.

Bysiewicz has been registered as a lawyer for 24 years, but, before winning her current office 11 years ago, she only has two jobs as a lawyer in Connecticut totaling six years. One was at a law firm, the other in a corporate law department.

And so, to qualify under the state’s eligibility statute, she has filed the lawsuit in hopes that the judge will say her 11 years as secretary of the state count as the practice of law, even though you don’t need to be a lawyer to hold the office. She also wants the 10-year requirement declared unconstitutional.

Bysiewicz showed in testimony that her definition of “active” law practice is looser than Gersten’s.

“Now, let’s assume … you have an individual who graduated Duke law [school]” – as Bysiewicz did – and then [spent] four or five years in private practice, and then went to go to work as a rock and roll singer,” Gersten said. “Is that person engaged in the active practice of law?”

“Sure,” Bysiewicz said.

Gersten followed up. “I have an individual who went to Duke law school, worked for four or five years, joined the Connecticut bar, paid his dues every year as a member of the Connecticut bar and then decided to go teach kindergarten children at the local school around the corner; is that individual engaged in the practice of law once he started the teaching of kindergarten children?”

Bysiewicz asked if the person was “admitted to the Connecticut Bar,” and Gersten said “yes, ma’am.”

“Yes,” Bysiewicz said.

Gersten peppered her with questions about whether she has issued legal opinions, and she said she continually advises constituents and municipal officials about election laws and business registrations–which her office supervises. But she acknowledged that she does not identify herself as a lawyer in the letters, legislative testimony or other documents. She also said that office subordinates have mostly done her legal research and written things she puts her name to.

Bysiewicz testified that David Killian, an aide in her office who serves as her driver, did some of the legal research for Bysiewicz’s written response to Ryan McKeen, the author of an Internet blog who first raised questions about her qualifications for attorney general.

Two lawyers from the politically connected Hartford law firm of Updike, Kelly and Spellacy – Robert Martino and David Makarewicz – have supplied significant legal aid and advice as campaign volunteers, she said. Martino said Tuesday he’d gotten the “green light” from state election and ethics officials for that.

Bysiewicz’s court maneuvers drew a jab from a Democratic opponent for the attorney general’s nomination, George Jepsen. “Today, Susan figured out that she can’t hide public court documents, which most practicing lawyers would know,” he said. “If she is qualified, she should want the public to hear her testimony.”

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz abruptly withdrew her request Tuesday afternoon for a judge to block disclosure of her deposition testimony in her lawsuit seeking a ruling that she is qualified to run for state attorney general.

Her attorney, Wesley W. Horton, confronted with an opposition motion by a lawyer for The Courant, William S. Fish, Jr., told Judge Michael Sheldon in Hartford Superior Court: “After reviewing the law in this area about five minutes ago, I reached the conclusion that The Courant is correct.”

Horton’s quick withdrawal of the request to seal the testimony — which he had filed Monday in the form of a motion seeking a “protective order” — clears the way for the release to news organizations of a video of more than five hours of unusual testimony by a high state official, Bysiewicz. She was questioned in the deposition by the state Republican Party’s lawyer, Eliot Gersten, who is challenging her claim that she has the statutorily required 10 years’ “active practice” of the law in Connecticut.

 The office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, which was given a copy of the video from the March 31 all-day deposition, said the video needs to be copied and will not be available until Wednesday. The Courant filed a Freedom of Information Act request with Blumenthal’s office last week, and since then the list of requesting news organizations has grown to at least 10.  The March 31 testimony takes up eight DVD discs, all of which need to be copied, a Blumenthal spokeswoman said. 

Bysiewicz’s deposition continued Monday and Tuesday. The Courant, and presumably other news organizations, also have requested transcripts and videos of those deposition sessions, and it is unclear when those will be released.

Bysiewicz, a Democrat, is suing in hopes that Sheldon will declare her qualified under a state statute that requires Connecticut’s attorney general to have accumulated 10 years in the “active practice” of law in the state.

She wants the judge to say that her 11 years as secretary of the state, an office for which you don’t need to be a lawyer, count as the “active practice” of law — unless Sheldon declares the 10-year requirement unconstitutional, which she also wants him to do.

She practiced private and corporate law here for six years before winning her current office.

A deposition is a pretrial proceeding at which a witness — in this case Bysiewicz, who is also the plaintiff — is questioned under oath by a lawyer who is gathering information in preparation for an eventual trial. The deposition video or transcript does not become part of the court file unless it is entered into the record at trial.

The trial had been scheduled to begin April 14, next week, but Gersten said in court Tuesday that he needs to take additional depositions and might want to put it off for a week.  Horton said he would oppose that, and Sheldon brought the lawyers behind closed doors to discuss it.  No decision on trial scheduling was announced by mid-afternoon.

Bysiewicz is seeking the Democratic nomination to the office that Blumenthal is vacating to run for the U.S. Senate, the seat held by Sen. Christopher Dodd.  She has asked for, and been granted, expedited handling of her lawsuit because she wants a decision before the state Democratic nominating convention on May 21 and 22.  Other Democrats seeking the nomination are former state Senate majority leader George Jepsen and current state Rep. Cameron Staples of New Haven.

The motion that Horton had filed Monday for the “protective order” contained only one paragraph. It asked Sheldon to direct all parties in the case “not to disclose publicly the transcript or videotape of any depositions in this case, except to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend any potential motion, unless and until they are unsealed” by order of the judge.

But the Courant’s lawyers — Fish and Michael T. McCormack of the law firm Hinckley, Allen & Snyder in Hartford — filed a motion to intervene in the case Tuesday, saying Byseiwicz’s private interests did not override the state Freedom of Information Act’s requirement that the Courant’s FOI request be granted.

“The necessity and value of the Courant’s intervention in this case is clear with respect to the Courant’s exercising its constiutional and statutory rights in publishing news of interest to the public,” the lawyers said in the motion.

The Courant motion said that Bysiewicz could not establish “good cause” for an order to seal the testimony, “given the underlying issues in this case, all of which implicate the public interest.”

“Simply stated, there is and can be no issue in this case that implicates the type of privacy concerns that might justify a protective order,” the Courant’s lawyers said in the motion. They added that Bysiewicz “has made no attempt to articulate what might constitute ‘good cause’ in this case to justify a protective order that would override the Courant’s and the Public’s rights” under the Freedom of Information Act.

None of those arguments had to be made in open court, because by the time Sheldon came into the courtoom, Horton had read the Courant’s motion. As soon as the hearing opened, Horton withdrew his motion.

“Well, that gives me nothing to rule on,” Sheldon replied, and then the lawyers went on to wrangle about scheduling the trial in the case. 

Horton filed Monday’s motion during the second day of deposition testimony by Bysiewicz under questioning from Eliot Gersten, the lawyer representing the state Republican Party, which questions her claim that she meets the state’s eligibility requirement to serve as attorney general.

The first deposition session, last Wednesday, resulted in five hours of unusual, videotaped testimony by a top state official.

Bysiewicz, a Democrat, has brought the lawsuit in hopes that Sheldon will declare her eligible to run for attorney general under a state statute that requires the holder of that office to have logged 10 years in the “active practice” of law in Connecticut.