Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, cited by the American Enterprise Institute as the worst attorney general in the United States, has more sleeves on his tentacles and cards up them than Harry Houdini.
In his attempt to impoverish the Hoffmans, Blumenthal may have violated a contract his office signed with his victims and a company that is holding their money in escrow.
Contracts can no more restrain Connecticut’s attorney general than chains could restrain Houdini, and both are artists in the craft of misdirection.
Here is the operative paragraph in the contract signed by Blumenthal’s office:
Now, it so happenes that Blumenthal is faced with a set of facts and contractual obligations that he finds unpalatable: The trial court judge dismissed the attachment and refused to grant a stay of his decision pending appeal; and the state has failed to post a bond.
This money should be released from escrow.
Why wasn't the money released?
Because Blumenthal no longer likes the terms of the contract he has entered into and has decided not to honor them.
Let's be very clear about what happened: Blumethal's office used a defective affidavit to improperly seize the Hoffman's assets; the trial court dissolved the attachments due to this defect, and now Blumenthal is desperately trying to hold on to the money without posting bond by ignoring the plain language of the escrow contract to which his office is a party.
The contract above specifies that if Blumenthal appeals Judge Bentivegna’s decision – which he recently has done – his office is to post bond so that the Hoffmans might draw from the bond to pay their legal expenses with money that a previous judge has determined was improperly seized through a deceptive affidavit, the Hoffman's expenses having been incurred through Blumenthal’s faulty prosecution.
Blumenthal has not posted the bond, and he has lost his right to maintain his attachment. He is now seeking to use the appellate process to continue to deprive the Hoffmans of their property. It is plain to see that his strategy is to retain improperly seized assets through fruitless appeals in hopes that the Hoffmans will simply give up and go away. Blumenthal knows very well that a lengthy appeal will continue to impair the Hoffmans financially.
Most of us would not wish to live in a system of justice in which attorneys general may seize property with defective affidavits and then run out the court clock until their tortured victims collapse under the weight of such disgusting violations of justice as are evident in Blumenthal’s vengeful prosecution of the Hoffmans.
As concerns injustices committed by his office but no others, Blumenthal has liberal tolerance levels.
One wants to shake the attorney general and ask: Dick, does your mommy know you’re doing this?
Does George Gombossy, consumer watchdog at the Hartford Courant know you're stretching a butterfly on the wheel?
In his attempt to impoverish the Hoffmans, Blumenthal may have violated a contract his office signed with his victims and a company that is holding their money in escrow.
Contracts can no more restrain Connecticut’s attorney general than chains could restrain Houdini, and both are artists in the craft of misdirection.
Here is the operative paragraph in the contract signed by Blumenthal’s office:
"The Escrow amount shall be released by escrow agent only after a receipt of an order by a judge of a Superior Court of the State of Connecticut directing: 1) to whom payment is to be made from the escrow account; and (ii) the amount of each payment. In the event that one of the parties shall appeal the order of the Superior Court of the state of Connecticut pursuant to Conn. General. Stat. Section 52-2781 (a)-(c), and said party post a bond sufficient to indemnify the adverse party and the Superior Court issues a stay order pending appeal then the escrow amount shall continue to be held by said Escrow Agent until an entry of a final non-appealable order nor the stay is lifted. In the event no bond is posted or no stay is issued by the superior court then the Escrow Agent shall release the escrowed amount in accordance with the order of the Superior Court.”
Now, it so happenes that Blumenthal is faced with a set of facts and contractual obligations that he finds unpalatable: The trial court judge dismissed the attachment and refused to grant a stay of his decision pending appeal; and the state has failed to post a bond.
This money should be released from escrow.
Why wasn't the money released?
Because Blumenthal no longer likes the terms of the contract he has entered into and has decided not to honor them.
Let's be very clear about what happened: Blumethal's office used a defective affidavit to improperly seize the Hoffman's assets; the trial court dissolved the attachments due to this defect, and now Blumenthal is desperately trying to hold on to the money without posting bond by ignoring the plain language of the escrow contract to which his office is a party.
The contract above specifies that if Blumenthal appeals Judge Bentivegna’s decision – which he recently has done – his office is to post bond so that the Hoffmans might draw from the bond to pay their legal expenses with money that a previous judge has determined was improperly seized through a deceptive affidavit, the Hoffman's expenses having been incurred through Blumenthal’s faulty prosecution.
Blumenthal has not posted the bond, and he has lost his right to maintain his attachment. He is now seeking to use the appellate process to continue to deprive the Hoffmans of their property. It is plain to see that his strategy is to retain improperly seized assets through fruitless appeals in hopes that the Hoffmans will simply give up and go away. Blumenthal knows very well that a lengthy appeal will continue to impair the Hoffmans financially.
Most of us would not wish to live in a system of justice in which attorneys general may seize property with defective affidavits and then run out the court clock until their tortured victims collapse under the weight of such disgusting violations of justice as are evident in Blumenthal’s vengeful prosecution of the Hoffmans.
As concerns injustices committed by his office but no others, Blumenthal has liberal tolerance levels.
One wants to shake the attorney general and ask: Dick, does your mommy know you’re doing this?
Does George Gombossy, consumer watchdog at the Hartford Courant know you're stretching a butterfly on the wheel?
Comments