Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the Hoffmans have reached a settlement on the three-year-old case. Blumenthal’s press release following the settlement is written in his usual triumphant mode. The case was a losing proposition for Hoffmans going in, and it is instructive to ask why. The final settlement, reached after years of litigation, demonstrates that the forces arrayed against the Hoffmans – which include, by the way, a compliant media – could not be overcome. Never-the-less, some battles are worth fighting, if only to make a record that would not exist when one chooses simply to lie down in the path of an irresistible force. In the Hoffman case – and more strikingly in the New England Pellet (NEP) case – some of Blumenthal’s questionable methods were closely scrutinized by this blog. The attorney general’s methods are as simple and effective as those employed in 15th century by the Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada, who was inclined to settle matters of religious...

Three press accounts appeared over the weekend that had Attorney General Richard Blumenthal as their subject, two in the Journal Inquirer by reporter Alex Wood, and one in the Hartford Courant by Kevin Rennie , a political columnist. One of the Journal Inquirer’s stories by Wood (available through subscription) is likely to generate some interest because it includes what may be called, loosely speaking, a rebuttal to a press release issued by Mr. Blumenthal following the “settlement” of a case against New England Pellet. The rebutter is Jim Oliver, the lawyer for New England Pellet. The story involves an objection by Mr. Blumenthal to an assertion by Mr. Oliver that Mr. Blumenthal’s inspector, Patrick Ahlquist, used a defective affidavit in the case and later offered perjured testimony in a deposition. The charge by Mr. Oliver that Mr. Ahlquist perjured himself in a sworn deposition has yet to be put before a judge. Such being the case, it is partly true, as Mr. Blumenthal asse...

Blumenthal And The Abuse Of Ex Parte Attachments There is no rule on earth, Cardinal Henry Newman once said, to which there is not at least one exception. Ex parte attachments of assets may best be viewed as an exception to the 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution. That amendment, in its procedural due process clause, secures the citizens of the United States in their property, which ordinarily cannot be seized by agents of the state without a hearing before a judge. The 14th amendment requires the state to ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result. The exception is necessary because those accused of crimes – when found guilty – are called upon to surrender their assets as a part of their punishment, and an ex parte attachment prevents accused persons from disposing of their assets through fraudulent transfers or, in the case of drug kingpins, mobsters and career criminals, by using ...