-- But No Documents --
From Lying Lawyer
In The Famous Douche Bag Case
Editor's Note: Following is a letter from Atty. Christine Chinni to the state Freedom of Information Commission dated Dec. 7, 2007.
Also on Dec. 7, the commission denied a request to subpoena Chinni. The FOI hearing on three complaints against the Regional District 10 school superintendent, Paula Schwartz, remains scheduled for Thurs., Dec. 13 at 9:30 a.m.
Chinni's Dec. 7 letter posits a number of claims. Among Chinni's most specious: that her misuse and perversion of the ombudsman process [see FOI Subpoena Request For Hearing 12-13-07 / Ballad Of The Lying Lawyer, link below] should allow her to cover up even more lies. Obviously, Chinni's false statement in that venue was not a good faith effort to resolve a case. Having violated the integrity of the ombudsman process, she forfeits any such claim.
"My partner, Craig Meuser,
will present my sworn testimony on these matters."
-- Atty. Christine Chinni in Dec. 7 letter to FOI Commission
Atty. Christine Chinni
Chinni & Meuser LLC
30 Avon Meadow Lane
Avon, CT 06001
December 7, 2007
Tracie Brown, Esq.
Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission
18-20 Trinity St.
Hartford, CT 06106
RE: Case Nos. FIC 2007-418, 2007-421, and 2007-458
Dear Attorney Brown:
I am in receipt of complainant's eight-page letter submitted to you in connection with the above-entitled matters. While I do not intend to respond to the ad-hominem attacks or references to issues not within the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Commission, I am compelled to respond to those elements of the complainant's letter that amount to unsworn testimony concerning the facts in dispute in the above-numbered cases. I also seek your guidance regarding the length and order of the proceeding on these matters.
First, it is completely improper for the complainant to write to you in response to actions of the ombudsman in this case. As you know, the purpose of the ombudsman position is to keep separate efforts to resolve matters before the Commission from hearings on those matters which cannot be resolved. As you also know, evidence of the parties' contacts with the ombudsman is inadmissible in any subsequent hearing. Accordingly, I ask that you not consider any statements contained in the complainant's letter regarding any contacts that he or the respondents may have had with the ombudsman.
Second, it is completely improper for the complainant to attempt to provide unsworn testimony in writing, not subject to cross-examination, regarding the issues before you [sic] the hearings on these complaints. I ask that you disregard any and all factual allegations in the complainant's letter. If the complainant wishes to offer evidence in these proceedings, he should do so under oath at the hearing, and be subject to cross-examination.
Third, while I will be representing the respondent, Paula Schwartz, Superintendent of Regional School District No. 10, in these proceedings, my partner, Craig Meuser, will present my sworn testimony on these matters.
Fourth, I note that the commission has consolidated the three complaints, with the hearing to commence at 9:30 a.m. each of the three notices contains the information regarding the 90 minute limit for hearings. If the hearing on all three complaints will last a total of 90 minutes, Attorney Meuser will present my testimony during the course of the hearing, as the need arises. If, however, the hearing on these matters will last longer than 90 minutes, it may be necessary for me to testify out of order in the hearing, as Attorney Meuser has another professional obligation on the afternoon of December 13, 2007 and cannot remain in attendance at the hearing in these matters past 11:00 am on that date.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Christine L. Chinni
FOI COMPLAINTS PENDING SINCE AUGUST
Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission's
30th anniversary commemorative edition
published as a supplement in 2005
to Law Tribune Newspapers]
Doninger Final Reply Brief