Monday, January 25, 2010
Susan Bysiewicz - Is She Or Isn't She?
Oh Susie B ... see what happens when you try to save $55 bucks? It comes back to bite you in the derriere when you want to run for Attorney General. And now, the current Attorney General, who is busy running for Senate, won't give you the right time of day, when you need to clear up a little matter such as whether you are actually qualified according to statute to run for that office! Call his office for an opinion and all you get are the sound of crickets.
Yes that's right , Susie B. obtained a 50% exemption from a state lawyers fee in 2006 on the basis that she didn't "engage in the practice of law as an occupation" and of course in order to qualify to be the State AG, one must have "at least 10 years' active practice at the bar of this state".
So when she checked that box stating "I do not engage in the practice of law as an occupation" and "I hereby certify that the information provided herein is true and correct" - I hope the CT voters won't accept the BS line about how she "made a mistake" ... or believe some other fairy tales about the rules of her eligibility here. Bysiewicz is NOT above the law, and it's not likely that her friend Blumy is going to come to her aid. He's got his own campaign to run. In times like these when Republicans are winning previously tightly held Democrat seats, it's every (wo)man for her/himself.
At best she lied (that's perjury, you know) ... otherwise she isn't eligible to run for the CT State Attorney General's office.
Perhaps she should have stuck with running for Governor, or maybe she can get a job at LHS Associates or Diebold (you know .... the makers of voting machine scanners).
UPDATE: Susie B sends in her check for $55 - the other half of the full payment for the Client Security Fund fees - saying she made a mistake... OOPS!.... Give us all a break.... like you really made a mistake? C'mon, do ya think we will really fall for that? Bysiewicz does not have enough active law experience to be AG. Period.