Stephen Fournier

Attorney at Law

74 Tremont Street

Hartford, Connecticut 06105

Tel: 860 794 6718 Fax: 860 233 3044

stepfour@stepfour.com

Pat Donovan

Voter Service

Connecticut League of Women Voters

September 21, 2010

Dear Ms. Donovan:

I have attached my candidate profile. In view of my inability to satisfy several of the candidate vetting criteria, I suggest that the League waive them and include me in the attorney general debate notwithstanding.

My candidacy raises issues of public corruption that are important to voters but that that won't be aired by major party candidates. I am disposed to hold a considerable number of our leaders liable for malfeasance. Public officials have not been held to account for the destruction of New Orleans, Iraq, the World Trade Center, Afghanistan. They wage war in violation of the Constitution. They sanction torture and hold people without legal process. They militarize law enforcement, so that a uniform becomes a license to kill. They spy on us. They command our state militia illegally. Millions of our dollars are looted, and nobody is held liable. There is legal redress for all this, but Democrats and Republicans permitted it and can't say anything.

My candidacy is an alternative to party politics. I am endorsed by two emerging parties, each with its own distinct politics. Independents and Greens endorsed me with full knowledge that I'm doing this as a people's lawyer and not to advance a particular political agenda. I am none of the above. Excluding me would be seen as censorship. Recall that both the Democrat and the Republican in the congressional election of two years ago expressed open disapproval of my exclusion from that debate. More than 7,000 First District voters cast a ballot for me in that election.

My candidacy is subversive. On principle, and most particularly as a candidate for this office, I object to the elections industry. I consider the practitioners unethical. I hate the idea of giving them money, and I hate the idea of asking for money to enrich them. Modern technology empowers Connecticut voters to elect me without having to see my face on TV or cluttering their mailbox. I wouldn't serve under any other circumstances. The people of this state are literate, and it's easy to find out about me and easy to get me to speak. My opponents will spend thousands of tax dollars battering each other. Should a candidate be disqualified to debate because he refuses to take part in this gross underestimation of the electorate?

My candidacy depends on the secret ballot. I have expressed opinions on every issue, and my opinions are controversial. My Internet newsletter Current Invective receives hundreds of visits every month, and I have over 100 regular online subscribers. I have been part of organizing teams advocating impeachment and war crimes prosecutions (as well as nonviolence and Hartford Public High School spirit), and I have been passionate as an advocate. I was a catalyst for the dismantling of a corrupt Hartford Board of Education a dozen or so years ago. It's risky to associate politically with me. Should I be excluded from a debate among attorneys because of aggressive advocacy and lack of political correctness?

I trust the League of Women Voters to put the public interest in debate above arbitrary "vetting criteria" that effectively censor a broad swath of opinion.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Fournier