.

Marcus Law Firm Seeks Retraction from UnkDaros/Andy Campbell Campaign

The Democratic campaign, however, stands by its facts.

The Unk DaRos/Andy Campbell campaign stood by the information on its website Friday, following public disclosure of part of a letter sent individually to , l and also campaign treasurer Yvette Larrieu as a representative of the campaign by a lawyer representing the Marcus Law Firm. 

The letter, which Patch has learned the officials received on Monday, Oct. 24 from attorney Frederick Murolo, alleges that statements concerning the Marcus Law Firm on the DaRos/Campbell campaign platform in content entitled "The Tabor Drive Property" and "What The Supreme Court Did and Didn't Say” are false, misleading and defamatory.  The letter also demands that the campaign retract the statements, and it further says that its clients intend to seek legal redress “as and when appropriate.”

"The town attorneys at the time simply didn't do their job . . . " one portion of the content to which the law firm has raised detailed objections concludes.  

“We stand by the facts.  The truth is on the Website,” said campaign manager John Murphy late Friday afternoon of information that has been on the site since mid-September.

The letter sent on behalf of the Marcus Law Firm does not seek redress against the town.

“There’s an ongoing suit, and I guess the Marcus Law Firm may not be happy about it,” said Victor Cassella, who chairs the Democratic Town Committee but said he was not well-versed on the contents of the letter the campaign received.  “This is a subject of ongoing litigation.  It’s really not a political issue.  It appears that they might like to make it into one, but it’s not. “

The town has sued the Marcus Law Firm, alleging malpractice and negligence in its conduct of an early phase ofthe long-running Tabor eminent domain case, when it served as the town counselor. The town’s seizure by eminent domain of 77 acres of property by Tabor Drive in 2003 resulted in a suit by the developers New England Estates, which alleged loss of profits from the seizure. 

Reversing a trial jury decision, the state Supreme Court found for the town in early 2010 because, it said, the developer only had an option to build on the land rather than ownership of it.

The town now owns the land, having paid the actual property owners for the tract.  The litigation between the town and its former counselor continues.

Wayne Cooke October 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM
COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM.... RE: Reversing a trial jury decision, the state Supreme Court found for the town in early 2010 because, it said, the developer only had an option to build on the land rather than ownership of it. RESPONSE: Nicole and Nancy...This is COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM. Either do your homework and get the facts right, or don't write anything. You are doing a disservice to your readers and the community.
Dr. Alfred C. Whitehead October 31, 2011 at 11:39 AM
I am new to the Town of Branford.....what are the facts?
Wayne Cooke October 31, 2011 at 11:51 AM
For the facts, Mr. Russo, I suggest you refer to branfordseven.com.
Nicole Ball October 31, 2011 at 12:21 PM
Hi Frederick, Welcome to Branford! This case has been ongoing in Branford for a while so there are lots of details. I'd suggest you take a look at the New Haven Register articles, as they tend to be the most fair and have been covering the story longer then we have as Patch just launched 11 months ago. http://nhregister.com/articles/2010/12/17/bb1brtabor121710.txt If there's anything you need to know about town or want to chat, please call me at 203-812-0866 or e-mail nicole.ball@patch.com Again, welcome and thanks for reading!
Nicole Ball October 31, 2011 at 04:07 PM
Branford Patch stands by the reporting of its journalists.
susan Barnes October 31, 2011 at 04:19 PM
Nicole - You must not have read the endorsement of the current administration in the OPINION column a few days ago, because if you did you could NEVER refer Fred to them for a reasonable opinion! If he wants the facts he will have to go to the Branford Seven who has the most extensive coverage including actual transcripts of the case. Also, read Mr. Poliner's letter to the Editor in today's Register. Says it all.
Nicole Ball October 31, 2011 at 04:33 PM
Thanks for your opinions Susan. I hope that Fred will consider reading all news outlets for their news as well as their opinion sections.
susan Barnes October 31, 2011 at 04:49 PM
THANK YOU, NICOLE.
Wayne Cooke October 31, 2011 at 04:53 PM
You can stand by your reporting all day long, Nicole, but you don't know what you're talking about. After studying the Tabor case for three years, reading 4000 pages of court transcripts, and taking on every argument thrown my way at public meetings, I know when someone doesn't even understand the basics. I'm sorry, but you don't. Unless you put the time in and do the research, you really need to stay away from hard news.
Nicole Ball October 31, 2011 at 05:30 PM
Thank you for your opinions Wayne. We are confident in the reporting that we do and look forward to continuing to serve the community.
susan Barnes October 31, 2011 at 05:36 PM
WOW! I thought your comment to me was sincere, Nicole. In light of this last it makes me wonder!
Wayne Cooke October 31, 2011 at 05:37 PM
If you don't do your research, Nicole, you're doing more harm than good. This is irresponsible behavior. It's not even fit to be called journalism.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something