It is possible that when Elizabeth Richter chose Attorney Daniel Klau to represent her, an attorney who has spent a considerable amount of time as a member of a Committee that acts to enforce Connecticut Media compliance with the agenda of the corrupt CT Judicial Branch, this could have been a conflict of interest for Attorney Klau. Conceivably, it could explain his somewhat lackadaisical attitude.
Before I finish here, I did also want to mention that in his June 30, 2015 letter, Mr. Jeremy Schafer suggested that Ms. Richter approach the state legislature to have the law adjusted to support independent bloggers. Of course, I would have assumed she had the law on her side based upon the American Constitution. However, should I be wrong about that, it is the mission of the ACLU of Connecticut to work with the legislature on that exact issue. Specifically, it states on its own website:
"The ACLU of CT defends, promotes, and preserves individual rights and liberties under the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions in state and federal court, the General Assembly and the state's 169 towns and cities."
In regard to freedom of speech the ACLU of Connecticut website states, "We regularly stand up for students and other individuals whose right to free speech under the First Amendment is threatened, whether we agree with their views or not."
So instead of using its organizational might to support Ms. Richter's work as an independent journalist and blogger, the ACLU-CT simply copped out, reneged on its mission, and told her to go do it herself. How much more ethically and morally bankrupt can you get than that?