Despite having withdrawn a request to start litigation against the state on behalf of a Sandy Hook survivor, attorney Irving Pinsky has continued to seek information upon which to base a future lawsuit. But according to the Attorney General’s Office, he’s been looking in the wrong place.

Pinsky began efforts to sue the state on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor of the Newtown shooting, only to withdraw his legal filings in January. But the lawyer has continued to ask the state for information regarding its ongoing investigation into the shooting.

In a FOX CT report broadcast last Thursday, Pinsky says he needs details of the investigation before a six month legal deadline. He said Jepsen has the facts he’s looking for.

“I was hoping that the attorney general, who has lots of facts, he’s had state police and other investigators on this case for two and a half months and he’s doing it as he feels fit. But on the other hand, we lawyers have six months to file certain paperwork based on certain facts that he may or may not give us,” he said.

In a statement, Jepsen said Pinsky clearly misunderstood the law:

“The Office of the Attorney General has no jurisdiction in this type of criminal matter. My office is in no way involved with the ongoing Sandy Hook investigation being conducted by the State’s Attorney. My office and I have no authority under the law to unseal any documents that have been sealed pursuant to a criminal investigation.

“Attorney Pinsky would be well-advised to become better familiarized with Connecticut law prior to issuing any additional demands upon my office.”

Pinsky, who was reached Friday by phone, disagreed. He responded by pointing to a Decemberarticle published in the New Haven Register, which quotes Jepsen as saying he was “aware of no facts or legal theory under which the State of Connecticut should be liable for causing the harms inflicted at Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

“He’s already coming out with an opinion,” Pinsky said. “He’s caveating it with he’s unaware of a legal theory making the state liable.”

Pinsky said he admired and respected Jepsen “but here I’m representing wonderful people in Newtown, Connecticut and we need his help with facts for the six-month notice rule.”

In January, Pinsky withdrew a legal filing on behalf of an unnamed 6-year-old client. The paperwork would have started the process for a $100 million claim by the girl who he said heard “cursing, screaming and shooting” during the deadly Newtown shooting on Dec. 14.

Pinsky, who received death threats following news stories regarding his plans to sue the state, told the New Haven Independent he withdrew the filing to “calm the divisiveness and tremors.” He reserved the right to pursue legal action in the future.