davidmcbeth
Banned
“We begin our analysis by noting that "[administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their 291*291 jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity of the statutes vesting them with power and they cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves.... [A]n administrative body must act strictly within its statutory authority, within constitutional limitations and in a lawful manner.... It cannot modify, abridge or otherwise change the statutory provisions, under which it acquires authority unless the statutes expressly grant it that power." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 428, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988). "It is a familiar principle that [an administrative agency] which exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 427-28. 241 Conn. 282 (1997), GARLAND HALL v. GILBERT AND BENNETT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,(SC 15608), Supreme Court of Connecticut, Argued March 27, 1997,Officially released June 3, 1997.
Currently, the Board is saying that the issuing authority is a party to my pending case; however, there is no statue or board regulation that gives this agency the authority to designate parties.
Compare the 29-etc. statues to the FOIA Act (Chapter 14, 1-210(d)) that states: In any appeal brought under the provisions of section 1-206 of the Freedom of Information Act for denial of access to records for any of the reasons described in subdivision (19) of subsection (b) of this section, such appeal shall be against the chief executive officer of the executive branch state agency or the municipal, district or regional agency that issued the directive to withhold such record pursuant to subdivision (19) of subsection (b) of this section, exclusively, or, in the case of records concerning Judicial Department facilities, the Chief Court Administrator or, in the case of records concerning the Legislative Department, the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management.
I can find no similar statue in the permit laws or regulations of the board. And it cannot be an implied authority as it only has the authority that the legislature gives them. Even superior court judges cannot name parties to a case; the parties themselves name themselves and defendants not named by the plaintiff must petition the court for entry onto the case as a party. So who is a "party"? Its a person with a vested interest in the case. And in these BFPE hearings, its only the gun owner.
I think its an omission by our legislature .. just noticing
Currently, the Board is saying that the issuing authority is a party to my pending case; however, there is no statue or board regulation that gives this agency the authority to designate parties.
Compare the 29-etc. statues to the FOIA Act (Chapter 14, 1-210(d)) that states: In any appeal brought under the provisions of section 1-206 of the Freedom of Information Act for denial of access to records for any of the reasons described in subdivision (19) of subsection (b) of this section, such appeal shall be against the chief executive officer of the executive branch state agency or the municipal, district or regional agency that issued the directive to withhold such record pursuant to subdivision (19) of subsection (b) of this section, exclusively, or, in the case of records concerning Judicial Department facilities, the Chief Court Administrator or, in the case of records concerning the Legislative Department, the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management.
I can find no similar statue in the permit laws or regulations of the board. And it cannot be an implied authority as it only has the authority that the legislature gives them. Even superior court judges cannot name parties to a case; the parties themselves name themselves and defendants not named by the plaintiff must petition the court for entry onto the case as a party. So who is a "party"? Its a person with a vested interest in the case. And in these BFPE hearings, its only the gun owner.
I think its an omission by our legislature .. just noticing