Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Out of patience with malicious prosecution and playing the mouse

  1. #1
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Out of patience with malicious prosecution and playing the mouse

    I've gone on the attack. http://www.liarcop.com.

    Hope you all enjoy the read!

    Best,
    DDoutel
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  2. #2
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Wow. They are really out to get you aren't they?
    I hope justice can be brought to Connecticut.

    It really can happen to anyone.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, I don't like that the clerk sets motion hearing dates .. with other states its the moving party that does this ... but that's how its done here .. so a motion to be placed on the calender can take a month (and in this case several months ).
    And even when calendered, the opposing party can delay it again and again. But that's the way it has been for a long time.

    And then once you get an actual hearing, it can take 3 months to get a decision .. but that's not unusual if an opinion is written.

    Right now it looks like discovery was requested and the judge said he would hear it in September ... why he could not hear it when you were before him is a mystery ... and is the motion to allow the defendant himself to see evidence (that his consul has seen?)....
    sounds like a protective order is what is being asked to be terminated, just from the transcript I read. Not an unreasonable request.

    I have been a pro se litigant on about 5 cases in civil courts ((outside of admin cases) includes state and federal levels in lower and appellate courts) - and I think the system stinks - even with me having more favorable outcomes than non-favorable.

    Lies and surprise seem to be part of the system ... nothing you really can do about it except to acknowledge this aspect and be prepared; perjury is rarely enforced.

    Now this is a criminal trial ~ I never talked about my serious civil cases where I stood to lose or could lose something ~ so I would not recommend posting things on the internet or even talking to others about a pending case. But that is up to each person to decide.

    I would suggest preparing for your impending criminal trial and upon completion think about civil suits (42 USC 1983 claims; claims commission, etc.~not everything an official does qualifies for immunity) after the criminal case is won.

    The lack of speed actually helps a criminal defendant in most cases (unless they cannot make bail). Witnesses forget, die, move away, etc.

    The voice mail left is hardly evidence of threatening at all. I doubt it will be heard by the trial judge or jury and even if it does, it would not help proving the charge. "not be pretty?" that's a laugh .. your VM was much better/laid back than many of my messages to public officials and I have never been charged with threatening..and I have used similar and stronger language than your voice mail.

    Your online postings will not aid in your defense in my opinion but can only come back to haunt you...your postings may be used at your trial and in other venues.

    And just because a person is a felon does not mean that his testimony will be completely dismissed .... especially if others testify to the same facts.

    I wish you good luck ! Right now you have a criminal trial - don't be posting stuff that will have you in civil court too. You can say all you want in a civil complaint, that's where to address your complaints. Just my advice. You can post court filings, decisions etc..everything on public record to apprise people of the progress...just keep the commentary low key to avoid further issues...

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Wow. They are really out to get you aren't they?
    I hope justice can be brought to Connecticut.

    It really can happen to anyone.
    And oddly enough, I am in the process of a FOIA request with a city in which they are prosecuting 2 cases that I asked for police records. Of course they claim an exemption & case law supports avoiding using FOIA that may interfere with discovery. Case law is silent on a FOIA request asking for information that has already been disclosed via discovery on cases not fully adjudicated though and my 2 cases I am interested in likely have had their criminal discovery completed .. so I will base my FIC appeal on this angle of our FOIA act (do police records that have been disclosed via discovery now become open to a FOIA request even when the case is still pending? ~ I would think yes).

    So, someone may be able to file a FOIA request for the current case of this thread, and see where that gets them. It would take about 5 months for the FIC to rule though.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I wish you good luck ! Right now you have a criminal trial - don't be posting stuff that will have you in civil court too. You can say all you want in a civil complaint, that's where to address your complaints. Just my advice. You can post court filings, decisions etc..everything on public record to apprise people of the progress...just keep the commentary low key to avoid further issues...
    Thanks! I've already sat for a deposition in my wife's Federal suit against Norwalk, et al based on my own case; I have nothing to hide, and I'll post up that transcript in the next day or so. I'll also be posting the transcript of the liar cop's deposition in the same case; you'll find his answers to Attorney Baird's questions illuminating, to say the least.

    -DDoutel
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Wow. They are really out to get you aren't they?
    I hope justice can be brought to Connecticut.

    It really can happen to anyone.
    Yeah, go figure! Excellent use of tax dollars, when I'm sure there are actual criminals to be tried...

    Bottom line, here, though; they won't admit how bad they screwed up unless bludgeoned into it. It would undermine their authority on the streets, dontchaknow!
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Thanks! I've already sat for a deposition in my wife's Federal suit against Norwalk, et al based on my own case; I have nothing to hide, and I'll post up that transcript in the next day or so. I'll also be posting the transcript of the liar cop's deposition in the same case; you'll find his answers to Attorney Baird's questions illuminating, to say the least.

    -DDoutel
    I love slamming down deposition transcripts during trial and say "you sure about your last answer?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Two new posts at LiarCop.com

    Couple of new posts and some new documents (deposition transcripts), and a few revisions to the original post. Let me know what you guys think! http://www.liarcop.com.
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Couple of new posts and some new documents (deposition transcripts), and a few revisions to the original post. Let me know what you guys think! http://www.liarcop.com.
    Other than your lawyer not objecting to questions regarding people's state of mind (like are people nervous/concerned when they see you carrying) - but your answer was good - it seems like there is little disparity between the deposition testimonies ... its clear that no threatening actually occurred.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    New Post At LiarCop.com

    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Sgt. Art Weisgerber is clearly a liar ... he knows his first email was a lie. But in respect to your loss of the permit its an interesting one.

    I thought that as a condition of your bail that your gun rights were suspended .. is that correct? Or was it suspended because of another order by the court?

    If your gun rights were not suspended then a permit should be issued ... with the gun right is a right to practice & you need a permit to practice with a handgun. But if I recall, this is not the situation in your specific case ... correct me if I am incorrect.

    You should read my CCW application process that I am in the process of getting a permit...I certainly don't take the path of least resistance lol ... but I want the process to be done correctly, not according to laws past in the 70's

  12. #12
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Sgt. Art Weisgerber is clearly a liar ... he knows his first email was a lie. But in respect to your loss of the permit its an interesting one.

    I thought that as a condition of your bail that your gun rights were suspended .. is that correct? Or was it suspended because of another order by the court?

    If your gun rights were not suspended then a permit should be issued ... with the gun right is a right to practice & you need a permit to practice with a handgun. But if I recall, this is not the situation in your specific case ... correct me if I am incorrect.

    You should read my CCW application process that I am in the process of getting a permit...I certainly don't take the path of least resistance lol ... but I want the process to be done correctly, not according to laws past in the 70's
    david, no; the liar cop Zwickler removed my permit from my wallet on February 16, 2011, refused to give it back when demanded on that day, and sent it to Det. Barbara Matson of DPS, who then revoked it. The rest is all in the post and transcript.
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    david, no; the liar cop Zwickler removed my permit from my wallet on February 16, 2011, refused to give it back when demanded on that day, and sent it to Det. Barbara Matson of DPS, who then revoked it. The rest is all in the post and transcript.
    "Mr. Doutel’s current arrest is a disqualifier for possession of a State Pistol Permit and that is why the State revoked his permit."...this is where the Sgt lied ... he only backtracked after your lawyer responded to this ... I personally, want these people to remain stupid...why educate them?

  14. #14
    McX
    Guest
    i read some of the posting report, i got tired after awhile from all the i don't know, and i don't recalls. if you got a nickel for every one of those you could fund your defense in full. best of luck and good wishes to you on this matter.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    NO justice in GA-20

    I will begin with a brief overview of the speedy trial statute and supporting Practice Book scheme, and the manner in which they have been applied previously.

    The speedy trial statute requires the Connecticut judges of the Superior Court to adopt rules that are necessary "to assure a speedy trial for any person charged with a criminal offense . . . . Such rules shall provide that (1) in any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of a criminal offense shall commence within twelve months from the filing date of the information . . . or from the date of the arrest, whichever is later . . . and (2) if a defendant is not brought to trial within the 12 month time limit set forth in subdivision (1) and a trial is not commenced within thirty days of a motion for a speedy trial made by the defendant at any time after such time limit has passed, the information . . . shall be dismissed. Such rules shall include provisions to identify periods of delay caused by the action of the defendant, or the defendant's inability to stand trial, to be excluded in computing the time limits set forth in subdivision (1)." General Statutes § 54-82m.
    FACTS NOT IN QUESTION

    Defendant Duane Doutel nor his attorney have caused the delay to his being brought to trial.

    The phrase “at any time after such time limit has passed” refers specifically to the 30 day time limit for the state to commence a trail after the filing of a motion to dismiss, and not the 12 month time limit to commence a trial after an arrest or filing of the information.

    The record in Mr. Doutel’s case documents the fact that the information charging Mr. Doutel with the substituted charge of Harassment in the Second Degree was filed with the court and accepted with Judge Maureen D. Dennis presiding on July 5th 2011.

    There currently exists in the court record, prima fascia evidence that the court, Judge Bruce Hudock presiding, cannot and will not schedule any court appearances for Defendant Duane Doutel prior to September 18, 2012.

    Given the fact that at a May 7, 2012 court appearance by the defendant, Judge Bruce Hudock presiding, defense counsel was explicitly and firmly admonished and told by the presiding judge that there would be no further activity in Defendant Doutel’s case until after the first week in September 2012.

    On May 7th, the court, (Judge Bruce Hudock presiding), went to great lengths to deny and justify all attempts by Mr. Doutel’s defense counsel to resolve pretrial issues promptly.

    It is obvious that the court, (Judge Bruce Hudock presiding), and State’s Attorney have failed to concern themselves with or properly identify the speedy trial deadline by which a trail of Mr. Doutel should commence on the charge of Harassment in the second degree.

    With numerous pending pre-trial motions that must be heard prior to any trial, and the deadline for providing Mr. Doutel the jury trial he has constantly demanded since May 20th 2011, it is without question that a trial cannot commence prior to July 5th, with is the last day of the 12 month speedy trial deadline period.

    I would like to commend both Mr. Doutel and his wife for the patience and dedication they have demonstrated while facing the arrogance and incompetence of the court on First, Second and Sixth Amendment issues here in the State of Connecticut.

    The court bsed on the facts in this case should be ashamed that Mr. Doutel has not been provided justice in a more timely manner.

    Semper Fi

    THE
    COURT: I am suggesting a date in September only because we have a shortage of Judges during the next actually, during most of July and August and part of June.

    ATTY. BAIRD: We are asking that the motion be heard
    as soon as possible

    THE COURT: Well, September it'll be.

    ATTY. BAIRD: -- and certainly not wait till September.

    THE COURT:
    September.

    Discussion took place on a motion filed by the City of Norwalk and then continued

    ATTY. BAIRD: And I will ask the Clerk's office to
    expeditethis so that it's scheduled as soon as
    possi
    ble because we do need to have it heard as soon as possible.

    THE COURT:
    I said September.

    ATTY. BAIRD: So should I inform the Clerk's office that the Court has ordered
    a September hearing
    date
    ?

    THE COURT:
    How many times do I have to say it? September.

    ATTY. BAIRD: Is there a particular date in September?

    THE COURT: Whatever date is available in September after the first full week in September. So
    from the second, third, fourth, weekends -- weeks of September.

    ATTY. BAIRD: So Mr. Doutel's case is being continued five months at this point? From April to
    September?

    THE COURT: I'm sorry. This isn't April.

    ATTY. BAIRD: May. May to September?

    THE COURT: That's what it's on the Firm Jury list, yeah.

    ATTY. BAIRD: Okay. We had made a motion at the beginning of this proceeding to have -- to have dates
    to not have the -- Mr. Doutel have to come back until his actual court trial and the Court had indicated at
    that time we would have to come back on a periodic basis. So that's why I was just confirming with the
    Court that we were now scheduled out four months.

    THE COURT: That's what I'm doing.
    September.

    A discussion took place regarding the next court date and then continued

    THE COURT: No. You know what, I'm going to change it to a Tuesday. We're going to put it on
    Short Calendar for a Tuesday because Tuesdays are better. Counsel, if you are available on June -- I'm
    sorry, September the 18th, we can schedule everything for two o'clock.

    ATTY. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: All right. Tell the Clerk's to put your motion down for
    September the 18th at two
    o
    'clock.

    THE CLERK: You already got it, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Okay. We got it?

    ATTY. BAIRD: Thank you.

    THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 06-25-2012 at 02:24 AM.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    CT PB 43-39:

    (d) The trial of such defendant shall commence
    ... if the following conditions are met:
    (1) the defendant has been continuously incarcerated
    in a correctional institution of this state
    pending trial for such offense...

    I think the OP has been out on bail ... and PB 43-41 notes that any delay not objected to is waived...

    A speedy trial is usually desired by folks in jail awaiting trial but generally not for people out on bail. Its a major pain to be out on bail due to restrictions but the longer time passes the better it usually is for a defendant. I think that this case its better to have a delay. But the OP is represented by consul and I would defer to his advice .. after all, we are just posters on a board with nothing to lose, arm chair quarterbacking as it were.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Why not use your real name

    To: David Godbout, aka davidmcbeth

    I have been reading your posts and find it difficult to agree with much of what you have posted. I kept my distance and my fingers off the keyboard to permit you to express yourself without comment from me.


    But you have now posted information regarding the case of Duane Doutel which I am very involved with personally.

    For the record,

    The 2012 Published Connecticut Practice Book in Section 43-49 on page 415 of same states as follows:


    Sec. 43-39. Speedy Trial; Time Limitations
    (a) Except as otherwise provided herein and in Section 43-40, the trial of a defendant charged with a criminal offense during the period from July 1, 1983, through June 30, 1985, inclusive, shall
    commence within eighteen months from the filing of the information or from the date of the arrest, whichever is later.

    (b) The trial of such defendant shall commence within twelve months from the filing of the information or from the date of the arrest, whichever is later, if the following conditions are met:

    (1) the defendant has been continuously incarcerated in a correctional institution of this state pending trial for such offense; and (2) the defendant is not subject to the provisions of General Statutes § 54-82c.


    (c) Except as otherwise provided herein and in Section 43-40, the trial of a defendant charged with a criminal offense on or after July 1, 1985, shall commence within twelve months from the
    filing of the information or from the date of the arrest, whichever is later.

    (d) The trial of such defendant shall commence within eight months from the filing of the information or from the date of the arrest, whichever is later, if the following conditions are met:

    (1) the defendant has been continuously incarcerated in a correctional institution of this state pending trial for such offense; and
    (2) the defendant is not subject to the provisions of General Statutes § 54-82c.

    (e) If an information which was dismissed by the trial court is reinstated following an appeal, the time for trial set forth in subsections (a), (b) and (c) shall commence running from the date of

    release of the final appellate decision thereon.

    (f) If the defendant is to be tried following a mistrial, an order for a new trial, an appeal or collateral attack, the time for trial set forth in subsections (a), (b) and (c) shall commence running from the date the order occasioning the retrial

    becomes final.

    (P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 956B.)

    What Mr. Doutel has NOT done is lead with his chin while his criminal case has been pending in Norwalk GA-20.

    A motion for speedy trial in Mr. Doutel's criminal case will more than likely be filed with the GA-20 court on or after July 6th 2012

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    From:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,7


    The constitutional provision does not rule out accidental, necessary or reasonable delays but only those which are vexatious, capricious, arbitrary or oppressive." Id., 570, citing Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361, 77 S. Ct. 481, 1 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1957).


    And the OP is not incarcerated, another requirement regarding a speedy trial ...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •