Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Defendant's Take On Dismissal of State v. Doutel

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

    Defendant's Take On Dismissal of State v. Doutel

    I've just completed my latest post over at LiarCop.Com, for any interested in the Defendant's take on all of this. Rich Burgess over at Connecticut Carry has already posted his press release.

    Any LEO's who frequent this board might be wise to take careful note of this case, as the ripples ("penumbras and emanations"??) will not be pretty.
    Last edited by DDoutel; 08-04-2012 at 05:06 PM. Reason: added link to CTCarry
    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
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Even though any award you receive will unfortunately come from the taxpayers and not the miscreants, GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!

    Congratulations, even though as you have eloquently shown it should never have happened in the first place. It should not be allowed to happen again. Thank you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Even though any award you receive will unfortunately come from the taxpayers and not the miscreants, GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!
    The taxpayers should be more vigilant in policing their employees if they object.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Perhaps filing a complaint with the CT Claims Commission to see if you can sue the state too !

    Cost: $50.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Perhaps filing a complaint with the CT Claims Commission to see if you can sue the state too !

    Cost: $50.
    Now THERE'S an idea!
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Now THERE'S an idea!
    You can file one today ... ya have 90 days to amend it ... I filed one back in March...still waiting for a response...considering I list the AG as a defendant, they are dragging their feet.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    The taxpayers should be more vigilant in policing their employees if they object.
    Completely agree, but some personal financial pain for the "professionals" who screwed the pooch so profoundly in this case would be nice as well.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Completely agree, but some personal financial pain for the "professionals" who screwed the pooch so profoundly in this case would be nice as well.
    In CT, if a 42 USC 1983 verdict results in an award; then the town needs to decide IF they wish to reimburse or cover the loss to the individual. They do not have to. This is a case where the town should clearly not cover the cops' activities because even a retard can tell that the arrest was unwarranted.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Completely agree, but some personal financial pain for the "professionals" who screwed the pooch so profoundly in this case would be nice as well.
    Again, this is an issue for the taxpayers to mandate on their officials. It is not the worry or concern of someone who had their rights violated.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Again, this is an issue for the taxpayers to mandate on their officials. It is not the worry or concern of someone who had their rights violated.
    I completely agree and I did not mean to imply that it was.

Posting Permissions

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