LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Any news of when it's going to trial?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Goldberg V Glastonbury = RAS?
- Thread starter luckyykid
- Start date
Any news of when it's going to trial?
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Rich B
Regular Member
Just so you know, you can find most of this stuff here: http://ctcarry.com/Permits/Unconcealed
My case doesn't have a trial date yet. We are still in discovery.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Rich B
Regular Member
Yup, we just try to put as many sources together into convenient locations. If you have anything else that you think would go nicely there, either post it here or email it to me, please.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
OK
davidmcbeth
Banned
Cops who wish to ignore the law put themselves in a very bad set of circumstances....very bad. A badge will not help a cop when he is breaking the law himself.
Rich B
Regular Member
Well, in this state that is not the view of the statues, particularly Sec. 53a-23.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I think they are still in the discovery process. Luckily its in federal court .. they don't play around with discovery like they do in state court. So, a trial date is likely about 1 yr away.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Yes indeed. I just had another conversation with my fellow SGT from yesterday. He actually called the Board of Firearms and they told him exactly what I told him. You would think he gets it now but all I got is "Then I will get sued, it won't be the first time." :banghead: and that I live in a box, LOL! He's been behind a desk for years and I've been on the street. Who's in the box? He also said that they told him the head state's attorneys are getting together to enact legislation to clarify OC.
Rich B
Regular Member
Well there is something we can agree with him about.
DDoutel
Regular Member
Fortunately for all of CT's citizenry, the 'head state's attorneys' can't just change the law as they please.
Rich B
Regular Member
Nor should they have any kind of voice in the production of laws. That is not what the legislature is for.
Rich B
Regular Member
Since I dug it up for the other thread, I figured I would post it here as well:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7943178321659144844&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7943178321659144844&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
davidmcbeth
Banned
You should check about his other lawsuits .. can be used against him in a future hearing.
davidmcbeth
Banned
1) the threatening presence of several officers; 2) the brandishing of a weapon by an officer; 3) some physical touching by an officer; 4) use of aggressive language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with an officer's request is compulsory; 5) prolonged retention of a person's personal effects ...; 6) a request to accompany the officer to the station; 7) interaction in a nonpublic place or a small, enclosed place; 8) and absence of other members of the public.
In my latest interaction I had #1, #2, #4, and #8 .. hence my questioning if I was detained/seized under the 4th amendment
Mr. Doutel had almost all 8 points ...
DDoutel
Regular Member
Ummm... yeah! I think I DO have all eight! Fancy that! :lol:
davidmcbeth
Banned
Because you are a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpN0j9ijZ-4
With all eight, its a given you were detained or seized...
I'm also now looking at kidnapping ...
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0016.htm
No movement requirement in CT ... only that they prohibit you from going from point a to point b of your own free will.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
And the reason for the other Sergeant's cavalier attitude is that very likely he personally bears almost no consequence from being sued and having a judgement against him.