Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: State says you don't have 1st amendment rights to gather information from the gov

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    State says you don't have 1st amendment rights to gather information from the gov

    Steven Sarnoski actually said this in a recent FIC hearing ... that we have no rights under the US first amendment to gather government information...

    This is the second person at the AG's office to say this .... man, they are on the ball!

    In the Connecticut Supreme Court case CHAIRMAN, CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, ET AL. V FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL. (217 CONN. 193)(1991) the court opinioned:
    “As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, the first amendment to the federal constitution is not limited to protection of free speech but also embodies the right to receive and gain access to information and ideas” Liberman v. Board of Labor Relations, 216 Conn. 253, 267, 579 A 2d 505 (1990).


    No wonder agencies don't give out information and documents...the AG (representing the state & state agencies) says you don't have this right ...

    When I said we have this right ... Sarnoski replied back that its not true ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-07-2012 at 05:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    There was a fair bit of ignorance spewed in our latest FOI hearing as well.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member KennyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mountain Top
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Steven Sarnoski actually said this in a recent FIC hearing ... that we have no rights under the US first amendment to gather government information...

    This is the second person at the AG's office to say this .... man, they are on the ball!

    In the Connecticut Supreme Court case CHAIRMAN, CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, ET AL. V FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL. (217 CONN. 193)(1991) the court opinioned:
    “As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, the first amendment to the federal constitution is not limited to protection of free speech but also embodies the right to receive and gain access to information and ideas” Liberman v. Board of Labor Relations, 216 Conn. 253, 267, 579 A 2d 505 (1990).


    No wonder agencies don't give out information and documents...the AG (representing the state & state agencies) says you don't have this right ...

    When I said we have this right ... Sarnoski replied back that its not true ...

    Dave, our new AG (Jepsen) can be compared to the national AG (Holder) very favorably. There's a reason the NRA gave Jepsen a F rating, trust me.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyB View Post
    Dave, our new AG (Jepsen) can be compared to the national AG (Holder) very favorably. There's a reason the NRA gave Jepsen a F rating, trust me.
    Yes, I spoke to his office concerning some "attny-client" privileged doc ... they claim anything they touch is privileged.

    My next motion will be very critical of the AG.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyB View Post
    Dave, our new AG (Jepsen) can be compared to the national AG (Holder) very favorably. There's a reason the NRA gave Jepsen a F rating, trust me.
    Well, you should seen the response when I plead that the first amendment allows us to gather information & the 2nd allows us to defend ourselves from the government then I should be able to know the weapons that the state has so I can get weapons to overpower them in the protection of my life, home, family, and property..


    The state called this "disturbing" ... and the hearing officer's eyes got as wide as plates ...

  6. #6
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    well, you should seen the response when i plead that the first amendment allows us to gather information & the 2nd allows us to defend ourselves from the government then i should be able to know the weapons that the state has so i can get weapons to overpower them in the protection of my life, home, family, and property..


    The state called this "disturbing" ... And the hearing officer's eyes got as wide as plates ...
    roflmao!!!!!
    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
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The state called this "disturbing" ... and the hearing officer's eyes got as wide as plates ...
    My hearing officer and her intern wanted to know how they could get a pistol permit and carry like the officer who was at our hearing was doing (unconcealed).

    I provided her our contact information...
    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

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    My hearing officer and her intern wanted to know how they could get a pistol permit and carry like the officer who was at our hearing was doing (unconcealed).

    I provided her our contact information...
    Well I have two pending FIC cases ... one was dissmissed administratively .. I had this decision reversed upon my motion to set aside the dismissal


    a second one, the FIC (not the other party) filed a res judicata motion ... and of course ruled in his own favor. My motion to reconsider/strike is almost ready ... the hearing officer has no idea what is required for res judicata in this state ... my fic appeal is with different parties seeking completely different this one may go to superior court...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Norwich, CT, USA
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, you should seen the response when I plead that the first amendment allows us to gather information & the 2nd allows us to defend ourselves from the government then I should be able to know the weapons that the state has so I can get weapons to overpower them in the protection of my life, home, family, and property..


    The state called this "disturbing" ... and the hearing officer's eyes got as wide as plates ...
    This is too funny :-)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Clawed View Post
    This is too funny :-)
    There is only 1 way to treat opposing state parties in admin hearings : being the biggest a---hole possible. They treat people like dirt.

Posting Permissions

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