Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Turner told CT officials to obey constitution or die ... found not guilty of anything

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

    Turner told CT officials to obey constitution or die ... found not guilty of anything

    http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/ar...0M-4091422.php


    HARTFORD -- A blogger who urged readers to "take up arms" against a Stamford legislator and other state officals is suing state government leaders for $50 million after being acquitted of threatening and inciting violence.

    Harold "Hal" Turner, of North Bergen, N.J., filed the lawsuit in federal court in Newark, N.J., claiming he was falsely arrested, wrongfully imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted. A jury acquitted him last year.

    Defendants referred questions to the Connecticut attorney general's office.

    A spokeswoman for Attorney General George Jepsen declined to comment and said her office will respond to the allegations in court.

    Turner couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday. There is no phone listing in his name.

    Turner was arrested after a June 2009 blog posting suggesting Connecticut officials "obey the Constitution or die" and urging readers to "take up arms and put down this tyranny by force." He added that if authorities tried to stop his cause, "I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too."

    The posting was in response to legislation debated by state lawmakers that would have given lay people of Roman Catholic churches more control over parish finances. Turner believed the legislation flew in the face of the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. The bill had been withdrawn three months before his posting.

    A state jury in Hartford acquitted Turner in September 2011 after he argued that his free speech rights were being trampled and there was never any violence against state officials.

    At the time of his trial, Turner was serving a nearly three-year prison sentence for threatening judges in Illinois. He was released in October.

    The defendants in the lawsuit include Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's general counsel, former state Sen. Andrew McDonald, and former state Rep. Michael Lawlor, now undersecretary for criminal justice police and planning at the state Office of Policy and Management. McDonald and Lawlor, who were co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee when the church bill was debated, declined to comment.

    Other officials named in the lawsuit include Assistant State's Attorney Thomas Garcia, who prosecuted Turner, and state Capitol police officials.

    Read more: http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/ar...#ixzz2E92jaNyv


    Free speech case or 2nd amendment case or both?

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    That nitwit is darn lucky he ain't warming a cot in Gitmo.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: Turner told CT officials to obey constitution or die ... found not guilty of

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    That nitwit is darn lucky he ain't warming a cot in Gitmo.
    Should he be grateful he wasn't illegally imprisoned without access to legal representation and sent to a foreign nation for detainment?


    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by Jack House; 12-05-2012 at 07:46 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Should he be grateful he wasn't illegally imprisoned without access to legal representation and sent to a foreign nation for detainment?


    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
    Well, knowing what I know about the Patriot Act and the last round of the NDAA, from folks on this forum by the way, he is darn lucky.

    I'm all for this nitwit saying his piece and getting off for it, by a jury of his peers no less.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Sounds to me like things pretty well happened like they should. He did threaten public officials. He did put the disclaimer on there that the threat should be carried out if they did not act within the Constitution. In the matter of his concern, it turns out that they long since had. The threat was not carried out.

    There was, IMO, probable cause to hold him to account. He was so held. The jury thought there was no there there and acquitted him. IMO, they were right. His lawsuit will be an annoyance, but will surely lose. In this civil suit, "the man" will beat the rap, but won't beat the ride (nice turnaround).

    This guy seems to make a habit of threatening public officials and has been convicted at least once, so that part of the system seems to be working.

    I don't see a problem. I feel inclined to steal that famous LEO phrase: Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Sounds to me like things pretty well happened like they should. He did threaten public officials. He did put the disclaimer on there that the threat should be carried out if they did not act within the Constitution. In the matter of his concern, it turns out that they long since had. The threat was not carried out.

    There was, IMO, probable cause to hold him to account. He was so held. The jury thought there was no there there and acquitted him. IMO, they were right. His lawsuit will be an annoyance, but will surely lose. In this civil suit, "the man" will beat the rap, but won't beat the ride (nice turnaround).

    This guy seems to make a habit of threatening public officials and has been convicted at least once, so that part of the system seems to be working.

    I don't see a problem. I feel inclined to steal that famous LEO phrase: Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
    Politicians are like weeds .. pull one out and two more will take its place....its the reason why I don't cry for politicians to be buried under 18" of dirt. Not that I would find anyone guilty if on a jury ... live in fear politicians is my motto !

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I don't recommend living in fear of anything. That's being a slave to fear.

Posting Permissions

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