I did file for a TRO to stop the vote - through the FOIC-case continues

I filed a complaint with the FOIC on the 2nd to stop the vote (included a complaint and request for a TRO)...the FOIC responded back that they do not have the authority to issue TROs...it was a section of a new FOIC complaint regarding the task force's secret meetings that they had in March that mysteriously changed their 2 March proposals to a single April proposal and was then made into the SB 1160. So the FOIC complaint will continue ~ if they find a violation of our meetings laws then they may strike the April proposals, bill, and law produced (they have done this before).

I have several complaints with the FOIC regarding the legislature and the task force. It seemed it hit home as the leaders tried to get bill 1148 passed (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-01148-R00-SB.htm) to exempt themselves from our open meetings requirements.

I would recommend that folks file their own complaints with the FOIC to insure that more than just one is filed with the FOIC. If I lose mine then others can learn from the case and be better prepared. If I lose, I would withdraw the case before a final decision so the FOIC could not look back to my case for judicial notice. The way the FOIC rules is that a hearing officer writes a proposed decision and the full commission has a short hearing and votes to approve or disapprove the hearing officer's proposed ruling ~ one can withdraw the case before it reaches the full commission and the commission cannot make any findings (I have done this before; recently with FIC Case 2012-260 last month...I did partially for the task force complaint, as a test).

So having many cases before the FOIC is best....anyone who wishes to see my complaint filed please shoot me a PM..its a 2 or 3 page complaint...easy and no cost with the FOIC, unlike a court case. And even in a court case noting a meetings violation, it gets bounced to the FOIC (see CGS Sec. 1-242) for their determination of meetings violations.

I filed a complaint with the FOIC on the 2nd to stop the vote (included a complaint and request for a TRO)...the FOIC responded back that they do not have the authority to issue TROs..

Click to expand...

Why are you wasting the time of some unfeeling/uncaring bureauracracy, us, and yourself?

Unless you are a complete idiot you knew/should have known that the FOIC had no authority to issue a TRO. You also should have known that a court of record would be the place with the authority to issue a TRO - which in this case is properly called an injunction.

When you set out to look like an activist but consistently make all the wrong moves, at the wrong time, in the wrong places you end up looking like anything but an activist.

Give me a drug store cowboy - they at least know how to talk the talk.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Why are you wasting the time of some unfeeling/uncaring bureauracracy, us, and yourself?

Unless you are a complete idiot you knew/should have known that the FOIC had no authority to issue a TRO. You also should have known that a court of record would be the place with the authority to issue a TRO - which in this case is properly called an injunction.

When you set out to look like an activist but consistently make all the wrong moves, at the wrong time, in the wrong places you end up looking like anything but an activist.

Give me a drug store cowboy - they at least know how to talk the talk.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

The FOIC has never been asked to issue a TRO/injunction .... so no, its was not idiotic to ask; if fact, it preserves the right to appeal this issue. Yes, its properly called an injunction - I know that - I used TRO here because people understand what that is .. plus its the FOIC, terminology is not that important...its what you ask for that is.

CGS 1-206 states that the FOIC has the authority to issue APPROPRIATE relief ... and the courts have given the FOIC great latitude in this respect (they have voided votes and meetings in the past). Since it was never asked of them before, why not? What does it hurt? Worse they can say is no and its gets the issue to the FOIC's eyes and the more time they review the issue the better the outcome. And its just part of a broader complaint...a couple more sentences in a complaint. Whoopie.
See CSG 1-242 ... if one were to request an injunction due to open meetings violations in a superior court case, the court brings on the FOIC into the case ...

And I did look into a superior court case ... I could not find a marshal that would have been able to serve the papers in time to get the case before a judge before the vote. It would have been nice to have been able to find one that was willing to go the extra mile.


And I am not concerned about what people think of me ... I do what I want... if you are worried about what people think of you then you'll only be a sheep in the herd ...

And you are from Virgina??!!! What do you know about CT open meeting laws? Nothing! My efforts already has had an impact on gun owners here in regards to the legislative sessions.