Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Another Judge get's it WRONG "THE NEWTOWN EFFECT"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Another Judge get's it WRONG "THE NEWTOWN EFFECT"

    KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE ARE POLICE REPORTS WHICH DOCUMENT THE FACT(s) THAT
    NO FIREARM WAS USED IN THIS EVENT.

    I have met the husband and wife, read the police reports and other doucments.

    Something judges should do before they open their mouths on the record.

    DOG REPEATEDLY LEAVES ANAL DROPPINGS ON LAWN OF ANOHTER
    REPEATED UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL WALKING DOG PREVENT SAME.
    HUSBAND OF FIREARM OWNER IS ARRESTED FOR THEATENING THE DOG.
    HUSBAND ARRESTED DOES NOT OWN ANY FIREARMS.
    WIFES (WHO DID NOTHING) HAS HER FIREARMS SEIZED.

    JUDGE INCORRECTLY BELIEVES FIREARM USED DURING CONFRONTATION.

    "
    THE NEWTOWN EFFECT"



    MAY 30, 2013


    BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT BRUNETTI , JUDGE

    A P PEA RAN C E S
    Representing the State of Connecticut: ATTORNEY RONALD DEARSTYNERepresenting the Defendant : ATTORNEY AARON JAINCHILL

    Also Appearing: ATTORNEY RACHEL BAIRDMR. DEARSTYNE: Pre-trial docket , line 6, David
    Stacey.

    MR. JAINCHLL: Good morning, Your Honor , Aaron
    Jainchill for Mr. Stacey. As we discussed in
    chambers, my client has rejected the offer.

    THE COURT : All right , you understand the offer
    is a $200 fine, Mr. Stacey, for breach of peace.

    THE DEFENDANT: I understand, I understand, yes ,
    I do. I cannot see you destroying my wife's guns.

    THE COURT: The matter is transferred to the
    trial docket in New Britain. The next date in New
    Britain will be July 3rd at 2 o'clock.

    MR. JAINCHILL: Thank you , Your Honor.

    MS. BAIRD: Your Honor , Rachel Baird for the
    record. We had intervened in this case. I represent
    Duane Stacey in this case and she filed a motion for
    return of seized property with regard to her ten
    firearms and that motion was dated April 17, 2013. I
    had understood that it was set down for hearing and
    has there been - is there going to be a hearing on
    that?

    THE COURT: There is not going to be a hearing.


    MS. BAIRD: Has there been a decision on the
    motion?

    THE COURT: No. The matter is on the trial list.
    The allegation in this file is that a weapon was used
    to threaten somebody. Whose weapon it was - it was
    his or his wife's I don't know. Any decision on the
    guns - the guns are ordered held by the Court until
    the end of either the trial or the case is disposed
    of. At that time, the Judge who disposes of the case
    either by trial or otherwise can decide what to do
    with the guns. Until then the guns are ordered held
    as potential evidence of the crime.

    MS. BAIRD: Understood, Your Honor, thank you.


    THE COURT: That's at 2 o'clock, Mr. Jainchill,

    in New Britain. It's a 2 o'clock marking.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 06-09-2013 at 07:59 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Boy, Ed; doesn't this horse manure look familiar! I've really had it with the bullsh*t judges in this state; here's hoping Rachel hands him his ass; here again, no crime committed, and the process is now being used as punishment.

    Chew this idiot judge up and spit him out; he doesn't belong on the bench.
    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.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Boy, Ed; doesn't this horse manure look familiar! I've really had it with the bullsh*t judges in this state; here's hoping Rachel hands him his ass; here again, no crime committed, and the process is now being used as punishment.

    Chew this idiot judge up and spit him out; he doesn't belong on the bench.
    It certainly is outrageous that a judge will not hear a motion that is properly before it; irrespective if it is scheduled for trial, both parties deserve a ruling.

    Come election day for this judge, someone should post a notice so we can go door to door and inform people that this judge needs to be voted out of office.

    The judge did not rule either way ... he punted basically ... the motion is still "alive" I think ... why is he a judge if he does not want to rule on motions?

Posting Permissions

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