Filed new FOIC complaint - their secret meetings of Bipart. Task force continues to

violate our open meetings requirements under FOIA because:

From recent decision that notes, 2012-548 ( http://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4162&Q=528168 ):
This Commission has consistently held that “the responsibility to create minutes and make them available for public inspection is a continuing one and that the failure to meet such responsibility is a continuing violation….” See William J. Beach v. Chairman, Winsted Zoning Board of Appeals and Winchester Building Inspector, Docket #FIC 1988-362 (December 14, 1988)

In respect to all their secret meetings held from the task force's conception to the law being passed (SB1160,PA13-2, PA13-220) have still not issued out meeting minutes for these secret meetings. Why would you issue out minutes when they wanted to keep those meetings secret, right?

And of course, with these secret meetings - once you discover them then you can file a complaint ~ the 30 day time limit applies when you discover a violation or could have discovered a violation...and with secret meetings, the time clock starts when you discover that a secret meeting was held w/o your knowledge.

So I filed a new complaint alleging a continuing violation of the act....

Of course, I asked for the relief of voiding SB1160, PA13-3, and PA13-220. Of course one can ask. The FIC has this authority although a case regarding the state legislature has never been before it according to a hearing officer at the FIC...being a democrat he said "you should not have brought this up".

I expect nothing out of an organization that is nothing but biased being mostly appointed by Malloy and our legislature.

well of course you should not have brought this up in the eyes of a democrap, because it may actually turn into something

This week I received 2 favorable hearing officer's reports (likely will be final decisions).

Both meeting violations....1st with city of Hartford, parking ticket Citation Hearing Office (CHO)- they did not let me view hearings in progress w/o permission. And 2nd) with a property assessment board that told me I could not be in the hearing room unless it was my hearing.

With the CHO their lawyer didn't lie or pull any shenanigans (the first FOIC hearing that this did not happen) but in the property assessment meeting hearing the lawyer put up someone to give testimony regarding the meeting that countered my claims. It was until I informed the witness that the witness just swore under oath to tell the truth and significant prison time can be the result of lying that the witness started saying "I'm not sure". Given that the witness knew I could prove that she was lying (I had a non appearing witness ~ a lawyer to boot) she backpedaled 1 min into my cross. I'm sure that she was just testifying to what the board's lawyer told her to testify to.

I also had a town asking for a FOURTH continuance in a case pending (it was denied) ... I was finally able to stop the continued tide of continuances in that case. The case involves firearms records that I am seeking. DESPP has had their "safety review" ongoing for 7 months and has not produced any directive letter (see CGS Sec. 1-210(d)) and I doubt that DESPP will .. I tailored the request almost word for word from a previous case that DESPP did write a directive letter.

And in a hearing, again asking for gun records, of another town last week, the respondent did not show (1st actual hearing after several continuances were granted prior). I was made to wait 1 hour for the respondent to show. They never do that in cases where citizens do not show. Of course the town respondent was not ready and was granted a continuance. The hearing officer was just going to grant them an automatic continuance until I started reminding the hearing officer of FIC regulations .. then it was "wait until they come in" & I objected that I had already waited 1/2 hr and that a default should be granted and let them argue to set aside the default at another date if they wish. Not being ready is not good cause for a continuance...but since its a gun related case, the rules get swept under the rug. I'll make a stink about it at the full commission hearing.

And all but one (because the FOIC screwed up on the scheduling of one of them~that one is 7 months old) of these cases are 10 - 11 months old, waiting for hearings.



The FOIC is anti-anti-anti-gun for sure...well, except for the Gov't guns lol

I did get one unfavorable hearings officers report & full commission finding (although I got the records and the respondent admitted they were withholding ????) recently. But on this one, they delayed it too much because the commission mailed out their ruling/decision to me in late June (I filed in early July 2013) .. so I filed a motion to reconsider and the case reached 1 yr old the next day. CGS Sec. 1-206 notes that the FOIC only has jurisdiction for only 1 year and this time requirement is a mandatory requirement - the commission must come to a FINAL, appeal-able decision w/in a year. The motion to reconsider was not heard by the end of a year .. so I filed a motion to strike any non-final findings by the commission. I will object to the motion for reconsideration (allowed under CGS Chapter 54) being (on the agenda)/decided at their next hearing as they don't have jurisdiction to rule on it any more. And I have a similar FOIC appeal already filed with the same town and asking for the same records (they denied again-filed a second FOI request months ago) so the search for these particular records has been a circus.

Why search for firearms records? To show that towns have the same guns that we cannot purchase ~ its not a question if they do, its a known fact. I was going to file a federal case against our old AWB and other provisions passed by antis. Given that PA13-3 / 220 was passed and others have filed I am still trying to gather this information ~ the plaintiff's may have the information if they wish...and I'd be willing to testify in respect to the records & their gathering.

motoxmann said:

well of course you should not have brought this up in the eyes of a democrap, because it may actually turn into something

Click to expand...

Well, given that the governor and legislature put people on the commission as commissioners, you know how it will go.