Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Connecticut DESPP is ‘Chasing Their Tails’

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Thumbs down Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Connecticut DESPP is ‘Chasing Their Tails’

    From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/33c0...d-ac6143f6e329

    Press Release

    Connecticut DESPP is ‘Chasing Their Tails'

    Are State Freedom of Information Laws Optional?

    Middletown CT, September 3, 2013: For most of 2013, Connecticut Carry has been working hard to try and get basic information released from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, only to have those efforts illegally denied by DESPP’s ‘Legal Affairs’ unit through determined procrastination and obfuscation. Numerous requests for information regarding firearms, potential litigation activities and other related files are being withheld without statutory authority, defying the mandates set forth in CGS §1-206:
    Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request… Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.

    And CGS §1-210:
    …all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void..

    As a Connecticut nonprofit dedicated to protecting and advancing the right to bear arms in Connecticut, and in the process of investigating, researching and funding legal cases in Connecticut, we have a strong need to be able to check our information against these public records so that our reports and releases are factual and accurate. Many of these cases are brought because of actions by DESPP or other police departments and Connecticut Carry has uncovered a startling amount of illegal and abusive practices originating from DESPP policies.

    In direct defiance of these laws, Christine Plourde, Esq. on behalf of DESPP ‘Legal Affairs’ sent a fiery letter to Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta seeking to assert her department’s policies over the law, despite the law voiding her policies for being against the law in the first place. We have made Ed’s detailed response available online.

    While the information coming out about DESPP’s recent illegal behavior might have a negative impact on the image of DESPP, they must follow the law. We will see to it that they do follow the law, just like Connecticut Carry and Connecticut residents are expected to do.
    Last edited by Rich B; 09-03-2013 at 10:00 AM.
    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

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I guess Ed lost his "cool" at DESPP HQ once or twice.

    I also have about 5 pending FOIA requests -- pending since about JUN.
    For many of the queries I got no response w/i 5 days ~ off to the FIC for complaints before the FIC for failure
    to provide a response w/i 5 bus. days. CGS Sec. 1-206 calls for a PROMPT access to records as well but the FIC has given DESPP wide latitude in what is considered PROMPT for them (and all other folks involved with any gun related issue).

    I called Christine Plourde last week asking for updates (the first time I called for updates). She was very nice to me (why not? She doesn't care really). Heck, she even said that she thought that 1 of my requests should have been completed by now and would check back with the firearms unit (who she alleged was very very busy). Zonkers Shaggy! Of course she has not called back ... Gee wiz Shaggy.

    Ed knows if he gets no response at all in 5 business days, he can file a complaint before the almost useless FIC.
    And if not prompt, file a FIC complaint. And then wait about 1 yr for a decision from the FIC. The FIC should be an optional route of settling these cases; a person should be able to go right to court (it would be faster).

    Sounds like Ed isn't happy with the FIC either. But I have a case next week before the full commission regarding the Hartford CHO parking ticket place where they denied me access to hearing chambers .. the preliminary report was favorable to me gaining access...a complaint filed in NOV 12 (FIC Case 2012-627) ... so I'll get a final decision in about OCT 13 I figure, if the respondents don't appeal of course. But this took/will take, what 11 mos? Outrageous when compared to other states 30 days to decide an appeal under FOIA.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    And remember, you are REQUIRED to act "remain calm and professional" ... odd, I cannot find such a statue.

    You will "promptly removed from the bldg" ... well that should give him several months, right ~ according to what they consider to be prompt?

    "you will be arrested" ... uh oh Shaggy ....


    Another idea: have Ed go there in a Speedo .... they'll be throwing records at him to get him to leave !

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    But Ed should note, that the Act also allows for an "abuse of process" dismissal of cases. I would think that yelling is not enough but combined with abusive language may be enough.

    Then DESPP will simply no longer respond to your FOIA requests ... because the FIC will "back them up" ... the FIC and DESPP do discuss these matters secretly.

    Start at FIC Advisory Opinion #71 ... leads to cases etc.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    38
    [QUOTE=Rich B;1979765]From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/33c0...d-ac6143f6e329

    Press Release

    Connecticut DESPP is ‘Chasing Their Tails'

    Are State Freedom of Information Laws Optional?

    SUCH a good read. Any response yet?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post

    But I have a case next week before the full commission regarding the Hartford CHO parking ticket place where they denied me access to hearing chambers .. the preliminary report was favorable to me gaining access...a complaint filed in NOV 12 (FIC Case 2012-627) ... .
    I won that case ... Hartford asked for time to re-do their room ... nope.

Posting Permissions

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