Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: BFPE Rosensweig likely thinks that you are lying at board meetings

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

    BFPE Rosensweig likely thinks that you are lying at board meetings

    Seems after reading emails from this guy that he has a great deal of bias against citizens going before the board.

    Claiming that most of citizens who testify are lying? Most goofy statement I have seen.

    attached if from an email he wrote to fishbein...Fishbien replied back that said he really did not see any citizen committing perjury.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Pergery & the BOFE

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Seems after reading emails from this guy that he has a great deal of bias against citizens going before the board.

    Claiming that most of citizens who testify are lying? Most goofy statement I have seen.

    attached if from an email he wrote to fishbein...Fishbien replied back that said he really did not see any citizen committing perjury.
    My interpretation of the short exert is that he is trying to get some teeth for the board to hold people accountable and charge them with perjury for making statements that are intentionally false. When in fact they probably should not be answering most of the questions even asked. I've sat through a number of board hearings, sometimes members of the board asked personal questions and information that legally they should not even be allowed to ask, and if you assert your rights and don't answer the questions they get pissy and hold it against you. The bottom line is if going to the board , do your research, and don't screw up your chance for an appeal. The police departments will bring in all kinds of garbage & the rules of evidence at the board are super loose, --Mod edited, not in keeping with OCDO standards--
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-27-2015 at 02:13 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    My interpretation of the short exert is that he is trying to get some teeth for the board to hold people accountable and charge them with perjury for making statements that are intentionally false. When in fact they probably should not be answering most of the questions even asked. I've sat through a number of board hearings, sometimes members of the board asked personal questions and information that legally they should not even be allowed to ask, and if you assert your rights and don't answer the questions they get pissy and hold it against you. The bottom line is if going to the board , do your research, and don't screw up your chance for an appeal. The police departments will bring in all kinds of garbage & the rules of evidence at the board are super loose,--Mod edited, not in keeping with OCDO standards--
    FYI...the BFPE does not the authority to ask witnesses questions during a hearing.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-27-2015 at 02:13 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    FYI...the BFPE does not the authority to ask witnesses questions during a hearing.
    I have reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, about 40 cases about appellants who have lost to the board, I recall reading nothing from any judge in regards to board not being allowed to ask questions or that being some type of provision that was not allowed or unconstitutional in any manner. If that was a case and a problem with the preceding it definitely would've been mentioned because it would been a reason for an appellant to win an appeal. The judges in their synopsis are very clear that they are not there to review evidence just whether the rules of evidence were followed appropriately in regards to the hearing. Now with like 40 different judicial review's, David that was never brought up so I'm not sure how you can assert that fact, you may have a loose interpretation of something but from what I've read from judicial review it's never been brought up as any type of question that I can recall. And again on those reviews of the boards procedures the judge is not looking to review the evidence just whether or not certain rules in the hearing were followed correctly as not to violate rights. That's why I stated in my post your case should be presented in a manner where the appellants are speaking to the judge on review and don't go to the board begging to the board for your rights because you're not gonna get anywhere that way, just present it in a factual manner in accordance with what the current standard of law is. And of course you're going to say David we don't need permits to carry guns it's unconstitutional well that's not the society we live in and if you can be caged like an animal over it that's reality dude.
    Last edited by Good Citizen; 01-26-2015 at 08:38 AM. Reason: Grammer

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Good citizen,

    Due process violations in an admin proceeding is not grounds for overturning a decision...see
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,7

    Albright-Lazzari v. FOIC 136 Conn.app. 76 , linked above


    Also compare the FOIA Act's enforcement provisions 1-205 that states:
    (d) The commission shall, subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act promptly review the alleged violation of said Freedom of Information Act and issue an order pertaining to the same. Said commission shall have the power to investigate all alleged violations of said Freedom of Information Act and may for the purpose of investigating any violation hold a hearing, administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive oral and documentary evidence, have the power to subpoena witnesses under procedural rules adopted by the commission to compel attendance and to require the production for examination of any books and papers which the commission deems relevant in any matter under investigation or in question. In case of a refusal to comply with any such subpoena or to testify with respect to any matter upon which that person may be lawfully interrogated, the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford, on application of the commission, may issue an order requiring such person to comply with such subpoena and to testify; failure to obey any such order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof.

    See, the legislature granted the commission of the FOI authority to investigate AND examine witnesses...so these are 2 different things.

    Show me where in the BFPE related statues where they have the authority to examine witnesses. Can't. Because they don't have this authority.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Oh, the investigation powers of the BFPE is in the statue -- their questionnaire and power to compel its completion.

    That's it. They could shoot a complainant/respondent several questionnaires I guess but this "investigation" power is limited to pre-hearing investigations.

    Why the difference between the BFPE and FOI commissions investigatory authority where one can ask witnesses questions and the other cannot?

    Simple ... its the subject matter being examined in the two venues ... one deals with matters that usually have nothing to do with any criminal activity of a complainant at the FOI Commission whereas at the BFPE criminal matters are somewhat central to the appeal.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Good citizen,

    Also to mention....a citizen does not need to prove that an agency does not have authority to do something.
    Agencies are creatures of statue...they can only do what the law says that they CAN do .. the agency must show stautory authority and prove it, not just claim it.

    And I believe at the BFPE a person can refuse to answer any question anyway w/o any presumption be attached to such a refusal.

    Examination of the powers of quasi-judicial bodies is a good thing.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-26-2015 at 03:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

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