Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: The Goldberg transcript and Decison of 09.17.10

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

    The Goldberg transcript and Decison of 09.17.10

    Here is a link to the Goldberg transcript that was requested and received on an expedited basis for all to read.

    This case is shocking and has widespread implications regarding police powers to stop anyone for anything if someone is alarmed or upset.

    http://www.ctgunrights.com/00.Docs/0...rg%20Trans.pdf

    Under the theory expressed by the judge, the Muslim cleric in New York could have been and may be arrested for advocating a mosque in lower Manhattan at Ground Zero, or the minister in Florida could have been arrested for advocating the burning of the Koran. Both of these individuals have conducted themselves in a threatening manner which caused a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition...

    This transcript needs to be circulated to as many firearm owners as possible and examined very closely with everyone asking "NOW WHAT".

    An appeal will be filed with the Second Circuit in the very near future.

    The entire involvement of the Glastonbury Police Department should have ended with the presentation of the VALID PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    This transcript is scary. How did this guy get to be a judge? He is just as misinformed/uninformed as the Wallingford PD. He even makes the same argument about walking into a K-12 school and has to eat his words when it is pointed out that that is a completely different scenario since K-12 schools are illegal to carry in.

    This is a stunning look at our judicial system in this state.

    At least it should be easy to appeal. Anyone with any common sense would see how wrong this judge was.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    The entire involvement of the Glastonbury Police Department should have ended with the presentation of the VALID PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.
    I hate to be the first to argue about something fairly trivial in the wake of something so important, but I believe it should not have gotten that far, and I have yet to see anyone account for a law that proves otherwise.

    James Goldberg should have been able to reply "Yes, I have a permit" and the police should have left him alone after witnessing no crime and after the manager of Chili's could not articulate a specific crime.

    I still have yet to see anywhere in CT state law where it requires you to hand over any physical identification to a LEO when you are not breaking a law.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288
    This so called "judge" had this case decided before the first word had been spoken ,as is plain to see from this transcript. He should be impeached by the legislature for his clearly hostile attitude towards the elected legislature.It is evident that he is trying to repeal a law that he dis-agrees with through his ruling.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Uncasville, ct
    Posts
    14
    Wait...So this judge just said someone else's fear is what determines a breach of peace and not my actions?

    And yes it did seem the judge had made a decision before the hearing began.
    Last edited by David Roach; 09-21-2010 at 03:38 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by David Roach View Post
    Wait...So this judge just said someone else's fear is what determines a breach of peace and not my actions?
    And he completely danced around and ignored all of Ms. Baird's objections to such a ridiculous assertion.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I still have yet to see anywhere in CT state law where it requires you to hand over any physical identification to a LEO when you are not breaking a law.
    For driving an automobile there is this: Sec. 14-217. Operator to give name and address and show or surrender license, registration and insurance identification card when requested.
    http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dlsurs....htm#Sec14-217.
    Sec. 14-217. Operator to give name and address and show or surrender license, registration and insurance identification card when requested. No person who is operating or in charge of any motor vehicle, when requested by any officer in uniform, by an agent authorized by the commissioner who presents appropriate credentials or, in the event of any accident in which the car he is operating or in charge of is concerned, when requested by any other person, may refuse to give his name and address or the name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle or give a false name or address, or refuse, on demand of such officer, agent or other person, to produce his motor vehicle registration certificate, operator's license and any automobile insurance identification card for the vehicle issued pursuant to section 38a-364 or to permit such officer, agent or such other person to take the operator's license, registration certificate and any such insurance identification card in hand for the purpose of examination, or refuse, on demand of such officer, agent or such other person, to sign his name in the presence of such officer, agent or such other person. No person may refuse to surrender his license to operate motor vehicles or the certificate of registration of any motor vehicle operated or owned by him or such insurance identification card or the number plates furnished by the commissioner for such motor vehicle on demand of the commissioner or fail to produce his license when requested by a court. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction.
    To the OP PDF posting, it left me scratching my head. It was blatantly obvious that the court came in with the decision in mind and just went through the motions. It was interesting to see them try to twist things to fit their decision. And to make a fool of themselves for not knowing even the basics of the carry laws here (where it's illegal to carry) was priceless. Its rather chilling the effects this ruling could have for opening the door to questionable Terry stops by LEO's.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by bennor View Post
    For driving an automobile there is this: Sec. 14-217. Operator to give name and address and show or surrender license, registration and insurance identification card when requested.
    http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dlsurs....htm#Sec14-217.
    Interesting, but it still requires an officer to stop you for probable cause in the first place.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Interesting, but it still requires an officer to stop you for probable cause in the first place.
    Not to nit pick or drag this too far off topic but where does it say the officer needs "probable cause" to make the stop in the statute? It seems to say that the LEO simply has to "request" the documents. I've had people tell me that they had to produce "papers" when going through a DUI checkpoint. Which seems to be allowed according to this OLR document on sobriety check points: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0093.htm

    Back to the topic at hand. What are the chances that this will be successfully appealed? I assume that this could possibly go up to the federal level and possibly to SCOTUS? I don't have much faith in the court system and this document reinforces that feeling. Its not a good sign on the impartiality of the court when the judge/court is predisposed to side with one party before the lawyers even enter the room to present their case.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by bennor View Post
    where does it say the officer needs "probable cause" to make the stop in the statute?
    This is spelled out in the 4th amendment. It need not be spelled out in any state statute.

    Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

    Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979) (discretionary random stops of motorists to check driver's license and registration papers and safety features of cars constitute Fourth Amendment violation); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (violation for rovingpatrols on lookout for illegal aliens to stop vehicles on highways near international borders when only ground for suspicion is that occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry). In Prouse, the Court cautioned that it was not precluding the States from developing methods for spotchecks, such as questioning all traffic at roadblocks, that involve less intrusion or that do not involve unconstrained exercise of discretion. 440 U.S. at 663.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...3.html#fsupp.5
    Last edited by Rich B; 09-21-2010 at 04:25 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    To Claify

    This hearing was was not in a State Court.

    The hearing was held in a Federal Court in front of a Federal Judge.

    This case will be appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Although we will never know the facts, I also believe that the judge had made up his mind based on the papers submitted and got blind sided by the depth of the logical arguments made in behalf of Mr. Goldberg.

    Not unlike stopping a suspected drunk driver, once Mr. Goldberg produced his VALID Permit to Carry, the Terry Stop should have ended and he should have been able to go about his business with any further contact with law enforcement.

    The scary part is the expansion of the parameters of Terry Stops as explained by Attorney Rachel Baird in her examples of the black man in a predominately white neighborhood.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    The scary part is the expansion of the parameters of Terry Stops as explained by Attorney Rachel Baird in her examples of the black man in a predominately white neighborhood.
    I found my self rereading that section several times because I could not believe the logic leap the court was making when that was brought up.

    After seeing how the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (including the now sitting SCOTUS justice) ruled on the New Haven Firefighters case I don't have much faith that they will have the correct legal ruling and this will continue on up the food chain to SCOTUS. And who knows, if they accepted the appeal, how the swing vote will go on this issue. We already have four justices up there who will completely ignore the actual text of 2A, and one lied publicly to Congress during her appointment hearings, about her understanding of 2A and voted against it the first chance she got.

    Rich B thanks for the clarification and the law link.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hartford, CT
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by bennor View Post
    Not to nit pick or drag this too far off topic but where does it say the officer needs "probable cause" to make the stop in the statute? It seems to say that the LEO simply has to "request" the documents. I've had people tell me that they had to produce "papers" when going through a DUI checkpoint. Which seems to be allowed according to this OLR document on sobriety check points: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0093.htm
    As stated by a previous poster, the statute need not contain that requirement. According to the Supreme Court, it is implicit within any police contact or arrest.

    There are 2 issues in the Goldberg case that are both questions of 4th Amendment law:
    1 - Whether the police officers had a reasonable suspicion that Goldberg had, was, or was about to commit a crime to detain and search him; and
    2 - Whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest him for any crime.

    The transcript is confusing if you are not looking out for these issues as separate but you can see the judge talk about a "Terry stop" as well as "probable cause" for the arrest. You can see that Attorney Baird argues that the officers lacked a reasonable suspicion that he had committed any crime to justify them even detaining or searching him. Once that is established, they certainly would not have probable cause to arrest him because RAS comes before PC.

    The Supreme Court held in Terry v. Ohio that officers can initiate a "stop and frisk" if they have a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime is, was, or is about to be committed. This has come to be known as a "Terry stop" named after the case. The judge ruled that the officers, based on the 911 call and the fact that Goldberg had a pistol visible on his hip, could reasonably infer that he may be about to commit a crime. According to the judgem this justified the initial stop and detainment.

    The second question was whether the police had probable cause to arrest him after he was detained. Here, the judge ruled that they had cause to believe that he violated the breach of peace statute. Once an arrest is made, police are allowed -- based on Supreme court law based on the 4th Amendment -- to search him and retain any weapons found.

    I am breaking down the arguments and reviewing the transcript again and will come up with a final opinion later but initially, I can say that there are some problems with the judge's reasoning. I have to stress, however, that this is not an open and shut case. The judge made a good point that the police responded to the situation based on the information that they had available to them. The only thing they had to go on was a 911 report of a man with a gun in a restaurant and dispatch telling them to go there to investigate. The argument goes: police receive a tip that a man with a gun is in a restaurant (leave aside the recording which was not in evidence), they are instructed by dispatch to investigate, they find a man with a gun in the restaurant OCing. Unfortunately, I can see a higher court affirming this ruling on those facts and agreeing at least that the officers had RAS to justify the detainment. Whether they had PC to arrest him is a different analysis.

    That being said, her quick redirect on the "chain saw" hypothetical was pure genius. I had people in my office asking me what I was laughing so loudly over. Having been in that situation before, that was a moment of being quick on your feet that I am enviable of.
    Last edited by GunTotingLawyer; 09-21-2010 at 11:51 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    This Decision goes well beyond FIREARMS

    Fact: The vast majority of people in Connecticut are not of the Muslim faith.

    Question: Does this subject Muslims to a stricter set of rules or scrutiny for their day to day religious actions?


    Fact: The courtís statement and belief that the vast majority of people who have a pistol on their side do not possess a permit to carry their weapon, is equivalent to a statement that that there are in excess of 150,000 individuals in Connecticut who illegally carry firearms in violation of the law


    Fact: The Muslim Imam/cleric Faisal Abdul Rauf and anyone involved who currently advocates the building of a Muslim Mosque at or near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, and/or Rev. Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida who advocated the burning of the Muslim Koran could in fact be detained, handcuffed and subjected to arrest by any New York City or Florida Police officer under the courts theory regarding reckless behavior.

    Fact: Using the Courtís, (Judge Underhillís), logic and belief, individuals who engage in any conduct that upsets a single individual of the majority present and causes anyone to believe that they are threatened, alarmed, nervous or upset is subject to a Terry Stop and arrest.

    As I read and analyze the transcript, I will add additional comments to this post.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 09-22-2010 at 07:44 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member KennyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mountain Top
    Posts
    87

    Exclamation

    After reading the 'transcript' i've come to a few conclusions.

    1) NO ONE is safe from arrest and or prosecution if CC'ing OR Oc'ing.
    2) Breach of Peace WILL be used as an 'offense' by LEO's to arrest ANYONE for OC AND CC.
    3) The judge ruling that based on the 911 call and Mr. Goldberg having a 'gun on his hip' "could reasonably infer that he may be about to commit a crime"?? is absolutely downright SCARY!! This opens up anyone carrying a gun to being arrested if a SINGLE call to 911 is made concerning a MWAG!
    4) This 'judge' obviously made up his mind as to the outcome BEFORE this case even started.

    I'm no lawyer, but anyone, or should I say EVERYONE can see how this effects us all and it WILL be used in future cases as was/is the Terry vs Ohio case. This case is HUGE as it effects everyone with a permit to carry, which BTW is now useless.

    KB

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyB View Post
    1) NO ONE is safe from arrest and or prosecution if CC'ing OR Oc'ing.
    Or doing anything else for that matter. According to this judge, any black person may be stopped and harassed, and hispanic appearing person may be detained until they are certain they are legal citizens. Any person with a muslim appearance can be harassed.

    Think about it. The arguments by this judge are shocking and scary.

    2) Breach of Peace WILL be used as an 'offense' by LEO's to arrest ANYONE for OC AND CC.
    No matter what this judge says or decides, breach of peace is not and never has been a valid reason to arrest anyone for OC or CC.

    P.S.: A permit to carry has always been a useless idea.
    Last edited by Rich B; 09-22-2010 at 10:17 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    terryville, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    110
    The thing that bothers me was that the judge was completely fine with having mr Goldberg leave his gun in the car, opening up another can of worms had someone stolen it and then used it to rob chilis, or worse having stated the record of this chilis multiple times in this arguement that he was absolutely fine with having mr Goldberg disarmed and in danger if someone had decided that that night was the night for armed robbery for the 3rd time at chilis. I hate how people who choose not to take the proper means to defend themselves in the event of tragedy love to pass those same rules and regulations to those who dao value their lives.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by stacks04 View Post
    The thing that bothers me was that the judge was completely fine with having mr Goldberg leave his gun in the car
    This is the part that really drives home the judge's bias to me. I completely agree with a previous poster that this judge needs to be removed from his position.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Thoughts on the Goldberg Decision

    Yes, this decision definitely lacks the logic one would expect from a Federal Court and seems to expand police powers in Terry stops significantly.

    I can assure everyone that this case will be appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS if necessary.

    The ironic part of this situation is the fact that Judge Underhill is a very well respected judge. I believe that in this particular case he put his personal beliefs and fears before the law and couldn't find the strength to make the right decision.

    This is a perfect example of why the courts need to render a DECLARATORY RULING on the topic of OPEN CARRY and SEIZURE OF VALID PERMITS.

    For those who take the time to read and understand the law it is obvious that the judge got it wrong.

    Remember, this was not a Second Amendment case even though the Second Amendment is very much in play with this decision.

    What Attorney Baird did remarkably well on the record, was show everyone that this case was decided by Judge Underhill strictly on the fact that it involved a FIREARM.

    I hope that everyone can see that this argument includes and goes well beyond the OPEN CARRY firearm issue in this case.

    This case will not be over until the ninth inning, regardless of how many balls, or strikes are called by the umpires.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 09-22-2010 at 11:48 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member KennyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mountain Top
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post


    No matter what this judge says or decides, breach of peace is not and never has been a valid reason to arrest anyone for OC or CC.
    You might want to tell this to all the LEO officals in CT who seem to have no problem with it. And this case here will just justify even more, in there eyes anyways.

    KB

  21. #21
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyB View Post
    You might want to tell this to all the LEO officals in CT who seem to have no problem with it. And this case here will just justify even more, in there eyes anyways.
    Who are all of those LEOs to whom you confirm? I have only had one issue with LEOs in all of my time OCing and despite them being massively uninformed and biased, they still knew better than to use breach of peace as a charge.

    Add to this that the state police have been put on warning in writing since the second amendment rally and I don't see the evidence of what you are asserting.
    Last edited by Rich B; 09-22-2010 at 12:04 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    There is strong anti-Firearms precedent throughout most of The New England States to begin with.
    Connecticut Citizens most probably are not accustomed to seeing someone Armed Legally.
    I sincerely doubt that The Second Federal Circuit Court of New York will see it any differently.

    However, under Connecticut Law, Open Carry of a Loaded handgun while in Public is Legal, provided; the possesor has a Valid License to do so.

    Connecticut Law 53a-181(6) says: '... [A] Person commits Breach of Peace in the Second Degree when... [He] creates a Public and Hazardous or Physically Offensive Condition by any Act which such Person is not Licensed or Privileged to do. For purposes of this section, 'Public Place' means any Area that is used or held out for use by the Public whether Owned or Operated by Public or Private Interests.

    Open Carry of a Loaded Pistol, in New England, could well be held out to be a 'Hazardous and Physically Offensive Condition', but the Statute enumerates Persons who are... Licensed... as exempt.

    Connecticut Law 29-35(a) says: '...No Person shall Carry any Pistol or Revolver upon His or Her Person, except when such Person is within the Dwelling House or Place of Business of such Person, without a Permit to Carry the same Issued as provided in section 29-28.'

    Conneticut Law 29-28, Authorizes the Possesion of a Pistol or Revolver by a Person with a Permit, Issued, pursuant to Authority of, Connecticut Law.

    Acquiring a Permit, pursuant to the same, should give rise to the exception listed under 53a-181(6), as that Person would be Licensed or Privileged to create the Disturbance, hence: 'Man with a Gun'.
    Last edited by aadvark; 09-22-2010 at 12:49 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    Connecticut Citizens most probably are not accustomed to seeing someone Armed Legally.
    I have to agree strongly with this statement since I hear it more than I should have to.

    People see police officers walking around armed legally all the time.

    People do not see criminals walking around all the time armed (especially not openly carrying holstered firearms).

    More and more people are seeing legally permitted people walking around open carrying a firearm.

    Nothing in that sentence holds truth.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Rich B:

    Please do NOT make a Liar out of me.

    I only said what I said because I sincerely doubt you would recieve the same type of Public Response had this occured elsewhere in our Country, say: 1. Western States, 2. Southern States, or 3. Alaska.

    aadvark
    Last edited by aadvark; 09-22-2010 at 01:30 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    Please do NOT make a Liar out of me.
    No one can 'make a liar out of you'.

    I only said what I said because I sincerely doubt you would recieve the same type of Public Response had this occured elsewhere in our Country, say: 1. Western States, 2. Southern States, or 3. Alaska.
    Citation needed.

    1. California is having major OC and 2A struggles.
    2. There are more states in 'the north' that OC friendly than 'the south'. http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
    3. There are idiots in Alaska as well. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...Delta-Junction
    Last edited by Rich B; 09-22-2010 at 01:40 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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