Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Norwalk Incident being handled by Attorney Baird

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

    Norwalk Incident being handled by Attorney Baird

    There is much more to this case then is contained in this police report, and more will be posted.

    While reading this, remember, there was NO search warrant, NO Risk Warrant, NO Protective order of any kind and Mr. (Redacted does not own a "REVOLVER".

    THEN CONSIDER THE FACT THAT NORWALK POLICE SEIZED THE WEAPONS OF MRS. (REDACTED) WHO DID NOTHING WRONG.




    QUESTIONS:

    Will the State dismiss/drop the charges if Mr. (REDACTED) submits to a comprehensive psychological examination to determine his mental state to possess and carry firearms?

    Is the voice mail message so generic that it fails to be a physical threat of violence?

    If Mr. (REDACTED) did not own or carry a firearm, would he have been arrested for making the statement on the Doctor’s Voice mail?

    Taking into consideration everything they believe and know about Mr. (REDACTED) including but not limited to:

    The fact that he:

    1. “CARRIES AND BRANDISHES A FIREARM TO THE OFFICE FOR MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS”

    2. “SEEMS UNSTABLE”

    3. Expresses “RADICAL RIGHT-WING” political beliefs

    4. Allegedly has an “UNSTABLE IRRITABLE DEMEANOR

    5. “is easily excited and often voices strong opinions on politics

    Did anyone in the office inform him that he should NOT bring or carry a firearm to the office?

    Is Mr. (REDACTED) the first upset patient to state dissatisfaction verbally or leave a complaint with the office by voice mail?

    FACTS:

    Mr. (REDACTED) and his wife obtained their permits and firearms following the 2007 Cheshire home invasion.

    As a courtesy Mr. (REDACTED) advised the staff and Dr. that he carried a firearm and that he possessed a valid permit to do so.

    At no time prior to the date in question was Mr. (REDACTED) asked or told not to bring a firearm to the office.

    On the voice mail audio referenced and described Mr. (REDACTED) never mentions or references a firearm or any form of violence.

    Mr. (REDACTED) is alleged to have left the following voice mail:

    “He will provide those. I want them forwarded. If I haven’t heard within 48 hrs that the results have not been forwarded to Dr. Altman. I will be walking into the office and it will not be pretty. Do you understand me? I paid for these up front + you will provide them.”

    The office staff members claim that Mr. (REDACTED) sounded irate.

    The office staff providing the statement then goes on to state that Mr. (REDACTED) is known to carry a gun into the office during his visits + place it on the table under his hat. He typically alerts the physician that he has a firearm + has a permit to carry it.

    The office staff member then goes on to state that Mr. (REDACTED), (in her opinion), has an excitable personality, is extremely opinionated + politically extremely one-sided.

    The office staff member goes on to explain:

    This voice mail left me uncomfortable regarding the safety of the entire office staff because he carries a firearm + seems unstable.

    In a statement made by a Dr. Staw, he states that Mr. (REDACTED) in the last few visits came into the office with a “REVOLVER” without providing the dates of the last few visits.

    The Dr. goes on to state:

    “This morning I was made aware of the message Mr. (REDACTED) left on our voice mail. Having heard the message and knowing that Mr. (REDACTED) carries a gun, and also knowing that he becomes easily excited, I now feel threatened.”

    FROM THE NORWALK POLICE REPORT:


    The information has been taken from a Norwalk Police report that may be made available in the near future.

    .
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 05-22-2011 at 10:17 AM. Reason: To remove the actual police report sections

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Emails from Norwalk case

    From: Rachel M. Baird [mailto:rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:42 PM
    To: 'Weisgerber, Arthur'
    Cc: 'Rilling, Harry'; 'Kulhawik, Thomas'; 'William.B.Krauss@po.state.ct.us'; 'Michele_ciesco@torringtonct.org'; 'james.cetran@wethersfieldct.com'
    Subject: RE: Mailed Pistol Permit Application

    Sgt. Weisgerber –

    In your May 18, 2001, 2:32 pm email you state: “Mr. (REDACTED)’s current arrest is a disqualifier for possession of a State Pistol Permit and that is why the State revoked his permit.” I understand that your May 18, 2011, 4:08 pm email states: “I am aware that an arrest is not a disqualifier, a conviction is.” We now agree on this point that an arrest is not a disqualifier.

    Next point. Revocation status does not disqualify a person from submitting an application for a temporary state permit. I addressed a similar issue with Chief Maniago recently. My correspondence to Chief Maniago is attached. You may wish to contact him. When you contact Sgt. Krauss he will inform you that revocation status does not disqualify a person from submitting an application for a temporary state permit. You may wish to contact Chief Cetran of the Wethersfield Police Department and ask him about two applications for temporary state permits that James Goldberg submitted while his state permit was in revocation status.

    Finally, I appreciate that you have referred me to the “State,” presumably for the purpose of filing an appeal to the Board. How my client proceeds is my concern. Chief Rilling’s obligation under the law to consider an Application for a Temporary State Permit is your concern. Once you determine that you are in error and that revocation status is not a disqualifier I trust you will proceed as the Chief’s designee in consideration of the application or forward the application back to the Chief for his consideration.

    Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992
    Web Site: www.RachelBairdLaw.com

    From: Weisgerber, Arthur [mailto:AWeisgerber@norwalkct.org]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:08 PM
    To: Rachel M. Baird
    Cc: Rilling, Harry; Kulhawik, Thomas; William.B.Krauss@po.state.ct.us
    Subject: RE: Mailed Pistol Permit Application

    I will respond as best as I can. Mr. (REDACTED) has a State of Connecticut pistol permit that has been revoked by the State, not the Norwalk Police Department. I am aware that an arrest is not a disqualifier, a conviction is. I was pointing out that the reason for the revocation was due to the arrest for disqualifying charges. I believe the course of action for Mr. (REDACTED) is to contact the State concerning his revoked State permit, not apply for a new Temporary State permit while his current permit is revoked. I will gladly follow up with Sgt. Krauss to inquire if we should be issuing new Temporary State permits for persons with a revoked permit.

    Sincerely,

    Sgt. Art Weisgerber
    Crime Scene / I.D. Unit
    Norwalk Police Department
    One Monroe Street
    Norwalk, CT 06854
    (203) 854-3164
    (203) 854- 3028 (Cold Cases)
    aweisgerber@norwalkct.org

    From: Rachel M. Baird [mailto:rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:42 PM
    To: Weisgerber, Arthur
    Cc: Rilling, Harry; Kulhawik, Thomas; William.B.Krauss@po.state.ct.us
    Subject: RE: Mailed Pistol Permit Application

    Sgt. Weisgerber –

    Before responding in full to your email I will provide you opportunity to read General Statutes 29-28(b) so that our discussion is well-informed and productive. Your comment that an arrest is a disqualifier should concern the Chief, the Town of Norwalk, and its residents. General Statutes 29-28(b)(2) accords with principles held in the United States that an individual, despite an arrest by the Norwalk Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, is innocent until proven guilty. I am familiar with the SLFU. You may wish to contact Sgt. Krauss to inquire whether an arrest is a disqualifier. I look forward to hearing back from you. Once you determine that you are in error and that an arrest is not a disqualifier I trust you will proceed as the Chief’s designee in consideration of the application or forward the application back to the Chief for his consideration.

    Best regards,

    Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992
    Web Site: www.RachelBairdLaw.com

    From: Weisgerber, Arthur [mailto:AWeisgerber@norwalkct.org]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:32 PM
    To: rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com
    Cc: Rilling, Harry; Kulhawik, Thomas
    Subject: Mailed Pistol Permit Application

    Dear Attorney Baird,
    The pistol permit application for Mr. (REDACTED) of (ADDRESS REDACTED), Norwalk CT that you mailed to Chief Rilling has been forwarded to my attention. I read in your letter that Mr. (REDACTED) “has possessed a valid state permit to carry pistols and revolvers in the State of Connecticut”. Also that his fingerprints are on file with the Military ( we do not have access to them ) his previous permit and from his arrest on February 16th, 2011. Mr. (REDACTED) was arrested on February 16th, 2001 in Norwalk for Threatening in the Second Degree – 53a-62 and the case is Pending in Norwalk Court in the Pre-Trial phase. I ran Mr. (REDACTED)’s pistol permit in the State of Connecticut Firearms Division database and found that his State of Connecticut Pistol Permit has been Revoked by the State. Mr. (REDACTED)’s current arrest is a disqualifier for possession of a State Pistol Permit and that is why the State revoked his permit. Therefore, the Norwalk Police Department will not be issuing any Temporary State Pistol Permit to Mr. (REDACTED) and any inquiries into the status of his State permit should be directed to the State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety Special Licenses and Firearms Unit at 860-685-8290. Mr. (REDACTED) should have received some paperwork from the State concerning the revocation status and his rights to an appeal. I will be mailing back the application and checks you submitted.

    Sincerely,

    Sgt. Art Weisgerber
    Crime Scene / I.D. Unit
    Norwalk Police Department
    One Monroe Street
    Norwalk, CT 06854
    (203) 854-3164
    (203) 854- 3028 (Cold Cases)
    aweisgerber@norwalkct.org

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Motion to Dismiss

    DOCKET NO: (REDACTED) : SUPERIOR COURT
    :
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD
    :
    VS. : AT NORWALK
    :
    (REDACTED) : MAY 20, 2011

    MOTION TO DISMISS


    The Defendant (REDACTED) (the “Defendant” or “(REDACTED)”), by and through his undersigned attorney and pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56 and Practice Book § 41-8(5), hereby moves for the dismissal of the charge against the Defendant arising from the February 16, 2011, arrest by the Norwalk Police Department as detailed in Norwalk Police Department Case/Incident Report #11-7963 as evidence. See attached Case/Incident Report #11-7963. A same or similar motion for the dismissal of the charge has not been previously filed.

    I. STATEMENT OF FACTS[1]
    The Defendant was a patient of Dr. Igal Staw at Internal and Respiratory Associates located at 83 East Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut. (REDACTED) last saw Dr. Staw on February 7, 2011, and subsequently stopped seeing him.
    According to the Case/Incident Report submitted by the Norwalk Police Department in support of probable cause on February 15, 2011, (REDACTED) left a voice mail message at the medical office regarding the results of a blood test taken on his last visit. The message, referring to Dr. Staw and the blood test results, as indicated in the incident report[2] stated: “He will provide those. I want them forwarded. If I haven't heard within 48 hours that the results have been forwarded to Dr. Altman, I will be walking into the office and it will not be pretty. Do you understand me? I paid for those up front and you will provide them.”
    The medical office staff called the Norwalk Police Department. Norwalk Police Department Officer Zwickler listened to the message. Officer Zwickler was advised by employees at the medical office that they were aware that (REDACTED) carries a handgun.
    Officer Zwickler confirmed that (REDACTED) possesses a valid Connecticut state permit to carry pistols and revolvers. He then called (REDACTED) to have him report to the Norwalk Police Department to discuss the matter. (REDACTED) declined to go to the Norwalk Police Department and told Officer Zwickler “don't come to my house without a warrant. Don't come here unless you're going to arrest me.”
    Officer Zwickler advised (REDACTED) that he would be coming to his house to arrest him. Seven (7) Norwalk Police Department Officers went to (REDACTED)'s residence. Once there, they contacted him by telephone and ordered him to exit the residence. (REDACTED) complied with the order and exited into the yard where he was arrested, handcuffed and searched. (REDACTED) was then taken back inside his residence where the officers conducted a search and seized seven (7) firearms. (REDACTED) was then transported to the Norwalk Police Department and charged with Threatening in the Second Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62.

    II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
    Even taking all the facts alleged in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences against (REDACTED), the elements of General Statutes § 53a-62, Threatening in the Second Degree, have not been met.
    The language of General Statute § 53a-62 provides the basis of the analysis and argument. It reads “A person is guilty of threatening in the second degree when: (1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent physical injury, (2) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or (3) such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.”
    Breaking down the Statute to each subsection and comparing the allegations against (REDACTED) confirm that no violation occurred.
    Subsection (1) requires that, by physical threat, the person intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury. First and foremost, (REDACTED) did not make a physical threat. Secondly his comments were not intended to place anyone in fear of imminent physical injury. (REDACTED) was clearly an unsatisfied patient who made a request to have his blood test results forwarded to another doctor. His comments merely indicated that he was displeased that the office had failed to provide the services that he had requested. (REDACTED)’s comment that if the office failed to provide the requested results he would have to come pick them up himself, and it “would not be pretty.” This type of comment refers to nothing other than the fact that (REDACTED) would have to go there in person and would again voice his displeasure in person as opposed to on a voice mail message. There was no physical threat or indication that he meant anything other than the fact that he would be forced to complain in person.
    Subsection (2) requires such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person. Again, (REDACTED) did not make any physical threat, much less a threat to commit a crime of violence. In fact, (REDACTED) did not make a comment about committing any type of crime at all. His comments were that he would have to go to the office to pick up his medical records and that “would not be pretty.” The fact that he would have to go to the medical office and that other patients or personnel could overhear why he was picking up his records would clearly produce a scene that may not be “pretty” however it would not be a crime of violence to do so.
    Finally, Subsection (3) requires such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror. Again, (REDACTED) did not make a threat to commit a crime of violence.
    In reviewing each subsection of and analyzing the requirements to determine if a violation occurred, it is clear that (REDACTED) did not violate any part of the Statute and the charge must be dismissed.

    III. CONCLUSION
    Based on the foregoing details, there was no legal basis to charge (REDACTED) with Threatening in the Second Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62. Therefore the charges should immediately be dismissed.



    DEFENDANT
    (REDACTED)



    BY: ­­/s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird (CT Juris #407222)
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992



    ORDER

    The foregoing motion having been duly heard, it is hereby, GRANTED/DENIED.
    BY THE COURT

    _________________________________
    Judge/Clerk of the Superior Court





    CERTIFICATION


    Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-14, I hereby certify that a copy of the above was hand-delivered on May 20, 2011, to all counsel as listed below:
    Office of the State’s Attorney
    17 Belden Ave
    Norwalk CT 06850-3303

    ­­/s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird
    Commissioner of the Superior Court

    [1] The following facts are taken from the Norwalk Police Department Case/Incident Report and restated only for the purposes of this motion. The Defendant does not concede the truth of the allegations

    [2] Defense counsel has not been provided a copy of the recorded message.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Motion to return Seized Property

    DOCKET NO: (REDACTED) : SUPERIOR COURT
    :
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD
    :
    VS. : AT NORWALK
    :
    (REDACTED) : MAY 20, 2011

    MOTION FOR RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY


    The Defendant (REDACTED) (the “Defendant” or “(REDACTED)”), by and through his undersigned attorney and pursuant to General Statutes § 54-33f(a)(1) and Practice Book § 41-13(1), hereby moves for the return of property illegally seized by the Norwalk Police Department on February 16, 2011, from the Defendant’s home absent a warrant or justification, under circumstances requiring a warrant. The seized property included within this motion is all property listed in Norwalk Police Department Case/Incident Report #11-7963 as evidence. See attached list in Case/Incident Report #11-7963. A same or similar motion for the return of the seized property has not been previously filed.

    I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
    The Defendant was a patient of Dr. Igal Staw at Internal and Respiratory Associates located at 83 East Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut. last saw Dr. Staw on February 7, 2011, and subsequently stopped seeing him.
    According to the Case/Incident Report submitted by the Norwalk Police Department in support of probable cause on February 15, 2011, left a voice mail message at the medical office regarding the results of a blood test taken on his last visit. The message, referring to Dr. Staw and the blood test results, as indicated in the incident report[1] stated: “He will provide those. I want them forwarded. If I haven't heard within 48 hours that the results have been forwarded to Dr. Altman, I will be walking into the office and it will not be pretty. Do you understand me? I paid for those up front and you will provide them.”
    The medical office staff called the Norwalk Police Department. Norwalk Police Department Officer Zwickler listened to the message. Officer Zwickler was advised by employees at the medical office that they were aware that carries a handgun.
    Officer Zwickler confirmed that possesses a valid Connecticut tate permit to carry pistols and revolvers. He then called to have him report to the Norwalk Police Department to discuss the matter. declined to go to the Norwalk Police Department and told Officer Zwickler “don't come to my house without a warrant. Don't come here unless you're going to arrest me.”
    Officer Zwickler advised that he would be coming to his house to arrest him. Seven (7) Norwalk Police Department Officers went to 's residence. Once there, they contacted him by telephone and ordered him to exit the residence. complied with the order and exited into the yard where he was arrested, handcuffed and searched. was then taken back inside his residence where the officers conducted a search and seized seven (7) firearms. was then transported to the Norwalk Police Department and charged with Threatening in the Second Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62.

    II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
    Even taking all the facts alleged in support of probable cause as true and drawing all reasonable inferences against , the seizure of the firearms illegal and they must be returned to .
    First and foremost, did not commit a crime. was charged with Threatening in the Second Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62. The elements of that crime have not been met. There was no threat of violence ever made or implied as required by the statute.
    Even if the elements of the crime were met, the firearms seized were not evidence of the violation. Threatening is a crime of words. The evidence in this incident is the words uttered by . That evidence is contained in the voice mail recording seized by Officer Zwickler.
    Even if the firearms were to be considered as evidence, their seizure was illegal. Searches and seizures conducted without a warrant have consistently been ruled to be unconstitutional and in contrast to the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Taking into account exceptions to the search warrant requirement still fail to provide a legal exception to the search warrant requirement. Clearly there was a lack of consent on the part of. He advised Zwickler not to come to his house without a warrant. He was ordered out of his residence and handcuffed by seven police officers and then taken back into his house to seize his firearms. A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person, items in the person's immediate possession, and the area of that person's immediate control. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). A protective sweep of the residence requires reasonable suspicion of another person that could pose a risk to the arresting officers. It is a search for people, not evidence. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990).
    There was no assertion that the search and seizure was conducted for any exigent reasons or that there was a risk that the firearms would be removed from the residence. There is no justification for the Norwalk Police Department’s failure to apply for a search and seizure warrant.

    III. CONCLUSION
    Based on the foregoing details, there was no legal basis to seize the firearms. There was no valid search and seizure warrant and the seizure did not fall within a recognized exception to the requirement for a search and seizure warrant. The items seized should be immediately returned to .

    DEFENDANT
    (REDACTED).



    BY: ­­/s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird (CT Juris #407222)
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992

    ORDER

    The foregoing motion having been duly heard, it is hereby, GRANTED/DENIED.
    BY THE COURT

    _________________________________
    Judge/Clerk of the Superior Court




    CERTIFICATION


    Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-14, I hereby certify that a copy of the above was hand-delivered on May 20, 2011, to all counsel as listed below:
    Office of the State’s Attorney
    17 Belden Ave
    Norwalk CT 06850-3303

    ­­/s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird
    Commissioner of the Superior Court




    [1] Defense counsel has not been provided a copy of the recorded message.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Request to Video Tape Court appearances

    From: Edward Peruta [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
    Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:08 PM
    To: 'Rhonda.Hebert@jud.ct.gov'
    Cc: 'Rachel M. Baird'; (REDACTED)
    Subject: Request to video Tape proceedings in Norwalk


    Rhonda,

    This is a formal request to cover and video tape ALL court hearings in the following case in Norwalk.

    DOCKET NO: (REDACTED) : SUPERIOR COURT
    :
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD
    :
    VS. : AT NORWALK
    :
    (REDACTED) :

    This case has significant issues regarding Federal and State constitutional rights, particularly the Second and Fourth Amendment to same.

    I am familiar with the rules on cameras in the Court Room and will be happy to abide by same.

    I see no disruption to the court if I am allowed to video tape future proceedings in the above referenced case.

    It is my understanding that you will forward this request to the Judge and I am copying this email to the accused and attorney in the case.

    Thank you in advance,



    Ed Peruta
    American News and Information Services Inc.
    Rocky Hill, CT.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    It is amazing to think that Norwalk police believe that this somehow is within their duties as police officers.

    Good work on exposing this Ed, I know you will be supporting and following up on this case, I hope everyone else will be just as supportive for a fellow citizen in need.

    Good work to Attorney Baird as well. I absolutely love the wording in her emails. I am always impressed by her strong language and support for our rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    One incident two plaintiffs

    The husband is a plaintiff against Norwalk PD for the arrest and illegal seizure of his weapons and permit, DPS for the revocation of his permit, and the Board of Firearms over the delay he will suffer to get a hearing.

    The wife will be a plaintiff against Norwalk PD for the illegal seizure of her weapons from her home. After all, what did she do?

    More to follow on this issue as events unfold.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Ed, no need to redact...

    I'm the guy Ed's posting about, and I am neither embarrassed nor ashamed of my actions; I have neither done nor threatened to do anything wrong.

    I could have made this thing go away by accepting A.R., but the more I thought about it, the more it became clear to me that if more of those who've gone before me in this type of situation had chosen to stand up and fight for what's right, these lawless and unaccountable LEO's might not have felt so free to do the things that they did, and I might not be in this situation at all. The lawless and unaccountable "officials" get away with this kind of crap because no one calls them on it. They're like the vampires of legend; they must be dragged into the light of public scrutiny, and allowed to burn to ash under that light. I view this fight as a duty. Freedom isn't free!

    Yes, there most certainly will be more information forthcoming.
    Last edited by DDoutel; 05-23-2011 at 04:01 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    I'm the guy Ed's posting about, and I am neither embarrassed nor ashamed of my actions; I have neither done nor threatened to do anything wrong.
    Welcome aboard. Great to see another citizen fighting the good fight. I am sorry to hear about your troubles, but I am glad to see that you plan to fight the good fight against them. You are in good hands with Ed Peruta and Attorney Baird.

    Please keep us posted and let us know if there are things we can do to help.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Welcome aboard. Great to see another citizen fighting the good fight. I am sorry to hear about your troubles, but I am glad to see that you plan to fight the good fight against them. You are in good hands with Ed Peruta and Attorney Baird.

    Please keep us posted and let us know if there are things we can do to help.
    Thanks, Rich; much appreciated!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1
    I have been following the "gun rights" movement for many years now and in other states I read stories of people suing the police and towns for money. I can't think of a case in Connecticut where some received a payment from the police for these frequent violations.
    Not only does Mr (redacted) need to fight this in criminal court, but needs to bring this to civil court.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael_M View Post
    I have been following the "gun rights" movement for many years now and in other states I read stories of people suing the police and towns for money. I can't think of a case in Connecticut where some received a payment from the police for these frequent violations.
    Not only does Mr (redacted) need to fight this in criminal court, but needs to bring this to civil court.
    The City of Norwalk and the State of CT are in fact in much deeper trouble here than I am; there will be pain aplenty to go around. I was fortunate enough to secure the services of the best attorney in the country for this case, and trust her implicitly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247
    DOCKET NO: CR11-0128328-S : SUPERIOR COURT AT NORWALK
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT
    VS.
    DUANE T. DOUTEL : MAY 23, 2011

    MOTION TO VACATE ORDER
    The Defendant Duane T. Doutel (the “Defendant” or “Doutel”), by and through his
    undersigned attorney and pursuant to Practice Book §§ 38-13, 38-17, hereby moves to vacate1
    the Order of the Court issued on May 20, 2011, which modified the Defendant’s terms and
    conditions of release to prohibit the Defendant from pursuing his application for a temporary
    state permit2 or possessing firearms. At oral argument on May 20, 2011, the Court articulated
    its reason for the Order as the criminal offense charged; specifically, Threatening in the
    Second Degree, a violation of General Statutes § 53a-62.

    I. THE MAY 20, 2011, ORDER IS UNWARRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF A
    FACTUAL BASIS
    A charge of Threatening in the Second Degree does not disqualify the Defendant from
    holding a state permit under General Statutes § 29-28(b) or possessing firearms under Title 18
    U.S.C § 922(g). Even if convicted of Threatening in the Second Degree, the Defendant would
    not be disqualified from holding a state permit under General Statutes § 29-28(b) or
    possessing firearms under Title 18 U.S.C § 922(g).

    1 See State v. Manns, 91 Conn.App. 827, 833 (2005) (“He could have: (1) sought to have the order modified or
    vacated by a judge of the Superior Court pursuant to Practice Book § 38-13; or (2) appealed the terms of the order to the
    Appellate Court in accordance with General Statutes § 54-63g.) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

    2 An Order of Protection may be issued in accordance with the statutory requirements of
    General Statutes §§ 46b-38c(e), 54-1k, and 54-82k. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-223.3 The
    allegations and charge against the Defendant do not meet the statutory requirements for an
    Order of Protection to issue. Therefore, the Defendant could not be prohibited from
    possessing firearms pursuant to an Order of Protection.

    The Court’s May 20, 2011, articulation of its sole basis for modifying the Defendant’s
    terms and conditions of release as the charge of Threatening in the Second Degree is not
    sufficient grounds to prohibit the Defendant from pursuing his application for a temporary
    state permit4 or possessing firearms when even a conviction for the offense would not
    disqualify the Defendant from the conduct prohibited under the Court’s May 20, 2011, Order.
    The basis for any Order prohibiting the Defendant from pursuing his application for a
    temporary state permit5 or possessing firearms must be founded in the alleged conduct.

    II. THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROCEED TO TRIAL
    The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56 and
    Practice Book § 41-8(5) based on the insufficiency of the evidence. The entirety of the case
    relies upon a voicemail that neither the Court nor the defense has heard. As argued in the
    Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, even accepting the allegations contained in the police reports

    2 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b).
    3 General Statutes 53a-223(a) provides: “A person is guilty of criminal violation of a protective order when an
    order issued pursuant to subsection (e) of section 46b-38c, or section 54-1k or 54-82r has been issued against

    such person, and such person violates such order.”
    4 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b).

    5 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b).

    3



    and witness statements as true, which the defense does only for the purposes of the Motion to

    Dismiss but not for any other purpose, the allegations do not meet the elements of Threatening
    in the Second Degree.





    III. THE IMPLICATION OF FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

    The dispossession of the Defendant’s right to bear arms and possess firearms in his
    home based upon words uttered in a voicemail that neither the Court nor the defense has
    heard,6 when the voicemail as reported by the police contains no threat of violence involving
    firearms or otherwise, imposes a restriction on the speech of individuals such as the
    Defendant who choose to exercise rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.
    At hearing on the instant motion the Defendant intends to present evidence that the
    arrest lacked probable cause, the Defendant’s words did not constitute a threat of violence
    with firearms or otherwise, and that the Order issued by the Court on May 20, 2011, was
    based not on the facts but on the Court’s and the State’s determination to curtail the
    Defendant’s Second Amendment rights. The State did not request nor did the Court order that
    the Defendant not possess firearms or pursue his application for a temporary state permit until
    the Defendant’s counsel engaged in the attached email exchange with Sergeant Arthur
    Weisgerber of the Norwalk Police Department. When Sgt. Weisgerber could not prevail on
    the law, he sought the intervention of the prosecution to achieve by Court Order what could

    not lawfully be accomplished under state statute.
    6 Probable cause was never found for the arrest because the Defendant was not in custody at the time of his
    arraignment.


    4

    If the Norwalk Police Department had sufficient cause to allege that the Defendant




    presented an imminent danger to himself or others then state statute provides a means for
    seeking a warrant to prevent such danger. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38c. Our Appellate Court
    has ruled that even when the police have already seized firearms and the firearms are in the
    evidence room it is not too late to obtain a Risk Warrant to seize the same firearms. See In re
    Addie May Nesbitt, 124 Conn.App. 400, cert. denied In re Addie May Nesbitt, 299 Conn. 917
    (2010). In this manner due process protections attach to the seizure and the prohibition on the
    possession of firearms, including a full hearing on the matter.





    IV. CONCLUSION

    The Norwalk Police Department, the State, and the Court bypassed the procedures set
    forth in the Risk Warrant statute that would have afforded the Defendant due process and a
    right to be heard on the Court’s Order that he not possess firearms and be disqualified from
    holding a state permit.7 For this reason, the Defendant is entitled to no less procedural
    protections afforded an individual subject to a Risk Warrant including a full evidentiary
    hearing within fourteen (14) days. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38c.





    7 An individual subject to a Risk Warrant is prohibited from holding a state permit. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b).

    5



    DEFENDANT

    DUANE T. DOUTEL
    BY: /s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird (CT Juris #407222)
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992





    ORDER

    The foregoing motion having been duly heard, it is hereby,




    GRANTED/DENIED.

    BY THE COURT

    _________________________________
    Judge/Clerk of the Superior Court
    CERTIFICATION
    Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-14, I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed
    postage paid first-class on May 23, 2011, to all counsel as listed below:
    Office of the State’s Attorney
    17 Belden Ave
    Norwalk CT 06850-3303
    /s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird



    Commissioner of the Superior
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 05-23-2011 at 10:28 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    DDoutel, welcome aboard.
    And welcome to the (sadly, growing) group of people who have been arrested for exercising their rights, and sued.
    You're in good company.

    Seven (7) Norwalk Police Department Officers went to (REDACTED)'s residence. Once there, they contacted him by telephone and ordered him to exit the residence. (REDACTED) complied with the order and exited into the yard where he was arrested, handcuffed and searched. (REDACTED) was then taken back inside his residence where the officers conducted a search and seized seven (7) firearms.
    The only things I'd suggest doing differently are:
    1) call your lawyer while you're waiting for them to arrive.
    2) when you go outside, LOCK THE DOOR behind you. (Works w/ a car, too.)
    If all they have is an arrest warrant, they wouldnt be able (legally, that is) to break in, search, & steal things.

    If you already have a key hidden, don't have your house key in your pocket when you go out to meet them.
    I have a code to open my garage door, & a push-button key lock box inside the garage w/ a house key.
    (Check the key/lock section of a hardware store.)

    I'm currently dealing with a similar situation - 6 officers broke into my home (no warrant, no consent, no exigent circumstances), proned & cuffed me, searched the whole house, broke into a locked pistol case (which had been inside a canvas bag), & ended up stealing the case & pistol it contained.
    We filed the 1983 suit last Thurs.
    Hope to have a hearing in 2-3 weeks on the return of property & forcing the PD to release the records I requested.
    (Yeah, they just keep digging a deeper hole for themselves.)
    Last edited by MKEgal; 05-30-2011 at 04:43 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Looking for more information

    MKEgal,

    It's a shame that we do not have a place where each incident can be posted and explained.

    It would be very beneficial to know exactly what is happening around the state.

    Please PM me with the details of your law suit so that I may follow and support it with any facts.

    Ed Peruta

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Looking for similarities in the Norwalk PD's logic

    Consider this:

    The father of a sixteen year old daughter is present when a young man comes to the house to take his daughter out on a date.

    The father decides to make his house rules known to the young man so there is no confusion over what he expects regarding his daughter and her dating activities.

    The father makes the following statement in a very forceful, conservative and authoritarian manner to the young man:

    "Young man, keep in mind that this is my daughter and she has a curfew and must be home by midnight. If you bring her home after midnight I will personally meet you at the door and it will not be pretty!!"

    Now add the fact that the father has a valid permit to carry pistols and revolvers or simply has firearms registered at his home.

    Does the father's statement to the young man who is picking up his daughter constitute a violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, Threatening in the Second Degree and justify his arrest and the seizure of all the weapons known to be in his home?

    I don't think so!!!

  17. #17
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    MKEgal,

    It's a shame that we do not have a place where each incident can be posted and explained.

    It would be very beneficial to know exactly what is happening around the state.

    Please PM me with the details of your law suit so that I may follow and support it with any facts.

    Ed Peruta
    Being a software engineer/web developer, I'm in a unique postion to put up such a site with a proper downloadable document archive for supporting legal documents, emails, etc. referenced in blog entries, media galleries (great for hosting audio/video recordings taken during incidents), and so on. I've got a great hosting service, and an excellent Content Management System (CMS) that I've used successfully for several other sites. There should be no legal issues involved, as court documents are public by their nature, and nothing else would be posted without permission of the parties involved.

    If I throw the switch on this, it'd be a place for people to come and "rat out" the unaccountable and lawless "officials" in all areas of CT state and local government (not just firearms issues), another source for reportage, etc. I'd invite citizen experts in all areas of state law to be guest bloggers.

    My only regret in all of this is that it took becoming embroiled in a situation personally to push me to the point where such a project became attractive to me. That said, it's clear that it is far past time for citizens to fight back against the unaccountable and lawless "officials" claiming to "protect" us, when they're doing nothing of the sort. You cannot enforce the rule of law, all the while trampling it underfoot. When the law is selectively applied, those to whom it applies become the subjects of those to whom it does not apply.

    Simply put, I refuse to be a subject.
    Last edited by DDoutel; 05-24-2011 at 11:57 AM. Reason: added "not just firearms issues".

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    74
    I think a website such as you suggested might be good in the long run


    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Being a software engineer/web developer, I'm in a unique postion to put up such a site with a proper downloadable document archive for supporting legal documents, emails, etc. referenced in blog entries, media galleries (great for hosting audio/video recordings taken during incidents), and so on. I've got a great hosting service, and an excellent Content Management System (CMS) that I've used successfully for several other sites. There should be no legal issues involved, as court documents are public by their nature, and nothing else would be posted without permission of the parties involved.

    If I throw the switch on this, it'd be a place for people to come and "rat out" the unaccountable and lawless "officials" in all areas of CT state and local government (not just firearms issues), another source for reportage, etc. I'd invite citizen experts in all areas of state law to be guest bloggers.

    My only regret in all of this is that it took becoming embroiled in a situation personally to push me to the point where such a project became attractive to me. That said, it's clear that it is far past time for citizens to fight back against the unaccountable and lawless "officials" claiming to "protect" us, when they're doing nothing of the sort. You cannot enforce the rule of law, all the while trampling it underfoot. When the law is selectively applied, those to whom it applies become the subjects of those to whom it does not apply.

    Simply put, I refuse to be a subject.

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

    Part 1 OCR copy of court transcript

    The following was created from the official court transcript.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: The next matter is Duane Doutel, line 10 9 .
    ATTY. BAI RD: Good morning, Your Honor. Rachel Baird on behalf of Mr. Doutelwho is to my left.
    THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.
    ATTY. BAIRD: We have provided the prosecution with a number of motions this morning .
    THE COURT: All right .
    ATTY. BAIRD: I'll file them with the Court now. I have a motion to dismiss, a motion for return of seized property. And also my client has asked that I file a motion -- he's asking for an immediate trial in this matter, Your Honor. He's asked that I file a motion to suspend appearances in lieu of that trial --
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: I'd like to be heard to on those motions.
    ATTY. BAIRD : to preserve his resources.
    Excuse me?
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: I'd like t o be heard on the motions.
    ATT. BAIRD: I also served a request for disclosure from the prosecution this morning too.
    THE COURT: Okay, all right.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: I'd like to be heard on these motions, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Yes?
    PAGE2
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: First and foremost, the brief history in this matter is that an AR application was filed in this matter. It was subsequently withdrawn. Based on this arrest, Your Honor, the pistol permit for Mr. Dote was revoked. It came to our attention that he subsequently applied for a temporary pistol permit and that was not granted to him. In light of that, Your Honor, the State is asking that the Court enter an order as a condition of his release that he possess no weapons.
    ATTY. BAIRD: Well, number one Your Honor, if you look at the facts of this case, it merits dismissal. The only allegation in this case with regard to threatening is that Mr. Doutel was irritated that his doctor did not provide his surgeon with medical tests required for surgery, and that Mr. Doutel called the doctor's office and indicated that if he did not send those medical tests, he would come down there, it would not be pretty.There's absolutely no direct threat implicit in that. But merely Mr. Doutel exercises his second amendment right to keep and bear arms, the police came to his house, arrested him and seized his firearms with no risk warrant, and seized the firearms although they did not constitute any evidence in this case. Mr. Doutel never made a
    PAGE 3
    threat with regard to firearms. What this case entails is that his first amendment right to speak freely has been curtailed because he exercises his second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Now, I practice before the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners substantially. And it is my practice when someone is revoked because there's a 24 -- there's a 10 to 24 month period and delay before their appeal can be heard, they apply for temporary state permit because there have been circumstances, specifically in Wethersfield and Torrington, where temporary state permits have been issued even though a person is in revocation status. There is absolutely no cause in this case to make such a request that Mr. Doutel not possess firearms. And even if a protective issued, he would have the right to have a hearing within 14 days on that issue. So in this case, to issue a blanket order that he not possess firearms, would make it more burdensome than if he had been issued a protective order, which he has not. And we request, if the Court is even to consider this request by the State, that Mr. Doutel not possess firearms, that we have an immediate hearing on the matter before the Judge makes a -- before the Court makes a decision.
    PAGE 4
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: I have the police report if Your Honor would like to look at it.
    ATTY . BAIRD: And its attached to my motions as well.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER : Well, t hat's one of the things I'd like to -- that's -- I'm going there next.
    THE COURT: Where are you going?
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: I would just like to put some things on the record with regard to the motions that I was handed t his morning, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: All right. Well, the question is, why am I hearing these motions today? Normally they're set down for a short calendar hearing of some kind. So the question is why am I hearing all of this today, as --
    ATTY. BAIRD: All I did was file the motions, Your Honor. I was responding to the request by the State for a condition --
    THE COURT: Well, there's one motion. There's a motion in there to waive your -- the client's appearance; is that what I hear?
    ATTY. BAIRD: Yes, that the matter be put on the jury trial list and that --
    THE COURT: Well, that is denied right now. I don't waive -- just give general waivers of appearances for any client, specifically specific dates or specific reasons. I don't have a problem

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Part 2 OCR copy of court transcript

    PAGE 5
    with continuing cases . But these are criminal matters, not civil matters. And so I'm not I'm not going to go there, so that is denied as of now.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: I wasn't asking that Your Honor hear the motions. I would just like to comment with regard t o
    THE COURT: Well, I've heard -- I've heard that one and it’s -- the rest we can put on a -- the rest we can schedule for a hearing.
    ATTY . LOCKSHIER: May I just be heard , Your Honor?
    THE COURT: Yes .
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: There -- there were some other motions that were filed. I understand what Your Honor just said. But with regard to two of the motions -- there's a motion to dismiss and a motion for return of seized property. All of the motions indicate on the certification that they were sent to us via first class mail, however, they were handed to us. In any event --
    THE COURT: Yes.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: -- the motions , Your Honor, for some reason, the police report as well as the complainant's statement s are attached to these motions. There's no reason for that. It’s inappropriate for that to be attached . That will
    PAGE 6
    become part of t he clerk's file and part of public record, so I'd ask that they be detached from the motions.
    THE COURT: All right. Well counsel, is there any need to have those attached? They can be presented to me at some point. Is there any need for them to be in the clerk's file?
    ATTY. BAIRD: No.
    THE COURT: All right. Okay. Well, then we'll detach the statements and they can be presented to me in some fashion other than just placing them in the clerk's file.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: Well, police reports and statements. So then I guess on the other motions, they will be time of trial motions, but the
    THE COURT: All right. Now, the
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: -- State would like be heard on the condition.
    THE COURT: State should file a written motion regarding the condition of no temporary permits as well, and I'll hear that motion as well as these motions at the appropriate time.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: That wasn't the State's request, Your Honor. The State's request was a -- that Your Honor modify the bond to make a condition of his release that he not possess any weapons.I
    PAGE 7
    have the police report if Your Honor would like to read it .
    ATTY . BAIRD: Your Honor, if that had been a concern of the police, then certainly they would have applied under 29- 38c f or a risk warrant. They never applied for such a risk warrant indicating that this defendant presented an imminent danger of harm to himself or others. They're still free to apply for a risk warrant if that's the way they feel. And certainly i f the Court is going to consider this motion that Mr. Doutel not possess any firearms, then we deserve written notice and a chance to respond at a hearing. We would get no less if it were a protective order.
    THE COURT: All right. What I will do is this. I will issue a temporary order that he not apply for a special permit or temporary permit, and then I'll hear you on a motion for a permanent condition of the bond . So temporarily , I will issue that order.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: Which attached to that would be no -- possess no weap -- no firearms .
    THE COURT: And possess no firearms.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: Possess no guns.
    ATTY. BAIRD: Your Honor, we high that violates Mr. Doutel's second amendment right. If you look at the allegations in this case, which should be something that's looked at before an
    PAGE 8
    additional condition of bond is imposed, absolutely no reason in this case to place such an ord to impose such an order. No conditions have changed. If the police feel that Mr. Doutel should not have firearms, then we have statutes in this state for that purpose.
    THE COURT: It's a temporary order. You may wish to have a hearing on it. I will hear you on that motion, but for now its --
    ATTY. BAIRD: So is it my understanding since this order has been imposed
    THE COURT: Madame Attorney
    ATTY. BAIRD: -- that we are to file the motion, or the State is
    THE COURT: Counsel
    ATTY. BAIRD: -- to file the motion?
    THE COURT: -- counsel, if you wish to file a motion for a hearing that is your right to do.
    ATTY. BAIRD: May the Court articulate the reasons for this additional condition that Mr. Doutel not possess firearms?
    THE COURT: Charge of Threatening in the second degree.
    ATTY. BAIRD: A charge that had no relationship to firearms, Your Honor. We request that the Court --
    THE COURT: I'm allowing you the opportunity to

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Part 3 OCR copy of court transcript

    PAGE 9
    have a full hearing. I have indicated to you this is a temporary condition.
    ATTY. BAIRD: This is a fundamental constitutional right, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: It is not an unfettered right and you know that.
    ATTY. BAIRD: Being charged with 53-62 i s not a disqualifier.
    THE COURT: Madame, I 'm not going to engage in further discussion. I've indicated to you that I will entertain a motion to revise the condition. It is a temporary order.
    ATTY. BAIRD: If we were to f i le a motion today, Your Honor, how soon would it be heard? Could we get a date for that today?
    THE COURT: File your motion. I'm not going to give it a date today. File your motion. All right. Conditions need to be -- Mr. Kim?
    CLERK KIM: Yes.
    ATTY . LOCKSHIER: So we just need another date, Your Honor. This should either go to the supervised pre-trial docket, or straight to the firm jury docket if that's -- counsel has requested --
    THE COURT: All right. We can put this on the firm jury list. Status date will be a month from now. That will be a date at your convenience counsel for that. And I'll indicate to the Clerk's office
    PAGE 10
    about the scheduling of the motions. But in terms of a status date, counsel, a date at your convenience?
    ATTY. BAIRD: June 24th.
    THE COURT: June 24 it is.
    ATTY. BAIRD: And my understanding that the reason for the additional condition is that Mr. Doutel is charged with Threatening in the Second Degree?
    THE COURT: That is correct.
    ATTY. BAIRD: Transcript.
    CLERK KIM: Sign there.
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: So the case is on the jury docket. Your Honor, for the record, the State will be objecting to any pre-trial diversionary programs at this time.
    THE COURT: All right.
    ATTY. BAIRD: I'm trying to read this. Could you help me read this?
    CLERK KIM: Temporary order that defendant not possess any weapons or apply for a pistol --
    ATTY. BAIRD: Temporary order that defendant not possess any weapons or apply for pistol permit. Okay.
    CLERK KIM: I just need you to sign it.
    ATTY. BAIRD: Do you have a pen? Thanks. Do we get a copy of this?
    PAGE 11
    CLERK KIM: Yes. You can go to the Clerk's office and they can make a copy.
    ATTY. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you.
    THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. What I will do ~~
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: Have a great weekend.
    THE COURT: is I will encourage the Clerk's office to place this on a -- of course, and you need to file additional motions I presume as soon as possible. All right?
    ATTY. BAIRD: Thank you .
    THE COURT : Thank you, counsel .

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Board limits on size of posts

    I'm sorry to make the posting of the transcript so difficult, and suggest that everyone copy and paste the three sections into a word document for easy reading.

    The transcript tells a very interesting story of what happens in the courts.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Northern CT
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    The transcript tells a very interesting story of what happens in the courts.
    Yes it does Ed, yes it does. Thanks for all you do.

    VET

  24. #24
    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 transcript tells a very interesting story of what happens in the courts.
    The judge's reasoning and ruling are absurd.

  25. #25
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed
    ATTY. LOCKSHIER: -- the motions , Your Honor, for some reason, the police report as well as the complainant's statements are attached to these motions. There's no reason for that. It’s inappropriate for that to be attached. That will become part of the clerk's file and part of public record, so I'd ask that they be detached from the motions.
    Why on earth would he object to police reports (which are already public record) and the statements of the accused citizen being part of a public record?
    (On another note, Ed, I don't know what you did to post those transcripts, but trying to reply to them was a mess of formatting. I ended up highlighting & copying from a post.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed
    MKEgal,
    It would be very beneficial to know exactly what is happening around the state.
    Please PM me with the details of your law suit so that I may follow and support it with any facts.
    Well, my 2 cases happened in WI, so may not be of use or interest anywhere else, other than the 4A issues.
    I've already given the basics of what happened; my lawyer just put it into more formal language & pointed out action by action exactly what the police did wrong.
    The court # for the current case is 2:11-cv-00486-NJ and it was filed in the US district court for the eastern district of WI, Milwaukee division. I see no provision on their webpage for tracking a case online.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •