Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: EXPECTED to be filed in Federal Court today, Burgess suit against Wallingford

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

    EXPECTED to be filed in Federal Court today, Burgess suit against Wallingford

    TO EVERYONE THAT READS THIS MESSAGE BOARD:

    I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY THANK RICHARD BURGESS FOR HIS DECISON TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN WALLINGFORD, CT ON MAY 16TH 2010.

    WITHOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO CHALLENGE INAPPROPRIATE DETENTIONS AND ARRESTS WE ARE ALL AT RISK.

    GIVEN THE FACT THAT RICHARD BURGESS ATTEMPTED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO ADDRESS THE MATTER WITH A CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT THIS CIVIL ACTION IS VERY APPROPRIATE.

    HOPEFULLY HE AND HIS FEDERAL SUIT WILL RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF THE FIREARM AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMMUNITY.



    THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL COMPLAINT IS EXPECTED TO BE FILED TODAY, MONDAY JULY 18TH 2011.


    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

    __________________________________________________ _
    RICHARD E. BURGESS:
    P
    LAINTIFF:

    v.

    TOWN OF WALLINGFORD;
    CHIEF DOUGLAS
    L. DORTENZIO, in his individual and official capacities;
    LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MARTINO,
    In his individual and official capacities;
    SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE
    , in his individual and official capacities;
    OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA,
    in his individual capacity;
    OFFICER DEVIN
    FLOOD, in his individual capacity;
    and
    MARK
    VANAMAN
    DEFENDANTS :
    __________________________________________________ _

    EXPECTED TO BE FILED ON JULY 18, 2011



    COMPLAINT

    Introduction

    1. This action arises from the false and malicious arrest of Plaintiff Richard E. Burgess for Disorderly
    Conduct in the Town of Wallingford on May 16, 2010. This action is for money damages, attorneys’
    fees and costs, as well as other relief available in law or equity arising from said wrongful acts.

    The Parties

    2. The Plaintiff Richard E. Burgess (“Burgess”) is a citizen of the State of Connecticut as provided under
    Article first, 15, of the constitution of Connecticut.
    3. The Defendant Town of Wallingford (“Town”) is a municipality duly organized, incorporated, and
    chartered under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut.
    4. The Defendant Douglas L. Dortenzio (“Chief Dortenzio”), at all relevant times, was employed as the
    Chief of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his official and
    individual capacities.
    5. The Defendant Anthony Martino (“Lieutenant Martino”), at all relevant times, was employed as a
    Lieutenant of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his official and
    individual capacities.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 10
    6. The Defendant Michael Colavolpe (“Sergeant Colavolpe”), at all relevant times, was employed as a
    Sergeant of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his official and
    individual capacities.
    7. The Defendant Devin Flood (“Officer Flood”), at all relevant times, was employed as a Police Officer of
    the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his individual capacity.
    8. The Defendant Gabriel Garcia (“Officer Garcia”), at all relevant times, was employed as a Police
    Officer of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services.
    9. The Defendant Mark Vanaman (“Vanaman”) is an individual who, at all relevant times, resided in the
    State of Connecticut.


    Jurisdiction

    10. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has subject matter jurisdiction over this
    case under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on the deprivation of
    rights secured under the United States Constitution.

    Factual Background

    11. On May 16, 2010, the Plaintiff Richard Burgess (“Burgess”) went with his girlfriend to Yale Billiards,
    located at 950 Yale Avenue in the Town of Wallingford, Connecticut.
    12. At that time, Burgess was wearing a handgun visibly secured in a holster at his waist. Burgess
    possessed a valid Connecticut pistol permit and the handgun was legally registered to him through the
    Connecticut State Police.
    13. That while Burgess was playing a game of billiards he was approached by the owner of the business,
    Robert Hilton. Hilton initially asked Plaintiff to conceal his handgun, but after a conversation over the
    legality of open carry he told Burgess to wait while he called the police to check if openly carrying a
    firearm is legal.
    14. As Hilton walked away from Burgess, Burgess was approached by a patron, Mark Vanaman. Vanaman
    told Burgess to conceal his handgun or he would call the police. Burgess instructed Vanaman to leave
    him alone and to feel free to call the police.
    15. Based on Vanaman confronting Burgess, Hilton reapproached Burgess and they agreed that Burgess
    would leave. Burgess advised Hilton that he would wait outside for the police to arrive and clear up the
    issue of open carrying being legal.
    16. Vanaman called the Wallingford Police Department and advised the dispatcher of a gentleman walking
    around with his gun exposed with no badge. He told the dispatcher that the male was sitting outside in
    front of Yale Billiards.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 10
    17. Vanaman held a permit to carry a pistol or revolver on May 16, 2010, and for the twenty-four years prior
    to May 16, 2010, issued pursuant to Chapter 529 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
    18. Vanaman held a license to engage in the business of a Bail Enforcement Agent on May 16, 2010, and
    for the eight years prior to May 16, 2010, issued pursuant to Chapter 533A of the Connecticut General
    Statutes.
    19. Vanaman reported to the Wallingford Police Department that he felt threatened by Burgess’ open carry
    of a pistol.
    20. The open carry of a pistol in Connecticut by one holding a valid Connecticut pistol permit on premises
    where the carrying of a pistol is not otherwise prohibited is lawful conduct.
    21. Yale Billiards provided no notice that the possession of a pistol on its premises was prohibited by the
    premises owner.
    22. Hilton called the Wallingford Police Department stating that a gentleman was in Yale Billiards with an
    exposed gun, just carrying it. Hilton approached the man and was told by the man that it was legal.
    Hilton told the dispatcher that one of the customers made a scene about it, so he asked the man to leave.
    23. The Wallingford Police Department dispatcher dispatched Sergeant Colavolpe, Officer Michael Fraenza,
    Officer Abel Gonzalez, Officer Garcia, and Officer Flood.
    24. Sergeant Colavolpe, Officer Garcia, and Officer Flood approached Burgess, who was seated on the
    bench outside Yale Billiards with his handgun clearly visible in a holster on his belt with two additional
    magazines.
    25. Sergeant Colavolpe immediately seized Burgess’ firearm by physically removing it from the holster.
    26. Officer Garcia then immediately placed Burgess in handcuffs.
    27. Burgess questioned the reason he was being arrested and was informed Breach of Peace. Burgess and
    Officer Flood and Officer Garcia and Sergeant Colavolpe entered into a discussion regarding openly
    carrying his firearm and Burgess attempted to show the three officers a pamphlet on the bench where he
    had been seated entitled “Is that legal? A guide to understanding your CT gun rights.”
    28. Officer Flood confirmed that Burgess had a valid Connecticut pistol permit in his possession.
    29. Officer Flood verified through the Connecticut State Police Message Center that the handgun was not
    stolen and that it was legally registered to Burgess.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 3 of 10
    30. Sergeant Colavolpe telephoned the Wallingford Police Department and spoke with Lieutenant Martino
    asking if Lieutenant Martino was familiar with carrying handguns and if “they amended the statute so
    you’re able to open carry in public?”
    31. During their conversation Lieutenant Martino replied, “I don’t know anything about that,” and further
    went on to say “it’s a concealed weapons permit.”
    32. Lieutenant Martino told Sergeant Colavolpe to wait while he looked at a pistol permit application and
    then continued the conversation by stating, “Wright said there was something in the legislature about
    some guy, some NRA attorney that wanted to argue this statute. It says, it’s saying that it doesn’t say it
    has to be concealed, it says you have to have a permit to carry, and I guess he, I guess he won the
    argument. The problem is, and like the idea with Bill Wright is, just because it’s, just because they may
    interpret it that way doesn’t mean you can walk into a bar with your gun out and then refuse to conceal it
    and then walk around outside with your gun out. So we need to charge, we need to charge him with the
    breach.”
    33. Sergeant Colavolpe acknowledged that with “Absolutely, he’s already under arrest for breach.”
    34. Lieutenant Martino further went on to say: “Take it a step further and maybe come back in and call uh,
    the state police and maybe talk to one of the guys in the know there.”
    35. After a brief exchange, the conversation ended with Lieutenant Martino stating “Always fun and
    games,” with Sergeant Colavolpe replying “oh yeah.”
    36. Officer Garcia removed the two ammunition magazines and placed Burgess into a police cruiser.
    Burgess was then transported to the Wallingford Police Department where he was processed and
    charged with Disorderly Conduct.
    37. Burgess made several requests to file a complaint against the individual that had approached him and
    actually created the disorderly conduct (later identified as Mark Vanaman). Those requests were denied
    by Lieutenant Martino.
    38. Lieutenant Martino told Burgess that “based on the circumstances” the Wallingford Police Department
    would not take a statement from him.
    39. On May 17, 2010 at 9:30 am Burgess contacted the Wallingford Police Department to make a formal
    complaint involving his arrest.
    40. On May 17, 2010 at 5:00 pm Officer Flood went to the Yale Billiards and met with the owner to review
    the video surveillance. It was claimed that the owner had mistakenly recorded over the film
    documenting the incident.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 4 of 10
    41. Chief Dortenzio assigned Lieutenant Martino to investigate Burgess’ complaint despite Lieutenant
    Martino’s personal involvement in the incident.
    42. Lieutenant Martino interviewed Burgess regarding Burgess’ complaint, after which Burgess contacted
    Chief Dortenzio advising him that he did not understand how one of the officers he complained about
    could be the one investigating his complaint.
    43. Chief Dortenzio refused to remove Lieutenant Martino from the investigation.
    44. Lieutenant Martino completed his internal investigation, finding no wrongdoing, omitting his personal
    involvement in the incident and his telephone conversation with Sergeant Colavolpe regarding the
    legality of openly carrying handguns.
    45. Chief Dortenzio approved Lieutenant Martino’s report findings despite his knowledge of Lieutenant
    Martino’s personal involvement.
    46. On May 25, 2010 the charge of Disorderly Conduct was dismissed based on the recommendation of the
    Prosecutor advising the Judge a reason of “No Probable Cause.”

    COUNT ONE:


    UNLAWFUL ARREST, AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF
    PROPERTY AND PERSON, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,
    42 U.S.C. 1983 (AGAINST SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE, in his
    individual and official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD, in his individual
    capacity; and OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual capacity)

    47. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count One.
    48. On May 16, 2010, Sergeant Colavolpe, acting under color of law, seized Burgess’ property and person.
    49. In arresting Burgess on May 16, 2010, in confiscating property in Burgess’ possession, and in seizing
    his person, Sergeant Colavolpe’s actions were objectively unreasonable.
    50. Moreover, in so acting, Sergeant Colavolpe failed to follow applicable laws and procedures.
    51. Sergeant Colavolpe lacked probable cause to arrest Burgess on May 16, 2010.
    52. Sergeant Colavolpe’s unlawful seizure of Burgess’s person and property in his possession were the
    proximate cause of the injury, damages, loss and harm sustained by Burgess.
    53. On May 16, 2010, Officer Garcia, acting under color of law, seized Burgess’ property and person.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 5 of 10
    54. In arresting Burgess on May 16, 2010, in confiscating property in Burgess’ possession, and in seizing
    his person, Officer Garcia’s actions were objectively unreasonable.
    55. Moreover, in so acting, Officer Garcia failed to follow applicable laws and procedures
    56. Officer Garcia lacked probable cause to arrest Burgess on May 16, 2010.
    57. Officer Garcia’s unlawful seizure of Burgess’ person and property in his possession were the proximate
    cause of the injury, damages, loss and harm sustained by Burgess.
    58. On May 16, 2010, Officer Flood, acting under color of law, seized Burgess’ property and person.
    59. In arresting Burgess on May 16, 2010, in confiscating property in Burgess’ possession, and in seizing
    his person, Officer Flood’s actions were objectively unreasonable.
    60. Moreover, in so acting, Officer Flood failed to follow applicable laws and procedures
    61. Officer Flood lacked probable cause to arrest Burgess on May 16, 2010.
    62. Officer Flood’s unlawful seizure of Burgess’ person and property in his possession were the proximate
    cause of the injury, damages, loss and harm sustained by Burgess.

    COUNT TWO:

    FALSE ARREST AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE DUE TO
    FAILURE TO TRAIN (AGAINST THE TOWN OF WALLINGFORD)

    63. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Two.
    64. Burgess was injured and sustained loss of property as a result of the Defendant Town of Wallingford’s
    failure to train its police officers to investigate and charge individuals with Disorderly Conduct and
    failed to train its police officers in the laws pertaining to the carrying of firearms in Connecticut.
    65. As a result of the Town’s failure to adequately train its officers, Burgess was arrested without probable
    cause.
    66. The Towns’ failure to provide adequate and proper training of its officers was cause of Burgess’
    injuries, losses, and harms.
    67. That this lack of training was evidenced by the telephone conversation between Sergeant Colavolpe and
    Lieutenant Martino.
    68. That this lack of training was further evidenced through the fact that Chief Dortenzio approved the
    findings of Lieutenant Martino’s review of the incident.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 6 of 10
    69. As a result of the Town’s conduct, Burgess has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including
    injury to his personal and professional reputations, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress,
    humiliation and embarrassment.

    COUNT THREE:

    DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF
    THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
    CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. 1983 (AGAINST THE TOWN OF
    WALLINGFORD; CHIEF DOUGLAS L. DORTENZIO, in his individual and
    official capacities; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MARTINO, in his individual and
    official capacities; SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE, in his individual and
    official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD, in his individual capacity; and
    OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual capacity)

    70. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Three.
    71. Burgess’ act of openly carrying a holstered handgun on May 16, 2010, was an act of symbolic
    expression designed and calculated to raise public awareness of an individual’s right to openly carry a
    handgun.
    72. Burgess’ act of wearing a tee shirt expressing his Second Amendment freedom and passing out open
    carry literature further emphasizes his desire to express his views to raise public awareness of an
    individual’s right to openly carry a handgun.
    73. The Defendants’ unlawful seizure of Burgess’ person and property in his possession prevented Burgess
    from exercising his freedom of speech by expressive or symbolic conduct.
    74. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Burgess has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.

    COUNT FOUR:

    DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN
    VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
    TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. 1983 (AGAINST THE
    TOWN OF WALLINGFORD; CHIEF DOUGLAS L. DORTENZIO, in his
    individual and official capacities; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MARTINO, in his
    individual and official capacities; SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE, in his
    individual and official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD, in his individual
    capacity; and OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual capacity)

    75. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Four.
    76. Burgess’ actions on May 16, 2010 were lawful in that he possessed a valid Connecticut pistol permit, the
    handgun he had secured in the holster on his hip was registered to him, and he was in a place that he
    could lawfully carry a handgun.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 7 of 10
    77. The Defendants’ actions were premeditated and calculated to deprive Burgess of his right to openly
    carry a handgun as evidenced by Chief Dortenzio’s quote in The Bristol Press dated April 10, 2010
    speaking of a movement to allow handguns on college campuses when he stated that “We’re concerned
    about this movement and how they are testing the waters to carry anywhere.”
    78. The Defendants’ actions unlawfully deprived Burgess of his right to openly carry a handgun under the
    Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
    79. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Burgess has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.

    COUNT FIVE:

    DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN
    VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION, CONN. CONST.,
    ART. I, 15 (AGAINST THE TOWN OF WALLINGFORD; CHIEF DOUGLAS L.
    DORTENZIO, in his individual and official capacities; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY
    MARTINO, in his individual and official capacities; SERGEANT MICHAEL
    COLAVOLPE, in his individual and official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD,
    in his individual capacity; and OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual
    capacity.

    80. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Five.
    81. Burgess’ actions on May 16, 2010 were lawful in that he possessed a valid Connecticut pistol permit, the
    handgun he had secured in the holster on his hip was register to him, and he was in a place that he could
    lawfully carry a handgun.
    82. The Defendants’ actions were premeditated and calculated to deprive Burgess of his right to openly
    carry a handgun as evidenced by Chief Dortenzio’s commentary in The Bristol Press dated April 10,
    2010, about a movement to allow handguns on college campuses where he stated: “We’re concerned
    about this movement and how they are testing the waters to carry anywhere.”
    83. The Defendants’ actions unlawfully deprived Burgess of his right to openly carry a handgun under
    Article first, 15, of the Connecticut Constitution.

    COUNT SIX:

    MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (AGAINST MARK VANAMAN)

    84. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Six.
    85. Vanaman falsely reported an incident on May 16, 2010, to the Wallingford Police Department.
    86. Vanaman lacked a reasonable, good faith belief in the facts he alleged and in the validity of the claims
    he asserted to the Wallingford Police Department.
    87. Vanaman knew he lacked a good faith belief when he told the Wallingford Police Department that the
    lawful act of openly carrying a pistol constituted a threat upon his person.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 8 of 10
    88. Vanaman engaged in the malicious prosecution of Burgess on May 16, 2010.
    89. Burgess was unlawfully arrested and taken into custody.
    90. The criminal case against Burgess resolved in his favor when the charge arising from the May 16, 2010,
    arrest was dismissed on May 25, 2010.
    91. Vanaman authorized, encouraged, directed or assisted the Wallingford Police Department in performing
    an unlawful act.
    92. The restraint, detention, confinement, arrest, and prosecution caused Burgess to suffer injury, damages,
    loss and harm.

    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 9 of 10
    DEMAND FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims:
    1. Compensatory damages, including damages for physical injury, emotional distress and harm to
    reputation;
    2. Punitive damages;
    3. Interest and costs;
    4. Attorneys’ fees;
    5. Such other relief as in law or equity may pertain.
    JURY DEMAND

    Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.


    PLAINTIFF
    RICHARD E. BURGESS

    BY: /s/ Rachel M. Baird
    CT Fed Bar #12131
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992
    Email: rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com

    Douglas A. Hall, Attorney
    CT Fed Bar #29687
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Email: attyhall@attydouglashall.com
    His Attorneys


    Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 10 of 10
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 07-19-2011 at 05:37 AM. Reason: To insert actual wording filed with court

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Right up front, I would like to thank Ed, Attorney Baird, and all the other supporters (you all know who you are) for helping to get this rolling. This is quote an undertaking and I feel like we have a great team put together.

    I hope that we will see other individuals and organizations alike jumping on board to help stand up for people who have had their rights infringed upon. I can say that right now, the landscape is pretty barren so far.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    Way to Go Rich.... G/L

  4. #4
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Hope you get every penny, Rich!

    As I've said before, the only way to deal with these lawless, unaccountable LEO's and "officials" is to drag them out in the sunlight like the vampires of legend, and allow them to burn under the light of public scrutiny.

    DDoutel

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Britain, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Right up front, I would like to thank Ed, Attorney Baird, and all the other supporters (you all know who you are) for helping to get this rolling. This is quote an undertaking and I feel like we have a great team put together.

    I hope that we will see other individuals and organizations alike jumping on board to help stand up for people who have had their rights infringed upon. I can say that right now, the landscape is pretty barren so far.
    This was VERY interesting reading, and I hope that you kick their sorry asses in court.

    I've followed this incident since you first posted it, and I still don't understand why Vanaman shot off his mouth and stuck his nose in your business.

    Good luck!!!

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Looks like a very solid case Rich. I wish you the best of luck!!
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

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

    Attorney Douglas Hall is now admitted to the Federal Bar in CT.

    For those that are interested,

    A new Attorney is now practicing Firearm Law in Connecticut.

    Attorney Doug Hall was admitted to practice before the Federal Courts last week and took little time to involve himself in the case of Richard Burgess.

    Attorney Douglas Hall, formerly the Executive Officer of the Department of Public Safety Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, (SLFU), is one of the two attorneys bringing the action in behalf of Rich.

    Look for more cases to be brought by Attorney Hall in the near future.

    PLAINTIFF
    RICHARD E. BURGESSBY:
    /s/ Rachel M. Baird
    CT Fed Bar #12131
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991Fax: (860) 626-9992
    Email:

    Douglas A. Hall, Attorney
    CT Fed Bar #29687
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Email:
    attyhall@attydouglashall.com
    His Attorneys
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 07-18-2011 at 07:06 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    So, Police Chief Dotenzio had Police Lieutenant Martino investigate alleged wrongdoing possibly conducted by Police Lieutenant Martino.

    It would have been truly amazing if Police Lieutenant Martino found evidence of wrongdoing by Police Lieutenant Martino.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Joeygee23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    East Hartford
    Posts
    35
    Glad to see Vanaman named as well. He said have known better and I hope it costs him dearly. Bondsmen are as filthy as the Marshal system. Leeches upon the Court system. Good luck. Is there a compentent police force anywhere in this state? Wallingford, Bristol, Windsor Locks, Palinville? Whoa!

  10. #10
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Rich, good luck on an interesting case.

    I think this case, as written, can help us on a few fronts.

    1. clearly brings up the issue that open carry is legal.
    2. you can't charge "breach of peace" or any similar disturbance cause when, in fact, you're not breaking the law.
    3. Just because you're ignorant..... of the law, doesn't give you the right to call the cops when you think you're right. Also, a bondsman feeling threatened, really? Who does he offer bonds to? Preschool criminals......

    On the "investigation" issue.

    I bet that's also why they won't let Meriden's Chief investigate his sons police abuse charges. There is too much mishandling of this type of case from police chiefs and I think legislation needs to be drafted where common sense has clearly failed.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Joeygee23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    East Hartford
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Joeygee23 View Post
    Glad to see Vanaman named as well. He said have known better and I hope it costs him dearly. Bondsmen are as filthy as the Marshal system. Leeches upon the Court system. Good luck. Is there a compentent police force anywhere in this state? Wallingford, Bristol, Windsor Locks, Palinville? Whoa!
    How could I forget Meriden?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Go Rich!

    As a proud CCDL member, I wish you swift and decisive victory. We will be watching this case closely. Go Rich!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    Good luck, Rich. Looks to be a "slam-dunk".

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Nail these bastards.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  15. #15
    Regular Member Ctclassic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Plainfield, CT, ,
    Posts
    172
    Has anyone given any thought to possibly getting ahold of the media, i.e. WFSB, WTNH, or NBC30 on this? Or are we to assume thats their job, or not do anything and take the chance that they will pick up on the case. Just a thought. Rich, this is ultimately your call. Regardless, you have my 100% support on this. We'll be watching closely. Good luck.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Rich and Ed,

    I don't know if you are at liberty to disclose this, but are you being represented on a contingency basis?

    If you are, it may encourage others with legitimate cases to pursue them by lowering the "cost of entry".

    Finding attorneys who will represent clients in cases like this on a contingency basis would be HUGE. Since most people wronged by ignorant LEOs are either unable or unwilling to take on the financial risk associated with retaining an attorney on an hourly basis for something like this.

    Don
    Last edited by dcmdon; 07-22-2011 at 09:12 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Freedom is not FREE

    Without getting into the details, Richard Burgess made a financial commitment to defend his rights and has invested and will be investing hard earned dollars into his case.

    Some larger law firms may be able to advance the litigation costs regarding Firearms but that's not really happening at this time.

    Several specific individuals have been selected based on the facts of the case and agreed to proceed under agreed terms.

    Until we as Permit to Carry holders in CT form a group to accept and dispurse funds for Second Amendment issues if nothing more than the costs of ligitgation you will find very few Attorney's willing to take cases.

    More will be discussed on the funding of Second Amendment cases in CT in the near future.

    Watch for a new Federal Case, (the first of two), to be filed against Norwalk Police next week.

    Attorney Rachel Baird and Attorney Douglas Hall are working overtime to finalize the Draft complaint for Barbara Casey Doutel who had her firearms siezed illegally back in February of this year.

    It will make interesting reading.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Thanks for your efforts Ed.

    You raise a good point, that most of the pro-2a attorneys in CT are with small firms who can't afford the risk of contingency based representation.
    I doubt the biggies like Robinson and Cole or Cummings and Lockwood would get involved in something like this.

    So the next step is a communal fund to pursue these kinds of things.
    Last edited by dcmdon; 07-23-2011 at 08:19 AM.

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

    Supporting firearm litigation in CT.

    To: dcmdon

    I couldn't agree with you more that a "communal fund " to support selected firearm cases should be established in CT.

    Most of the individuals currently involved in the CT firearm cases are paying their legal fees as they go.

    With approximately 163,244 perimts, (Based on information provided to me by SLFU on Friday July 22, 2011), on file in the State's database it

    As I type this posting I am aware of the fact that the NRA Civil Rights Defense fund has contributed or pledged approximately $17,500to litigation in CT.

    I have repeatedly asked the Connecticut Citizens Defense League since last fall to somehow get involved with establishing some type of policies or procedures where they can raise funds and contribute to state or federal firearm related cases that further the goals of all the members.

    I have never asked CCDL to pay for cases, I have only asked this to somehow contibute something financially to the litigation that benefits their entire membership.

    I have also asked CCDL to poll their membership which now is reported to be approximately 1583 as of June to determine what they think of the idea without success.

    I have yet to receive a formal detailed response that explains what they are legally permit or prohibited from doing.

    I sent a new request just recently and await a formal resonse.

    I am aware of the involvement of other Citizen Defense Leagues from other states and thought that the one in CT would be very similar if not the same.

    Time will tell.

    Anyone interested in forming or supporting some type of fund to support firearm cases in CT can email me with their contact information for future reference at edperuta@ctgunrights.com

    Thanks for your support of the theory.

    I envision a group that offers more involvement than Tee Shirts, Bumper Stickers, Refrigerator Magnets, Printed flyers, picnics, dinners and meetings where politicions get to speak.



    Ed Peruta

  20. #20
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    To: dcmdon

    I couldn't agree with you more that a "communal fund " to support selected firearm cases should be established in CT.

    Most of the individuals currently involved in the CT firearm cases are paying their legal fees as they go.

    With approximately 163,244 perimts, (Based on information provided to me by SLFU on Friday July 22, 2011), on file in the State's database it

    As I type this posting I am aware of the fact that the NRA Civil Rights Defense fund has contributed or pledged approximately $17,500to litigation in CT.

    I have repeatedly asked the Connecticut Citizens Defense League since last fall to somehow get involved with establishing some type of policies or procedures where they can raise funds and contribute to state or federal firearm related cases that further the goals of all the members.

    I have never asked CCDL to pay for cases, I have only asked this to somehow contibute something financially to the litigation that benefits their entire membership.

    I have also asked CCDL to poll their membership which now is reported to be approximately 1583 as of June to determine what they think of the idea without success.

    I have yet to receive a formal detailed response that explains what they are legally permit or prohibited from doing.

    I sent a new request just recently and await a formal resonse.

    I am aware of the involvement of other Citizen Defense Leagues from other states and thought that the one in CT would be very similar if not the same.

    Time will tell.

    Anyone interested in forming or supporting some type of fund to support firearm cases in CT can email me with their contact information for future reference at edperuta@ctgunrights.com

    Thanks for your support of the theory.

    I envision a group that offers more involvement than Tee Shirts, Bumper Stickers, Refrigerator Magnets, Printed flyers, picnics, dinners and meetings where politicions get to speak.



    Ed Peruta
    Hear, hear!! The fund could be something as simple as a PayPal account administered by a trustworthy individual. Doesn't need to be anything elaborate.

  21. #21
    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
    Hear, hear!! The fund could be something as simple as a PayPal account administered by a trustworthy individual. Doesn't need to be anything elaborate.
    As long as you have mentioned it, I will post a shameless plug; there is that kind of fund set up for this case against Wallingford. I wish I could commit to helping more people, but as many people here know, those plans were also met with silence. Maybe someday I will be involved in the creation of something better. Right now, my case and the other cases cannot wait until the organizations in CT get on board.

    http://withregardstorights.com/page/...l-Lawsuit.aspx

    If anyone wants to help and get involved in the case against Wallingford (at least financially), there is a way they can do so at the above link. Already several very committed and generous members of this forum have stepped up and helped and I really appreciate it. This case is still largely privately funded however. No organizations have made any contributions or commitments.

    Anyone who is in need of help with regards to their rights in this state are fortunate to have Ed Peruta, Attorney Rachel Baird and Attorney Douglas Hall working hard to keep the state and towns accountable for their actions. I feel very fortunate and I am very appreciative. This is not a road I would wish to go down alone.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Hear, hear!! The fund could be something as simple as a PayPal account administered by a trustworthy individual. Doesn't need to be anything elaborate.
    It would probably need to be set up as a 501-c3 to be totally above the board. This is not about complying with some overbearing government, but rather about maintaining total transparency.

    Once you acquire a decent balance, the question of who decides how much to spend and on what, comes up.

    So, you see, if its something more than a single purpose fund, like Rich may have started, it gets much more complicated.
    I'll talk to my father today. (He's a CPA who finished law school, but never took the Bar) and see how he thinks it should be set up and what it will cost to do.
    I imagine that there would be a bd of trustees.

    Don
    Last edited by dcmdon; 07-25-2011 at 12:54 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    It would probably need to be set up as a 501-c3 to be totally above the board. This is not about complying with some overbearing government, but rather about maintaining total transparency.

    Once you acquire a decent balance, the question of who decides how much to spend and on what, comes up.

    So, you see, if its something more than a single purpose fund, like Rich may have started, it gets much more complicated.
    I'll talk to my father today. (He's a CPA who finished law school, but never took the Bar) and see how he thinks it should be set up and what it will cost to do.
    I imagine that there would be a bd of trustees.

    Don
    Excellent points, Don; I'll be interested to hear what your Dad thinks about it!

    Duane

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Rich - I'm guessing that this was not an oversight on your or Ms. Baird's part, but why did you say that the handgun is legally registered with the CT State Police. There is no handgun registration in CT. They keep the info when you call for the approval, but thats not a registration. Only "assault weapons" and "machine guns" as defined by CT law require registration.

    Don

  25. #25
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    Rich - I'm guessing that this was not an oversight on your or Ms. Baird's part, but why did you say that the handgun is legally registered with the CT State Police. There is no handgun registration in CT. They keep the info when you call for the approval, but thats not a registration. Only "assault weapons" and "machine guns" as defined by CT law require registration.

    Don
    Don,

    Isn't that a distinction without a difference? If they keep the information, they know what you have; ergo, registration...

    Duane

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
  •