Judge for yourself the audio clip from Norwalk

This is an exact copy of a paragraph found in the Norwalk Police report:

Sandy played the message Doutel left on the office voicemail in this message, Doutel sounds extremely angry and is almost yelling through the phone Doutel is referring to Dr. Igal Slaw and states "he WILL provide those I want them forwarded_ If I haven't heard with in 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".

This is the only portion of the message left on the Dr.’s answering machine used by Norwalk Police in their report:

“he WILL provide those I want them forwarded_ If I haven't heard with in 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".

This is a VERBATIM COMPLETE transcript of the message left by Duane Doutel including the portions left out of the report by the Norwalk Officer:

“Hi this is Duane Doutel a former patient of Dr. Staws ah I paid at my last visit for an EKG and a CBC which were pre op and they have not been forwarded despite several requests to the surgeon. He will provide those because I paid for them up front, I want them forwarded, if I haven’t heard within 48 hours that those 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, you will provide them! I will see to it that a valid A1C is done, not the botched one that Dr. Staw ran without fasting. Thank you”.


AMAZING HOW THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER LEAVES OUT OF HIS REPORT THE FACT THAT DUANE DOUTEL ENDED THE MESSAGE HE LEFT BY SAYING "THANK YOU".

To hear the actual audio clip and judge for yourself, please go to this link:
http://www.ctgunrights.com/07.Video/Complete Doutel Audio from Answering Machine HQ.wmv

About the Doctor's office that made the complaint against Duane Doutel

WESTPORT DOCTOR CONVICTED OF HEALTH CARE FRAUD PAYS MORE THAN $421,000 IN RESTITUTION, CIVIL DAMAGES
Nora R. Dannehy, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that Dr. IGAL STAW, 70, of Stony Brook Road, Westport, was sentenced today by Senior United States District Judge Peter C. Dorsey in New Haven to two years of probation for engaging in health care fraud. STAW pleaded guilty to the offense on December 11, 2007.
According to documents filed with the Court and statements made in court, STAW owned and operated two medical practices, Respiratory Associates and Health Extenders, located on East Avenue in Norwalk, Connecticut. From June 1, 2004 through June 1, 2006, STAW submitted claims to insurance companies for physical therapy sessions, nutritional counseling sessions, and massage therapy sessions, which were rendered by non-physician providers at his medical practices. In order to obtain reimbursement of these services, STAW falsely represented that these services were physician office visits. STAW has admitted that the scheme caused a loss of $171,225.81 to insurance companies, and he has paid full restitution of that amount.
STAW and Respiratory Associates also have entered into civil settlement agreement with the Government in which Respiratory Associates has paid an additional $250,000 to resolve allegations that STAW and Respiratory Associates violated the False Claims Act. The civil allegations involved claims submitted to Medicare between 2000 and 2006 for physician office visits that were rendered by non-physician providers. The civil allegations also involved claims for physical therapy services provided by exercise physiologists and massage therapists (not by licensed physical therapists), as well as claims for services provided by an individual who had previously been excluded from Medicare and Medicaid.
The False Claims Act provides for treble damages and penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim submitted to the Government.
This investigation was conducted by agents from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI Health Care Fraud Task Force. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys David J. Sheldon and Richard M. Molot, along with Auditor Kevin Saunders.
Acting U.S. Attorney Dannehy encouraged individuals who suspect health care fraud to report it by calling 1-800-HHS-TIPS, or the Health Care Fraud Task Force at (203) 785-9270.

Link to Subpoena information with what is demanded

This link will take you to the various subpoenas that have been issued in the Duane Doutel case hearings which are scheduled for Wednesday July 27th in Superior Court GA 20 in Norwalk.

http://www.ctgunrights.com/05.Legal.State/Subpeonas for July 27.2011.pdf

It will be interesting to see how many show up, don't show up or call the prosecutor to wine about having to show up.

The State should do the right thing but doesn't know how to stop.

Stay tuned there will be much more to come.

Wow, with all this evidence it seems pretty straight forward that the police messed up big time.

Mr. Doutel was "almost yelling" like I'm "almost running". That is, I have two feet, and both are on the floor; I could break into a sprint at any moment now.

Hippa and Doctors Opservations

It's interesting to see the legality of what the Doctor has already divulged (to the Police) & what can be “lawfully disclosed”, for the portions of the subpoena that give examples, that appear to go into things considered “mental health observations” IE. “easily excited,” has “strong opinions about politics,” “expresses racist ideas,” is a “radical rightwing
individual,” has an “unstable irritable demeanor” has an “excitable personality,” is
extremely opinionated,” is “politically extremely one-sided,” and/or “seems unstable.”, it seems that the Doctor is treading in questionable waters while diving into statements, I’m assuming made to the Police about the Defendants Mental Health, which are considered non-discloseable under HIPPA Laws! In my non medical/legal opinion, the Doctor gave police information, (Medical Observations during privet paid secessions) on the defendants Mental health, and these observations I’m assuming were made during his official visits. It will be interesting how this tie's in! If he's acting outlandish in the waiting room is one thing, & HIPPA Violations would be another.

For example, current trending with The Board of Firearms Examiners Demonstrates on a regular basis, they deny individuals their 2Amendment rights, if they don't disclose there privet records, if the issuing authority mentions it during the hearing period & the appellant doesn’t rebut with specific, legally non discloable medical evidence to the contrary, thus putting it on public record.
In my non medical/legal opinion it appears the statement as non threatening as it appears, appears to be, was validated by on the “Doctors observations” in privet secessions, and a diagnosis based on the defendants mental health status. The Doctor Might have violated HIPPA but the police have there “OUT”, because the Doctor made statements which the police considered mental heath, which they commonly act upon (by anyone not to mention when an “MD” makes the statement, about a gun toatin guy), even thought it's not enough legally for an at risk warrant, the trend is that judges sign, based on the own biased standards which needs to be controlled. This appears to be an up hill fight.
The police “more than likely” called SPFLU, Det. B. Mattson and she told them to “take the guns” there’s patterns I’ve observed that Mattson treads in without repercussions, that have been tested by the Board and various law suits, so she knows what she can get away with.
Good luck, I can guarantee the police are going to say they were protecting the public based on an “MD” reported unstable individual, then the fight turns specific about the violated 2A statues which seem to be constantly trampled in court.

The Proper and legal process the affords DUE PROCESS of law

Given the fact that the Norwalk officers claim in their report(s) that they were told that Mr. Doutel was:

"easily excited",

has “strong opinions about politics"”

“expresses racist ideas",

” is a “radical rightwing individual",

has" an “unstable irritable demeanor”,

has "an “excitable personality,

” is extremely opinionated",

is “politically extremely one-sided",

and/or “seems unstable.”

Members of law enforcement thoughout Connecticut are avoiding the mandates of the legislature regarding the non-criminal seizure of firearms from private dwellings.

One thing about the Heller and McDonald case that is NOT in question is the right to possess KEEP and BEAR arms inside the home!!!

The proper and legal way to remove Duane Doutel's firarms and provide him the necessary and required DUE PROCESS would have been for the Norwalk officer(s) aqpply for the issuance of a "RISK WARRANT" in accordance with the provisions of Section 29-38c of the Connecticut General Statutes.

The same prosecutor and judge(s) that are now trying to deny him the hearings he has requested should have been approached PRIOR to the search and seizure of his and his wifes firarms from their private residence wthout any warrant or probable cause.

Mrs. Doutel's federal case will be filed and served upon the Norwal Police Department and involved officers this week.

Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others.(a) Upon complaint on oath by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state's attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms. Such state's attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state's attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the seized firearms should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state. At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it may order that the firearm or firearms seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the seized firearm or firearms to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person's legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person's legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms to the transferee.

sounds like you got them by the short and curlys

Shawn Mitola said:

sounds like you got them by the short and curlys

Click to expand...

It ain't over 'til the judge sings 'Case Dismissed!'

Duane

??Is ther going to be a Civil Suit??

Sir,

Is ther going to be a Civil Suit??

You “are” not guilty, recognition from a Judge, though legally binding and important is somewhat meaning less on a certain level of what is truly right and wrong. Doesn’t it seem wrong, going in to court “Begging” for your basic fundamental rights, from tyrants and scum who abuse their authority.
Sir I would attempt power through this hearing w/ the outstanding legal staff you have, proving my case, but also tactically setting up pertinent details “on record” to File a civil Suit, and Punish all who have trampled on your rights, and teach them, their are repercussions for actions, and this time they will pay civilly and by being tied up in court, answering for their CRIMES against you, individually and in their official capacities, & this incident will be following them the rest of their thwarted career! :exclaim::exclaim::exclaim:This would be true Justice, If it can be financially afforded!!:exclaim::exclaim::exclaim:

Good Citizen said:

Sir,

Is ther going to be a Civil Suit??

You “are” not guilty, recognition from a Judge, though legally binding and important is somewhat meaning less on a certain level of what is truly right and wrong. Doesn’t it seem wrong, going in to court “Begging” for your basic fundamental rights, from tyrants and scum who abuse their authority.
Sir I would attempt power through this hearing w/ the outstanding legal staff you have, proving my case, but also tactically setting up pertinent details “on record” to File a civil Suit, and Punish all who have trampled on your rights, and teach them, their are repercussions for actions, and this time they will pay civilly and by being tied up in court, answering for their CRIMES against you, individually and in their official capacities, & this incident will be following them the rest of their thwarted career! :exclaim::exclaim::exclaim:This would be true Justice, If it can be financially afforded!!:exclaim::exclaim::exclaim:

Click to expand...

I'm not at liberty to speak to this "at the moment"; Ed keeps advising me to keep my fingers off the keyboard. Suffice it to say that I'm in complete agreement with everything you've said above. When I finally do get to speak freely, you can bet I'll have plenty to say.

D. Doutel