• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Pay close attention to the case of the Harford Firefighter recently arrested

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Firearm owners in CT should pay attention to and follow this case.

As most of you know, I am currently a legal investigator for Attorney Rachel M. Baird in Torrington and have access to the facts!

The media in Connecticut has NO knowledge of the law and recklessly misses the real story regarding the animus against owners of firearms.

Hartford Police on October 1, 2013 charged a longtime Harford Firefighter with 29 counts of "RISK OF INJURY" based on the number of UNLOADED firearms legally stored and located in his residence.

http://www.courant.com/community/ha...ter-arraignment-1003-20131002,0,7848964.story
http://www.wfsb.com/video?clipId=9369619&autostart=true
http://www.wfsb.com/video?clipId=9369528&autostart=true
http://www.wtnh.com/news/hartford-cty/hartford-fire-lt-in-court-on-risk-of-injury-charges
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Firefighters-Attorney-Questions-Charges-226194911.html

First:
Why did Hartford Police excessively charge 28 counts of "RISK OF INJURY"?

Second:
Why was the Hartford Firefighter the only adult residing in the home arrested?

Third:
Why did Hartford Police incorrectly claim that the firearms were in the Childs bedroom when they were actually located in the parent's bedroom?

Fourth:
Why did Harford Police hold the accused on an excessive $300,000.00 bond which was lowered, (after review by a Bail Commissioner), to a Written Promise to Appear?

A hearing scheduled for October 16th @ 10:00 am where shocking facts rather than fiction will be revealed.
 
Last edited:

KennyB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
87
Location
Mountain Top
Ed, thanks again for getting info like this out. Sadly, there seems to be an effort currently underway here in CT to villanize LEGAL gun owners for whatever reason. And the MSM just go along with whatever their fed by LE without doing some questioning or investigating. Most people I know thought the story as reported by the media just didn't sound right. Lets all hope all the FACTS come out at the hearing on the 16th!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
2011 Connecticut Code, Title 53 Crimes, Chapter 939 Offenses Against the Person
Sec. 53-21. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children.
Sec. 53-21. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children. (a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, or (2) has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection, except that, if the violation is of subdivision (2) of this subsection and the victim of the offense is under thirteen years of age, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.

(b) The act of a parent or agent leaving an infant thirty days or younger with a designated employee pursuant to section 17a-58 shall not constitute a violation of this section.


If you read that with the proper attitude, allowing a child to ride in a car on the road could be considered a crime as there is a Possibility of the loss of the child's life or limb. You know, and I know that's not what the legislature intended, but it certainly seems that law enforcement is reading things as liberally as possible while courts are enjoined to rule as conservatively (in the favor of the accused) as possible.



You may well wonder that purpose it serves law enforcement to interpret as many things as possible as either a crime or dangerous.
 
Last edited:

DDoutel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Connecticut
Glad that Firefighter found Rachel and Ed

Child's bedroom...Parent's bedroom; and you can bet any amount of money that every single cop involved sings the same song. ********** **** ** ***** Why should we expect any different, when we as lawful gun owners don't rise up en mass and put them in their place? Can't wait to hear the real facts in this case.



--Moderator deleted insulting remarks--
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Interesing facts of what is going on in CT regarding firearm cases

As you can imagine, I hear firearm related horror stories on a regular basis as Attorney Baird's legal investigator.

I have begun to get a very clear picture of how members of law enforcement, prosecutors and judges act and react to individuals who owns firearms.

The best part of being involved and knowing facts is the ability to discuss issues with the knowledge of real life situations.

I am also surprised at the number of firearm owners/clients who are willing to have the facts of their cases discussed publicly, especially when they see how misleading facts are spun by law enforcement in press releases to exploit, embellish or conceal law enforcement action(s).

In case after case I have, (after hearing sworn testimony), come to the following conclusion

"I DON'T RECALL" is the law enforcement equivalent of the Fifth Amendment when they are asked questions under oath.

 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
A lesson for everyone: file notices of trespass to the state and local LEOs and towns.

LEOs may be knocking on you door 1 JAN 14 to check your registered guns and mags under some retarded reason..children safety check, maybe?

When they come a-knockin , tell them that they are trespassing and ignore what they are saying .. order them off your land.

Mr. Patterson let them search the residence (a place that was not involved with the domestic dispute I gather).

I'm assuming that the cops went over there with the expressed idea of getting his guns..he did register them yes? See how registration leads to confiscation?

Can someone tape the proceedings? Its allowed in the state, with the court's permission.

"I don't recall" is not a 5th amendment claim -- its testimony that they have no recollection as to why they arrested the guy ~ I don't think this would be an issue in this case. Hard to forget grabbing dozens of guns. And I love it when they say "I don't recall"...then my testimony is not controverted.

And nothing would shock me ... gun owners are vile creatures that must be eliminated ... to state employees perspectives.

Lucky we have the 2nd and 9th amendments, huh?

And the guy let the cops into the dwelling...he did not watch "Star Trek II - the Wrath of Kahn" ... "we are all one big happy fleet...fire phasers" lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVIIoRKBlk
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Ed, thanks again for getting info like this out. Sadly, there seems to be an effort currently underway here in CT to villanize LEGAL gun owners for whatever reason. And the MSM just go along with whatever their fed by LE without doing some questioning or investigating. Most people I know thought the story as reported by the media just didn't sound right. Lets all hope all the FACTS come out at the hearing on the 16th!

Your evil, I'm evil ... eh lets bask in the evilness !
 

DDoutel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Connecticut
Child's bedroom...Parent's bedroom; and you can bet any amount of money that every single cop involved sings the same song. ********** **** ** ***** Why should we expect any different, when we as lawful gun owners don't rise up en mass and put them in their place? Can't wait to hear the real facts in this case.



--Moderator deleted insulting remarks--

I've used those terms a few other times on these forums, and never had them deleted before. Something new, here? I take exception to being censored when I'm not using curse words, and I couldn't care less whether the cops here dislike what I say. You all know me, and you all know where I come from. I fully understand that the forum is privately owned, and that they have the right to do as they please, including deleting what the want, but let's be consistent, hmm?
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
The witness list for the hearing to be held on October 16th a 10:00am in GA14 Hartfor

1. Chief James Rovella or His Designated Records Custodian, HPD
2. Lt. Brian J. Foley, HPD
3. Detective Frank Verrengia, HPD
4. Officer Kevin O’Brien, HPD
5. Officer Johnathon Rowe, HPD
6. Sergeant Edward Yergeau, HPD
7. Sergeant Glendaly Garcia, HPD
8. Detective Jason Lee, HPD
9. Lt. Ed Dailey, HPD
10. Officer Steve Donnelly, HPD
11. Officer Manuel Pacheco, HPD
12. Detective William Diaz, HPD
13. Sergeant Norman Nault, DESPP
14. Col. Danny R. Stebbins, DESPP
15. Major William R. Podgorski, DESPP
16. Sergeant Timothy Madden, DESPP
17. Sergeant Michael Collins, DESPP
18. Sergeant Walter Melfi, DESPP
19. Lt. Eric Cooke, Commanding Officer, Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, DESPP
20. Camilla St. Andrew, Hartford DCF
21. Cynthia Chevannes
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
The State is looking to delay the hearing scheduled for October 16th

The hearing was scheduled for October 16th which is 14 days following the arrainment which occurred on October 2nd.

The state is now attempting to delay the hearing.
 

DDoutel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Connecticut
The hearing was scheduled for October 16th which is 14 days following the arrainment which occurred on October 2nd.

The state is now attempting to delay the hearing.

And there will be absolutely no adverse consequences for them if they do, the law notwithstanding. We've seen this from this State "gummint" before. They'll pay no price at all for it; it is a deliberate attempt to use the process as punishment, as Peter Kuck is wont to say.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
And there will be absolutely no adverse consequences for them if they do, the law notwithstanding. We've seen this from this State "gummint" before. They'll pay no price at all for it; it is a deliberate attempt to use the process as punishment, as Peter Kuck is wont to say.

Of course if they lie under oath there would be consequences (maybe why they say "I don't remember a lot" ~ but lets face it, many people do this, its not confined to police ... its not called testilying for nothing).

Unfortunately its the system we have - I have tried to change the law to make people more accountable but without success. That does not mean I will discontinue trying :)
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
State is looking to delay hearing

it becomes more and more interestingThe state is looking to delay the Fernando hearing scheduled for October 16 more as it becomes available.

it becomes more interesting
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
In order to understand or quesiton how Hartford Police placed a $300,000.00 bond on Micheal Patterson the HPD Bond Guidelines and Policies were obtained and are posted.

BOND GUIDELINES


FELONIES STARTING BOND

CLASS A MURDER - 1 MILLION OR MORE
CLASS A (other than murder) $250,000
CLASS B $50.000
CLASS C $25000
CLASS D $10 000
MISDEMEANORS STARTING BOND

CLASS A $ 2,500
CLASS B $ 1,000
CLASS C $ 500

GUN CHARGES
MINIMUM BOND = $250,000
(Minimal History}
CONVICTED FELONS = $350,000

Depending upon the additional chafes and the severity of the accused criminal history the bond should be raised.

CARRYING PISTOL W/O PERMIT 29-35
POSS. OF FIREARM/ALTERED SERIAL # 29-36
WEAPONS IN MIV (firearm only) 29-38
CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON (firearm only) 53a-206
POSS. SAWED OFF SHOTGUN 53a-211
CRIM. USE OF FIREARM 53a-216
CRIM. POSS. OF FIREARM (CONVICTED FELON) 53a-217c
IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM W/MINORS 29-37i
NEGLIGENT STORAGE OF A FIREARM 53a-217a

ADDITIONAL BOND GUIDELINES

POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS (small amount) $ 20,000
(large amount) $100,000 AND UP
PWITS NARCOTICS $ 30,000
DRUG FACTORY $100,000 AND UP
POSSESSION OF CONT. SUB (under loz) $10,000 (community court)
(over l oz) $100,000
PWlTS CONT. SUB (under 4oz) $ 20,000
(over Aoz) $100,000 and up
PROSTITUTION (Minimum court allowed) $ 10,000 Community Court
PROMOTING PROSTITUTION (Minimum) $ 10,000 Community Court
PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE (Minimum) $ 10,000 Community Court
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
MINIMUM COURT ALLOWED BOND $ 2,500
(Multiple offenses) $ 5,000 and up
VOP $ 5000

IF THE PRISONER HAS VIOLENCT HISTORY AND THREATENS FURTHER VIOLENCE; SET BOND AMOUNT TO PREVENT THEIR RELEASE.


CITY OF HARTFORD
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM

TO: DETENTION SUPERVIOSORS

FROM: Lieutenant Christopher R. Arace
Commander, Courts/Detention Divisions

DATE: November 8, 2012

SUBJECT: Domestic Violence arrestees I Bond Amount $50,000.00

In accordance with a directive from the Hartford Police Command Staff and the Hartford Superior Court:

All Domestic Violence arrests where there is a physical assault, and/or a history of assault, the minimum allowable bond will be FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000. 00).

The accused MUST be given the NEXT court date. There are no exceptions.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BONDS
NO ASSUALT REPORTED
OR
NO HISTORY OF ASSUALT
MINIMUM COURT ALLOWED BOND
First Offense.............$ 2,500
Multiple Offenses......$ 5,000 and up

****************************************************************​
PHYSICAL ASSAULT REPORTED​
OR
HISTORY OF ASSUALT​
MINIMUM COURT ALLOWED BOND

First Offense.............. $50,000 and up

THE ACCUSED MUST ALWAYS BE GIVEN THE NEXT COURT DATE.​

Lt. Christopher Arace​
Revised
11/08/2012


The accused MUST be given the NEXT court date. There are no exceptions.
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
29 Counts of Risk of Injury could amount to Double Jeopardy

In part, the federal double jeopardy clause prohibits "`multiple punishments for the same offense.'" Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 842, 847 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376, 381, 109 S.Ct. 2522, 105 L.Ed.2d 322 (1989)). When the issue involves multiple punishments, the federal district court must determine whether the sentencing court imposed greater punishment than the legislature intended. See id. And the federal court is "`bound by a state court's...


The state/prosecutor should immediatley address the possiblitiy of Double Jeopardy and DROP/DISMISS any improper charges against Michael Patterson.
 

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
1. Chief James Rovella or His Designated Records Custodian, HPD
2. Lt. Brian J. Foley, HPD
3. Detective Frank Verrengia, HPD
4. Officer Kevin O’Brien, HPD
5. Officer Johnathon Rowe, HPD
6. Sergeant Edward Yergeau, HPD
7. Sergeant Glendaly Garcia, HPD
8. Detective Jason Lee, HPD
9. Lt. Ed Dailey, HPD
10. Officer Steve Donnelly, HPD
11. Officer Manuel Pacheco, HPD
12. Detective William Diaz, HPD
13. Sergeant Norman Nault, DESPP
14. Col. Danny R. Stebbins, DESPP
15. Major William R. Podgorski, DESPP
16. Sergeant Timothy Madden, DESPP
17. Sergeant Michael Collins, DESPP
18. Sergeant Walter Melfi, DESPP
19. Lt. Eric Cooke, Commanding Officer, Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, DESPP
20. Camilla St. Andrew, Hartford DCF
21. Cynthia Chevannes


wow, that is a lot of witnesses, all getting paid......... for nothing.
 
Top