Source: http://ctcarry.com/News/Releases?page=4
Timestamp: 2019-01-19 05:01:49
Document Index: 117959479

Matched Legal Cases: ['§29', '§53', 'in fine', '§1', '§1', '§ 241', '§ 242']

State Police Releasing Confidential Information in Board Hearings
Detective Barbara Mattson Illegally Exposes Permit Holders
Middletown, Connecticut, November 25, 2013
During a Board of Firearms Permit Examiners meeting on November 14, 2013, Detective Barbara Mattson of the Connecticut State Police disclosed the name and the active permit status of at least one Connecticut State Pistol Permit holder on the public record. This disclosure, prohibited by CGS 29-28(d), is both illegal and irresponsible.
Detective Mattson can hardly feign ignorance to the illegal nature of her disclosure since the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection recently won an appeal to their refusal to disclose permit applicant information under the Freedom of Information Act. The state argued against the plain text of the statute that only exempts persons issued a pistol permit, and the court applied that confidentiality to all applicants as well.
Detective Mattson did not disclose an applicant’s information, nor did she disclose the information of someone in an appeal. She disclosed the permit status, by name of a third party permit holder. This type of disclosure potentially harms or endangers members of the public, and the state police are expected to follow these laws that they enforce on the rest of us.
Rachel M. Baird and Associate of Torrington, Connecticut, on behalf of Connecticut Carry and the Connecticut residents we represent, issued a very direct letter to state officials. The state officials, including the State Police, the Attorney General and the Board of Firearms Permit examiners were informed and warned of this illegal conduct by a senior State Trooper from the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit. They have been asked to provide notice to all relevant agencies and personnel to make sure that they understand that the confidentiality of pistol permit holders must be upheld.
Important questions about these disclosures have also been asked, such as: What action does the state intend to take in response to a prohibited disclosure? When and where will the state deem it expedient to name permit holders in public?
How is the DESPP able to disregard the law for its own members but state in court that the same action is serious and prohibited by law and so serious that applicants for permits cannot be disclosed despite the contrary plain text of the law?
Hartford Fire Lieutenant Arrested on Hysterical Gun Charges
Connecticut Carry Monitoring Ongoing Case
Hartford, CT, October 7, 2013
On October 1st, 2013 Hartford Police arrested Michael Patterson and charged him with Breach of Peace, Threatening in the Second Degree and 29 felony counts of Risk of Injury to a Child. Hartford police state the cause for the 29 felony charges is for 29 unloaded firearms being allegedly left accessible in the home where they claim a child resided with ammunition in some sort of close proximity.
It is questionable why the Hartford Police Department would make an arrest based on the circumstances that they have used to publicly smear Lieutenant Patterson. The Connecticut General Statutes are quite clear on this issue, and the legislature did not change the relevant elements of the ‘safe storage’ statute when they repealed it and substituted new language on 4/4/2013. CGS §29-37i specifically addresses the storage of loaded firearms, not unloaded.
Accordingly, CGS §53a-217a is a criminal statute that addresses violations of the aforementioned ‘safe storage law’ which spells out a class D felony for a child gaining access to an improperly stored firearm that results in injury or death. The reality of this case is far from a violation of either statute, so instead, the Hartford Police Department decided to charge Mr. Patterson with 29 counts of a more serious class C felony. This disparity means that the Hartford Police Department believes that Mr. Patterson committed a crime worth far more than 29 times the punishment of leaving a loaded firearm for a child to access that results in injury or death when there is zero indication that the firearm was ever accessible or accessed by any child, never mind any injury or death being a result.
With the ridiculous charges applied to Mr. Patterson, he faces a potential sentence of 1 to 10 years and up to $10,000 for each charge. This is twice the potential penalty of Criminally Negligent Storage of a Firearm. A child never gained access to his firearms, and yet he could face up to 290 years in prison and up to $290,000 in fines.
Connecticut Carry plans to monitor this case along with the others we are currently working on to make sure that justice prevails and Mr. Patterson is given his fair day in court. A day in court where the Hartford Police Department will have to answer for their overzealous and hysterical prosecution of a law abiding citizen.
A hearing open to the public will take place in the Hartford GA14 courthouse on October 16th at 10:00 am. Connecticut Carry encourages members of the public and the media to attend the hearing. It should be educational and enlightening.
Connecticut DESPP Admits ‘mistakes’ in Ex Parte Confiscations
Middletown, CT, October 3, 2013
In a letter dated September 10th, 2013, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) admitted to 'mistakes’ in sending threatening letters to citizens that were the subject of Ex Parte restraining orders and unlawfully demanding the surrender of their firearms under the threat of arrest. The letter comes as an apparent response to Attorney Rachel M. Baird’s criminal complaint sent to the FBI against the DESPP for deprivation of civil rights.
While the DESPP assures us that these kinds of threats are to be ‘no longer mailed when an ex parte restraining order is issued’, we still have serious concerns about this and other topics when the DESPP and their legal counsel were unable previously to properly distinguish between an Ex Parte restraining order and a restraining order. The facts of this case as well as others only serve to further emphasize the severe lack of legal understanding within the Connecticut State Police.
The lack of understanding of these basic legal constructs as well as the constitutional issues exposed within them was the subject of a letter to the US House of Representatives and Senate after Senators Blumenthal and Murphy signed on to try and change the legislation to cover DESPP’s tracks.
Bristol CT, September 12, 2013
During a closed door meeting in the judge’s chambers during a case Judge Robert C. “Brunes” Brunetti exposed his bigotry for fundamental civil rights in front of at least three defense attorneys. The violation came during the case of State of Connecticut v. Bruce Worley, docket number H17B-CR13-0055722S.
Connecticut DESPP is ‘Chasing Their Tails’
Are State Freedom of Information Laws Optional?
Middletown CT, September 3, 2013
For most of 2013, Connecticut Carry has been working hard to try and get basic information released from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, only to have those efforts illegally denied by DESPP’s ‘Legal Affairs’ unit through determined procrastination and obfuscation. Numerous requests for information regarding firearms, potential litigation activities and other related files are being withheld without statutory authority, defying the mandates set forth in CGS §1-206:
Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request… Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.
And CGS §1-210:
…all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void..
As a Connecticut nonprofit dedicated to protecting and advancing the right to bear arms in Connecticut, and in the process of investigating, researching and funding legal cases in Connecticut, we have a strong need to be able to check our information against these public records so that our reports and releases are factual and accurate. Many of these cases are brought because of actions by DESPP or other police departments and Connecticut Carry has uncovered a startling amount of illegal and abusive practices originating from DESPP policies.
In direct defiance of these laws, Christine Plourde, Esq. on behalf of DESPP ‘Legal Affairs’ sent a fiery letter to Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta seeking to assert her department’s policies over the law, despite the law voiding her policies for being against the law in the first place. We have made Ed’s detailed response available online.
While the information coming out about DESPP’s recent illegal behavior might have a negative impact on the image of DESPP, they must follow the law. We will see to it that they do follow the law, just like Connecticut Carry and Connecticut residents are expected to do.
FBI Encouraged to Investigate Connecticut State Police
Threats, intimidation and extortion alleged against the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection
New Haven, CT, August 26, 2013
Attorney Rachel M. Baird of Torrington, CT has sent a letter to Special Agent in Charge Kimberly Mertz of the New Haven FBI office to investigate allegations of criminal conduct. The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection’s criminal conduct violates Federal laws: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights and 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
The case is one that Connecticut Carry has exposed previously. In this case, the subject was told to surrender all of his firearms under threat of arrest because he was ineligible to possess firearms. This was, in fact, a lie by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection who should certainly know better. At no time was the subject ineligible to possess firearms according to State or Federal law. The subject had an ex parte restraining order against him, which is also called a temporary restraining order. At that point in the restraining order process, the subject of the order has not had any chance to answer or defend against the allegation. It would be completely unreasonable to think that a person would need to give up core rights upon any accusation by another person. This is would be a complete insult to the concept of due process spelled out in the 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution.
As demonstrated repeatedly, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection has a long pattern of misinterpreting the State and Federal laws whenever it suits their needs. More alarmingly, they have politicians that are somehow willing to try and alter the laws after their misuse of the current laws is exposed.
The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, through their legal counsel have shown a willful disregard for the laws and the facts in this case as well as others. Their credibility should suffer as a result.
Read the letter here: http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/fcfc501b-10f1-4570-ae8a-b861735035e6
Vernon, CT, July 16, 2013
Prominent firearms Attorney Rachel Baird of Torrington filed a motion to recuse and disqualify Judge Edward Mullarkey from a Rockville Superior Court GA-19 case on July 15th. The Motion for Recusal and Disqualification of Judge puts forth serious and egregious ethics issues raised by Mullarkey’s courtroom behavior, who is charged with being impartial.