| Author | Post |
|---|
john_galt
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Southington CT |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
Good stuff guys. I've been following this development for a little while now and it's yielding interesting results so far! Keep up the good work.
|
buketdude
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
Any kind of get together and I will be there...sounds great!!
|
Maljunulo
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 12:48 am |
|
Based on fifty seven years of reading the newspapers in Connecticut, I would be very wary of the print media, and even more so of the TV folks.
A get together sounds like a good idea and I would be delighted to participate, but only if individual contact with the media is definitely optional. I, for one, will not go anywhere near the media, having seen enough of their antics over the years.
Last edited on Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 01:05 am by Maljunulo
|
LKB3rd
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 11:25 am |
|
Maybe we could all start paying attention to local news reporters and stations to see if there is one who would be more likely to do a fair story.
Does anyone personally know such a reporter? Or have any ideas. I usually avoid tv news, but I will start paying closer attention with this in mind.
|
peterkuck
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 02:48 pm |
|
Thank you for the note (LBK3rd). I cannot say much due to the cases I am involved in. -- but save and visit the links I put out on the blog since they will be updated as we go forward.
Hopefully others who have had their rights trampled on will take heart and consider all of their options.
|
LKB3rd
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 05:35 pm |
|
I didn't send you any note  Maybe someone else did and you mixed up the names?
|
Edward Peruta
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
HOT OFF THE PRESS/INTERNET
TO ALL WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE GOLDBERG SITUATION:
It appears that a legal opinion issued by the United States Department of Justice on the topic of Torture may have elements relative to the actions of individuals who are arrested while legally carrying a Firearm in Connecticut.
FACTS IN THE GOLDBERG CASE:
On June 21, 2007, James Goldberg walked into Chili’s in Glastonbury Connecticut in “GOOD FAITH” with the “HONEST BELIEF” that his “SPECIFIC INTENT” to purchase his To Go order of Chicken Fingers was legal.
At no time did James Goldberg possess the statutorily required “SPECIFIC INTENT” TO DISTURB, INCONVIENIENCE OR ALARM ANYONE while picking up his food.
Previously secret torture memo released
July 24, 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate U.S. prohibitions against torture unless they "have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," according to a previously secret Justice Department memo released Thursday.
The interrogator's "good faith" and "honest belief" that the interrogation will not cause such suffering protects the interrogator, the memo adds.
"Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture," Jay Bybee, then the assistant attorney general, wrote in the memo.
The 18-page memo is heavily redacted, with 10 of its 18 pages completely blacked out and only a few paragraphs legible on the others.
Another memo released Thursday advises that "the waterboard," or simulated drowning, does "not violate the Torture Statute."
It also cites a number of warnings against torture, including statements by President Bush and a then-new Supreme Court ruling "which raises possible concerns about future U.S. judicial review of the [interrogation] Program."
A third memo instructs interrogators to keep records of sessions in which "enhanced interrogation techniques" are used. The memo is signed by then-CIA director George Tenet and dated January 28, 2003.
The memos were made public by the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained the three CIA-related documents under Freedom of Information Act requests.
"These documents supply further evidence, if any were needed, that the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture prisoners in its custody," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project.
The Bush administration has consistently denied that the United States tortures detainees.
Reports say the CIA waterboarded three "high-value detainees," including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, although former Justice Department official Daniel Levin suggested in congressional testimony in June that there had been more than three instances of the practice, which critics call torture.
The third document released Thursday was blacked out except for a line saying "Unless otherwise approved by Headquarters, CIA officers (redacted) may use only Permissible Interrogation Techniques. Permissible Interrogation Techniques consist of both (a) Standard Techniques and (b) Enhanced Techniques," plus the instruction for interrogators to keep records of sessions in which enhanced interrogation techniques are used.
|
LKB3rd
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
| I'm not sure how comfortable I feel using rulings used to falsely and magically make war crimes "legal". Although, it would be a way to turn a very bad ruling into a good one. Throw it back in their faces.
|
Statkowski
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
| Do not the state's actions against lawful firearms owners appear to be treasonable offenses? War crimes? The state, after all, does appear to be waging war against its citizens.
|
buketdude
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 01:20 am |
|
yes, i believe the State of CT is guilty of Treason against a lot more then just firearms owners..
|
Maljunulo
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:24 am |
|
It might be a good idea, at this point, to look up the definition of "treason."
|
Statkowski
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:45 am |
|
From Dictionary.com:
trea·son 
// /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
|
GoldCoaster
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 12:35 am |
|
peterkuck wrote: http://www.ycgg.org/legal_pg.html
http://www.ycgg.org/sound_index.htm
Peter - a belated welcome to the group. I've read quite a bit on Ed Peruta's website (ourrockyhill) and am glad to see we have someone on the board that looks out for our rights.
Those documents listed are interesting reading but I couldn't help feeling a bit mad after finishing them.
Good luck with everything and keep us in the loop when you are able to do so!
Goldcoaster
|
JUMPMASTER
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
I urge all those interested to attend the Appeals Hearings of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. The next meeting will be held on August 7th at 1:30PM. It is held on the 3rd floor at DPS HQ 1111 Country Club Road, Middletown. http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1253&q=273458
There is a possibility that Mr. Kuck's appeal will be heard next month.
|
Edward Peruta
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
For everyone following the Goldberg case check out the latest documents received from the State Police. And pay attention to the date the statements were taken.
Judge for yourself the seriousness of the situation at Chili's
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/SLFU.ORDERS/3.new.goldberg.Statements.08.11.08.pdf
|
JUMPMASTER
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 01:45 am |
|
| Typical shoddy detective work by the Corrupt Secret Police. Knowing that they won't be able to use the UAR against Goldberg because his case will have been over 13 months since its nolle, they go out and get three people to make a statement a year after the fact. The best part is that these sworn statements affirm that Mr. Goldberg was conducting himself in a lawful manner. Where is the statement from Laura Smith? You know...The employee who was so worried that she called the police. Listen to the 911 call that she placed. There was no worry or panic in her voice when she called. She merely asked a question and police went way to far. All the dispatcher had to do was to tell her that under Connecticut law it is legal to carry a weapon exposed. What we have here is a clear violation by the Police to stifle the Rights granted to us by our Creator and affirmed in the US Constitution as well as the Connecticut Constitution. The only one that should have been arrested for breach of peace was Laura Smith. She is the one who caused concern and panic to take place by the actions she took to her employees and customers.
|
Edward Peruta
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 02:18 am |
|
Jumpmaster,
Only one issue in your post.
Goldberg's case was dismissed on July 30, 2007 the same day that the State Nolled the charge.
There was no need to wait 13 months.
In addition, these people were known to the State Police on at least April 16th, but they didn't take the statements until documents were obtained on July 28th which revealed the names of the three employees.
I think they were trying to keep these names secret by NOT taking statements.
|
JUMPMASTER
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 02:27 am |
|
Sorry, I was almost certain they only nolled his charges. I can't beleive they extorted $500 from him. Did you know that in order to get fingerprints back from the CSP you have to provide them with a thumbprint? They sent me a letter that my fingerprints were electronically captured and they destroyed them but they never sent my thumbprint back.
16 years ago I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
I always wondered what a domestic enemy was; now I know.
|
Edward Peruta
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 12:51 pm |
|
A new page of information has been added at http://www.ourrockyhill.com which explains the Goldberg situation.
Please visit this link to view the basic facts and view several documents that tell the story.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/JUSTIFICATION.REINSTATEMENT.htm
Hopefully you will be able to understand what is going on now that new information has been received and posted.
|
JUMPMASTER
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 02:43 pm |
|
| I just read the statement Laura Smith gave to Mattson last year. I certainly reads like a coerced statement to me. Listen to her 911 call and then read what she wrote. I know that Goldberg will have to make a tough decision if the DPS plans on giving his permit back prior to a hearing but I would sure like to sit in on that hearing and see exactly how Fox and Hall plan to present this case.
|
Current time is 06:02 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
