PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
CHARLOTTE OBSERVER CALLS OUT U.S. ATTORNEY DEIRDRE DALY REGARDING THE TED TAUPIER CASE!
There are parts of the public/media is a bit confused over application of law, free speech, criminal conduct, case law and conduct of Connecticut state courts.
Recently, a federal appellate court, 2nd Circuit, in New York ruled that an NYPD cop is not a criminal for talking about kidnapping and eating specific women. The judge states that 'fantasizing about committing a crime...is not a crime.'
The public is quite aware that the Connecticut judicial mafia has arrested one Ted Taupier and charged him with a crime for ranting about bad things happening to one Judge Bozzutto, the lesbian overlord of the corrupt state family court system. Judge Gold has convicted this person for expressing his desires/fantasy that bad things happen to a bad judge. Bullets, sights, trajectory, glass barriers....but no cannibalism, recipes, grilling instructions, seasoning or wine selections.
The public/media is curious to know if it is acceptable for NYPD cops to discuss kidnapping a Connecticut judge, killing it, filleting, barbecuing and hosting judicious buffet for state police. Obviously this was the issue reviewed by the federal court by Circuit Judge Barrington Parker.
If equal protection applies to NYPD cop's cannibalism, does it not apply to Connecticut lumberjacks? Would a private internet discussion about running Judge Bozzutto feet first through a wood chipper be acceptable under Judge Parker's decision? Or perhaps an essay on the corruption of state judges titled "A Million Pieces" where a retired NYPD cop moves to Connecticut to fantasize about bringing dietary justice to trafficked children? If the retired cop has a six burner, double tanked propane grill on the deck along with a butcher block, Henckels professional cutlery, pictures of the judge, address, pork recipes, extensive seasoning and a few bottles of chianti; can the state police arrest this retired cop for risk of culinary crime?
As the constitutional right to free speech is at the heart of the federal decision; limited power of government to criminalize thoughts. Is it not an issue for DOJ and your staff to address the arrest and conviction of Ted Taupier by lawless state actors under color of state law in deprivation of rights, protections, privileges of federal law?
Or are NYPD cops free to collect pictures of potential menu items, talk of kidnapping them, killing them, cooking them, eating them.....but if a family court litigant in Connecticut talks of Dorthy's house falling on the Wicked Witch of the court and her evil step sisters, then it is criminal only in Connecticut? DOJ sits idly by, condoning deprivation of rights?
Under 42 USC 1986, do you not have implied ability to remedy such deprivations? Are you not funded by the federal government to address such tyranny by the states? Or is fantasy cannibalism by cop not a crime in the New York district but can be a crime in the Connecticut region? Does your counterpart Preet Bharara operate under different constitutional criteria?
Or simply do NYPD cops have more right to free speech than a dad getting a divorce in Connecticut? Un-equal protection?
Surely your office can provide some guidance to the citizens of Connecticut on what criminal law dictates what can and can't be discussed about the judges of the family court.
connecticut/hc-ted-taupier- convicted-of-threatening- judge-20151002-story.html
Favor of a professional reply appreciated. Make it a FOIA request for any memos on the subject or guidance information provided by your department.
There is great public interest to understand what thoughts and fantasies are criminal and which are not. Surely it is the duty of your office to educate the populace and their police overlords on the proper limits of speech.