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.
The CT State police now have a list of every CT Family Court Reform member which they have probably now given to the CT Judicial Branch so that every time one of those members sets foot in the courtroom an alert will go out to every court professional in that courtroom. Wow.
ReplyDeleteAnd so, if you exercise your right to free speech in CT against a corrupt system you can be under suspicion of being or can be "a terrorist." See link below on CT Fusion Center.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ct.gov/demhs/lib/demhs/homelandsecurity/ctic_privacy_policy_final_version_1_november_19_2010_signed_by_betsy.doc.pdf
Conviction of CT citizen for exercising free speech that caused terror, according to J.Gold. Is this really a situation of "terrorism?" Is any person who disagrees with government or the judicial branch after this decision going to be suspected of being a terrorist or land on a list? As reported in Courant on 10/2/15:
ReplyDeleteGold said he concluded that the evidence at Taupier's trial proved "beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant communicated his email on Aug. 22, 2014 in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing another person." Gold said he concluded that the evidence at Taupier's trial proved "beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant communicated his email on Aug. 22, 2014 in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing another person." Evidence showed "that a reasonably prudent person" in Taupier's circumstances "would not have communicated the email at issue to others because of its risk of causing terror" and that the email was "a great and substantial deviation" from the "standard of conduct that a reasonable person would abide by in those circumstances," Gold wrote in his decision. Taupier was aware the email "would be seen as threatening and create a risk of terror, and yet consciously chose to disregard his awareness" by sending it out, Gold wrote.
Sec. 53a-61aa. Threatening in the first degree: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of threatening in the first degree when such person (1) (A) threatens to commit any crime involving the use of a hazardous substance with the intent to terrorize another person, to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or (B) threatens to commit such crime in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, evacuation or inconvenience; (2) (A) threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or (B) threatens to commit such crime in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such evacuation or inconvenience; or (3) commits threatening in the second degree as provided in section 53a-62, and in the commission of such offense he uses or is armed with and threatens the use of or displays or represents by his words or conduct that he possesses a pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, machine gun or other firearm. No person shall be found guilty of threatening in the first degree under subdivision (3) of this subsection and threatening in the second degree upon the same transaction but such person may be charged and prosecuted for both such offenses upon the same information.
(b) For the purposes of this section, “hazardous substance” means any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter which, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health.
(c) Threatening in the first degree is a class D felony.
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated...threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
ReplyDeleteI would say the way Judges threaten family court litigants with jail and with destitution amounts to terrorism, in my book. I think also taking children away from fit mothers and denying mothers all access to their children based upon petty grounds is a kind of terrorism. Denying family court litigants due process, flouting The Practice Book, ignoring or denying the existence of prior precedent setting case law, in order to rule as you please, which judges do regularly sounds like terrorism. Looks like we are getting somewhere here. I consider the way judges who don't know a person's real history, but only the nonsense and lies unscrupulous attorneys tell them,pass judgement on and lecture family court litigants a form of emotional terrorism--kamikaze attacks intended to destroy minds and souls and break people. All of this destroys families and communities. In our world, judges and attorneys can make vicious statements at will, but if a family court litigants responds with anger--oh, no, God forbid.
DeleteWe are honestly going to care about Judge Gold's biased and blatantly Judicial Branch retaliation plan serving conclusions and remarks--I don't think so! The bottom line is Judges are quite capable of taking any kind of speech and reinterpreting it as they so please. That's how they manage to take the victims of domestic violence and accuse them of PAS which in their sick minds justifies denying fit mothers all access to their children.
DeleteLife is good when you have your love ones around you, I am saying this because when i had issues with my lover i never seen life as a good thing but thanks to Dr. AGBAZARA of AGBAZARA TEMPLE, for helping me to cast a spell that brought my lover back to me within the space of 48hours. My husband left me for another woman after 7YEARS of marriage,but Dr.AGBAZARA help me cast a spell that brought him back to me within 48hours. I am not going to tell you more details about myself rather i will only advise those who are having issues in there relationship or marriages to contact Dr.AGBAZARA TEMPLE through these details via; ( agbazara@gmail.com ) or call him on Whatsapp: +2348104102662
ReplyDelete