By way of giving you some insight into how these unaccountable public officials operate, I present the following for your perusal. Documentation of such actions by such officials is extremely scarce. The result of this is that the public at large is under the impression that due process and the law are scrupulously followed, if the public gives such matters any thought at all; the public would be very much mistaken in this impression.
Why Should You Care?
Here again, God forbid you should find yourself in this kind of a situation, you need to understand that the State will use every trick, lawful or otherwise, to do just what they please lawful or otherwise to you, while denying you your rights regardless of Constitutional guarantees and State law. So without further preamble:
As is standard procedure in such situations, Attorney Baird had me apply for a Temporary Pistol Permit while awaiting our hearing before the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. On the afternoon of May 18th, 2011, this email exchange took place between Sgt. Art Weisgerber of the Norwalk Police Department and my attorney, Rachel M. Baird. Note that email addresses have been redacted for privacy reasons.
From: Weisgerber, Arthur
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:32 PM
To: Attorney Rachel M. Baird
Cc: Rilling, Harry; Kulhawik, Thomas
Subject: Mailed Pistol Permit Application
Dear Attorney Baird,
The pistol permit application for Duane T. Doutel of [address redacted], Norwalk CT that you mailed to Chief Rilling has been forwarded to my attention. I read in your letter that Mr. Doutel “has possessed a valid state permit to carry pistols and revolvers in the State of Connecticut”. Also that his fingerprints are on file with the Military ( we do not have access to them ) his previous permit and from his arrest on February 16 , 2011. Mr. Doutel was arrested on February 16 , 2001 in Norwalk for Threatening in the Second Degree – 53a-62 and the case is Pending in Norwalk Court in the Pre-Trial phase. I ran Mr. Doutel’s pistol permit in the State of Connecticut Firearms Division database and found that his State of Connecticut Pistol Permit has been Revoked by the State. Mr. Doutel’s current arrest is a disqualifier for possession of a State Pistol Permit and that is why the State revoked his permit. Therefore, the Norwalk Police Department will not be issuing any Temporary State Pistol Permit to Mr. Doutel and any inquiries into the status of his State permit should be directed to the State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety Special Licenses and Firearms Unit at 860-685-8290. Mr. Doutel should have received some paperwork from the State concerning the revocation status and his rights to an appeal. I will be mailing back the application and checks you submitted.
Sincerely,
Sgt. Art Weisgerber
Crime Scene / I.D. Unit
Norwalk Police Department
One Monroe Street
Norwalk, CT 06854
(203) 854-3164
(203) 854- 3028 (Cold Cases)
From: Rachel M. Baird
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:42 PM
To: Weisgerber, Arthur
Cc: Rilling, Harry; Kulhawik, Thomas; William.B.Krauss
Subject: RE: Mailed Pistol Permit Application
Sgt. Weisgerber –
Before responding in full to your email I will provide you opportunity to read General Statutes 29-28(b) so that our discussion is well-informed and productive. Your comment that an arrest is a disqualifier should concern the Chief, the Town of Norwalk, and its residents. General Statutes 29-28(b)(2) accords with principles held in the United States that an individual, despite an arrest by the Norwalk Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, is innocent until proven guilty. I am familiar with the SLFU. You may wish to contact Sgt. Krauss to inquire whether an arrest is a disqualifier. I look forward to hearing back from you. Once you determine that you are in error and that an arrest is not a disqualifier I trust you will proceed as the Chief’s designee in consideration of the application or forward the application back to the Chief for his consideration.
Best regards,
Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
379 Prospect Street
Torrington CT 06790-5238
Tel: (860) 626-9991
Fax: (860) 626-9992
Web Site: www.RachelBairdLaw.com
From:Weisgerber, Arthur
Sent:Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:08 PM
To:Rachel M. Baird
Cc:Rilling, Harry; Kulhawik, Thomas; William.B.Krauss
Subject:RE: Mailed Pistol Permit Application
I will respond as best as I can. Mr. Doutel has a State of Connecticut pistol permit that has been revoked by the State, not the Norwalk Police Department. I am aware that an arrest is not a disqualifier, a conviction is. I was pointing out that the reason for the revocation was due to the arrest for disqualifying charges. I believe the course of action for Mr. Doutel is to contact the State concerning his revoked State permit, not apply for a new Temporary State permit while his current permit is revoked. I will gladly follow up with Sgt. Krauss to inquire if we should be issuing new Temporary State permits for persons with a revoked permit.
Sincerely,
Sgt. Art Weisgerber
Crime Scene / I.D. Unit
Norwalk Police Department
One Monroe Street
Norwalk, CT 06854
(203) 854-3164
(203) 854- 3028 (Cold Cases)
From: Rachel M. Baird
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:42 PM
To: 'Weisgerber, Arthur'
Cc: 'Rilling, Harry'; 'Kulhawik, Thomas'; 'William.B.Krauss'; 'Michele_ciesco'; 'james.cetran'
Subject: RE: Mailed Pistol Permit Application
Sgt. Weisgerber –
In your May 18, 2001, 2:32 pm email you state: “Mr. Doutel’s current arrest is a disqualifier for possession of a State Pistol Permit and that is why the State revoked his permit.” I understand that your May 18, 2011, 4:08 pm email states: “I am aware that an arrest is not a disqualifier, a conviction is.” We now agree on this point that an arrest is not a disqualifier.
Next point. Revocation status does not disqualify a person from submitting an application for a temporary state permit.[emphasis added] I addressed a similar issue with Chief Maniago recently. My correspondence to Chief Maniago is attached. You may wish to contact him. When you contact Sgt. Krauss he will inform you that revocation status does not disqualify a person from submitting an application for a temporary state permit. You may wish to contact Chief Cetran of the Wethersfield Police Department and ask him about two applications for temporary state permits that James Goldberg submitted while his state permit was in revocation status.
Finally, I appreciate that you have referred me to the “State,” presumably for the purpose of filing an appeal to the Board. How my client proceeds is my concern. Chief Rilling’s obligation under the law to consider an Application for a Temporary State Permit is your concern. Once you determine that you are in error and that revocation status is not a disqualifier I trust you will proceed as the Chief’s designee in consideration of the application or forward the application back to the Chief for his consideration.
Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
379 Prospect Street
Torrington CT 06790-5238
From: Rachel M. Baird
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:45 PM
To: 'Weisgerber, Arthur'
Cc: 'Rilling, Harry'; 'Kulhawik, Thomas'; William.B.Krauss; Michele_ciesco; james.cetran
Subject: RE: Mailed Pistol Permit Application - Correction
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Please correct the date in the first paragraph to read “May 18, 2011” instead of May 18, 2001.”
Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
379 Prospect Street
Torrington CT 06790-5238
Tel: (860) 626-9991
Fax: (860) 626-9992
Web Site: www.RachelBairdLaw.com
At 10:00 AM on the morning of May 20th, 2011, two days following the above email exhange, Attorney Baird and I appeared before Judge Bruce Hudock for a status conference. At this time, we were made aware that Assistant State Prosecutor Tiffany Lockshier, the fact that Sgt. Weisgerber has clearly demonstrated his ignorance of the law notwithstanding, was asking Judge Hudock for an order to modify my conditions of release, that I possess no firearms (page 2, lines 1-11). It is clear from this that the Norwalk Police Department has been in direct contact with Ms. Lockshier regarding the content and circumstances of the above email exchange. Judge Hudock went along with this, without knowing the circumstances of the case other than Zwickler's falsifications in his "incident report".
Beginning on page 2, line 12 and continuing through page 3, Attorney Baird goes into some depth as to the circumstances of the (non-)incident, and points out that under state law, before such an order issues, a hearing would be required within fourteen days. As you read on, you see that Judge Hudock clearly states that his order is "temporary", and that a hearing will be held before said order modifying the conditions of release would be made final. While Attorney Baird did in fact subsequently and in timely fashion file such a motion, contrary to Judge Hudock's word, the required hearing was never scheduled. Every time we attempted to get a hearing on this issue, we were given some excuse, up to and including GA20 being shorthanded with respect to judges, Judge Hudock himself having gone on extended vacation. This is the first time Hudock gave his word, this time in public court as illustrated by the transcript, and then failed to honor his word. The second time was previously documented here: "We have nothing to hide, but the State does." (third to last paragraph). It would appear that "Hizoner" Hudock suffers from a distinct honor deficit.
The end result? Hudock's "temporary" order became de facto permanent, so the prosecution's motion was heard at the May 20th status update without ever having to have been filed, while the defense was effectively gagged as to our motions. It doesn't end here. More on this in the next post.