To: Attorney General

Cc: darlene.chenard@ct.gov; linsley.barbato@ct.gov; Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov;

christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov; <Edwin.Vargas@cga.ct.gov>
Date: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:04:08 PM
Perry,
Your obtuse response was at odds with the published Mission of the
Attorney General's Office. The public has an interest in upholding the First
Amendment. The state's chief legal officer has duty before the people.
There is no statutory or constitutional construction that prevents George
from addressing the deprivation of rights at hand. J ust your refusal to do
your sworn duty.
pb
The Mission of the Attorney General's Office:
Among the critical missions of my office are to represent and advocate
the interests of the state and its citizens as vigorously as possible, to
ensure that state government acts within the letter and spirit of the law,
that public resources are protected for present and future generations,
that the quality of life of all our citizens is preserved and enhanced, and
that the rights of our most vulnerable citizens are safeguarded
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Paul Boyne <paboyne@gmail.com> wrote:
Perry,
I think you have twisted this around for purpose of avoiding addressing the federal
crime at hand under 18 USC 242. The people of Connecticut have no cause to
uphold tyranny, totalitarianism nor actions that defeat free speech. As the
'public's lawyer' George has obligation to protect the sovereign people from liability
of federal criminal acts.
Willfully filing a false affidavit to violate constitutional rights under color of state
law is not an official act, it is a federal criminal act. There are witnesses to this
filing who were not the arrested person. The duty for remedy is not solely vested
in the accused. The Department of Criminal J ustice refuses to take the complaint
of the false affidavit from other witnesses.
I suggest this is more serious than you have realized and that your office does
have duty as described in 42 USC 1986, but you are unlawfully refusing to
exercise such power. Creating a crime without a victim by employing a false
affidavit to defeat civil rights is a crime, you have notice.
Suggest we discuss this further. Left you a VM.
pb
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Attorney General <Attorney.General@ct.gov>
wrote:
Mr. Boyne,
Thank you for your message to the Attorney General relating to an individual
arrested by state law enforcement authorities. Your message was referred to
me for review and response. Please be advised that this office does not have
criminal law enforcement authority. Nor does the Attorney General have
authority to supervise or direct the conduct of the Connecticut state police, other
criminal law enforcement officials or judges. We are directed by statute to
represent state law enforcement officials in civil legal actions filed against them
to challenge their official acts. Accordingly, we cannot offer you advice or
assistance on this matter. Individuals wishing to challenge a criminal arrest or
prosecution may wish to consult with private counsel to determine the remedies
and procedures available to them.
Very Truly Yours,
Perry Zinn Rowthorn
Deputy Attorney General
________________________________
From: Paul Boyne [paboyne@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:19 PM
To: Attorney General
Cc: Barbato, Linsley J .; ConnDCJ
Subject: Fwd: Brenda's Creativity
George,
Who in Connecticut is responsible for the state's obligations under 42 USC 1986
in making remedy to known civil rights violation. Specifically, who in Connecticut
has power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of rights violations.
In light of filing of false affidavits, unlawful arrest and deprivation of the right of
free speech, who has power to prevent such federal crime??
Favour of a professional reply appreciated.
pb
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Boyne <paboyne@gmail.com<mailto:paboyne@gmail.com>>
Date: Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM
Subject: Brenda's Creativity
To: "john.whalen@ct.gov<mailto:john.whalen@ct.gov>"
<john.whalen@ct.gov<mailto:john.whalen@ct.gov>>,
"conndcj@ct.gov<mailto:conndcj@ct.gov>"
<conndcj@ct.gov<mailto:conndcj@ct.gov>>
Cc: "Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov<mailto:Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov>"
<Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov<mailto:Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov>>,
brenda.hans@ct.gov<mailto:brenda.hans@ct.gov>,
christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov<mailto:christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov>,
daniel.dejesus@ct.gov<mailto:daniel.dejesus@ct.gov>,
"<Edwin.Vargas@cga.ct.gov<mailto:Edwin.Vargas@cga.ct.gov>>"
<edwin.vargas@cga.ct.gov<mailto:edwin.vargas@cga.ct.gov>>, "Hardy, Gail"
<gail.hardy@ct.gov<mailto:gail.hardy@ct.gov>>,
"john.hughes@usdoj.gov<mailto:john.hughes@usdoj.gov>"
<john.hughes@usdoj.gov<mailto:john.hughes@usdoj.gov>>,
"peter.mcshane@ct.gov<mailto:peter.mcshane@ct.gov>"
<peter.mcshane@ct.gov<mailto:peter.mcshane@ct.gov>>,
rafael.medina@ct.gov<mailto:rafael.medina@ct.gov>,
dora.schriro@ct.gov<mailto:dora.schriro@ct.gov>, "J ohnson, Chris"
<chris.johnson@ct.gov<mailto:chris.johnson@ct.gov>>,
dowens@courant.com<mailto:dowens@courant.com>, Attorney General
<attorney.general@ct.gov<mailto:attorney.general@ct.gov>>,
brian.meraviglia@ct.gov<mailto:brian.meraviglia@ct.gov>
J ack,
Looks like totalitarianism is alive and well in Connecticut. First Amendment
protection is everyone's concern and your girl Brenda H. is going out of her way
to shred it. Courthouse rumours suggest that Brenda has fabricated a
construction that Ted intended J en to deliver the prose of the private email to
Bozzuto, thus creating the act of threatening a person. Brenda is a creative
enemy of the Constitution.
You can suggest to Brenda H. Vicki M. and Dan D. that private conversation is a
circumstance that does not create an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate,
specific threat with gravity of purpose and prospect of imminent execution....to a
person who is not present.
DeJ esus and Medina do not have the intellectual understanding of free speech to
realize they had no probable cause to deprive a person of liberty. Neither can
hold an intelligent conversation on the affidavit filed with the court. Neither one
understands that the passage of five days is not imminent nor do they
comprehend the absence of a recipient nor are they even aware of the context
of the conversation. They want to create criminal speech and a victim where
none exists. Such is not police work, just thuggery.
However, this is all known to Brenda H. and she has duty under 42 USC 1986 to
remedy the deprivation created. Federal obligation does not create the necessity
to fabricate false scenarios as a workaround to the false affidavit by suggesting
conspiracy of J en V. and Linda A. to pass a note to Bozzuto. Such conduct by
Brenda is criminal under 18 USC 242.
A free citizen was falsely arrested a week ago on a false affidavit in derogation
of free speech, his liberty has been curtailed, your office fabricates excuses not
to inform the judge of the error. The State of Connecticut, her sovereign
people, have no cause to fund your attack on the First Amendment. You have
constructive notice of the fraud at hand. You can remedy this matter with one
phone call. One phone call to act American.
Think you have a duty to perform today. There is a federal crime in progress
and you can stop it.
pb
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Boyne <paboyne@gmail.com<mailto:paboyne@gmail.com>>
Date: Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Subject: Taupier warrant
To: daniel.dejesus@ct.gov<mailto:daniel.dejesus@ct.gov>
Cc: vicki.melchiorre@ct.gov<mailto:vicki.melchiorre@ct.gov>,
Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov<mailto:Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov>
edwin.vargas@cga.ct.gov<mailto:edwin.vargas@cga.ct.gov>
john.hughes@usdoj.gov<mailto:john.hughes@usdoj.gov>
Dan,
In reviewing your affidavit filed to arrest Ted Taupier, it appears you have
misstated information that would lead a reasonable person to believe you do not
understand the law of 'true threat' or protected speech under the First
Amendment.
You obtained a partial section of an email string that went on for two days
among several people. This email string is the 'context' that must be considered
for upholding First Amendment protections. As you contacted J en V. on the
evening of the 28th, five days after the partial prose was written, you had
opportunity and cause to obtain the full context of the communication and
identify the other parties addressed. Contrary to your suggestion, Bozzuto was
not the victim of any threats nor was there intent....nor is there intent when
Charlton Heston says "from my cold dead hands".
But much more serious is your error in choice of words where you state:
"With this action, he threatened J udge Bozzuto with intent to place her in fear of
imminent serious physical injury"
You should note that there was no 'action' as you falsely state, there were only
words, constitutionally protected words extracted from the context of the private
conversation.
Ted did not threaten Bozzuto, there was no element of 'true threat' as required
by law to create criminal speech. Bozzuto was not a recipient of the email. Her
email address is public information and notably absent from the thread. Ted had
no intent to place anyone in fear of imminent injury; the email was written late
Friday nite, 23rd, your involvement was on 28th, hardly 'imminent' as you falsely
claim. Whether taking guns away from Charlton Heston's cold dead hands or
taking children away from loving parents, it is the same defense of rights speech
which, as history shows, can end in revolution. Constitutionally protected
political speech.
Bozzuto is a tyrant who abuses the rights of free persons and is quite often the
subject of political speech associated with tyranny; such being protected speech
in this country; Connecticut included. According to Attorney Ficarra, Bozzuto
admonished Ted from the bench for participating in a political process with
elected representatives which criticizes the judiciary. Even the state legislature
is investigating actions of Bozzuto's court. She is the Chief Administrative Family
Court J udge. A court to which Representative Ed Vargas (6th Assembly District)
described in frustration stating "This is not America". A very sad but true
statement about Bozzuto and the Connecticut Family Court system. But worse is
your lack of understanding of the law, inability to conduct a proper investigation
and providing a very poorly worded, misleading affidavit to the court suggesting
by mere opinion that speech is not protected.....This is truly not America.
Professional police work protects citizens and our rights, your affidavit was less
than honest and your investigation was lacking as you failed to examine the
context of the speech, which is an element of law. Perhaps a more accurate
description would be: "With this partial email there is evidence of frustration,
ranting, venting, political opinions; along with hyperbole in the application of F35
military aircraft and smart bombs." Ted never communicated any 'true threat' to
any person. The fact that you did not notify Department of Homeland Security
regarding the use of F35 supersonic fighter jets and smart bombs betrays your
disbelief in the prose. You cannot pick and chose what dangling participles you
wish to weave into your fabricated criminal construction. Simply tyranny on
your part.
Daniel DeJ esus may believe that there was 'action' or a 'true threat' and that it
was not protected speech, but Daniel did not properly examine the facts, the
speech, the context nor the protections of First Amendment. There is no bill of
particulars the state can make based on the facts that support a claim under
53a-61aa or 183(a)(2). Daniel has created a crime without a victim....This is not
America.
Suggest you inform the court you made a grave constitutional mistake.
Deprivation of rights under the color of state law is a federal crime.
pb