There has been no trial or judgment which has determined that the taxpayers are in any sort of way “to be held liable.”

Nice job deflecting again Partsons.

Apparently it's OK with you that cops can violate the rights of an innocent citizen and then conspire to make up a bunch of bullshit charges in attempt to frame the guy.

The corruption starts as an unidentified trooper begins to search for anything that these gentlemen may have done to make up charges against them. However, they were clean. At this point, Trooper first class Barone chimes in describing how they now have to charge these men with something to justify their harassment and subsequent detainment.

“Want me to punch a number on this? Gotta cover our ass,” explains the trooper as they begin conspiring.

“Let’s give him something,” says an unidentified trooper, pondering the ways they can lie about this innocent man.

“What are they going to do? Are they going to do anything?” says Sergeant Jacobi, noting that they are entirely innocent.

“It’s legal to do it,” he continues, describing how the actions of the two activists are completely legal, before going on to make up charges on them.

“I think we do simple trespass, we do reckless use of the highway and creating a public disturbance,” Jacobi says as he makes up these false charges against innocent people. “All three are tickets.”

Once they figure out the false charges to raise, the officers then brainstorm a story of lies to back them up.

“And then we claim that, um, in backup, we had multiple, um,” the unidentified trooper stutters as he makes up his fake story. “Um, they (the non-existent complainants) didn’t want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our own course of action.”

The corrupt cops had then solved their fake case, lied about a cover story, and were set to charge an innocent man with three crimes — all in a day’s work.

Of course the taxpayers will be forced to shell out beaucoup bucks to settle the lawsuit.

Did you watch the video or do you just support police abuse of power?

[Matt Agorist] Now, because the system failed to hold the officers accountable, the case is now a civil matter and the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut.

[Gatlin #1] There has been no trial or judgment which has determined that the taxpayers are in any sort of way “to be held liable.”

- - - - - - - - - -

[A K A Stone #3] I watched a few seconds of the video and the cop is already lying that it is illegal to take his picture. Why didn't you express outrage at that lie.

Gatlin pointed out the bullshit element of the article. There has been no trial, nobody has been ordered to stand trial, and there will likely be no trial.

[Matt Agorist] Now, because the system failed to hold the officers accountable, the case is now a civil matter and the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut. The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.

Where is the missing citation to the lawsuit?

[Matt Agorist] Taxpayers to Be Held Liable After Cops Steal Man’s Phone, Film Themselves Conspiring to Frame Him

If the taxpayers are to be held liable, why have "the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial"? That makes no sense whatever, Pure Agorist.

[Matt Agorist] On September 11, 2015, journalist and police accountability activist, Michael Picard was illegally detained

[Matt Agorist] As TFTP reported at the time,

WATCH: Cops Steal Man’s Phone, Accidentally Record Themselves Conspiring to Falsely Charge Him

Matt Agorist September 20, 2016

The Free Thought Project spoke to the ACLU who put out a press release:

In a complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut (ACLU-CT) contends that three state police troopers illegally retaliated against a protester by searching and detaining him, confiscating his camera, and charging him with fabricated criminal infractions. On behalf of Connecticut resident Michael Picard, the ACLU-CT alleges that John Barone, Patrick Torneo, and John Jacobi, all employed by the state police division of Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, violated Picard’s First Amendment rights to free speech and information and Fourth Amendment right against warrantless seizure of his property.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59243&Disp=10#C10

#10. To: All (#9) (Edited)

I just noticed this is another article by the liar Matt Argorist.

No more articles from that freak.

If you post more I will delete them. Then if you continue I will delete everything from free thought project. Then I will just delete you.

I don't like liars.

Thanks for your cooperation.

A K A Stone posted on 2019-06-23 7:07:11 ET

Taxpayers to Be Held Liable …

I ask:

Has there been a trial or judgment which determined that the taxpayers are in any sort of way “to be held liable” and will have to pay out any money?

"to be" refers to the likely outcome, based on past experiences of this type.

I just noticed this is another article by the liar Matt Argorist.

No more articles from that freak.

If you post more I will delete them

Stone later retracted that edict.

Try to keep up short-bus rider.

I watched a few seconds of the video and the cop is already lying that it is illegal to take his picture. Why didn't you express outrage at that lie. The cop should already be fired and imprisoned.

Courts routinely allow cops to lie to the public. Not just in criminal interrogations but pretty much all the time.

This journalist is just lucky that the police were not "frightened" and had to shoot him full of holes. Because the police being "frightened" is their free ticket to exoneration for almost anything. It's the fraidy-cop legal defense and juries fall for it more often than not.

"Blam, blam, blam! That chihuahua frightened me when it was sitting on the lap of that elderly person sleeping in a wheelchair so I had to shoot them both. Did I mention I was very frightened?"

We really should just fire any cop that tries to use a fraidy-cop defense. It's most often a confession of complete incompetence as a cop as a public safety officer. When helpless people and harmless dogs end up dead regularly on your beat, the cops are more of a menace to public safety than anything else, perhaps even more than the local criminal element who don't go shooting up the wrong house or the invalids in wheelchairs or the quiet little dogs in their kennel. It's generally a shameful defense.

"Well I came home after a shift enforcing the laws and I was busy sexting and flirting with my partner and I climbed an extra set of stairs in my building and walked into the just-ajar door of what I thought was my apartment. Pushing the door open, I saw a man eating ice cream on an unfamiliar sofa and I suddenly became Very Very Frightened so...blam-blam-blam...now let me off the hook so I can go back to shooting up citizens on duty, not just in my own home or my scary ice-cream gobbling neighbor's home."

It's a ridiculous defense. Laughable even were it not for the unfortunate victim who lost his life.

Stone later retracted that edict.

Try to keep up short-bus rider.

Provide a link or a quote asswipe.

I am sure he will find the link for you.

Nope. He's too lazy.

I see it. It was on 4 Sep and I was not around from 8/25 to 9/18. It was not addressed to me so I was not pinged to it.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59860&Disp=13#C13

#13. To: Deckard (#12)

Post Matt. Don't flood us with Matt though please.

A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-04 8:25:38 ET

the case is now a civil matter and the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit

Nobody has been ordered to stand trial. A trial has not yet been scheduled.

Here are the last four docket entries:

09/18/2019 94 ORDER: The parties are instructed to file a joint report within 15 days of this order the following information: Trial availability dates; estimated length of trial; and whether the parties would consent to magistrate jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 9/18/19.(Imbriani, Susan) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

09/18/2019 95 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for settlement conference. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 9/18/19.(Imbriani, Susan) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

09/19/2019 96 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. A telephonic pre-settlement conference is set for 10/1/2019 at 02:00 PM before Judge Robert M. Spector. A date for the settlement conference will be set during the telephone call. As the Court requires parties or their representatives with settlement authority to attend the settlement conference, counsel should obtain dates of unavailability from their clients over the next 90 days and have their own calendars available to aid in the scheduling. During the telephone call, counsel should be prepared to discuss what information needs to be exchanged and anything else that needs to be accomplished prior to the settlement conference for the discussions to be productive. Please use the following dial-in for this call: (877) 873-8017; Access Code: 7040261. (Mallon, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/23/2019 97 MOTION for Reconsideration by John Barone, John Jacobi, Patrick Torneo. (Motherway, Carmel) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

Suit was filed 15 Sep 2016.

Named defendants on the Docket Report are Patrick Torneo, John Jacobi, and John Barone.

Jurisdiction was claimed under 28 USC 1331.

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-28/part-iv/chapter-85/sec.-1331/

28 USC 1331

§1331. Federal question

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Some counts have already been tossed on Summary Judgment. Folks can stop making believe these are still before the court.

COMPLAINT at 11-12 recites the Counts and Prayer for Relief:

Count 1: Violation of Mr. Picard’s First Amendment Right to Receive and Memorialize Information

87. By interfering with Mr. Picard’s ability to use his camera and smartphone, the defendants violated Mr. Picard’s First Amendment right to receive and memorialize information.

Count 2: Violation of Mr. Picard’s Fourth Amendment Right Against Warrantless Seizure of his Property

88. By seizing Mr. Picard’s camera and detaining it without it without a search warrant or any reasonable suspicion that the camera contained evidence of a crime or was itself contraband, the defendants violated Mr. Picard’s Fourth Amendment right against warrantless seizure of his possessions.

Count 3: Retaliation Against Mr. Picard for His Expression

89. By detaining, searching, confiscating his belongings, and charging Mr. Picard with fabricated criminal infractions, the defendants violated Mr. Picard’s First Amendment right to document and protest government activity.

Request for Relief

90. Therefore, Mr. Picard is entitled to have this Court:

(a) enter judgment in his favor on all counts;

(b) award him damages, and punitive damages, for the defendants’ violations of his rights;

(c) order the defendants to reimburse him his reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees in conformance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

(d) order all other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

91. Mr. Picard claims a trial by jury on all disputes so eligible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

09/16/2019 92 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT denying 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 84 Motion to Preclude. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 9/16/19. (Imbriani, Susan) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

Doc 92 at 9-16:

Count One

Plaintiff maintains that defendants violated his First Amendment rights to gather information when Barone slapped his video camera to the ground as he approached plaintiff; and when Barone later took the video camera away for the duration of the encounter. Plaintiff argues that the law protects his ability to photograph or videograph what any passing pedestrian or motorist could observe with their senses.

Plaintiff relies on Supreme Court precedent establishing the right to gather information as protected by the First Amendment. See First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564-5, 568 (1969). However, the Supreme Court has also established that even in a public forum, “the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Neither the Supreme Court nor Second Circuit precedent has squarely established that an individual who is the subject of police activity has the right to record police performing their official duties.

See McKenzie v. City of New York, 2019 WL 3288267, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019). However, circuits that have addressed whether there is a right to record police activity “have concluded that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in a public space, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.” Gerskovich v. Iocco, 2017 WL 323645, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017) (“The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have found that the First Amendment protects the right to record police activity.”); Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d 369, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The circuits that have recognized the right have indicated that such right may not be applicable in certain situations such as “in particularly dangerous situations, if the recording interferes with the police activity, if it is surreptitious, if it is done by the subject of the police activity, or if the police activity is part of an undercover investigation.” McKenzie, 2019 WL 3288267, at *7.

The Court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment as to count one on the basis of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability to the extent that their "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The doctrine protects public officials from the risk of potentially ruinous monetary liability that would deter qualified people from public service, and it safeguards the public interest in having government employees act with independence and without fear of consequences. Eng v. Coughlin, 858 F. 2d 889, 895 (2d Cir. 1988).

A party is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity if the court finds that the rights of the plaintiff were not clearly established or that no reasonable jury could conclude that it was objectively unreasonable for the defendant to believe that he was not clearly violating an established federal right. Lee v. Sandberg, 136 F.3d 94, 102 (2d Cir. 1996).

In the first stage of the qualified immunity analysis, the court must consider whether the facts, taken in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, could show a constitutional violation. Cowan v. Breen, 352 F.3d 756, 761 (2d Cir. 2003). If so, the court must determine whether the right in question was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

In determining whether a right is clearly established, the court considers whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Poe v. Leonard, 282 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2002). To determine whether a particular right was clearly established at the time defendants acted, the court should consider:

(1) whether the right in question was defined with “reasonable specificity”;

(2) whether the decisional law of the Supreme Court and the applicable circuit court support the existence of the right in question; and (3) whether under preexisting law a reasonable defendant official would have understood that his or her acts were unlawful. Jermosen v. Smith, 945 F.2d 547, 550 (2d Cir. 1991). “When neither the Supreme Court nor this court has recognized a right, the law of our sister circuits and the holdings of district courts cannot act to render that right clearly established within the Second Circuit.” Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 255 (2d Cir. 2006).

Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where: "(a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law." Tierney v. Davidson, 133 F.3d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1998). The doctrine of qualified immunity recognizes that "reasonable mistakes can be made as to the legal constraints on particular police conduct." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205. However, qualified immunity applies if the officer's mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable. Id. Qualified immunity does not apply if, on an objective basis, it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have taken the actions of the alleged violation. Malley, 475 U.S. at 341. Summary judgment is appropriate when a trier of fact would find that reasonable officers could disagree. Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 421 (2d Cir. 1995).

Some district courts have held that in the context of a journalist, who is not subject to the police activity, the First Amendment right to record police activity in public is clearly established. See Stolarik v. City of New York, 2017 WL 4712423, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017); Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 380. However, the instant plaintiff was not a journalist or even a bystander; he was a subject of defendants' investigation and performance of their official duties. Accordingly, plaintiff's right to record police activity or to record a police officer engaged in his official duties was not “clearly established” within this Circuit at the time of September 11, 2015, so that a reasonable defendant officer would have understood from existing law that his conduct was unlawful. See Anderson v. Recore, 317 F.3d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 2003); see also McKenzie, 2019 WL 3288267, at *7; Rivera v. Foley, 2015 WL 1296258, at *9 (D. Conn. March 23, 2015) (qualified immunity granted on basis that right to record police officers engaged in ongoing investigation was not clearly established as matter of constitutional law). ²

Summary judgment will enter in favor of defendants on this claim.

² Connecticut General Statutes § 52-571j(b) provides: “An employer of a peace officer who interferes with any person taking a photographic or digital still or video image of such peace officer or another peace officer acting in the performance of such peace officer's duties shall be liable to such person in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress.” However, this statute, which was not effective until October 1, 2015, does not create a clearly established First Amendment right to record police in performance of official duties.

Doc 92 at 18-19:

Count Three

In count three, plaintiff alleges that defendants charged him with the infractions to retaliate against his protected activities of protesting and/or recording police activity. Defendants argue that summary judgment must enter on plaintiff's retaliation claims because the defendants acted with probable cause; no evidence indicates that defendants' actions were motivated or substantially caused by plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights; and defendants' actions did not chill plaintiff's First Amendment rights. They also assert that his claim of retaliation based on his recording of their activity must fail because it implicates no First Amendment right.

To state his First Amendment retaliation claim, plaintiff must show that: (1) he has a right protected by the First Amendment; (2) defendants' actions were motivated or substantially caused by plaintiff's exercise of that right; and (3) defendants' actions effectively chilled the exercise of his First Amendment. Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65, 76 (2d Cir. 2001). “Chilled speech is not necessary if plaintiff can establish that he suffered some other concrete harm.” Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2013).

As to plaintiff's claim of retaliation based on his First Amendment right to record the defendants in their official duties, the Court will grant summary judgment on basis of qualified immunity due to the lack of a clearly established First Amendment right to record police activity as articulated relevant to count one.

Doc 92 at 27:

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [doc. 74] is DENIED; defendants' motion for summary judgment [doc. 76] is GRANTED as to count one and as to the First Amendment retaliation claim based on his asserted First Amendment right to record police activity in count three; defendants' motion for summary judgment is otherwise DENIED as to count two and three. The motion to preclude [doc. 84] is found to be MOOT.

Dated this 16th day of September, 2019 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/427998961/Picard-v-Torneo-Dcct-3-16-Cv-1564-Wwe-09-Sep-2019-Doc-92-Memorandum-on-Decision-on-Cross-Motions-for-Summary-Judgment

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nobody has been ordered to stand trial. A trial has not yet been scheduled.

I think there should be a trial. Deckard should be put on trial for posting Matt Agorist articles here at LibertysFlame.

AKA can be the judge. nolu can be the prosecutor. Deckard can represent himself in court (pro se!). misterwhite can be the Jury Foreman. And I can be a Fully-Informed Juror.

It would be the Trial Of The Century.

And this article began with a humongous LIE used as a attention grabber in the headline.

He posted a likely scenario as a headline. Of course it's OK when you post one of your libertarian-bashing posts with obvious lies or opinions as headlines isn't it Gatlin.?

In fact here's one you authored: Libertarians on Liberty’s Post suppress dissent – Sad.

Stone: "Post Matt. Don't flood us with Matt though please. "

One or two articles does not constitute a flood.

I never – NEVER – “disrespected ANY citizens” and I NEVER made ANY “excuses for the cops.”

HAHAHAHA!!!

All – ALL – I ever did was to point out that Matt Agorist LIED in the article.

Don’t waste your time with Stone. No matter how bad Dicktard, Hondope or Fred’s Ass Hurtz treats Stone, calls him vile names on his own forum, Stone always lets them back on to post.

Here is FACT. Stone could tell Dicktard not to post something, and we fucking both know, Dicktard with do what ever the fuck he wants. We also know Stone will never permanently ban a PAULTARD... so think about it. If Stone won’t permanently ban Dicktard, and Dicktard won’t follow Stones directives... THEN STONE HAS TO FLIP FLOP.

It is what it is.

One example:

I'm sick of your lies asshole.

Deckard posted on 2019-08-15 8:43:51 ET

It is what it is.

I know that you are absolutely correct.

So sad - So VERY SAD ...

I didn’t see where Stone said Matt Agorist lies were permitted after he had said: ”I don't like liars.”

I didn’t see where Stone said that the title was a lie. In fact, he made some rather positive comments agreeing with the article itself.

Stop trying to be the forum nanny Parsons.

You don't agree with the title?

Your whining is duly noted.

Show where I ever did either … “disrespected ANY citizens”

Every libertarian-bashing screed you post for example.

I NEVER made ANY “excuses for the cops"

Every thread where a cop abuses innocent citizens - you and FireIsland worship cops.

Stop with your DEFLECTION ...

I answered your questions boot-licker.

Will you admit they were lies?

Stop with your DEFLECTION ...

You've been deflecting the entire thread.

35 posts in and you have yet to address the egregious behavior of the lying cops.

Will you admit they were lies?

Pointing out the LIES in the article on this thread

Oh, now the entire article is a lie?

Please point out the lies here:

The corruption starts as an unidentified trooper begins to search for anything that these gentlemen may have done to make up charges against them. However, they were clean. At this point, Trooper first class Barone chimes in describing how they now have to charge these men with something to justify their harassment and subsequent detainment.

“Want me to punch a number on this? Gotta cover our ass,” explains the trooper as they begin conspiring.

“Let’s give him something,” says an unidentified trooper, pondering the ways they can lie about this innocent man.

“What are they going to do? Are they going to do anything?” says Sergeant Jacobi, noting that they are entirely innocent.

“It’s legal to do it,” he continues, describing how the actions of the two activists are completely legal, before going on to make up charges on them.

“I think we do simple trespass, we do reckless use of the highway and creating a public disturbance,” Jacobi says as he makes up these false charges against innocent people. “All three are tickets.”

Once they figure out the false charges to raise, the officers then brainstorm a story of lies to back them up.

“And then we claim that, um, in backup, we had multiple, um,” the unidentified trooper stutters as he makes up his fake story. “Um, they (the non-existent complainants) didn’t want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our own course of action.”

The corrupt cops had then solved their fake case, lied about a cover story, and were set to charge an innocent man with three crimes — all in a day’s work.

Nice tactic troll - nitpicking about a title while ignoring the numerous ACTUAL lies made up by these cops.

The SECOND LIE from Matt Agorist:

… the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut.

State troopers to stand civil trial for taking protester’s camera, filing charges against him at West Hartford checkpoint (Hartford Courant)

Deckard did just that. Dckard posted an article by Matt Agorist while Stone had restricted him from posting any article byMatt Agorist.

Stone later rescinded that edict - try to keep up assclowns.

You posted the article BEFORE stone rescinded that edict.

Uh, no I didn't. I'm not going to jump through hoops for you and look it up, but Stone rescinded his ban at least a week ago.

But I suppose since you've lied at least once, might as well keep' em coming.

Still ignoring where I smacked down one of your false assertions?

State troopers to stand civil trial for taking protester’s camera, filing charges against him at West Hartford checkpoint (Hartford Courant)