13thjuror.com

Sold : 56,000
Left : 944,000

News Updates:

GGS 51-277a Connecticut Deadly Force Shooting Reports

13thJuror

08-17-10 | 12:31 pm

Confabulation

Confabulation - Mixing the Chemistry of Memory Gaps to shape 'new' memories. Psychology - "To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts"

13thjuror

08-11-10 | 05:42 pm

Shall be done!

DIANA STARKS v. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT ET AL. (SC 17013) July 6, 2004... ‘‘There is a presumption that the legislature, in enacting a law, does so with regard to existing relevant statutes so as to make one consistent body of law.’’ State v. Murtha, 179 Conn. 463, 466, 427 A.2d 807 (1980). In addition, when statutes provide that an activity shall be performed in a certain manner, there ordinarily is an implied prohibition against performing that activity in a different fashion. State v. Kelly, 208 Conn. 365, 371, 545 A.2d 1048 (1988) (‘‘[a] statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way’’

13thjuror

08-09-10 | 10:08 am

Knowing

‘‘As a matter of language, the word ‘‘knowing’’ [and therefore knowledge] literally imports something pretty close to 100 [percent] certainty; ‘‘believing,’’ something less than certainty; and ‘‘suspecting,’’ something less certain than ‘‘believing.’’’ 2 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (1986) § 8.10, p. 427. Black’s defines ‘suspicion’ to mean ‘[t]he apprehension of something without proof or upon slight evidence. Suspicion implies a belief or opinion based upon facts or circumstances which do not amount to proof.’ Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). Webster’s states that ‘suspicion’ means ‘imagination or apprehension of something wrong or hurtful without proof or on slight evidence.’ Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1986). ‘Suspicion’ then does not rise to the level of ‘belief,’ let alone ‘knowledge.’ ’’ State v. Fuller, 56 Conn. App. 592, 620–21, 744 A.2d 931, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 949, 748 A.2d 298, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 911, 121 S. Ct. 262, 148 L. Ed. 2d 190 (2000).

13thjuror

07-21-10 | 05:53 am

More or Less Innocent

What an arrest means is that you are probably more or less innocent because evidence is less than that required for conviction 'beyond a reasonable doubt' , but is considerable less than proof of wrongdoing by a 'preponderance of the evidence' and yet more than bare suspicion of crime afoot. Articulating precisely what the fluid concepts of “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” mean are not possible and are incapable of precise definition or percentage quantification. Probable cause is the description of the degree of probability that cannot be easily defined nor weighed as to appropriateness and proportionality out of context. Context counts.

13thjuror

07-19-10 | 07:22 am

The Imperfect Truth

A police officer is not expected to exercise superhuman judgment void of reasonable mistakes. Based upon a standard of reasonable belief, an officer perceives the necessity to act within the context given his/her power and authority to act. The judgment is expected to be impartial and further filtered through the community's sense of 'common sense'. Justice demands fair due process, not judgment without error.

13thjuror

07-19-10 | 07:12 am

Illegal Immigrant

The illegal immigrant goes free, if he/she must, but it is the law that sets them free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws. An Illegal immigrant is not an 'undocumented' alien or 'nonimmigrant' alien. He/she is an 'illegal' immigrant.

13thjuror

07-16-10 | 06:42 am

Mistake of Fact

01/28/86 State of Connecticut v. Silveira A mistake of fact results "when one makes an erroneous perception of the facts as they actually exist." The defense arises only where the defendant misperceives an objective state of existing fact, and does not apply to the defendant's erroneous suppositions as to the unformed intentions of another. A fact is that which has taken place, not something that might or might not take place in the future. "Now he may be wrong in such belief, but if it has a reasonable basis, if he has a reasonable basis to believe that an assault against himself or against another was about to take place and that the actors were about to use deadly physical force or force capable of inflicting great bodily harm, he is justified in using deadly physical force . . . ." Sec. 53a-6. Effect of ignorance or mistake. (a) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless: (1) Such factual mistake negates the mental state required for the commission of an offense; or (2) the statute defining the offense or a statute related thereto expressly provides that such factual mistake constitutes a defense or exemption; or (3) such factual mistake is of a kind that supports a defense of justification. (b) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless (1) the law provides that the state of mind established by such mistaken belief constitutes a defense, or unless (2) such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of law contained in a statute or other enactment, an administrative order or grant of permission, a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant, agency or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility or privilege of administering, enforcing or interpreting such statute or law. Sec. 53a-5. Criminal liability; mental state required. When the commission of an offense defined in this title, or some element of an offense, requires a particular mental state, such mental state is ordinarily designated in the statute defining the offense by use of the terms "intentionally", "knowingly", "recklessly" or "criminal negligence", or by use of terms, such as "with intent to defraud" and "knowing it to be false", describing a specific kind of intent or knowledge. When one and only one of such terms appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears.

13thjuror

07-14-10 | 10:26 am

More Likely

If an event is more likely than not, it is as likely not to be as it is likely to be. A decision under conditions of uncertainty judged from a perspective of retospective judgement, lacks the truth of the original decision-making context. Truth matters, but only within its' context.

13thjuror

07-09-10 | 07:53 am

Bad Purpose

Police seizure conduct specifically intended and knowingly performed with willful bad purpose and done purposely, is reckless conduct.

13thjuror

06-22-10 | 01:35 pm

Public Employee Speech

"when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."... for a lawsuit adequately to charge a First Amendment retaliation claim, the lawsuit must be predicated on speech made by a public employee as a citizen, and not pursuant to his or her official duties....Whether public employee speech is protected from retaliation under the First Amendment entails two inquiries:(1) "whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern" and, if so, (2) "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Garcetti, 126 S.Ct. at 1958 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Township High Sch. Dist. 205, Will County, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)); see also Skehan v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 465 F.3d 96, 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (rephrasing the test for a First Amendment retaliation claim as three-pronged, requiring plaintiffs to prove: "(1) they engaged in constitutionally protected speech because they spoke as citizens on a matter of public concern; (2) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the speech was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The majority opinion in Garcetti focused on the first inquiry, and specifically its operation as a limiting principle when the government is acting as an employer, exercising control over employee speech in the interest of the "efficient provision of public services." Garcetti, 126 S.Ct. at 1958. Recognizing that government employers (like private employers) "have heightened interests in controlling speech made by an employee in his or her professional capacity," the Supreme Court ruled that a public employee speaking in his official capacity is not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes, id. at 1960, and employer retaliation for such speech does not justify the "displacement of managerial discretion by judicial supervision,"...under Garcetti, the First Amendment does not protect a government employee from retaliation for filing a lawsuit in which the underlying retaliation claim rests on non-actionable official speech...."Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern is a question of law for the court to decide, taking into account the content, form, and context of a given statement as revealed by the whole record." Lewis v. Cowen, 165 F.3d 154, 163 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48 and n.7 (1983)). The heart of the matter is whether the employee's speech was "calculated to redress personal grievances or whether it had a broader public purpose." Lewis, 165 F.3d at 163-64.... retaliation against the airing of generally personal grievances is not brought within the protection of the First Amendment by "the mere fact that one or two of [a public employee's] comments could be construed broadly to implicate matters of public concern." Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 781 (2d Cir. 1991)....*fn1 As the Garcetti Court observed, public employees who suffer retaliation for their official speech are not without recourse, and should avail themselves of the "powerful network of legislative enactments--such as whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes--available to those who seek to expose wrongdoing." Garcetti, 126 S.Ct. at 1962. We express no opinion as to the availability of such recourse to Ruotolo. 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1960 (2006)....Ruotolo v. City of New York, No. 06-3886-cv (2d Cir. 02/06/2008)

13thjuror

06-13-10 | 05:57 am

Life-Death Reasonable Steps

"'A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations. Our inquiry therefore is limited to whether the precautions taken were reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time that the decision was made.'"State v. Bates, 304 Ore. 524,525, 747 P2d 991 (1987

13thjuror

06-12-10 | 01:16 pm

Standards of Proof

Probable cause to arrest means that the facts and circumstances surrounding the person arrested equate as likely to innocence as to guilt. Common Sense can not reach to reasonable inferences of truth and motive without experience in the conduct being judged. The purpose of justice is to guard against sympathy, bias, prejudice, and specualtion to reach to independant fair and neutral judgment. The Preponderance of Evidence standard of proof means the factual evidence presented at trial is believed "more likely true than not true".

13thjuror

06-07-10 | 04:36 am

Leaf

Immersed within a Rainbow midst, silence. Earth’s breath cradles a falling leaf. Bathed by the warmth of butterfly wings, Listen. Heartbeats echoing. From the depths of earth’s womb, living waters course the mountain valley. Trees stretch their roots to nourish from the Cosmic Stream. Sunshine embraces the shadows. Droplets of crystal light fall from the mountain laurel petals. Within an emerald fire midst, mountains whisper memories of ages past and those yet to come. Upon my hand, the leaf finds comfort. by Reginald F. Allard, Jr.(1997).

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-05-10 | 03:47 am

Accosting

The very phrase "consensual frisk" borders on being an oxymoron. The police and prosecutorial "take" on the phenomenon of accosting is frequently disingenuous. In pure theory, an accosting, if it is more than a convenient fiction, is a voluntary conversation between two equals, with neither enjoying any advantage or semblance of control over the other. The officer may no more impose police policy or departmental requirements on a mere accosting than may the civilian impose reciprocal conditions.: "I'm sorry, Officer, but it is my personal policy not to engage in voluntary conversation with armed men. I'll be glad to talk to you, but first you must drop your gunbelt to the ground and then sit down on the curb where I can see your hands at all times. Then we can enjoy our talk together." That's not the way, of course, that voluntary conversations work. Between equals, the required civilities flow in both directions, lest the confrontation escalate, as it almost always does, into something more formal and official than a mere accosting. TERRY KEITH EPPS, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND May 28, 2010

13thjuror

06-01-10 | 04:08 am

Shoot to Kill

If a police officer does not intend to cause serious physical injury or death then don't shoot. State v. Smith, 73 Conn.App. 173, 807 A.2d 500 (Conn.App. 10/22/2002)...we conclude that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant ( officer Smith) intended to cause the victim's death. The defendant, citing his trial testimony, concedes that he "fired the shot to disable [the victim] . . . ." He further concedes that "it is certainly possible, and maybe even probable, that the defendant's 'conscious objective' was to [cause a serious physical injury]." The jury was entitled to credit the defendant's testimony concerning his intent to disable the victim and the possibility or probability that his objective in shooting the victim was to cause a serious physical injury. Moreover, Connecticut case law clearly permits a jury to infer intent based solely on the undisputed facts of the case, let alone other testimony and evidence that the parties dispute. See State v. Sanders, supra, 54 Conn. App. 739 (reasonable to infer intent to cause serious physical injury to person where defendant fired gun at that person); State v. Toczko, 23 Conn. App. 502, 509, 582 A.2d 769 (1990). "A person's intent is to be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances and is an issue for the [trier of fact] to decide." State v. Nosik, 245 Conn. 196, 208, 715 A.2d 673, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1020, 119 S. Ct. 547, 142 L. Ed. 455 (1998). "[A] factfinder may infer an intent to cause serious physical injury from circumstantial evidence such as the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound inflicted and the events leading up to and immediately following the incident." State v. James, supra, 54 Conn. App. 31. "Because direct evidence of the accused's state of mind is rarely available, intent is often inferred from the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence and the rational inferences drawn therefrom." State v. Sanders, 54 Conn. App. 732, 738, 738 A.2d 674, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 913, 739 A.2d 1250 (1999), citing State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 126, 646 A.2d 169 (1994).

13thjuror

05-29-10 | 03:45 am

Objectively Unreasonable Standard

Tierney v. Davidson, 133 F.3d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1998) ("The objective reasonableness test is met if 'officers of reasonable competence could disagree' on the legality of the defendant's actions."). An officer's actions will be found objectively unreasonable, and summary judgment will be denied only if "no officer of reasonable competence could have made the same choice in similar circumstances." Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 420-21 (2d Cir. 1995). (“Disputes over reasonableness are usually fact questions for juries.”) Warren v. Dwyer, 906 F.2d 70, 76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S. Ct.431, 112 L. Ed.2d 414 (1990)).In Graham, the Supreme Court held that "all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force -- deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other `seizure' of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its `reasonableness' standard, rather than under a `substantive due process' approach." Id. at 395. In determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable, a court must evaluate the particular circumstances of each case. As the Graham Court stated: Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), . . . its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. [1], at 8-9 [(1985)] (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure"). the test for evaluating self-defense claims pursuant to § 53a-22 is a subjective-objective test. The jury is required, first, to determine whether the defendant honestly believed that the use of deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. If, however, the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make a further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in the defendant's circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) (evaluating reasonableness of police officer's belief that deadly force justified in context of fourth amendment excessive use of force claims, stating that "[t]he [objective] reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight"); Weyel v. Catania, 52 Conn. App. 292, 296, 728 A.2d 512 (all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, whether deadly force or not, should be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 922, 733 A.2d 846 (1999).

13thjuror

04-26-10 | 08:45 am

Immigration Status

In a March 22, 2005 ruling, in Muehler v Mena, in unanimous decision from a Court known for its 5-4 splits, the United States Supreme Court essentially said that asking about immigration status during a lawful police contact (or, by implication, any lawful contact) was as fundamental a question as asking for name, address and date of birth. Indeed, the Court made clear that no predicate "independent reasonable cause' need exist to inquire into immigration status. It is the Law of the Land. “In Muehler v. Mena the Court reinforced the clear intent of Congress in this matter,” “Inquiring about an individual’s immigration status can and should be a routine part of ascertaining information, no different than asking questions about one’s name, or date and place of birth. Local police come into contact with people who are violating federal immigration laws on a daily basis. Freeing local police to inquire about an individual’s immigration status and allowing them to act is essential to curbing mass illegal immigration and protecting our homeland security.”

13thjuror

04-25-10 | 09:56 am

Prospective Judgments

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Docket #FIC 2006-020 August 9, 2006 Eric Cotton and The Meriden Record Journal v Chief, Police Department, City of Meriden ...videotapes reviewed in determining whether Officer Brian Lawlor violated department policies regarding use of force leading to his termination It is further found, based upon the testimony of attorney Gailor and the in camera inspection, that if IC-2006-020-1 was disclosed, it would be prejudicial to a prospective law enforcement action, because of the potential for influencing witness testimony. Independent recollections of witnesses could be tainted if witnesses have an opportunity to view the videotape. Through the power of suggestion, witnesses could believe they remember events that they did not see. Moreover, if third parties view the videotape, these third parties may attempt to persuade witnesses that they saw something different from what they previously thought they saw.

13thjuror

04-24-10 | 08:08 am

Connecticut Immigration Arrest Authority

Connecticut Peace Officers have had the arrest authority to 'arrest' illegal immigrants since 1975. Connecticut General Statute Sec. 54-1f. Arrest without warrant. Pursuit outside precincts. (a) For purposes...Peace officers, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, in their respective precincts, shall arrest, without previous complaint and warrant, any person for any offense in their jurisdiction, when the person is taken or apprehended in the act or on the speedy information of others.... (b) Members of the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety or of any local police department or any chief inspector or inspector in the Division of Criminal Justice shall arrest, without previous complaint and warrant, any person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is committing a felony. (c) Members of any local police department or the Office of State Capitol Police and constables and state marshals who are certified under the provisions of sections 7- 294a to 7-294e, inclusive, and who perform criminal law enforcement duties, when in immediate pursuit of one who may be arrested under the provisions of this section, are authorized to pursue the offender outside of their respective precincts into any part of the state in order to effect the arrest. Such person may then be returned in the custody of such officer to the precinct in which the offense was committed. (d) Any person arrested pursuant to this section shall be presented with reasonable promptness before proper authority. Connecticut General Statute Sec. 53a-24. Offense defined. Application of sentencing provisions to motor vehicle and drug selling violators... (a) The term "offense" means any crime or violation which constitutes a breach of any law of this state or any other state, federal law or local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine, or both, may be imposed, except one that defines a motor vehicle violation or is deemed to be an infraction. The term "crime" comprises felonies and misdemeanors. Every offense which is not a "crime" is a "violation". Conviction of a violation shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense. ...Connecticut Public Act 75-380 amended Subsec. (a) to include breach of federal and other states' laws as offense..."

13thjuror

04-23-10 | 02:54 pm

Credibility

"Credibility must be assessed . . . not by reading the cold printed record, but by observing firsthand the witness' conduct, demeanor and attitude. ... An appellate court must defer to the trier of fact's assessment of credibility because [i]t is the [fact finder] . . . [who has] an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the parties; thus [the fact finder] is best able to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to draw necessary inferences therefrom. . . . As a practical matter, it is inappropriate to assess credibility without having watched a witness testify, because demeanor, conduct and other factors are not fully reflected in the cold, printed record."Briggs v. McWeeny 260 Conn. 327.

13thjuror

04-22-10 | 12:01 pm

Legal Conclusion

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a), “testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” Thus, a witness may testify to his opinion on an ultimate issue of fact, but he cannot simply tell the jury what to decide. Montgomery v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,898 F.2d 1537, 1541 (11th Cir. 1990). The witness also cannot testify to the legal implications of conduct because the court must be the jury’s only source of law. Id. (finding that an expert witness’s testimony amounted to a legal conclusion where he essentially testified that one party breached a contract).

13thjuror

04-22-10 | 07:05 am

Discrimination

Every police officer who is certified to work in this country has the right to know he/she will be free from discrimination as they perform their lawful duties, and that they will be on the same playing field as every other police officer.

13thjuror

04-21-10 | 07:29 am

Practice of Law

Connecticut - An Act Concerning the Unauthorized Practice of Law Section 1. Section 51-88 of the General Statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof: (Effective October 1, 2009) (e) “Practice law” and “practice of law” as used in this section means the doing of any act for another person usually done by attorneys at law in the course of their profession, and includes but is not limited to: (1) the appearance or acting as the attorney, solicitor, or representative of another person before any court, referee, magistrate, special master, auditor, division, department, commission, board, judicial authority, or body authorized by law to determine any question of law or fact or to exercise any judicial or governmental power; (2) the preparation of pleadings or other legal papers incident to any action or other proceeding of any kind before or to be brought before the court or other body; (3) the giving or tendering to another person for consideration, direct or indirect, of any advice or counsel pertaining to a law question or a court action or judicial proceeding brought or to be brought; (4) the undertaking or acting as a representative or on behalf of another person to commence, settle, compromise, adjust, or dispose of any civil or criminal case or cause of action; (5) the preparation or drafting for any person of a will, codicil, corporation organization, amendment or qualification papers, or any instrument which requires legal knowledge and capacity and is usually prepared by attorneys at law.

13thjuror

04-20-10 | 01:34 pm

Noblesse Oblige

"...the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. Cf. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 473 (2001). This prosecution is itself evidence of the danger in putting faith in government representations of prosecutorial restraint....the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002."

13thjuror

04-20-10 | 06:11 am

Happy Creation!

Thinking happens whether you think about it or not. Think Well! Happy Creation!

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-19-10 | 11:45 am

Self-Protection 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment does not require a homeowner to dial 911. Life is as a legitimate need as is livelihood. ...‘‘crimes against the person like . . . burglary are, in common experience, likely to involve danger to life in the event of resistance by the victim’’ Constitutional guarantees of privacy and sanctions against their transgression do not exist in a vacuum but must yield to paramount concerns for human life and the legitimate need of society to protect and preserve life . . . .’’ ‘‘[t]he role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing [or hockey] referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided’’ As former Chief Justice Burger stated in his frequently cited opinion in Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1963): ‘‘[A] warrant is not required to break down a door to enter a burning home to rescue occupants or extinguish a fire, to prevent a shooting or to bring emergency aid to an injured person. The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency. . . . [T]he business of policemen and firemen is to act, not to speculate or mediate . . . . People could well die in emergencies if police tried to act with the calm deliberation associated with the judicial process.’’

13thjuror

03-30-10 | 01:23 pm

Lies

You might be a cop if: What you saw and what you believe are lies, because others did not see it and do not believe it!

13thjuror

03-16-10 | 07:43 am

Discretion

"The common-law doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established . . . Generally, a municipal employee is liable for the misperformance of ministerial acts, but has a qualified immunity in the performance of governmental acts . . . Governmental acts are performed wholly for the direct benefit of the public and are supervisory or discretionary in nature . . . The hallmark of a discretionary act is that it requires the exercise of judgment . . . In contrast, ministerial refers to a duty which is to be performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion." Martel v. Metropolitan District Comm'n, 275 Conn. 38, 48-49 (2005) "Municipal officials are immune from liability for negligence arising out of their discretionary acts in part because of the danger that a more expansive exposure to liability would cramp the exercise of official discretion beyond the limits desirable in our society. Discretionary act immunity reflects a value judgment that - despite injury to a member of the public - the broader interest in having government officers and employees free to exercise judgment and discretion in their official functions, unhampered by fear of second-guessing and retaliatory lawsuits, outweighs the benefits to be had from imposing liability for that injury. In contrast, municipal officers are not immune from liability for negligence arising out of their ministerial acts, defined as acts to be performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion. This is because society has no analogous interest in permitting municipal officers to exercise judgment in the performance of ministerial acts." Doe v. Peterson, 279 Conn. 607, 614-15 (2006).in Connecticut, the operation of a police department is a discretionary governmental function. This includes the training and supervision of police officers....instructing, supervising, controlling and disciplining police officers were found to be discretionary acts as a matter of law....There are three exceptions to discretionary act immunity. "Each of these exceptions represents a situation in which the public official's duty to act is [so] clear and unequivocal that the policy rationale underlying discretionary act immunity - to encourage municipal officers to exercise judgment - has no force. First, liability may be imposed for a discretionary act when the alleged conduct involves malice, wantonness or intent to injure. Second, liability may be imposed for a discretionary act when a statute provides for a cause of action against a municipality or municipal official for failure to enforce certain laws. Third, liability may be imposed when the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm . . ." Peterson, 279 Conn. at 615-16.

13thjuror

03-16-10 | 03:02 am

Duty

Law-Speak - "An off-duty peace officer who observes a crime in progress immediately becomes an on-duty officer. A peace officer is not relieved of his duty to prevent crime when he witnesses an illegal act simply because he is off-duty. The excessive-force inquiry is not made from an ex post perspective, but from the ex ante "perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene". The amount of force that is constitutionally permissible must be judged by the context in which the force is deployed. An "officer could make a constitutionally reasonable judgment based on a factual misperception."

13thjuror

03-15-10 | 04:43 am

Pursuit Reckless Disregard

"Common sense dictates that a different standard ought to apply when officers are in pursuit of a lawbreaker who, in the ensuing chase, collides with and injures a third party. The duty to pursue and apprehend law violators should not be fettered by the specter of secondary liability based on a due care standard. It is the law violator who, in his efforts to escape justice, collides with the third party and directly causes the injuries. Only when the officer is guilty of gross negligence or reckless conduct in the pursuit that causes or contributes to the collision by the lawbreaker should liability attach. For this reason, we decline to follow those courts that impose the "due care" standard illustrated by the Connecticut case of Tetro. They have apparently ignored the "reckless disregard" language that plainly appears in their emergency vehicle statutes.THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA 07/30/91 Wilma J. Peak and David v. Jerold E." What type of conduct is reckless or amounts to gross negligence in a pursuit context cannot be determined by a simple formula."

13thjuror

02-27-10 | 06:00 am

Wilfull & Wanton

BATES v. MCKEON, 650 F. Supp. 476 (D. Conn. 11/20/1986) Connecticut courts have emphasized the primacy of intention in their definitions of "wantonness" and "malice": "A wilful and malicious injury is one inflicted intentionally without just cause or excuse. It does not necessarily involve the ill will or malevolence shown in express malice. Nor is it sufficient to constitute such an injury that the act resulting in the injury was intentional in the sense that it was a voluntary action of the person involved. Not only the action producing the injury but the resulting injury must be intentional." Rogers v. Doody, 119 Conn. 532, 534, 178 A. 51 (1935). "A wilful or malicious injury is one caused by design. Wilfulness and malice alike import intent . . . [Its] characteristic element is the design to injure either actually entertained or to be implied from the conduct and circumstances." Sharkey v. Skilton, 83 Conn. 503, 507-508, 77 A. 950 (1910). The intentional injury aspect may also be satisfied if the resultant harm was the direct and natural consequence of the intended act. Alteiri v. Colasso, 168 Conn. 329, 334, 362 A.2d 798 (1975). Wanton misconduct is reckless misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698 (1928). "It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of the action." Bordonaro v. Senk, 109 Conn. 428, 431, 147 A. 136 (1929).

13thjuror

02-23-10 | 06:42 am

Duty to Protect

Under the special relationship theory the state is responsible for preventing harms to an individual only when the state has taken away the power of that individual to defend himself. “[A] State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197, 109 S.Ct. at 1005, 103 L.Ed.2d at 259. The next time you are alone and in imminent serious physical harm, point your finger at the assailant and yell "911". If this stops the violent act, the state was not required to allow you your 2nd amendment right to carry a firearm. If it did not then that is not the state's fault.

13thjuror

02-14-10 | 10:00 am

Tactical Luck

Tactical Luck is Experience Engaging Training™

13thjuror

02-14-10 | 09:35 am

WISH

Wish is a four-lettered word that takes the place of 'Now'. Change necessitates persistent resislence. Future is what present does!. "Be the Change"

Reginald Allard, Jr.

02-14-10 | 07:05 am

Remember Me

Remember Me. I have left within your heart, memories of times past. Within you, I live. The nourishing breath of the Creator swirled within our lungs, With each kiss, as one, we exhaled the light of our souls into each other. Together, we once stood upon Mother Earth, surging with nature’s energy, Nourished by her living waters. When our lips last parted, into eternity, I brought your breath. Time has since passed me by. Remember me, when angel tears bathe your face. Remember me, when the creator’s smile warms your flesh. Remember me when leaves fall from the trees. I am the leaf. I am the breath of Mother Earth. I am the heartbeat of the butterfly. Your breath is my eternal companion awaiting your embrace. Remember me. Reginald F. Allard, Jr. – 1996/2010

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

02-07-10 | 10:42 am

Liberty

"The Fourth Amendment is a 'for profit' organization whose 'balance sheet' requires a "costs" anaylsis effect upon one's personal liberties."

13thjuror

02-04-10 | 12:00 pm

Four Words

Jury Charge: "A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers a peace officer in the performance of such peace officer's duties. For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must have proven the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt; one, that the defendant obstructed, resisted or endangered a peace officer; two, that the conduct of the defendant occurred while the police officer was in the performance of his duties; and three, that the defendant intended to obstruct, resist, hinder or endanger the peace officer while that peace officer was in the performance of his duties. If you find that he was a peace officer, you would go on to the other elements of this crime and, with the first element, there [are] four words describing the way interference may be committed. Obstructs means to interpose obstacles or impediments to impede or in any manner to intrude or prevent. These words do not imply the use of direct force or the exercise of direct means. Resist means oppose by direct, active or forcible or quasi-forcible means. Hinders means to make slow or difficult the progress to hold back or delay or impede or prevent action by the police."

13thjuror

02-04-10 | 10:14 am

Thought

Although scientific evidence is relevant to a determination of what is physically impossible, it does not negate a person's common sense derived from one's own observations and experiences of life.

13thjuror

02-03-10 | 04:17 am

Practice of Law

Section 51-88 of the Connecticut General Statutes (e) “Practice law” and “practice of law” as used in this section means the doing of any act for another person usually done by attorneys at law in the course of their profession, and includes but is not limited to: (1) the appearance or acting as the attorney, solicitor, or representative of another person before any court, referee, magistrate, special master, auditor, division, department, commission, board, judicial authority, or body authorized by law to determine any question of law or fact or to exercise any judicial or governmental power; (2) the preparation of pleadings or other legal papers incident to any action or other proceeding of any kind before or to be brought before the court or other body; (3) the giving or tendering to another person for consideration, direct or indirect, of any advice or counsel pertaining to a law question or a court action or judicial proceeding brought or to be brought; (4) the undertaking or acting as a representative or on behalf of another person to commence, settle, compromise, adjust, or dispose of any civil or criminal case or cause of action..."

13thjuror

01-11-10 | 08:16 am

Set Me Free

Generally Speaking, Reasonableness comes 'before' Probable Cause. Officer safety is a 'special need' but it is not a sub-probable cause 'talisman' justifying unfettered and unlimited discretion. Suspicionless search and seizure practices cannot be generally tolerated. Probable cause does not depend upon an arresting officer's subjective patterned 'safety' perceptions of threat. Threat Response reasonableness is an objective assessment. Probable cause is not a matter of convenience open to subjective abuse of discretion. Because a law enforcement officer is the sentry gate-keeper of the State and Federal Constitution, suspiciousless searches and seizures become the springboard of injustice. The consequence is 'loss of liberty'. Probable cause has always been a fact-specific and fluid concept rather than a rubber-stamped supervisory approval. Anything less than an impartial factual circumstance review is acquiescence to unsupported probable cause. A 'general interest in officer safety' is not a sufficient justification for a departure from individualized suspicion of threat. Suspicionless searches and seizures are rarely permitted with the understanding that they are unusually offensive to individual liberties. Give me sufficient objective justifiable suspicion or 'set me free'.

13thjuuror

12-17-09 | 08:39 am

Expert Witness

‘‘It is well settled that [t]he true test of the admissibility of [expert] testimony is . . . whether the witnesses offered as experts have any peculiar knowledge or experience, not common to the world, which renders their opinions founded on such knowledge or experience any aid to the court or the jury in determining the questions at issue. . . . Implicit in this standard is the requirement . . . that the expert’s knowledge or experience must be directly applicable to the matter specifically in issue.’’ State v. Banks, 117 Conn. App. 102, 116, 978 A.2d 519 (2009).

13thjuror

12-15-09 | 06:42 am

Aint over till it's over

Michigan v. Fisher, ___U.S.___ ; 2009 USLEXIS 8773 (2009). ...the test is not what the officer believed, but whether there was 'an objectively reasonable basis for believing' that [the use of force] was reasonable... Only when an apparent threat has become an actual harm can officers rule out innocuous explanations for ominous circumstances.Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 06/17/2009)...FN # 4 "It ain't over till it's over." Yogi Berra.) Such being the case, an officer cannot be expected to shoot, pause to evaluate the effect, and then calmly decide whether it is necessary or prudent to shoot again.

13thjuror

12-15-09 | 05:59 am

Reasonable Belief

Turning to the objective reasonableness of Tanella’s action, the State asserts that because Dewgard was about to flee, n16 Tanella’s decision to shoot was unreasonable. However, the question of whether Dewgard was in fact about to run away is entirely irrelevant to the reasonableness of Agent Tanella’s belief that Dewgard reached for his weapon. In this case, the proper focus of inquiry for Supremacy Clause purposes is whether Dewgard made a movement, not what that movement in fact turned out to be. If it is shown by the undisputed evidence that Dewgard made some movement, and if it was reasonable for Tanella to have perceived that movement as a threat to his life, he cannot be prosecuted for the shooting. It does not matter whether Tanella was correct in his perception, because proper application of the necessary and proper standard “does not require a [defendant] to show that his action was in fact necessary or in retrospect justifiable, only that he reasonably thought it to be.” Clifton, 549 F.2d at 728...This testimony reveals that immediately before being shot, Dewgard made some movement, which these witnesses interpreted as him trying to run away. That may be a reasonable inference. That also may be exactly what Dewgard was about to do. But this disputed issue of fact is not before me. Nor is it relevant to the resolution of Tanella’s claim of immunity. I must decide if it was objectively reasonable for Tanella to have interpreted that very same movement in a completely different manner, even if his interpretation or perception was ultimately mistaken. See Clifton, 549 F.2d at 729; Neagle, 135 U.S. at 76....Tanella’s perception was reasonable, even if mistaken, because under those conditions an ambiguous movement might be more easily confused with a threatening gesture. ...the forensic evidence [*623] in this case chiefly concerns the issue of what Dewgard may have been doing when he was shot. In light of my ruling on the issue of reasonableness, and my finding that the issue of Dewgard’s escape is irrelevant, the forensic evidence is of limited value. At the very least, however, Dr. Macajoux’s findings are consistent with Tanella’s version of events and do not undermine the reasonableness of his perception of Dewgard’s action.... based on all of the factors discussed here, I find that it was reasonable for Tanella to perceive (or even misperceive) Dewgard’s movement as reaching for his weapon. Accordingly, based on all the evidence presented, I hold that Tanella did no more than what was necessary and proper in the discharge of his duty, and he is therefore immune from prosecution. New York v Tanella. (2nd Cir).

13thjuror

12-13-09 | 08:06 am

Deadly Force Spectrum

Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 06/17/2009) As Scott makes clear, the term(Deadly Force") encompasses a range of applications of force, some more certain to cause death than others. It includes force that is "likely" to cause serious injury or death, such as ramming, and also includes force that is nearly certain to cause death, such as a shot to the head. Scott strongly suggests that the reasonableness balancing must take into account that there is a spectrum of "deadly force," and that just because a situation justifies ramming does not mean it will justify shooting a suspect in the head. While the use of force to seize a suspect in a manner that is nearly certain to cause death, such as shooting a suspect in the back of the head, may be unreasonable as applied to a "young, slight, and unarmed" burglary suspect fleeing on foot, Garner, 471 U.S. 11, the use of force only "likely" to cause serious injury or death to seize one who poses an "extreme danger to human life" in a high-speed police pursuit may be reasonable, Scott, 550 U.S. at 382-83. "Scott strongly suggests that the reasonableness balancing must take into account that there is a spectrum of 'deadly force,' and that just because a situation justifies ramming does not mean it will justify shooting a suspect in the head." Cordova v. Aragon, --- F.3d ----, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13043, at *12 (10th Cir. June 17, 2009).

13thjuror

12-10-09 | 07:01 am

Duty

Police officers deserve credit for doing their job, which is serving the public within the bounds of the law. An officer's duty is to serve the public and do what he/she was expected to do as part of his job which then promotes respect for the law, and provides just criminal punishment within the Criminal Justice Court System. A "reasonable, trained police officer" performs an 'Objectively Reasonable' response when his/her conduct is "shared by a reasonable police officer in the officer's circumstances". The "danger need not have been actual or real" at the moment the officer responded to the 'imminent' threat which is defined as 'potential' threat from "the officer's point of view".

13thjuror

12-08-09 | 06:38 am

Self-Defense

Because the risk of being a possible crime victim implicates a wide range of factors that can occur, if at all, at some unspecified time in the future or not at all, it is your responsibility to protect yourself from this known crime victim danger and this should be apparent to you. Because you are not an 'identifiable' and 'imminent foreseeable victim', police protection is not duty bound to protect you. Because you are not an identifiable person subject to imminent harm in that the potential for harm was neither sufficiently immediate nor sufficiently certain, when next you are faced with imminent harm, you can yell at your attacker, "911" or take your personal self-defense non-deadly and/or deadly countermeasures which are 'reasonable' and 'necessary' under the context of facts and circumstances confronting you to overcome the threatening encounter. You can either be a 'good victim' or a 'patriot'. The choice is yours.

13thjuror

11-20-09 | 03:18 am

Probabilistic Probability

The Fourth Amendment does not impose a "more likely than not" standard, either for probable cause or for reasonable articulable suspicion. Probable cause does not "deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities," nor does it demand that an officer’s reasonable belief of possible criminal activity "be correct or more likely true than false." Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983). "Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence, useful in formal trials, have no place in the probable-cause decision." Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) Not even a "prima facie showing" of criminality is required. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983). Instead, probable cause "requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity." Id. at 243 n.13. "Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence." Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123.

13thjuror

11-16-09 | 03:23 am

Mind-Field

We agree with the court that the risk associated with the town's allegedly wrongful inaction is not the equivalent of "ordering [a] soldier to walk through a mine field all by himself just to see if it was working." PAUL MELANSON v. TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD ET AL.(A C 20399)February 13, 2001.Pahler v. Wilkes-Barre, supra, 351 (‘‘[The plaintiff police officer] entered into [his] job voluntarily and fully aware of the substantial risks of harm faced on a daily basis. City policemen, unlike private citizens, are constantly faced with dangerous situations in which they risk possible injury.’’); Hartman v. Bachert, supra, 351 (‘‘[The decedent] entered into his duties as a [d]eputy [s]heriff voluntarily and with knowledge of the possible dangers faced by law enforcement personnel. More than the sanitation worker in Collins, [the] decedent’s job involved routine exposure to danger, and he was aware of the substantial risk of harm faced daily. . . . [T]he state did not force [the] appellant to become a [deputy sheriff], and the state has no constitutional obligation to protect him from the hazards inherent in that occupation.’’

13thjuror

11-15-09 | 07:27 am

Deadly Force Spectrum

Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 06/17/2009).When discussing excessive force, we sometimes use the term "deadly force" as if it is a unitary concept. See, e.g., Sevier v. City of Lawrence, 60 F.3d 695, 699 (10th Cir. 1995) ("Defendants' use of deadly force was justified under the Fourth Amendment if a reasonable officer in Defendants' position would have had probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to themselves or to others."). As Scott (Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383 (2007)makes clear, however, the term encompasses a range of applications of force, some more certain to cause death than others. It includes force that is "likely" to cause serious injury or death, such as ramming, and also includes force that is nearly certain to cause death, such as a shot to the head. Scott strongly suggests that the reasonableness balancing must take into account that there is a spectrum of "deadly force," and that just because a situation justifies ramming does not mean it will justify shooting a suspect in the head.

13thjuror

11-14-09 | 09:26 am

Becoming

If you can't 'Be' who you are 'Becoming', then you will never 'Be' who you are! Mahatma Gandhi is credited with this principle, 'You must "be the change" you want to see in the world.' When next you are asked to describe yourself respond, Be Thought-Be Heart-Be Spoken-Be Gotten. The Memphites, 5,000 years ago, expressed this principle of change as "One Tongue - One Heart". In other words "Be" what you "Say".

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

10-29-09 | 07:35 am

Expert Opinions

To be reasonably probable, a conclusion must be more likely than not. State v. Nunes, 800 A.2d 1160, 1175-76 (Conn. 2002). In other words, the opinion must be “probable” rather than merely “possible”. State v. Weinberg, 575 A.2d 1003 (Conn.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 (1990).... expert testimony regarding causation based upon possibility or speculation is insufficient.... testimony that a certain thing is possible is no evidence at all...opinion as to what is possible is no more valid than the jury’s own speculations as to what is or is not possible.” A belief is "objectively reasonable" if "a reasonable person" in the defendant's position could have believed his/her perceptions from his/her at-scene perspective, given the particular subjective as well as objective factual circumstances. "More likely than not" is a "preponderance of evidence" guilt standard where 51% of the facts and circumstances are believed to be 'true'. A 'reasonable suspicion' is a "belief that is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place the peace officer acts" The Criminal guilt standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' which is greater than the 'more likely than not' civil guilt standard but short of guilt beyond all doubt.

13thjuror

10-26-09 | 12:32 pm

Obama-nomics

The economics of the Obama Administration is best described as: "Spend until you are Dead. The living will worry about the debt for you"!

13thjuror

10-22-09 | 06:45 am

0% Probable is Possible

"If an event is Possible - although extremely 'rare' with a likelihood near 0% probability, disproving this negative is also near 0% possible. In the world of 'possibilities' one can not 'disprove the negative' possibilities of events occurring. Thus everything is possible, just not likely."

13thjuror

10-21-09 | 10:47 am

2nd Amendment Back-Up

The Government has no constitutional duty to protect the 'individual' from 3rd party violence...To the Terrorist, each American tax payer is a Soft-Target...But for your constitutional and statutory authority to self-defense...and because we do not live in a police state...the 2nd Amendment is our individual protector...when shopping at the local Mall...remember 911, the terrorist has to be right only once...shout '911' but use your 2nd Amendment to protect yourself and your loved ones with you, or accept the American flag as your coffin cover.

13thjuror

09-29-09 | 07:19 am

Nones

I am a proud member of the 'Nones': "the irreligious, the unreligious, the anti-religious and the anti-clerical." The Nones aren't part of an organized movement and they don't adhere to a common set of beliefs. "Some believe in God; some do not," "Some may participate occasionally in religious rituals," the ..."Others never will." The only thing that interfers with 'faith' is 'religion'.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

09-17-09 | 06:05 am

General Intent

‘‘General intent is the term used to define the requisite mens rea for a crime that has no stated mens rea; the term refers to whether a defendant intended deliberate, conscious or purposeful action, as opposed to causing a prohibited result through accident, mistake, carelessness, or absent-mindedness.’’ State v. Charles, 78 Conn. App. 125, 131, 826 A.2d 1172, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 908, 832 A.2d 73 (2003).

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

09-16-09 | 06:05 am

Anarchy

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S.(1961)...The US Constitution...“gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice.”.... The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. . . . Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

09-05-09 | 06:09 am

First Amendment Lesson

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (No. 591) 47 F.Supp. 251, affirmed. ...we are dealing with a compulsion of students to declare a belief... Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men... If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. "

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

08-16-09 | 10:34 am

Troublemaker

Plakas v. Drinski 19 F3d 1143 (7th Cir. 1994) There is no precedent in this Circuit or any other which says that the Constitution requires law enforcement officers to use all feasible alternatives to avoid a situation where deadly force can justifiably be used...there may be state laws which require an officer to retreat but this would not impose a constitutional duty...If the officer had decided to do nothing, then no force would have been used. In this sense, the police officer always causes the trouble. But it is trouble which the police officer is sworn to cause, which society pays him to cause and which, if kept within constitutional limits, society praises the officer for causing. The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the least intrusive or even less intrusive alternatives in search and seizure cases. The only test is whether what the police officers actually did was reasonable...

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

08-13-09 | 05:29 am

Hindsight PC Review

In Walden v. Carmack, the Eighth Circuit stated, "A defendant need not show that there was only one reasonable conclusion ... on whether probable cause existed, but rather, a court should ask whether the ... officials acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances then existing, not whether another reasonable, or more reasonable interpretation of the facts can be constructed years later." 156 F.3d 861 (8th Cir.1998). If there is a reasonable basis to conclude that probable cause existed, qualified immunity shields the officer from suit, and courts must take caution not to simply judge the officer's actions with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Tauke v. Stine, 120 F.3d 1363 (8th Cir.1997)...once the predicate facts have been established, for the purposes of qualified immunity there is no such thing as a "genuine issue of fact" as to whether an officer "should have known" that his conduct violated constitutional rights.... "Predicate facts" include only the relevant circumstances and the acts of the parties themselves, and not the conclusions of others about the reasonableness of those actions.... The objective reasonable person standard utilized in the qualified immunity analysis ignores the factual opinions of others because it is a legal inquiry, Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991).

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

08-12-09 | 03:50 am

Retrospective Probable Cause

Probable Cause to arrest requires more then 'some' reason to believe that a particular person committed or is committing a particular offense. The post arrest adequacy of the 'facts' which had led to an arrest is referred to as 'Retrospective Probable Cause'. This expo facto assessment requires that an officer's 'zeal and/or arbitrary abuse of authority be reviewed in order for the shield of qualified immunity not be flimsily asserted nor condoned. Government 'of the people' is designed for the protection 'of the people'. Freedom can demand 'no less a standard then Probable Cause and has since 1789.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-21-09 | 06:00 am

Deadly Force Spectrum

13thjuror

05-11-09 | 04:45 am

Eyes of an 'Officer'

United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002); Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). “[T]he court must evaluate the totality of circumstances ‘through the eyes of a reasonable and cautious police officer on the scene, guided by his experience and training.’” United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 16, 133 (2d Cir. 2000). The “totality of the circumstances” inquiry permits police officers to “make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person.”

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-27-09 | 05:20 am

Rational Inference

Because the only kind of an inference recognized by the law is a reasonable one . . . any such inference cannot be based on possibilities, surmise or conjecture. Intent relates to the condition of mind of the person who commits the act, his purpose in doing it. As defined by our statutes, a person acts intentionally with respect to conduct when his conscious objective is to engage in such conduct. What a person’s intention has been is very largely a matter of inference. No witness can be expected to come here and testify that he looked into another person’s mind and saw, therein, [that it] contained a certain intention.’’ When the elements of a crime consist of a description of a particular act and a mental element not specific in nature, the only issue is whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. If he did so intend, he has the requisite general intent for culpability. When the elements of a crime include a defendant’s intent to achieve some result additional to the act, the additional language distinguishes the crime from those of general intent and makes it one requiring a specific intent. . . . State v. Bitting, 162 Conn. 1, 5, 291 A.2d 240 (1971).’Because it is practically impossible to know what someone is thinking or intending at any given moment, absent an outright declaration of intent, a person’s state of mind is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. . . . Intent may be and usually is inferred from conduct . . . . Whether such an inference should be drawn is properly a question for the jury to decide.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-25-09 | 05:12 am

Self-creation

When you fear 'possibilities' you will surely 'probably' fail. Possibilities fuel dreams. Start your engines!

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-24-09 | 06:52 am

Be!

Be! “Dreams are born every day, if you pay attention. Lift up your dreams and hold them. This initial nourishment is necessary for your dreams to live. Dreaming is a ‘contact sport’. Make first contact! ” Be-Heart Be-Thought Be-Spoken Be-Gotten Think Well! Happy Creation! by Reginald F. Allard, Jr. May 23, 2008

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-23-09 | 02:39 am

Rational Inference

“An inference must have some definite basis in the facts ... and the conclusion based on it must not be the result of speculation and conjecture.”

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-22-09 | 08:31 am

Arizona v Gant

ARIZONA v. GANT. This Court rejects a broad reading of Belton that would permit a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest even if there were no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel’s exception authorize a vehicle search only when there is a reasonable possibility of such access.If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.There was no suggestion by the parties or amici that Chimel authorizes a vehicle search incident to arrest when there is no realistic possibility that an arrestee could access his vehicle.it is improbable that an arrestee could gain access to weapons stored in his vehicle after he has been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car...Neither the possibility of access nor the likelihood of discovering offense-related evidence authorized the search in this case. We have never relied on stare decisis to justify the continuance of an unconstitutional police practice. Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result. Because officers have many means of ensuring the safe arrest of vehicle occupants, it will be the rare case in which an officer is unable to fully effectuate an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee’s vehicle remains....noting that the availability of protective measures “ensur[es] the nonexistence of circumstances in which the arrestee’s ‘control’ of the car is in doubt”. Because a broad reading of Belton has been widely accepted, the doctrine of qualified immunity will shield officers from liability for searches conducted in reasonable reliance on that understanding. Law enforcement officers face a risk of being shot whenever they pull a car over. But that risk is at its height at the time of the initial confrontation; and it is not at all reduced by allowing a search of the stopped vehicle after the driver has been arrested and placed in the squad car. I observed in Thornton that the government had failed to provide a single instance in which a formerly restrained arrestee escaped to retrieve a weapon from his own vehicle,... Where no arrest is made, we have held that officers may search the car if they reasonably believe “the suspect is dangerous and … may gain immediate control of weapons.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049 (1983) . In the no-arrest case, the possibility of access to weapons in the vehicle always exists, since the driver or passenger will be allowed to return to the vehicle when the interrogation is completed. The rule of Michigan v. Long is not at issue here....the Belton Court concluded that “ ‘[a] single familiar standard’ ” was “ ‘essential to guide police officers’ ” who make roadside arrests. 453 U. S., at 458 (quoting Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 213–214 (1979) ). ...Thornton held that “arresting officers may always search an arrestee’s vehicle in order to protect themselves from hidden weapons”). This “bright-line rule” has now been interred."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-22-09 | 08:14 am

Conjunction

Just in case, any one besides myself is interested, today there is a Moon & Venus & Jupiter Planetary Conjunction.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-15-09 | 04:20 pm

Fear of Possibility

What is reasonably 'possible' is neither 'likely' nor 'probable' unless you allow for speculation. The following are direct excerpts from various case law cites. "The evidence... collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. In a close case . . . the balance ought to be struck on the side of the freedom of the citizen from governmental intrusion. To conclude otherwise would be to elevate society’s interest in apprehending offenders above the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable stops. State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 657, 613 A.2d 1300 (1992).Tarro v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 279 Conn.280, 292 n.17, 901 A.2d 1186 (2006).Intent relates to the condition of mind of the person who commits the act, his purpose in doing it. As defined by our statutes, a person acts intentionally with respect to conduct when his conscious objective is to engage in such conduct. What a person’s intention has been is very largely a matter of inference. No witness can be expected to come here and testify that he looked into another person’s mind and saw, therein, [that it] contained a certain intention. When the elements of a crime consist of a description of a particular act and a mental element not specific in nature, the only issue is whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. If he did so intend, he has the requisite 'general intent' for culpability. When the elements of a crime include a defendant’s intent to achieve some result 'additional to the act', the additional language distinguishes the crime from those of general intent and makes it one requiring a specific intent. . . . State v. Bitting, 162 Conn. 1, 5, 291 A.2d 240 (1971)....a person acts intentionally with respect to conduct when his conscious objective is to engage in such conduct. Because it is practically impossible to know what someone is thinking or intending at any given moment, absent an outright declaration of intent, a person’s state of mind is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. . . . Intent may be and usually is inferred from conduct . . . . Whether such an inference should be drawn is properly a question for the jury to decide. Because the only kind of an inference recognized by the law is a reasonable one . . . any such inference cannot be based on possibilities, surmise or conjecture. The line between permissible inference and impermissible speculation is not always easy to discern. When we infer, we derive a conclusion from proven facts because such considerations as experience, or history, or science have demonstrated that there is a likely correlation between those facts and the conclusion. If that correlation is sufficiently compelling, the inference is reasonable. But if the correlation between the facts and the conclusion is slight, or if a different conclusion is more closely correlated with the facts than the chosen conclusion, the inference is less reasonable. At some point, the link between the facts and the conclusion becomes so tenuous that we call it speculation. When that point is reached is, frankly, a matter of judgment... Discretion cannot be exercised in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary to law."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-14-09 | 09:52 am

Clear & Convincing Proof

[C]lear and convincing proof . . . denotes a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist." Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen's Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 844, 797 A.2d 18, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916, 806 A.2d 1058 (2002); see also Wildwood Associates, Ltd. v. Esposito, 211 Conn. 36, 42, 557 A.2d 1241 (1989); Hurlburt v. Bussemey, supra, 101 Conn. 412; Rudder v. Mamanasco Lake Park Assn., Inc., 93 Conn. App. 759, 780, 890 A.2d 645 (2006); LaPre v. Nibo Films, Ltd., 10 Conn. App. 669, 672 n.3, 525 A.2d 140 (1987).

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-10-09 | 03:07 am

Wilful Misconduct

'Wilful misconduct' is a purposeful, intentional, and knowing act of such character performed with reckless disregard for its result."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-09-09 | 07:56 am

Sole Proximate Cause

The ultimate contradiction of proximate cause-effect is the belief that because a rooster crows in the morning, the sun rises. Put in another way, because a 'butterfly' flaps its' wings in Brazil, a Tornado is created in Kansas. For proximate Cause, a trier of fact must be able to trace the resultant injury to a proximate cause set in motion by the Defendant/Plaintiff. Remember, in the world of 'possiblilities' everything is 100% 'Possible' But this possibility is pure speculation and contrary to the true test of sole proximate cause, which is an assessment of cause-effect by determining whether it was "more likely then not" that event 'A' caused result 'B'.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-08-09 | 08:20 am

Androgynous Womb

The female womb is androgynous. Both a male child and a female child are born from this womb. The male and female within each of us is in constant polarity shift. No human child is 'purely male' or 'purely female'.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

03-14-09 | 08:11 am

Fleetwood Mac Concert

I am on my way to the Fleetwood Mac Concert at the Mohegan Casino in Connecticut. This is the 3rd Concert I attended in my life. The 1st was at Woodstock in 1969, the 2nd was a Neil Diamond Concert in 1978. Live the memories of the heart...Happy Creation!"

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

03-02-09 | 07:48 am

Socialism Birth Announcement

The boundary between Democracy and Socialism is Discrimination. The more discrimination believed to exist, the greater the clamor for socialism as a remedy.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

02-03-09 | 04:31 am

Step Up!

An Everyday Job - Step Up! Step Back! Step Out! By Reginald F. Allard, Jr. Police officers encounter their own mortality each day they perform their official duties. Whether it is their first duty work shift or their last duty tour, police officers face extreme trauma and their own mortality. Physical and psychological trauma, that not only comes from accidental injuries, but also trauma from a citizen’s intentional, reckless, and/or negligent dangerous active aggressive resistance to their lawful Fourth Amendment seizure authority. Although the ‘Officer Safety Talisman’ is not a magic wand that is to be waved over every contextual factual circumstance, police officers are being killed and injured just for doing their everyday job. As officers simultaneously, think, feel, and act objectively, the overseer watchdog (i.e., the 10,000 lawyers within the State of Connecticut) is prepared to claim abuse of discretion in the manner in which the crisis was erroneously managed. The rules of law enforcement practices and procedures require an officer to plan for the predictably foreseeable in order to preclude an ‘imminent’ future ‘immediately’. This is because the post incident must withstand several years of hindsight litigation scrutiny. The at-scene factual findings constantly shift, liken to waves upon a rocky beach. Truth becomes mired in perceptual beliefs that are inaccurate but believed to be ‘true’. Initial factual determinations derived from definite and firm convictions give way to the new ‘fact’ that a mistake has been made. Because it is the function of the ‘Monday-Morning’ fact finder to reject or accept certain evidence, and to believe or disbelieve the alleged ‘truths’, an officer’s at-scene truths become negligent, reckless or intentional lies. Terms such as proximate cause, necessary, reasonable, objective and force continuum are used as ‘black-letter law’ to criticize the ‘living law’ of the crisis moment. Human traits are replaced with concepts such as ‘training and experience’ and ‘reasonable prudent officer’. The result in only 1% of the alleged excessive force encounters is a finding of proximate cause liability with compensatory and/or punitive damages assessed against the officer(s) and the police agency. Proximate cause liability is that which a prudent officer in the at-scene officer’s position would have decided in contradiction to what the officers actually did. Liability is likened to that of a minefield where upon without a roadmap, an officer’s honest mistaken beliefs with hindsight tragic misstep consequence is the responsibility not of those who placed the mines but rather upon the officer who stepped on the liability mine. Watch your step! But, by all reasonable and necessary means, step up, step back, or step out of the way! Policemen, unlike private citizens, are constantly faced with dangerous situations in which they risk possible injury. Mindful that their duties necessarily entail exposure to dangerous, and even deadly, situations, the government cannot be held liable merely for exposing a law enforcement official to a danger that the officer knowingly and voluntarily assumed as part of his or her duties. Police officers enter into their inherently hazardous job voluntarily and fully aware of the substantial risks of harm faced on a daily basis. However, this does not translate into a standard that at best tolerates and at worst encourages wanton, reckless, or criminal behavior toward the safety of our law enforcement officers. "

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

02-03-09 | 04:12 am

Need to Know!

“Transparency, accessibility, accountability – three basic concepts that the public has come to expect, and indeed, should demand, of the various branches of government that shape our society.”

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

01-21-09 | 05:18 am

I am

There is but one thing which I am not, and that is, which I am not. Everything else is achievable!

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

01-16-09 | 08:31 am

Troublemaker

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

01-01-09 | 08:50 am

Convergence

Your 'beliefs' are the Electro-magnetic pulses which cause emitted cosmic waves to create serendipitous convergence of planned syncronicity. Create 'foresight', expect what you believe! Expectation is the Magic that Causes Change! Happy Creation!

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

11-12-08 | 04:34 am

Fair Justice

The public demands impartial justice for the guilty as much as for the innocent. Justice demands no victim and asks no conviction through the aid of passion, prejudice, bias or resentment.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

10-18-08 | 07:08 am

God Particle

Quantum Physics Science confirms that there is a 'god particle' which dispersed the four combined forces of nature(strong force, weak force, electro-magnetic force, and gravity) which then caused the universe to 'inflate'as time began at the 'big bang' moment of creation. In other words, what was once unified was then split apart at speeds greater then the 'speed of light'(E=MC2). Within each of us is this 'god particle' spark. You can use this particle to re-create 'inflation' because each of us is a 'god creator'."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

10-14-08 | 10:31 am

Yesterday

If you look for answers for tomorrow in yesterday's history, you are bound to repeat today's mistakes. Make a 'new history' by living this 'perfect moment'!"

Reginald F. Allard, jr.

10-07-08 | 01:26 am

Re-Purposed Slef

The "Re-Purposed Slef" is an euphemism to bring into clarity the cloudy vagueness of our inegmatic archetypical origins. Clarification to follow...

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

09-14-08 | 08:36 am

The Voice of Creation

The Universe does NOT have a 'Voice'. The Universe is 'Shaped' into Existance by the 'god-creator' Voice within. This 'Voice' creates the Universe in direct response to the spoken vibration of your inner 'Voice'.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

08-30-08 | 05:05 am

Samurai Heart

Sempai Ryan Allard, this day you have fought a battle likened to that on the day of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae - Your warrior skills have been demonstrated to show your warrior's heart. Your Loyalty to the code of honor has been tested. Your honor has been tested to demonstrate that you are the Master of your pain. The creator of your fate. You possess the tiger's heart with a child's smile at its' core. When only the few are left to defend the warrior code, there, you will be standing and they will say, he lived a life filled with love and had a death, the ages will remember. Ryan, I present this Musashi Katana sword of protection as a symbol of my pride in you as a man and as a warrior. With this rod of iron may you protect love, loyalty, and honor from being devour by the Red Dragon. I Love You, Dad August 30, 2008

Reginald Allard, Jr.

08-22-08 | 03:10 am

Creationism

The Heart can only Echo what the Mind Creates. The Universe can only Manifest what the Heart Echoes. Think Well!

Reginald Allard, Jr.

07-25-08 | 02:46 am

Prediction

"The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create it!" This quote was reportedly written first by Abraham Lincoln. Others have attempted to re-create the future by claiming that they originated this phrase. But then again, future is what present creates. A lie believed is a truth.

Reginald Allard, Jr.

07-05-08 | 05:04 am

It Can Happen

Murphy's law states that "if it can happen, it will happen". The Law of Large Numbers states that " if an event is given enough opportunities to occur, sooner or later it will occur". Parsed between a 'future that is 'remembered' and a 'meaningless coincident happenstance' is 'Belief'. Be careful what you believe, it will happen not only probably but also is highly certain to happen.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-23-08 | 05:40 am

Snapshots of a Life's Pathway.

Where you are is "IAM" both probably and/or certainly." When you are looking for 'something', something 'finds you'!" There is no doubt, chance occurs at a pre-determined probable outcome.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-14-08 | 06:05 am

Quintessence

Is there a "Quintessence Fluid" contained within the human body? Does this fluid possess a gravitational repulsive force - a fifth element capable of causing gravitational 'lift'? Does this "dark energy" which composes 70% of our known universe, cause self-attraction expectation of a 'desired matter'? Can you 'think' matter into 'being'? The answer to each of these questions is YES! Science has proven that 'nothing does exist'." Dark Energy has a "bounded Shape" with un-clustered negative particles. You can "make something out of nothing".

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-13-08 | 04:11 am

Dark Does Matter

Science has taken measure of the Universe we live within. Our Milky Way Galaxy has a star that is 13.5 billion years old. We are at least as old as this 'star dust'. Dark Energy consist of 70% of the 'space' in this Universe. Dark matter is measured at consisting of 25% our known universe. The remaining 5% is the 'Universe" that we "see". The point is that "empty space is NOT nothing. 'Dark Energy' has been named by the ancient Greeks "quintessence"- the fifth Element. Zero point gravitation is acheived by transfering mass. Once you transfer the 'dark energy mass' and the 'dark matter mass', empty space suddenly "takes Shape'. The "Shape' of your Universe awaits the "hand" of the god-self within. Go ahead, change your world today!Dare to cause the 'Butterfly Effect" and be the sculpter of your own universe.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-11-08 | 04:41 am

7 Laws of Nature

1st Law of Creation - Self-Awareness (First Bite of the Apple) 2nd Law of Creation - Thinking is Being. 3rd Law of Creation - Change is Constant. 4th Law of Creation - Time exists is a Continuous Linear Expansion. 5th Law of Creation - Form Creates Function. 6th Law of Creation - Space Creates Shape. 7th Law of Creation - Life at its' Cellular Microcosmic Fusion component is the Power of the Universe Within."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-08-08 | 05:35 am

Art of Creation

The 60,000 thoughts we have each day become the primodial resevoir from which our dreams are created. These thoughts are the clay of creation. May this day bring serendipitous synchronicity. Write your 'history' on the back of a napkin today. Tomorrow will become your "Art". "Thinking is Being!"

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

06-05-08 | 07:41 am

Religion is NOT faith

The only thing that interferes with faith IS man-made religion. The 'god-self' within does not need man-made symbols for the expression of true faith. The only thing a person should DO in the name of a God is to be the expression of the 'god-self' within. Those who kill in the name of a living or a dead Prophet, kill only in the name of the person who is extolling the killing of the innocent lives in the name of the religion. Whether that religion be a jihad or crusade religion, does not make a difference. The defense of a religion and its' honor does NOT lead to either a martyrdom sanctuary or perpetual salvation. It leads to death."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

05-23-08 | 05:15 am

07:15:00

“Dreams are born every day, if you pay attention. Lift up your dreams and hold them. This initial 'touch' nourishment is essential for your dreams to live, thrive and be manifested. Dreaming is an ‘contact sport’” "Be-Heart. Be-Thought. Be-Spoken. Be-Gotten."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

05-23-08 | 04:30 am

Time & Space

"The two dimensions that give full dimension to a relationship are TIME & SPACE. That which binds together these two dimensions is LOVE. LOVE is the binding power of the universe. Time & Space can not be separated. They are truly ONE dimension. Although apart in space,we are together in TIME."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

05-23-08 | 03:41 am

Perfection

"Life Is Perfect Imperfection with Hindsight disguised as Foresight..."

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

05-22-08 | 10:35 am

Be

Be-Heart. Be-Thought. Be-Spoken. Be-Gotten!

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-04-08 | 04:35 am

Think Well!

The heart can only echo what the mind creates. The universe can only manifest what the heart echoes. The heart is the voice of the universe. Each Moment is the Beginning of a New History...Past events can only exist in the present experience. Future events can only be experienced in the present. The present is the trinity of experience...

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

04-02-08 | 06:45 am

One Heart - One Voice - One Hand

The below is an excerpt from the text listed. This information is 5,000 years old but is as current as the blood rushing through our hearts today. (Ancient Egyptian Literature – The Old and Middle Kingdoms - Miriam Lichtheim Volume I - University of California Press 1973-2006. (page 54)) The Memphite Theology is written upon the British Museum No. 498 (Shabaka Stone)which was commanded to be transcribed by King Shabaka of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty( ca 710 B.C).….Line 53… "Heart and tongue rule over all the limbs in accordance with the teaching that the heart is in every body and the tongue is in every mouth…thinking whatever it wishes….commanding whatever it wishes…Sight, hearing, breathing report to the heart and make every understanding come forth….the tongue repeats what the heart desires….For every word….came through what the heart devised and the tongue commanded…" The 'teaching' from this excerpt is that with the mind focus of One Heart – One Tongue –One Hand – the "God Creator" in each of us is a "living God". Listen to you’re your heart, give voice to the message from your heart, and ‘act’ as if the message is already manifested. This is the secret of creation. Think Well! The Future Is What Present Does!...Each moment is the beginning of a new history…. "The beginning of anything is the beginning of everything".

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

03-30-08 | 05:06 am

The History of Moments

Happenstance does not exist. Life events occur because of the confluence of planned syncronicities. This convergence of expectation is the proximate cause of the 'awareness singularity'. Awareness of the moment can only exist in the future which then results in a multiplicity of 'histories'. Each of these 'histories' is created in the future by way of the moment's awareness which then created an alternate past. The result is that You become what you are thinking because you have changed the present to alter the past. In this moment, you are the 'mind of the God-Creator'. The past becomes the present existing in the future. This focus of self-awareness results in a self-perpetuating expectatation loop. In the 'world of possibilities', "nothing creates everything". Expect 'everything' of your God-self and nothing is 'impossible' because thought 'matters'. As you 'think' so does the atomic structure of the universe 'change'. You are the 'universe'. Be creative today."""

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

03-25-08 | 02:13 am

Mind Threasure

"For where the mind is, there is the treasure". Pure Thought is Pure Energy. The beginning of anything is the beginning of everything. Each moment is a new moment of creation. Each of us possess the "mind of the creator" "As within - Without" If you think it....it is!"

Reggie

03-03-08 | 04:05 am

E=MC2

E=MC2...Expectation is the Magic that Causes Change! Thinking does 'matter' because thought IS 'matter'.

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.

01-27-08 | 01:34 am

Eye of the Universe

As you may have noticed, I have changed the background star image. This image is referred to as the "Eye of the Universe" and was taken by the VLT( Very large Telescope) in Paranal Chile. Note how the "Thin Blue Line" encompasses this galaxy which acts as the boundary force and protection for all that "matters" within." Join us as we "Connect the World, One Dot at a Time".

Reginald F. Allard, Jr.