Connecticut –-(Ammoland.com)- In, yet, another flimsy case, brought and prosecuted by the State of Connecticut, the State is, once again, refusing to drop charges against a Connecticut citizen because of the fact that he owns firearms.
Mr. Morgan, a long time collector of firearms, owns quite an extensive collection of firearms, including machine guns. The charges against Mr. Morgan were based on allegations of a physical altercation that had nothing to do with firearms. The entire incident was apparently so negligible that the accusers took 15 hours to report the incident to police. Despite these facts, the judge and prosecutor have made Morgan’s firearms a central aspect of the case.
The state clearly aims to make sure that Mr. Morgan loses his firearms no matter whether he beats the charges or not.
The allegations and charges against Mr. Morgan are flimsy enough, but when compounded by the fact that the trooper who arrested him has since resigned under allegations that he falsified “hundreds” of reports or criminal complaints, this case takes on a whole new light. Upon a review of former Trooper Bergeron’s reports and statements in this case, it was found that the witness statements were written by Bergeron in his own handwriting. At least one page of the statement was not even signed by the witness, lending itself to further question speculation as to whether this was in fact the witness’s statement or Bergeron’s.
The allegedly disgraceful official behavior of former Trooper Bergeron was, in fact, so serious that when it was discussed with Mr. Morgan’s legal counsel, in a court hallway, a nolle of Mr. Morgan’s charges was proposed by the State’s Attorney. Instead of the judge allowing or accepting the nolle, the judge insisted on prosecuting Mr. Morgan simply because Mr. Morgan owns firearms. The judge insisted that Mr. Morgan plead, and the judge refused to accept the State’s Attorney’s nolle offering.
“This whole case is a perfect example of perverted justice.” — Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta
“The state has made it clear that they will engage in whatever dirty tricks and disgusting behavior necessary to wage a war against the citizens of Connecticut who wish to exercise their right to bear arms.” — Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
Court documents filed on January 23rd on this issue can be found here: https://ctcarry.com/Document?
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: [email protected]
https://ctcarry.com
About Connecticut Carry:
Connecticut Carry is a non-partisan, grassroots, non-profit organization devoted to educating Connecticut to our rights in Connecticut. Visit: www.ctcarry.com
Tell the Judge to take a hike.
Never ever plead guilty if you are innocent.
Civil rights violations is what this case is.
It’s worth reading the second document at the CT Carry web site (link at the bottom of the article). It’s a bit of a slog through some legalese, but it actually justifies the judge’s ruling against nolle persequi. It’s also worth noting that the sole condition of the prosecution’s nolle offer was that Mr. Morgan would have to sell all of his firearms. While Mr. Morgan seems to be agreeable to that resolution, it still seems to be an unreasonable request – since he would not be barred from purchasing weapons in the future, the only point to the condition… Read more »
Surely this judge has to face re-election at some point. Do the good people of Conneticut have no recorse with recall?