Man Gets Year In Prison On Gun Charge; His Attorney Asked That...

Jan 3, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Hartford Courant

A Greenwich man who had 161 unregistered firearms in his home, including 10 submachine guns, was sentenced Thursday to one year in federal prison after his lawyer invoked concerns his client could get ensnared in the anti-gun climate following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of56
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

And i might ad that people like dianne frankenstein who wants to literally go.door to door and disarm you, she has armed guards.
Flaming hypocrites.
Unamerican trash like Blumenthal need to be removed, lets begin the process of restoring the.republic.

Pierce Morgan aka british sniveling gun grabbing coward got his ass handed to him last night.

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 8, 2013
 
Voluntarist wrote:
And i might ad that people like dianne frankenstein who wants to literally go.door to door and disarm you, she has armed guards.
Flaming hypocrites.
Unamerican trash like Blumenthal need to be removed, lets begin the process of restoring the.republic.
Pierce Morgan aka british sniveling gun grabbing coward got his ass handed to him last night.
While your characterizations are spot on, we are quickly becoming a minority. We will be outvoted, no matter how right we are. Unless you know a way to get an additional 100 million 'Americans' to understand what made this country great, and why liberalism sucks, we have lost. And forget the younger generation, they are a lost cause.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 8, 2013
 
Mittens Romney was not a real candidate, liberty minded people.either have to step up and take back the republican party or start their own.

It has to be local, power starts and ends at the base.

I know people who voted for Obama because they want to get this tyranny started sooner rather than later.
Liberty is more attractive when tyranny is at its darkest moments.

I cant believe the repiblican party has such a flake like Pavia in there. What a spineless jelly fish.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 8, 2013
 
Mittens Romney was not a real candidate, liberty minded people.either have to step up and take back the republican party or start their own.
It has to be local, power starts and ends at the base.
I know people who voted for Obama because they want to get this tyranny started sooner rather than later.
Liberty is more attractive when tyranny is at its darkest moments.
I cant believe the repiblican party has such a flake like Pavia in there. What a spineless jelly fish.
I think there are 100 million gun owners.

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 8, 2013
 
I didn't see anything wrong with Mitt Romney. Any more strident than him and the press would have done nothing but attack him.

Doesn't matter if you had Barry Goldwater running. If 200 million americans are now dependent imbeciles,(and they are) you still lose.

The days of this country being a lean hard working machine are over. Ever stop at a highway rest area in New Jersey and take a good look at the 'people'? Thats the country now.
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 8, 2013
 
Citizen44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply put up a typical post, because you managed (somehow) to post without mentioning Blumenthal, the Empire State building, the Capozellos, Newtown, or Lanza's hard drive. But now I see you've lost it again. They're coming to take you away!
.......... You didn't see anything wrong with Romney? I always thought your intellect was stuck to the bottom of my shoe, thanks for the proof. Don't forget, after you read the Blumenthal link you thought he overstepped his boundry a bit. 1/4 billion$$ in no bid contracts that was hushed up? A little bit?

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 9, 2013
 
CTM wrote:
<quoted text>.......... You didn't see anything wrong with Romney? I always thought your intellect was stuck to the bottom of my shoe, thanks for the proof. Don't forget, after you read the Blumenthal link you thought he overstepped his boundry a bit. 1/4 billion$$ in no bid contracts that was hushed up? A little bit?
The article about Blumenthal was ONLY about him expanding the role of state attorney- NOT about the 1/4 billion. Thus my comment. Double your med dose- it will keep all those paranoid neurons from criss-crossing so much!

On Romney: the reality (the part you can't see) was that he was up against someone far inferior. So it was pretty obvious who to favor.
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 9, 2013
 
Citizen44 wrote:
<quoted text>
The article about Blumenthal was ONLY about him expanding the role of state attorney- NOT about the 1/4 billion. Thus my comment. Double your med dose- it will keep all those paranoid neurons from criss-crossing so much!
On Romney: the reality (the part you can't see) was that he was up against someone far inferior. So it was pretty obvious who to favor.
..........You had better learn to read, or maybe find the link I posted. Other than that, you really are on some kind of strong med. His ex law partner, David Golub of greenwich, in the inteview, said I know how it looks, regarding the 1/4 billion in no bid contracts given him. There are other attornies in the interview who said they were upset they didn't even get the chance to bid. So what is that, a three foot long turd on your nose?

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 9, 2013
 
CTM wrote:
<quoted text>..........You had better learn to read, or maybe find the link I posted. Other than that, you really are on some kind of strong med. His ex law partner, David Golub of greenwich, in the inteview, said I know how it looks, regarding the 1/4 billion in no bid contracts given him. There are other attornies in the interview who said they were upset they didn't even get the chance to bid. So what is that, a three foot long turd on your nose?
The link I read only talked about Blumenthal expanding the role of state attorney to deal with things not traditionally done by state attorney. Can you stay on one subject until its done, or do all your neurons keep firing like an autistic?
And your efforts to belittle me are going to fall flat, given your past paranoid statements about Blumenthal, the Capozellos, the Empire State building, and Lanza's hard drive. Everyone has seen your posts.
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 9, 2013
 
Citizen44 wrote:
<quoted text>
The link I read only talked about Blumenthal expanding the role of state attorney to deal with things not traditionally done by state attorney. Can you stay on one subject until its done, or do all your neurons keep firing like an autistic?
And your efforts to belittle me are going to fall flat, given your past paranoid statements about Blumenthal, the Capozellos, the Empire State building, and Lanza's hard drive. Everyone has seen your posts.
..........Yes, you should read the link I posted then, or better yet, just learn to read. Then you can read the posts that agree with me on the other posts. When are you going to tell everyone that you really are one of the inbreds from Newtown?

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 9, 2013
 
CTM wrote:
<quoted text>..........Yes, you should read the link I posted then, or better yet, just learn to read. Then you can read the posts that agree with me on the other posts. When are you going to tell everyone that you really are one of the inbreds from Newtown?
Riiiight.... I 'don't know how to read'. Think anyone is buying that, CTM?

You definitely have trouble thinking realistically. You also shoot yourself in the foot constantly, because you always shift into overheated rhetoric.

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

right, I'm an 'inbred from newtown'

You're again on the edge of your seat, spewing the David Golub chapter, YET AGAIN. Playin' you like a fiddle!!
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 9, 2013
 
Citizen44 wrote:
right, I'm an 'inbred from newtown'
You're again on the edge of your seat, spewing the David Golub chapter, YET AGAIN. Playin' you like a fiddle!!
..........You are. Here's the link again and I posted a live one prior to this, let's see if it stays. This link will not be live in this post and might have a space in it that needs to be moved over so it will work, read it and weep idiot!.........http://www.free republic.com/focus/f-news/7376 62/posts
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 9, 2013
 
And since Golub is also a common name in the upper echelon of UBS, that might explain why Blumenthal didn't persue prosecution of them on several grounds, despite several other Attornies General from several other states doing so.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 9, 2013
 
The thug should had received ten years in jail.

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

CTM wrote:
<quoted text>..........You are. Here's the link again and I posted a live one prior to this, let's see if it stays. This link will not be live in this post and might have a space in it that needs to be moved over so it will work, read it and weep idiot!.........http://www.free republic.com/focus/f-news/7376 62/posts
Holy crap, you post about Golub again??!?!?!?!? Dude, I think we got it on the 3rd time, why do you post it again???? I had just posted that you 'spewed about Golub' and you immediately post it AGAIN?

You need to be restrained before you hurt yourself. Have you been flipping out ever since 2002, the year the article was written? Did you quit your job and devote your life to this? Because it sure looks that way.

You keep saying Blumenthal STOLE 1/4billion, but he in fact paid it to a law firms which surely have legally billed for it- all of it. And note that the article does not say it all went to Golub or Golub's firm.It went to many firms, all though not enough firms, not firms which didn't have a connection to him. The only problem here is that he seemingly steered it to his buddies firms. This is not ok, but it does go on in every state. What's likely happened here is that Connecticut's elite have decided that on balance, Blummie is good. I think he is terrible- but he's not going anywhere. Got that?

YOU, CTM, say Romney was no good, but if you didn't vote for him and for republicans in Connecticut, then YOU helped keep the shameful Blumenthal situation going. I sure as hell didn't vote for this scum. If you have voted for a democrat in this state, you are in small part responsible. And I can tell you have voted for democrats. Not that republicans are perfect, they are not, but they are not the problem here.

So you can devote your entire life to this one single problem, but its not going to get fixed. You have had 10 years to see how democrats work, and to see them snicker about our favorite Vietnam vet. It is not until they are voted out, prosecuted, jailed, run out, or lynched that any of this will change. I'm quite in favor of that, but the other 90% of this state is not. He committed a clear conflict of interest, and that, my incipient friend, is VERY COMMON.
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jan 10, 2013
 
Citizen44 wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap, you post about Golub again??!?!?!?!? Dude, I think we got it on the 3rd time, why do you post it again???? I had just posted that you 'spewed about Golub' and you immediately post it AGAIN?
You need to be restrained before you hurt yourself. Have you been flipping out ever since 2002, the year the article was written? Did you quit your job and devote your life to this? Because it sure looks that way.
You keep saying Blumenthal STOLE 1/4billion, but he in fact paid it to a law firms which surely have legally billed for it- all of it. And note that the article does not say it all went to Golub or Golub's firm.It went to many firms, all though not enough firms, not firms which didn't have a connection to him. The only problem here is that he seemingly steered it to his buddies firms. This is not ok, but it does go on in every state. What's likely happened here is that Connecticut's elite have decided that on balance, Blummie is good. I think he is terrible- but he's not going anywhere. Got that?
YOU, CTM, say Romney was no good, but if you didn't vote for him and for republicans in Connecticut, then YOU helped keep the shameful Blumenthal situation going. I sure as hell didn't vote for this scum. If you have voted for a democrat in this state, you are in small part responsible. And I can tell you have voted for democrats. Not that republicans are perfect, they are not, but they are not the problem here.
So you can devote your entire life to this one single problem, but its not going to get fixed. You have had 10 years to see how democrats work, and to see them snicker about our favorite Vietnam vet. It is not until they are voted out, prosecuted, jailed, run out, or lynched that any of this will change. I'm quite in favor of that, but the other 90% of this state is not. He committed a clear conflict of interest, and that, my incipient friend, is VERY COMMON.
..........Yep, those Dems are gonna be here for a long time with the two-faced people like you helping to defend them. This instance went to his, Golubs, law firm. This link is only one of hundreds of these circumstances. Legal? You mean they did this under the premise of legality,go get an aspirin. We as taxpayers, paid for Blumenthal and company to go traipsing around the country while he paid a lot of lawyers to do the states work. In a different interview, a person from his office was quoted as saying they didn't even do states work anymore. Think, who is supposed to insure that all the contracts have gone through the three bid process? That specs are held? Our Attorney. Our, as a state, legal representative. The Attorney General. The same one that illegally dismissed the suit that was to clean up 24 dumpsites. Who benefited? The crapoziellos. Who signed and okayed the contracts that got Rowland jailed? Blumenthal. You should do some more homework before you spout more of your verbal diarrhea.

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jan 10, 2013
 
CTM wrote:
<quoted text>..........Yep, those Dems are gonna be here for a long time with the two-faced people like you helping to defend them. This instance went to his, Golubs, law firm. This link is only one of hundreds of these circumstances. Legal? You mean they did this under the premise of legality,go get an aspirin. We as taxpayers, paid for Blumenthal and company to go traipsing around the country while he paid a lot of lawyers to do the states work. In a different interview, a person from his office was quoted as saying they didn't even do states work anymore. Think, who is supposed to insure that all the contracts have gone through the three bid process? That specs are held? Our Attorney. Our, as a state, legal representative. The Attorney General. The same one that illegally dismissed the suit that was to clean up 24 dumpsites. Who benefited? The crapoziellos. Who signed and okayed the contracts that got Rowland jailed? Blumenthal. You should do some more homework before you spout more of your verbal diarrhea.
See? You can't go one second without magnifying/distorting/using rhetoric. I'm no defender of democrats! I think they are scum.
I've posted as much for 2 years on this forum. But you're angry about it that if I don't hate them as much as you, you call me a 'defender' of them. That's totally absurd. I'd like to use democrats and liberals as target practice.

Of course what blummie did is not legal. But unless there is a successful court challenge, it continues. Again, don't confuse 2 things. Blumie illegally picked his cronies law firms, but they presumably did the work and billed for it legally. THEY can't get in trouble on that, only Blummie can, for the patronism.

I don't disagree with you on the rest, I'm just amused that you go on about it like a mental patient. I think you're right about this stuff, but you can't resist becoming so shrill that you're not telling the story straight.

Example: Newton DID NOT steal 80k. He didn't. You have said he did.
He lied about $ 500, to get 15k, which qualified him for 80k.

Since: Oct 11

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jan 10, 2013
 
Citizen44 wrote:
<quoted text>
See? You can't go one second without magnifying/distorting/using rhetoric. I'm no defender of democrats! I think they are scum.
I've posted as much for 2 years on this forum. But you're angry about it that if I don't hate them as much as you, you call me a 'defender' of them. That's totally absurd. I'd like to use democrats and liberals as target practice.
Of course what blummie did is not legal. But unless there is a successful court challenge, it continues. Again, don't confuse 2 things. Blumie illegally picked his cronies law firms, but they presumably did the work and billed for it legally. THEY can't get in trouble on that, only Blummie can, for the patronism.
I don't disagree with you on the rest, I'm just amused that you go on about it like a mental patient. I think you're right about this stuff, but you can't resist becoming so shrill that you're not telling the story straight.
Example: Newton DID NOT steal 80k. He didn't. You have said he did.
He lied about $ 500, to get 15k, which qualified him for 80k.
..........Presumably? Legally? Distorted? Look up socio-pathic liar, then for the definition, look in the mirror. The first part of Golub is an early history. The second about several Golubs in UBS and the deterred prosecution, is within the last year or so. Newton ended up with $80,550.00 that he committed crimes to get, yet you are fixated on the $500.00. Trying to play down the end crime? And you claim you're not defending them.

“'never'”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

CTM1 wrote:
<quoted text>..........Presumably? Legally? Distorted? Look up socio-pathic liar, then for the definition, look in the mirror. The first part of Golub is an early history. The second about several Golubs in UBS and the deterred prosecution, is within the last year or so. Newton ended up with $80,550.00 that he committed crimes to get, yet you are fixated on the $500.00. Trying to play down the end crime? And you claim you're not defending them.
I don't need to respond to your first point, as it is just more of your overheated rhetoric, on your second point you have wandered into another subject(?), which I wasn't talking about. Your third point.... I can only tell you, CTM, I can't comprehend it for you. Newton didn't steal 80k and won't be prosecuted for that, even though of course thats what he was after. He will be prosecuted for false documentation of just $500. Did you get that?!?!? And that's not defending him. He's a dirtbag. I was trying to make you understand he's not going to do decades in jail.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of56
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••

Westport News Video

•••
•••

Westport Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Westport People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••