Attention all connecticut residents...animal protest planned UPDATE 7/22!!!!
A man is being held on 10,000 bond for stabbing his 8 month old bulldog (possibl piti). State of CT vs. Bernard is due in New Haven Superior Court on June 8th. I'm sure it'll be continued. They ALWAYS continue these types of cases. But I plan on being out there in full view to let these @$$hats to let them know that animal cruelty has got to STOP!!!
Anyone interested in being there, please PM me.
Correct court information...
Meriden Superior Court, GA #7, 10 a.m. 54 West Main Street, Meriden, CT Courtroom #2, Scarpellino, J.
State of CT vs. Alexander Bernard
The more, the merrier.
Story covered by the media...You HAVE to read this
I was interviewed by the New Haven Register yesterday. I told the reporter (off the record, of course) to google my name and she'll see what I'm all about when it comes to this kind of $hit and how serious I am.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2011/...7275436688.txt
Notes outlining the court appearance...things are DEFINITELY changing!!!
Steve Alexander, from Examiner.com sent me an email with his notes that he took while listening to the court proceedings of Alexander Bernard, stabber of Princess. Read on:
Notes from courtroom appearance:
Judge Phillip Scarpellino presided, Same Public Defender as last time, identified previously as Thomas Conroy. Routine cases dispensed with and first defendant called from lock-up at 10:50am was Alexander Bernard (wearing same clothes – horizontal striped hoodie, jeans) as last appearance. Bernard was silent at this appearance, his attorney and Judge Scarpellino the only speakers during the proceeding, prosecutor was silent and not called upon by the judge.
Scarpellino began speaking from the bench about a letter he had received previously pertaining to the case. Judge spoke extensively on this letter. Letter written by a State Legislator (not named by the judge) and signed by 23 others, including the districts they represent. Scarpellino repeatedly mentioned that the signers of the letter indicated their district (expressing his feeling that indicating their districts was an attempt at intimidation) and seemed focused on this matter. The judge said it was sent and signed by the 23 members of the General Assembly of CT and dated 6/2/11 and received by him 6/9/11. Scarpellino continued to say that he had called the judicial office of External Affairs in Hartford, and reported to Judge Barbara Quinn on the letter. He said he “just wanted to make Hartford aware of the situation” and that he didn’t feel it necessary to remove himself from the case, unless ‘the attorneys’ felt it necessary.
Although such a letter might alter his view of the defendant’s case in a negative way Scarpellino suggested, he was not affected by this letter and felt qualified to continue on the case. Direct quote: “I’m not worried about the legislature reappointing me.” He clarified this comment by saying that Judges are appointed by the legislature every 8 years and he has 7 left before he is subject to reappointment. Scarpellino emphasized repeatedly that the letter was inappropriate, however would not alter his views on the dispensation of the case. He had particular displeasure that the signers would indicate their districts. He described the letter as having 3 paragraphs. The first cited ‘academic studies’ of incidences of cruelty and FBI stats. He quoted from the next portion of the letter, this is as close to verbatim as I could get: “The shear violence of his attack is enormously worrisome and the fact that the court doesn’t take this seriously” was a concern to the legislators. Scarpellino expressed dismay that the letter writer assumed Mr. Bernard’s guilt and dismay at the Legislature intervening at all in Judiciary proceedings, whether unofficially or officially. He offered the opinion that recent legislation passed by the General Assembly rendered the Connecticut Judiciary a ‘department’ and not a ‘branch’ of government any longer, and expressed his anger at such legislative modifications. He spoke at length about the politics of the legislature and the judiciary.
He introduced the letter as “Exhibit A” in the case, and said that it is now ‘in the file.’ He indicated that he felt himself still qualified to handle the case but offered to disqualify himself if ‘the lawyers’ requested it. He spoke of his personal ‘transparency’ and of how courtrooms in general are more transparent, with cameras allowed in courtrooms and such. He said he revealed the existence of the letter to the defendant and his defender before the appearance that day, and met with the State’s Attorney assigned to the case and with the defendant’s attorney.
Scarpellino said ‘he took all his vacation time all at once’ and that he would not be back until late August, and continued the case until Mr. Bernard’s next appearance on August 29th. Bernard’s attorney then spoke up and indicated that he would accept this date. Scarpellino and the defender spoke about Bernard’s ruling as competent to stand trial in late June following a competency determination by the state. The judge offered the explanation of the difference between having the ability to understand the charges against oneself, as opposed to having the ability to assist ones’ attorney(s) in one’s own defense and ordered a second competency determination.
No mention was made of Bernard’s refusal to allow his attorney to speak on his behalf at his appearance July 12th and his request for a new attorney and the original purpose of the continuance until July 22nd which was to allow Bernard time to find alternate legal representation. It was also revealed that bond was set at $10,000 and Bernard jailed on June 27th due to his removal of an electronic tracking ankle bracelet required by the conditions of his original release upon his arrest.
After court, Donna Ploss and Patty Daponte, two activists who have attended Bernard’s Meriden court appearance in protest of animal cruelty and of the judicial treatment of such cases and Bernard’s offenses in particular, and I went to North Haven Animal Hospital and visited with the victim of the stabbing, Princess the Staffordshire Terrier mix, and met briefly with attending veterinarian Dr. James Wells. Princess appeared healthy, hair beginning to grow back on her left side where major surgery was required, a bit shy and somewhat suspicious, but she warmed up to her visitors and enjoyed our attention and affection. The staff was delighted by our visit, and Princess clearly has a high level of trust with the staff. We visited with her for 15 minutes or so, and Dr. Wells requested that we remain a few minutes, from surgery, so he could greet us personally and tell us of Princess’ status, which is very good medically. We informed him of the latest goings on in court that morning.
