So I had court today and the states attorney had a tear in his eye when he realized he was going to lose to a kid who had been locked up five months prior for being told by a Yale Medical students Kevin Truebloods lies told to Judge Rubinow who executed the hopefull killer blow to bankrupt me. Seems the choice of sucking dick is a great way to go places in New Haven and Meridan these days. Thats right locked but for thanksgiving and christmas yet again by corrupt judges. (They make up charges in my state if they get payed enough.) Cora Ciara is a thriefing rat with influence. (used to be a friend, or or I thought) The judge was not pleased with the prosecuters Degarding the other person routine and politely took my memorandum of law and asked me to come back in two weeks. It is about 50 pages long and well here is the summary.
Summary
Connecticut state law consists of general statutes which protect the rights of the citizens of this state. Volume 13 of the of the general statutes, being particular to; sec. 52-146c, sec. 52-146d, 52-146e, and sec. 52-146f protect a citizens privacy in regards to health care information. Officers of law in the state of Connecticut should know the law and uphold it. When the Mental Health authority called the police and gave even my name without reporting a crime they were in violation of state law. The officers should have protected my rights and told the Mental Health authority that it is illegal to give any information out unless reporting a criminal action. I was not even under the care of the mental health authority at the time of the phone call.
Federal laws have also been passed in order to protect a citizens privacy in this great country. The HIPPA laws, being particular to, part 164, subpart E, :§ 164.512 make it illegal for a present or past health care provider to furnish any information of a client with out the clients consent. My consent was not given to release even my name to anyone, anywhere, at any time. Once again my rights were not protected. In contrast to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution my rights were deprived regarding life, liberty, and property, without due process of the law. I was denied the equal protection of these laws.
My privacy regarding, also my private property, was intruded upon as no warrant was granted allowing the officers to come on my property in the first place being unwelcome and uninvited. I asked them to leave as stated in the police report prior to any mention of smelling burnt cannabis over the three Italian restaurants who were exhausting scents from their kitchens at the time of the visit. No smell of burnt cannabis was detected on my breath when talking to the officers and I live alone. The yard was filled with scents of Italian cooking and I had just sprayed polyurethane on my mosaic tiles located on the first floor. A fire was going to rid the house of humidity to aid in the drying process of the polyurethane, meaning air would be getting sucked into the house if a door was to open do to the simple physics of neutralizing pressure.
In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the Supreme Court applied the "good faith" rule to the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ??good faith? rule states that, if an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepares an affidavit forming the basis of the warrant, the evidence seized pursuant to that warrant will be excluded. On both officers police reports it is stated that I entered and existed the house once which was the case. On the warrant application the officer dishonestly and recklessly states that I, Christopher Seekins entered and exited the house on three occasions when in fact it was only once. By submitting a false affidavit, Officer Fox did not act "in good faith." The search was thus improper, and whatever it turned up is inadmissible as evidence in accordance with the United States Constitution.
Page 33
The search warrant that was issued does not coincide with the Federal rules governing criminal procedure. Rule 41 subsection E, particular to section 2a, deems a warrant must specify a time to be carried out not to exceed 10 days. The warrant under the section designated for the specified time and date to be placed was left empty thus violating the Federal rules set in place to govern criminal procedures.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher Farwell Seekins
April 6, 2006
