Firearms Ownership and Divorce

[Ted-Taupier]

@ Vrailblond : I have an agenda to raise my children and experience the rights afforded to me by the constitution - and amendments ( 1-14 atleast ), my agenda was to have a small business, send my children to private school and move on from the divorce, but because i have money the court vendors and judges want the money.

its call corruption

 

[Ted-Taupier]

There was no threat .. it was a bullet list of fact .. thats the best ... look at the documents in the attached articles ...read and you will see .. or listen to hearsay and believe your Gov is working for you ..

 

[Ted-Taupier]

Actauly.... these articles are from writers that were emailed all my documents ... then they called everyone and asked for their opinion and to answer the writers questions .. The articles in the Middletown Press and Hartford Currant never called me back ... They did not look for the fact or what was sent ... BTW they have no idea if I or someone in my home sent the email, or on what mobile device it was sent from ... look at the documents embedded on the independent web links .. read and take notes then ask questions ..

 

[RoseRed]

Actauly.... these articles are from writers that were emailed all my documents ... then they called everyone and asked for their opinion and to answer the writers questions .. The articles in the Middletown Press and Hartford Currant never called me back ... They did not look for the fact or what was sent ... BTW they have no idea if I or someone in my home sent the email, or on what mobile device it was sent from ... look at the documents embedded on the independent web links .. read and take notes then ask questions ..

How did you find this thread? Did you Google your name? Just asking...

 

[Lurk]

What exactly is that "voyeurism with mAlice" thing anyway? I always suspect voyeurs were off kilter, but I'd never believe mAlice was a problem.

 

[vraiblonde]

Ted, you must be really important if the government chose you out of over 150 million men in this country to victimize.

 

[Bann]

How did you find this thread? Did you Google your name? Just asking...

I was wondering the same thing! I didn't follow the thread when it was first posted and just found it today

 

[Bann]

Ted, you must be really important if the government chose you out of over 150 million men in this country to victimize.

Really!


... then coming on this forum (out of the whole World Wide Web) to plead his case. Odd.

 

[Hijinx]

Ted, you must be really important if the government chose you out of over 150 million men in this country to victimize.

Pretty sure Ted isn't the only one of 150 million men the government has decided to victimize.

The government also decided to victimize every Conservative organization that applied for tax exempt status.
The Government victimized a family in Texas who owned a gun store, put them in jail and destroyed their business to hide facts in the Fast & Furious scandal.

I have no idea the right or wrong of Ted's case, but I do know the Government is not beyond victimizing folks.
That goes for Federal, State, and Local Government.

 

[MMDad]

There was no threat .. it was a bullet list of fact .. thats the best ... look at the documents in the attached articles ...read and you will see .. or listen to hearsay and believe your Gov is working for you ..

http://articles.courant.com/2014-09...ses-bail-divorce-case-judge-elizabeth-bozzuto

by describing in emails where she lives and the layout of her home, and talks of his possession of firearms with high-capacity magazines.

You may see that as a list of facts, but any reasonable person understands how to read between the lines.

he had several firearms in his possession in apparent violation of a civil court order issued in April 2013 that he turn over his firearms to a third party.

Jelly also said Taupier took some of his guns back from the third party because he intended to take them to a dealer in Bridgeport and sell them in order to continue financing his divorce case. Taupier did not intend to use the firearms against the judge or anyone, Jelly said.

So you were court ordered to turn over your guns but you took them back anyway? What part of that was unclear to you?

When state police searched Taupier's Douglas Drive home on Friday, they found several guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition, prosecutors said.

If you were selling the guns why have all that ammo? If you had the guns but not the ammo maybe I could believe you were selling them, but both together, in violation of a court order, says something completely different.

Taupier's lawyer, Jefferson Jelly, said Taupier's comments in the emails — sent to other people but not directly to the judge — were not a threat, but were rants directed at no one in particular.

So describing their home did not direct your threats to the judge? Why include a description of the home at all if it wasn't about the judge?

"Bozzuto lives in … with her boys and nanny … there is 245 yrds between her master bedroom and a cemetery that provides cover and concealment," Taupier wrote in one email, according to the warrant. State police said there is a cemetery close to Bozzuto's home.

How do you not see that as threatening? Any rational person would see that as exactly what it was - a threat. Obviously someone who you sent the email to also saw it that way since they were concerned enough to take action on it.

"They can steal my kids from my cold dead bleeding cordite filled fists … as my 60 round mag falls to the floor and im dying as I change out to the next 30 rd."

Sure sounds like you retreived your guns in preparation for your final stand. If you were selling the guns you wouldn't be able to use them as you state. If you did not intend to maintain possesion of the guns you would not have stated you were willing to use them and fight to the death with them.

 

[kwillia]

http://articles.courant.com/2014-09...ses-bail-divorce-case-judge-elizabeth-bozzuto



You may see that as a list of facts, but any reasonable person understands how to read between the lines.





So you were court ordered to turn over your guns but you took them back anyway? What part of that was unclear to you?



If you were selling the guns why have all that ammo? If you had the guns but not the ammo maybe I could believe you were selling them, but both together, in violation of a court order, says something completely different.



So describing their home did not direct your threats to the judge? Why include a description of the home at all if it wasn't about the judge?



How do you not see that as threatening? Any rational person would see that as exactly what it was - a threat. Obviously someone who you sent the email to also saw it that way since they were concerned enough to take action on it.



Sure sounds like you retreived your guns in preparation for your final stand. If you were selling the guns you wouldn't be able to use them as you state. If you did not intend to maintain possesion of the guns you would not have stated you were willing to use them and fight to the death with them.

This is how I see it too...

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Something doesn't add up.

Quoting him as saying "... SWAT team rolls in and takes my guns" -- that doesn't sound like something a Wall St. "chief officer"* would say ("roll in"). And BTW, WTF is a "chief officer"? Are they trying to suggest CEO, CFO, COO? Then certainly that would be conveyed in the article. Certainly any officer of Citibank would deserve an upper-case "Chief Officer". These are things no reputable journalist with an editor worth their salt would let slide.

This is suspect enough for me to reject the whole story for now. The entire thing is suspect under these circumstances.