20 votes

REVEALING: Const. Oath-Clueless Connecticut Superior Court Judge says "No One in this Country should have Guns!"

They're not even hiding it anymore:

CT Superior Court Judge: “No one in this country should have guns”

The Face of the Traitorous Scum: Judge Robert C. “Brunes” Brunetti. PHOTO: newstimes.com

By Robert Farago on September 21, 2013

We’re a bit late to this story (in Internet terms) but at least we got there. The same cannot be said for the Constitution State’s mainstream media. Here’s a press release from Connecticut Carry, Inc.: [h/t SS]

During a closed door meeting in the judge’s chambers during a case Judge Robert C. “Brunes” Brunetti exposed his bigotry for fundamental civil rights in front of at least three defense attorneys. The violation came during the case of State of Connecticut v. Bruce Worley, docket number H17B-CR13-0055722S . . .

Judge Brunetti expressed his contempt for the right to keep and bear arms, as spelled out in both the Second Amendment to the US constitution and Article 1, Section 15 of the Connecticut Constitution by stating in chambers that “No one in this country should have guns” and that he ‘never returns guns’. A judge’s role is to be impartial and to render verdicts, rulings and judgments based upon law and case law, certainly not personal opinion.

The amazing part of Judge Brunetti’s comments is that he is a sitting judge in Connecticut in 2013 after this issue has been so clearly mandated upon him by the Supreme Court of the United States on several occasions including both DC v Heller cases, McDonald v Chicago and others. Judge Brunetti has clearly decided to lead an anti-rights crusade under color of his judicial position and it must end.

** And you wonder why the American Republic is in such shambles: granted, the sheeple zombies aren't much better, but still, it seems, practically 98% of govt employees are wholly Constitutionally ignorant, or simply don't give a damn.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You think you're a judge? The umpire will decide.


You cannot win sitting on the bench. You have less than a minute. Service!

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

double

ff

Connecticut Judical Code of Conduct:

Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impar- tially.
(Effective Jan. 1, 2011.)
COMMENT: (1) To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
(2) Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.
(3) When applying and interpreting the law, a judge some- times may make good faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.
(4) It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure self-represented liti- gants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf

Cyril's picture

LOL. Utter Retardation.

LOL. As infuriating his statement is, I prefer to laugh on that one, for once.

That's what it is :

Utter Retardation.

If that judge had any credibility left, it's gone for good.

People can now officially start marching in the street to demand he be fired and banned from any and all public functions.

Not so long ago, he'd be lucky not to find himself lynched.

But hey, for now all what matters to him (and saves him) is his obedience to the present day king Obamarx.

Fine.

Guess what. Just note down his name, folks.

And keep this treasonous record preciously.

Make sure you can remember and recall both for later.

That's all.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I assume this judge took an oath to uphold and defend...

...the Constitution.

If he did, that means his statement is traitorous and he should be disbarred, de-robed and kicked out of his position immediately.

He has no case.

He is dead to rights on this issue.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

He looks like a villain

with lots of dark secrets, the kind you picture when you read a fantasy story to your kids.

Even if we could un-invent guns so the gov't couldn't have them either, that's not an improved world. What of the weak? Guns have leveled the playing field for people who can't swing swords or who don't want to live in subjugation to someone who can.

Defend Liberty!

like Cheney + Karl Rove's

love child!

xD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Well, I would agree with him

Well, I would agree with him actually - if - the government didnt have guns. haha But that idea is just hilarious.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

RECALL RECALL RECALL

LETS RECALL THIS TRAITOR IMMEDIATELY!

Mr. Brunetti... YOU'RE FIRED!

That S.O.B. Looks Like Ebenezer Scrooge

From not given pay raises to no Freaking guns..

"America is gone" ~ Ron Paul

BOOM!!

That's Badaracco, Mary E.

That's Badaracco, Mary E.

Hmmmm, looks like the judge

Hmmmm, looks like the judge has been in some hot water in the case of the missing Badarocco woman.

Link to story...

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20130624/husband-of-w...

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

"No one" thats pretty hard to

"No one"

thats pretty hard to miss-interpretate.......well, come on government.......YOU HEARD HIM, get to it......No?!....didnt think so

If the (3) defense attorneys

who were present would press formal charges against the judge (as they are after all lawyers), then we could get rid of this criminal in a black dress. Probably, not going to happen. Honor amongst thieves ya know...

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

Wouldn't his comment be

Wouldn't his comment be considered treasonous as it denies your right of protection with the 2nd amendment? ...and for this shouldn't his irresponsible comment cause him to be revoked as a sitting judge? Clearly his conflict of American values would prevent him from dispensing justice in the American way????

well... that is, IF we actually lived in a 'fair' nation where

those who actually read the Constitution and took the Oath, knew to uphold and defend it. but unfortunately, as we all know: we don't live in such nation, now, or yet .o/

Also, unfortunately, in so far as the actual definition for the crime of federal "Treason" is concerned, while it SHOULD be considered treasonous, under common law, for all and any govt worker to violate their oath and actively seek to destroy the Bill of Rights, it's not, as far as I understand (and, if it is? well, if any of y'all know the relevant statutes and/or legalese in the Federal Register, please correct me).

Which, IMHO is the root of all current UnConstitutional malaise: govt terrorists aren't gonna go after another govt terrorist who violates the Constitution.

It's almost like the La Cosa Nostra pledge: they all know that they're all complicit in each other's crimes, so as a rule of thumb they don't rat on each other for doing evil things that they all know, is wrong and evil, one that everyone is currently doing, now...

So, while this CT judge is a TRAITOROUS POS, typical of many currently in govt, unfortunately technically speaking, I'd submit that he's not "treasonous," per-se, even though he SHOULD and MUST be:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So, as it currently stands, unless we can broadly affirm and define that "levying war against them" means "violating their Constitutional Oath" and is same as "active destruction/violation of the Bill of Rights," adding to the fact that Constitution clearly stipulates somewhat broadly that "the CONgress shall have the Power to declare the punishment of Treason", as in: it's their sole delegated prerogative to define what fitting punishment should be, and when and how it will be applied, in practice, in practical terms, it actually becomes somewhat nebulous and arbitrary in actuality.

And frankly, if I had my druthers, IF we are to have an actual minarchist Constitution which contained a clause defining what "Treason" is, I'd still limit it ONLY against govt workers and those contracted to do 'govt work' who took the Constitutional Oath to uphold and defend it, and NOT against the citizenry.

That said, even under the currently aberrant and fraudulent 'judicial' system that we do still have, there's a clear legal standing to argue that ANY and ALL govt workers who took the Constitutional Oath, and violated it, is ABSOLUTELY 100% guilty of perjury.

So for those Connecticans seeking justice, I'd say provided that you actually have a DA who'd go after the charge of "perjury," you may have a chance to get the traitorous scumbag, other than simply removing him from office. But seriously though, finding a DA with that kind of integrity, in this day and age, in post-Newtown, CT, would be next to impossible, IMHO, unfortunately.o/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Duties of Lawyers and Judges in Connecticut

United States Constitution, Second Amendment
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Connecticut Constitution, Section 15
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

United States Constitution, Article VI, Section 2.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

United States Constitution, Article VI, Section 3.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Title 20 United States Code § 2382. Misprision of Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

Connecticut Practice Book
Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct
"(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed
a violation of applicable rules of judicial
conduct that raises a substantial question as to
the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate
authority."

Code of Judicial Conduct
Rule 1.1. Compliance with the Law
"A judge shall comply with the law."

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

thank you for citing the CT codes

That said, does this actually have the force of law?

Connecticut Practice Book
Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct
"(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed
a violation of applicable rules of judicial
conduct that raises a substantial question as to
the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate
authority."

Code of Judicial Conduct
Rule 1.1. Compliance with the Law
"A judge shall comply with the law."

Plus, it doesn't enumerate what the punishment will be, after a lawyer reports the said-violate judge to the "appropriate authority."

Also "Rules" to my knowledge is not a law. Though, I suppose if one were to talk in terms of the same manner in which numerous UnConstitutional alphabet agencies deem themselves worthy as to violently enforce 'laws' NOT legislated by Congress, but as "Codes/Rules/Policy" written by the agency heads AS IF they're 'laws,' I suppose it can. But in such reality, can we really expect state-actors to go after other state actors?

Also as far as the Fed. codes on "Misprison of Treason," there were plenty who should've been charged and found guilty since JFK's days. But of course, having laws in the Fed. Register is one thing, expecting govt actor to enforce it, especially vs another govt actor, is another. No?

Now, so the question is, WILL a CT DA or a Fed attorney go after him under the Fed. M of T legalese for what is essentially a personal statement of bias, no matter how disqualifying that is for a Sup. Ct. judge to literally state, in point of fact, that he does not believe in his oath, and in fact, has perjured himself?

Now, even assuming we actually have Constitutionally adherent reps in govt, unfortunately, the federal crime of "treason" does NOT confer violating their Const. Oaths. To my knowledge, that would only technically qualify as "perjury." (even though if I had my druthers, violating their Const. oaths would 100% make them guilty of treason)

Constitution clearly enumerates that only "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" qualify as "Treason."

Now one may argue (and ideally, I'd wholly agree) that, violating their own oath, IS "levying war against them."

But realistically, whom, what govt employee is gonna go after another govt employee thinking that speaking one's personal bias against 2A (however guilty those who believe in the sanctity of the Constitution may want to enforce) is itself Treason?

I think for actual enforcement, due process, and punishment vs. these judges to happen, one would have to believe that in the post-Newtown, CT, the now abundantly anti-Gun CT state govt would indeed be willing to charge 'one of their own' with treason, and the definition for Treason would in fact include violation of their Oaths.

If I had my druthers, I'd absolutely would want that degenerate Judge indicted/charged/arrested/punished. But not sure, in the current legal climate, especially in Connecticut...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I'm guessing you must derive no end of entertainment

from legal theories propounded on these boards.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Depends on the definition of what "one" is

One, as in one group, one entity, one authority, one individual

So to rephrase the comment, No one in this country should have guns, everyone in this country should have guns.

LOL Meet

your kindred spirit: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3203277

well, considering the fact that the above CT Sup.Ct.judge made that comment in context of a particular court docket with single defendant, I'd say "one" is...just that: one, as in a single individual.

So...the Clintonite definition of what "is" is, eh?

LOL.

Guess 'tis the season for definitional scrutiny xD

By the way, I have no problem with this:

...everyone in this country should have guns.

Because, everyone SHOULD.

Including all the baddies, and those whom the hoplophobe statists would love to label "insane" or "mentally unfit."

Yup. I said it.

Hell, the REAL crazies are the controlfreak hoplophobes in govt and in collectivist statist 'thinktanks' who fuel them: the ones who make decades long plans to kill, lie an entire nation into multiple illegal, UnConstitutional wars, fund terrorists, launder 'money' for them, arm them, and worst of all: got their degenerate little fingers on a few buttons/keys that can launch nukes that will 100% destroy this glorious planet, as we know it.

So, to me, the whole 'mental screening' that the hoplophobes constantly call for, is utterly moot: whoTF decides who's crazy, especially when those adjudicating such arbitrary classification ARE in fact, crazy, empirically speaking, judging by their actual actions.

So, indeed: "EVERYONE in this country should have guns."

.D

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

No thanks!

His opinion and othes like his are not welcomed, and only has effect if we surrender/submit (as in refuse to fight against it).

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson