Judge Cesar Noble of the Hartford Superior Court was born a poor dumb Cuban who fled from the evil Dictator Castro, only to become a domestic terrorist as a judge in Connecticut. The whacked out jewdiciary is hunting free speech again! Judge-less-than-Noble entertains the whining of a local cop to pursue speakers of free speech, being the Castro he loves!!
The attack on the First Amendment is brought by the thin skinned, ball-less, sexually inadequate, pedophile like, donut whore of the thin blue line in Hartford PD, Lt. Vincient G. Benvenuto, a thug. Vinnie does not like the internet, Vinnie does not like free speech, Vinnie does not like blogs, Vinnie does not like Kevin Brookman, author of a Hartford focused blog called ‘We the people – Hartford’ , and nobody cares what Vinnie does not like. Vinnie does not have a man card, instead he hires an idiot lawyer to file suit against Kevin d’Blogger to hunt people who anonymously post comments that Vinnie does not like. Vinnie calls it ‘defamation’, the rest of us call it freedom of expression. Fuck off Vinnie, this is ‘murika!
The matter of Vinnie’s hurt feelings would not be bloglicious except for the fact that this dumb Cuban in a black robe, Judge Cesar Noble, self-appointed, DIKTATER is entertaining Vinnie’s pathetic whining about opinions expressed about him on a blog focused on the corruption in Hartford. Death always be unto tyrants! Vinnie’s idiot lawyer, Patrick Tomasiewicz, a loser in his own right, filed a frivolous and meritless suit on behalf of Vinnie against Kevin d’Blogger seeking IP addresses of the anonymous commentary who Vinnie suspects are fellow cops who don’t like Vinnie. Starting to sound like elementary school behavior? Attorney Tomashitz is going after the Blogger because the host, GOOGLE, already told Vinnie to fuck off. Vinnie claims he suffers from ‘defamation’ and he is entitled to relief from public criticism by hunting anonymous commentators, finding them, and making them pay! Vinnie has ‘probable cause’ that his fellow cops are exercising freedom of expression. Oi vey, only a jew could applaud such misuse of the court. If it is criminal conduct by fellow thugs of the thin blue line, surely HPD Internal Affairs is hunting the offending brothers who betray the blue code of silence?
Vinnie notes that google hosts the blog, but their lawyers told Vinnie to shove it and would not provide the IP data from the server. Google has brains, Vinnie and Judge less-than-Noble do not. Judge Noble wants Kevin d’Blogger to surrender this laptop and cell phone as a fishing expedition looking for IP addresses of the hunted. First and Fourth Amendment shredded by another ‘spic misfit in a black robe, following the orders of his jewish masters.
Vinnie’s pleadings are comical, he suffers harm when the public is made aware his shirt is wrinkled and that he chugs coffee with donuts. Read the complaint here and a most twisted brief here, followed by a ridiculous decision by Judge Noble here. The jews and their muscle will hunt prisoners of gulag Connecticut for threats to their power by suspending the Bill of Rights on tyrannical orders from dumb ‘spics in black robes, but thankfully the misbehavior is contained within the borders of the State.
Seizing computers and executing search warrants seeking free speech have failed the jewdicial mafia before; Judge Noble did not get the memo.
Here is Hartford Courant editorial on the domestic terrorism of Lt. NutJob by going after free speech:
A Hartford police lieutenant, apparently dissatisfied with some comments about him on a local blogger’s website, has sued the blogger — an unprofessional move that the courts should be quick to reject. Lt. Vincent Benvenuto wants Kevin Brookman to disclose the identities of people who made anonymous comments on his blog, We The People Hartford. The problem is that Mr. Benvenuto has little legal footing for his complaint, and the lawsuit smells more like a threat — to Mr. Brookman, and to those who would post on his site — than a legitimate prayer for relief. The lawsuit cites a list of alleged violations of Hartford Police Department policies, not violations of the law. Police officers “who post defamatory information in violation of the social media policy may be subject to civil litigation,” the lawsuit reads. It adds that department rules prohibit officers from “posting speech on social media that involves themselves or other department personnel reflecting behavior that would reasonably be considered reckless or irresponsible.” But the state courts are not charged with adjudicating alleged violations of police department policies. That’s a job for the police department. More important, Mr. Brookman is a journalist. He has run his blog for years and often posts on issues of wide public interest, especially regarding Hartford’s police and fire departments. As such, he is clearly protected by the state shield law, which protects the news media from being compelled to disclose information. Further, the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which Mr. Brookman’s attorney Robert K. Killian Jr. cites in his response to the lawsuit, protects people who run websites from being sued for comments that other people post. It wouldn’t seem like this lawsuit has much of a chance. But why, then, did he file it? Mr. Benvenuto’s attorney, Patrick Tomasciewicz, told The Courant’s David Owens that the goal of the lawsuit is to ferret out the identities of the people who posted what he believes are “disparaging and defamatory comments.” If it works, lawsuits against those commenters could follow, Mr. Tomasciewicz said. Legal action should not be used to scare commenters from exercising their First Amendment rights, or in an effort to muzzle a media outlet that an individual disagrees with. It’s a waste of legal resources and an affront to the principles of free speech. It’s true that anonymous comments are the bane of the internet. Few have any redeeming value, and one wanders into the comments sections at their own peril. (The Courant no longer uses on-site commenting). But opinions are protected speech, and we all have wide latitude to criticize public officials — including police. If the lawsuit is an effort to rattle the media, Mr. Benevenuto should drop it. His better course of action is to shrug it off. In the lawsuit, he claimed that he “has experienced significant injury to his personal and professional reputation.” But criticism is part-and-parcel of holding a supervisory position in a public agency. Threatening his critics in an attempt to silence them is bound to have the opposite effect. This internet dust-up shouldn’t be dragged into court.
