City police arrested four suspects Tuesday morning for an alleged bias attack on two Mexican men last month that a witness videotaped on his iPhone.

Police said the four suspects, three of them brothers from Bethel and the fourth, a Danbury resident who cleans the city police station, shouted racial slurs as they beat and robbed the victims in a Balmforth Avenue parking lot in the early morning hours of Oct. 10.

SUMMARY

Connecticut has a number of statutes on hate crimes that protect a range of people, enhance penalties for bias crimes, and allow an injured person to sue for money damages. The primary criminal statutes are the intimidation based on bigotry or bias crimes. These statutes provide three degrees of penalties. They address certain actions that intimidate or harass another person because of his actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

[...]

Second-Degree

A person commits the second degree crime if he acts maliciously and intends to intimidate or harass someone because of his actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression by:

1. making physical contact with the victim;

2. damaging, destroying, or defacing property; or

3. threatening to do either of these things and the victim has reasonable cause to believe he will carry out the threat.

This is a class D felony, punishable by one to five years in prison, a fine of up to $ 5,000, or both (CGS § 53a-181k).

City police arrested four suspects Tuesday morning for an alleged bias attack on two Mexican men last month that a witness videotaped on his iPhone.

Police said the four suspects, three of them brothers from Bethel and the fourth, a Danbury resident who cleans the city police station, shouted racial slurs as they beat and robbed the victims in a Balmforth Avenue parking lot in the early morning hours of Oct. 10.

The assault was filmed by a resident of a nearby apartment building, who also recited the license plate of the suspects' car into the phone as they drove away, police said.

Johnny Alicea-Cintron of 23 Woodside Ave., Danbury; and brothers Richard Dinh, 18; Truong Jason Dinh, 22; and John Dinh, 22, all of Knollwood Drive, Bethel, were taken into custody Tuesday morning and charged with two counts of attempted robbery, first-degree assault, conspiracy, and intimidation based on race.

The three Dinh brothers are Asian, and Alicea-Cintron, who works for the company that cleans the police station, is Puerto Rican, police said.

Police said the four "planned and discussed the attack" in advance, "creating the conspiracy."

The victims, both 32, suffered head injuries that included a concussion and a damaged eye socket. One of them would have been run over if the other hadn't dragged him out of the way as the attackers drove off, police said.

The witness, who lives in a second-floor apartment overlooking the parking lot, told police he was watching television shortly after 2 a.m. when he was startled by screams from outside the apartment. He looked out the window and saw four men "punching and kicking the victims."

The witness yelled at the attackers, warning that he was taping them and they would be arrested, but they continued to beat the two men. Then one of the attackers went through one of the victim's pockets, police said.

[...]

Police traced the vehicle to Alicea-Cintron's mother. Alicea-Cintron told investigators that one of the victims had been hassling him and his three friends in an Ives Street bar earlier in the evening, and when he stopped his car to relieve himself in the Balmforth Avenue parking lot, the same man showed up and took a swing at him.

The two victims had been out drinking before the attack. They said after leaving the last bar they were surrounded by a group of men who yelled at them and began beating them.

In response to Chairman Healy's call for Senator Caligiuri to enter the Fifth Congressional district race, Caligiuri made the following statement:

"I want to thank Chairman Healy for his kind words and encouragement of my potential candidacy in the Fifth Congressional District. Over the last several days I have been exploring this option with Chairman Healy and other leaders in the party who have reached out to me in support of this move. My goal has always been to best serve the people of Connecticut by reviving our economy, reforming government, and restoring fiscal responsibility. Over the coming days, I will make a decision on how I can best continue to fight for those principles and serve the people of Connecticut."

The situation in New York's 23rd congressional district showed us what happens when party insiders play favorites,'' said Bernier, referring to the recent disaster in New York when conservatives forced a moderate candidate off the ticket. "I am confident that the Republicans in the Fifth District of Connecticut will make the right decision in this nomination process,'' said Bernier, a war veteran and former legislative aide to former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons.

"Over the past seven months I have travelled western Connecticut and I am honored by the support and many endorsements we have received. My only goal remains to represent the people of the Fifth Congressional District in Congress, and I am 100 percent committed to seeking my party's nomination for this responsibility.

• The land is currently owned by the infamous BRT Development


• The plan is to build 4 THREE FAMILY townhouses on the land. Yes, you read it correctly, 4 THREE family townhouses.


• The land is marked as a R-3: ZONE LOW-DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.


• Residential property development consisting on three or less family multi-family homes does not have to come before the planning and zoning commission.

In the 13-page affidavit, the woman describes a variety of sexual encounters to which she consented, but she claimed that on Oct. 20, 2008, after attending a meeting at McGowan's church, he assaulted her anally at a house he was building on Juniper Road in New Milford.

The woman told police she said, "What are you doing?" and "Stop," but McGowan instead "put his right arm around her neck and put her in a headlock," according to the affidavit.

After speaking with counselors at the women's shelter in Danbury, the victim went to New Milford Hospital on Oct. 22 and hospital personnel called police, according to the affidavit.

• he would be representing himself,


• if he was aware of the charge against him,


• if he would be representing himself, that he would have to follow the rule of law and CT general statues


• he understood that he had the option of hiring an attorney yet it is not his intention to seek legal counsel


• understood what the prosecution had to prove in this case


• he’s undergoing any mental health issues or seeing a doctor for any mental health issues

Motion 1:
During the time in which Dawn Gallo walked away into the jury box, Judge James Ginocchio was acting as the prosecution.

Motion to dismiss

Motion 2:
I turned myself in and was not immediately brought to a magistrate with jurisdiction, but instead was set to Bantam Court on a different day and then set to Litchfield court on a different day

Motion to dismiss

Motion 3:
Prosecutor Dawn Gallo walked away during the 1st proceeding stating, "I don't want any part of this" and proceeded to walk to the juror box.

Then conspired with the judge to deny me my sue process by sending me to a psychiatric examination during a time I had to be in court in violation of 18 USC 241 & 242.

Motion to dismiss


Motion 4:
Court clerk hasn't provided to me certified copies of case file required.

Motion to dismiss

Motion 5:
Judge has asked me to set a psychiatric evaluation. I request that you provide me documented evidence that shows you have the authority to order a secured party creditor to do so.

It is not under the jurisdiction of this court, or the jurisdiction of the United States Corporation. Documents have already been provided for you that I am not a citizen of your corporation or under your jurisdiction.

I do not refuse this evaluation. I do require that you give me proof I request before I submit to it. I do not believe you have the authority to order this evaluation and I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.

Any attempt to force me against my will is denial of due process, obstruction of justice, fraud, and racketeering, by the office of the court.