<xmp> <body> </xmp>

THE CASE AGAINST JOHN McGOWAN DAY EIGHT: The seven trillion dollar man

Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Time: 11:57 AM

When it comes to strange things, just when you think you've seen it all, John McGowan (a.k.a. Mr. Pseudolaw) takes irrational behavior to a whole new level.

Litchfield Register Citizen Ronald DeRosa has the hilarious details regarding the latest chain of events in this bizarre case.
A Bethel man slated to defend himself in his own sexual assault trial is seeking in excess of $7 trillion from Litchfield Superior Court alleging libel.

John J. McGowan, also written John-Joseph:McGowan III, claims the court system has been libelous against him for carrying on his criminal case in public. He claimed he is owed over $7.4 trillion from the court system, which must be paid “in admiralty,” which is the law of the sea, through a “commercial process.”

Facing 20-years if found guilty, McGowan is slated to go to trial beginning Aug. 13 at the Litchfield court where he will have to personally convince a jury of his peers that he did not turn a 2008 consensual sex encounter into rape.

McGowan has not sought an attorney and has maintained he wants to go pro se on his case.

Assistant State’s Attorney Dawn Gallo argued there was no legal basis for his $7 trillion libel claim. Judge James P. Ginocchio agreed, saying Gallo is a prosecutor for the state whose job is to deal with criminal cases like McGowan’s.

Gallo noted that McGowan attempted to file the claim in a criminal procedure on civil court paperwork.

“There is no basis in which he can address that claim,” she said.

Wait, it gets better...
On Tuesday he filed another motion against Gallo, claiming the prosecutor did not give him a witness list within adequate time of his request for one in November.

Gallo, who then handed over the list, reminded McGowan it is procedural that the witness list must not be submitted until the day of jury selection.

McGowan, however, maintained the list is invalid because the motion he made was not answered in time.

“Therefore, the witnesses on their list should not be called,” McGowan said.

Gallo argued the state has provided “voluminous discovery,” meaning evidence and reports related to his case, in the past few months.

McGowan’s motion to exclude the witness list was a matter of him not understanding the practices of the court, Gallo said.

“If Mr. McGowan had a lawyer, his lawyer would be able to explain that,” the prosecutor said.

Gallo also argued further on the witness list, stating McGowan did obtain a copy already.

How did she know that? Because when she got a request to deny the witness list from McGowan, it listed each of the witnesses she previously wrote on the list, Gallo said.

“There’s no form in which he can address that claim,” Gallo said. “It’s improbable on its face.”

McGowan has previously tried to maintain his own personal sovereignty in court.

He reiterated this on Tuesday, when he initially refused to cross the bar that blocks off the audience section from the court itself.

“I enter strictly under threat, duress and coercion and at no way do I leave my inalienable rights I expressly reserve them,” McGowan said.

Judge Ginocchio eventually convinced him that he had to come forward because being behind the bar — and 20 feet from the microphone — does not affect his rights.

In anyone wants a ring side seat to this show, McGowan's next court date is on June 11th.

UPDATE: Just got word that McGowan's next scheduled court appearance has been changed to Jul 7 at 9:30 A.M.


posted by ctblogger at 11:57 AM | Permalink|


Add a comment

© 2017 Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.


Lowest Gas Prices in Danbury
Danbury Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

make money online blogger templates

Danbury City Charter
Danbury Code of Ordinances
Robert's Rules of Order


Danbury 2005 election results
Danbury 2007 election results
Danbury 2009 election results
Danbury 2011 election results
Danbury 2013 election results
Danbury 2015 election results
City of Danbury calendar

The Mercurial
Danbury News Times
Danbury Patch
Danbury Daily Voice
Tribuna Newspaper
Danbury El Canillita
(Spanish edition)

Danbury El Canillita
(English translation)

Comunidade News
(Portuguese edition)

Comunidade News
(English translation)

On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.

The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.

Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.

Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.



Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants v.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security
3:06-cv-01992-RNC ( D. Conn. )

(02.25.08) Court docket

(10.24.07) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order

(09.26.07) Press Release

(12.14.06) Complaint

Barrera v. Boughton, No. 07-01436
(D. Conn. filed Sept. 26, 2007)

(02.25.08) Court Docket

Amended complaint

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint

NEW HAVEN REGISTER: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed Danbury mayor testifies

(10.05.07 (VIDEO) Boughton mislead the public about Danbury's involvement in raid

(09.18.07) Yale Law Students expose Danbury involvement in raid

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Interview with Yale Law Students at FOI presser

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 FOI complaint media roundup

City Clerk Jean Natale standing next to skinhead sparks outrage

(10.03.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 rally

(09.29.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 case deepens

Word of raid spread across the country

(09/29/06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 protest news conference

(09/29/06) Immigrant newspaper "El Canillita" gives best account of ICE day labor raid at Kennedy Park


Dunkin Donuts logo