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.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
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.
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.
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.
