UPDATE 02.23.11: McGowan's case has been continued for April 8th as Judge James Ginocchi was unavailable today.
An anti-immigrant activist, co-founder of Greater Danbury's infamous hate group, and former mayoral candidate is scheduled to appear in state superior court in Litchfield tomorrow morning to face a first degree sexual assault charge.
John McGowan is no stranger to readers on this site as well as those in Danbury who had to endure his racist antics towards immigrants the area. For those new to the site, here's a brief flashback of McGowan's more interesting moments:
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.
...the police report’s write-up on the incident is more graphic.
…he [McGowan] pushed his penis into her anus. When he did this, Victim stated that she asked "What are you doing" and "Stop." Victim states that she arched her back as she initially struggled to to get him out of her. When she did this, McGowan put his right arm around her neck and put her in a headlock.
The case has gained quite a bit of attention not only because of the charges agaisnt McGowan, but also for the anti-immigrant activist's bizarre behavior in court.
Each time McGowan appeared in the case, he claimed the court did not have “jurisdiction” over him “as a natural man.” McGowan’s insistence in his “personal sovereignty” prompted Judge James Ginocchio to order a competency evaluation in September.
[...]
McGowan argued the court should dismiss the state’s case against him because it had no jurisdiction over him, but Assistant State’s Attorney Dawn Gallo argued McGowan’s claims were based on civil and federal law, not criminal law. Ginocchio agreed and denied McGowan’s motion.
Recognized as one top 10 crimes of 2009 by the Danbury News-Times, as well as highlighted several hate-group monitoring organization such as The the Southern Poverty Law Center, McGowan's case is scheduled to move towards to the jury selection phase, but given his bizarre antics in court to date, anything can happen.
Thus far, McGowan's laughable use of pseudolaw as a defense has not been a factor in the case, for the exception of slowing the pace of the trial. Hopefully, this situation will move forward towards a resolution sooner than later.
According to the CT Defense Lawyer website, a charge of first degree sexual assault is a CLASS B felony. If found guilty, the local bigot could be sentenced to 1 to 20 years in prison and fined up to 15,000 dollars.
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.