Single parent dating thompsonville connecticut

Rated 3.91/5 based on 534 customer reviews

Through you, Madam President Thank you very much, Madam President, and there's nothing in the bill, I know this is not directly in response to the Senator's question, but there is nothing in the bill that accords party status to the animal advocate, and moreover, I think what is occurring between Senator Fasano and I in terms of legislative intent would be sufficient to make it clear that the animal advocate does not enjoy party status either in civil or criminal court They would be limited to providing information in reports based on their independent investigation if you will of people who may be involved in connection with the animal and the circumstances regarding the animal Would the individual who volunteers for this, who submits a report, could the defendant in the civil matter call that person to the stand to testify, if they wanted to cross examine that report, could they call them to the stand and ask them to testify relative to that report?

I would gather not only because any information that this person acquired or marshalled would be within the knowledge of someone other than this person, so Madam President, through you, I would say no So, Madam President, if someone is called to testify, if someone gives a report, just like any other expert report, I certainly can ask, through you, to Senator Coleman, I could ask who else did you talk to besides the people in this report that would not be a hearsay exception that would be determining the credibility of the report in terms of its overall scope Just as I don't think that there is any authority, I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any authority for the victim's advocate to respond to any questions other than questions put to the victim's advocate perhaps by the court Madam President, as I understand the role of the victim's advocate, the victims advocate is the mouthpiece for the victim to say this is what I'm injured, here are my hospital bills, this isn't what's paid for, here's my problems that I'm having as a result of the injuries Talking to witnesses, and they're going to present this report, and I as the defendant in the civil action would not have the opportunity as I would with any other report that comes into court by putting that person on the stand and say, so who else did you talk to did you talk, why didn't you talk to the first veterinarian who saw the dog, or why didn't you, I don't know, look at the police report Whatever it is, I, under your scenario, there would be no questions for which I could bring that person, whose goal it is to investigate to the stand and giving evidence to the court, that the court could use to judge it on a civil action, I would have no right to utter one cross examination word to determine the thoroughness or lack thereof of that report that they gave to the judge that they're going to judge me I think I follow the question, and I think that you would be limited or your secretary perhaps might be limited to drawing up a subpoena and calling to court if you thought that the information in the advocate's report was relevant and you wanted to cross examine, I think your efforts at cross examination would be limited to those persons referenced in the report rather than cross examination of the advocate, him or herself So, Madam President, through you, I could be, by a subpoena, able to subpoena that volunteer/lawyer/whatever to come to court, if I wanted to, after reading the report, and put that individual on the stand and make a cross examination as to the essence of that report Also, just to be clear, so I could cross examine the person, the hearing dates that come up, because they have an appearance in the matter but they're not a party, as I understand it, is that correct, through you, Madam President?

I don't understand the math So my question to you is if there were 2000 complaints and these individuals were not protected let's say because it was an employer who had three or more, meaning they were never covered, now we're actually going to cover these individuals, and couldn't it be argued that there will be more complaints and there will be more cost to CHRO due to the lessening of the burden?Would it fall within the agency that has current jurisdiction of it or control of it or it could be both?Through you, Madam President Thank you, Madam President, and through you to Senator Coleman, do you know how many domestic violence cases that are heard in the State of Connecticut, I don't mean heard but that are documented in the State of Connecticut are attributable to a firearm?The answer back, as I understood, is that it is the duty of the marshal to present the service with or without police presence even though it was requested Now we know that a state marshal would ask for police presence if there is a perception of a highly, potentially dangerous situation or in the case of a family matter certainly tensions are high, and so that's why a state marshal would ask for an armed police officer to accompany him or her So the point is we have now the ability of the state marshal with the underlying bill, is obligated to present without or without law enforcement present, and the state marshal may determine I'm uncomfortable making the service without law enforcement accompanying me, so therefore I'm going to stick it in the door and run, and it's okay Why shouldn't we do it here?But think about the obligation of the marshal feeling uncomfortable with service without accompanied by law enforcement, how are they going to deal with the this obligation to present anyways, to serve anyways?

Leave a Reply