Wolfgang Halbig v. Sandy Hook FOIA Commission Hearings – Feb. 18, 2016
PART III ~ Wolfgang Halbig v. Sandy Hook FOIA Commission Hearings ~ ‘Dash Cam Videos of 12/14/12’
HARTFORD CT– 2/18/16–FULL LENGTH VIDEO. Wolfgang Halbig, former teacher, law enforcement, and current national school safety assessment & emergency management consultant, appeared in Hartford CT for PART 3 of the FOIA hearings, the purpose of which is to acquire public access to the police Dash Cam Videos of December 14, 2012.
Docket # FIC 2015-786: Wolfgang Halbig v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
Halbig maintains that the so-called Sandy Hook CT shootings were a staged cooperative government – community “Capstone” exercise planned years before December 2012, for the purpose of banning commonly-used firearms and limiting free speech. Halbig asserts the incident was a financial bonanza for the Newtown community and involved parents, all involved parents moving into the CT community only between 2009-2011, and all receiving over $200K each for their involvement in the exercise. Halbig’s questions to Newtown are returned with silence and contempt; threat of arrest.
Many details don’t add up… record shows no report of actual shots fired; no social security numbers for the dead students; 16 state troopers pre-positioned 45-60 minutes before the alleged shootings; tax accessor’s website shows the families got free houses on Christmas day when all government offices are closed; half-a-dozen charities set up for alleged victims days before the shootings; no one sued the school or the estate of Nancy Lanza; no parent wanted to see their children in the school; closed casket funerals; no EMT’s allowed in the school; the shooter was a 112-pound weakling with a debilitating condition but shoots like Rambo….with 95% percent kill rate; crisis actors; and much more.
For more information visit: www.sandyhookjustice.com
Additional reading: Nobody Died at Sandy Hook ~ It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control, by Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek
The seeming run around tactics continue within the Hartford FOIA request hearings. The controlling commissioner seems to lean once again towards the stance of disallowing many of the requests on the part of Mr. Halbig. It is clear the commissioner carries himself with obvious repugnant contempt towards these requests, allowing all objections in favor of and by the representative and opposing council for Newtown, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services.
It becomes obvious the statements, or any other requested information, required interviews by public servants albeit State, EMS or witness testimony be exempt from such requests and therefore obscured from public prodding.
Monte Frank once again shows himself within the hearing, now in the capacity of personal representative for Lt. Vanghele of the Day Shift Administrator for Newtown Police Services and EMT Responder. He indicates he signed no statements or reports to Connecticut State Police, yet typed up a statement for their offices. He indicates the statement is on his office computer. Monte Frank objects to the request if Chief Kehoe ever asked for his statement regarding FOIA requests. Objections again on the simple document request on public records should be made available to all inquires. They continue to run around regarding any statements being given in regard to the FOIA request.
At the 48:18 minute mark once again the Commissioner continues to coach the witness to hold remarks until all is clear why the questions are being asked by council for Mr. Halbig. This coaching seems unnecessary as he is speaking to a Lieutenant who has had obvious experience in testifying in hearing to some regard. The whole of this exchange seems very congruent to coaching to hold statements. However even the Commissioner who is to sit and hear testimony begins to take sides in an objection by asking “why do you need to know that”? While an objection to the question of Kay Wilson asking Lt. Vanghele’s police experience or how long he has been an officer. (note at the 48:42 mark the commissioner begins to open mouth yawn to disregard this request of service experience as irrelevant or as if to waist his time meaninglessly. This continue charade by this commission and co-council is deplorable. Finally after realizing in a humored manner the direction of questioning the commissioner is forced to submit to over rule the initial objection regarding experience. It seems so childish to object to such a question of experience. In the end the answer is 22 years. Why object to such a disclosure in the first place, other than to hope for loss of direction on Kay Wilsons part to have her fumble. This process is so unnecessary and creates more suspicions in the public eye than conclusions or answers. I believe that is the intent not to have to answer to those who pay their wages and whom of which they are suppose to serve aka The Public.
Ms. Wilson indicates standard procedure is to compile documents and statements for such purposes of documenting events of such on 12/14/12. The officer responds yes and an objection is made and therefore right away the objection is overruled yet the opposing council continues to respond as to answer Kay Wilsons statement of “Why”? Following the objection. When opposition then explains this is a request to the State police not the current witness who is Newtown Police. (note the run around again continues – requests have been issued and ignored to witnesses in regard to statements and requests) therefore the run around and redirection continues with no resolve.
Finally the Commissioner tells opposing council to restrain himself as he is not being helpful in regard to this issue coming to some sort of conclusion. Red faced and realizing the commissioner is in a position of scrutiny by cameras I believe he may well realize it is becoming more than obvious this is out of hand at this point with these run around tactics. AT this point Kay Wilson seems to have lost train of thought in regard to the relevance of the statement being given to the State police and why it is not available from this officer to the FOIA request by Mr. Halbig. This seems to have slipped by her attention.
After reviewing this video it is in this writers opinion the red faces and obvious smiling attitudes of opposition councils, seems much to obtuse and extremely satisfactory towards this ongoing attitude of “Give the Public NOTHING” and its continued successful tactic. It sickens me these scoundrels continue their contempt of proper practices and fair and due process. Opposing council always tries to create doubt and the commissioner does notice that intent and comments on it towards opposing council. The statement being signed or not makes no difference the Lieutenant did write a statement up and it can be traced to his office computer and thumb-drive to validate he wrote it. Criminals are convicted on less in regard to computer content. The point of this might be the future ability to stand on a firm objection if his statement does become public record at some point and to allow for backtracking of events if they do not correspond to the narrative in his submitted statement, should Mr. Halbig become successful in obtaining the statement.
53:32 – When Kay Wilson calls upon the next witness Ford. She is asked why certain documents were not provided in regard to the requests. Ford begins by stating the dash-cam videos are considered evidence and is returned to those of whom own it or the destruction of such property.
—-Consider the weight of this statement. Police dash-cam footage is considered evidence in a now closed or concluded case, the property being that of the Public and requested to be held for public scrutiny has now been stated by the head of Emergency Service that it may well be destroyed or returned to owners. Is the public not the owners. Forgotten by many of these so called public representatives that they do in fact represent the public and not their brother or sisters in blue is deplorable. — At this point the commissioner is fast to stop her from continuing to disclose that destruction of such evidence may or may not have happened or could very well have already happened regardless of the requests made prior to the case being fully closed. The commissioner is very fast to stop this testimony immediately and without any objection by opposition council.
Signed witness statements from officers are considered exemption for disclosure. Basically they will not release statements by officers involved. Although statements exist by publicly paid representatives they are not going to permit their release for review. (In my opinion – Convenient isn’t it?) continue to watch at the 1 hr 1 min mark the lawyers response and facial expressions. They win again is the attitude of smirk. Its appalling to view. This is an obvious circus.
Please watch this segments yourself and listen to the full weight of the statements being made.
@ 1:01:28 watch the expressions and nod on job well done. I believe the lawyer states “Shut down” and they both nod to each other.
There were never any official reports by police in regard to this whole event is the closing conclusion of this witness. Confirmation statements were signed and submitted by Chief Kehoe, Lt. Vanghele, Vehose, Plourde and other witnesses but are closed by way of Exemptions to reveal.
In regard to the physical status of the Dash Cams, how did State Police get them. Statement through consent of Newtown police. In what form? One DVD with all dash cams on them and then different dash cams set up in regard to each officers dash cams. 3 DVD’s with Lt. Cincos dash cam – 2 DVD from Sgt. Bahamonde – 2 DVDs from Officer Chapmans, and 2 DVD’s from officer Seabrooks dash cam. = One large and 7 separate. Not in exotic formats. No one has reviewed them to her knowledge. No claim they could be edited. Some exam of them were made that is why they were broken up.
(please excuse spelling of names as they were not provided)
Are you saying they did not review the DVD’s Ford States that’s correct.
Please Review Closing Arguments @1:08:13
Thank you to Mert Melfa for providing such excellent documentation of these events for posterities sake, and allowing us to share this with others.
NOW We wait again to see what the Commission will rule in making documents public and if disclosure will indeed happen. It again appears this will not be in the publics favor based on the Commissioners statements.
If you support the information in this article PLEASE SHARE on your Social Media. It only takes a second of your time to click the provided share buttons. You show your support through your sharing.
Thanks for visiting MaxResistance please like our Facebook and subscribe to our Twitter. If you would like to keep up to date on all our articles please hit the *FOLLOW button at the bottom right of this page and keep up with all our current articles. Thank you for your support, and please share our site and information.