It has only taken almost three years, but tomorrow, I will have a day in court. I'm sending out a press release, and it reads like this:

Bridgeport, CT: On Friday, November, 6, 2009 at 2 p.m., at the federal district court in Bridgeport, judge Stephan Underhill will hear oral arguments on motions for summary judgment in Krayeske v. Hartford, the civil rights lawsuit filed by Ken Krayeske in the wake of his arrest and subsequent dismissal in 2007.

 

Krayeske is inviting persons interested in watching to attend the hearings. Krayeske filed the civil rights lawsuit against three Hartford police officers, two state cops and the city of Hartford for false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive bond and free spech violations on May 24, 2007.

 

"I've waited a long time for this day in court, and we haven't even reached the trial yet," Krayeske said.

 

Motions for summary judgment are part of the pre-trial process, and they test the factual sufficiency of a case. In writing the motions for summary judgment, the state police revealed that during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, they weren't just looking into the affairs of the Green Party, but peeking into other political activities, like those of Democratic gubernatorial candidate John DeStefano.

 

"It is beyond the pale that the state police cannot determine the difference between legitimate, constitutionally protected activities and those which pose a danger to the state," Krayeske said.

 

As it stands now, one defendant, Officer Jeffrey Antuna of the Hartford Police Department, did not even file a motion for summary judgement. So a trial will happen for at least one defendant, and perhaps more, depending upon how Underhill rules. A trial date for mid-2010 seems likely, Krayeske said.

 

The two state police officers (Sgt. Mark Cassista and Detective Pedro Rosado), the city of Hartford, and two Hartford cops (Andrew Weaver and Mack Hawkens) have filed to essentially dismiss the case brought by Krayeske. They all argue that the facts don't support his claims.

 

However, they all argue three different versions of the events.

 

There are enough opposing stories of what happened on January 3, 2007 at the inaugural parade of Gov. M. Jodi Rell as to justify a jury trial, Krayeske said.

 

"They all are trying to throw each other under the bus," Krayeske said. "Defending this lawsuit is an unfortunate waste of taxpayer dollars. Had Gov. M. Jodi Rell taken responsibility and come clean earlier in the process, the state wouldn't be wasting valuable resources shielding constitutional tortfeasors from liability."

 

Attorney Norman A. Pattis of Bethany will represent Krayeske before Judge Underhill. Underhill's clerk sent out a notice in September stating that he could rule from the bench, but Krayeske is expecting a decision to take more than 90 days to decide whether or not the defendants' arguments that the arrest were reasonable are bunk.

 

"This is a step along the way to justice," Krayeske said.

 

Attorney Stephen Sarnoski from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office is representing the two state police officers. Attorney Joseph McQuade of the Hartford law firm Kainen, Escalera and McHale is the counsel of record for Antuna, Hawkens and Weaver, while the city of Hartford's office of corporation counsel is defending the claims against the city.

 

For more information, please contact Ken Krayeske at ken_at_the40yearplan_dot_com.

A Day in Court...