HereisaPRIMEexampleofthelawlessnessintheCTsuperiorcourtsand

specificallywithspecificJudgesbehaviorinCT.JudgeDavidGoldof
MiddletownGA09
1. (seeattached)ThisisthestatesdefenseresponsetotheJudgesacknowledgment
andmyattorneysresponsetotheillegalProtectiveOrdertheJudgeandthestate
assignedtomycase.ThestateofCTissuedanillegalcriminalprotectiveorderon
myperson.
2. FirstandforemostthiswasanillegalorderissuedbyJudgeGoldonthe4
th
of
Septemberillegalandaclearviolationofstatelawandjudicialcannon!
a. Thisisandwasthestatesattempttojustifytheirillegaland
unconstitutionalwaronaTAXPAYINGcitizensofthestateofCT
b. TheJudgeandtheProsecutingAttorney(BrendaHans)alsostrippedthe
civillibertiesandthelibertyinterestofmyfamilywithouttheirknowledge
andwithoutrepresentationorahearing.
c. BrendaandTanyaTaupierTanyaPackardcontinuetopreventthechildren
fromhavingaccesstotheirfatherandcontinuallyexposetheundiagnosed
mentalillnessTanyahas.
3. Violationofjudicialcannon:
o CANON1:AJUDGESHOULDUPHOLDTHEINTEGRITYAND
INDEPENDENCEOFTHEJUDICIARY
o CANON2:AJUDGESHOULDAVOIDIMPROPRIETYANDTHEAPPEARANCE
OFIMPROPRIETYINALLACTIVITIES
o CANON3:AJUDGESHOULDPERFORMTHEDUTIESOFTHEOFFICE
FAIRLY,IMPARTIALLYANDDILIGENTLY
o CANON4:AJUDGEMAYENGAGEINEXTRAJUDICIALACTIVITIESTHAT
ARECONSISTENTWITHTHEOBLIGATIONSOFJUDICIALOFFICE
o CANON5:AJUDGESHOULDREFRAINFROMPOLITICALACTIVITY(THSIS
BROKENBECAUSEALLJUDGESAREAPPOINTEDTHROUGHAPOLITICAL
LOBINGPROCESS)
4. Second:GoldJknewitwasillegalanddiditanywayandwiththehelpof
BrendaHansasacorruptPAthecourtneverservedmewithanythingsotheact
ofissuingtheFPOagainstmewasnotdoneinajudicialprocesssanctionedbythe
state.BrendaisamemberoftheCTBAR.
5. MYchildrenarenowreported(byAFCCcertlifelongmemberNancyEiswirth)
ashavingandbeingincrisisduetotheillegalactionofkidnappingandtrafficking
oftheirpersonswiththeCromwellpolicedepartmentThisactofillegalaction
wassanctionedbyJudgeBozzutoandfamilycourt,itwasorchestratedby
Geraldine(Geri)FicarraandTanyaTaupierofAetna
INCLOSING
Foranyoneoncopywhothinkstheygetupeverydayandyoudotherightthing,
unlessyouAREfightingtyrannythatisnowrunningthisstate,youarewastingallthe
constituentsofCTstime.
TokeepquotingTHISISNOTAMERICA,WHENJUDGESRUNTHEIRCOURTSLIKEA3
RINGCIRCUSES,THISGOESAGAINSTEVERYTHINGOURSOLDIERSFIGHTANDDIEFOR
FREEDOM,BUTWHYARETHEYACTINGLIKETHISINOURCOURTS?

Ted Taupier

Structure By Design LLC
6 Douglas Drive
Cromwell, CT, 06416
(860) 807-2263 (CT office)
(860) 930-4785 (mobile)
ted.taupier@SBDLLC.net


NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This confidential transmission may include attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, privileged medical, psychiatric, drug
treatment information intended only for the recipients(s) named above. Reading, disclosure, discussion, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information
by anyone other than the intended recipient or their legal agents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender by email and/or
telephone and delete this from your system.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this Message,including attachments. The
originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originators confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby
notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-
based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall
expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch. Nothing in this message should be construed as legal advice. Readers in need of
legal opinions should obtain legal council from a licensed qualified attorney who can address their questions and issues on an individual basis.
*Wireless Copyright Notice*. Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originators full written consent to alter, copy, or use
this Message. Originator acknowledges others copyrighted content in this Message. Otherwise, Copyright 2014 by originator Edward Taupier. All Rights
Reserved.

CR13-0200821 T : SUPERIOR COURT

CR14-0675616 -T

STATE : J UDICIAL DISTRICT OF
MIDDLETOWN

V. : OCTOBER 24, 2014


EDWARD TAUPIER



STATES BRIEF REGARDING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

This brief addresses two issues that were raised at the October 17, 2014 hearing regarding the
continued need for a criminal protective order for the defendants wife and two children. The hearing
was requested by the defendants former counsel, J ohn Donovan, pursuant to State v. Fernando A,
294 Conn 1 (2008). Fernando A, requires the court to hold a subsequent evidentiary hearing in which
the state must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the order is still needed provided
the defendant requests a Fernando hearing at the initial hearing. Fernando A, 294 Conn 1, 7, 12-
13. Before receiving evidence regarding the ongoing need for the protective order, the court,
Honorable David P. Gold presiding, asked the parties to brief the following two threshold issues:
1. Did the court have the authority to issue the September 4, 2014 protective order in either of the two
criminal cases?
2. Did the defendant waive his right to have a hearing if he did not make a request for a subsequent
hearing at the initial hearing?

I. Procedural Background
a. Case CR13-0200821
In the criminal case bearing docket number CR13-0200821, the defendant, Edward Taupier,
was arrested via warrant on May 22, 2013, and charged with one count of voyeurism with malice under
General Statutes 53a-189a(a)(1) and one count of disseminating voyeurism material under General
Statutes 53a-189b. The charges stemmed from the defendant surreptitiously videotaping his wife
while she was completely naked and posting it on the internet via a website called VIMEO.
1
The video
was posted on J uly 30, 2012.
The defendant was initially arraigned on the two Class D felony charges in the Middletown
Superior court on J une 11, 2013. On September 4, 2014, the State sought a criminal protective order
for the defendants wife, Tanya Taupier and her two minor children. One of the defendants counsel,
J effrey J elly, neither objected to the protective order nor requested a Fernando hearing to contest it in
the future. Absent objection, the court issued a criminal protective order under CR13-020082.
2

On September 15, 2014, the defendants other counsel, J ohn Donovan, filed a written request for
a Fernando hearing. The hearing date was scheduled for October 17, 2014. On that date, the court
granted four motions to quash subpoenas that the defendant issued. The court asked the parties to
file simultaneous briefs by October 24, 2104 regarding the validity of the protective order and whether
or not the
defendant had waived his right to a hearing if he failed to initially request it on September 4, 2014.
Responsive briefs are due on October 31, 2014.
b. Case CR14-0675616
In the criminal case bearing docket number CR14-0675616, the defendant, Edward Taupier,
was arrested via warrant on August 29, 2014, with a cash bond of $35,000, which he posted on August
30, 2014. He was charged with one count of threatening in the first degree under General Statutes
53a-61aa and one count of harassment in the second degree under General Statutes 53a-183(a)(2).
The charges stemmed from an email the defendant had disseminated to multiple persons regarding
family court J udge Elizabeth Bozzuto. Although the email was not sent directly to J udge Bozzuto, one
of the recipients who was alarmed by the content, reported it to a Hartford legal aid attorney and then
later to the police. J udge Bozzuto was one of the judges who presided over the divorce/child custody

1
The defendant and his wife are presently going through acrimonious divorce proceedings that are yet to be
finalized. The wife had no knowledge of the nude video and never consented to its internet dissemination.
2
It is unclear but the order may have been issued initially with no docket number and then later with both docket
numbers. The States has a copy of the order for both cases.
proceedings in Hartford in the civil matter of Tanya Taupier v. Edward Taupier, docket number HHD-
FA12-4065159.
On September 2, 2014, the defendant was arraigned in Hartford. On that same day, the
State made an oral motion to increase the defendants bond. The motion was based in part upon the
fact that police had seized fifteen (15) firearms, ten thousand-three hundred and sixty nine (10,369)
rounds of ammunition and sixty-four pistol/rifle magazines of various calibers from the defendants
Cromwell home via a risk warrant on August 29, 2014. Honorable J oan Alexander increased the
defendants bond to $75,000, which he posted. The defendants conditions of release included: 1)
bond to be posted at court; 2) electronic monitoring (24/7 lockdown except for court appearances or
medical emergencies); 3) No contact with J udge Bozzuto or her children, stay 1,000 feet from her
residence; 5) do not possess firearms; 6) surrender passport to the clerks office; and 7) submit to
random searches of person, residence, vehicle, etc. The case was then transferred to Middletown
court.
II. Argument
a. Issue # 1 Did the court have the authority to issue the protective order in either
case?


After researching the relevant statutory and case law, the undersigned counsel for the State
unfortunately finds no authority to support the issuance of a criminal protective order for Tanya Taupier
and her two children under either of the defendants two cases. General Statutes 46b-38c (d) and (e)
allow a Superior Court judge to issue a protective order for the victim in cases of family violence.
Family violence and family violence crimes are defined under General Statutes 46b-38a (1) and
(3), respectively. A court may also issue a protective order for the victim under General Statutes 54-
1k if a person is arrested for the following crimes: stalking, harassment, sexual assault, risk of injury to
or impairing the morals of a child. Much to the States surprise and chagrin, neither of these provisions
appears to cover the victim, Tanya Taupier and her two children.
General Statutes 54-82r, which allows a protective order to issue for a witness is also
inapplicable to the two cases involving the defendant. Section 54-82r allows the imposition of a
protective order after an evidentiary hearing if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
harassment of an identifiable witness in a criminal case exists or that such order is necessary to
prevent and restrain the commission of a violation of section 53a-151 or 53-151a. Sections 53a-151
and 53a-151a involve tampering with a witness or threatening a witness.
General Statutes 46b-38c (d) provides in pertinent part as follows:
In all cases of family violence, a written or oral report that indicates whether the parties in the
family violence case are parties to a case pending on the family relations docket of the Superior
Court and includes recommendation of the local family violence intervention unit shall be
available to the judge at the first court date appearance to be presented at any time during the
court session on that date. A judge of the Superior Court may consider and impose the
following conditions to protect the parties, including, but not limited to: (1) Issuance of a
protective order pursuant to subsection (e) of this section. . . .
General Statutes 46b-38c (e provides in pertinent part as follows:
A protective order issued under this section may include provisions necessary to protect the
victim from threats, harassment, injury or intimidation by the defendant, including but not limited
to, enjoining the defendant from (1) imposing any restraint upon the person or liberty of the
victim, (2) threatening, harassing, assaulting, molesting, or sexually assaulting the victim, or (3)
entering the family dwelling or the dwelling of the victim. . . .

General Statutes 46b-38a (1) defines family violence as follows:
Family violence means any incident resulting in physical harm, bodily injury or assault, or an
act of threatened violence that constitutes fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or
assault, including, but not limited to, stalking or a pattern of threatening, between family or
household members. Verbal abuse or argument shall not constitute family violence unless
there is present danger and the likelihood that physical violence will occur.

General Statutes 46b-38a (3) defines family violence crime in pertinent part as follows:
Family violence crime means a crime as defined in section 53a-24
3
, other than a delinquent
act as defined in section 46b-120, which, in addition to its other elements, contains as an
element thereof an act of family violence to a family or household member . . . .


In applying the statutory provision of 46b-38a (1), (3), and 46b-38c (d) and (e), its evident that
despite the fact that Tanya Taupier is the victim of the voyeurism case, those crimes dont meet the

3
General Statutes 53a-24 provides that [t[he term crime comprises felonies and misdemeanors.
definition of family violence or family violence crimes. Additionally, shes not a victim in the
threatening case involving J udge Bozzuto and all of the provisions outlining protective orders pertain to
the victim, his or her family or household member under General Statutes 46b-38a (2), or the
victims pet. Moreover, the ship had sailed on issuing a protective order in the voyeurism case
because even if it did apply, 46b-38c (d) requires the court to impose the protective order at the first
court date appearance.
General Statutes 54-1k (a) provides in pertinent part as follows:
Upon the arrest of a person for a violation of subdivision (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of section
53-21, section 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a-70c, 53a-71, 53a-72a, 53a-72b or 53a-73a, or any attempt
thereof, or section 53a-181c, 53a-181d or 53a-181e, the court may issue a protective order
pursuant to this section. Upon the arrest of a person for a violation of section 53a-182b or 53a-
183, the court may issue a protective order pursuant to this section if it finds that such violation
caused the victim to reasonably fear for his or her physical safety.

The voyeurism charges (Sections 53a-189a and 53a-189b) in docket number CR13-0200821
are not covered under General Statutes 54-1k (a). Accordingly, a protective cannot be issued in that
case under those provisions. While there is a threatening charge in docket number CR14-0675616,
the identified victim in that case is J udge Bozzuto, not Tanya Taupier and her two children. Thus,
section 54-1 k (a) doesnt apply in that case either. In short, a criminal protective order should not have
issued in either case.
Despite the fact that no full protective order can be issued for Tanya and her two children, to
date, she fears for her safety as well as her childrens. In the past the defendant has made threats to
kill her, the two children and then kill himself. A large amount of firearms and ammunition was seized
from his residence less than two months ago on August 29, 2014. On August 23, 2014, he sent an
alarming email concerning J udge Bozzuto. The content was disturbing and contained very detailed
information about J udge Bozzutos home. The email described the location and layout of her
residence. The email outlined the dimensions of the residences outside area which would provide
ideal cover and concealment at 245 yards away from her master bedroom at the nearby cemetery.
The e-mail described in detail a bullets trajectory from a shooting distance of 250 yards. The email
said unless you sleep with level 3 body armor or live on the ISS (international space station) you
should be careful of actions. The e-mail also described the defendant as having 60 round firearm
magazines falls to the floor and im dying (sic) I change out to the next 30rd . . . .

Pursuant to 54-64f(b), the court may impose different or additional conditions upon the
defendants release if after an evidentiary hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence
that the defendant has violated reasonable conditions imposed on the defendants release it may
impose different or additional conditions upon the defendants release.
Past pretrial supervision reports indicated that the defendant had been noncompliant with the
charging requirements of his GPS. Recent reports do show full compliance. In the future, the State will
likely seek an added condition of the defendants release to limit contact with Tanya and his children to
only the arranged child visits. The State recognizes that today, the court carved out exceptions to the
protective order to allow for child visitation as set by the terms of the family court.
2. Did the defendant waive his right to have a hearing if he did not make a request for a
subsequent hearing at the initial hearing?

Given the fact that the protective order should not have issued in either case, the question of
whether the defendant waived his right to a Fernando hearing appears moot. If for some reason the
court finds the order to be valid, the State would submit that the defendant waived his right to contest
the order by not requesting a Fernando hearing on the initial date of its issuance on September 4,
2014.
In State v. Fernando A, 294 Conn 1, 18 (2008), our state supreme court held as follows:
[W]e conclude that 54-63c(b) and 46b-38c permit the trial court to issue a criminal protective
order at the defendants arraignment after consideration of oral argument and the family
services report. We also conclude that the trial court is required to hold, at the defendants
request made at arraignment, a subsequent hearing within a reasonable period of time
wherein the state will be required to prove the continued necessity of that order by a fair
preponderance of the evidence, which may include reliable hearsay, and the defendant will
have the opportunity to proffer relevant evidence to counter the states case in support of the
criminal protective order through his own testimony or that of other witnesses. (Emphasis
added)

While the request for a protective order wasnt made at the arraignment, the Fernando A court
also concluded that the trial court is required to hold, at the defendants request made at the initial
hearing, a subsequent hearing within a reasonable time . . . . Id. at 7. Under Fernando A, the
defendants written request for a hearing made on September 15, 2014, ten days after the initial order
was issued, is untimely. Accordingly, he has waived any right to have a hearing.



THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

By:
BRENDA HANS, Assistant States Attorney, J uris #420294
States Attorneys Office
1 Court Street
Middletown, CT 06067
(860) 343-6379








CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed to counsel for the defendant, Rachel Baird,
Esq., 8 Church Street, Suite B Torrington, CT 06790 rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com on October 24, 2014.


__________________________________
BRENDA HANS, Assistant States Attorney

DOCKET NO.
MMX-CR14-0675616-T : SUPERIOR COURT
MMX -CR13-0200821-T :
:
STATE OF CONNECTICUT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX
:
V. : AT MIDDLETOWN
:
:
EDWARD TAUPIER : OCTOBER 24, 2014


MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON
ISSUANCE OF A FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendant Edward Taupier (Taupier), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby
addresses the validity of a Family Violence Protective Order (protective order) appearing in
above-captioned docket number MMX-CR13-0200821-T.

I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A protective order appears in docket number MMX-CR13-0200821-T (2013 case) prohibiting Taupier
from contact with his wife Tanya Taupier and, among other collateral consequences, the possession of
firearms. Prior to an October 24, 2014, modification, the protective order prohibited Taupier from
contact with his children. The record reflects Taupiers counsel requested a Fernando A. hearing to
dissolve or lift the order:

ATTY. DONOVAN: Your Honor, just for the record there was -- last week when I was on vacation a protective order that was
issued in the file that Im representing him on --
THE COURT: There was.
ATTY. DONOVAN: There may be the necessity in the future to request a Fernando hearing in connection with that.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then -- well, youll move for one should you want one, correct?
ATTY. DONOVAN: Thank you, Judge.


(09/11/2014 Hrg Tr., 4:22-5:5) Taupier appeared in court on above-captioned docket number MMX-
CR14-0675616-T (2014 case) in the week prior to September 11, 2014, specifically on September 2,
3, and 4, 2014. Counsels reference to the potential necessity of a Fernando A. hearing in the future
arises from insufficiency or lack of a record of actual service of a protective order upon Taupier.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT:
A protective order may issue in accordance with the language of General Statutes 46b- 38c(e), 54-1k,
and 54-82k. See General Statutes 53a-223.
In all cases of family violence... A judge of the Superior Court may consider and impose the following
conditions to protect the parties, including, but not limited to: (1) Issuance of a protective order
pursuant to subsection (e) of this section; General Statutes 46b-38c(d)(1), 46b-38c(e).
The term cases of family violence is defined under General Statutes 46b-38a, as all crimes involving
family members which contain an element of violence.1 1 See General Statutes 46b-38a: For the
purposes of sections 46b-38a to 46b-38f, inclusive:(1) Family violence means an incident resulting in
physical harm, bodily injury or assault, or an act of threatened violence that constitutes fear of imminent
physical harm, bodily injury or assault, including, but not limited to, stalking or a pattern of


A. 2014 Case; The 2014 case arises from an arrest on August 29, 2014, alleging that a judge was
threatened and harassed by a private email transmitted by Taupier to six individuals of no
relation, familial or otherwise, to a judge referenced in the email. The judge was made aware of
the email through a chain of individuals six days after the original transmission. The affiants to
the arrest warrant summarized the case:

With this action, he threatened Judge Bozzuto with intent to place her in fear of imminent serious
physical injury. In doing so, this Affiant believes that Edward Taupier violated Connecticut General
Statutes 53a-61aa: Threatening in the first degree, Connecticut General Statutes 53a-183(a)(2)
Harassment in the second degree and that probable cause exists for his arrest.

B. (08/29/2014 Arrest Warrant, 10) Taupier posted bail and was released on August 29, 2014,
with a court date of September 12, 2014. The Court Support Services Division (CSSD)
characterized the matter in a September 4, 2014, case data record assessing the 2014 case as
follows: "The threatening, between family or household members. Verbal abuse or argument
shall not constitute family violence unless there is present danger and the likelihood that physical
violence will occur.(2) Family or household member means any of the following persons,
regardless of the age of such person:
a. (A) Spouses or former spouses;
b. (B) parents or their children;
c. (C) persons related by blood or marriage;
d. (D) persons other than those persons described in subparagraph (C) of this subdivision
presently residing together or who have resided together;
e. (E) persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they are or have been
married or have lived together at any time; and
f. (F) persons in, or who have recently been in, a dating relationship.(3) Family violence
crime means a crime as defined in section 53a-24, other than a delinquent act as defined
in section 46b-120, which, in addition to its other elements, contains as an element
thereof an act of family violence to a family or household member. Family violence
crime does not include acts by parents or guardians disciplining minor children unless
such acts constitute abuse.
g. (4) Institutions and services means peace officers, service providers, mandated
reporters of abuse, agencies and departments that provide services to victims and families
and services designed to assist victims and families.

The defendant has no prior domestic arrest history, but has charges pending today transferred from
Hartford relative to threatening a judge under MMX-CR14-0675616-T." The case was investigated
and pursued by law enforcement as a case involving a threat against a judge. The 2014 case does not
allege a relationship between Taupier and a complainant designated in General Statutes 46b-38a(2)
and subject to protection by an order issued under General Statutes 46b-38c(e). Tanya Taupier is not a
victim in the 2014 case nor do the allegations describe the victim as a member of Taupiers family.

In construing a statute, as directed by our supreme court and adopted in General Statutes 1-2z, courts
rely first upon the plain meaning of a statute and if the meaning is clear excludes from consideration
extratextual consideration. A. Gallo & Co. v. Comm'r of Envtl. Prot., 309 Conn. 810, 821, cert. denied,
134 S. Ct. 1540 (2014).

C. 2013 Case : The affidavit in support of the arrest warrant in the 2013 case alleges that Taupier
recorded a video of himself providing a massage to his wife Tanya Taupier. The massage
portrayed in the video, according to Tanya Taupier, preceded sexual intercourse. Probable cause
is alleged in paragraph 13 of the affidavit based on evidence that Taupier was responsible for
recording the "nude massage video" and uploading the video to the internet, both without Tanya
Taupiers knowledge.
D. In a motion to dismiss Taupier argues that the warrant fails to allege a criminal offense.



CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum was electronically transmitted on October 24,
2014, between 5:30 PM and 6:00 PM to counsel of record as follows:



Brenda Hann, A.S.A.
Office of the States Attorney
One Court Street,
Middletown, Connecticut
Email: Brenda.Hans@ct.gov



Undersigned counsel certifies that the States memorandum was received by email prior to
completion of the foregoing, however undersigned has not opened ore reviewed the States
memorandum in any manner.
________________________________
Rachel M. Baird
Commissioner of the Superior Court