19 January 2008

Hey KingCast, how are your discussions going with the U.S. Attorney's Office on Gregory W. Floyd vis a vis Criminal Code 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)?

Well as you can see by my first two correspondence blogs to U.S. Attorney Tom Colantuono one and two they are still getting up to speed on this. I left a message for duty attorney Jennifer Davis and spoke for a while Friday evening with former NH AAG Mark Zuckerman and will be following up after the Holiday.

For those of you new to the Teflon Don of the North and his criminal proclivities, here he is outright admitting he's in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).

I'll make certain that they get his entire criminal history (here's part of it) and get a copy of the transcript from Grafton 07-E-268 where Judge Vaughn issued a PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER, and in which I understand Gregory P. Floyd admitted there was at least one gun still in the house. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) it is discretionary whether a spousal gun may be kept (See generally U.S. v. Ruckman) but Floyd's full of dookie anyway. I'd be willing to bet he's got a small arsenal up in there and he'll be ready to "give the cops a third eye" because "he's quickr'n them" so they best be careful on approach, as presciently noted by Easton Police Chief Robert Every ten (10) years ago.

Besides: Floyd clearly indicated to his victim J.B. that he was able to go and get the gun anyway, so the point is moot. Time for a Federal raid on the Floyd compound.

Related Post: Read one of my early posts from 12 May 2007 on this case before I delved deeper into it. You can clearly see I harbored no animosity to Floyd or to McKay. But on further review, that antipathy is wholly merited.


Christopher King said...

From U.S. v. Ruckman:

Ordinarily, an individual is considered to constructively possess an item when he or she knowingly holds the power and ability to exercise dominion and control over the property. See United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997).

In situations involving joint occupancy, such as here, more is required to establish constructive possession than dominion and control. "To prove constructive possession where there is joint occupancy, the government must present direct or circumstantial evidence to show some connection or nexus individually linking [defendant] to the [firearms.]"

United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838, 843 (10th Cir. 1999). The requisite nexus is established where there is some evidence to support the plausible inference that defendant had knowledge of and access to the firearms. See id.; United States v. Mills, 29 F.3d 545, 550 (10th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's interpretation of the guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error, giving due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. See United States v. Brown, 314 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir. 2003).

Anonymous said...

Bungey Corner
Winter of discontent
Made glorious summer
By Robert Frost in poem NH
What has Easton left to laugh at?
Bungey. Rt. 116 runs into Rt. 112.
Now betrayal, blood and death exude
From the lair of Third Eye Floyd
The Bungey Jar wind turned foul.
The shadows cast, lengthen, darken.
Wolf Mountain, hulking Moosilauke
Ululating Wild Ammonoosuc river
Crying for our Maura Murray.

Easton resident

br said...

On a different subject, Hey Kingcast, why did Martha McLeod get all doe-eyed and say she had no idea that the McKay bill would be so controversial, when in the Caledonian she said that she didn't ask for other sponsors because "
"I did not ask the representatives ... because I did not want to put them in a position of conflict between people in their own communities and with the law enforcement community,". Sounds like she might have actually had a clue about the can of worms she was dumping on the town.


Christopher King said...

Good find. I love the headline:

Parkway Tribute To Cpl. McKay "Has Awakened A Dragon"

Here's the link.