• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Police took my guns & charged me with receiving stolen property

Started by Recumbent ReCycler, May 19, 2009, 10:08 PM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

Recumbent ReCycler

Some of you know that my guns were taken by the police last year when I was served with an ex parte order of protection, which was dismissed by a judge when I finally got a hearing about 5 months later.  Unfortunately I was unable to get the police to return any of my property, and earlier this year an officer charged me with receiving stolen property.  He claimed that some of my pistol frames were reported stolen.  After I got discovery, I learned that there had never been any report claiming that my frames or any frames matching their description were stolen until after the police took my firearms and the officer got someone to look at photos of my frames and write a statement suggesting that my frames had been stolen from them.  I can and will prove that the officer falsified reports, lied under oath, etc., and that I am not guilty of the charges against me, and that I acquired my pistol frames lawfully, etc.  I cannot disclose any significant information prior to the trial, but I would like to invite my friends to observe the trial, and if possible, record the trial.  It will be at the Dover District Court September 24th at 9am.  This is not the first time that officer has lied to me, lied in a report or encouraged someone to report false information.  I cannot go into a great deal of detail before the trial, but the truth will come out at trial.

tony

Wander how these criminal minded beaurocrats will connect  your 1911/A1 frame with anything of whoever's production.
Contact Ivy and do not let beaurocrats' perfect screw up go unused. Litigate in retaliation.

Recumbent ReCycler


Here are the police photos of the frames that they took from me and are claiming were stolen from SigSauer.  Under reciprocal discovery rules, the Somersworth Police Department was given a report that included a statement from Richard Celata of KT Ordnance stating that I had purchased the unfinished frames from him and that I machined them at his shop.  Despite this statement, the Somersworth Police Department has indicated that they still intend to continue with the prosecution. 
http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/index.php
The two frames that I purchased in 2004 were marketed from his website, as seen here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040213072349/www.ktordnance.com/kto/products.php
The ones I bought were the KT-1911 and KT-228
The police are claiming that the frames are a SigSauer GSR 1911 and a SigSauer P229


As you can see, the frames that the police took from me look like the ones on the KT Ordnance web site, and not like SigSauer products.  There are some other significant differences that are not obvious from the photos because they only show side shots of the frames.

TackleTheWorld

It's a hunk of metal.
Why do they steal your property?
And your time?
and make you show up at their rituals?
For owning a frackin hunk of metal?
Aaaarghhh!

Objects are not crimes, the actions of people are the only things that can be crimes.

Russell Kanning


Recumbent ReCycler


doobie


Recumbent ReCycler

Quote from: doobie on June 03, 2009, 02:26 PM NHFT
Wait til they connect your frames to unsolved shootings!
Hehe, the way they've been making stuff up, I wouldn't put it past them to try something like that.  I haven't even finished the 1911 to the point where it can be completely assembled without doing some more machine work.  The KT-228 needs some work still before it'll be ready to fire, and I haven't acquired all the parts yet.

KBCraig

So, aside from the fact that they're obviously not SIG products, they also don't have serial numbers. How can they claim they were stolen from SIG, without numbers?

And out of curiosity, what does the SIG factory say about it? Are they even a party to this case?

doobie

Quote from: KBCraig on June 03, 2009, 05:15 PM NHFT
So, aside from the fact that they're obviously not SIG products, they also don't have serial numbers. How can they claim they were stolen from SIG, without numbers?

And out of curiosity, what does the SIG factory say about it? Are they even a party to this case?

Where does it say that they were stolen from SIG unless I misread it sounded like they were 'stolen' from another person.

KBCraig

Quote from: doobie on June 03, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on June 03, 2009, 05:15 PM NHFT
So, aside from the fact that they're obviously not SIG products, they also don't have serial numbers. How can they claim they were stolen from SIG, without numbers?

And out of curiosity, what does the SIG factory say about it? Are they even a party to this case?

Where does it say that they were stolen from SIG unless I misread it sounded like they were 'stolen' from another person.

Here:
Quote from: Recumbent ReCycler on June 03, 2009, 10:32 AM NHFT

Here are the police photos of the frames that they took from me and are claiming were stolen from SigSauer.


Since SIG doesn't sell incomplete receivers, if the police are claiming they are SIGs, then they must have been "stolen" from SIG at some point. (Of course, they're not SIGs at all, so they weren't.)

doobie

Quote from: KBCraig on June 03, 2009, 09:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: doobie on June 03, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on June 03, 2009, 05:15 PM NHFT
So, aside from the fact that they're obviously not SIG products, they also don't have serial numbers. How can they claim they were stolen from SIG, without numbers?

And out of curiosity, what does the SIG factory say about it? Are they even a party to this case?

Where does it say that they were stolen from SIG unless I misread it sounded like they were 'stolen' from another person.

Here:
Quote from: Recumbent ReCycler on June 03, 2009, 10:32 AM NHFT

Here are the police photos of the frames that they took from me and are claiming were stolen from SigSauer.


Since SIG doesn't sell incomplete receivers, if the police are claiming they are SIGs, then they must have been "stolen" from SIG at some point. (Of course, they're not SIGs at all, so they weren't.)


Somehow missed that.... saw the original thread:
QuoteAfter I got discovery, I learned that there had never been any report claiming that my frames or any frames matching their description were stolen until after the police took my firearms and the officer got someone to look at photos of my frames and write a statement suggesting that my frames had been stolen from them.

Recumbent ReCycler

Here are some of the documents I got from the SPD about a month after requesting discovery.  The officer made some statements that are not true in his report, but I'm assuming that he didn't record me when they were at my house, and was basing his report in part on an imperfect memory.  The lawyer who wrote this letter (apparently at the request of the Somersworth PD) obviously is not familiar with the designs and manufacturing methods used at their factory and/or is dishonest.




KBCraig

To sum up: as a gunsmith you had a variety of used parts labeled with SIG stamps, but are not charged with theft over those items. You're charged with receiving stolen property for the two frames, both of which are clearly not SIG products (and I assume don't bear any SIG stamps).

A tragic comedy of errors.  >:(

Lloyd Danforth