From Dan Tepfer, CT Post:
The area’s top state prosecutor has been asked to look into allegations that State Marshal Charles Valentino lied about personally serving the state’s attorney general in a lawsuit against the state commissioner of education.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis Thursday ordered the matter turned over to Bridgeport State’s Attorney John Smriga after Valentino, a marshal for more than a decade, was accused of lying on the witness stand Wednesday afternoon.
Read more here.
0
The guys at his East Main St. car wash don’t have their usual zippy energy as I drive by.
Wish he’d post a price for a wash–is it what the cashier thinks the market will bear? Seems so.
I thought he was a barber.
Sure splits hairs on the truth!
He must run a clip joint.
*** Another political, “who you know or are related to” job being a state marshal! This sounds like a very interesting case that’s about to unfold if the investigation is in fact handled right, no? *** Observing from the Park City (aka Zombieland) ***
He has been a marshal/sheriff for a very long time, no?
Is he so ignorant or arrogant he thought he could get away with this? Could this have been some purposeful attempt to scuttle the lawsuit as a favor to higher ups? Is a conspiracy afoot? This could become very interesting. Oh what a tangled web we weave …
Fact of the matter is, he did commit perjury. Why would a marshal with that many years of experience tarnish his reputation? Stupid is as stupid does.
The Post article said, “The area’s top state prosecutor has been asked to look into allegations that State Marshal Charles Valentino lied about personally serving the state’s attorney general in a lawsuit against the state commissioner of education.” Well, I must say I’m in full agreement with Godiva2011 with her comment, “Fact of the matter is, he did commit perjury,” think about that. “PERJURY.” This is very serious with little news coverage and commentary. Why???
I think this matter is going to take on a life of its own. Bad enough he didn’t serve in the required manner, but lied about it on the stand. I don’t think this will blow over any time soon. With his years of experience, he certainly can’t plead ignorance of the process.
Gee. I hope Marshal Charlie Valentino has never done anything like this before. If other people were to complain he was involved in improper service, that might make him look bad in this instance. Does anyone think he may have done this before? Gosh.
What a can of worms that will be, eh? If plaintiffs start going over old cases he served papers and found more fraud? This could get very interesting.
Yes, it can get interesting, but the difference here is the manner in which he served hampered the court proceedings. He may very well have done this in the past, but if it had no impact on the case, chances are it will be irrelevant at this juncture in time.
I have been advised by one of the most brilliant legal minds in Bridgeport that a defendant implies proper service when a notice of appearance is filed and an answer to the summons and complaint is filed. If service is improper it can only begin prior to any official proceedings. Why bother?