Yes, I was contacted by a reporter for The News Times and yes they wanted to interview me for the article. It's just that one of the great things about blogs is the ability to be anomymous. Many bloggers don't like giving out their names because privacy is important to them and I just happen to fall into that category. For me, I prefer this blog to be popular and not personaly be the center of attention. Linking your name to a blog is a double edge sword. On one hand, people might want to talk to you more but on the other hand, people will be more controlled in what they say around you which is something I don't want in a city as small as this.
I was originally contacted about the article a few months ago and I explained that I would be happy to be quoted as long as we don't have to use my name (just use my blog name of ctblogger). The last thing I heard was that it would need to be discussed by the editors which I had no problem with but when I didn't hear back from the reporter, I just forgot about it. Then last Thursday, I checked my emails and I saw that I received a message on Monday from the same reporter asking me if he can use me in the story again and that he was under a tight deadline. He sent the email on Monday but I didn't get back to him till Thursday (sorry Fred) and by that time, it must of been too late.
So basically, I don't know if my request to be anonymous was the problem or the fact that I didn't get back in touch in time contributed to me not being quoted in the story but in any case it's no big deal and in the end the article they did wasn't that bad.
Hosting two blogs is alot of work and I receive so many emails (on top of instant messages, telephone calls, and attending meetings) that it's hard to stay updated but I promise to check my emails every day for now on.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
