There were two committee meeting on this day which you can view here and here. One was for Wireless Edge Lease and the other addressed the Duck Pin Bowling Lease. Again, no big deal.
NOW, lets go to 5/24 (now pay attention):
There were two committee meetings on this day which you can view here and here. One was for Absentee Landlords BUT take a look at the other meeting. Notice something missing? Well, yes, there is no detail or explanation to what this committee meeting was all about. Why was their no details to this meeting...maybe it had to do with it being the most controversial of all the committee meetings as it has a lot to do with immigrants and the mayor's proposed ordinance on "parade permits."
You think it was strange that the website didn't mention the details of that meeting. Well, not really and I'll explain it all in great detail later as this particular "ordinance" should sound alarm bells throughout Danbury. I couldn't make it to the meeting but I'll give everyone the scoop on what happened including some very interesting video highlights which should shed light on the real meaning behind this so-called "ordinance."
Note to my readers at City Hall: please don't waste your time changing the page because Google cached the original page...
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.