[Chris] Murphy, a state senator from Cheshire challenging Johnson, held a press conference at Danbury Democratic Headquarters on Main Street. He questioned Johnson's intentions in not bringing the bill up for a vote before Congress adjourned for the campaign season.
The bill would have eliminated penalties against seniors who missed an enrollment deadline for the new Medicare prescription drug plan. Though Johnson is the chairwoman of a health subcommittee, she never pushed for a vote, Murphy said.
"This was either an intentional bait and switch or shows an inability to lead her committee," said Murphy.
[...]
The House Ways and Means committee and the Health Subcommittee met a total of 12 times, Murphy said, and neither took action on the bill.
"Did Nancy Johnson really think no one would notice that after the press-conference lights were turned off, she buried her own bill?" Murphy said. "As one of the highest ranking members of the Ways and Means Committee, she could have forced a hearing on the bill at any time."
[...]
Seniors are turning against Johnson because of what they considered a flawed drug plan, said state Rep. Robert Godfrey, D-Danbury, who spoke in favor of Murphy.
"She used to be an independent voice when she went to Washington," Godfrey said. "She changed and became an insider. No longer is she from Connecticut traveling to Washington. She's from Washington traveling to Connecticut."
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.
