Nothing about what the State Reps new agenda is going to be since thwy have the power to override a veto?
Nothing about what Rell's going to do for the state in her new term?
How's that magnet schol doing?
What ever happened to the Danbury 11 (and why is it that I find more updates on that situation in the Spanish papers than the News-Times)?
Take a pick Fred, any of these topics are better than the piece you wrote in today's paper. It's not because I'm not a fan of Lieberman (obviously I'm not) but I just don't see how this story is relevent ON SUNDAY. You have a Governor who was just elected who hasn't articulated her goals for the new session (and lives in Brookfield), a Democratic Party that almost won every State Rep in the city, and a State House that is basically veto-proof. Stories like the one on today's front page looks like something that was whipped up in a few phone calls. This is the type of reporting that drives people in Danbury nuts.
the xenophobic Danbury News Times has a big front page article, a love letter to Joe... done by their crack news team of Fred Lucas and Fred Lucas.
but thats not really news I suppose. I'm still not sure why I check that site every morning. They dont even publish the food service violations anymore
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.
