Before a standing-room-only crowd, Mayor John M. Fabrizi on Tuesday appealed to a judge to be lenient on a 22-year-old man who was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl and getting her pregnant — twice.
The mayor admitted as he stood before Superior Court Judge Patrick Carroll that he was taking a real risk speaking on behalf of Juan Carlos Camacho.
But then he continued: "Since I've known him for the past two years, he's been extremely respectful in my house."
He added to snickers from spectators in the courtroom: "I've never seen him under the influence of alcohol or drugs."
Please tell me some Democrat is challenging this assclown for mayor. Two words: Primary challenge.
UPDATE: Dumb-dumb is now sorry. I guess the outrage from the public woke brought him out of his cocaine high and back to reality.
"I realize with 20-20 hindsight my appearance before the court [Tuesday] was completely inappropriate and gave the wrong impression," Fabrizi said in a statement issued Wednesday. "I should never have agreed to be a character witness for my son's friend given the serious charges he pleaded guilty to.
This pathetic "I'm sorry" statement comes too little and too late for that poor girl's family who had to watch Fabrizi defend a monster. I mean, GOOD LORD...this guy is THE MAYOR?!?
...well, on second thought, we are talking about Bridgeport.
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.
That's the only conclusion I can come up with when I read this.
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.
