<xmp> <body> </xmp>

BREAKING NEWS: Parade ordinance in turmoil

Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Time: 7:04 PM

I thought last night was crazy but now it feel like a nuclear bomb has been dropped on democracy in Danbury.

While those low-information voters, who are blindly taken in by Mayor Boughton's Rovian use of illegal immigration for political purposes, continue to spew their hatred regarding the latest immigration story in today's News-Times, the enlightened residents who refuse to drink the mayor's Kool-Aid are still in a state of shock from last night's Common Council meeting (where the will of the majority was thrown in the garbage) and are expressing their outrage.
Posted by: boredwithbs Wed, May 02 2007
Congratulations! One more nail in Boughton's human rights coffin!
Who were the two Common Council votes that weren't there? Mr. Cutsumptas resigned, and which coward from which party missed this meeting?
And if a "parade" breaks out, will all the participants be dragged off ICE style and never heard form again?
Sieg heil.


Posted by: marple Wed, May 02 2007
I do hope there will be a follow-up article with a fuller account that corrects some errors.

Mayor Boughton did not cast the deciding vote for the ordinance. He did however vote against a BIPARTISAN MAJORITY which sought to raise the number of participants for which a permit would be required from 25 to 100 and also to drop the public assembly part of the ordinance. With his vote it was a tie and the amendment was defeated.

Also there is, in fact, a $100 permit fee except where the purpose of a parade or assembly is the exercise of free speech. So CROP walk, ABD walk, family reunions in the park, religious processions etc. will have to cough up $100 before they can walk or picnic.

It will be VERY interesting to see how uniformly this ordinance is applied.

One more thing: this ordinance in no way regulates spontaneous, impromptu celebrations, the purpose for which it was introduced. So if the city wants to fine the people who spill out onto the streets and sidewalks when Boston wins the World Series they will have to prove that it was planned ahead of time and all the participants knew that a permit was needed and celebrated anyway.

This one should have been allowed to go the way of the volleyball ordinance: quietly fade away from sheer embarassment.


Posted by: my2cents Wed, May 02 2007
Kudo’s to you Mayor Markie. Take that Thom Jefferson. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Fortunately for Mayor Mrkie the only group with a higher level of incompetence would be the town Democrats.


Posted by: oldhatter Wed, May 02 2007
I would like to see the exact wording of this ordinance.

Does it exempt organized sporting events? Will Little League and the Industrial Softball League need to get permits?

Will the Richter Park Association need one for their outdoor musicals?

This is a ridiculous waste of time.


Posted by: marple Wed, May 02 2007
I think it will be hard to get it overturned since the mayor is obviously in love with this ordinance. What I see as realistic is to get it amended so it is not so horrible. The amendments offered last night would have gone a long way toward making it reasonable. If, for example, there had to be 100 people rather than 25 to require a permit then small groups wouldn't be burdened with the $100 fee. A majority of the council voted for that. One more vote would bring it past the point that the mayor could kill the measure with his tying vote. A majority also wanted to scrap the public assembly part of the ordinance.

So let your council members and the at-large members know that you would like to see the ordinance overturned, or at least, amended. That's a start.

There could also be a flood of permit requests...


Posted by: pparker15 Wed, May 02 2007
This is just one example of Ordinances that were passed last night.

Another Ordinance is focused on Littering, and gives City Employees (that are not Police) the power to fine you up to $1,000 for any type of littering (i.e. throwing a bottle cap in the street).

Other parts of this also state that a Litter Control Officer can tell any person in Danbury how many garbage cans they must have, and what type of garbage can you must have. Violators of this are again subject to a $1,000 fine!

This Litter Control Officer can also fine you up to $1,000 if you do not keep your property what he considers reasonably clean. Oh, and each day you don't do what they say is an additional charge of $1,000.

More examples of Boughton's tirade of power. The Danbury 11 were lucky they got out while they could!


Posted by: StopHatinOthers Wed, May 02 2007
Lets try this situation:

I'm a teacher at WCSU, with a class of 30 students, and I want to take my class on a walking trip down Main Street. To look at some architectural design details, etc. What are my options?

A. Pay the $100 fee and get the permit ahead of time so we can all group together for the lecture.

B. Break the class up into three groups of ten and hope we don't bunch up too much while trying to listen to the lecture. Of course, we have to make it all look spontaneous.

C. Just ignore the stupid ordinance and risk the riot squad.

Just 3 options, I'm sure there are more. In the end I say 'C' makes the most sense. We can all just claim that we're simply residents/citizens going for a walk. We just all happened to be listening to the interesting stuff that guy was saying about some buildings.
These must be more readers of this site since GOD-KNOWS they didn't get any information on the way illegal immigration was used as a political tool in regards to this ordinance and HOW AWFUL this ordinance is in the first place from the mainstream media.

And now HatCityBLOG learns of a NEW bombshell that's going to place the mayor's office in full damage control mode and has the BI-PARTISAN MAJORITY of the council who voted to move the ordinance back to committee up in arms.

This story is happening as we speak and has thrown my entire schedule upside down. In order for this to make sense, I'll have to work double hard and get post the video of everything that happened online while I report on the new bombshell.

Come back to HatCityBLOG throughout the night for updates...the parade ordinance story is not over yet.

posted by ctblogger at 7:04 PM | Permalink|


Add a comment

© 2018 Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.

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.



Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants v.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security
3:06-cv-01992-RNC ( D. Conn. )

(02.25.08) Court docket

(10.24.07) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order

(09.26.07) Press Release

(12.14.06) Complaint

Barrera v. Boughton, No. 07-01436
(D. Conn. filed Sept. 26, 2007)

(02.25.08) Court Docket

Amended complaint

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint

NEW HAVEN REGISTER: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed Danbury mayor testifies

(10.05.07 (VIDEO) Boughton mislead the public about Danbury's involvement in raid

(09.18.07) Yale Law Students expose Danbury involvement in raid

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Interview with Yale Law Students at FOI presser

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 FOI complaint media roundup

City Clerk Jean Natale standing next to skinhead sparks outrage

(10.03.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 rally

(09.29.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 case deepens

Word of raid spread across the country

(09/29/06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 protest news conference

(09/29/06) Immigrant newspaper "El Canillita" gives best account of ICE day labor raid at Kennedy Park

trans_button Santos Family Story
VIDEO: Tereza Pereira's ordeal with ICE agents

VIDEO: Danbury Peace Coalition Immigration Forum (April 2006)
featuring Mayor Boughton and Immigration attorney Philip Berns

VIDEO: 2007 Stop the Raids immigration forum at WCSU

2007: Community protest anti-immigration forum

A tribute to Hispanic Center Director and immigrant activist Maria Cinta Lowe

Lowest Gas Prices in Danbury
Danbury Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License