Former Gov. John G. Rowland says Gov. M. Jodi Rell, his longtime lieutenant governor, sacrificed him in the name of politics when he became mired in scandal.
[...]
Rowland told The Washington Post for a story in Sunday's editions that Rell "threw me under the bus when it got rough," although he also found fault in himself.
"Jodi acted like we weren't even friends," he said. "But that's politics ... It's about survival ... It's the place for the ego-driven, and that was me ... I still have to watch it.
"You know, I get some applause and I start to get those old feelings," he said. "I have to watch out for that arrogance. You're always in recovery."
Oh cry me a river John.
In typical Rowland fashion, he's still thinking about himself over the people we swore to serve when he took the oath of office. As I see it, the PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT are still in recovery from what you did to this state so I'm sure I speak for many when I say that I have no pity for you whatsoever.
...in fact, I'm still amazed that you're out of jail.
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.
Oh, come on. He's kidding right?
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.
