On another topic, Mr. Cappiello said that he supports Republican President George W. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001 and his $250 billion economic growth package of 2003.
[...]
Mr. Murphy said in a May 2006 interview that he opposed Mr. Bush's tax cut, indicating that it benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle- and lower-income workers.
[...]
Since taking office, Mr. Murphy has held several news conferences and constituent outreach programs. One Democratic poll released last month showed him with a 20-point lead.
Assistant state Attorney Gen. Robert Marconi of Brookfield, who was briefly the Democratic nominee in the 5th District in 2004, has said that personality is important in politics and noted that most people like Mr. Murphy.
[...]
"Being a congressman is about more than just holding news conferences on legislation that you know will never be signed into law," Mr. Cappiello said of Mr. Murphy's frequent sessions with reporters.
The Brookfield Journal is the most conservative friendly paper in the area and even they had a hard time finding anything resembling dirt on Congressman Murphy.
If Cappiello wants to make the election look interesting, he'll need to do more than senseless attacks on a Congressman who beat his buddy Nancy Johnson ON EVERY VOTING MACHINE IN DANBURY.
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.
