Posted by: Rayany Santos Sat, Aug 11 2007 Hi everyone - thanks for all the support. It's really not as bad as the newspaper makes it out. I just go along with them because they said they needed a real "sob" story. They said people would probably send me money and stuff.
Anyhow, I'm having a great time on my own. I can stay out and party and have all my boyfriends over! It's the coolest! I don't miss my brothers at all. They were lame. They would always put boogers in my hair and fart and stuff - yuck!
Well, now that I'm on my own I'm looking for an older guy to take care of me. If there are any guys out there who want to get together give me a call! (17 is legal in CT ya know!) I love to party and I'm totally easy!
Love - XOXOXO
Impersonating an individual in this manner is illegal...in fact, it's a federal crime. During the 2006 Lamont-Lieberman campaign, an individual impersonated an elected official on Connecticut Local Politics, which resulted in the FBI getting involved and launching an investigation into the matter.
In short, impersonating someone else online can lead you in serious legal trouble if someone wanted to pursue the matter. In this case, I'll be more than happy to assist the REAL Rayany Santos and go after the moron who's ridiculing her family's hardship online...I have a good idea on who the impersonator is.
UPDATE: Just placed a call at the News-Times alerting them of the matter and requesting that they ban the account and keep a record of the impersonator's email address as well as IP number. If this is who I think it is, the News-Times will be able to track the impersonator's IP number of another account.
...developing.
UPDATE 2, 08.13.07: Success...the troll is gone!
Thanks goes out to the News-Times for removing the offensive comments and banning the user and thanks goes out to the HatCityBLOG readers for taking a stance against the xenophobia that plagues the online newspaper and our great city.
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.
