Now, I haven't commented much on this joke of a man because my objective for readers to contact Comcast and demand that they take action regarding his outrageous on-the-air behavior and violation of the cable access guidelines was accomplished back in August. Many of you who don't live in the area, but followed the antics of Tom "Big(o)T" Bennett via this site and YouTube, wanted to know what happened after his live show was yanked. Well, the one man lying hate-machine took the term disgraceful" to a new high issuing threats (which earned him a write-up with the police) while pathetically attempting to play the victim card.
As we wind things down here for the holidays, we'll take a look back and get everyone up to date on everything Bennett, his co-host John McGowan and their pathetic cast of characters (such as Bethel's local freak Frank Monda and former "teacher" Al Bruhn) whined about after The BigT Talk show best days were numbered.
Good riddance Bennett, as you learned the hard way, you won't be missed.
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.
