The opposition to the destruction of the Richter House has been absolutely incredible to say the least. From the numerous amount of emails I've received thanking me for the historical background video presentation, and coverage of the Richer Park Authority meeting, the amazing writings by Brain Koonz, and the outpouring of support for saving the House, which stretched across party lines, it seems like the demolishing of this house is very remote.
During April's Common Council meeting, people came out to voice their opposition to the Richter House and afterwards, I had a chance to catch up with Minority Leader Tom Saadi to get his take on the matter.
It great to see the public stand up for the Richter family...I guess the Richter Park Authority was too busy dealing with golf to give a damn about the family's house that they were suppose to take care of in the first place.
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.
