Give me a break...hot-tempered/short-fused/angry McLachlan is at it again. There's no whining in politics.
McLachlan called on Perkins last week to return the public financing he received for the primary.
"Public financing was meant to take out special interest groups, which it essentially did, and level the playing field," McLachlan said. "But by receiving the public financing for the primary Perkins essentially had $35,000 more to spend on his campaign than I will. When I am elected I will submit a bill to correct this flaw."
A few things about the Mike the whiner and his latest hissy-hit.
1. Mike McLachlan opted to do the public financing therefore you can't whine after you approved of the program.
2. McLachlan can AT ANY POINT opt OUT OF THE PROGRAM and raise all the money he wants.
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.
