If I may suggest [...] Cappiello should scrap, the crap. Just ask those in the 5th district how much they have enjoyed the past 2 years with Chris Murphy as their representative in Washington? It’s a simple question. If they are happy, why then should the rest of us not be as well? If they are not, they can try to solve their problem in Nov.
Best of all it avoids all sorts of childish games, name calling, and the normal garbage that seems to be, well so normal these days. Geeze, and I thought raising two teenagers to adulthood was complex!!!
I couldn't agree more.
From the start of his campaign, Cappiello has taken a long-overplayed and boring page from Nancy Johnson's mud-slinging playbook. Between the outright lies over Murphy's position such as off-shore drilling, stealing my work for his political purposes (and not doing the minimum in offering an apology when caught in the act), to spending mroe time on the attack and less time offering any real details on his position ON ANYTHING, Cappiello campaign has become a sort of embarrassment for someone who dreams of higher office on the federal level.
I thought Cappiello was a bigger person than what he has presented to the public so far...I stand corrected.
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.
