From the September Common Council meeting, here's (unedited) is the debate on the funding of the film festival.
In a later post, I'll show how those who supported the film festival either had no idea what the hell they were talking about during the debate, or (more disgracefully) should be roundly criticized for sitting there like a dear in headlights (cue seventh ward Boughton-rubber stamper/racist email contributor Mary Teicholtz) and not speaking in favor or against funding the festival.
NOTE: I've been bombarded with emails from many very angry residents about this issue and asking what could they do to express their displeasure. I'm working on addressing this issue soon.
As a person who's been effected by the rising cost of living in Danbury, I feel your pain and frustration. After viewing this video, and the dismissive nature of Minority Leader Tom Saadi's fiscally responsible amendment, I'm expecting the outrage to rise.
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.
