The amount of outraged emails I've received over the film festival is surprising even to me. Many people seem extremely upset that the city is forking over 65,000 for this festival while at the same time closing the library in order to "cut expenses" and "save taxpayer's dollars."
Since people have requested that I post the complete video footage of last month's ad-hoc committee meeting, here it is in it's "almost" entirety. I say almost because I missed about 7 minutes of the meeting due to traffic.
Those in attendance included ad-hoc committee chairman Mike Caladrino, ad-hoc committee members Charlie Trombetta and Paul Rotello. Also in attendance was Mayor Mark, Corporation Counsel Les Pinter, Finance Director David St. Hilaire, and ex-officio members (and the only person who asked a real question) Ben Chianese and Mary "didn't utter one question throughout the ENTIRE MEETING" Teicholtz. Public included City Center Danbury director Andrea GArtner, Economic Development Director (and former Publisher of the Danbury News-Times) Wayne Sheppard, and the mind behind the festival...Tom Carruthers.
Now that you know the players in this love fest of a ad-hoc meeting, watch what actually happened and see if you make sense of anything the supporters of the film festival presented in terms of their report.
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.