Now, in the videoclip (taken on Tuesday afternoon), EVERY SINGLE LAWNSIGN was illegally placed either without the permission of the owner OR on city owned land. Now, in order to understand the law (and for purpose of this video), the property that's owned by the city includes the strip of land between the street and sidewalk and any islands in the middle of the street.
Keep that in mind when you watch this clip...
After complaints, as of last night (before the debate), most of the signs in the clip were removed BUT there are numerous other Cappiello signs placed in illegal places. People in Newtown and Brookfield were particularly pissed off to find Cappiello signs littering the off ramp of exits 9 and 11 and pulled them up (NOTE: In Newtown, residents REALLY get upset down on lawn signs in public places). I also received reports from officials in towns along I-84 who reported the same problem.
It comes down to this. Lawn signs are MEANINGLESS when you litter the entire area. Signs are suppose to be used as a show of support for a candidate by a property owner. In the case of Cappiello, he probably lost votes because of his campaign placing signs where ever they wanted. It's to a point where the only solution would be for the city to enact an ordinance that would fine campaigns who illegally place signs on public property.
...what part of illegal doesn't Cappiello's campaign understand?
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.
