When talks between the state and Amtrak lagged over the expansion of commuter rail service on the New HavenHartford Springfield line, U.S. Rep.Chris Murphyintervened and got the ball rolling. In doing so, Mr. Murphy, a Democrat from Cheshire and a one-term incumbent, showed that he understood the importance of energy conservation to the nation's future.
Although much of the energy debate has focused on offshore drilling, Mr. Murphy could see that getting people onto trains, and thus out of cars, would save a lot of energy right away. This pragmatic intelligence, the ability to see what is right in front of his nose, has influenced much of Mr. Murphy's work in Congress. He has pushed for more disclosure of profits and CEO salaries in government contracting, stronger congressional ethics and more federally funded supportive housing. He is the youngest member of the delegation at 35, yet has the poise of a veteran legislator. He said he challenges voters to understand the subtleties of issues — a bold thought. He deserves another term.
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.
