As I stated earlier, most DTC consists of several "stick with Joe" Democrats who supported Lieberman after the primary and my local DTC is no different (which is quite evident as you watch the footage). In the end, after much back and forth discussion between former supporters of Lieberman and people who wanted to take action, the committee to agree to approved an amended version of the resolution which was presented to State Central last week.
Although slightly different from the original proposal, the approved resolution gave several "stick with Joe" Democrats an opportunity to voice their disapproval with Lieberman. Being this matter to the committee also forced at least one other DTC to send a message to State Central in support of doing something about condoning Lieberman's actions during the presidential campaign.
Although this video of the debate is a bit long, I hope by watching it, more people will be encouraged to attend their local DTCs meetings before December and demand that they send chairwoman Nancy DiNardo and the members of State Central a message about censuring Lieberman once and for all.
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.
