I was going to say a thing or two about McLachlan's latest idiotic move but the News-Times beat me to the punch.
[...]
A week after the election, this is unacceptable. These signs are environmental clutter that pollutes the beauty of the fall season. Having their names plastered all over the universe might please candidates, but it's insulting to the voters. It was especially irksome to see Michael McLachlan of Danbury add "Thank You" signs to the clutter after his election to the 24th State Senate District seat. Let's not add signs. Let's take signs down.
While Cappiello learned the lard way that flooding the area with ILLEGALLY placed lawn signs doesn't win you an election, McLachlan is under the impression that his signs are a hit in Danbury (a place where he LOST to Duane Perkins). Newsflash Mike, you only won because of the turnout in the conservative areas of the state senate district...you know, the areas where you DIDN'T place your annoying signs.
ENOUGH OF THE SIGNS!
UPDATE: Amazing with a slap on the wrist from the News-Times can do huh? Reports of Mike's people taking all the signs down today has been confirmed.
Now, if someone can only get Manuel Bataguas to pick up his ILLEGALLY placed lawn signs...
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.
