I've received several requests from people who couldn't attend the 5th CD debate between Congressman Chris Murphy and James Galante's BFF David Cappiello.
To be honest, since no one is really paying that much attention to this race (due to way Cappiello has ran his laughable campaign), and just about every pundit and pollster in the country has this race locked for Murphy, I've been spending more attention to the 4th CD race between Jon Himes and Chris Shays as well as focusing my attention on the various State Rep and State Senate races across the state for my other site.
Also, since YouTube has upgraded my account, I've been having a tough time uploading all the video clips. You see, since I have a very old account, and well over 1,000 video clips uploaded, YouTube now allows me to publish videos in high definition with no time constraints. That being the case, the video clips I'm uploading are VERY LARGE but hopefully I'll have the rest of it up later today.
Once everything is up there, I'm post my report on the event and show how Cappiello not only made a complete ass of himself with his idiotic answers and questions, but also show something that was not picked up on any other broadcast...the negative response from the audience to Cappiello...as well as the audience response to Murphy who made a very clever reference to Cappiello that everyone in the know in the room understood crystal clear.
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.
