Both live blogs centered on events happening at the State Capitol. The first live-blog focused on Tuesday's Judiciary Committee public hearing where several important items were addressed such as proposal to relax marijuana laws, a proposal concerning prison population, modification to parole hearings, increase protection for correction officers, etc. Pretty intense stuff and that hearing didn't end until well after 10PM.
The second live-blog on Thursday wasn't as bad time wise but just as important...the banking committee's investigative hearing into AIG. Lets just say that this hearing was a MEDIA EVENT as just about every outlet packed the room with cameras, photographers, and reporters...
Now I don't do a normal live blog where I just type about what's happening and offer my take on things. No...that would be too easy. Instead, I kick things up a notch and post video clips of the proceedings as close to real time as possible. Since CT-N covered both meetings, it was rather easy to monitor the events and post the video clips as it happened. Kick in the whole tweetering stuff I did on top of that and you start to understand why Danbury took a back burner this week.
All in all I had a great time live-blogging as it keeps you on your toes and makes you push blogging to it's limits. Now that I have a new server and computer in the house, hopefully I'll be able to push the envelope even further in the near future.
...and with that being said, I'm back to covering the whacky world of Danbury politics. Let the silly season begin!
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.
