On another topic, said that he and his wife, Pam, a schoolteacher, have paid a significant portion of back taxes to the IRS.
[...]
He said that he is confident that all of the taxes will be paid and that he has spoken with people with expertise in the field regarding further negotiations on the extent of his federal income tax liability in this area.
"If I wasn't a public official, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion," Mr. Scribner said during a phone interview. "The documents related to this have been in the town clerk's office for three years. Apparently someone started looking for this information now and made it available to the press."
Coming from a person who well known for his partisan cheap shots, I can only laugh at this comment. For a person who brags about being in the banking industry for over 20 year, Scribner's remark is outrageous to say the least.
Lets forget the fact that in the article, State Rep. Scribner doesn't explain how he, as TREASURER for the town of Brookfield, failed to pay his PROPERTY TAXES to the town to Brookfield!
NEWFLASH DAVID, your being criticized because YOU'RE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL who make decisions on how to spend TAXPAYER DOLLARS...and YOU'RE NOT PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE!
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.
You're kidding me right?
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.
