Back on October 22, I did a post on a News-Times article by Eileen FitzGerald that pertained to the latest fundraising reports from the three candidates running for First Selectman in Bethel.
Here's the details:
Democratic first selectman candidate Matt Knickerbocker came out ahead of his two opponents in fundraising for the Nov. 3 campaign, based on the most recent tallies.
Knickerbocker has raised $14,690 for his campaign, with the majority raised in the last month. That is more than both his opponents combined.
Incumbent First Selectman Robert Burke raised $4,550 this period, which added to his existing funds gives him an aggregate of $8,350 raised for his third campaign.
Republican challenger Larry Craybas reported $2,075 contributions this month, with an aggregate of $4,250 raised for his campaign.
After I posted on the article, I was contacted by Bethel Republican Town Committee Paul Improta who wanted questioned the accuracy of the article and wanted clarify the perception given in the piece that the Craybas camp is low on funds.
Instead of writing up my account of my interview with Improta, I gave the chairman of the RTC full reign on this blog to explain the situation.
Via a phone conference, here's the interview I did with Improta (WARNING: The sound quality of the audio is a bit choppy at the beginning).
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.
