Recently (Wednesday) I purchased the domain names “BoughtonforConnecticut” and “BoughtonforCT”- to ensure that if I chose to run for an office in the State of Connecticut I could use the names that I wanted.
If not, I can keep the url’s and set up another site or just keep them pointed to mayormark.com. I wanted these addresses, I did not want any other addresses, particularly one that specifies an office or a date so that it could be flexible (can’t use a 2010 date in 2011).
The cost was thirty five dollars on my credit card.
Not sure what all the hullabaloo is about, or the unnatural fixation by some, but there you have it.
As someone who's knows a thing or two about the last honest man in Danbury, I laughed out loud when I read his post. No matter who the mayor is spinning to the media, Boughton bought the website "boughtonforct.com" for a simple reason…because he named his campaign"Boughton for Connecticut."
Which brings me to the web domain Boughton bought recently. Look what happens when you type "www.boughtonforct.com/home"
That's strange, I think this looks like a website for someone who's running for governor. And what's that I see in the lower left hand corner of the page? "Boughton for Connecticut."
Wait, wait, there's more!
Hmm…that's strange. Is it me or does this looks like a biography for a person who's running for governor.
I don't know about you, but I think we can put whole matter over Boughton running for governor to rest now.
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.
