I look forward to having an opportunity to address and correct the record," he said. "We look forward to going to trial and vigorously defend our position. We think we are right.
...by the way, if Boughton so ready to defend his position in the case, why offer a "sealed offer of judgement" a month before his scheduled and LONG AWAITED deposition?
City officials filed a "sealed offer of judgement" in the federal lawsuit last month and the plaintiffs had up until this week to accept or reject it.
An attorney for the plaintiffs said a judgment offer isn't a settlement in the traditional sense, but an offer by a party that would "let the court enter a judgement against it," in this case the city, if specific terms are met.
"Such offers are rarely made in federal court," said Elizabeth Goergen, an attorney with the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm that is co-counsel on the case for the plaintiffs.
"Danbury filed such an offer and the plaintiffs have rejected it because the terms were inadequate," she said.
Face it Mark, no matter what you and your cronies are saying now about the case:
There is VERY good chance that your lying about what you knew about the raid before it took place.
You tried everything in your power to NOT be deposed in the case...and lost.
And you tired to settle the case before you were set to be placed under oath and questioned by the very law student from Yale that you've mocked for years...and lost.
After three and a half years, in a few weeks, Boughton is going to be forced to do something that you haven't done in years...tell the truth. Since Boughton is running for lieutenant governor, the state has a RIGHT TO KNOW what else the mayor has lied about regarding this case...and the only way we're going to get answers is by having Boughton's deposition made available to the public.
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.
