He’s vehemently opposed to a woman’s right to choose. He’s been endorsed by the radical right wing Family Institute of Connecticut. He’s campaigned with the anti-immigration United States Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement (USCFILE), including their leader, who has said she believes President Obama is a Muslim. And he could very well be your Governor.
Tom Foley’s running mate, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, is one resignation away from the most radical Governor Connecticut has ever seen.
Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, New York and Connecticut all have current Governors who ascended to the top job after their running mate either resigned to take another job or resigned amidst scandal. It happens more than you think. Electing Tom Foley as Governor means Mark Boughton will be next in line should Foley leave office. Are you comfortable with someone like that leading the state of Connecticut?
Why do I have the feeling that this is not the last time Democrats will remind voters in the state about Boughton's real public record?
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.
