A federal judge has ruled that the men known as the Danbury 11 not be required to divulge their immigration status as part of their civil rights lawsuit against the city.

While attorneys for the city claimed the status was "at the heart of the case," the judge cited previous case law when she ruled that handing over the information would have a "chilling" effect on other immigrants seeking to enforce their civil rights.

"We are gratified, but not surprised, because this order follows a long line of cases saying the courts should be open to everyone," said Rebecca Heller, a law student with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services organization at Yale Law School, which is representing the immigrants.

"People should not have to face harassment and deportation in order to vindicate their civil rights in federal court," Heller said.

The Danbury 11 is a group of day laborers who were arrested in Danbury and turned over to immigration agents in September 2006 during a sting operation involving local police officers.

The lawsuit filed by the day laborers claims that local police don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration law and that the officers used racial profiling when a local undercover officer picked them up at Kennedy Park.

[...]

"The judge has said they (the city) can't throw up a smokescreen and try to divert the jury from that reality," he said. "The judge saw through the frivolous nature of this defense and will make the defendants act like adults instead of politicians."

[...]

Local immigration attorney Michael Boyle said the city's attempts to gain access to the day laborers' immigration status amounts to a fishing expedition and a scare tactic that is often used in hope the plaintiffs will drop their case.

He added that, in general, most federal judges don't like to encourage such fishing expeditions.

"It's a very positive decision," Boyle said. "But I think for the city of Danbury it astounds me that this case continues to go on forever."

Mayor Mark Boughton, a five-term Republican seeking his party's nomination in the gubernatorial race, has made national headlines in the past concerning immigration issues. He declined to comment specifically on this case because the matter remains pending.

A group of students at Yale Law School is expected to file suit today in federal court in a bid to find out how Homeland Security put together its sting on Sept. 19. The students want to know what role Danbury played in the operation and if the policies guiding the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm may be unconstitutional. Their inquiry began with a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act. "We asked nicely," said Simon Moshenberg, a second-year student from Washington, D.C. "They didn't answer. We sued."

[...]

In an interview Wednesday, Boughton insisted that immigration police acted alone. They notified Danbury police this summer that they'd be making some arrests this fall but offered no other details, he said.

WTNH: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...

WVIT: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...

Late Wednesday afternoon, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell nominated one Superior Court Judge to the Supreme Court to fill a vacancy and 10 lawyers to the Superior Court. However, according to lawmakers in charge of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, the path to confirmation for the 10 Superior Court judges is “murky” at best.

Lawmakers said they will look at confirming Superior Court Judge Dennis Eveleigh to fill the vacancy left by Supreme Court Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, but the other nominations are questionable.

Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for vetting potential judges, said he won’t support any of the nominations until the budget crisis in the Judicial Branch is resolved.

“They have no money,” Lawlor said. “They’re closing courthouses and law libraries.”

The salary for each of the judges could cost the branch as much $150,000 per year, when its already had to scale back its operations after Rell vetoed a bill that would have exempted the Judicial Branch from cutting $7.8 million over the next two years. That decision has forced the branch to start closing courthouses, law libraries, and other programs and because of the early retirement plan there are 400 fewer court interpreters, clerical staff, as well as judicial marshals to provide security.

“Many of these people are very qualified,” but “it’s unlikely they will get confirmed,” Lawlor said Wednesday in a phone interview.

[...]

Ironically, Rell’s Budget Director Robert Genuario, who has maintained that the cuts to the Judicial Branch were necessary, was one of the 10 nominees to the Superior Court bench Wednesday.

A Bethel man slated to defend himself in his own sexual assault trial is seeking in excess of $7 trillion from Litchfield Superior Court alleging libel.

John J. McGowan, also written John-Joseph:McGowan III, claims the court system has been libelous against him for carrying on his criminal case in public. He claimed he is owed over $7.4 trillion from the court system, which must be paid “in admiralty,” which is the law of the sea, through a “commercial process.”

Facing 20-years if found guilty, McGowan is slated to go to trial beginning Aug. 13 at the Litchfield court where he will have to personally convince a jury of his peers that he did not turn a 2008 consensual sex encounter into rape.

McGowan has not sought an attorney and has maintained he wants to go pro se on his case.

Assistant State’s Attorney Dawn Gallo argued there was no legal basis for his $7 trillion libel claim. Judge James P. Ginocchio agreed, saying Gallo is a prosecutor for the state whose job is to deal with criminal cases like McGowan’s.

Gallo noted that McGowan attempted to file the claim in a criminal procedure on civil court paperwork.

“There is no basis in which he can address that claim,” she said.

On Tuesday he filed another motion against Gallo, claiming the prosecutor did not give him a witness list within adequate time of his request for one in November.

Gallo, who then handed over the list, reminded McGowan it is procedural that the witness list must not be submitted until the day of jury selection.

McGowan, however, maintained the list is invalid because the motion he made was not answered in time.

“Therefore, the witnesses on their list should not be called,” McGowan said.

Gallo argued the state has provided “voluminous discovery,” meaning evidence and reports related to his case, in the past few months.

McGowan’s motion to exclude the witness list was a matter of him not understanding the practices of the court, Gallo said.

“If Mr. McGowan had a lawyer, his lawyer would be able to explain that,” the prosecutor said.

Gallo also argued further on the witness list, stating McGowan did obtain a copy already.

How did she know that? Because when she got a request to deny the witness list from McGowan, it listed each of the witnesses she previously wrote on the list, Gallo said.

“There’s no form in which he can address that claim,” Gallo said. “It’s improbable on its face.”

McGowan has previously tried to maintain his own personal sovereignty in court.

He reiterated this on Tuesday, when he initially refused to cross the bar that blocks off the audience section from the court itself.

“I enter strictly under threat, duress and coercion and at no way do I leave my inalienable rights I expressly reserve them,” McGowan said.

Judge Ginocchio eventually convinced him that he had to come forward because being behind the bar — and 20 feet from the microphone — does not affect his rights.

• McGowan harass marchers, desecrates Mexican flag at 2006 immigration rally



• McGowan joins racist local access personality Tom "Big T" Bennett in inciting people to harm members of the immigrant community.



• Fairfield Weekly mocks McGowan's campaign for mayor.



• Elise Marciano anti-immigrant group members applaud while speaker advocates placing immigrants in WW-II style concentration camps.



• Court trial day seven: Jury trial



• Court trial day six: Motions denied



• Court trial day five: Endless Endless subpoenas and bizarre motions to dismiss



• LITCHFIELD REGISTER-CITIZEN: Local man accused of rape is competent for trial
  
  
• NEWS-TIMES: McGowan found competent to stand trial in New Milford rape case



• Court trial day two: Excuses, excuses



• Court trial day one: Strange behavior, disturbing arrest warrant affidavit



• McGowan arrested, charged with first-degree sexual assault

After a group of Latino law school students vehemently objected to Danbury Mayor and Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Boughton's being invited to participate on a university panel discussion about immigration, Boughton said he will abide by their wishes.

"I haven't changed my opinion one bit," Boughton said Tuesday, but "I really wasn't interested in getting engaged in some kind of controversy where people are interested in suppressing my First Amendment right to freedom of speech."

[...]

"I would believe (these statements) are libelous, and I would expect better of law students," he said. "Their letter is so over the top there is no room for intelligent discourse. I strictly believe in the opinion that the laws of the United States of America ought to be enforced and no one is going to take that away from me."

Mayor Boughton is well known for his opinions about undocumented immigrants and law enforcement. But there is no evidence that Boughton is qualified to say anything about undocumented immigrants in the workplace from the point of view of sociological inquiry, legal analysis, or policy prescription. Boughton does not provide "balance" to discussion of rights and redress for the undocumented worker. What he provides is a distraction and a false sense that unless nativists and racists are invited to participate in every discussion that touches on immigration, somehow the discussion is one-sided. Moreover, I have to point out that since Boughton is also a Republican Party candidate for Governor of Connecticut, the Public Interest Law Journal has violated any accepted norm of "balance" by inviting him without inviting his opponents.

[...]

On the other hand, perhaps both Boughton and Attorney Vincent could contribute to a discussion of 287g programs: ICE-initiated programs in collaboration with local officials to effectively "deputize" local law enforcement to act as immigration agents in their communities. In such a discussion, perhaps some qualified speakers could ask them about the role that 287g agreements play in polarizing communities, in making victims of crime fear reporting to the police, and in giving local police further excuses to stop, harass, arrest and detain people for the crime of "breathing while brown." And while we are at it, a "balanced" panel could include officials from the cities of New Haven and Hartford, who have repudiated 287g in favor of local policies that forbid police officers from acting as immigration enforcers. And it could include people from the community: community leaders and individuals who have experienced the impact that these competing policies have effected on immigrants in Connecticut.

• In December, Mayor Boughton (who had no problem talking about the incident) was repeatedly quoted in the media as stating that Danbury was not involved in the raid that occurred last September.

• Documents finally released in April by a FOIA request shows that a booking report lists the arresting officer as a Danbury Police official.

• A court brief by the Department of Homeland Security states that a undercover Danbury Police officer was the individual who drove the vehicle used to pick up the day-laborers.

• Also included in the FOIA release to the Yale Law students were a series of over overtime slips from Danbury Police officers.

• Until two weeks ago, the public was under the impression that Danbury played no part in the raids. NOW, one year after the raids and ten months after Mayor Boughton made his initial statement about Danbury's non-involvement in the raids, The Fairfield Weekly quotes a News-Times article that states Chief Al Baker "explaining that the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van."

• Once having no problem talking about the incident (and hurling insults at the Yale Law Students), NOW Mayor Boughton refuses to comment on the details of the raid.

• Mayor Boughton's action has placed the city in a MAJOR constitutional lawsuit, which will cost the city more money than I care to think about.

Most local police departments say they have no interest in arresting illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes. Even in Danbury, when Mayor Mark Boughton last year tried unsuccessfully to have state police enforce immigration law, he said he didn't want his police doing it because it could discourage immigrants from cooperating in criminal investigations.

It will begin at Kennedy Park, where the crowds of Hispanic men who gather before dawn to find work as day laborers helped prompt Mayor Mark D. Boughton to ask that the state police be deputized to enforce federal immigration laws.

[...]

Now, while members of Danbury's Common Council continue to draft a ''repetitive outdoor activity'' ordinance to restrict volleyball by cracking down on parking and noise, among other things, the mayor says deputizing the state police may not be necessary, that the police may have enough remedies without becoming immigration agents.

Lost in the hubbub is the political reality that having state police enforce immigration law in Connecticut is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever. And even Boughton acknowledges that his plan would have little effect on the number of undocumented immigrants in town.

[...]

Blumenthal responded to Boughton's request by saying it would need the approval of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Public Safety Commissioner Leonard Boyle and the state legislature.

Blumenthal said there is no chance of that happening this year and he has "serious reservations" about the proposal.

"Deputizing local or state police is not a long term or fundamental solution to the problem," he said.

Although Boughton wants state police to enforce immigration law, he is not interested in Danbury police having the same authority, for fear it would cripple their ability to investigate other crimes.

"The same is true, to an even greater extent, for the state police," Blumenthal said.

A group of students at Yale Law School is expected to file suit today in federal court in a bid to find out how Homeland Security put together its sting on Sept. 19. The students want to know what role Danbury played in the operation and if the policies guiding the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm may be unconstitutional. Their inquiry began with a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act. "We asked nicely," said Simon Moshenberg, a second-year student from Washington, D.C. "They didn't answer. We sued."

[...]

In an interview Wednesday, Boughton insisted that immigration police acted alone. They notified Danbury police this summer that they'd be making some arrests this fall but offered no other details, he said.

Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...

Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...

A year ago, eleven Ecuadorian day laborers were sneakily apprehended in Danbury's Kennedy Park by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with help from some men pretending to be contractors. They had some hard hats, a van and, according to recently uncovered information, a few Danbury police badges.

Why were the local cops assisting in a federal sting? Well, according to remarks from Danbury mayor Mark Boughton last December, they weren't. He repeatedly said the city played no role in the ICE raid.

[...]

Simon Moshenberg, a Yale Law Student representing the "Danbury 11" in a federal court case that began Monday, received the booking report for the arrests after placing a FOIA request. Under "arresting officer," was the name "Lolli," which turns out to be the name of a Danbury police officer. The Danbury News-Times quotes Chief Al Baker explaining that the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van. The department chose not to further comment on their involvement when approached by the Weekly.

Boughton elaborated in an e-mail that "the city provided logistical support to ICE," which is "common" and "does not mean that the Danbury PD planned, organized or carried out the raid." He stands by his comments from December.

1.: Information obtained from the FOI request shows Danbury police officer as the arresting officer on booking report.



2. According to defense attorney Simon Moshenberg, in brief to the court, the Department of Homeland Security states that DANBURY POLICE OFFICERS were the ones disguised as contractors and driving the van used to pick up the day laborers. This is contrary to statements Boughton made to the press in December and the city of Danbury has not issued an official response in any legal proceedings regarding DHS's statement.

…he [McGowan] pushed his penis into her anus. When he did this, Victim stated that she asked "What are you doing" and "Stop." Victim states that she arched her back as she initially struggled to to get him out of her. When she did this, McGowan put his right arm around her neck and put her in a headlock.

Dear Patrick,

I was forwarded a copy of the Public Interest Law Journal's response to the Latino Law Student Association regarding the upcoming seminar on undocumented immigrants in the workplace. As an employment attorney who spends a lot of time working on wage theft and the super-exploitation of undocumented immigrants in the workplace, I feel compelled to respond.

With all respect due to you and the other students who have worked on convening this event, I share the disappointment and the disapproval of the students of UConn LLSA with the composition of the seminar. Nor am I persuaded by your response to LLSA's concerns, though I have no doubt that your response is offered in good faith to address those concerns.

What concerns me most - first, about the presence of Mayor Boughton and the keynote speech by Attorney Vincent, and second, about your defense of the decision to invite them - is that it so totally misses the mark in terms of what this symposium is allegedly about. Mayor Boughton is well known for his opinions about undocumented immigrants and law enforcement. But there is no evidence that Boughton is qualified to say anything about undocumented immigrants in the workplace from the point of view of sociological inquiry, legal analysis, or policy prescription. Boughton does not provide "balance" to discussion of rights and redress for the undocumented worker. What he provides is a distraction and a false sense that unless nativists and racists are invited to participate in every discussion that touches on immigration, somehow the discussion is one-sided. Moreover, I have to point out that since Boughton is also a Republican Party candidate for Governor of Connecticut, the Public Interest Law Journal has violated any accepted norm of "balance" by inviting him without inviting his opponents.

Described as the principal legal advisor to ICE, Peter Vincent may have a lot to say about the administration's view of immigration and immigration reform. But if the goal were to invite a speaker from the administration who is qualified to discuss undocumented immigrants in the American workforce, why an ICE attorney instead of someone from the Department of Labor? Under the leadership of Hilda Solis, the USDOL has been very active in collaborating with local community groups and elected officials to fight wage theft and unsafe working conditions, problems that plague undocumented workers. What can Attorney Vincent contribute to that discussion? What expertise in labor policy does he possess that merits making him the keynote speaker for a symposium with the workplace rights of undocumented immigrants as its central theme?

On the other hand, perhaps both Boughton and Attorney Vincent could contribute to a discussion of 287g programs: ICE-initiated programs in collaboration with local officials to effectively "deputize" local law enforcement to act as immigration agents in their communities. In such a discussion, perhaps some qualified speakers could ask them about the role that 287g agreements play in polarizing communities, in making victims of crime fear reporting to the police, and in giving local police further excuses to stop, harass, arrest and detain people for the crime of "breathing while brown." And while we are at it, a "balanced" panel could include officials from the cities of New Haven and Hartford, who have repudiated 287g in favor of local policies that forbid police officers from acting as immigration enforcers. And it could include people from the community: community leaders and individuals who have experienced the impact that these competing policies have effected on immigrants in Connecticut.

What we have here is not balance but a terrible mismatch. Two speakers have been invited (and one a keynote at that) who have no expertise in the area that the symposium is supposed to take up. And though their views and their actions should be exposed to criticism and challenge . . . those views and actions touch most closely on matters that are not on the agenda of this symposium at all.

It is my understanding that the students of LLSA have asked you to revoke the invitations you have extended to Mayor Boughton and to Attorney Vincent. I join in and endorse that view.

Peter Goselin
National Lawyers Guild - Connecticut Chapter

The Latino Law Student Association wishes to express its concerns with respect to Mayor Mark Boughton, scheduled to speak at the upcoming CPILJ Symposium, “Undocumented Immigrants in the Workplace.” Mayor Boughton, of Danbury, has been an outspoken anti-immigrant crusader in the State of Connecticut for the past decade. His policies have served to intimidate Danbury’s immigrant and Latino populations (whether documented or not.) He has asked that Danbury’s police officers participate in ICE’s 287 (g) program, which allows them to enforce federal immigration laws. He has also passed ordinances that permit selective enforcement of the housing code in Latino neighborhoods and that prohibit residents from playing volleyball. 1 Most recently, the Yale Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic filed a lawsuit against the city of Danbury for carrying out an illegal undercover sting operation in which 11 day laborers were arrested. This case involves a joint operation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents where undercover police officers posed as contractors looking for workers, arrested them, and then turned them over to Immigration officials. [2] Mayor Boughton’s hate speech and discriminatory policies targeting immigrants should not be tolerated and he certainly should not be given a platform to espouse his views at UConn CPILJ’s symposium.

Danbury’s city ordinance, as endorsed by Mayor Boughton stands in stark contrast, to that of the city of Hartford, another Connecticut city with a large Latino immigrant population. In August 2009, the city of Hartford passed an immigration ordinance which prohibits the city of Hartford from using local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration laws. First, the ordinance affirms that all city services are available to residents, regardless of immigration status. Next, it prohibits city employees from asking about and disclosing a person’s immigration status when seeking city services. Finally, it prohibits police from asking crime victims and/or witnesses about their immigration status and prevents them from arresting and detaining anyone based solely on immigration status.

On a national level, the use of law enforcement to carry out civil immigration violations is highly controversial. The current immigration policy as it is carried out by The Department of Homeland Security and its agency, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "ICE" (formerly INS), discriminates against Latino workers and harasses Latino and immigrant communities.

The current policy seeks to arrest and deport as many immigrant workers as possible without thought to their human rights and without a fair alternative. ICE is conducting raids on homes and businesses in virtually every state in the nation and has only recently, under the Obama administration, started to go after employers that knowingly employ undocumented workers. The current policy is fundamentally flawed because it disproportionately relies on law enforcement tactics to solve administrative immigration violations. The policy has been particularly harsh on Latino communities and has criminalized Latino workers. The raids used by ICE agents have been condemned nationwide because they indiscriminately arrest and deport persons who may appear to be Latino whether or not there are warrants against them.

The Latino Law Student association is also concerned about CPILJ’s keynote speaker, Peter S. Vincent, who is a representative of the ICE agency. Having a keynote which represents the views of ICE- a notoriously anti-immigrant agency, along with Mayor Boughton on one of the panels, sends a skewed message about how we should think critically about these issues to those in the law school community and the greater Hartford community. We hope that in the future CPILJ and its members consider the impact of bringing such speakers to their symposium.

This past Sunday, March 21, 2010 thousands of immigrants, advocates, and supporters marched on the Washington Mall to raise their voices for a just immigration reform. Immigration raids and deportations continue to affect immigrant communities around the nation. We stand in solidarity and believe that it is important to speak out against individuals, like Mayor Boughton, federal agencies like department of Homeland Security and Immigrations Customs, and Enforcement, who espouse policies that are harmful to Latino communities.

For the foregoing reasons the Latino Student Association expresses its objection to allowing Mayor Boughton and Peter Vincent speak at the upcoming CPILJ Symposium.

- The Latino Law Student Association

To the Law School Community,
The Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal has read with concern LLSA's objections to several of the speakers at Friday's symposium. First, the journal in no way endorses the views of any panelists at our symposium.

That said, we certainly understand the concerns of many students, including members of LLSA, over Mayor Boughton. Many on campus and throughout Connecticut have raised sound arguments against immigration enforcement in Danbury. I look forward to these arguments being made at the symposium on Friday.

But we also feel it is worth noting: While not in line with the views of LLSA or many of the students on this campus, Mayor Boughton's ideas are shared by a large number of people in this country. As such, any discussion of so complex an issue that does not address those views would be incomplete. Indeed, in 2008 the World Affairs Council of Connecticut hosted a debate between Mayor Boughton and New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, and the result was a reasoned dialogue (please see: http://articles.courant.com/2008-03-13/news/0803130243_1_illegal-immigration-immigration-reform-immigrant-labor).

Mayor Boughton has agreed to serve on a panel with three people holding much different views on immigration -- views much more likely to be shared by many of those on campus. These panelists include Sandra Trevino, executive director of La Junta (please see: http://www.juntainc.org/en/about/) and Amy Sugimori, executive director of La Fuente (please see: http://www.nycpp.org/en/staff.html). The journal has made every effort to sponsor a balanced symposium.

We on the symposium committee feel it is important to listen to those with whom we disagree as well as those with whom we agree -- even on issues so fraught with emotion and human suffering as this one. We could live in a world where Mayor Boughtons speak only at Tea Party rallies and Sandra Trevinos speak only at symposia sponsored by public interest law journals. In that world, the symposium we organized would not exist.

Finally, as for Mr. Vincent: We also understand the concerns some have had with immigration policy under the Obama Administration – concerns from those on both sides of the debate (please see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031904676.html). But Mr. Vincent has been appointed under a president who has expressed support for comprehensive immigration reform (please see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09immig.html), including a path to legal citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Mr. Vincent oversees more than 900 federal immigration lawyers across the country, and we hope his talk will add to our understanding of how the government is currently handling this issue and how it may be approached in the future. To the extent LLSA and others on campus disagree with current Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies, we respect those disagreements. But I would again ask you to consider the
above thoughts on considering alternative perspectives.

It is our great hope that members of LLSA -- and students, faculty and staff from across the law school community -- will attend Friday's symposium. We hope that all of our panelists and that our keynote speaker will face questions that challenge their viewpoints. If any people or groups on campus have further concerns, I or any member of the symposium committee would be happy to speak with them.

Sincerely Yours,

Patrick Linsey

Patrick Linsey, Editor-in-Chief
Tony Lu, Symposium Editor
Rachel Sauer, Symposium Editor
Meghan Sweeney, Symposium Editor
Symposium Committee, Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal

More than 200,000 people gathered on the National Mall today to participate in March for America, a rally advocating comprehensive immigration reform.

Organized by Reform Immigration for America, the rally brought together groups from around the country — including Service Employees International Union, Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Democracia Ahora and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles — to send a message to lawmakers: “The time for immigration reform is now.”

President Obama delivered a message from the big screens in the crowd in which he assured the demonstrators of his commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform.

Several lawmakers also spoke at the event, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), and several marchers had signs that read, “Luis Gutierrez for President.” Gutierrez, a leading advocate of immigration reform in the House, said, “If America has a problem it can’t solve, it blames immigrants. We’ve been patient long enough. … I know how you can get heard in the Capitol. You raise your voice. Our day is coming.”