The opportunity to run for Congress in 2010 was a tremendous honor. My decision to run for Congress in Connecticut’s Fifth District was made by answering a simple question, ‘at this time can I make a difference and help the people of Connecticut by serving in Congress?’ Based on my wife, Lori’s, and my belief that we needed to restore fiscal conservatism to our federal government, we concluded that yes, I could make a difference if elected. Although I was disappointed that we came up short in our election, I was pleased that the message of restoring fiscal responsibility resounded throughout our nation and led to significant changes in Congress.
Since the end of the 2010 campaign, I have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of well-wishers and individuals encouraging me to run again in 2012 for Congress in the Fifth District. While my commitment to serving the people of Connecticut is stronger than ever, Lori and I have made the decision that I will not run for Congress in 2012. With a young family, I believe that I must find a way to help make a difference in our state from closer to home than serving in Washington at this time would permit.
Lori and I will be forever grateful to our many friends who provided us with the support, help and encouragement to run a strong race in 2010. We look forward to finding new ways to serve Connecticut.
Too bad, I could always count on Sam offering some memorable debate moments against Chris Murphy.
Sam will be missed...but maybe now Chris Healy will reach out to Mike McLachlan and ask him to throw his hat in the race (given the GOP chairman's laughable record in recruiting candidates and all).
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.
