It’s unfortunate our publicly elected officials, whether at the podium or in the audience, are politically unable to encourage if not require the need for basic courtesies during public meetings. So, what they didn’t say, I will.
I was embarrassed, ashamed & disheartened by the boorish behavior of so many at Representative Himes' Town Hall Budget Meeting last night. Lies, erroneous stats, & partial truths were championed as gospel by many opposing what is going on in our government, yet when Rep Himes wanted to respond to the comments, he was interrupted, spoken over & wasn't respected enough by them to even listen to his clarification, correction, or his perspective on the subject.
One needn’t agree with any of what our congressman has done or stands for, but there is a certain decorum that should override the grandstanding and pontificating exhibited last night. There were many of us that DID want to hear what Rep. Himes had to say but were unable to do so because of disruptive & rude behavior.
To Rep Himes’ credit, he remained interested, engaged, calm & respectful- even of the louts in attendance. Thank you Rep Himes for taking the time to share your knowledge & perspective on where we are & how we can move forward. No rose colored glasses here- Just the truth- We all must share the pain & we must manage the debt such that it doesn't corrupt the forward momentum & financial correction we are seeing- Thank you for your measured approach.
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.
