Word around the Capitol in recent days has it that the bill that would allow Sunday alcohol sales in retail locations is just a Kansas-tornado house away from ending up like the Wicked Witch of the East, only without any ruby-red slippers poking out. Rep. Joseph Taborsak, D-Danbury, co-chairman of the General Law Committee, just told the Blogster that with the March 15 “JF” deadline – for joint-favorable action – set for next Tuesday, he’s still not sure whether he and Sen. Paul Doyle, D-Wethersfield, will bring the bill up for a vote. If their meeting comes and goes without a vote, Sunday sales is dead for another year.
[...]
”The bill has for some time been on life support,” Taborsak said in a phone interview. “It’s not dead. I subscribe to the philosophy that you don’t call bills that don’t have the votes to pass and so that’s really why the bill has not gotten called. The vote’s close enough so we can’t say it’s dead. It has a chance. It’s such a moving target.”
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.
Ken Dixon brings us the bad news from State Rep Joe Taborsak:
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.
