On Saturday, the City Council Democrats issued a press release where they expressed concerns about the lack of information regarding the US Post Office public hearing.
While encouraged by the Post Office’s statement that residents will have their say when the USPS holds a hearing in April or May about the future of the Main Street post office, City Council Democrats are concerned with the fact that the USPS has provided little information about the hearing.
“As we approach the end of April I have yet to see any specific information about the meeting and remain concerned that residents and businesses most impacted by a possible post office closure will not have the opportunity to be heard.” Stated City Council Minority Leader Tom Saadi continuing “We need specifics now regarding the where and when for the meeting and to see the plan for the Post Office to get the word out to those most affected by the possible closure.”
Saadi and other Council Democrats who live only minutes from downtown and represent Wards with many residents and businesses that rely on an official US Post Office Downtown, never received the recent postal survey. A fact of concern to them as it means that many people affected by possible closure were not included in the survey.
Why do I have the feeling that Mr. Honesty's latest blog posting is not a coincidence...
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.
