Boughton said if Lynn really thought education was a priority for the city, she would have recruited a full slate of candidates for the Board of Education, rather than half a slate. He said the Democrats controled the board until 2009 for the previous 30-plus years.
"They had all the time in the world to expand the classrooms," Boughton said.
Nice try Mark put those in the game know that you're lying your ass off.
Although this requires a bit of explaining (which I'll do in a future post REAL SOON) Boughton knows he's being dishonest about the Democrats running the Board of Education for years as a simple look at the voting record will reveal that a CLEAR majority of decisions made by the board involved the MAJORITY of Republicans and two Democrats which combined really ruled things on the BOE. The remaining Democrats on the board were actually in the minority and for years openly complained about the two Democrats who conspired with the Republicans to control the board.
Again, this entire episode is rather complex and will take a bit of time to fully explain but I'll break things down for everyone in a future post (which will include video) REAL SOON.
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.
