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.”
As Mayor Boughton continues to mislead the public about the merit of the plaintiff's complaints in the Danbury 11 case, from 2007 here's the complete footage of the press conference that was conducted by local immigrant activists and the attorneys from Jerome N. Frank Legal Services organization at Yale Law School.
Listen to the description of what happened at Kennedy Park by those who were arrested and the reason the suit was filed. Also listen carefully to questions I raised at the press conference regarding Boughton's claim that THE CITY PLAYED NO ROLE IN THE RAID.
In light of Boughton's inconsistent statements to the public, and the 400,000 dollar settlement in this case, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO VIEW THE DEPOSITION FROM BOUGHTON, McLACHLAN and CHIEF BAKER...make the depositions available to the public.
He [Mayor Boughton] added that the city's legal fees alone probably reached nearly $1 million, while court documents indicate the plaintiffs' attorneys racked up more than $5.9 million in costs.
Boughton said in his deposition that the suit had cost Danbury about $500,000 with the town responsible for a $100,000 deductible.
At this point, given Boughton's inconsistent comments (AGAIN), maybe someone should file an Freedom of Information request with the city and get the real figure on the city attorney fees.
In light of Boughton's inconsistent statements to the public, and the 400,000 dollar settlement in this case, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO VIEW THE DEPOSITION FROM BOUGHTON, McLACHLAN and CHIEF BAKER...make the depositions available to the public.
"We are elated by news of this settlement. Day laborers have an undeniable constitutional right to seek work in public, and we are pleased Danbury has taken steps to compensate day laborers whose rights were violated. Federal courts have repeatedly enjoined municipal ordinances and actions that unlawfully punish day laborers. We are hopeful the outcome of this case, particularly with its unprecedented monetary settlement, serves as further warning to other cities that may consider trampling day laborers' civil rights. Congratulations and thanks are owed to the brave Danbury day laborers and their counsel for having the courage and conviction to defend our bedrock civil rights."
From Sept 2007, here's the infamous press conference from Mark Boughton that happened on the day the civil lawsuit was filed. Until now, the public has never viewed this footage from the press conference in it's entirety. For those in the media who were not at this event and plan to write on this story, I HIGHLY recommend that you view the footage.
When you watch the video, keep in mind that until this day, Boughton insisted that the city played no part in the raid at Kennedy Park (first comment was made in December 2006; press conference footage taken in Sept 2007). Also, keep in mind that Boughton's revised comments about the city's role in the raid in this footage came AFTER a freedom of Information request from the Yale Law Students revealed that Danbury PD was very involved in the raid (e.g., an undercover police officer was driving the van that was used to round up the day-laborers, police documents show that a Danbury Police officer was the arresting official, day laborers were charges were only related to immigration, etc.). That information was provided to Yale unearthed earlier that same year AND I reported on the revelation on Sept 17 2007.
As someone who attended the presser, I can tell you that reporters were frustrated with the way Boughton avoided answering questions about the city's role in the raid (e.g., you'll be able to hear the frustration from Mark Spencer from the Hartford Courant when he asked the mayor who was the arresting officers). Also take note on how Boughton answers questions regarding his knowledge of the raid.
This interview from Boughton is quite extraordinary for several reasons, the most important is that this was the first time he had to face questions from several media outlets on this subject from outside the local area (New York Times, Hartford Courant, WTNH, etc.). Second, when it comes to credibility, Boughton's evasive answers regarding the city's role in the raid should raise more questions than answers. For example, Nine months AFTER stating that the city played no role in the raid, Boughton now claimed that the city offered "logistical" support BUT refuses to offer an explanation to the nature of the city's "logistical" support. It was only until years later AFTER this presser was conducted that we learned that Danbury's role in the matter was MUCH more than what Boughton stated in interviews prior to the Sept. press conference.
In numerous news accounts at the time of the Sept. 19, 2006 arrests, Boughton said the operation was not ordered by the city, but was rather a federal operation that Danbury assisted with, based on information he received at the time from Police Chief Alan Baker.
ICE agent James Brown, according to court documents, rejected that description. “He (Boughton) said the city did not order the operation, that ICE was already on the way. That is not correct, not for this activity that we are talking about on Sept. 19,” Brown testified.
Danbury police Lt. James Fisher, in a separate deposition, testified that Danbury police initiated the action by seeking ICE assistance, which ICE approved after the third or fourth request. ICE agent Richard McCaffrey in his deposition, said Boughton was pressuring the police chief, who pressured the department’s Special Investigations Division “to do something about” the day laborers at Kennedy Park.
The questions directed to Boughton by the statewide media regarding the city's role in the raid are EXACTLY the type of questions reporters should be asking him now for one reason...Boughton's responses to Danbury's involvement in the raid goes to the heart of his credibility. Remember, politicians get in trouble more for their dishonesty than for their missteps.
Based on his responses in the video, let's just say that I don't think Boughton helped his case as I'm almost certain he was questioned about these statements in his deposition while under oath.
Although the footage is over 16 mins. in length, I recommend that you watch it...and view it in it's correct context along with the statements Boughton made about the case aprox. nine months prior.
Remember, as of now, the public has yet to view and/or read Boughton's entire deposition when he was forced to answer questions about the case under oath. Although the material has been made available to the Danbury News-Times and The New Haven Register, which provided the best insight into portions of Boughton's 300 page deposition transcript, the public should have an opportunity to view the material and judge for themselves.
In light of Boughton's inconsistent statements to the public, his statements to the press in the above video, and the 400,000 dollar settlement in this case, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO VIEW THE DEPOSITION FROM BOUGHTON, McLACHLAN and CHIEF BAKER...make the depositions available to the public.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers hailed the settlement as a major victory, calling it the largest amount ever obtained by day laborers and a harsh rebuke to Mayor Mark D. Boughton, who has taken a combative stance on immigration issues and strongly supported the actions of the Police Department.
“We’re thrilled,” said Helen O’Reilly, a law student intern with the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale University, which represented the laborers, along with lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. “The message that this sends,” Ms. O’Reilly said, “is that if a city does what Danbury did, and they harass and target Latino day laborers, there are consequences and substantial costs.”
[...]
Juan Barrera, one of the men arrested, said he was celebrating the settlement. “We hope that the rights of each individual and each day laborer who arrives at Kennedy Park to look for work will now be respected,” he said.
As for the delusional one...
But Mr. Boughton dismissed the settlement as a modest sum and said it would not affect how the local police enforced the law. “It’s very clear that we specifically did not do anything wrong, and we are not changing any of our policies, practices or customs,” he said in an interview.
Whatever...trust me, you won't be seeing raids like the one done at Kennedy Park done again any time soon.
Still no response from Boughton's regarding misleading statements he made about the city's involvement in the matter.
In light of the settlement, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO VIEW THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION FROM BOUGHTON, McLACHLAN and CHIEF BAKER...make the depositions available to the public.
Back in Sept of 2006, ICE agents, disguised as contractors, went to Kennedy Park and picked up several day laborers who were looking for work. After being picked up, the workers were driven to Danbury Police Headquarters where they were subsequently arrested and detained.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit against Boughton, Police Chief Al Baker, and the City of Danbury in response to an arrests alleging that the city violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
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.
Boughton claimed in numerous interviews to the media back in December of 2006 that DANBURY HAD NO ROLE IN THE OPERATION THAT RESULTED IN THE ARREST OF THE DAY LABORERS ON KENNEDY PARK. It wasn't until the lawyers representing the day laborers won their FOI lawsuit against the city of Danbury was it exposed that an UNDERCOVER DANBURY POLICE OFFICER drove the van that picked up the day laborers...in other words, Danbury PD were involved with the raid.
…in short, Boughton LIED and continues to LIE about the case.
Since most people outside of Danbury are unfamiliar with this case and the mayor's long history of misleading the public regarding this immigration civil rights case, I decided to repost my write-up on Boughton's dishonesty (originally posted on HatCityBLOG back in October 2007).
This is serious.
This is not a joke.
This is not about one's view on immigration.
This is about an over-zealous mayor who has, once again, used the topic of immigration for political purposes.
This is about the local media KNOWING that the mayor mislead the public YET won't challenge the mayor on his previous statements.
This is about residents having to read news accounts from other mainstream media outlets to get the real story.
This is about honesty.
This is about integrity.
This is about trust.
Here's what Boughton said about the city's role in the 2006 ICE raid at Kennedy Park.
Hartford Courant 12.14.06
A group of students at Yale Law School is expected to file suit today in federal court in a bid to find out how Homeland Security put together its sting on Sept. 19. The students want to know what role Danbury played in the operation and if the policies guiding the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm may be unconstitutional. Their inquiry began with a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act. "We asked nicely," said Simon Moshenberg, a second-year student from Washington, D.C. "They didn't answer. We sued."
[...]
In an interview Wednesday, Boughton insisted that immigration police acted alone. They notified Danbury police this summer that they'd be making some arrests this fall but offered no other details, he said.
Television reports on Danbury 11 case: 12.06
Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...
Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...
Fairfield Weekly last week (before Boughton was slapped with a lawsuit):
A year ago, eleven Ecuadorian day laborers were sneakily apprehended in Danbury's Kennedy Park by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with help from some men pretending to be contractors. They had some hard hats, a van and, according to recently uncovered information, a few Danbury police badges.
Why were the local cops assisting in a federal sting? Well, according to remarks from Danbury mayor Mark Boughton last December, they weren't. He repeatedly said the city played no role in the ICE raid.
[...]
Simon Moshenberg, a Yale Law Student representing the "Danbury 11" in a federal court case that began Monday, received the booking report for the arrests after placing a FOIA request. Under "arresting officer," was the name "Lolli," which turns out to be the name of a Danbury police officer. The Danbury News-Times quotes Chief Al Baker explaining that the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van. The department chose not to further comment on their involvement when approached by the Weekly.
Boughton elaborated in an e-mail that "the city provided logistical support to ICE," which is "common" and "does not mean that the Danbury PD planned, organized or carried out the raid." He stands by his comments from December.
From October 2007, here's my interview with Simon Moshenberg, one of the Yale Law Students representing the "Danbury 11" in federal court.
1.: Information obtained from the FOI request shows Danbury police officer as the arresting officer on booking report.
2. According to defense attorney Simon Moshenberg, in brief to the court, the Department of Homeland Security states that DANBURY POLICE OFFICERS were the ones disguised as contractors and driving the van used to pick up the day laborers. This is contrary to statements Boughton made to the press in December 2006.
Video highlights of what we knew then about Danbury's role in the raid versus what we know now.
...and there's this gem from the feds and DanburyPD about Boughton's claim.
In numerous news accounts at the time of the Sept. 19, 2006 arrests, Boughton said the operation was not ordered by the city, but was rather a federal operation that Danbury assisted with, based on information he received at the time from Police Chief Alan Baker.
ICE agent James Brown, according to court documents, rejected that description. “He (Boughton) said the city did not order the operation, that ICE was already on the way. That is not correct, not for this activity that we are talking about on Sept. 19,” Brown testified.
Danbury police Lt. James Fisher, in a separate deposition, testified that Danbury police initiated the action by seeking ICE assistance, which ICE approved after the third or fourth request. ICE agent Richard McCaffrey in his deposition, said Boughton was pressuring the police chief, who pressured the department’s Special Investigations Division “to do something about” the day laborers at Kennedy Park.
FACTS:
• In December, Mayor Boughton (who at the time had no problem talking about the ICE raid at Kennedy Park) was repeatedly quoted in the media as stating that the city of Danbury played NO ROLE in the rounding up of day-laborers.
• Documents finally released in April via a Freedom of Information request shows that a booking report lists the arresting officer in the raid as a Danbury Police official.
• A court brief by the Department of Homeland Security states that a undercover Danbury Police officer was the individual who drove the vehicle used to pick up the day-laborers.
• One year after the raids and ten months after Mayor Boughton made his initial statement about Danbury's non-involvement in the raids, in a News-Times article, Chief Al Baker states that "...the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van."
• Once having no problem talking about the incident (and hurling insults at the Yale Law Students), NOW Mayor Boughton refuses to comment on the details of the raid AND modified his stance about the city's role in the raid by stating that the city provided logistics. Again, Boughton changed his tune only AFTER attorneys for Yale unearth the documents that showed that DanburyPD drove the an used to pick up the day laborers.
At this point, the public has a right to view either the videotaped depositions and/or transcripts from Boughton, Chief Baker, and then chief of staff Mike McLachlan and learn the real facts regarding the city's participation in this case...a case in which the city just forked over 400,000 to settle the matter although the mayor stated the city played no role in the ICE operation.
Remember, the city's settlement marks the largest financial settlement in the history of civil rights actions brought by day laborers.
Today, the U.S. Census Bureau released the 2010 census data and it shows Danbury maintaining it's status as the state's seventh largest municipality. The data also shows the city increasing in population from 74,848 in 2000 to 80893 in 2010 (an increase of 8.1 percent).
Troy Grant, a former youth counselor in Danbury who faces more than 100 years in prison on sexual assault charges, was given three choices in Danbury Superior Court Wednesday.
Hire a new attorney, represent yourself, or qualify for a public defender, said Judge Susan Sheridan Reynolds.
Reynolds granted Grant’s former attorney the right to drop the case. She also kept Grant behind bars awaiting trail, rather than grant his motion to dismiss his arrest for failing to appear in court in December.
Today, we received more insight into the failed relationship between Grant and his former attorney, as well as insight into Grant's refusal to accept two plea deals that was offered to him.
Diamond explained that he and Grant have failed to communicate and that Grant hasn’t paid Diamond for Grant’s upcoming trial.
[...]
“He is not participating in the trial preparation and he is not participating in the plea negotiations,” Diamond said.
The state initially offered Grant a plea deal of 85 years suspended after 45 years, and Grant rejected that offer. He was then offered a deal that cut that in half, or “more than half,” Diamond said, down to 18 years, and Grant refused it.
“Mr. Grant decided he wanted a jury trail,” Diamond said. “Mr. Grant has just not cooperated in my efforts to represent him. I think the attorney-client relationship has broken down.”
Seeing that Grant basically admitted to his crime to the police, and is facing a possibility of being locked up for the rest of his life, I never understood why he didn't accept the plea deal of 18 years.
It seems like Grant has made his situation all the more complicated...and he has only himself to blame.
UPDATE 9:30: The News-Times write-up on today's hearing just hit the wire.
DANBURY 11 CASE: Settlement with feds nets 250,000
Tuesday, March 08, 2011 Time: 9:59 PM
Just received word that along with the city forking over 400,000 to the victims in the Danbury 11 case, the feds also settled their case...for 250,000.
The city settled the suit for $400,000, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton said. He called it a "nuisance" sum reached by the city's insurance company.
[...]
“This isn’t about civil rights. It’s about legal fees,” Boughton said. “If there had been a civil rights violation, they wouldn’t have settled. They’d keep going to recoup their millions.”
Boughton said the city’s insurance carrier will pay the entire $400,000, and the taxpayers will pay nothing.
“It’s their nickel. They get to all the shots,” Boughton said.
He said the lawsuit is over, and it did not change any city procedures or policies. There is no apology and there is no change to the city’s agreement with immigration officials on the 287 G agreement between Danbury and the federal government.
“At one point they wanted that agreement changed and they wanted an apology. The settlement calls for neither,” Boughton said.
Hey Mark, if you're having such a hissy fit over the case, WHY DID YOU AGREE TO SETTLE THE MATTER? Also, this case HAD NOTHING to do with the 287g program...it had to do with the city overstepping it's authority in an immigration matter...a matter that happened PRIOR to the 287g agreement...a matter in which YOU stated that the city played NO PART on the raid.
So using Boughton's logic, the city just did the largest settlement ever awarded in a civil rights case involving day laborers ALTHOUGH the city played no part in the raid.
You having problems following Boughton's logic also?
Oh...no word from the mayor regarding his misleading statements regarding the city's role in the 2006 raid or comments he made to the press versus statements he made in his deposition.
"The parties in Barrera v. Boughton have reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and are committing it to writing. The substantial settlement represents a real victory given comparable jury awards. It is perplexing that the City of Danbury would say it was "vindicated" as the city is paying our clients the largest financial settlement in the history of civil rights actions brought by day laborers. The Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP undertook this case pro bono and will not collect a penny in legal fees."
Back in Sept of 2006, ICE agents, disguised as contractors, went to Kennedy Park and picked up several day laborers who were looking for work. After being picked up, the workers were driven to Danbury Police Headquarters where they were subsequently arrested and detained.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit against Boughton, Police Chief Al Baker, and the City of Danbury in response to an arrests alleging that the city violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
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.
Boughton claimed in numerous interviews to the media back in December of 2006 that DANBURY HAD NO ROLE IN THE OPERATION THAT RESULTED IN THE ARREST OF THE DAY LABORERS ON KENNEDY PARK. It wasn't until the lawyers representing the day laborers won their FOI lawsuit against the city of Danbury was it exposed that an UNDERCOVER DANBURY POLICE OFFICER drove the van that picked up the day laborers...in other words, DanburyPD were involved with the raid.
…in other words, Boughton LIED and continues to lie about the case.
Since most people outside of Danbury are unfamiliar with this case and Boughton's long history of misleading the public, I'll try and get everyone up the speed about this matter before commenting on the latest developments in the lawsuit.
The following the originally posted on HatCityBLOG back in October 2007.
This is serious.
This is not a joke.
This is not about one's view on immigration.
This is about an over-zealous mayor who has, once again, used the topic of immigration for political purposes.
This is about the local media KNOWING that the mayor mislead the public YET won't challenge the mayor on his previous statements.
This is about residents having to read news accounts from other mainstream media outlets to get the real story.
This is about honesty.
This is about integrity.
This is about trust.
Here are some quotes from the last honest man in Danbury regarding the use of local police to enforce immigration laws:
Hartford Courant, April 26 2006.
Most local police departments say they have no interest in arresting illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes. Even in Danbury, when Mayor Mark Boughton last year tried unsuccessfully to have state police enforce immigration law, he said he didn't want his police doing it because it could discourage immigrants from cooperating in criminal investigations.
New York Times 05.25.05
It will begin at Kennedy Park, where the crowds of Hispanic men who gather before dawn to find work as day laborers helped prompt Mayor Mark D. Boughton to ask that the state police be deputized to enforce federal immigration laws.
[...]
Now, while members of Danbury's Common Council continue to draft a ''repetitive outdoor activity'' ordinance to restrict volleyball by cracking down on parking and noise, among other things, the mayor says deputizing the state police may not be necessary, that the police may have enough remedies without becoming immigration agents.
Hartford Courant 05.07.05
Lost in the hubbub is the political reality that having state police enforce immigration law in Connecticut is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever. And even Boughton acknowledges that his plan would have little effect on the number of undocumented immigrants in town.
[...]
Blumenthal responded to Boughton's request by saying it would need the approval of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Public Safety Commissioner Leonard Boyle and the state legislature.
Blumenthal said there is no chance of that happening this year and he has "serious reservations" about the proposal.
"Deputizing local or state police is not a long term or fundamental solution to the problem," he said.
Although Boughton wants state police to enforce immigration law, he is not interested in Danbury police having the same authority, for fear it would cripple their ability to investigate other crimes.
"The same is true, to an even greater extent, for the state police," Blumenthal said.
Since we now know that Boughton spearheaded the effort to have Danbury enrolled in the ICE ACCESS program, when it comes to local police enforcing immigration law, Boughton's previous statements to the public were nothing more than lies.
Unlike misleading the public about his view on local enforcement of immigration laws, when it comes to the comments the mayor made in regards to the Danbury 11 case, Boughton's lies could place the city in legal jeopardy.
Here's what Boughton said about the city's role in the ICE raid.
Hartford Courant 12.14.06
A group of students at Yale Law School is expected to file suit today in federal court in a bid to find out how Homeland Security put together its sting on Sept. 19. The students want to know what role Danbury played in the operation and if the policies guiding the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm may be unconstitutional. Their inquiry began with a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act. "We asked nicely," said Simon Moshenberg, a second-year student from Washington, D.C. "They didn't answer. We sued."
[...]
In an interview Wednesday, Boughton insisted that immigration police acted alone. They notified Danbury police this summer that they'd be making some arrests this fall but offered no other details, he said.
Television reports on Danbury 11 case: 12.06
Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...
Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...
Fairfield Weekly last week (before Boughton was slapped with a lawsuit):
A year ago, eleven Ecuadorian day laborers were sneakily apprehended in Danbury's Kennedy Park by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with help from some men pretending to be contractors. They had some hard hats, a van and, according to recently uncovered information, a few Danbury police badges.
Why were the local cops assisting in a federal sting? Well, according to remarks from Danbury mayor Mark Boughton last December, they weren't. He repeatedly said the city played no role in the ICE raid.
[...]
Simon Moshenberg, a Yale Law Student representing the "Danbury 11" in a federal court case that began Monday, received the booking report for the arrests after placing a FOIA request. Under "arresting officer," was the name "Lolli," which turns out to be the name of a Danbury police officer. The Danbury News-Times quotes Chief Al Baker explaining that the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van. The department chose not to further comment on their involvement when approached by the Weekly.
Boughton elaborated in an e-mail that "the city provided logistical support to ICE," which is "common" and "does not mean that the Danbury PD planned, organized or carried out the raid." He stands by his comments from December.
From October 2007, here's my interview with Simon Moshenberg, one of the Yale Law Students representing the "Danbury 11" in federal court.
1.: Information obtained from the FOI request shows Danbury police officer as the arresting officer on booking report.
2. According to defense attorney Simon Moshenberg, in brief to the court, the Department of Homeland Security states that DANBURY POLICE OFFICERS were the ones disguised as contractors and driving the van used to pick up the day laborers. This is contrary to statements Boughton made to the press in December and the city of Danbury has not issued an official response in any legal proceedings regarding DHS's statement.
Video highlights of what we knew then about Danbury's role in the raid versus what we know now.
FACT:
• In December, Mayor Boughton (who at the time had no problem talking about the ICE raid at Kennedy Park) was repeatedly quoted in the media as stating that the city of Danbury played NO ROLE in the rounding up of day-laborers.
• Documents finally released in April via a Freedom of Information request shows that a booking report lists the arresting officer in the raid as a Danbury Police official.
• A court brief by the Department of Homeland Security states that a undercover Danbury Police officer was the individual who drove the vehicle used to pick up the day-laborers.
• One year after the raids and ten months after Mayor Boughton made his initial statement about Danbury's non-involvement in the raids, in a News-Times article, Chief Al Baker states that "...the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van."
• Once having no problem talking about the incident (and hurling insults at the Yale Law Students), NOW Mayor Boughton refuses to comment on the details of the raid.
• Mayor Boughton's action has placed the city in a MAJOR civil lawsuit.
At this point, how can anyone trust a word that comes out of Boughton's mouth.
"Frankly we view this as a vindication for the city and the actions of the police officers," said Dan Casagrande, an attorney representing the city in the lawsuit.
Wait, I thought when it came to the raid at Kennedy Park, there were NO actions from the Danbury PD.
In light of Casagrande's laughable claim, it's imperative that the PUBLIC is allowed to view the video depositions from Boughton, Baker, and Mike McLachlan. Because of LIES from the Boughton and city officials, the taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars...and in my opinion, a further investigation should be launched regarding statements Boughton made about the raid prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
Danbury 11 FLASHBACK: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed mayor testifies
Time: 12:42 PM
In light of recent rumors regarding the Danbury 11 case, this post from July 20 highlights portions of Mayor Boughton's VIDEOTAPED deposition...and why it's important that the public is allowed to view the ENTIRE deposition.
Yesterday, the New Haven Register (NHR) published a massive 1660 word article on Mark Boughton's deposition in the Danbury 11 civil lawsuit that provides startling new details regarding the mayor's testimony in the case.
Over three times longer than News-Times Dirk Perrefort's July 9th article, New Haven Register reporter Mary O'Leary provided several important details in the testimony of Boughton and officers for the Danbury police department that was noticeably absent in the News-Times write-up.
The first paragraph of O'Leary's article outlines the mayor appearing to admit that using a traffic violation as a pretext for checking a person's immigration status is wrong. According to the NHR report, the problem with the mayor's statement is that Danbury police officers testified that they used this pretext in picking up the day laborers.
Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, testifying under oath in a recent deposition for a civil rights lawsuit, agreed that using a traffic violation as a pretext to inquire about someone’s legal status is wrong, even though his police department rounded up a group of immigrants in 2006 on a crime they were never charged with.
That issue goes to the heart of the suit filed by a Yale Law School clinic against Danbury officials and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, charging that they had racially profiled 11 men in violation of their due process and unreasonable search protections when they were arrested in a sting operation in September 2006.
The suit concerns the events of Sept. 19, 2006 at Kennedy Park, when a Danbury police officer, posing as a contractor, picked up the 11 day laborers and drove them to another parking lot, where immigration officials were waiting. They were processed in Danbury by its police. Subsequently, ICE sent them to immigration facilities around the country, several as far away as Texas.
In their own depositions, Danbury police officers testified that the men were picked up for an alleged traffic violation, such as “illegal use of the highway by a pedestrian,” as they approached stopped vehicles seeking workers, but the men were never charged with any such infraction, according to the booking records.
The only charge was illegal entry into the U.S., which is a federal violation.
To the best of my knowledge, this critical piece of testimony from Boughton and the Danbury Police Department never appeared in any of the News-Times articles on the case.
Even more troubling is this portion of Boughton's testimony.
Boughton said he did not know about the arrests or any planning leading up to them, and was not aware that the men had been booked by Danbury police until about a year ago, something he became aware of “through this case,” referring to the civil rights suit.
He said that’s when he learned about “courtesy booking and understood that we provide courtesy booking for the FBI, the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), as well as ICE or anybody else that asks for it.”
The problem with this portion of the mayor's testimony is that the revelation that the Danbury Police Department booked the day laborers came out back in 2007 in the Danbury 11 deportation case, which is different than the civil case. In fact, I reported on this in an AUDIO interview I did with Yale Law Student Simon Moshenberg back on Sept 18 2007.
Back when the civil case was announced, I also specifically asked the law students about when they learned about DanburyPD's role in the case. Also, during Boughton's press conference on the day the civil suit was filed, the mayor was questioned by the media about the disclosure in the deportation proceedings that the city played a larger role in the raid.
If O'Leary's reporting of the mayor's testimony is accurate, it appears that Boughton is not telling the truth about when he learned about the day laborers being booked by Danbury PD…something that did not appear in Perrefort's article although he had a copy of Boughton's deposition.
“There is no such thing,” said Hugh Keefe, a well-known criminal defense lawyer, of the term “courtesy booking.” He said he’s heard of FBI officers using a police facility to fill out their own paperwork, but not local police booking federal suspects.
[…]
“Danbury has a lot of real crime. It seems to me they have their hands full already. This is clearly a pretext arrest. When was the last time you heard of a police department arresting someone for being an unsafe pedestrian?” Keefe asked.
Also absent in all of the News-Times articles on the case are the quotes from an ICE agent and DanburyPD found in previous court documents that appear to contradict Boughton's comments.
In numerous news accounts at the time of the Sept. 19, 2006 arrests, Boughton said the operation was not ordered by the city, but was rather a federal operation that Danbury assisted with, based on information he received at the time from Police Chief Alan Baker.
ICE agent James Brown, according to court documents, rejected that description. “He (Boughton) said the city did not order the operation, that ICE was already on the way. That is not correct, not for this activity that we are talking about on Sept. 19,” Brown testified.
Danbury police Lt. James Fisher, in a separate deposition, testified that Danbury police initiated the action by seeking ICE assistance, which ICE approved after the third or fourth request. ICE agent Richard McCaffrey in his deposition, said Boughton was pressuring the police chief, who pressured the department’s Special Investigations Division “to do something about” the day laborers at Kennedy Park.
I highly recommend that you go to the New Haven Register and read the entire article and re-read Perrefort's News-Times piece. Afterwards, ask yourself which article is more informative and why are key portions of Boughton's testimony absent in Perrefort’s write-up.
NOTE:The New Haven Register revised the headline of the article online but several websites copied the original headline before it was altered.
BREAKING: Danbury 11 case settlement offer in the works?
Monday, March 07, 2011 Time: 8:58 PM
The latest rumor regarding the Danbury 11 case is that the city is attempting to settle the matter for 80k per person plus attorney fees.
If this rumor is true, when you add the cost of attorney fees on both sides, it would mean that the city of Danbury is willing to settle this case for aprox. 1,000,000 dollars.
Personally, I'd be REALLY disappointed if this case ends in a settlement but I'm not one of the plaintiffs in the matter. That being said, if this rumor is true (and I have no reason not to believe it), then THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO VIEW THE ENTIRE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF MAYOR BOUGHTON, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF MIKE MCLAHCLAN, AND POLICE CHIEF AL BAKER.
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:
Prepare to laugh.
