Troy Grant, 41, who faces more than 100 years in prison on sexual assault charges, was assigned a new public attorney earlier this month.
Grant was initially being represented by Danbury Attorney Jim Diamond. On March 9, Diamond's motion to drop the Grant case was heard and granted. Diamond explained that in addition to a breakdown in the client-attorney relationship, he did not have a retainer agreement with Grant to go forward with the case. Judge Susan Reynolds granted Diamond's request to be removed from the case.
Rather than choosing to represent himself or seek private representation, Grant applied for a public defender March 9. Public defender Angelica Papastavros was assigned to the case. She was not available for comment.
"The city would much rather have tried the case and won it because we believe, as we have all along, that Danbury police officers had probable cause" for arrest because the laborers committed traffic violations by running into the street.
Wait, wait! According to Mayor Boughton (Dec 2006) and Chief Baker (Danbury 11 press conference in 2007), the raid on Kennedy Park was a federal operation and the city played no role in the action.
Boughton Dec 2006:
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 planning of the raid...
Hartford Courant (Dec 2006):
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.
Fairfield Weekly (a week before the lawsuit was filed):
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.
So after years of telling the public that the city played NO PART in what happened at Kennedy Park, after the case is settled, the city now claims "that Danbury police officers had probable cause" for arrest because the laborers committed traffic violations by running into the street."
Well, it's just so nice that the city FINALLY admitted that they WERE involved in the raid AND that they arrested the day laborers. Oh, by the way, if the city felt so compelled that they was probable cause to ARREST the day laborers at Kennedy Park, why WEREN'T ANY OF THE DAY LABORERS CHARGED WITH ANY TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS? Why were the day laborers only charged with an immigration violation?
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.
[...]
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.
Keep telling the public that the city settled the case because of the insurance company...in Danbury, if a public official tells a lie enough times, it becomes the truth (even when you expose the lie).
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.
This week, I made a two-part appearance on the local access show "Progressive Soup" to talk about the recent settlement in the Danbury 11 immigration civil lawsuit as well as Mayor Mark Boughton's deposition in the case.
Tonight on The Marty Heiser Show (Comcast channel 23 at 9PM), I plan to talk further about the Danbury 11 case and the mayor's deposition. I'll also planning on showing various interviews I did on this subject over the years as well as present comments Boughton made to the media from 2006 to present.
A police officer in Elizabeth, New Jersey, was charged with extorting money from undocumented immigrants, saying he did not deliver for Immigration if he received money. The announcement was made by the office of Union County prosecutor, Theodore J. Romankow.
Rocco Malgieri, 43, resident of the town of Brick Township is accused of theft and extortion in the second degree, attempted second-degree extortion, misconduct of a police officer in the second degree, third-degree misconduct, receiving bribes and application of bribery in third grade.
[...]
According to the investigations that began in February this year, had practiced Malgieri stops Hispanic drivers without authorization, polling them about their immigration status and threatening to turn them in to immigration unless he received money. The stops occurred while he was serving.
NOTE: Referenced article was originally written in Portuguese and translated to English. Incorrect grammar in translated article is to limitations of Google Translate.
Fifth CD Rep. Chris Murphy holds a narrow lead over Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz in the Democratic primary—which won't be held for more than a year, and which could feature additional candidates (a few other people are poking their noses around the race). Murphy has a nine-point lead with men, but Bysiewicz's advantage with women is just three points. She does win African Americans by a large margin, but they only make up 11% of the primary electorate in our sample. The biggest difference between the candidates is in their favorables: Murphy scores an impressive 51-14 among Democrats, while Bysiewicz is at 45-27.
Even though no Republicans have officially declared their candidacies yet, we tested the general election (registered voters) as well:
Susan Bysiewicz (D): 44 Mark Boughton (R): 34 Undecided: 22
Chris Murphy (D): 52 Mark Boughton (R): 29 Undecided: 19
Susan Bysiewicz (D): 45 Michael Fedele (R): 35 Undecided: 20
Chris Murphy (D): 51 Michael Fedele (R): 29 Undecided: 20
Susan Bysiewicz (D): 45 Scott Frantz (R): 30 Undecided: 24
Chris Murphy (D): 51 Scott Frantz (R): 27 Undecided: 22
Susan Bysiewicz (D): 50 Linda McMahon (R): 39 Undecided: 12
Chris Murphy (D): 54 Linda McMahon (R): 38 Undecided: 9
Susan Bysiewicz (D): 42 Rob Simmons (R): 39 Undecided: 19
Chris Murphy (D): 49 Rob Simmons (R): 34 Undecided: 18 (MoE: ±3.4%)
If I were Susan Bysiewicz, I'd be pretty pleased with these numbers—even the most popular Republicans can't crawl their way into the 40s. But if I were Chris Murphy, I'd be even more stoked, and it's not hard to see why: He crushes the nobodies by twenty-plus-point margins, bodyslams Linda McMahon by sixteen and hold even the semi-popular Rob Simmons to a fifteen point spread. Again, the difference lies in the favorables: Statewide, all voters like Murphy by a 40-27 spread. Bysiewicz, on the other hand, is under water at 31-41. It's a testament to how weak Republicans are in Connecticut that they do so poorly against her, with only Simmons making the race even appear to be competitive.
More bad news for Danbury's last honest man.
Although most people polled responded "Boughton who?" when asked for their opinion of our mayor, most who knew Mark didn't have anything good to say about him.
Click here to view the entire poll (Public Policy Polling, 400 Registered Voters, MoE 4.9%, Mar 17, 2011 - Mar 20, 2011).
All I can say is funny how Boughton changed his tune about the Danbury 11 case once he was UNDER OATH...and it's alarming how Boughton's change in tune wasn't reported by the News-Times.
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.
Danbury Patch has the latest on the Troy Grant court case:
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.
