"Hello Supreme Ruler Mark, it's your buddy Chucky the pawn.
Since I won my election, can I get your blessing and complete the closing on my house and move out of the second ward?
Word on the street is that fresh from his election win, 2nd ward councilman Charles Trombetta has his bags packed and is in the process of bolting from the second ward. Several people have alleged that Trombetta sold the house some time ago and intentionally put off the closing of his place until after the election for political purposes.
Why would he run for council in the second ward if he planned on moving in the first place? Well because it's easier for Boughton to secure the seat for his purposes if Trombetta ran for office, won re-election, abruptly quit the council after his win, and place a new rubber-stamp pawn in the seat, as opposed to having Trombetta do the right thing and not run for re-election and risk losing the seat to the Democrats.
The over under in Trombetta announcing his exodus from the 2nd ward and being replaced by another Boughton kiss-ass is Christmas...trust me, take the under.
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.
