"The Vermont Superior Court found Mr. Tinsley guilty of larceny -- of being a thief, and with Mr. Tinsley's continued assertion of innocence without putting the State's evidence to the test, he is an unrepentant thief."
[...]
"By failing to disclose pending larceny charges during the election campaign and by condemning the financial management of the then-incumbent administration while not disclosing being hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and filing for bankruptcy, Mr. Tinsley has conducted himself dishonorably."
"Brookfield Connecticut First Selectman Bill Tinsley stealing money from his employer. He and the Brookfield Republican Town Committee kept this secret throughout his election. It was never disclosed and he plead down from embezzlement to larceny."
Tinsley: Charges are 'False and Frivolous' Reached by phone Friday, Tinsley categorically denied the accusations, calling the charges “false and frivolous.” “It did not happen,” he said, stating that the video evidence does not show any proof of theft. “A misunderstanding with a temporary employer resulted in his claim of theft against me,” adding that the “claim was not investigated by police.” Tinsley’s assertion that Bailey’s claim was not investigated by police is “completely false,” according to investigating officer Sgt. Richard King of the Ludlow Police Department. Police Officer Sheds Light on Investigation King said Friday that the department did a full investigation, including “gathering numerous documents” and reviewing the videotape, which is “crystal clear.” “One segment shows [Tinsley] clearly — directly face-on — reaching into the deposit bag and placing money in his pocket,” King said. King said the department took Bailey’s statement in March 2012 and, following their investigation, Tinsley was arraigned in April. He was charged with misdemeanor larceny and felony embezzlement. "The amount doesn't matter for embezzlement," King explained of the felony charge. "If you work for a company and take money from that company, that's a felony."
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.
