So much for the state lawmaker who claims to support of full disclosure...
The site "Vote Smart Project" is a non-biased, volunteer based informational portal whose purpose is to inform the public where the candidates stand on issues based on their voting record.
During the election year, the project sends out a "Political Courage Test" that candidates can fill out and give their take on where they stand on a wide range of issues. This service provided by the organization has been an invaluable resource for voters and the public who want to know more about politician's stance on issues without the political spin.
This year, Godfrey does not have the luxury of a re-election as he's in the middle of a tough campaign with a challenger who has effectively highlighted the Deputy Speaker's poor voting record in matters that effect the many residents in his district.
Suddenly, the state lawmaker once endlessly bragged about leading the charge when it came to public disclosure in state government has apparently had a changed of heart when it comes to answering the Vote Smart Project's courage test.
Bob Godfrey has refused to provide voters with positions on key issues covered by the 2016 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests. Historically, candidates have failed to complete our test due to the advice they receive from their parties and advisors and out of fear of negative attack ads. Bob Godfrey is still welcome to submit the test at any time.
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.
