It's one thing when signs are vandalized (it's an unfortunate part of campaigning), it's another entire matter when one candidate's sign appears to be targeted and damaged throughout the city.
I've reported on my fair share of Danbury's state office campaigns. Still, I've never seen this level of vandalism and abuse towards a single candidate than what State Senate candidate Michele Coelho (and to a smaller extent Judge of Probate candidate Dom Chieffalo) have endured in the last couple of weeks.
And to BE CLEAR, when you see one candidate's sign repeatedly damaged while other signs (sometimes in the SAME AREA) are untouched, it's fair to say that vandalism rises above random incidents. Spare me the B.S about other candidates' damaged signs as I've been monitoring this situation for at least three weeks, and the vandalism to Coehlo and Chieffalo signage is next level).
Over the weekend, I reached out to the chairmen of the Danbury Democratic and Republican town committees to get their take on the recent string of vandalaism and provide them an oppurtunity to call for an end to the nonsense.
Danbury Republican Town Committee chairman Mike Safranek
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.
