UPDATE: Welcome new readers and reporters who are catching up on this very important matter that could result in registered Independent voters in Danbury losing the line of the ballot.
A few things.
1. The Q&A session with Newstimes reporter Mike Gagne and myself starts at 12:25 (we were the only media in attendance).
2. The events surrounding the August 11th caucus were not adjudicated in court. There was NO ruling regarding which slate of candidates was valid. The attorney for the plaintiff repeatedly objected to the relevance of the events surrounding the August 11th being used in the case.
3. Judge Medina was emphatic in his stance that he did not want to get into the arguments regarding the bylaws of a political party.
4. If you're a member of the media and need background, then feel free to reach out at hatcityblog@yahoo.com.
Last Friday, I attended Roberto Alves press conference on the ruling in the Independent Party of Danbury court injunction court case in which the Democratic candidate for mayor took a few questions from the press.
I was unable to get all my questions and concerns about the case and the chain of events that led up to the case answered. You can hear the responses to my questions and pushback to some of the statements made by Alves and Danbury Democrats chairman Larry Riefberg in the clip.
I'm working on a full post on my deep concerns regarding the timeline of statements made about the August 11th caucus, my call for the state mainstream media to get involved in investigating this matter that has now resulted in Independent voters in the city losing their party's place on the ballot.
The following is RAW footage, as I was unable to use my usual equipment.
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.
