It seems like some of the links in our posts have gone dead. This probably happened because the articles have moved to a different page (many media outlets archive their articles after a certain period of time).
We're aware of the matter and are attempting to remedy the situation now. Sorry for the inconvenience.
It's somewhat amazing to me that by this time, we haven't developed more than two political parties, more than two teams; and what was always intended as a multiple choice question has sadly become a True/False. In the recent Danbury elections, the number of votes, region-wide, for 3rd party candidates barely surpassed that of the votes gathered by Bugs Bunny and Paul Bunyan. Now maybe I can understand this in the bigger races - the mayoral seats, the gubernatorial seats, the national Congress, the Presidency - but City Council? and Zoning Board? I defy 90% of the November electorate to even name how many seats ARE on the Council or the Board.
But my point is not to attack anyone's civics - rather to ask if you don't really understand the merits of the race, why not pull the level as haphazardly for "DIFFERENT," as opposed to " VAGUE PARTY LOYALTY?" Even in this land of plenty, it seems we have this fatigue of "sameness" in our culture when it comes to politics. The same choices...friend of development and business OR "tree hugger..." tax breaks for the wealthiest OR tax increases for all....entitlements for needed public services OR giving little attention to the disadvantaged. And we know it's not that clear. Maybe the next time around, if you pull that third row for Sheriff's race -and we see the world doesn't end with a 3rd Party Sheriff - it'll make it easier to put a different guy in the Council seat, then the mayor's seat and lo' and behold there's a new show that the Lib Dems and Con Reps will have to script around. Until then, the choice should be "None Of The Above."
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.