Saturday, November 25, 2006
Time: 7:36 PM

Oh MY GOD!!!!! Are you kidding me!

Come on Joe Cavo, your kidding me with your excuses for not broadcasting Common Council meetings right?!?

I'm watching Ivon's Danbury Live right now and I'm at a loss of words. Now, I'm not one of Lynn Waller's biggest fans BUT I'm 100 percent in agreement with her viewpoint behind broadcasting local government meetings and I CAN'T believe the excuses she receiving from the Cavo.

Oh man, I'm not even going to go into this right because I'm going to need time to get everything put together but lets just say that I'm going to make sure things are going to heat up over this.

WARNING: 2007 is an election year and people are going to be held accountable for silliness like this!


Secretary of the State set the record straight to The Danbury News-Times

Time: 3:42 PM

In light of Fred Lucas' inaccurate reporting regarding his "sore loser law" story, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz sets the record straight to the News-Times.

(In what can only be described as arrogant, the News-Times titled Bysiewicz's letter "The sore-loser law is fair to voters")
I am writing to provide some clarification regarding the Nov. 15 article, "State official pushes for 'sore loser' law."

The Lieberman-Lamont race for the U.S. Senate provoked much passion on both sides this year. There were many who called my office angry at Senator Lieberman's plans to run as a petitioning party candidate after losing the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, and there were also many delighted that Senator Lieberman's candidacy remained viable even after losing the primary.

The August primary is a recent phenomenon. Prior to 2004, Connecticut's primaries were held in September and the deadline for candidates to submit petitions to run in November was early August.

However, when the legislature switched the primary date to August, it failed to keep the petition deadline consistent with the new primary date, which led to an unusual quirk in our elections calendar, highlighted by Senator Lieberman's candidacy this year.

I have discussed proposing legislation to realign our state's election calendar to make it as it was before 2004. If a candidate wishes to run in November, regardless of the outcome of a primary "" such as Senator Lieberman did this year "" that would still be possible, provided petitions are submitted to my office one month before the August primary.

This legislation would not have kept Senator Lieberman off the November ballot after he lost the August primary. The only difference would be that, under my proposal, he would have had to let the voters know before the primary that he did not intend to accept the results of the primary in the event he lost.

This bill is consistent with my long-time advocacy of encouraging ballot access and civic participation.

In order to ensure transparency of government, voters should have as much information about a candidate as possible when they are asked to make a choice.
Although Bysiewicz clarified her position, she didn't have to do this as it was clearly Fred Lucas who got the story wrong. As I stated in GREAT DETAIL on the 15th, Bysiewicz NEVER proposed a sore-loser law but simply wanted to fix a loophole that was created when the primary date was pushed back from September to August. She stated this numerous times even going as far as calling a press conference and stating that her proposal was not a sore loser law.

What is absent from this letter is a correction from Fred Lucas and/or the News-Times stating that they got this story wrong. Remember, this story made the front page of the News-Times with a misleading headline OVER A WEEK AGO and although several reporters at the News-Times read this and other blogs that reported on this error, they haven't made an attempt to admit to their error to this date.

Lets go back in time and take a look at Lucas article. The artcle starts off with a lie.
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, one week after being re-elected to a third term, said Tuesday she still planned to push for a "sore loser" law that she talked about during the campaign.
This is a lie. Bysiewicz NEVER, EVER, proposed this during the campaign...what she did talk about is what Lucas quoted her as saying to her in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH.
"I am putting together a legislative package that includes moving the calendar for petitioning candidates to match that of a candidate petitioning for a primary," Bysiewicz said before speaking at Western Connecticut State University on Tuesday.
This is consistant with what Bysiewicz said later that SAME day at a news conference.

Although Lucas got the quote correct, he took it upon himself to call Bysiewicz's proposal a sore loser law and made his entire story based around this false claim.
The proposal is meeting skepticism among state lawmakers, who fear it could be undemocratic. The Connecticut General Assembly convenes in January.

After Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont in August, he launched an independent candidacy and was reelected to a fourth Senate term last week.

If the law Bysiewicz is proposing had been in effect this year, it would have stopped Lieberman from running as an independent after he lost the Democratic primary to Lamont.
IF you watch the vide clip, you'll CLEARLY see that what Lucas is stating is outright wrong and as a political reporter, he should have known better.

This is not the first time the News-Times dropped the ball on a front page story as they ran a frontpage story based on a obvious bogus claim regarding FAKE neo-nazi organization several months ago. The reason why fell for the hoax was simple...they didn't fact check their information.

Lets go back in time and see what the Publisher of the News-Times said in his appology to readers (pay attention to the part in bold):
We were duped. There evidently is no "Grey Wolves" white supremacist group planning to disrupt a Christian organization's rally in Danbury this Tuesday.

A self-described idiot from Fairfield County admitted Friday the whole story was a hoax. The man concocted the neo-Nazi story because he's a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, a philosophy the rally organizers oppose.


The fake Nazi didn't pry money from unsuspecting readers, but he did cause local law enforcement to waste time and energy trying to avoid a confrontation. He also caused anxiety for the organization that planned the rally and scrambled to distance itself from the Grey Wolves.

Regrettably, The News-Times played a part by publishing the man's claims. The story started innocently enough, with details of the rally appearing on our Web site, NewsTimesLive.com, Wednesday afternoon.

The news landscape has changed and, like many media outlets, The News-Times sometimes posts information on its Web site before it appears in print. The man from Fairfield County read the story online and called the newspaper, claiming to represent the neo-Nazi group.

He answered questions and followed with an e-mail; his comments appeared in the print story published Thursday. After the city of Danbury acted quickly by pulling the organizer's rally permit, the hoaxer confessed and apologized.

The idea of a white supremacist group in the region was plausible enough. The Connecticut White Wolves, a white nationalist skinhead organization, has grown in recent years.

In hindsight, we should have checked the man's claims more thoroughly.

That's easy to say now. There will be those who chalk this up as further proof of some grand conspiracy.

In reality, it's a reminder of the need for skepticism because, for some people, lying comes far too easily.
At the time I gave the Publisher props for coming clean but now I see that I was wrong because in reading this again, he's putting more blame on an idiot who called in a fake claim than the reporters and editors who failed to hear the numerous from this the bogus tip (you can read all about that here).

It's fairly obvious that the same editors who brought you the frontpage neonaxi hoax didn't learn their lesson when it comes to doublechecking information from their reporters.

To be clear:

1. A sore loser law is about keeping a candidate off the ballot if he or she loses a priamry.

To be clear:

SoS Bysiewicz proposal had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. She only proposed fixing a loophole which was created when the primary date when moved back from September to August.

To be clear:

Fred Lucas accurately reported on Bysiewicz's proposal and put his spin on the story to make it seem like Bysiewicz was proposing a sore loser law. The News-Times DID NOT fact check his story before going to print and ran a misleading headline claiming that Bysiewicz was proposing a sore loser law.

It's now been two weeks and the News-Times is STILL silent on the matter. Not only did the News-Times mislead the public, but they mislead the politicians that they called from a comment on this story. Instead of reporting on local government issues which goes under the radar, they spoonfeed the public yet another misleading story that received a great deal of feedback from readers.

This is wrong.


Reporter Fred Lucas: State house, politics (203) 731-3358 flucas@newstimes.com

News & Editorial (203) 744-5100 editor@newstimes.com

Jacqueline Smith Managing Editor/News (203) 731-3369 jsmith@newstimes.com

Eric Conrad Editor (203) 731-3361 econrad@newstimes.com

CTLauryn a week later

Time: 3:26 PM

Blame this person on the lack of posts.

Don't say DeStefano didn't warn you

Time: 12:52 PM

He told you so and now it's come true.

Don't look at me, I wasn't fooled by "no-issues" Rowland-Rell...

Bored with b.s refuses to drink the mayor's sports complex kool-aid

Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Time: 11:56 AM

I was going to comment on the "sports complex" proposal and why the people of Danbury better wake up to whats happening as we approach an election year.

Thankfully, not everyone is drinking the kool-aid when it comes to this "sports complex" proposal and the mayor's suggestion that it will not costs the taxpayers a dime.
I say do nothing, at this time, with the land. There is no pressing need for a sports complex, another hockey arena, a baseball stadium, a convention center, or any other proposed use that Mr. Haddad has in mind.

He precludes any other ideas, stating that he doesn't think "anyone can come up with an idea WE (sic) haven't thought about".. Well Mr. Haddad, here's one. How about YOU just leave one little bit of land unbuilt in this overbuilt city for a few decades or more, and see what the value of it becomes for future generations of Danburians.

This "deal" smacks of insider collusion between Boughton and the "investors".

This is a developer driven proposal that will forever remove valuable city land for any other possible use.

No public hearing? Outrageous!

No Common Council or referendum vote? Incredible!

Boughton's statement, "We are not using any tax dollars", is an outright lie. The value of the land, at market rate is "our tax dollars". What benefit the city may possibly receive will be far outweighed by the increased traffic, increased pollution, increased crime, increased police costs, and no real return to the city in tax revenue for ratable property.

The westside development, cloaked in the fear of a casino coming to town and shoved down our throats by Boughton and some of these same "investors" has robbed Danbury of a real tax base, hundreds of acres formerly zoned for corporate and industrial use, now to be crammed with houses and condos that cost the rest of the taxpayers more in services than they ever produce.

And now the last 13 acres are to be virtually "given" to the same insiders to build a complex that the voters are not even going to have a say in because it's purportedly not using tax dollars?

That's just pure B.S.

When is Danbury going to wake up to what's going on here?

Where are the Democrats who are opposed to what's going on here?

Where's the Attorney General,

Where's the F.B.I.??

Where's a good investigative reporter when you need one?

Case closed

Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Time: 10:33 AM

I had an idea that this case was going to end like this.

Parade ordinance moves forward

Monday, November 20, 2006
Time: 10:32 AM

Read about and stay informed.

© 2023 Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License




The Mercurial (RIP)
Danbury News Times
Danbury Patch
Danbury Hamlet Hub
Danbury Daily Voice
Tribuna Newspaper
CT News Junkie
CT Capitol Report

10.03.18 (PDF):
"Approval of Danbury Prospect Charter School"

10.30.20 (HatCityBLOG VID): Charter School discussion during 2020 interview with Julie Kushner

2018 (RADIO): WLAD
"State Board of Ed signs off on Danbury charter school proposal"

08.20 (VID): CT-LEAD
"Stand up for Education Justice" Rally

08.20.20 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Charter schools are not ‘magic bullet’ to improving Danbury schools"

09.13.20 (OP-ED): CHAPMAN
Candidate for state Senate supports charter school for Danbury

01.15.21 (VID): CT-LEAD
Danbury Prospect Charter School press conference

03.19.21 (OP-ED): CT MIRROR
"Danbury leaders do not want a charter school"

04.01.21 (OP-ED): CT-LEAD:
"Why did Sen. Kushner vote against us?"

05.06.21 (VID): Danbury rally to fully fund public schools

10.07.21 (VID): Danbury City-Wide PTO "Meet the Candidates" education forum

10.07.21 NEWSTIMES
Danbury candidates quarrel over charter school, education funding

01.10.22 NEWSTIMES
"New operator named for Danbury charter school: ‘I’m a huge advocate for parent choice’"

01.10.22 NEWSTIMES
"Some Danbury Democrats ‘open minded’ about charter school after new, CT operator named"

01.21.22 (OP-ED): CT MIRROR
"Lessons from Danbury: Ending the dual process for charter school approval"

02.09.22 NEWSTIMES
"Proposed Danbury charter school won’t open in 2022, governor leaves funding out of budget"

02.18.22 NEWSTIMES:
Danbury residents plead for charter school funds in 9-hour state budget hearing: ‘Just exhausted’

03.05.22 (LTE):
Time has come for Danbury charter school

03.12.22 (OP-ED): TAYLOR
"Why I am excited about the Danbury Charter School"

03.16.22 (LTE):
"Why a Danbury Charter School?"

04.02.22 CT EXAMINER:
"Crowding and a Lack of Options for Danbury Students, But No Agreement on Solutions"

04.04.22 (OP-ED): DCS
"Danbury Charter School plans debut"

04.07.22 (PODCAST): (CEA)

04.18.22 (VID): CT-LEAD
Protest press conference

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.



Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants v.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security
3:06-cv-01992-RNC ( D. Conn. )

(02.25.08) Court docket

(10.24.07) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order

(09.26.07) Press Release

(12.14.06) Complaint

Barrera v. Boughton, No. 07-01436
(D. Conn. filed Sept. 26, 2007)

(02.25.08) Court Docket

Amended complaint

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint

NEW HAVEN REGISTER: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed Danbury mayor testifies

(10.05.07 (VIDEO) Boughton mislead the public about Danbury's involvement in raid

(09.18.07) Yale Law Students expose Danbury involvement in raid

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Interview with Yale Law Students at FOI presser

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 FOI complaint media roundup

City Clerk Jean Natale standing next to skinhead sparks outrage

(10.03.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 rally

(09.29.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 case deepens

Word of raid spread across the country

(09/29/06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 protest news conference

(09/29/06) Immigrant newspaper "El Canillita" gives best account of ICE day labor raid at Kennedy Park

trans_button Santos Family Story
VIDEO: Tereza Pereira's ordeal with ICE agents

VIDEO: Danbury Peace Coalition Immigration Forum (April 2006)
featuring Mayor Boughton and Immigration attorney Philip Berns

VIDEO: 2007 Stop the Raids immigration forum at WCSU

2007: Community protest anti-immigration forum

A tribute to Hispanic Center Director and immigrant activist Maria Cinta Lowe



11.15.23 Recanvass return
(Head Moderator Return Format)

11.07.23: Election night returns
(Head Moderator Return Format)

11.07.23: Initial returns

Oct 10 2022
Jan 10 2023
Apr 10 2023
Jul 10 2023
Oct 10 2023

Apr 10 2023
Jul 10 2023
Oct 10 2023

Dem/GOP slate/ballot position

VIDEO: DRTC convention
VIDEO: DDTC conveniton


(VID) DDTC nomination convention
(PDF) DDTC campaign slate flyer

(VID) DRTC nomination convention
(PDF) DRTC campaign slate flyer

(VID) 2021 Danbury City-Wide PTO educational forum

First quarter
Alves Apr 10th SEEC filing

Second quarter
Alves Jul 10th SEEC filing
Esposito Jul 10th SEEC filing

Third quarter
Alves Oct 12th SEEC report
Esposito Oct 12th SEEC report

Alves "Jan 6th" attack mailer 10.21.21
Esposito "you can't trust Alves" attack mailer 10.20.21
Alves mailer 10.20.21
Alves mailer 09.30.21
Esposito mailer 09.28.21
Alves mailer 09.27.21
Esposito mailer 09.27.21


Danbury 2005 election results
Newstimes Dean Esposito profile (10.25.05)

Danbury 2007 election results
(VID) Helana Abrantes TV ad
(VID) BRT tax deferral presser
(VID) Helena Abrantes "Community Forum" interview

Danbury 2009 election results
(VID) 2009 Danbury City-Wide PTO educational forum
(VID) 2009 Danbury Chamber of Commerce mayoral debate
(VID) 2009 DDTC nomination convention

Danbury 2011 election results
(VID) Saadi/Nero campaign kickoff

Danbury 2013 election results
(VID) 2013 DDTC nominaiton convention

Danbury 2015 election results

Danbury 2017 election results
(VID) Al Almeida concession speech
(VID) 2017 Danbury City-Wide PTO educational forum
(VID) Al Almeida nomination acceptance speech

Danbury 2019 election results
(VID) 2019 NewsTimes Editorial Board interview with Mark Boughton and Chris Setaro
(VID) 2019 Danbury City-Wide PTO educational forum
(VID) 2019 Danbury Chamber of Commerce mayoral debate
(VID) 2019 convention endorsement speeches from Mark Boughton and Chris Setaro