VIDEO: Interview with Lee Farm advocate Christine Rotello
Time: 6:31 PM
Recently, Rotello wrote a op-ed in opposition towards the Army's placement of a reserve center at the Lee Larm property and during the interview she explained why she's adamantly against the development of the historic site.
LOCAL ACCESS VIDEO: Progressive Soup 09.22.10 broadcast
Time: 10:08 AM
LOCAL ACCESS VIDEO: Community Forum 09.22.10 broadcast
Time: 9:38 AM
Boughton speaks but hardly anyone was there to listen
Time: 6:57 PM
Case in point, read this tidbit regarding Boughton's appearance at the Connecticut Union of College Republicans event at UConn Sunday.
On Sunday, I attended a meeting of the Connecticut Union of College Republicans (CUCR). Several state and federal candidates spoke about their election goals. and noted the importance of staying informed and being involved in CUCR and the political process in general.
The problem was that these candidates were speaking to an almost empty room.
Out of those 41, I recognized at least five who were workers on one of the candidate's campaigns or were candidates themselves. At the actual event, there were barely 20 people in attendance to listen to the guest speakers, not including the candidates.
Each of the candidates at the CUCR meeting, from Mark Boughton to Catherine Marx, remarked how wonderful it was to see so many young people at the meeting. I hope that was just a standard part of their speeches; in my experience with the CUCR, we get more people at meetings near finals time than we had at Sunday's session.
Now take that into consideration when you watch Mark plays it up for the camera at the event (i.e., "is anyone here from Western")...
Give this man deserves a Golden Raspberry Award for best acting by a politician.
Think about what a Lt. Gov. Boughton can do for race relations: The World Cup/Parade ordinance edition
Time: 4:44 PM
During the debate over the ordinance, Boughton attempted to use the World Cup celebrations as a justification for the ordinance although spontaneous celebration is protected by the first amendment.
I'm re-posting of the following write-up to establish two very important points for people who are not familiar to the activities of Danbury's dishonest mayor: 1. Boughton has a long history of misleading the public when it comes to immigration (as well as a vast number of other issues) and 2. the local media has a LONG history of not holding Boughton accountable or scrutinizing the mayor activities over the years.
This post is a great example of the local media's failure to scrutinize elected officials in Danbury area who have used the topic of immigration to divide communities along ethnic lines and cast a dark cloud over a once great city.
...just imagine what this man could do for race relations for the state if elected Lt. Gov.?
Originally posted June 29th 2010
Oh, this is rich!
For those who have followed Boughton's misleading statements to the public over the years, his latest comment regarding the parade ordinance and the impromptu World Cup celebrations is laughable to say the least.
Here's the last honest man in Danbury in his own words addressing the parade ordinance just a few days ago:
Boughton said while the city does have an ordinance governing parades, the ones that follow soccer matches are impromptu events.
"These are spontaneous celebrations and there is nobody really organizing them," he said.
Did Boughton just say that the World Cup celebrations were impromptu celebrations that are not covered by the parade ordinance? Is this the same mayor claimed that the parade ordinance could be used to control the World Cup celebrations when he was selling his proposal to the public?
Lets take a trip back in time to the parade ordinance debate in 2006 and see what Boughton said about the World Cup game celebrations when questioned about the parade ordinance by then News-Times reporter Elizabeth Putnam on the local access TV show
Boughton in his own words, June 2007:
PUTNAM: Now the impetus for the parade ordinance however was impromptu celebrations, this does not really address that. Is there a way to address that?
BOUGHTON: I would disagree with that statement that it doesn't address that. I think this ordinance could be a better tool in the tool box in looking at impromptu celebrations. That wasn't the whole impetus, that was only part of the impetus and I'll explain why.
If you're talking about the parades after the World Cup game that were very controversial that happened in 2006, those are not impromptu parades. We spend a lot of time planning internally for those parades. If you know that is a World Cup game coming up on Sunday…the chief and I probably had two or three discussions/meetings about how many police officers we're going to bring in…and what type of enforcement activity we're going to have. So there is planning going on…
PUTNAM: …there's planning going on with your side…
BOUGHTON: …and there's planning going on their side as well. Those individuals know that when the game is over that they're going to be in the streets. We would take this ordinance, in addition to writing tickets for not being properly seatbealted and all the other issues that came up during that time period, we would also cite people for not having the proper permit for not being on Main Street if they're blocking traffic and/or holding up public safety vehicles so I think this is another tool in the toolbox to do that and I don't' necessarily agree with that statement that it won't do that.
In case you weren't' keeping scoring, lets review
LIE number 1: The Mayor says that the World Cup games were NOT spontaneous because he and the chief had "prior planning."
FACT: What the Mayor and police chief do in terms of addressing traffic concerns has NOTHING to do with the legal definition of prior planning as outlined by the ordinance.
JUST READ THE ORDINANCE!
Sec 11-15 (a):
Parade means any march, demonstration, procession, or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.
The term "parade permit applicant" MEANS A PLANNING COMMITTEE and NOT AN INDIVIDUAL and definitely NOT THE MAYOR OR POLICE CHIEF.
In other words, PRIOR PLANNING does not mean the following:
The Mets are one game away from winning the World Series. I'm at a bar and tell my buddies that if they win, we'll run up and down the street and celebrate with the other Mets fans.
NOR does it mean this...
I just graduated from high school and I drive my car up and down the road with my friends, which I'll probably see for the last time, because I finished High School.
NOR does it mean this...
I'm at my house watching the World Cup games and decide to jump into my car and drive up and down the street because my team won.
THIS is prior planning:
The local AOH plans to hold a St. Partick's Day parade. a planning committee is formed to organize the event.
The police union plans on holding a demonstration in front of City Hall against the Mayor over the lack of a contract. A planning committee is formed to organize the event.
A group of immigrant rights organizations plan on holding a rally down Main Street to protest Mayor Boughton and the fact that he uses the immigration issue for political purposes. They get together and plan the event.
LIE number 2: When called out on LIE number 1 by an then News-Times reporter Elizabeth Putnam, the mayor fumbled and stated that the celebrants had prior planning because they knew that they were going to go out in the streets after the game.
FACT: Prior planning does not apply to people deciding to celebrate in the streets spontaneously…you would think that a former high school teacher should know basic First Amendment law.
LIE number 3: The ordinance is another "tool in the toolbox" to help the police.
FACT: This so-called "tool" was not needed in the "toolbox" to address traffic concerns that stemmed from spontaneous parades (a.k.a. those pesky immigrants celebrating downtown). They are already LAWS on the books to address the problems that stemmed from the World Cup games in regards to traffic concerns.
From the parade ordinance debate in 2007, here's Minority Leader Tom Saadi outlining EVERY POINT I just raised in my debunking of Boughton's dishonest comment:
Even though opponents against the ordinance repeatedly stated that the parade ordinance could not be applied to impromptu celebrations, Boughton stuck to his dishonest statement throughout the parade ordinance debate until it was approved by the council…and he used the topic of immigration and the controversy surrounding the 2006 World Cup celebrations to do it.
They don't call Boughton the last honest man in Danbury for nothing!
…to be continued.
THE TROY GRANT CASE: Accept or reject
Time: 12:53 PM
Yesterday, I took a trip to Danbury Superior Court i order to provide an update on the case against Troy Grant.
The 41 year old former youth counselor for Pathways Danbury was arrested and charged with numerous charges stemming from his alleged sexual involvement with teenage boys (complete list of charges against Grant are listed below):
According to the police affidavit, Grant admitted to having sexual relations with one of the victims but denied that he provided alcohol to any minors.
As the hearing started, it was learned that the prosecutor offered a plea deal to Grant that consisted 85 years jail time, suspended after 40 years, with 35 years probation and being placed on the sex offender list.
That offer was rejected.
A plea deal was also offered by Judge Susan Reynolds, which was not supported by the prosecution, which consisted of 40 years jail time suspended after 18 years, probation for 35 years, and sex offender registration.
Grant rejected the offer.
Here's the best transcript I could jot down of the conversation between Judge Reynolds and Grant:
Judge: Knowing that if this goes to trial, you can possible be incarcerated for an excess to 100 years.
Grant: Yes your honor.
Judge: Do you wish to reject the court's offer of 40 years, execution suspended after 18 years, 35 years probation…this will not be put back on the table...once it's gone, it's gone.
Grant: Yes your honor.
Judge: And you wish to reject
Grant: Yes your honor.
Having rejected the two offers, Grant opted to take his case to a jury. The case is to be continued on November 10th.
02.05.10: VIDEO: Interview with Pathway Danbury Exe. Dir. Troy Grant
02.11.10: Court increase bond, places conditions to protect victims
02.18.10: Warrant paints a disturbing picture; Grant admits having sexual relations with victim
LIVE VIDEO STREAM: 09.22.10 Board of Education meeting
Time: 7:11 PM
Time: 4:57 PM
"It's already late in the (election) cycle and we do have a full schedule of events," he said. "I also have a responsibility to run the city of Danbury."
Boughton didn't have time to do a FREE and OPEN debate with Helena Abrantes or Gary Goncalves but he has MORE than enough time criss-crossing the state with Tom Foley?
They don't call him Danbury's last honest man for nothing!
John Pirro beat me to the punch
Time: 2:34 PM
I'll have more on what happened at the Troy Grant case later...
Time: 5:20 PM
"What concerns me about this is the issue of Mark Boughton's truthfulness or the lack thereof," she said. "It's clear from [Boughton's the Danbury 11] depositions in the case that he's not telling the truth."-Nancy DiNardo, Chairwoman Connecticut Democrats.
...I've been saying this about Danbury's last honest man for the last
Taborsak criticize News-Times for failure to scrutinize city's admitted wrongdoing in firefighter lawsuit
Time: 9:59 AM
Taborsak's letter gave details into the merit of the suit and called upon Boughton to provided details in regards to the city's admittance of wrongdoing that played a factor into the case being settled. All of the points in Taborsak's letter were reported numerous times on this site and can be found in the court records.
Here's the letter in full as published on this site back in Jume.
There is good news for the residents of Danbury! The city is now accepting applications for the position of entry level firefighter! Applications will be accepted until June 23rd. Let’s hope this round of hiring strictly follows civil service rules and let’s make sure our “part-time” Mayor understands how a merit eligibility list works. It requires selections to be made on the sole basis of ability as demonstrated by the examination. We don’t want another lawsuit or another $450,000 settlement coming out of city coffers. That money could have been used to save five or six teaching positions in this year’s school budget.
However, mistakes were made and they cannot be explained away as simple administrative errors. There were eight rounds of hiring using the old list and in every single round the city made the same mistake over and over. In every round the Mayor selected less qualified candidates over better qualified candidates and the City Council went along and approved them. It’s outrageous that one of the less qualified candidates was engaged to Acting-Chief Philip Curran’s daughter and that a second less qualified candidate was the son of Michael Finn, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission These particular selections give an appearance of bias or favoritism.
I don’t think the Mayor would make the same mistake eight times in a row. One time is a mistake. Eight times is purposeful and willful. He must think that he can get away with anything.
I think it is embarrassing that a Ridgefield attorney had to go into court for a Writ of Mandamus to make the City follow its own rules. Add to that $450,000 settlement another $180,000 that our municipal risk insurance paid to defend us for making the same mistake over and over.
If you missed this letter to the editor in the News-Times it's because the newspaper refused to publish it.
Last week, Taborsak took to the airwaves to provide the public details regarding the case, express her frustration with the paper's refusal to examine the city's admitted wrongdoing in the case, and comment on the rejection of her letter to the editor.
Boughton refuses to provide details regarding city's admittance of wrongdoing in firefighter lawsuit settlement
COURT DOCUMENTS: Read the allegations of wrongdoing by Boughton by plaintiffs
Dirk Perrefort vs. Dirk Perrefort
Time: 3:21 PM
STEP TWO: Read New Haven Register Mary O'Leary's July 21 article on Mark Boughton's deposition.
Now that you see the startling differences between the two articles...
STEP THREE: Read Perrefort's September 19th article on Boughton's deposition.
Why is there a vast difference between Perrefort's two articles since they are based on the exact same thing: Boughton's deposition. Better yet, isn't it ironic that Perrefort's second stab at Boughton's deposition almost mirrors New Haven Register reporter O'Leary's piece from July?
Given that this is the same person who has yet to report on the embarrassing details regarding the city's admittance of wrongdoing in the 450,000 dollar firefighter settlement, maybe the editors at the News-Times should have a talk with their "political" reporter.
...I miss Eugene.
FLASHBACK: The MISleader
Time: 2:05 PM
Back in Sept of 2006, ICE agents, disguised as contractors, went to Kennedy Park and picked up several day laborers who were looking for work. After being picked up, the workers were driven to Danbury Police Headquarters where they were subsequently arrested and detained.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit against Boughton, Police Chief Al Baker, and the City of Danbury in response to an arrests alleging that the city violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
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.
Boughton claimed in numerous interviews to the media back in December of 2006 that DANBURY HAD NO ROLE IN THE OPERATION THAT RESULTED IN THE ARREST OF THE DAY LABORERS ON KENNEDY PARK. It wasn't until the lawyers representing the day laborers won their FOI lawsuit against the city of Danbury was it exposed that an UNDERCOVER DANBURY POLICE OFFICER drove the van that picked up the day laborers...in other words, DanburyPD were involved with the raid.
…in other words, Boughton LIED and continues to lie about the case.
Since most people outside of Danbury are unfamiliar with this case and Boughton's long history of misleading the public, I'll try and get everyone up the speed about this matter before commenting on the latest developments in the lawsuit.
The following the originally posted on HatCityBLOG back in October 2007.
This is serious.
This is not a joke.
This is not about one's view on immigration.
This is about an over-zealous mayor who has, once again, used the topic of immigration for political purposes.
This is about the local media KNOWING that the mayor mislead the public YET won't challenge the mayor on his previous statements.
This is about residents having to read news accounts from other mainstream media outlets to get the real story.
This is about honesty.
This is about integrity.
This is about trust.
Here are some quotes from the last honest man in Danbury regarding the use of local police to enforce immigration laws:
Hartford Courant, April 26 2006.
Most local police departments say they have no interest in arresting illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes. Even in Danbury, when Mayor Mark Boughton last year tried unsuccessfully to have state police enforce immigration law, he said he didn't want his police doing it because it could discourage immigrants from cooperating in criminal investigations.
New York Times 05.25.05
It will begin at Kennedy Park, where the crowds of Hispanic men who gather before dawn to find work as day laborers helped prompt Mayor Mark D. Boughton to ask that the state police be deputized to enforce federal immigration laws.
Now, while members of Danbury's Common Council continue to draft a ''repetitive outdoor activity'' ordinance to restrict volleyball by cracking down on parking and noise, among other things, the mayor says deputizing the state police may not be necessary, that the police may have enough remedies without becoming immigration agents.
Hartford Courant 05.07.05
Lost in the hubbub is the political reality that having state police enforce immigration law in Connecticut is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever. And even Boughton acknowledges that his plan would have little effect on the number of undocumented immigrants in town.
Blumenthal responded to Boughton's request by saying it would need the approval of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Public Safety Commissioner Leonard Boyle and the state legislature.
Blumenthal said there is no chance of that happening this year and he has "serious reservations" about the proposal.
"Deputizing local or state police is not a long term or fundamental solution to the problem," he said.
Although Boughton wants state police to enforce immigration law, he is not interested in Danbury police having the same authority, for fear it would cripple their ability to investigate other crimes.
"The same is true, to an even greater extent, for the state police," Blumenthal said.
Since we now know that Boughton spearheaded the effort to have Danbury enrolled in the ICE ACCESS program, when it comes to local police enforcing immigration law, Boughton's previous statements to the public were nothing more than lies.
Unlike misleading the public about his view on local enforcement of immigration laws, when it comes to the comments the mayor made in regards to the Danbury 11 case, Boughton's lies could place the city in legal jeopardy.
Here's what Boughton said about the city's role in the ICE raid.
Hartford Courant 12.14.06
A group of students at Yale Law School is expected to file suit today in federal court in a bid to find out how Homeland Security put together its sting on Sept. 19. The students want to know what role Danbury played in the operation and if the policies guiding the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm may be unconstitutional. Their inquiry began with a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act. "We asked nicely," said Simon Moshenberg, a second-year student from Washington, D.C. "They didn't answer. We sued."
In an interview Wednesday, Boughton insisted that immigration police acted alone. They notified Danbury police this summer that they'd be making some arrests this fall but offered no other details, he said.
Television reports on Danbury 11 case: 12.06
Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...
Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...
Fairfield Weekly last week (before Boughton was slapped with a lawsuit):
A year ago, eleven Ecuadorian day laborers were sneakily apprehended in Danbury's Kennedy Park by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with help from some men pretending to be contractors. They had some hard hats, a van and, according to recently uncovered information, a few Danbury police badges.
Why were the local cops assisting in a federal sting? Well, according to remarks from Danbury mayor Mark Boughton last December, they weren't. He repeatedly said the city played no role in the ICE raid.
Simon Moshenberg, a Yale Law Student representing the "Danbury 11" in a federal court case that began Monday, received the booking report for the arrests after placing a FOIA request. Under "arresting officer," was the name "Lolli," which turns out to be the name of a Danbury police officer. The Danbury News-Times quotes Chief Al Baker explaining that the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van. The department chose not to further comment on their involvement when approached by the Weekly.
Boughton elaborated in an e-mail that "the city provided logistical support to ICE," which is "common" and "does not mean that the Danbury PD planned, organized or carried out the raid." He stands by his comments from December.
From October 2007, here's my interview with Simon Moshenberg, one of the Yale Law Students representing the "Danbury 11" in federal court.
1.: Information obtained from the FOI request shows Danbury police officer as the arresting officer on booking report.
2. According to defense attorney Simon Moshenberg, in brief to the court, the Department of Homeland Security states that DANBURY POLICE OFFICERS were the ones disguised as contractors and driving the van used to pick up the day laborers. This is contrary to statements Boughton made to the press in December and the city of Danbury has not issued an official response in any legal proceedings regarding DHS's statement.
Video highlights of what we knew then about Danbury's role in the raid versus what we know now.
• In December, Mayor Boughton (who at the time had no problem talking about the ICE raid at Kennedy Park) was repeatedly quoted in the media as stating that the city of Danbury played NO ROLE in the rounding up of day-laborers.
• Documents finally released in April via a Freedom of Information request shows that a booking report lists the arresting officer in the raid as a Danbury Police official.
• A court brief by the Department of Homeland Security states that a undercover Danbury Police officer was the individual who drove the vehicle used to pick up the day-laborers.
• One year after the raids and ten months after Mayor Boughton made his initial statement about Danbury's non-involvement in the raids, in a News-Times article, Chief Al Baker states that "...the arrests were initially made because of complaints about the day laborers' effects on traffic and that Danbury police did drive the van."
• Once having no problem talking about the incident (and hurling insults at the Yale Law Students), NOW Mayor Boughton refuses to comment on the details of the raid.
• Mayor Boughton's action has placed the city in a MAJOR civil lawsuit.
At this point, how can anyone trust a word that comes out of Boughton's mouth.
DANBURY 11 FLASHBACK: NEW HAVEN REGISTER: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed Danbury mayor testifies
Time: 12:17 PM
In light's of Dirk Perrefort's "updated" article in today's edition of the News-Times (print only), this post from July 20 highlights many of the facts in Boughton's deposition, which was noticeably absent in Perrefort's original article back in July, is bumped to the top.
Again, please note the stark differences between the News-Times reporting of Boughton's deposition and what was unveiled by the New Haven Register was originally posted on JULY 20 2010!!!
I'll have more on this troubling situation with the News-Times coverage of Boughton later...
Yesterday, the New Haven Register (NHR) published a massive 1660 word article on Mark Boughton's deposition in the Danbury 11 civil lawsuit that provides startling new details regarding the mayor's testimony in the case.
Over three times longer than News-Times Dirk Perrefort's July 9th article, New Haven Register reporter Mary O'Leary provided several important details in the testimony of Boughton and officers for the Danbury police department that was noticeably absent in the News-Times write-up.
The first paragraph of O'Leary's article outlines the mayor appearing to admit that using a traffic violation as a pretext for checking a person's immigration status is wrong. According to the NHR report, the problem with the mayor's statement is that Danbury police officers testified that they used this pretext in picking up the day laborers.
Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, testifying under oath in a recent deposition for a civil rights lawsuit, agreed that using a traffic violation as a pretext to inquire about someone’s legal status is wrong, even though his police department rounded up a group of immigrants in 2006 on a crime they were never charged with.
That issue goes to the heart of the suit filed by a Yale Law School clinic against Danbury officials and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, charging that they had racially profiled 11 men in violation of their due process and unreasonable search protections when they were arrested in a sting operation in September 2006.
The suit concerns the events of Sept. 19, 2006 at Kennedy Park, when a Danbury police officer, posing as a contractor, picked up the 11 day laborers and drove them to another parking lot, where immigration officials were waiting. They were processed in Danbury by its police. Subsequently, ICE sent them to immigration facilities around the country, several as far away as Texas.
In their own depositions, Danbury police officers testified that the men were picked up for an alleged traffic violation, such as “illegal use of the highway by a pedestrian,” as they approached stopped vehicles seeking workers, but the men were never charged with any such infraction, according to the booking records.
The only charge was illegal entry into the U.S., which is a federal violation.
To the best of my knowledge, this critical piece of testimony from Boughton and the Danbury Police Department never appeared in any of the News-Times articles on the case.
Even more troubling is this portion of Boughton's testimony.
Boughton said he did not know about the arrests or any planning leading up to them, and was not aware that the men had been booked by Danbury police until about a year ago, something he became aware of “through this case,” referring to the civil rights suit.
He said that’s when he learned about “courtesy booking and understood that we provide courtesy booking for the FBI, the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), as well as ICE or anybody else that asks for it.”
The problem with this portion of the mayor's testimony is that the revelation that the Danbury Police Department booked the day laborers came out back in 2007 in the Danbury 11 deportation case, which is different than the civil case. In fact, I reported on this in an AUDIO interview I did with Yale Law Student Simon Moshenberg back on Sept 18 2007.
Back when the civil case was announced, I also specifically asked the law students about when they learned about DanburyPD's role in the case. Also, during Boughton's press conference on the day the civil suit was filed, the mayor was questioned by the media about the disclosure in the deportation proceedings that the city played a larger role in the raid.
If O'Leary's reporting of the mayor's testimony is accurate, it appears that Boughton is not telling the truth about when he learned about the day laborers being booked by Danbury PD…something that did not appear in Perrefort's article although he had a copy of Boughton's deposition.
NHR O'Leary asked several attorneys, including the lawyer who defended former Danbury Mayor Jim Dyer against income tax fraud charges in the 1980s for their take on the Boughton's "courtesy booking" terminology.
“There is no such thing,” said Hugh Keefe, a well-known criminal defense lawyer, of the term “courtesy booking.” He said he’s heard of FBI officers using a police facility to fill out their own paperwork, but not local police booking federal suspects.
“Danbury has a lot of real crime. It seems to me they have their hands full already. This is clearly a pretext arrest. When was the last time you heard of a police department arresting someone for being an unsafe pedestrian?” Keefe asked.
Also absent in all of the News-Times articles on the case are the quotes from an ICE agent and DanburyPD found in previous court documents that appear to contradict Boughton's comments.
In numerous news accounts at the time of the Sept. 19, 2006 arrests, Boughton said the operation was not ordered by the city, but was rather a federal operation that Danbury assisted with, based on information he received at the time from Police Chief Alan Baker.
ICE agent James Brown, according to court documents, rejected that description. “He (Boughton) said the city did not order the operation, that ICE was already on the way. That is not correct, not for this activity that we are talking about on Sept. 19,” Brown testified.
Danbury police Lt. James Fisher, in a separate deposition, testified that Danbury police initiated the action by seeking ICE assistance, which ICE approved after the third or fourth request. ICE agent Richard McCaffrey in his deposition, said Boughton was pressuring the police chief, who pressured the department’s Special Investigations Division “to do something about” the day laborers at Kennedy Park.
I highly recommend that you go to the New Haven Register and read the entire article and re-read Perrefort's News-Times piece. Afterwards, ask yourself which article is more informative and why are key portions of Boughton's testimony absent in Perrefort’s write-up.
NOTE:The New Haven Register revised the headline of the article online but several websites copied the original headline before it was altered.
Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License