In honor of Mark Boughton continued dishonesty in regards to the Danbury 11 case, here's the transcript of the mayor's videotaped deposition.
In short, Yale definitely did their share of homework when it comes to the history of immigration under Boughton's watch and while they didn't nail everything, lets just say that they were able to get the mayor on record on a certain matters of interest such as:
Agreeing that pretext arrests are wrong YET that's exactly what DanburyPD did at Kennedy Park in Sept 2006 (the day laborers were ONLY charged with immigration violations.
Boughton's laughable suggestion that the media was inaccurate in their coverage of the case, primarily his comments about the city's role in the Kennedy Park raid.
(p. 244) Boughton claimed that he learned that DPD drove the van a year prior his deposition (which would be in 2009) YET that information came out during a different trial (deporation case) based on a FOI request from Yale back in spring 2007. I know this because I did an interview with the Yale attorneys on this subject in Sept 2007.
aprox 230) Boughton's warped history of day laborers at Kennedy. Interesting how Mark penned the problems on Kennedy starting under the Eriquez administration's watch.
(aprox. pg. 185-190) The close relationship between former ECC president Luis Batista and Mike McLachlan in 2005 (which explains Batista's past statements regarding 287g, Boughton, and the Danbury 11 case...but that's another story). Lets just say that I always knew the Tribuna family weren't the only people who threw their own community under the bus.
There's MUCH MUCH more damaging material in the deposisiton which I'll cover over seceral posts. I'll just say that after you read the document, you'll be very frustreated that the public was not fully informed about what the mayor stated under oath as it CLEARLY doesn't reflect what he said in the past AND continues to say to the public about the case.
The attorneys start questioning Boughton on the Danbury 11 case at page 236 (note: portions of the deposition pertaining to personal info were redacted).
UPDATE: Any media inquires should be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org or @ctblogger on Twitter.
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.