Sources state that the local xenophobe and pseudolaw scholar turned himself into authorities on the 15th to begin serving his four year prison sentence for first degree sexual assault
Here's a summary of the conviction against McGowan...
In the 13-page affidavit, the woman describes a variety of sexual encounters to which she consented, but she claimed that on Oct. 20, 2008, after attending a meeting at McGowan's church, he assaulted her anally at a house he was building on Juniper Road in New Milford.The woman told police she said, "What are you doing?" and "Stop," but McGowan instead "put his right arm around her neck and put her in a headlock," according to the affidavit.
Former Danbury mayoral candidate and television talk show host John McGowan began serving his four-year sentence last week after the state Appellate Court turned down an appeal of his first-degree sexual assault conviction.
The 47-year-old Bethel resident surrendered to authorities on Feb. 15 at the state Superior Court in Litchfield, where a six-member jury found him guilty in August 2011 of forcibly sodomizing a woman he was dating nearly three years earlier.
McGowan was in a wheelchair when he made his latest court appearance, and the attorney with him said his client had suffered medical problems since Judge James Ginocchio imposed the sentence in October 2011.
McGowan is being held at the Bridgeport Correctional Center, pending a probable assignment to another facility, a correction department spokesman said Thursday.
McGowan was arrested by New Milford police after the victim, a woman who worked on the crew of his public-access cable television program, "John McGowan Presents," claimed he assaulted her at a home he was building in New Milford in 2008.
The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction last month.
For years there have been grumblings regarding the residency of City Councilman Gregg Seabury; specifically, does the at large representative actually live in Danbury?
Court documents filed by Seabury are sure to raise eyebrows and among local politicos and at the very least, prompt a more detailed inquiry into the councilman's residency by the state's election enforcement commission.
Here's a copy of Seabury's case detail (via the State of CT's Judicial Branch website), make note of his filing address (labeled in red).
For verification purposes, I decided to plug the name " Gregg Seabury" and "Danbury CT" into the database at WhitePages.com. This is a copy of the result.
While WhitePages.com did not find anything for Seabury in Danbury, it did show a listing for the Councilman that matches the address filed in the court documents.
The question remains, where exactly does Seabury reside?
If Seabury lives in Danbury, why does court documents have him listed in Fairfield?
If Seabury lives in Danbury, why did WhitePages.com return a result of "we did not find an exact match for Gregg Seabury in Danbury" when his name was entered in the website's database?
During an election year, the voters of Danbury deserve to know if their at-large councilman actually resides in the city he represents.
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.