Although this rant is protected under the First Amendment, as the leading attorney for the city of Danbury, Corporation Counsel Robert Yamin’s unhinged rant at Saturday’s Elise Marciano’s anti-immigration/hate group rally was outrageous.
It’s bad enough that Yamin associates himself with one of the most racist/bigoted organizations in the state, but his laundry list of lies and slurs about President Obama were utterly disgusting.
Only in Mark Boughton’s Danbury can an attorney for the city is able to get away with this type of nonsense…but again, we’re talking about an administration that’s lock in step with clowns like Marciano and the views of the anti-immigrant xenophobic side of the Republican party.
As a primer of what’s to come, here’s a videoclip of USCFILE hate group leader Elise Marciano showing her racist Islamophobia side. From early this year, here’s the anti-immigrant clown along side fellow local access TV wingnut Denise Gallagher spewing out her bigotry in her description of President Obama.
…remember, this is the same person that Boughton and Mike McLachlan embraced with open arms on Saturday.
Why would anyone vote for a politician who embrace and support an anti-immigrant, racist clown like Marcaino?
Ignored by Republican Tom Foley, the League of Women Voters said today it was pulling the plug on three televised gubernatorial debates planned for Bridgeport, Stamford and Danbury.
In the governors race, Foley never responded to invitations for the League’s debates in Bridgeport, Stamford and Danbury that were to be sponsored by the Hearst Newspapers and broadcast by WABC. Hearst has newspapers in all three cities.
“It’s the first time it’s the non-response of a major party” that prompted the cancellation of League debates,” said Patricia Donovan, the organization’s coordinator of voter services.
It’s great to see that Foley holds his running mate’s city in such high regard that he decided to bail out on the LWV/News-Times debate.
…oh, and Foley’s excuse.
“These three debates just didn’t fit into Tom’s schedule,” said Liz Osborn, a spokeswoman for the Foley.
Today, the Danbury Superior Court unsealed Joe DaSilva’s arrest warrant affidavit and it document gives new details regarding the events leading up to the death of Luis Encalada Bueno, which includes what seems to be an attempted cover-up by an employee of DaSilva.
According to court documents, Danbury PD interviewed several people who were with Encalada hours before the incident.
Here’s a summary of what witness number one (CW-1) stated to police (portions of statement redacted):
“On November 5 2009, I met some friends who asked me to go drink with than at an apartment on Town Hill Ave…I stayed overnight with some of the guys. At some point Friday morning (November 6), XXXX had to be taken to the hospital because he drank too much. After he was taken away, some of the guys left and as I woke up, I saw a guy known to be DaSilva grabbing my friend (CW-2) by the neck and shirt yelling stuff in English. I do not understand lot of English but I understood DaSilvsa was saying “Get the fuck out of here!” […] I got out of the apartment before CW-2 was thrown by DaSilva; I was starting to go down the stairs when DaSilva was still yelling and he kicked me in the back, making me slip downtime stairs. […] He yelled something like “If I see you again I’ll kill you!” […] CW-2 and I wan towards the courthouse and Walgreens on Main Street, and CW-2 said something to me about Luis still being in the apartment and we should check on him. […] As we were walking towards the apartment, we saw Luis lying on the ground near a dumpster.
In the testimony, witness one stated that he seen DaSilva before because his office building is next to the witness’ place of employment
I know DaSilva from where I work. I worked at XXXX for about 3 years and DaSilva owns the building I work in and also has an office near there. I have seen DaSilva come into XXXXX and have seen him around a number of times,
The arrest warrant also states that witness one pointed out DaSilva in a police photograph lineup.
Witness two (CW-2) also gaves his account of what happened to the police. Here’s a summary of the statement.
On Friday November 6th, I was with my friends on Town Hill Ave. […] Sometime in the morning, I saw this guy DaSilva come to the apartment. There was also a second guy but I don’t know him. DaSilva owns the house and we were not supposed to be in there. Luis was lying on the couch when DaSilva came in, he (DaSilva) was very angry, he was yelling get the fuck out of here, this is private property, he grabbed me and tried to throw me down the stairs, he hit me in the back and as I was falling I was able to grab the rail and stop myself from falling down the stairs. I think he did the same thing to CW-1 who has behind me. […]When CW-1 and I left, Luis Encalada was still in the apartment sleeping on the couch, I did see DaSilva of back into the apartment that Luis was in as I was leaving. CW-1 and I walked around to Main St., by the Walgreens and the old court building. I then received a call on my cell phone from CW-3. CW-3 told me that he/she found Luis Encalada on the ground outside Town Hill Ave.
CW-2 also stated this to the police:
I was with Luis the night before this and most of that morning, I did not see him fall or fight anyone. He did not complain about his stomach or any other illness. In fact, he was even dancing the night before all of this.
CW-2 also pointed out DaSilva in a police photograph line-up.
After verifying that 58 Town Hill Ave is owned by DaSilva, On Nov 6th, detectives for the DPD interview the owner of the Palace Theatre at his home in New Milford CT.
According to court records, here’s a summary of what transpired (portions in BOLD were done by yours truly for emphasis).
It was explained to DaSilva that detectives were investigating a complaint by two (2) men that he assaulted when while making them leave his property at 58 Town Hill Ave. DaSilva just smiled and shrugged and said, “What do you want me to say?” He was then asked if it was possible that these men got rough with him and maybe he was defending himself. DaSilva stated “No, I wasn’t there at all.” DaSilva stated that about a month prior he had forced several Hispanic males from the second floor apartment, but that was the last time he was there at 58 Town Hill Ave. DaSilva stated one or two of his employees may have been at 58 Town Hill Ave. today around lunch time. DaSilva stated that Rolando DaSilva (no relation) was there to turn on the boiler and that maybe Joe Rodrigues was there also, but he was not sure about the Rodrigues. Joseph DaSilva provided his cellular phone number as (XXX)XXX-XXXX, and stated he is the only person to use this phone.DaSilva was asked if he was made aware that there were persons illegally in the second floor apartment, he stated no he had not. DaSilva was asked if he was in phone contact with Rolando DaSilva at all around the time Rolando DaSilva was to be working at 58 Town Hill Ave. He stated “No”.
After interviewing DaSilva, on Nov 6th, Danbury detectives interviewed Rolando DaSilva. Here’s a summary of what transpired:
Rolando SaSilva was asked if he was at 58 Town Hill Ave., earlier in the day. Rolando DaSilva stated that he was, sometime around lunch time. Rolando DaSilva stated he was only there about 5 minutes and did not see anyone. He stated he parked his white company van out front, entered the building, went to the basement, turned the heating system on, and left. Roland DaSilva stated he did not go to tthe second floor and did not see any Hispanic males. Rolando DaSilva provided his cellular phone number as (XXX)-XXX-XXXX, and stated he alone uses this phone. Rolando DaSilva was asked if he saw Joseph DaSilva at 58 Town Hill Ave., he stated no. When asked if he spoke to him via cell phone just prior to being at 58 Town Hill Ave., while there, or just leaving, Rolando states no.
Detectives then interview Brian Ferguson, the only legal tenant at 58 Town Hill Ave. Here’s a summary of what was reported in the warrant:
Ferguson stated that he had called DaSilva’s office from his cell phone in the morning to report running water in the basement.
Also on Nov 6th, Danbury PD obtained a search and seizure warrant to conduct the crime scene at 58 Town Hill Ave.
Items were located and collected. These items include what appeared to be a blood stain on the wall of the hallway outside the second floor apartment, what appeared to be blood droplet on the stairs leading from the second floor apartment to the front entrance of 58 Town Hill Ave. Also located and photographed were several blood like stains on the ground outside 58 Town HIll Ave., that appear to on the path Encalada would have traveled from 58 Town Hill Ave., to where he was found 2 driveways away.
As the arrest warrant further states, that on Nov 9th, detectives interviewed Jose Rodrigues.
Rodrigues stated that he was not at 58 Town Hill Ave., at all on 06 November, but he was there earlier that today along with John Doyle and Fausto Costa to empty and clean out the second floor apartment. Rodrigues stated they were sent there by Joseph DaSilva. Rodrigues provided his cellular phone number as (XXX) XXX-XXXX, and stated he is the only one to use his phone.
Upon further investigation, Danbury PD conducted a voluntary second interview with Rolando DaSilva in which they pressed him on his previous statement:
It was explained to DaSilva that information he had told both detectives on 06 November 2009 was found not to be true, on that date DaSilva stated that he had been at 58 Town Hill Ave., around lunch time, that he was there only a short period of time, that he was alone and his boss Joe DaSilva was not present. Rolando DaSilva also stated that he had not seen any men in the second floor apartment and had not communicated by phone with Joe DaSilva around that time. Some evidence to show these facts not to be true was shown to Rolando DaSilva. He was then told that he could possibly face criminal charges if he continued to lie about this information.
Rolando DaSilva stated that he was afraid and also felt badly about what had happened. Rolando DaSilva then provided the following statement: On Friday Nov. 6, 2009 I went to work at about 7 AM. I work for Joe DaSilva at DaSilva Realty, 288 Main St., Danbury. I do the plumbing and heating for Joe’s properties. Sometime before lunch I got a call on my cell phone from Denise Archiere, who is the office manager. She told me that there was water running in the basement of 58 Town Hill Ave. I knew that I also had to turn the heat on. I told Denise that if there was water running in the basement, there had to be someone on the second floor. I drove right over to 58 Town Hill. When I got to 58 Town Hill, Joe DaSilva had just gotten there. Joe said to me, “Do what you gotta do.” Joe seemed pissed off. I know that he was pissed off about the guys upstairs. There have been drunk, wasted Mexicans illegally squatting in the 2nd floor apt. I assumed that Joe was going upstairs and I planned on staying in the basement. I didn’t want any part of whatever was going to take place.
I went down into the basement to take care of the water and heat. While I was in the basement I heard a commotion on the stairs. I heard footsteps, loud voices, yelling. The footsteps were loud but not fast. I recognized the voice that was yelling. The only person I heard was Joe. He was yelling, “Get the fuck out of my house,” and things like that. It sounded to me that Joe was throwing the guys out of the apt. I had the impression that Joe didn’t even want me there, so I just stayed in the basement. I came out of the basement after it got quiet. This all took about 10 minutes. When I got outside, Joe was already gone. This statement was read by Rolando DaSilva and his wife Susan. Rolando DaSilva then swore to this statement and signed it as Susan DaSilva also signed this document as a witness. During this interview, Rolando DaSilva stated that Joe DaSilva’s white Ford pick up truck was parked in front of his (Rolando’s) van on Town Hill Ave.
Shortly after leaving Rolando DaSilva’s residence, detectives were contacted via cell phone by Rolando DaSilva, who asked both detectives to return to his home as he had more information to provide.
That upon return to Rolando DaSilva’s home, DaSilva stated that he had not been completely honest during the prior statement. DaSilva stated that he is in fear of being fired by Joe DaSilva for cooperating with the investigation. Rolando provided the following in a second statement:
After the detectives left my house, I felt bad because I had not been completely honest. I talked to my wife and told her about the things I hadn’t told the police. I then called Det. Trompetta and asked him to come back to my house. Have felt bad about this whole incident and want to get it off my chest. Everything was correct in my first statement up to the point that I got to 58 Town Hill. Joe did get there right before me. He said to me, “Stay out of my way,” and went upstairs. I didn’t go to the basement. I followed Joe upstairs and I stayed in the hallway outside of the 2nd floor apt. I saw Joe go into the apt., and start throwing people out. Joe was yelling, “Get the fuck out, get out of my house.” There were 3 guys in the apt., maybe 4. Joe was grabbing them and pushing them down the stairs. I didn’t see him punch or hit anybody, just push them out and try to kick them down the stairs. The first or 2nd guy in the bunch was holding onto the railings and holding everyone up. Joe was trying to get them out of the apt. I just stayed out of the way. Once everyone was out of the apt., I went to the basement. When I came out I saw two guys walking south on Town Hill by # 54. I think they were 2 of the guys that were in the apt. I didn’t see anybody lying on the ground out front. Joe had already left. I don’t know where the 3rd guy was. This statement was also read by Rolando DaSilva and his wife Susan. DaSilva swore to the truth and then sign the statement, which was witnessed by his wife. Rolando DaSilva was asked about the portion of his statement where he stated he did not see Joe DaSilva punch or hit anyone while in the hallway, he was also asked if he had entered the apartment with Joe. He stated he had not and does not know what happened in the apartment.
After obtaining the revised statement from DaSilva, the Danbury PD obtained a court order instructing various cell phone companies to provide details records for several cell phone numbers provided by DaSilva and other individuals who were interviewed.
Here’s a summary of their findings:
That a review of Ferguson’s cellular phone (his only phone) records show that on 06 November 2009, Brian Ferguson called (XXX) XXX-XXXX, the office of DaSilva Realty. This was a 27 second call.
That a review of the cellular phone records for the phones of Rolando DaSilva and Joseph DaSilva show that on 06 November 2009, at approximately 11 :55:41 AM, Rolando DaSilva’s. phone received an inbound call from DaSilva Realty, this call lasted 47 seconds. Also the records show that at approximately 11 :58:25 AM Rolando DaSilva’s phone received an inbound “direct connect” call from Joseph DaSilva’s cellular phone. This call lasted 72.2 seconds.
That a review of Rolando DaSilva’s records for 07 November 2009 show an outbound call to the cellular phone of Joseph DaSilva’s cellular phone at approximately 8:56:39 AM This call lasted 238 seconds. At approximately 9:14:37 AM Joseph DaSilva places an outbound call to (XXX) XXX-XXXX, the home phone of Attorney Joseph DaSilva. This call lasted 38 seconds. A second call lasting 50 seconds was placed to Attorney DaSilva at 10:41: 12 AM.
After obtaining this information, Danbury PD requested another interview with DaSilva in which he declined.
The warrant concluded with the following:
That the affiant believes based on the sworn statements of cooperating witness # 1, cooperating witness # 2, cooperating witness # 4, Rolando DaSilva as well as the cellular telephone records of Joseph DaSilva, Brian Ferguson and Rolando DaSilva that; during the late morning of 06 November 2009, Luis Encalada was in the second floor apartment of 58 Town Hill Ave., Danbury, Connecticut with CW-1 and CW-2, That Luis Encalada was sleeping on a couch. That at approximately 11: 25 AM, on 06 November 2009, Brian Ferguson, the resident of the first floor of 58 Town Hill Ave., called the office of Joseph DaSilva to report “running water” in the basement of 58 Town Hill Ave.
That at approximately 11 :25 AM on 06 November 2006, Denise Archieri, the office manager of Joseph DaSilva Realty, called Rolando DaSilva, the companies plumber, on his cellular phone dispatching him to 58 Town Hill Ave., to address the” running water” problem. That at approximately 11 :58 AM, Rolando DaSilva was contacted by Joseph DaSilva using the “direct connect” option of his cellular phone. That shortly after 12:00 PM, Rolando DaSilva arrived at 58 Town Hill Ave., observing that Joseph DaSilva had arrived at that location moments prior. That Joseph DaSilva being aware that persons were illegally in the second floor apartment went upstairs to the second floor of 58 Town Hill Ave., entered the apartment, and confronted CW-1 and CW-2. That Joseph DaSilva physically pulled CW-2 from the apartment into the hallway, then struck CW-2 in the back, causing CW-2 to fall down the stairs. CW-2 was able to grab the rail while falling to stop from falling to the bottom of the stairs. CW-1 ran from the apartment and was kicked in the back by Joseph DaSilva at the top of the stairs causing CW-1 to also fall into the stairwell. Joseph DaSilva was then observed by CW-2 to re enter the second floor apartment where Luis Encalada was sleeping. Joseph DaSilva was alone with Encalada for a short period of time’,· then observed by Rolando DaSilva pulling a third male (Encalada) from the apartment and push him down the stairwell. That according to Danbury Hospital records Luis Encalada was extremely intoxicated. Encalada was most likely unable to stand, balance or defend himself, tumbled down the stairs. That CW-3, CW-4 along with Angel, while walking on Town Hill Ave.,towards number 58, observed Luis Encalada on the ground in the driveway of 66 Town Hill Ave. apparently injured. That CW-3 separated from CW-4 and Angel to find help. That at 12: 30 PM Angel, using Lu’is Encalada’s cellular phone called CW-2 and informed CW-2 of how they found Encalada. That CW-4 asked Encalada what had happened to him and was told by Encalada “Silva hit me.” That at 12:54 PM,· CW-1 and CW-2 arrived at 66 Town Hill Ave., and, using Encalada’s cellular phone, called 911 for help.
That the affiant believes that on 06 November 2009 at 58 Town Hill Ave., Joseph DaSilva struck CW-1 in the back, pushed CW-1 down a flight of stairs, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes. That on 06 November 2009 Joseph DaSilva struck CW-2 in the back, pushed CW-2 down a flight of stairs in violation of Connecticut General Statutes. That on 06 November 2009 Joseph DaSilva pulled the extremely intoxicated Luis Encalada from a second floor apartment at 58 Town Hill Ave., Danbury and pushed him down a flight of stairs. That the reckless actions of Joseph DaSilva Jr., on 06 November 2009 at 58 Town Hill Ave., Danbury, Connecticut caused blunt force injury to the abdomen of Luis Encalada resulting in the death of Luis Encalada. And that these action are in violation of the Connecticut General Statutes.
Although one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, it will be interesting to hear DaSilva’s defense for the alleged inaccuracies in his statement to the police.
Last night, I (along with my alter ego Marty Heiser) had the opportunity to interview Christine Rotello, one of the leading advocates for the preservation of the Lee Farm property as open space.
Recently, Rotello wrote a op-ed in opposition to 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.
Back in 2006, angered over the World Cup celebrations and series of pro-immigration marches on his streets, Danbury’s anti-immigrant Mayor Boughton proposed a ridiculous (and probably illegal) city ordinance (known commonly as the “parade ordinance”) that requires any form of assembly over the limit of 25 that interfered with the flow of any form of traffic be approved by “the city.” Failure to do so could result in a fine.
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.?
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.
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 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.
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.
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):
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.
Back in June, Danbury Democratic Town Committee chairwoman Lynn Taborsak wrote a letter to the editor in which she criticized Mayor Boughton, Former Fire Chief/At-Large City Councilman Phil Curran and Civil Service Chairman Mike Finn for their alleged roles in the recently settled firefighter lawsuit.
Taborsak’s letter (which you can read by clicking here) 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 for over 400,000 dollars. All of the points in Taborsak’s letter were reported numerous times on this site and can be found in the court records.
If you missed Taborsak’s 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.