When it comes to opposition towards Mike "Danbury rules and regulations don't apply to me" Halas' appointment to the Common Council, this comment I received from a resident in the 2nd ward nails it. As someone who was present during the now infamous Zoning Commission meeting when Halas acted like a juvenile thug-like bully, I'm in complete agreement with this writer's sentiment.
As a resident of the district Mr. Halas is set to represent, I, for one do not want him.
At no time during the on again, off again fight with the developers of Coltswold, did Mr. Halas participate in the process. He did not attend the many meetings before the EIC to question the developers as to their plans.
This was and remains the most impactful issue facing our district. Shouldn't the person who sits on the Common Council be a person with a record of civic concern?
Participation in various charitable and sport organizations are certainly noteworthy civic endeavors. However, the Common Council is not concerned with charity BUT is charged with the fair representation of the citys residents.
I was present at the Zoning meeting previously mentioned. Mr. Halas represented himself as a man who felt he had a right to an exception to the rules of laws in effect in Danbury due to his charitable work.
He was demeaning and rude to citizens who were there to speak of their concerns regarding his unlawful changes and plans to the property location in their district. The very district Mr. Halas is slated to represent on the Common Council.
How could he possible represent this district fairly? He does not believe in the laws of the City of Danbury,and he has verbally attacked citizens of the district when they voiced their concerns.
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.
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.
