From the time U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty first learned about violent threats her chief of staff made against a former aide, two months passed before the victim was interviewed as part of an internal investigation, emails obtained by The Courant show.
The former aide, Anna Kain, told Esty of the abuse May 6, 2016 — a day after Chief of Staff Tony Baker left Kain a profanity-laden voicemail in which he threatened to kill her. By early July, Kain said, she had become so frustrated with the apparent lack of action by Esty — and so fearful of Baker — that she obtained a protective order from Washington, D.C., police.
[...]
It would take until mid-July of 2016 before Julie Sweet, a former top aide selected by Esty to conduct the probe, finally met with Kain. Baker, who remained in his powerful position throughout the spring and later attended the Democratic National Convention with Esty, was terminated in mid-August of 2016.
Esty told The Courant last week that she learned on May 6, 2016, that Baker had called Kain’s cellphone 50 times the night before and said in a drunken rage that he would kill her if she didn’t answer.
The lawmaker said she immediately confronted Baker, who did not deny the incident. But instead of suspending Baker, Esty turned to Democratic lawyer Joseph Sandler, who recommended an in-house investigation.
Esty called Kain on May 11 and used her Yale University email account — she received her law degree from the Ivy League school — to communicate with Kain.
Kain declined a one-on-one meeting with Sandler, arranged by Esty, without her lawyer present. Kain said she heard from Sweet, Esty’s investigator, in July.
Esty’s office declined to give a timeline of the probe or provide a copy of the investigation report to The Courant, citing the confidentiality of staffers who were interviewed by Sweet.
Another former staffer said Esty apologized to the staff for the slow pace of her internal investigation. “She apologized for how long it took,” the source said. “She said, ‘I think it’s best if we all don’t talk about this.’ She’s like, ‘I think it’s best for Anna’s sake if we don’t talk about this.’ ”
When Baker was fired, Esty signed a nondisclosure agreement that also applied to all staff in her office, former aides said.
A female colleague of Baker’s at the time said it was unnerving that he was allowed to stay in the office for months after the May incident.
“I just remember crying,” she said. “To know that I sat next to this man for so many months.”
Another former aide said Esty chose to keep silent instead of publicly condemning the behavior of her top aide.
“We could have been ahead of the #MeToo movement,” said the former staffer, who asked not to be identified. “We could have been the face of it.”
In wake of the latest details, it's clear that Congresswoman Esty needs to resign as opposed to not seek re-election (which will allow her to collect a government pension which she clearly does not deserve).
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.
