View a small sample of former DHS teacher Joe Hanna disturbing social media postings
Thursday, September 17, 2020 Time: 10:50 AM
Someone needs to explain to me how a person who posted patently offensive material and anti-mask diatribes on multiple social media platforms was employed as a phys. ed teacher at Danbury High School until a couple of weeks ago?
As someone who has been monitoring Joe Hanna's social media accounts since first becomming aware of his postings in July, I have a lot of questions for a numebr of school officials...as well as a number of questions for elected officials who were social media "friends" with his individual...and so far, few answers that I've received make any sense.
I'll have more to say later but for now, take a look at this small sample of postings a collected from Hanna's Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accounts before he privitaized his accounts from the public; this person would still be teaching at DHS right now if not for the courage of concerned residents who sounded the alarm and exposed Hanna to the public.
You can view a small sample of Joe Hanna's social media postings that I collected before news of his commentary made headlines in the Newstimes...click here. (WARNING: Exteremly offensive material).
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.
