Independent Party chairman accuses Alves and Danbury Dems of disenfranchising voters and misleading the public
Time: 8:19 AM
Ahead of today's hearing of the court injunction case that could result in registered Independent voters losing their line position on the ballot, in a press release yesterday, Independent Party of Danbury Town Committee chairman Veasna Roeun accused Democratic mayoral candidate Roberto Alves and Danbury Dems of misleading and disenfranchising voters.
To say the Independent Party is disappointed with the Superior Court’s ruling is a gross understatement considering the detrimental effect to voter rights in Danbury and precedent this sets decimating minority access in Connecticut. State statutes for minority parties afforded the Independent Party of Danbury the right to self-governance and to conduct party business as stated in our by-laws and supported by Indep. Party of CT-State Cent v. Merrill (2018). On August 11th, an attempt to hi-jack our party’s nomination night was made by a group evidently aligned with the local democratic party leadership. The legally recognized committee never received endorsement requests or letter for nomination from Mr. Alves et al. We are thankful for those democratic candidates who refused to be a part of this undemocratic maneuver and omitted their own names from the Chan slate. Integrity is lost on the leadership, not the party.
It’s evident, this dishonest and shameful political tactic is in part, due to the fact that Mr. Alves failed to secure a 2021 victory. Because of this Mr. Alves and his faction involved the City of Danbury in a crafted lawsuit that didn't just cost taxpayers money but denied 3rd party access and rights to the ballot. Despite the fact the democrat slate from their rogue group was adjudicated and vetoed properly by the only legal and rightful committee of the Independent Party of Danbury in accordance to our by-laws, an appointed judge denied our right to self-governance as prescribed by state statutes. The court heavily limited our line of arguments regarding the invalidity of the caucus on August 11th and refused to consider additional evidence supporting our constitutional right to free speech and association.
The Judge is allowing 4 of our nominations from the August 21st slate on the ballot; so he must have found that the entire slate valid. He is invalidating the other 44 proper nominations due to the invalid August 11th Chan slate. This sets a precedent that any person can submit a slate to the Town Clerk which would automatically nullify their line on the ballot—this is political thuggery with an extremely high degree of dishonesty. It’s a tragic fact that a registered independent candidate for office is now denied their own party line on the ballot. This is absurd and truly disturbing to witness the leadership of the local democratic party orchestrate the dissolution of minority voting rights and access. Mr. Alves with his co-conspirators disenfranchised voters and continues to mislead the public just as he did on the stand about his exact whereabouts during the illegal caucus. He harassed our Chairman after a proper adjournment on August 11th and we do have video to prove it. We cannot let this type of injustice and political lawfare continue and have appealed the Judge’s decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
HatCityBLOG VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Roberto Alves court injunction press conference
Time: 8:06 AM
UPDATE: Welcome new readers and reporters who are catching up on this very important matter that could result in registered Independent voters in Danbury losing the line of the ballot.
A few things.
1. The Q&A session with Newstimes reporter Mike Gagne and myself starts at 12:25 (we were the only media in attendance).
2. The events surrounding the August 11th caucus were not adjudicated in court. There was NO ruling regarding which slate of candidates was valid. The attorney for the plaintiff repeatedly objected to the relevance of the events surrounding the August 11th being used in the case.
3. Judge Medina was emphatic in his stance that he did not want to get into the arguments regarding the bylaws of a political party.
4. If you're a member of the media and need background, then feel free to reach out at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Last Friday, I attended Roberto Alves press conference on the ruling in the Independent Party of Danbury court injunction court case in which the Democratic candidate for mayor took a few questions from the press.
I was unable to get all my questions and concerns about the case and the chain of events that led up to the case answered. You can hear the responses to my questions and pushback to some of the statements made by Alves and Danbury Democrats chairman Larry Riefberg in the clip.
I'm working on a full post on my deep concerns regarding the timeline of statements made about the August 11th caucus, my call for the state mainstream media to get involved in investigating this matter that has now resulted in Independent voters in the city losing their party's place on the ballot.
The following is RAW footage, as I was unable to use my usual equipment.
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.