Ken Haas

Ken Haas, a volunteer Conservation Commissioner in New Britain, Connecticut, has been involved in several controversies. In 2016, he allegedly threatened community members by stating he had access to all city records, including criminal and civil information, during a Facebook discussion opposing a city deal with Tilcon. Subsequently, attempts were made to suppress online criticism of Haas, including the use of an apparent forged court order submitted to Google in 2017 to deindex articles critical of him. These incidents raise concerns about potential abuses of power and efforts to censor public discourse.

Ken Haas: A Brief Overview

Ken Haas is a multifaceted individual with a presence in various sectors. He has been published in over fifty journals, including Clare, Cottonwood, Existere, Forge, The Helix, Natural Bridge, Poet Lore, Quiddity, and Spoon River. His literary contributions have earned him a Pushcart Prize nomination and the Betsy Colquitt Poetry Award. Beyond his literary endeavors, Haas serves on the Board of Directors of the Squaw Valley Community of Writers and sponsors a weekly poetry writing program at UCSF Children’s Hospital. He holds a BA in History and Literature from Harvard College and an MA in English from the University of Sussex, UK, where he wrote his dissertation on Wallace Stevens.

Red Flags and Adverse Media

Despite his commendable achievements, Haas’s reputation is marred by several concerning incidents:

1. Threatening Behavior Towards the PressIn 2019, the New Britain Progressive reported an incident involving Ken Haas, a Conservation Commissioner in the administration of Republican Mayor Erin Stewart. Haas allegedly made a threatening comment on a public Facebook thread, stating, “You do know I have access to ALL city records. Including criminal and civil, right???” This remark was perceived as an attempt to intimidate members of the public and the press.
2. Fraudulent Copyright ComplaintsFollowing the publication of Haas’s comment, an individual claiming to be Ken Haas filed a dubious copyright violation complaint with Google, aiming to have the content deindexed and removed from search results. The complaint alleged that the quote was taken from a private Facebook profile, a claim refuted by the Progressive, which asserted that the comment was publicly available. This move was seen as an illegitimate attempt to censor the press.
3. Fabricated Court OrdersIn a more brazen act, a counterfeit court order was submitted to Google, purportedly to remove content unfavorable to Haas. Legal experts identified the document as a forgery, noting that it mimicked the format and language of genuine court orders but contained numerous inaccuracies. This fraudulent act underscored a deliberate attempt to manipulate online information and suppress free speech.

Haas’s Censorship Tactics: A Critical Analysis

Haas’s endeavors to censor adverse media follow a concerning pattern:

• Abuse of Legal MechanismsBy filing baseless copyright complaints and submitting forged court orders, Haas has attempted to exploit legal frameworks to silence critics. Such actions not only undermine the integrity of legitimate legal processes but also pose a threat to journalistic freedom.
• Intimidation and ThreatsHaas’s public comments, suggesting access to confidential records, indicate a propensity to intimidate those who challenge or criticize him. This behavior is antithetical to democratic principles that uphold free expression and accountability.
• Erosion of Public TrustEngaging in deceptive practices to suppress unfavorable information erodes public trust. When individuals in positions of authority resort to such tactics, it raises questions about their integrity and suitability for public service.

The Implications for Potential Investors and Authorities

For potential investors, Haas’s actions serve as glaring red flags. His willingness to engage in unethical and potentially illegal activities to protect his image suggests a lack of transparency and accountability. Investors should exercise extreme caution and conduct thorough due diligence before associating with Haas or his affiliated entities.

Authorities, on the other hand, must recognize the broader implications of Haas’s behavior. His attempts to manipulate online information and intimidate the press not only violate ethical standards but may also contravene legal statutes designed to protect free speech and prevent fraudulent activities. It is imperative that regulatory bodies investigate these incidents to uphold the rule of law and deter similar conduct by others.

Conclusion

Ken Haas’s case is a stark reminder of the lengths to which some individuals will go to curate their public persona. While his literary and professional accomplishments are noteworthy, they are overshadowed by his attempts to censor unfavorable information through intimidation, legal manipulation, and deceit. Such actions are not only reprehensible but also detrimental to the principles of transparency and free expression. Both investors and authorities must remain vigilant, ensuring that individuals like Haas are held accountable for their actions, thereby preserving the integrity of our societal institutions.