The players in the four ring circus other wise known as the city hall midnight massacre. Top Left: Mayor Jim Dyer, top right: Common Council President Constance McManus, bottom left: Democratic Town Committee member Joan Soderstorm and bottom right: Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman Mary Ann Doran
This week marks the 21st year anniversary of what many have come to call either the city hall midnight massacre. If you want to have a better understanding of Danbury's current political landscape (or the close relationship between Democrats and Republicans in the city), this incredibly nutty episode is the perfect starting point.
In honor of this embarrassing moment in Danbury (and to give the old-timers a good laugh), I went through the archives of the News-Times and pieced back together the chain of events which resulted in the downfall of then mayor Jim Dyer. The following article is a good starting point.
From the News-Times Jun 2 1987. click here to download the article as it appeared in the newspaper (PDF):
I still scratch my head whenever I think about what Mary Ann Doran does for a living today...but it's too early in the revisiting of the Dyer saga to talk about that now.
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.
