Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 07/31/2002 9:13:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Flame war



Skip to comments.

FEDERAL COURT IN LOS ANGELES GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT
Judicial Watch ^ | July 30, 2002

Posted on 07/30/2002 11:17:09 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist

For Immediate Release

Jul 30, 2002 Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: FEDERAL COURT IN LOS ANGELES GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

(Los Angeles, CA) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, announced today that a federal court has ruled that a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of immigration activists who were beaten while Anaheim police and other city officials did nothing can proceed. On May 8, 2002, Judicial Watch filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleged to arise from the intentional, wilful, and unconstitutional refusal of Anaheim city officials to extend police protection to law-abiding American citizens in an attempt to “teach them a lesson” and silence them in retaliation for the lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights to speak, peaceably assemble, and petition the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim police department for a redress of grievances relating to illegal immigration.

The case was filed on behalf of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform and several individuals, including senior citizens, who were violently attacked during a peaceful rally on the steps of Anaheim City Hall on December 8, 2001, by pro-Iranian anarchists, communists, advocates of rejoining the southwestern states to Mexico, and other counter-demonstrators, as uniformed and other Anaheim police officers watched, refused to intervene, refused numerous pleas for help, refused to assist in making citizens’ arrests, refused to respond to emergency 911 calls, and showed contempt for the rule of law. The First Amended Complaint filed on June 10, 2002, named the City of Anaheim, the mayor, the city council members, the Anaheim police department, the police chief, the deputy police chief, and two high-ranking police officers as defendants. The lawsuit seeks general damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief for the future, and other remedies, pursuant to federal civil rights laws.

The defendants responded to the First Amended Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss, claiming, among other things, that their alleged intentional and malicious denial and affirmative prevention of police protection in retaliation for the plaintiffs’ exercise of First Amendment rights was well within their legitimate discretion to allocate limited police resources.

On July 29, 2002, Judge Ronald S.W. Lew of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, thereby handing Judicial Watch’s clients a major victory and allowing this important civil rights lawsuit to proceed.

“We allege that the Anaheim defendants prevented and interfered with police protection against the violent attacks perpetrated on our clients, much as southern officials allowed a reign of terror by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction,” stated Judicial Watch Civil Litigation Director James F. Marshall.

“Each of the Anaheim Defendants took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They should be held accountable under the rule of law for the alleged violations of that oath,” added Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.

© Copyright 1997-2002, Judicial Watch, Inc.


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: judicialwatch; larryklayman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-310 next last

1 posted on 07/30/2002 11:17:09 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz; goldilucky; Registered; ALOHA RONNIE; christine11; Joy Angela; palo verde
Ping!
2 posted on 07/30/2002 11:18:10 AM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Thanks for the ping.
3 posted on 07/30/2002 11:45:40 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; deport; RedBloodedAmerican; terilyn; Clara Lou; Amelia
Over here! Larry didn't get thrown out of court (yet)!
4 posted on 07/30/2002 11:50:01 AM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Yawwwnnnnnnn...
5 posted on 07/30/2002 11:58:02 AM PDT by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
As I read this, I thought "Maybe Larry has finally filed a suit that is worthy and that he can handle." Then I decided that I needed a less questionable source of info about the incident in question than one of Larry's press releases.
6 posted on 07/30/2002 11:58:29 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
If the allegations are true, I hope the city of Anaheim is bankrupted by the lawsuit, and other PC Cities and their panty wearing Police Chiefs get the message!
7 posted on 07/30/2002 12:00:27 PM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Miss Marple; Amelia; nopardons; justshe; deport; Jhoffa_; one_particular_harbour
ping
8 posted on 07/30/2002 12:00:32 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
Shouldn't this be posted under "humor"? Thanks.
10 posted on 07/30/2002 12:03:47 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
The First Amended Complaint filed on June 10, 2002, named the City of Anaheim, the mayor, the city council members, the Anaheim police department, the police chief, the deputy police chief, and two high-ranking police officers as defendants

He left out "Dog-Catcher".

11 posted on 07/30/2002 12:04:40 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
I like that JW considers not having it tossed out of court "a victory"!!! ROFLMBO!!!!!!
12 posted on 07/30/2002 12:05:38 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
THANK you for POSTING these. They are QUITE a bit of FUN!
13 posted on 07/30/2002 12:06:17 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist; DoughtyOne; seenenuf
Hey...check this out.

Interesting, no?

14 posted on 07/30/2002 12:07:38 PM PDT by diotima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Shouldn't this be posted under "humor"?

There is no "humor" in the millions of dollars that Larry "Jessie J" Klayman has pimped in the name of self publicity.

15 posted on 07/30/2002 12:08:12 PM PDT by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
You are so bad!!! I think Larry's latest "victory" should be posted in humor as well.
16 posted on 07/30/2002 12:12:04 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

LOL...... Who's the attorney of record? It isn't 'eww' is it?

17 posted on 07/30/2002 12:18:19 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican

You reckon JR can start a separate forum just for 'eww' Press releases?

18 posted on 07/30/2002 12:24:30 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: deport
"KKK"? Slander, isn't it?
19 posted on 07/30/2002 12:28:08 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

Yep a major victory for an 'attorney' that doesn't win many....... A standard motion for dismissal is denied by the judge and it's a major victory..... uh huh. 'eww' sure likes to use a lot of adjectives to describe his court cases..... Who is the plaintiff attorney of record on this case?

20 posted on 07/30/2002 12:30:30 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: diotima
Pardon me while I address something that's been on my mind for a while.

Here they come, the scapering hoves of the goats of our discontent. Larry is this. Larry is that. Larry is the other thing.

By reading Judicial Watch's depositions you find that, what this, you mean Larry got that on the record? Soon you find that there's a ton of issues on the record that doesn't matter to the non-existant Justice Department of the United States.

It has been nearly ten years since we had a Justice Department in this nation. No other Justice Department in our nation's history would ignore some of the testimony provided in those depositions.

Actions would have been filed. People would have gone to prison. Klayman would be vindicated.

Let's get this on the record my little hoved friends. If even one member of the Klinton administration had gone to prison, as they should have, not to mention the bast--d president himself, Klayman would have been vindicated and each of you would have to slither back into your crevices.

Once and for all, Larry Klayman cannot bring charges against those with home he has no standing. Most of the depositions he developed were developed as a side issue with regard to other actions. He couldn't bring indictments. Only the AG could.

If you don't like the fact that Larry's depositions recieved no attention, then get up off that callaced hind side of yours and call the Attorney General's office and demand those issues be resolved. Until you do so, don't come slandering and slobering to this thread. You're a bunch of bozos.

Thanks for the ping Dio. At least one person on this forum has avoided the brown stuff behind the ears.

21 posted on 07/30/2002 12:36:25 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Not gonna happen. Klayman and Klintons are buddies, Figure it out.
22 posted on 07/30/2002 12:38:33 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
p.s.....I am impressed. It wasn't FiTB who started on the personal attacks against other forum members on a JW thread. It was someone else this time. Sweet.
23 posted on 07/30/2002 12:40:14 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Oh figure it out for yourself. He brought one action against Bush that I detest and he was immediately persona non gratis. You fair weather friends are a dime a dozen. I'll stack you right up there with the Rush is a commie loons. All this talk about money, what did you guys expect Klayman to do, get a paper route and still maintain his efforts full time. Cripe, give it a rest.
24 posted on 07/30/2002 12:41:24 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
A paper route would be more successful and honorable.

But I am sure the people at Judicial Watch are very nice™.

25 posted on 07/30/2002 12:44:12 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Ok .. it wasn't thrown out of court

Now the question is .. will he win it??
26 posted on 07/30/2002 12:44:43 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
People were chuckling over Larry long before he went after anything Bush-Cheney.
27 posted on 07/30/2002 12:45:17 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
As a matter of fact, Larry became a certifiable clown when he tried to inject himself into the Florida recount proceedings. He asked to speak, and the judge (Sanders Saul?) told him he had no standing. He looked like a total fool.
28 posted on 07/30/2002 12:48:17 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Was he there to dump on Bush?
29 posted on 07/30/2002 1:08:39 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Read the depositions and tell me you find nothing there of value. Larry opened up a number of issues. You may not wish to acknowledge it, but those deps are there for anyone to read. Yes even Janet and John could have if they actually gave a damn.
30 posted on 07/30/2002 1:11:12 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I generally stay off the record with Klayman and JW, but I'll give it a whirl.

I am not a fan of Klayman...I find him a bit...unsavory. However, I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission.

If he wants to go after corruption in government then good, every politician should be held to the same standard.

31 posted on 07/30/2002 1:12:10 PM PDT by diotima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: diotima
And if that's the argument, I might be more inclined to join the festivities.  The problem I have is the hurling of accusations when there's plenty of meat on the table, but the diners won't eat.  I'm not a backer of everything Larry does.  I've got my own set of beefs with him.  But the ferocity of these attacks is over the top in my opinion.  Who is the person everyone thinks is going to step up to bat if Klayman folds Judicial Watch.  Will our Justice Department fill the void?  LOL  Who's going to make that supposition?
32 posted on 07/30/2002 1:26:18 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Thanks for the ping! Cheerleading pay much these days, you think?
33 posted on 07/30/2002 1:28:19 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Was he there to dump on Bush?
That's the mystery! No one knows why Larry was there because Larry himself should have known that he had no standing in the matter. (It took the judge approximately 2 seconds to refuse Larry permission to speak.) Personally, I believe that Larry was continuing his undying quest for face time which Larry hopes will result in more donations.
34 posted on 07/30/2002 1:39:54 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Cheerleading pay much these days, you think?
It must pay something... I'm just not sure what.
35 posted on 07/30/2002 1:42:59 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; RedBloodedAmerican; Clara Lou; Mo1; deport
**** scapering hoves --goats --little hoved friends --slither back into your crevices --callaced hind side of yours --slandering and slobering --bunch of bozos --the brown stuff behind the ears ****

In all of the discussions I have seen on the threads re: Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman, I have only seen the critics question corporate legal success or lack thereof, corporate officer motivations, corporate finances, actual press releases, IRS audit issues, and advisability of certain lawsuits.

What, may I ask, do the invectives listed on your post (see above) add to the general discussion?

The worst I have seen from the critics, re: individual posters supportive of Larry, is a questioning of the seemingly blind obedience they have to Larry and JW, which, at times, precludes honest dialogue.

Your use of derisive comments is something I except to see from someone who cannot engage in honest dialogue and thus must fall back on schoolyard name calling. You dishonor yourself, imo.
36 posted on 07/30/2002 1:59:50 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
JW considers not having it tossed out of court "a victory"!!! ROFLMBO!!!!!!

Well, for them, it is.
37 posted on 07/30/2002 2:09:23 PM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: diotima
" I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission."

That is exactly right. My sentiments exactly.
38 posted on 07/30/2002 2:14:10 PM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Ah.........the memories. I remember watching that hearing (to be honest I was glued to my TV night and day for the entire time) and you are correct, Larry was told to sit down by one the heroes(Judge Sauls)of the Florida re-re-re-count.
39 posted on 07/30/2002 2:22:25 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
" I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission."
That's well said. Larry had many, many more supporters here early on, until it became apparent that he was chasing up business wherever he thought it would bring donations. (And, as I said, that began long before he decided to go after Bush-Cheney.)
40 posted on 07/30/2002 2:24:21 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Thanks for the corrective measures. I'm sure you didn't see any name calling before I entered the thread. However, if you did trip over some of them, I suppose you found them rather timely and astute. I would suggest that folks offer up the reasons for their name calling rather than the baseless opinions that resulted from those reasons. It would be far more productive. We might even get a dialogue started on the merits of the charges against Larry. Heaven forbid.
41 posted on 07/30/2002 2:28:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Actually this is a case where 'eww' may have a chance to do something to a final conclusion..... It's civil and he can follow it to completion win or lose. He won't have to depend upon some other entity to follow through on his findings. So he will sink or swim upon his own abilities.

But a press release to say that the court didn't throw out his plaintiff's case on a motion to dismiss by the defendants.... that's really laughable imo. Did he expect it to get thrown out? If so then why did he file it?

42 posted on 07/30/2002 2:34:41 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I have read the depositions. The early accomplishments of JW are real and significant. Whether or not Larry could have used the information gained to better advantage to bring about justice is hard to say. Nobody is criticizing him for that.

What we are criticizing Larry about is that he used those early good results to get major contributions and other actions from us and then totally changed his focus. He no longer pursues those serious cases and instead flutters about with his weekly "this is the biggest lawsuit of the century" routine.

Hardly any of his suits the last 2-3 years have merit. None of them are going anywhere. Not that JW cares -- they're in it for 1) the money, 2) the publicity, and 3) to destroy Bush.

JW is not truthful (i.e., THEY LIE) about what they are doing. Press releases are just flat out lies. They take advantage of the lack of legal knowledge of most people to present routine events as yet another "major victory." How many of the "current lawsuits" on JW's web page have been closed for years? LOTS! How many ever got to a trial? NONE! Yet, they are still raising nmoney to fund those non-existent suits.

JW is rolling in the dough and several people are making out like bandits off this scheme. $26 million in revenues with less than $3 million spent on lawsuits? And you condone that? JW has $10 MILLION DOLLARS in investments on hand. How can a "non-profit" justify that? There is a legitimate reason for the IRS to audit them.

When you attack people for criticizing JW based on early JW results, you are setting up a straw man which you easily knock down, but you are avoiding the issues which those of us who haved wised up to JW are really complaining about. Try answering the issues raised in this post without referring to the early JW because that's not relevant --it's what they are doing now that matters.

And they are doing very little that is productive. They fill no void. If they go away, there will be no void because they don't do anything constructive, just chew up a lot of money.
43 posted on 07/30/2002 2:41:50 PM PDT by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
To: DoughtyOne

Was he there to dump on Bush?
That's the mystery! No one knows why Larry was there because Larry himself should have known that he had no standing in the matter. (It took the judge
approximately 2 seconds to refuse Larry permission to speak.) Personally, I believe that Larry was continuing his undying quest for face time which Larry hopes will result in more donations.

34 posted on 7/30/02 1:39 PM Pacific by Clara Lou

I do not remember from the time what Larry was there for.  Let's say for arguement's sake he was there to side with Gore.  I'd hate like heck to see it and would probably trash Larry right along with you on that point.  Believe it or not I slammed Buchanan for some of his comments in that time frame.  But if Larry was there to postulate that recounts of chads were a falicy, I'd hate like hell to see someone on our side damn him for supporting our cause.

You see, saying that you know Larry didn't have standing is rather interesting in light of the horde of attornies from all over the nation that swarmed the state.  Did they have standing?  I doubt Larry's was the only friend of the court presentation offered up.

You know, when I work on a public event, there are generally some very qualified individuals who show up to help out.  I wouldn't dream of slaming them if they weren't quite up to par.  And that goes for the people who do the menial tasks as well.  It's just bad form to pounce on someone who is definately, or just may be on your side.

"That's the mystery" doesn't quite cut it for me.  What if he were about to offer up ten minutes of very effective arguements on behalf of your candidate?  You don't know that he wasn't, but you're more than willing to ridicule him.  I just do not understand that.

Let me say this, if Hillary Clinton had said something beneficial to Bush during that time, I'd have still thought she was a crook, but I would have apprecitated the comments.  Can we treat Klayman with any less respect?

I just think you guys are letting your animosity cloud your judgement here.  If you bring up valid points, I would probably ease of on my objections to your stance.  I might even agree with you on a number of points.  I just don't like seeing Larry savaged for no more than you folks have offered up.

44 posted on 07/30/2002 2:42:08 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Doughty:
Do you believe that because Klayman got somebody to say something in a deposition that it is 1) the truth, or 2) evidence?

Hint: It ain't either. You can take depositions all day long and until it's entered into the TRIAL UNDER OATH and cross examiniation, it's just words on paper.
45 posted on 07/30/2002 2:44:11 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
1) the horde of attornies [sic] from all over the nation that swarmed the state. Did they have standing?
Uhm, there may have been a hoard of attorneys swarming the state, but they didn't all show up in the court pretending that they had some relevancy and should be heard. And, as a matter of fact, Larry is the only lawyer that I recall who asked to speak and was told "no" because he had no standing.
2) Who Larry was there to speak for (Bush or Gore) is not the issue. The issue is that Larry had no part in the proceedings, and he should have known it. He's supposed to be a lawyer, after all.
3) And I think you refuse to see that those of who are not Klaybots think that Larry has had plenty of time and more than enough of other people's money to prove that he could make a difference-- in ANY lawsuit he has brought to date. Instead, he's claiming a big "victory" because his suit wasn't thrown out. Pathetic. And so Larry-ish.
46 posted on 07/30/2002 2:55:50 PM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
I remember reading on FR about the immigrant thugs beating up peaceful protesters in Anaheim. Anaheim (or Orange County, CA) had decided that policemen must accept Mexican consular ID's as valid identification, in addition to the usual state ID card / drivers licenses and/or passports.

Before the policy change, aliens without proper identification would get in trouble for not having valid ID, since aliens must always carry their passports (or green cards) in the US.

Citizens were upset that aliens with consular ID's no longer had to prove that they were here legally if arrested, and may have been concerned that consular ID's are easier to forge and harder to verify than state drivers licenses.

Essentially, aliens would get a pass from the law if they carry a consular ID.

The protesters were assaulted and battered by some "counterprotesters" (immigrants/aliens) while Anaheim police watched and did nothing to intervene. If the crime were reversed, with American citizens punching and kicking immigrants/aliens, you can be sure the ACLU, NAACP, etc. would denounce the attacks as a "hate-crime."

47 posted on 07/30/2002 2:56:42 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

http://www.americanpatrol.org/RALLIES/011208ANAHEIM/CompareLAT_PHOTO_011209.html
48 posted on 07/30/2002 3:07:01 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
Good post. Well reasoned and right on!
49 posted on 07/30/2002 3:08:58 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
Okay, a post that addresses real issues.  Great.  In the interest of fair play I'll state that I'm not as dogged a supporter of Larry's as it might appear, but I do not like to see the guy trashed without some issues to back up the charges.  In the interest of fair play I jumped in to give a contrarian view.  I will continue.

If you developed some original work which was quite revealing and the current Attorney General refused to look at it, what would you do?  When the new Attorney General came along and refused to look at it as well, what would you do?

Would you continue to try to develop that same type of documentation?  I doubt it.

As for any of his suits in the last two to three years, I haven't been particularly impressed.  The fact that Clinton was winding down and Bush was coming in with a clean slate may have contributed towards this.  That seems reasonable.

You state that Larry issues false data in his press releases and takes advantage of the lack of knowledge of most people.  You state that he is still asking for donations for those closed cases.  And perhaps you are right on both counts.  I do find it interesting that 09/11 funds are still soliciting moneys for the families of the victims when they could each have been given something like $1 to $2 million dollars in compensation with funds already collected, despite the fact that private insurance and other compensation packages have undoubtedly been extended to them by now.  The firemen's families must have been taken care of by their union or city compensation packages.  I am also told that the government is going to provide large sums to the families through a victims of terrorism fund.  Who's to say when enough is enough on certain issues?

I may be off base on the following issue, but I'm going to mention it anyway.  On this forum almost no criticism of corporations is appreciated by the majority of participants.  Excluding the outright criminality of Enron and a few others, people hate comments that are negative to corporations.  When corporations act in their own best interests even if it is detrimental to our nation, there are those who support them.  I have had people even deny that Enron Executives did anything wrong.  When Loral gave away our missile technology it wasn't wrong, according to some people.  Another words, it's okay for them to act in self-interest.  It doesn't count if there was something akin to what most of use would consider fraud or espionage.

What I am leading up to is this.  Klayman is acting in the best interest of his little fiefdom.  Okay, perhaps that is wrong.  But how can we go after Klayman with savagery then give corporations a pass for doing almost anything?  Klayman is smart enough to know that he is about half the way to a trust fund that will see Judicial Watch become a permanent fixture in the American landscape.  He's obviously pursuing that eventuality.  I don't agree with lying to the public, but then there's been quite a bit of that of late.

I'm willing to go after Klayman's ethics if the rest of you are willing to go after corporations ethics that deal with a nation like China, transferring our technology to them, and gifting them with patents, military secrets and creating a much more dangerous adversary than would every have been realized if we hadn't.  How can those corporations gift all these positive aspects to a nation that still promotes the slaughter of female babies, enforces abortions without consent, imprisons religious leaders, makes it known that it plans to take Taiwan by any mean possible and does other problematic things?  Who's willing to support my stand on ethics if I support theirs on Klayman?
 
 

50 posted on 07/30/2002 3:14:11 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-310 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson