FEDERAL COURT IN LOS ANGELES GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT

Judicial Watch ^ | July 30, 2002

[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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[deport]

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?

[Iwo Jima]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Clara Lou]

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.

[Clara Lou]

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.

[heleny]

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."

[heleny]

http://www.americanpatrol.org/RALLIES/011208ANAHEIM/CompareLAT_PHOTO_011209.html

[justshe]

Good post. Well reasoned and right on!

[DoughtyOne]

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?
 
 

[DoughtyOne]

Depositions are taken under oath by an officer of the court. Attornies are officers of the court. Penalties for purjery do exist. That testimony is deemed to be truthful. And yes it is grounds for investigation and further development.

[DoughtyOne]

All you had to say was that you were perfectly willing to trash Klayman even if he was on your side. I would have understood.

[justshe]

Perhaps part of that 26 million goes to pay an in-house Dept of Press Releases. If one is posted that Larry sneezed you will know that I am correct.

But you raise a logical question: it is a victory ONLY if you anticipated a loss.

[DoughtyOne]

And suddenly the folks on this forum would understand the importance of police standing by while innocents are beaten. Well it was our fellow citizens. They don't count.

[DoughtyOne]

Do you by any chance live in California? If you did you would know that these courts out here are iffy at best. You may have heard of the OJ Trial. If so I'm sure it will give you food for thought. Nothing is taken for granted out here like it is back east.

[Clara Lou]

That's just it-- I think you refuse to understand. (As witnessed by the fact that you read my entire post and this-- All you had to say was that you were perfectly willing to trash Klayman even if he was on your side. I would have understood-- is all you have to say.)

[justshe]

I live on the West Coast. And this was a federal court, I believe. The 'procedures' are the same in all federal courts. You don't have the variances you find in state courts. And OJ was not tried in a federal court.

[Iwo Jima]

You havne't SEEN me go after Enron yet. I have very strong negative opinions about corporate fraudulent accounting. I don't know if there are threads on those issues but I haven't been on them much if there are. So you really wouldn't know my positions. But that just makes me despise JW all the more. Klayman has no desire to actually make a difference. He just uses the issues of the day to promote his own personal agenda. He is to corruption what Elmer Gantry was to religion. (Are you old enoght to know who Elmer Gantry is/was?)

I can't speak for others, but this is my beef against Klayman. He will exploit a couple of ignorant minor stockholders with maybe a very small loss or even a gain to be plaintiffs in a totally bogus suit against Halliburton because that is the burning issue of the day and because he would walk on hot coals to get Bush impeached. He uses people's good impulses to take advantage of them.

[DoughtyOne]

Oh well then, I'm sure you haven't heard of the 9th Circuit Court. Thanks anyway.

[seenenuf]

Thanks for your considered words - shows some love for
FR and exploring the truth. Refreshing!
After reading the original post, I was high on the fact that someone was putting up a fight, and the possibility of
slowing down the Dems movement to legalize illegals. If only all those who get side tracked wanting to stone Klayman for percieved sins could use as much energy on this
case, and support the chance that some positive law would help those out numbered legal citizens in Anaheim!
The catholic church in Anaheim has organized ID Card days,
the last reported one had 2000 people in line for the 500 cards that the Mex. Consulates office was ready to issue.
The LA Times reported that the Santa Ana (next door to Anaheim) Consulates office was getting 1,800 requests a month. The cards are $29 and good for 5 years. Police and local banks accept them as ID.
Perhaps some on this thread can see how they are distracted by making Klayman the subject, rather than addressing the real issue of illegals. It is about illegals swamping our hospitals, jails, schools and housing - driving without car insurance,, and working off the books and sending millions out of our country.
It's bad in many states, but CA liberals seem to have made
more progress in legalizing the practice. Anything for a
vote - legal or illegal. - It's coming to your state, if it isn't already there.
The Bush administration seems to be deaf and dumb to the issue - my guess is he needs the 2nd term, as well as the
money and man power to clean up the mess in progress.
I'd love to see every Mexican Consul's office Freeped, but
that sure wouldn't help "W" get his second term.