Don Adams Update: Teamsters File Motion to Recover $62,673.46 in Fees and Costs

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | September 18, 2003 | Thomas H. Kohn

[Brian Allen]

More evidence that what used to be our Nation's courts are, post the traitor, FD Roosevelt's, new scam, in the hands of activist agents of the manifestation of evil that is the modern "DemocRATic" party -- and that our President and Armed Forces Commander-In-Chief, George Walker Bush, must not be allowed to be thwarted in his bid, by replacing them with Constitutionalists, to rid the Nation's benches of insidious-evil's activist agents posing as "judges"

BTTT!

[Brian Allen]

More evidence that what used to be our Nation's courts are, post the traitor, FD Roosevelt's, new scam, in the hands of activist agents of the manifestation of evil that is the modern "DemocRATic" party -- and that our President and Armed Forces Commander-In-Chief, George Walker Bush, must not be allowed to be thwarted in his bid, by replacing them with Constitutionalists, to rid the Nation's benches of insidious-evil's activist agents posing as "judges"

BTTT!

[Brian Allen]

More evidence that what used to be our Nation's courts are, post the traitor, FD Roosevelt's, new scam, in the hands of activist agents of the manifestation of evil that is the modern "DemocRATic" party -- and that our President and Armed Forces Commander-In-Chief, George Walker Bush, must not be allowed to be thwarted in his bid, by replacing them with Constitutionalists, to rid the Nation's benches of insidious-evil's activist agents posing as "judges"

BTTT!

[PGalt]

Thanks for the update and links. Outrageous! McNulty, Nardone, Morris, Davis, Hopkins and Bottomer should be in the deck of "domestic enemy" playing cards. Any pictures of these lowlife, anti-freedom, scumbag thugs?

[L.N. Smithee]

Every time I see that pig Rendell on TV, I think of the Adamses, and the pummeling that occurred after that hat was plunked on Don's head, and how Rendell did everything he could to make sure they would get away with it.

[snopercod]

If one wanted to donate some money, how would he/she do that?

[RJCogburn]

Thanks for the ping.

There once was a 'Don Adams defense fund" or something like that to which I was a modest contributor. Is it still around?

Didn't erstwhile FReeper 'Clarity' help out in this case as an attorney? Even though he parted ways with FR perhaps he could still help in some way.

Good luck to the Adamses.

[Physicist]

There once was a 'Don Adams defense fund" or something like that to which I was a modest contributor. Is it still around?

Not currently. It had been established to defend Don when he was prosecuted, and as such it was a success, but when he was acquitted the fund was closed. I do think that something should be done along these lines, but at best it would only generate a small fraction of what's required.

Didn't erstwhile FReeper 'Clarity' help out in this case as an attorney? Even though he parted ways with FR perhaps he could still help in some way.

He did, and he was a tremendous help. If he's reading, or if someone knows how to contact him, I'd appreciate hearing from him. I'd like to talk to him about the case.

[WL-law]

While there isn't enough info posted here (i.e., the full summary judgment decision) and in the links to get a full picture of the present disposition, the following is likely:

1) Filing a motion to collect one's legal fees does NOT mean that the party filing wins or is likely to win. Anyone can file a motion. It's a form of intimidation, a shot fired across the bow, so to speak. The statements in many posts here reflect a misunderstanding and show that such intimidation works, i.e., it intimidates. Don't be fooled. This motion will NOT succeed.

2) The reason it won't succeed is that the dismissal of the conspiracy case only infers that the plaintiff failed to show enough facts about Rendall's state-of-mind in his communications with the Teamsters, i.e., that Rendall was not alleged with supporting facts to know beforehand that the teamsters would resort to violence. The Teamsters, on the other hand, are and remain a liable party directly. As such, they do not come to the court with clean hands, there has been no final disposition as to their civil liability to the Adams's, and there are already criminal findings against their members individually. That would seem to easily overcome a threshold of "legal seriousness" and "legal sufficiency" sufficent to prove that the Adams' allegations are non-trivial and non-frivolous, which is enough to beat the Teamster's claim under discussion here.

3) Do the Adam's live in Pennsylvania? If yes, then no diversity jurisdiction exists to keep the claim in Federal court, once the civil rights based claims were dismissed. So they will have to pursue the assault and battery claims in state court. But dismissal from Federal court does NOT mean that the federal court has ABSOLVED the teamsters of wrongdoing. It simply means that the limited federal jurisdiction for those matters is ended, and the matter belongs in state court.

[aristeides]

If memory serves, the Adamses live in New Jersey.

Did the federal district court judge issue an opinion explaining the dismissal?

I believe Rendell's wife is a judge on the Third Circuit.

[aristeides]

By the way, are there circumstances under which filing such a motion for fees is itself a frivolous action subject to sanctions?

[Physicist]

Actually, Don and Teri live in Pennsylvania.

[chimera]

It's a form of intimidation, a shot fired across the bow, so to speak.

This is the point we all have to realize. This whole sorry episode is simply about intimidation, from the point of these people being beaten on the street by the union thugs to having the Teamster legal thugs beat them up in court. They're sending a message to any and all who might hear them: don't screw with us. It's precisely what liberals do. The whole Clinton era is rife with such outrages, Waco, Little Havana, Billy Dale, Kathleen Wiley, and countless other nameless victims. I can see how easily people would be tempted to take things into their own hands if these outrages continue. Why be an obedient citizen and play by the rules for a system that marginalizes you as your reward for playing by the rules? Who do you go to for help and protection when the cops are crooked rogues, and the courts are controlled by your enemies? The answer is, you can't go to anyone. You have to take care of yourself. What form that "care" takes under extreme conditions, well, one can only guess.

[JulieRNR21]

Thanks for the update.

This is indeed very upsetting. The Adamses have suffered so much since that terrible attack in the fall of 1998.

If a minority brother & sister had been beaten up by some conservative organization...you can bet the ACLU would have been on the case in a NY minute!

Rendell is PA Governor and now Klayman is running for FL governor....disgraceful.

Please tell the Adamses that I will continue to pray that they will receive justice.

[PatrickHenry]

The motion says:

Defendant Teamsters Local Union No. 115, by and through its attorneys, Markowitz & Richman, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, hereby moves for an award of attorney's fees and costs, and states in support thereof as follows ... As a prevailing defendant, Local 115 is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as part of its costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

That refers to this TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, Sec. 1988:

(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title,, [1] the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.

So the statute leaves it up to the judge's discretion. I suspect there are appellate cases dealing with the appropriate circumstances for making fee awards.

[A Navy Vet]

"(I myself had been attacked by the same mob earlier in the day, and I witnessed the Adams incident. I reported the events on FreeRepublic. In response, Jim Robinson called for a march on Washington, DC, which drew 5000 people on October 31, 1998.)"

Just for the record: The "March for Justice" was organized to support the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The attack on Don Adams was one of the final straws that made Jim Robinson want to personally go to the White House and give Clinton "the bird", so to speak. From there, his support grew and focused on the impeachment. The event drew closer to 3800, but mainly consisted of individuals from all over the country - not bussed in as the libs do for their events.

Best to Don and Teri Adams in their long fight, and to you for supporting them.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's some info on cases where fees were sought under that part of the USC. There's a lot of cases on the subject, but it seems (on a very quick, non-authoritative reading) that the issue isn't whether the original case had merit, only whether the teamsters prevailed:

HERE. EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Fees awarded. No opposition or appeal.
HERE. Successful appeal of an allegedly inadequate fee award.

[Bob J]

Wasn't JW representing them pro bozo?

[Deadeye Division]

bttt

[WL-law]

(b) Attorney's fees In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title,, [1] the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.

That provision of the law is INTENDED to benefit a plaintiff winning its case against the govt on a Civil Rights enforcement action. BTW, that's often a primary reason why public interest firms take on marginal, e.g., prisoner's rights suits, and the like -- there are often no $$ damages owed to the prisoner, but the law firm representing the prisoner gets a nice check when they prevail.

Here the non-governmental party was the defendant, not the plaintiff, and the request for legal fees doesn't fit the intent of the provision, although its plain language allows the request. I think there is a less-than-zero change of the teamsters getting those fees -- it would be against common sense and public policy to award legal fees unless the action was deemed frivolous.