Posted on 10/16/2006 7:01:31 PM PDT by Physicist
Cuccinelli & Day, PLLC
September 24, 2006
Office of the Clerk
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
21400 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Re: Adams v. Teamsters Local 115 (No. 03-3680)
Dear Clerk:
In light of the significant period of time that has elapsed since Appellants’ Reply Brief was filed with the Court on December 3, 2004, and the scheduled hearing of this case by the Court on October 18, 2006, Appellants wish to provide the Court with a brief update of legal authority pertinent to the issues presented in the case.
Appellees have repeatedly argued that then-Mayor (now Governor) Rendell cannot be held liable under § 1983 for violating the Adamses’ First Amendment rights because he was not present at the protest, and did not specifically order their beatings. That, of course, is not the standard for § 1983 liability. As the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed in Bliss v. Franco, “Anyone who causes any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable [even if he did not personally participate in or supervise the deprivation by others]. The requisite causal connection is satisfied if the defendants set in motion a series of events that the defendants knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights.” 446 F.3d 1036, 1046 (2006) (internal citations and punctuation omitted).
Well aware of their propensity for violence against those with whom they disagreed, Rendell personally invited Local 115 Teamsters to attend the Clinton rally, and requested that they drown out anti-Clinton protestors. The Teamsters then set about doing precisely what any reasonable person would expect them to do: engaging in violence and intimidation against the protestors, including the Adamses. Rendell’s conceded behavior in recruiting the Teamsters plainly makes out a § 1983 violation.
In its summary judgment order holding the evidence insufficient to find Rendell liable for conspiracy under § 1983, the District Court opined that Woodring’s testimony concerning the post-rally conversation between Rendell and Morris—in which Rendell consoled Morris for the negative publicity, assured him that the Teamsters would suffer no consequence for beating the Adamses, and suggested that the Teamsters file charges against the Adamses—was legally irrelevant to the conspiracy allegation. JAI at 59 (S.J.Op. at 16) (the facts of Woodring’s conversation “do not evidence the object of the conspiracy which plaintiffs allege; namely, that the union would threaten or assault anti-Clinton protestors at the rally”).
As set forth at pp. 30-32 of Appellants Brief and pp. 25-28 of their Reply, the District Court’s ruling concerning the evidentiary value of Woodring’s testimony is directly contradicted by the law of this Circuit, as set forth in United States v. Smith, 294 F.3d 473, 478-79 (2002) (“we find these acts of concealment to be relevant to a finding of conspiracy;” “it is intuitive that concerted actions to cover up [the unlawful behavior] . . . have a tendency to suggest that the [unlawful actions] were taken as part of an agreement, as opposed to having been random, uncoordinated acts . . . the District Court erred by disregarding this evidence”).
Smith’s rule concerning the probative value of concealment in demonstrating the existence of an unlawful conspiracy was recently reaffirmed by this Court in United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123 (2005)1. Evaluating the alleged conspiracy under the well-established rule that the evidence must be viewed as a whole, not in isolation, id. at 150, 158, the Brodie Court held that “a rational jury . . . could legitimately consider the relationship between [the parties involved in the alleged wrongdoing] in drawing reasonable inferences about the Defendant’s knowledge and intent.” With respect to the inferences to be drawn from disputed conversations between a defendant and other individuals, the Court held that, “While one does not know exactly what the Defendant said to [the other individual], a rational jury could reasonably infer the content of that statement based on the reaction of both men. A rational jury viewing the evidence as a whole could also draw a reasonable adverse inference as to the Defendant’s motive in speaking to [the other individual]. Such inferences are not merely speculative, but have a logical and convincing connection.” Id. at 154 (emphasis in original). So too here, a jury can reasonably infer the accuracy of Woodring’s rendition of the telephone conversation between Rendell and Morris—and hence Rendell’s conspiratorial motive—based on their subsequent behavior, e.g., Rendell’s actions via his subordinates in the police department to assure Morris and their failure to investigate him or promptly arrest the Teamsters, and Morris’s initiation of the false prosecution of Don Adams (per Rendell’s suggestion) and Morris’s expressed belief (to Police Sgt. Motto and in Local 115 records) that he had been assured that the Teamsters would be left alone. See Appellants’ Br. at 16-22.
Particularly apposite to the instant case is Brodie’s holding that a phone call by a defendant subsequent to the alleged conspiracy that could reasonably be viewed as an attempt to conceal the conspiracy is itself highly probative evidence of the conspiracy’s existence. Id. at 157. “The mere fact” that the defendant chose to contact someone involved in the illegal conduct after the fact when an investigation seemed likely “is itself important.” Id. The Court held that, “an inference of concealment [from such a phone call] is reasonable and further conclude that a rational jury viewing the evidence as a whole could further infer, as the impetus [for the phone call], that the Defendant knew of the [original unlawful conspiracy at the time it was made].”
Contradicting the view taken by the District Court in this case that the Woodring evidence might be relevant only to a conspiracy occurring subsequent to the beatings and not to the original conspiracy to inhibit the protestors’ exercise of their First Amendment right, see JAI at 59 (S.J.Op. at 16), the Brodie Court held that, “It is just as reasonable (if not more so) to infer that the Defendant was seeking to conceal illegal activity . . . of which he knew at the time [it was conducted] than it is to conclude he was seeking to conceal acts which he now understood to be illegal. . . . Moreover, a rational jury viewing the evidence as a whole could certainly decline to interpret the Defendant’s advice to [the recipient of the phone call] as benign [as Rendell claims in his testimony], and instead view it as another instance of the Defendant attempting to conceal [his original unlawful behavior].” 403 F.3d at 157. Hence, Woodring’s testimony concerning the conversation between Rendell and Morris is not only admissible, but is strong evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that the two men had a pre-existing understanding to violate the First Amendment rights of the protestors. See Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397, 404-05 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that where there is competing evidence as to whether a public official’s actions were motivated by a desire to suppress a plaintiff’s viewpoint, the question must be submitted to a jury).
Finally, Appellants wish to bring to the Court’s attention its recent decision in Farber v. City of Patterson, which holds that § 1985(3) “does not provide a cause of action for individuals allegedly injured by conspiracies motivated by discriminatory animus directed toward their political affiliation.” 440 F.3d 131, 143 (2006). While Appellants believe that the Court’s construction of the statute is erroneous and in conflict with its prior holding in Richardson v. Miller, 446 F.2d 1247 (1971), the Farber decision is binding on this panel and may be overridden only by an en banc decision of this Court or by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Appellants are precluded from pressing before this panel the question of the proper interpretation of § 1985(3), which is the second of the issues they have appealed, and is found at pp. 39-51 of their Brief and pp. 29-35 of their Reply.
Appellants thank the Court for its attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Earl N. “Trey” Mayfield, III, Esq.
Counsel for Appellants
Cc. Thomas H. Kohn, Esq.
Karen A. Brancheau, Esq.
Robert M. Baptiste, Esq.
Jane Lovitch Istvan, Esq.
1Both Smith and Brodie were criminal cases requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidentiary burden in the instant civil conspiracy case is, of course, the easier-met preponderance of the evidence standard.
Don didn't ask me to do this, but they always, always need help with their legal bills. Financially, the last seven years have taken an inhuman toll on the both of them. If you care to help out, donations can be sent to:
The Adams Legal Defense Fund
P.O. Box 306,
Cheltenham, PA 19012
Most Recent articles:
DON AND TERI ADAMS UPDATE: RENDELL'S "CLOSED CIRCUIT" MANEUVER
Don Adams Update: Third Circuit Asked to Recuse Itself in Suit Against Rendell
Don Adams Update: Urgent Help Needed on Appeal
Don Adams Update: Teamsters File Motion to Recover $62,673.46 in Fees and Costs
Summary of the 8/6/2003 Don Adams Decision, U.S. District Court
Anti-Clinton Protesters Lose in Suit Against Rendell
Who-what-where:
There was I time on FreeRepublic when I didn't have to introduce the topic of Don Adams. Other than Whitewater, it was FreeRepublic's first cause celebre.
In as few words as I can bear to muster, this is what happened. On October 2, 1998, Don and his sister Teri were beaten by members of the Teamsters Union for the crime of protesting against Clinton in Philadelphia.
(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. One famous result was that it prompted Jim Robinson to call for a march on Washington, DC, which drew around 4000 people on October 31, 1998, to demand Clinton's impeachment.)
The DA filed no charges, so Don and Teri Adams pursued private criminal complaints against two of the Teamsters (Kevin McNulty and Marc Nardone), along with Teamster Local 115 boss Johnny Morris. In response, the Teamsters filed charges against Don Adams. McNulty and Nardone copped a plea and got probation. Morris walked. Don Adams was subjected to the indignity of a trial, and was acquitted in July, 1999. Meanwhile, three other Teamsters were identified from video: Charlie Davis, Mark Hopkins, and Norma Bottomer. Don and Teri Adams filed another private criminal complaint, to which the defendants copped pleas and received probation.
In November of 1999, IBT President James Hoffa ordered that Teamsters Local 115 be placed into trusteeship, and that Johnny Morris be stripped of his powers, partly as a result of the Adams beating incident. Morris contested this bitterly until the end of his life.
The civil phase has been lurching along slowly since the end of the criminal phase.
Why you should care:
It is the business of Freepers to exercise our rights under the First Amendment. When we talk back to power, we have an expectation of being secure in our persons, in our property, and in our liberty. If Don and Teri Adams lose, none of these expectations are valid. It will mean that the men in power can silence us at will, without serious consequences. Five foot-soldiers of the totalitarians have received probation. That's something. But unfortunately Don and Teri have been made to pay a long series of terrible prices over the last five years, and much more lies ahead. I expect it to get worse for them before it gets better.
Would YOU be up to it?
Here is the Don Adams Page, back again in its full glory!
Civil Case:
Johnny Morris criminal case:
Davis, Hopkins, Bottomer criminal case:
McNulty and Nardone criminal case:
(If you want on or off the Don Adams ping list, please let me know.)
To any NEW freepers...the Adams deserve our full support!!
ping
Thanks again, Phys! Good idea to post this.
Please put me on the Don Adams ping list. Thank you.
Thanks for keeping the Adams' case in FR spotlight. May justice finally find them - even in Philly.
Worthy cause bump!
Thanks very much for the updates.
BTTT Thanks for the post Physicist.
Thanks for the ping!
They have been royally screwed over by everybody in this case, up to and including Judicial Watch.
Indeed it was, and I greatly appreciate your calling this to everyone's attention.
Exposing this sort of thuggery was one reason I joined Free Republic.
Here's an old file:
Teamster Trio To Be Sentenced Today For Beating Clinton ...
... and conspiracy, for the October 2, 1998, mob beating of Clinton protestors Don
Adams, and his sister, Teri Adams, during a presidential fundraising trip to ...
Thank You Rush Limbaugh (Rush discussed Don Adams,John Morris ...
... Thank You Rush Limbaugh (Rush discussed Don Adams,John Morris, Freepers&Fund'sWSJ
11-26 Article)!! Crime/Corruption Announcement Keywords: LIMBAUGH,ADAMS,MORRIS ...
Three More Teamsters Plead Guilty In Don Adams Case [Free ...
... Three More Teamsters Plead Guilty In Don Adams Case Crime/Corruption News Source:
Self Author: Teri Adams Posted on 09/12/2000 12:12:17 PDT by TAdams8591. ...
Three MoreTeamsters Plead Guilty in Don Adams Case,Thread 2! ...
... Three MoreTeamsters Plead Guilty in Don Adams Case,Thread 2!! Crime/Corruption News
Keywords: ADAMS,TEAMSTERS, JOHN MORRIS Source: Self Author: DonAdams Posted ...
Bill & Hill's Pal Union Boss Arthur A. Coia Forced To ...
... The Don Adams Defense Fund. PO Box 306. Cheltenham, PA 19012. 11 Posted
on 10/01/1999 20:13:47 PDT by po'boy [ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ] ...
Last of the Molly Maguires (ATTENTION!! re:The Man who had ...
... Last of the Molly Maguires (ATTENTION!! re:The Man who had Don Adams Assaulted--TAdams8591)
Crime/Corruption News Keywords: JOHN MORRIS, DON ADAMS Source: Time ...
Of Guns and Goons [Free Republic]
... Teamster beatings at the anti-Clinton rally was to press assault charges against
Don Adams, one of the protesters who was beaten up; Mr. Adams ultimately was ...
Thanks for posting this Physicist. Very Interesting. Thanks for your links backhoe.
This story, and the old Blood Trail story, were what originally drew me here. It's been quite a ride.
Probation?
Gee. Such punishment. Wow.
/sarchasm - the gaping whole between a liberal and reality
Understanding that I'm not a lawyer, I know that common sense doesn't always rule in a court of law.
We well understand our chances, JAJ. But we've been at it far too long to quit now. We will take this case into the courts as long and as far as it needs to go in our effort to get justice.
Thank you for so well maintaining the archived posts, and for posting the links. We are deeply grateful for all the support after all these years. : )
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.