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.

[Howlin]

My lord, now that I have actually looked at that list (edited by Larry, no doubt), it's worse than even I thought. He hasn't had a case do ANYTHING in years.

I don't care how they dress it up, this is NOT normal. (And remember, we're probably NOT seeing the truth in a lot of those cases. For instance, I don't see ANY that have been dismissed, which I am sure most of them have been!)

[Howlin]

the cases you are referring to have not been dismissed yet. Therefore, technically, they are still active.

Yeah, right. Dead in the water. *wink* *wink*

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Why is it that I hear "Thunder and Blazes" in my head every single time I open a thread about Klayman and Judicial Watch?

[terilyn]

A lot of them have absolutely no documents linked to them either, which would imply that he SAID he was filing suit, but never actually got around to it.

Larry also seems to have his own unique "Bump list". The cases aren't in order by date from what I can tell. Yes, the Halliburton one is toward the end, but others that are newer have been inserted in weird places.

I just tried searching on some of these to see if there was ever any conclusion but the only place any of them are referenced is back to JW.

I agree, this is NOT normal.

[terilyn]

Well, confusion does seem to be Larry's strong suit.

Keep the donors confused and overwhelmed with tabloid like press releases and they'll just keep sending in the money seems to be the name of the game here.

[terilyn]

"Yes, I am telling the truth about that part. Honestly, the last time I checked JW's website, I didn't see that case. I believe that is the current Loral case, because the first one was filed somewhere in Virginia and was dismissed because of that."

Well, it's listed as #21, which would indicate it's been there a while. You managed to go to the website TODAY to get this article and post it.

So is Larry's list of which cases are active and which are not as big a secret as who his donors are?

[terilyn]

That sound you hear is the spin. Larry's own personal three-ring spin.

Kind of like Wheel of Fortune. If you spin enough, eventually the wheel stops on the big money.

The only problem is that then you have to be smart enough to actually solve the puzzle without spending all your money on vowels...or postage.

[Howlin]

Well, I think that we already know that if you are reduced to putting out press releases that basically says, "Hey, here's one that didn't get thrown out," your practice is pretty pathetic.

There are two words that should apply here: tort reform. The ONLY reason Larry files these lawsuits is because other suckers are paying for them (and to get more money, of course); it stands to reason that if he was suing for damages, based just on what he HAS posted on his web site, he'd be out of business.

Perhaps if we had "loser pays" Larry would think twice about filing all these bogus suits and making all these grandiose statements; but, of course, he's just like a Democrat; he'd find another way to have OTHER people pay for what HE wants to do.

[justshe]

Could I request a *ping* if you find such a list?

[terilyn]

"Well, I think that we already know that if you are reduced to putting out press releases that basically says, "Hey, here's one that didn't get thrown out," your practice is pretty pathetic."

Best summary of JW & Klayman I've seen to date!

[an amused spectator]

I guess you haven't read some of the Klayman threads from the wayback machine. I've often wondered why some of the posters verbally puke on Klayman and JW. If they think he's a fraud, they're welcome not to contribute. The sliming reminds me of Team Clinton.

DoughtyOne is spot-on with his post. This is similar to the whole history of Free Republic. We document this stuff, and the mainstream ignores it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ;-)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

The only problem is that then you have to be smart enough to actually solve the puzzle without spending all your money on vowels...or postage.

LOL!

[terilyn]

I'll give you credit for some valid points.

If you'll notice however, a lot of the people "puking" on Klayman were donors. Most became disillusioned way before Klayman sued anybody connected to the Bush administration.

Consider this. If somebody came to your door every week and asked for money to build a new local baseball field, and every week you gave them a few dollars, eventually you'd expect to see the field built, and kids playing on it.

If after five years, they were still coming every week for money and the field was still an empty lot, wouldn't you begin to believe that the money was simply going into the soliciters bank account and you had been scammed?

Thus the disenchantment with JW & Klayman. He's going for quantity, not quality. Everything that most people despise in our ambulance chasers.

[justshe]

Sorry.....I think Klayman is an over-inflated ego, encased in a faux-public-service body, who trolls the news stories in order to capitalize for his own fame and financial gain.

Deport is correct. Tort reform would slow down Mr. Klayman. He might actually have to practice law for a living, instead of living off donations.

He reminds me, a bit, of the carny-type, fake, revivalist preachers. They promise 'healing'in exchange for money. All you have to do is BELIEVE.

[terilyn]

Where are you?

[justshe]

Excuse me..that was Howlin, I think, who mentioned tort reform.

[terilyn]

And Howlin was dead-on right.

[Mo1]

Sorry .. I just got on .. was having computer probems .. it's been one of those days ..

What's up??

[terilyn]

Oh nothing, I just missed you :)

[Mo1]

LOL ... So did Larry win a case yet???