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

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.

"Tort reform..... the girl wouldn't like tort reform simply because President Bush is or would be for it. Those plaintiff attorneys contribute many dollars to candidates in state goverenments and the conservatives wonder why they can't get elected."

To tell you the truth, I don't care what President Bush thinks of this subject. I have given this subject some thought and honest pondering and George W.'s support or condemnation of tort reform does not lead me to my conclusion one way or the other.

I have never heard Klayman make any statement as to whether or not he would support this type of reform, so his opinion really does not affect my conclusion either.

In regards to tort reform, it is not the legitimate authority of any legistlature, state or federal, to decide that which a judge and jury has the legitimate authority to decide.

"Oh, I'm sure you don't want tort reform. Especially "loser pays," which most of us are in favor of. After all, if Larry had to pay his way, he'd be out of business, wouldn't he?"

The claim that propenents of "loser pays" make is not how the Founders had originally intended the Judicial Branch of government to work. Lawyers should not be held responsible (liable) for a decision that is ultimately held in a Judge's discretion. Lawyers are simply doing their job when they represent their clients and they should not be held liable for decisions that are ulimately out of their control. Lawyers cannot tell judges how to rule and therefore, lawyers should not be held liable for how our court system in America is set up.

"And believe this: it IS the job of the legislature to reel in shyster attorneys. They certainly won't police themselves."

I do not believe that it is the job of any legislature, state or federal, to "reel in shyster attorneys". This quite simply, falls under the legitimate authority of a judge and jury to decide whether or not the plaintiffs have a legitimate case and what monetary awards the plaintiffs are to be awarded, if any at all.

What business or legitimate right is it of any legislature to decide what amount of monetary awards are to be given to civilly wronged citizens? For any legislature to decide this question, would be clearly overstepping their constitutional boundaries, for these questions fall under the scope of the Judicial Branch, via a judge and jury!

Larry Klayman Decries Evils of Litigation!
And don't miss our next story, "Casanova: 'I'm a One-Woman Man.' "
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 2:13 PM PT

Larry Klayman has discovered the evils of America's litigation explosion. Klayman is the chairman of Judicial Watch, the conservative ethics-in-government foundation that spent most of the 1990s suing members of the Clinton administration omnidirectionally. (West Wing fans will recognize Klayman as the prototype for Harry Claypool.) Judicial Watch's "Summary of Current Cases" includes a Who's Who of Clinton sex accusers: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Dolly Kyle Browning. More recently, Klayman has diversified his portfolio a bit, taking on House Majority Whip Tom DeLay over certain fund-raising practices by the National Republican Congressional Committee and Vice President Dick Cheney over the secrecy of the Bush administration's energy task force. (Chatterbox predicted that Klayman would start suing Bush, incidentally.) But Judicial Watch remains primarily interested in continuing its jihad against Bill Clinton. The first half of its 2002 "State of the Union" report, ostensibly a critique of the Bush administration, knocks the Bushies for insufficiently investigating alleged vandalism by departing Clinton White House staffers, the Clinton pardons, Hillary Clinton's alleged theft of White House furniture, and Chinagate. As Chatterbox reported earlier, Klayman recently urged Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate departing Whitewater counsel Robert Ray, whom Klayman thinks did a rush job on his final Flytrap report. In a March 15 letter, Klayman complained bitterly that Ray never got around to reading 1.8 million White House e-mails.

Can this be the same Larry Klayman from whom Chatterbox yesterday received a direct-mail solicitation decrying the American legal system for "picking the pockets of hard-working Americans, putting literally billions of dollars into the pockets of greedy lawyers, turning neighbor against neighbor and threatening to derail the rule of law"? The same Larry Klayman who writes, "The U.S. has been transformed from a nation of friends and neighbors into one of actual and potential litigants—plaintiffs and defendants," and who further complains that lawyers have goaded Americans into expecting "courts to resolve everything"? The same Larry Klayman who calculates that the U.S. legal system's cost "is growing at four times the rate of our economy"? The same Larry Klayman who thunders, "Frivolous lawsuits should be prohibited"?

One may liken the overall effect of Klayman's direct-mail sermon against frivolous lawsuits to that of a Weight Watchers commercial starring Marlon Brando or a temperance lecture given by Hunter S. Thompson. Klayman, however, seems oblivious to the irony. His direct-mail solicitation explains cheerfully that Judicial Watch is filing suit "in over 100 of the worse [sic] cases of legal corruption in the country today." Klayman's aim is to recover "more than $10 BILLION in legal fees that have been paid to corrupt lawyers and law firms." (Tort reform, he explains, "is only part of the answer.") But these lawsuits to eliminate the costly scourge of litigation are expensive. "Each lawsuit we bring costs an average $1.5 million dollars," Klayman writes. "Each month we must pay the salaries of 12 outstanding attorneys." Won't you help, with a contribution of $100, $50, or $25?

In a recent (otherwise adulatory) profile by John Berlau in Insight magazine, the conservative newsweekly put out by the Washington Times, Klayman was asked the obvious question of whether he might be contributing to the litigiousness of American society. (Chatterbox tried to phone Klayman today to pose the same question but was told he was unavailable.) Here's his answer:

I agree that society is too litigious. Americans do not sufficiently sit down and try to resolve disputes. In fact, they don't even consider discussing them until you bring a lawsuit. That's our culture—and, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way you can, No. 1, get people's attention, and No. 2, get results, is to bring a lawsuit.

"Sometimes"?

"So I guess if a jury wants to they can give you 10 years for speeding should you be found guilty.... or convict you of murder but turn you loose with just a $10 fine.... or..."

First of all, no jury would decide on a sentence for a traffic ticket. LOL. These types of decisions are made at the lowest level of state courts, or what is referred to as minor courts. Most often, traffic tickets fall under the jurisdiction of traffic courts, which are usually presided over by justices of peace, magistrates, or police judges. These are courts of limited jurisdiction and these judges don't have time to have a jury trial for traffic tickets! These cases are handled informally at the bench in discussions with the judge and not a jury.

Besides your scenarios being pretty ridiculous, crimes for murder, because they are felonies, usually have mandatory minimum sentences.

"In regards to tort reform, it is not the legitimate authority of any legistlature, state or federal, to decide that which a judge and jury has the legitimate authority to decide."

And here I thought that the state & federal legislatures made the laws and the judge & jury were there to interpret and rule on the merits of a case.

Face it, the only way that people with legitimate cases are ever going to get through the courts in a fair and timely way is through tort reform. Loser pays.

The trial lawyers of America have decided our courts are their own personal playground and have made a mockery of our judicial system with their frivilous suits.

I suppose you think suing McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King & KFC is a GOOD thing? Trial lawyers trying to line their pockets.

Then they turn around and donate huge amounts of money to dem politicians so they can insure they will continue to pass legislation that favors the trial lawyers.

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.