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.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"It's not really supposed to be a beat-the-bejeebers-out-of-Larry Klayman thread, although it may look like it is."

Aw look at the poor victim. Mayhaps another one who's paid by the Klaymaster?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Howlin,

If there is one thing that you are good at, it is at distorting the words and ideas that people write on these threads. Nowhere did I never state the the legislature does not write the law. My point is, any legislature, state or federal, should not be writing laws that overstep their Constitutional authority.

[deport]

Lawyers MAKE the laws and twist the laws.

And contribute heavily to the election of judges at the state and local level for sure.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

If you are against special interest groups lobbying legislatures, just come out and state it.

[Howlin]

Your point is irrelevant. That is only your opinion and you don't have the background or the experience to even make statements like that.

[A Citizen Reporter]

And contribute heavily to the election of become judges at the state and local level

[terilyn]

Hey, you found the book again I see.

[terilyn]

And as long as the idiots keep electing trial lawyers to Congress, they will continue to protect the hand that feeds them.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I think that my qualifications are just as legitimate as yours.

If you don't like my opinions please make an argument besides, "I don't agree with you, you are only in college, therefore your opinion is not as legitimate or relevant as mine is."

I like reading your opinions, and would also like to hear your opinion of why tort reform falls under the Constitutional scope of legislatures.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

It's called, I pay attention in my law classes.

[Howlin]

I think that my qualifications are just as legitimate as yours.

No, they are not. I was working in the courtroom before you were born.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I must have misunderstood you, you have a degree in law?

[justshe]

****If the presiding judge believes the case to be frivilous and without merit, they will simply throw the case out of court.****

"...one nation, UNDER GOD, with liberty and justice for all."

You give a lot of credit to judges. Especially the quality of the judges appointed by Clinton.

[Howlin]

Don't play dumb.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Nothing like throwing in a red-herring debate, huh?

What does that Federal case have to do with tort reform and civil damages?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Well you speak with the authority of one who has practiced law for years. What type of law do you specialize in?

[terilyn]

"...you have a degree in law?

Do you?

I didn't think so.

[Howlin]

I speak with the experience of somebody who has been a court reporter for 22 years; you see, I've actually SEEN the law practiced and participated in it.

I know a good lawyer when I see one; and I know a shyster when I see one.

[tgslTakoma]

LOL! You are sooo funny, ACR. And you're so wrong, too.

[Howlin]

She knew what my job is.