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.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I don't sit around here telling people that their opinions aren't legitimate.

[A Citizen Reporter]

That wasn't a convincing reply.......

[justshe]

FJIC...excuse me. I misread your post and did not realize you were talking civil cases only.

Was my post to you disrespectful or nasty?

If not....then please adjust YOUR attitude.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Well I applaud you for having a job; there are too many people who are an economic drain upon our society. It is obvious that you aren't part of this drain.

Now, what have I stated about tort reform that is factually wrong?

[Howlin]

You really are a little snot.

[terilyn]

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

___________________________________________

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

___________________________________________

You're the one that tossed in the broad statement above. justshe pointed out a case that clearly disputes your statement.

Care to retract your red-herring comment now?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Like I stated before, what does this Federal case have to do with tort reform and civil punitive damanges?

Sorry if you forgot, but Supreme Courts, whether state or federal, do not have jury trials and they decide Constitutional questions, not tort civil suits.

[terilyn]

I know, but she apparantly doesn't know what hers is. Two years of political science and suddenly she's an expert on constitutional law.

There's a great old book titled, "Everything I know I Learned in Kindergarten".

FIL could write one that's titled, "Everything I know I Learned from Larry".

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Oh really? I will add that to my list of being called a dunce, stupid, a ditz, a hyporcite, etc. Thanks for making my resume even more colorful.

[justshe]

Notice she didn't adjust her attitude either.