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.

[DoughtyOne]

Pardon me while I address something that's been on my mind for a while.

Here they come, the scapering hoves of the goats of our discontent. Larry is this. Larry is that. Larry is the other thing.

By reading Judicial Watch's depositions you find that, what this, you mean Larry got that on the record? Soon you find that there's a ton of issues on the record that doesn't matter to the non-existant Justice Department of the United States.

It has been nearly ten years since we had a Justice Department in this nation. No other Justice Department in our nation's history would ignore some of the testimony provided in those depositions.

Actions would have been filed. People would have gone to prison. Klayman would be vindicated.

Let's get this on the record my little hoved friends. If even one member of the Klinton administration had gone to prison, as they should have, not to mention the bast--d president himself, Klayman would have been vindicated and each of you would have to slither back into your crevices.

Once and for all, Larry Klayman cannot bring charges against those with home he has no standing. Most of the depositions he developed were developed as a side issue with regard to other actions. He couldn't bring indictments. Only the AG could.

If you don't like the fact that Larry's depositions recieved no attention, then get up off that callaced hind side of yours and call the Attorney General's office and demand those issues be resolved. Until you do so, don't come slandering and slobering to this thread. You're a bunch of bozos.

Thanks for the ping Dio. At least one person on this forum has avoided the brown stuff behind the ears.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Not gonna happen. Klayman and Klintons are buddies, Figure it out.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

p.s.....I am impressed. It wasn't FiTB who started on the personal attacks against other forum members on a JW thread. It was someone else this time. Sweet.

[DoughtyOne]

Oh figure it out for yourself. He brought one action against Bush that I detest and he was immediately persona non gratis. You fair weather friends are a dime a dozen. I'll stack you right up there with the Rush is a commie loons. All this talk about money, what did you guys expect Klayman to do, get a paper route and still maintain his efforts full time. Cripe, give it a rest.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

A paper route would be more successful and honorable.

But I am sure the people at Judicial Watch are very nice™.

[Mo1]

Ok .. it wasn't thrown out of court

Now the question is .. will he win it??

[Clara Lou]

People were chuckling over Larry long before he went after anything Bush-Cheney.

[Clara Lou]

As a matter of fact, Larry became a certifiable clown when he tried to inject himself into the Florida recount proceedings. He asked to speak, and the judge (Sanders Saul?) told him he had no standing. He looked like a total fool.

[DoughtyOne]

Was he there to dump on Bush?

[DoughtyOne]

Read the depositions and tell me you find nothing there of value. Larry opened up a number of issues. You may not wish to acknowledge it, but those deps are there for anyone to read. Yes even Janet and John could have if they actually gave a damn.

[diotima]

I generally stay off the record with Klayman and JW, but I'll give it a whirl.

I am not a fan of Klayman...I find him a bit...unsavory. However, I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission.

If he wants to go after corruption in government then good, every politician should be held to the same standard.

[DoughtyOne]

And if that's the argument, I might be more inclined to join the festivities.  The problem I have is the hurling of accusations when there's plenty of meat on the table, but the diners won't eat.  I'm not a backer of everything Larry does.  I've got my own set of beefs with him.  But the ferocity of these attacks is over the top in my opinion.  Who is the person everyone thinks is going to step up to bat if Klayman folds Judicial Watch.  Will our Justice Department fill the void?  LOL  Who's going to make that supposition?

[justshe]

Thanks for the ping! Cheerleading pay much these days, you think?

[Clara Lou]

Was he there to dump on Bush?
That's the mystery! No one knows why Larry was there because Larry himself should have known that he had no standing in the matter. (It took the judge approximately 2 seconds to refuse Larry permission to speak.) Personally, I believe that Larry was continuing his undying quest for face time which Larry hopes will result in more donations.

[Clara Lou]

Cheerleading pay much these days, you think?
It must pay something... I'm just not sure what.

[justshe]

**** scapering hoves --goats --little hoved friends --slither back into your crevices --callaced hind side of yours --slandering and slobering --bunch of bozos --the brown stuff behind the ears ****

In all of the discussions I have seen on the threads re: Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman, I have only seen the critics question corporate legal success or lack thereof, corporate officer motivations, corporate finances, actual press releases, IRS audit issues, and advisability of certain lawsuits.

What, may I ask, do the invectives listed on your post (see above) add to the general discussion?

The worst I have seen from the critics, re: individual posters supportive of Larry, is a questioning of the seemingly blind obedience they have to Larry and JW, which, at times, precludes honest dialogue.

Your use of derisive comments is something I except to see from someone who cannot engage in honest dialogue and thus must fall back on schoolyard name calling. You dishonor yourself, imo.

[Iwo Jima]

JW considers not having it tossed out of court "a victory"!!! ROFLMBO!!!!!!

Well, for them, it is.

[Iwo Jima]

" I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission."

That is exactly right. My sentiments exactly.

[justshe]

Ah.........the memories. I remember watching that hearing (to be honest I was glued to my TV night and day for the entire time) and you are correct, Larry was told to sit down by one the heroes(Judge Sauls)of the Florida re-re-re-count.

[Clara Lou]

" I do support his mission. I just don't think he is the man for the mission."
That's well said. Larry had many, many more supporters here early on, until it became apparent that he was chasing up business wherever he thought it would bring donations. (And, as I said, that began long before he decided to go after Bush-Cheney.)