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]

I think that Hilliburton case was bogus. I'm willing to watch, but Larry's going to have to do better than he's done so far. Frankly this move made him look like a full blown idiot as far as I was concerned.

If Haliburton did enguage in shadey accounting practices that Cheney participated in, I want to see it. But it better be on the up and up or Larry's as big an idiot as you say, at least on this case.

As for Enron, I am severly pi--ed that heads haven't rolled yet. What does it take?

I think Ashcroft has about thirty years worth of prosecutions backed up if he'd only start taking things to court that we know about. I was very disappointed when I found that Clinton was getting a pass. There are so many avenues to go after him. I simply refuse to believe that none are legit. As for Larry, if he's as bad as you say, he'll get his sooner or later.

[DoughtyOne]

I hear you. I can tell this is getting to you and you're not alone. I truly do feel as if we have been sold out. Sorry, but that is the inescapable conclusion. Bush has allowed this sham ID thing to fluorish inside our own borders. It's as if the man has been neutered. Since when do foreign nations set up US national policy on US soil? Cripe, either was have a President on this side of the border to defend us or we don't. Evidently we don't.

[seenenuf]

Yep, we don't.

BTW - I've been trying to always make the word 'immigration' a hyphenated word, i.e, 'legal-immigration'.
It speaks to the libs who never use the term "illegal-immigrant".

[DoughtyOne]

Excuse me. ...either we....

[seenenuf]

ping

[DoughtyOne]

Good point. I'll do the same.

[justshe]

Doughty, Doughty, Doughty..........sigh.

YOU wrote:
Do you by any chance live in California? If you did you would know that these courts out here are iffy at best. You may have heard of the OJ Trial. If so I'm sure it will give you food for thought. Nothing is taken for granted out here like it is back east.

PLEASE read what I wrote:
The 'procedures' are the same in all federal courts.

I did not respond to what I thought was your condescending tone: "You may have heard of the OJ Trial." and your "food for thought" advice.... because I might have misread your intent.

But I DID point out your error re: the OJ Trial---and that was a trial NOT held in a FEDERAL COURT.

But having said that..read my post again.

NOTE the word PROCEDURES. I didn't say anything about decisions, as with the 9th Circuit Court. I said PROCEDURES being common across Federal courts. Or at least having more commonality than you find in state courts that can vary from state to state.

Got it?

[terilyn]

Wow! Larry's up to what...two press releases a day now? The donations must be drying up. What's a lawyer to do when he's down 10 mill from the previous year?

After all, if you're spending almost 3 mill of that on actual litigation expenses, it barely leaves a paltry 13 mill for Larry and the USPS.

[Clara Lou]

Ok .. it wasn't thrown out of court Now the question is .. will he win it??
My guess, given Larry's record, is that this will probably never be argued in front of a judge and be brought to a decision. I'm thinking that Larry's forgotten how to actually try a case.

[Iwo Jima]

Let's everyone ping Rebeckie one at a time to thank her for starting this and so many other JW threads and for pinging us to join in with our opinions.

THANK YOU, REBECKIE! LONG MAY YOU POST!

[terilyn]

Thank you Rebeckie.

I've learned a lot from your informative posts.

[Howlin]

Can you all help me out here: where are the press releases that say "Dear Donors: Such and such case was thrown out of court today, clearly NOT a victory."

[terilyn]

I get the impression that Larry really doesn't care to try a case. His mission is to bring things forward, put out a couple of dozen press releases singing his own praises since the media obviously isn't going to help him, collect the dough, and "Move on".

It wouldn't be very profitable to get bogged down in one case now would it? Gotta spread the love around!

[Iwo Jima]

"THANK YOU, REBECKIE! LONG MAY YOU POST!

[terilyn]

Wouldn't be prudent...

More importantly, wouldn't be profitable.

[terilyn]

Can anybody tell me, of the reams of lawsuits listed on his website, how many are dead and should be buried?

He tries to make it look like these are all active, but some of them are ancient. Some of them must have been dismissed by now?

[Howlin]

I myself cannot even keep up with the lies.

You'd think that if somebody at JW has enough time to link every article posted in the whole wide world, somebody there would have time to make a list of their cases and their status. Don't they owe anything to their donors?

[Iwo Jima]

Larry's forgotten how to actually try a case.

I don't mean to be disagreeable, but one can hardly forget that which one has never known. Oh, I get it, you actually thought that Larry had ever tried a case! Gosh, I hope that none of his clients ever thought that.

[terilyn]

"Don't they owe anything to their donors?"

One would think that if you are identifying yourself as the "Ethical Washington Watchdog", that ethics would play a part in your behavior.

Maybe he could splurge with a few of those donated dollars and buy himself a dictionary.

[Iwo Jima]

"where are the press releases that say "Dear Donors: Such and such case was thrown out of court today, clearly NOT a victory."

Ooooh! You do give tough assignments. Let me see what I can do. But first you must promise me: you won't hold your breathe, now will you?