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.

[terilyn]

I didn't even know that. Good grief, these poor people that he represents can't possibly be aware of this.

Larry brought the case vs Cheney/Halliburton for two reasons.

1. To enable him to continue his claim that the IRS audit is politcally motivated, thus continue to stall.

2. To enable him to continue to bilk millions of dollars out of people that don't know any better.

The fact that he's sitting on $10,000,000.00 in investments only confirms both of these beliefs.

[Iwo Jima]

Now, Howlin, you are going to mind your Southern manners and graciously thank our hostess Rebeckie for her hospitality in hosting this thread, aren't you? I do so know exactly what that gesture would mean to her. She so looks forward to her correspondence with you, her mentor.

[Clara Lou]

Larry hasn't.... Are you telling me that Larry never...? You mean.... Are you serious? I thought sure he'd argued that case against his mom....

[Iwo Jima]

"of the reams of lawsuits listed on his website, how many are dead and should be buried?

Until recently, I could have given you exact numbers on that. But they have filed so many suits recently that my stats have gotten scewed [how do you spell that word?].

Easily half of the "active lawsuits" are either totally closed or so dormant that they should be closed. If anyone wants to know the status of any particular suit, I would be pleased to respond. For example, I think that Rebeckie would be thrilled to learn the history of the Loral "shareholders" (hehehe) lawsuit.

[terilyn]

I don't think "thrilled" would be exactly the right word LOL!

(you spelled it right!)

Ball park figure? He's got 93 cases listed. Are even half of them still active?

[Howlin]

I realize I have "pesky" questions -- and they do NOT seem to get answered on these threads -- such a shock, eh?

I'm NOT thanking her. I can't understand why she continues to post these things, other than for PR value; after all, if they weren't posted here, nobody would see them.

[Clara Lou]

TY, Rebeckie

[Iwo Jima]

"Are you telling me that Larry never...? You mean.... Are you serious? I thought sure he'd argued that case against his mom...."

Larry Klayman has never, ever had a jury trial. I do know that he has had at least two judge tried cases ("bench trials") because it is reported in published opinions that he and his No. 1 assistant at JW were barred for ethical violations from ever appearing in two different federal courts for their eggregious unethical conduct. He may have had other bench trials in which he didn't get sanctioned which I don't know about. But NO JURY TRIALS!

I once asked Rebeckie what she thought about Larry's lack of jury trial experience and whether she would like to be represented before a jury by a lawyer who had never had a jury trial. She never got back to me. Busy, I guess. College life is like that.

We should not be too worried, however. The chances of any of Larry's trials of actually getting to a jury are nil. He will see to that.

Now one final point. It has been reported that Larry sued his mother, that Larry's mother paid him $15,000, and that they have never spoken to, heard from, or seen each other since. This has been described as a victory for Larry. I'm curious: why do you not assume that this is a victory for Larry? Why is this not a victory for his mother?

[Iwo Jima]

Lean closer. Let me whisper in your ear. Closer now. That's better. O.K., just you and me. Like Connie Chung and Newt's mom. We need Rebeckie to keep posting these threads that we can feed off of. I mean, WE'RE not going to troll the JW website for these mindless press releases to post. After all, we have a life. But SHE will do it, and then we can post our comments and expose JW for the real miscreants that they are. Now do you get it? Humor her! Keep her posting! Class dismissed.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

All I am going to tell you is if a certain case was dismissed in court, the suit would not be listed as active on their website.

[terilyn]

LOL! So which one of you gets to be Connie and which one gets to be Newt's Mom?

[terilyn]

And you are in posession of this inside information how?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

The Loral Shareholder's lawsuit that is currently active right now, is not listed or linked on their website.

The first one was thrown out because JW filed the lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction.

[terilyn]

And further, if that's, "All I am going to tell you", what other insider knowledge are you in posession of?

Are you "telling us", without "telling us", that you DO work for Larry? Though it would probably be an internship since you are still in school.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

My personal life is none of your darn business.

[terilyn]

Sorry, don't know HOW I could have forgotten that. You being such a private person and all.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I don't need any "inside" information when the Open Records Act allows me to obtain certified copies of JW's current and active Loral case and all its motions up until January of 2002.

The initial complaint of the current Loral case was filed this past August 8th, 2001.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I have made my mistakes and plan to learn from them.

[terilyn]

So case #21 on the JW website is inactive because it was "thrown out" due to Larry's brilliance?

But you said, "All I am going to tell you is if a certain case was dismissed in court, the suit would not be listed as active on their website."

So which is it?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Actually, that might be their current Loral suit.