Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-Clinton Protesters Lose in Suit Against Rendell (MAJOR DON ADAMS UPDATE)
The Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia) | August 8, 2003 | Shannon P. Duffy

Posted on 08/26/2003 5:10:15 PM PDT by Physicist

Anti-Clinton Protesters Lose in Suit Against Rendell

BY SHANNON P. DUFFY
U.S. Courthouse Correspondent

A federal judge has dismissed a civil rights suit against former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell brought by two anti-Clinton protesters who claim he was responsible for their being assaulted by five Teamsters union members in October, 1998 when President Clinton was in Philadelphia to attend a political fund-raiser.

U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn, Jr. ruled that Rendell, who is now Pennsylvania's governor, cannot be held liable for the attacks because the evidence showed that he did nothing more than invite the Teamsters to attend a rally to show support for Clinton.

"Plaintiffs have produced no evidence that Rendell played a direct and personal role in the alleged assault," Yohn wrote in his 21-page opinion in Adams v. Teamsters Local 115, et al.

Instead, Yohn found, "it is undisputed that prior to the rally Rendell specifically told [Teamsters then-Secretary-Treasurer John P.] Morris not to have any contact with the anti-Clinton demonstrators, and that he wanted the event to be 'extremely peaceful.'"

The ruling is a victory for attorney Peter Winebrake of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards who filed and argued a summary motion on Rendell's behalf. Joining Winebrake on the brief were City Solicitor Nelson A. Diaz and Deputy City Solicitors Shelley R. Smith and Gregory Vrato.

On the plaintiffs' side, an ugly dispute erupted late last year when plaintiffs Don and Theresa Adams, who are siblings, decided to hire new lawyers to replace a team of lawyers from Judicial Watch, a nonprofit firm in Washington, D.C., that says its goal is "to hold government officials and others accountable for breaches of the public trust."

The dispute went public when the Adamses' new lawyers--Samuel C. Stretton of Philadelphia and Joseph M. Adams of Doylestown--complained in court papers that the Judicial Watch lawyers had refused to turn over their files unless they were paid. They asked Yohn to terminate Judicial Watch's attorney retaining lien.

In response, Judicial Watch attorneys Paul J. Orfanedes and Larry Klayman told Yohn they had a valid claim for more than $208,000 in fees and expenses "for the tremendous time, effort and resources it expended," including 30 depositions, hundreds of interrogatories and successfully defeating several motions for dismissal."

In their agreement with the Adamses, they said, any termination by the Adamses "entitles Judicial Watch to be compensated immediately on a quantum meruit basis."

Stretton and Joseph Adams argued that since Judicial Watch is a nonprofit, public interest firm, it is prohibited from demanding fees from its clients. The only way it would be paid, they said, would be a court award of fees if the Adamses won the case.

But Orfanedes and Klayman argued that the new lawyers were missing the point of the termination clause.

"When plaintiffs terminated Judicial Watch, they [also] terminated Judicial Watch's ability to apply its substantial skill and expertise to achieve this outcome," they wrote.

Court records show that Yohn denied the motion filed by the new laywers "without prejudice," meaning that he would consider it later if the new lawyers raised ths issue again.

Stretton could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said he considered the fee dispute "unfortunate," but said Judicial Watch continues to take the position it took at the time of the dispute and is "proceeding pursuant to Pennsylvania law."

Fitton said he was also "disappointed" by the news of Yohn's decision to dismiss all claims against Rendell.

According to the suit, Clinton's October 1998 visit to Philadelphia occurred during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Anticipating that Clinton could face demonstrators calling for his impeachment, the suit said Rendell hatched a plan to fill City Hall plaza with a large number of Clinton supporters to greet the president as he entered and left the event.

Rendell personally placed phone calls to more than a dozen community, civic and political organizations, asking that their members congregate along the route that the president's car would be traveling and show their support for him, the suit said.

The mayor's staff reached out to more than 50 additional groups, the suit said.

One of Rendell's calls was to Morris to ask that he enlist the support of Teamsters Local 115. In his deposition, Rendell testified that he told Morris: "We want a real good reception for the president. There may be some demonstrators there. And we certainly ... want to drown out the demonstrators."

But Rendell testified that he also specifically told Morris that "I didn't want any interaction with the demonstrators. I wanted this to be extremely peaceful and extremely positive."

At the rally, a large number of Teamsters showed up, many wearing "Teamsters for Clinton" T-shirts.

The Adamses were part of a group of anti-Clinton protesters, some of whom carried signs that said "Hail to the Thief," "Liar, Pervert, National Shame," or "Resign or Get Impeached."

Although the pro- and anti-Clinton groups were separated for most of the rally, they clashed on several occasions, including one incident that turned suddenly violent.

According to the suit, after Don Adams and Morris exchanged words, Morris placed his hat on Adams' head and several Teamsters members rushed forward and began assaulting him. In the ensuing melee, Don Adams fell to the ground and was assaulted. His sister, too was injured, the suit said, when she attempted to come to her brothers' rescue.

As Yohn described it, police quickly arrived and "all fighting ceased."

Five Teamsters later pleaded guilty to assaulting Adams, but Morris was never charged.

In the federal suit, the Adamses alleged that Rendell was aware of the Teamsters' penchant for violence and that his personal invitation to the union made him liable for a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment rights of the anti-Clinton protesters.

Now Yohn has ruled that the evidence fell far short of proving the conspiracy theory.

"In order to prove this conspiracy, plaintiffs must produce either direct or circumstantial evidence that Rendell and the defendant members of Local 115 came to a meeting of the minds that the union would behave in a threatening or violent manner towards the anti-Clinton demonstrators," Yohn wrote.

Yohn said the plaintiffs "make much of the Teamsters' reputation for violence and Rendell's knowledge thereof."

But the evidence, Yohn said, showed that "Rendell believed the union's violent reputation only extended to labor disputes and he had no knowledge of the organization behaving violently during political demonstrations."

As a result, Yohn concluded that "there is no evidentiary basis to support a finding by a rational juror that Rendell said one thing, but implied another in his conversation with Morris, thereby implicitly agreeing with Morris that violence should or would occur."

Having dismissed all of the federal claims from the suit, Yohn said he was declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law assault claims against the union and its members.

In his final paragraph, Yohn said the remaining state law claims "will be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to file these claims in state court."

(Copies of the 21-page opinion in Adams v. Teamsters Local 115, et al., PICS NO. 03-1236, are available from The Legal Intelligencer. Please call the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service at 800-276-PICS to order or for information. Some cases are not available until 1 p.m.)


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anticonservative; assault; billclinton; brownshirts; clinton; clintonlegacy; clintons; crime; crooks; donadams; hillaryclinton; johnnymorris; judicialwatch; kafka; labor; mediabias; nazitactics; pennsylvania; philadelphia; plausibledeniability; politicalcorruption; racketeers; rendell; rico; senatorhillary; teamsters; teriadams; thugs; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 next last
To: Those_Crazy_Liberals
Should you be allowed to sue someone for all your medical bills when, before you got in the car accident you didn't put your seatbelt on?

I'm disturbed that you would consider that a remotely valid comparison. Putting on a seatbelt doesn't prevent you from driving in the first place. Wearing one doesn't require you to forfeit any Constitutional rights. Traffic accidents do not generally occur through deliberate intent.

Tell me: how possibly could we have safely exercised our First Amendment right to free speech that day? I won't accept you telling me, "you couldn't, so you should have shut up and gone home"...so tell me, how?

101 posted on 08/27/2003 6:44:13 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Ugh, lots of things in that article. "Anti-Clinton" shows which pocket their hankie hangs out of. Typical "shooting in the foot" aim by the right side is demonstrated. And, finally, typical hidden connections amongst the democRats. Judge Yohn was the second judge to be assigned to this case. The original judge, Judge Kauffman, was replaced last September at the request of Don and Teri, after Governor Rendell admitted that they were longtime associates.
102 posted on 08/27/2003 6:55:20 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
You assumed the risks. It's no different than the protesters that show up at Klan rallies. They're usually supported by a big chain link fence. Does that inhibit their rights of free speech? Certainly not. Most eveyone at those rallies end up being sprayed or gassed or something when the crowd gets out of control. Not for what they say, but because of the conflict that exists between the two sides.

In your case you (or this Adams guy) come to court with 'dirty hands' as they say in the law. I don't think anyone can argue that you (or he) were able to exercise your first amendment rights that day. You have gotten we'll beyond your 15 minutes of fame. Did you also expect someone to provide you with posterboard and a megaphone? You simply have to realize that decisions have consequences. Live up to yours.
103 posted on 08/27/2003 7:13:47 AM PDT by Those_Crazy_Liberals (Ronaldus Magnus he's our man . . . If he can't do it, no one can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"Let me add that Ed Rendell's actions had the consciously intended result of forcing me (and Don and Teri) to choose between our safety and our expression. We chose to preserve our expression. If I can't blame Ed Rendell for the choice I made, I can certainly blame him for forcing me into that choice. And I do. It was a crime."

I suspect this result would have happened whether or not Rendell was even in the same city as you. God, the founding fathers would laugh (or cry) at you. Stop whining. Better men than you paid a much worse price to exercise their free speech rights. Suck it up will you?
104 posted on 08/27/2003 7:15:27 AM PDT by Those_Crazy_Liberals (Ronaldus Magnus he's our man . . . If he can't do it, no one can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Welcome to the wonderful whacky world of Crazy_Liberal, bud. I am quite convinced that she is a liberal disrupter intent on fomenting dissension. Who else would claim that you had it coming!??

If a woman is conservative, Crazy_Liberal would claim she wanted to be raped at the trial of her assailant.

Crazy_Liberal's comment that you had "your 15 minutes of fame" is clearly intended to provoke you. Laci Peterson also had her 15 minutes of fame, but she was assaulted horribly.

105 posted on 08/27/2003 7:18:52 AM PDT by Lazamataz (I am the extended middle finger in the fist of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
The DA filed no charges, so Don and Teri Adams pursued private criminal complaints against two of the Teamsters (Kevin McNulty and Marc Nardone), along with Teamster Local 115 boss Johnny Morris. In response, the Teamsters filed charges against Don Adams. McNulty and Nardone copped a plea and got probation. Morris walked. Don Adams was subjected to the indignity of a trial, and was acquitted in July, 1999. Meanwhile, three other Teamsters were identified from video: Charlie Davis, Mark Hopkins, and Norma Bottomer. Don and Teri Adams filed another private criminal complaint, to which the defendants copped pleas and received probation.

While the results could have been better, bro, I am calling this a win. Don never should have been hauled into court, but OTOH, lots of people are hauled into court that shouldn't be, every day. The bad guys have got violent arrests on their records, as well as convictions for lesser charges, and probation. All in all, not all that bad. I'm sorry you lost the civil case, but on the whole, you got at least a HALF pound of flesh from the bastichs.

106 posted on 08/27/2003 7:27:26 AM PDT by Lazamataz (I am the extended middle finger in the fist of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I note that Crazy_Liberal also states that you should 'suck it up'. I suppose you should just stand there and be beaten by leftist goons, in Crazy_Liberal's Whacky World of Adventure.

Her intent is clear -- to troll you and offer provocational statements, in order to increase dissension on this forum.

Crazy_Liberal is obviously a liberal disrupter.

107 posted on 08/27/2003 7:29:54 AM PDT by Lazamataz (I am the extended middle finger in the fist of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
This is from the website of JudicialWatch: DON & THERESA ADAMS v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115, et. al.. In Rendell's deposition (pages 13-19), with Klayman asking the questions, he says:
We also, in 1980 or '81, I forget the exact year, there was a case involving the Teamsters Local 115, where five members of the union were accused of beating a replacement worker in a cab company. I authorized the arrest and prosecution on aggravated assault. They broke his jaw and broke several ribs and knocked some teeth out. And then during the pendency of the prosecution, the lawyer for the cab company brought us the victim, who told us that the Teamsters Union had -- the lawyer, the in-house lawyer for the Teamsters Union, had come to him and asked him to take a bribe, accept a bribe and to testify falsely at the trial, saying that he couldn't remember. He had already testified at the preliminary hearing. And I authorized a wiretap, and we wired the victim and sent him into a second meeting with the lawyer. Based on that second meeting where the lawyer repeated the offer for cash in return for a changed testimony, based on that offer, and he actually coached him to say you couldn't remember, because he said if you contradicted your testimony at the hearing you'd be prosecuted for perjury, so just say you can't remember, no matter what they ask. Based on that, we issued an arrest warrant and successfully prosecuted the in-house lawyer for the Teamsters Union. So I'm keenly aware of all those --

Q. You're keenly aware that the Teamsters Union has behaved in a corrupt fashion from time to time?

MR. WINEBRAKE: Objection to form.

THE WITNESS: Again, corrupt? I guess that's a semantical discussion. But have they been involved in -- have they engaged in acts of violence? Yes, I'm aware of that.

BY MR. KLAYMAN:

Q. And you're aware that the Teamsters Union has been accused of having Mafia infiltration, correct, organized crime?

A. I've heard the accusation, but I've never heard -- seen any specific proof of that. I mean, I know that has been an accusation since Robert Kennedy was -- was Attorney General.

[skipping some ...]

Q. Well, you're not denying that Mr. Morris and his Teamsters Local 115 has engaged in violence?

A. No question. As I said, I issued arrest warrants and successfully prosecuted them.

Q. Yes. And they have quite a reputation for engaging in violence, do they not?

A. Well, there have been acts, and -- and I think with those acts comes a level of notoriety.

Q. And among the acts of violence included beatings?

A. Yes.

Q. Correct? Murder, correct, from time to time?

A. In Local 115, I'm not aware of any murder. And, again, it is important to make the distinction. Local 115 -- no. I'm not aware of any murder. And, again, I've been in law enforcement since -- since '60 -- actually '66.

Q. You're not -- you're not aware of them being caught for murder?

A. Or -- or charged.

Q. But you can't vest -- but you can't testify definitively that they haven't murdered people?

A. No, but I'm aware -- I'm aware that they haven't been charged or caught or accused.

It goes on and on. Anyway, Rendell knew they were bad guys.
108 posted on 08/27/2003 7:32:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I wonder if the Teamsters (either individually or collectively) could be sued?

I received a solicitation from Judicial Watch just two days ago. I'm glad I tossed it.

109 posted on 08/27/2003 7:41:53 AM PDT by GunsareOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Those_Crazy_Liberals
Did you also expect someone to provide you with posterboard and a megaphone?

No, I brought my own posterboard and voice. I would have been content simply to hang onto them, but it was not permitted.

You simply have to realize that decisions have consequences. Live up to yours.

I have. Should the Teamsters not live up to theirs? So far, they haven't. That's what this is about.

110 posted on 08/27/2003 7:43:25 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: GunsareOK
I wonder if the Teamsters (either individually or collectively) could be sued?

That's exactly what's going on here. Rendell was a named party along with the Teamsters, but he's been dropped, and the matter has been kicked out of Federal court. The case goes back to the state court system.

111 posted on 08/27/2003 7:45:40 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"I have. Should the Teamsters not live up to theirs? So far, they haven't. That's what this is about."

I don't disagree that they need to be held responsible, but there is no such thing as a private entity, which the teamsters are, infringing on your 1st amendment rights. If you're caught stealing newspapers, you'll be charged with theft, not a violation of the 1st amendment. I guess I'm not making my point very well.
112 posted on 08/27/2003 7:48:17 AM PDT by Those_Crazy_Liberals (Ronaldus Magnus he's our man . . . If he can't do it, no one can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
What a travesty. I can imagine the result if a group of "right wing extremists" assaulted one or two "progressives" making a peaceful protest.
113 posted on 08/27/2003 7:48:58 AM PDT by GunsareOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Thanks for the update. I remember when it was hot on FR and Teri would give us updates. It was terrrible what happened to Don and Teri and continues to be now, by getting shafted in the courts.

Add me to the ping list if you would be so kind.

If she/they need help again, I'll send what I can. I'm sure every little bit helps.

114 posted on 08/27/2003 7:50:14 AM PDT by b4its2late (How much can I get away with and still go to heaven?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is "no genuine issue of any material fact" (that's the expression from Federal Procedure rule 56), and therefore judgment can be rendered purely as a matter of law. The ruling in this case seems questionable, if there was a genuine factual issue about the intent of the teamsters. That's a classic jury question. [snip]

That was my thinking. It seems like the judge has usurped the jury's perogative to be the finders of fact.

I am further of the impression that in deciding on a motion for summary judgement, the court is obliged to assume that the evidence would be interpreted in a manner deleterious to the side seeking summary judgement.

No, that's the test for a motion to dismiss the complaint. If the complaint manages to state a cause of action, assuming its allegations can somehow be proven, then it won't be dismissed. This case obviously survived that phase.

Yeah; that dawned on me after I posted..... I had dismisal and summary judgement mixed up.

Anyway, it seems to me that a reasonable person, knowing the propensity of the local Teamster's Union to use violence as a "tool," and knowing that anti-Clinton protestors were likely to be present at the Clinton rally, would conclude that inviting the Teamsters to the rally might lead to a violent encounter with anti-Clinton protestors. Given that Rendell stipulated both of those conditions in his depositions, it therefore seems reasonable that a jury should decide if his assertion that he told the Teamsters to be non-violent at the event is believeable or not.

It further seems to me that a jury might easily conclude that Rendell saying to the Teamster's leader "don't be violent" is about as sincere as someone telling hungry lions "don't nibble on the spectators."

115 posted on 08/27/2003 8:06:53 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; joanie-f
"The article doesn't mention that the victim, Don Adams, remains the only person actually to stand trial as a result of this incident."

Why should Don's trial -- or his subsequent acquittal for that matter -- be mentioned by this rag, Physicist??
Why?

This entire article has served do nothing more than blur the real issue(s) employing so much gobbledegook my head'll be spinning for the remainder of the day.
The sycophant scribe/moron spun the entire matter in favor of the 'Rat Rendall & it's painfully obvious.
She sure as hell wasn't about to serve Don & Teri by citing the facts of this entire case for the public, as it were.

If the union monster-thugs are the left's "foot soldiers," as some have said?
Than the mediots (& *especially* this rag & the quisling urinalist) are the voices who're responsible for this kind of crap being excused providing the ideology is in-line with the "cause."

Sorry to have to say it, but, what else is new.
The "media arm" of the Liberal-Socialist machine has spoken, "done their job" -- again -- & the constitution be damned.

"Originally, District Attorney Lynn Abraham was not going to press charges against the Teamster thugs, despite the fact that four TV news crews videotaped the entire incident."

Getting the goons convicted was undoubtably due almost entirely to that video tape, Physicist.
Considering the "justice" Reginald Denny recieved in LA under like circumstances, y'all are wayyyyy ahead of the "game" getting those precious convictions

"When Don and Teri started to pursue private criminal complaints against the Teamsters and against Morris (who ordered the attack), three Teamster women made the ludicrous claim that Don precipitated the beating by assaulting them. Incredibly, Abraham accepted this, and Don stood trial. He was ultimately acquitted."

How many of the goons were convicted of assualt & subsequently placed on probation, 3? 4?
Those individual Teamster members were participating at that *rally* solely due to the invitation of their Teamster local; &, that can be proven using the ex-mayor's own words, right?

The now convicted Teamster members -- *&* the local sponsoring 'em -- must be sued for damages.
That means the local *&* the UTA are the "deep pockets" you'll have in your sights.
Not the useful idiot goons who'll claim not to have two nickels to rub together.

As another wise poster already noted, this is not without precedent.
There are some striking similarities between what Morris Dees & his SPLC did to the KKK and what the Admas people can do to the UTA *&* their local.
Don't permit anyone to say otherwise, either.

But for now one thing at a time...nail these union members, their local, and the UTA.
Get that order screwed up & I'd bet that'll give the opposition the oportunity to make this relatively simple matter of assualt so complicated the result will be to blur it beyond recognition.
Which'll of course surely have the desired effect of making any kind of judgement *for* the Adams people nearly a complete impossibility.

That tack is straight outa the Clintigula "book of law" y'know, as we all have seen it used by the thief & his cronnies time & again during an 8 year reign of terror.

This case must be "built" one simple course at a time; if, any real progress/success is to ever be expected.
Legally it is up to y'all to show one tree through the forest.

...Mrs f; a FYI on matters happening in your neck of the woods.

116 posted on 08/27/2003 8:21:51 AM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; Physicist
Anyway, it seems to me that a reasonable person, knowing the propensity of the local Teamster's Union to use violence as a "tool," and knowing that anti-Clinton protestors were likely to be present at the Clinton rally, would conclude that inviting the Teamsters to the rally might lead to a violent encounter with anti-Clinton protestors.

All analogies are a stretch, but this one seems like inviting a group of known child-molesters to some school event, and then claiming that you didn't know there would be trouble. I think this case easily presented a jury question about Rendell's liability for his conduct. It looks like the judge erred. Usually they go out of their way not to grant summary judgment if there is any factual issue, because summary judgment decisions are frequently overturned on appeal. This one possibly could be, based on what I've seen here. (But another word of obligatory caution: I don't know what else the judge had in the record when he made his decision.)

117 posted on 08/27/2003 8:27:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Tell me: how possibly could we have safely exercised our First Amendment right to free speech that day? I won't accept you telling me, "you couldn't, so you should have shut up and gone home"...so tell me, how?

I see that you are being "attacked" for being in the "wrong" place at the "wrong" time. Seems like that logic would severely reduce the prison population, since victims should have known better than to go anywhere.

On Saturday, October 22, 1994, some time after 10 PM, 19-year-old Kayla Mayberry disappeared from a nightclub in downtown Shreveport, Louisiana, U.S.A. (The Wet Bar, on Spring Street). She had been there with her sister, but she wanted to go to the dance floor while her sister didn't, so they separated for what was intended to be only a few minutes. Kayla was never seen again.

118 posted on 08/27/2003 8:30:42 AM PDT by AndrewC (It's your fault, your face should not have hit my fist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
but this one seems like inviting a group of known child-molesters to some school event, and then claiming that you didn't know there would be trouble.

Excellent analogy.

119 posted on 08/27/2003 8:38:59 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Landru
Why should Don's trial -- or his subsequent acquittal for that matter -- be mentioned by this rag, Physicist??

Oh, I don't know that it necessarily should. I just thought that people on FR should know, so I wanted to bring it up.

Getting the goons convicted was undoubtably due almost entirely to that video tape, Physicist.

That's true...but still, I thank my lucky stars that there was no videotape of the assault against me, because I'm absolutely convinced that I would have stood trial just like Don. Of course, I no more raised a hand against anyone than Don did.

The now convicted Teamster members -- *&* the local sponsoring 'em -- must be sued for damages.

That's the main thrust of this very court case.

120 posted on 08/27/2003 9:17:35 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson