Anti-Clinton Protesters Lose in Suit Against Rendell (MAJOR DON ADAMS UPDATE)

The Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia) | August 8, 2003 | Shannon P. Duffy

[Physicist]

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.

So if a President brings in a private group to kick in the faces of some protesters, or break up a church service, that's Constitutionally A-OK?

[Landru]

Well don'tcha think it s/would've been reported had the rag really wanted to provide the whole picture??
Seems (to me) the urinalist-moron just about broke her spindly neck to make it *perfectly* clear when she recited the "facts" all in an effort to demonstrate the crooked 'Rat Gov's hands were clean on this matter.
Which the world knows damned well is about as far from reality as can possibly be.

"I just thought that people on FR should know, so I wanted to bring it up."

I'm very grateful you did too, Physicist.
Like every other person on this forum (& been around a few years) who remembers this horror story, I've often wondered what the disposition of this case was.
As well as what the well being of both the Adams people & yourself were at this time.
So thank you from my heart, OK?

~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."

I don't get it Physicist, I'm left wondering why you'd believe that to be the case.
Don't you think you'd have also been acquited??

The video tape not only exonerated both of the Adams but, also had to later have been fundemental attaining the -- albeit paltry -- convictions against the union's goons.
Simply put all parties involved in the case had motive to lie; while, the moving pictures were unimpeachable.

That video tape will again be critical when it comes time for a jury to decide an award and/or damages against all the defendants; IF, that jury ever gets the chance to see it, for themselves.

The video's now & has always has been the single most powerful motivation for the union -- both local and national -- to settle this thing with all three of you asap out of court on behalf of their goon-like members.
It's in their best interest this entire matter -- for a variety of reasons & especially that video tape!! -- never sees the light of day.

"Of course, I no more raised a hand against anyone than Don did."

Of course you didn't; but, that video tape shows something quite different than what the union & their flunkies have testified to, eh??
The video tape doesn't prove you innocent, it proves the goons are guilty.
If a picture says a thousand words, than that video speaks volumes.

Really, that video spells the union's doom before anything else need be said and the union has known this from the get-go.
If your lawyers aren't drilling that point mercilessly ad nauseum than they're missing the entire point & wasting the only tool they need.

~The now convicted Teamster members -- *&* the local sponsoring 'em -- must be sued for damages.~
"That's the main thrust of this very court case."

Excellent, glad to hear that.
Because punitive damages are the bottom line, now.
Forget "justice," "civil rights," & all the other constitutional stuff.
Make the lice show you the money for what they've already done.
Which (we all know) can effortlessly be proven in black & white -- thanks to the video tape -- regardless of what the defence mouthpieces do to spin, lie, & distort the facts.
That's the proverbial bird in the hand, isn't it?

What precisely were the union goons motive(s) for what they did and/or "who" were the person or persons unk behind the curtain pulling their levers??
Those things can be looked into later after the flunkies have been securely nailed to a cross.

Y'all may have lost this battle but certainly not the war, IMO.
Far from it.

...-BTTT-

[L.N. Smithee]

Hiya, Phys, it's been a while. I seem to remember Rendell actually being quoted as saying something in the realm of, "That's what happens when you mess with the Teamsters." Am I out of my mind on that?

[BerniesFriend]

"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.

What a hoot..JW's only skill is fundraising and publicity hunting..if someone ever wanted to vanish, they should sign on with Judicial Watch..the Witness Relocation plan of law firms..

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"So if a President brings in a private group to kick in the faces of some protesters, or break up a church service, that's Constitutionally A-OK?"

It's not unconstitutional unless they're acting under color of law, and for that they would need to at least be employees of the executive branch.

[JulieRNR21]

Thanks for the update. I've been thinking lately of Terri & Don & wondering what was happening on their civil case.

Their courage & determination to stand up to injustice motivated me (& my husband) to become political activists.

When Jim announced the March for Justice (Oct. 1998)...we made plans to attend. And that was the turning point for us...we would exercise our First Amendment Rights whenever & wherever we chose...we would not be silenced!

Since Morris was an agent of the Teamsters (even though now deceased) can the Union be held accountable for Morris' actions in marking Don by placing his hat on him?

I recall that putting the hat on someone was a well known technique of Union bosses to indicate that a individual was a target to be attacked.

I miss seeing Terri on FR but certainly understand that she cannot post for 'legal reasons'.
Please give our best regards to Terri & Don.

[dirtboy]

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?

You ain't fit to lick Physicist's shoes. If you had any sense of what went down that night and the subsequent nightmare that Don Adams went through, you would retract that attack.

[dirtboy]

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.

Bullbiscuits. Try RICO prosecution, for example, for conspiracy...

[Physicist]

But don't you see, dirtboy? Fighting for our right to political free speech...why, it's downright unpatriotic! Liberal's Founding Fathers sock puppets are all nodding their heads in agreement as they weep. ;^)

[gorush]

The headline sounds bad...glad to here it pertains to just a battle and not the war. As always, good luck!

[dirtboy]

But don't you see, dirtboy? Fighting for our right to political free speech...why, it's downright unpatriotic! Liberal's Founding Fathers sock puppets are all nodding their heads in agreement as they weep. ;^)

All I know is, that time we all strutted to the Mummers when Clinton was in town at the Convention Center, we even got a smile from the Free Mumia crowd. If that' ain't 1st Amendment protected speech, I don't know what is.

Seriously, I have no idea what tropical parasite was affecting that poster's brain, but I hope I never get it, as that was some of the dumbest stuff I think I've ever seen posted on FR. Maybe liberalism is spread by mosquito bites after all, kinda like West Nile but more like West Manhattan...

[GEC]

"So if a President brings in a private group to kick in the faces of some protesters, or break up a church service, that's Constitutionally A-OK?"

It's not unconstitutional unless they're acting under color of law, and for that they would need to at least be employees of the executive branch.

Rendell effectively deputized the Teamsters. Note the use of "Teamsters for Clinton" t-shirts used by the thugs to identify each other. This was their color of law.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the update.

[Eva]

Thanks for the update.

[snopercod]

I remember it all. This was back when FReepers could create new topics at will along the left-hand sidebar.

You, Don, and Terri fought the good fight over this. Don't feel like you "lost", because you didn't.

[I still care]

"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."


"Hey, I thought they only beat each other up! I didn't think they beat up OTHER people!"

What a lame defense.

[exile]

"As anyone from the Delaware Valley knows, there is virtually no difference between the Teamsters and the Mob"

Actually, there is a difference. The mob dresses better.

I am sick of hearing stories about Teamster thugs intimidating people and throwing their (ample beer soaked) weight around.

These Tony Soprano wannabes must be stopped.

[weegee]

Bad outcome but thanks for posting this thread and supplemental information.

Lest some think that this was a one time occurance, there is this thread that I had bookmarked:

Hillary's Advance Man: We Set 'Goon Squads' on Protesters

There are a number of similar incidents linked in that thread.

A bunch of brownshirts. Never hear the ACLU complain about this. Never hear Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins talk about this chill wind.

The Clinton campaign "never advocated physical confrontation and always insisted that the etiquette squad stay within the boundaries of the law," he claimed.

But in the next breath Halley confessed, "Sadly, but inevitably, things sometimes got a little frisky, but my recruits knew how to handle themselves."

[weegee]

In da mob, weeze don't say, "Kill that guy". We say, "whack him", "rub him out", "make the problem go away", or simply, "you know what to do".

The buck's got to stop someplace. They knew they were getting a goon squad.

[weegee]

Don't forget the comment his spokesman made, that protesting against the Teamsters was hazardous to one's health. The Rendell Admin definitely knew what those goons were about. I guess it just didn't rise to being beyond reasonable doubt, which is the ethical standard for the Dems in the post-Clinton era.

But if they pursue a civil case they would only need 51% proof.