Posted on 08/26/2003 5:10:15 PM PDT by Physicist
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.)
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?
"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-
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..
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.
Bullbiscuits. Try RICO prosecution, for example, for conspiracy...
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...
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.
You, Don, and Terri fought the good fight over this. Don't feel like you "lost", because you didn't.
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."
The buck's got to stop someplace. They knew they were getting a goon squad.
But if they pursue a civil case they would only need 51% proof.
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.