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.)
Nudge, nudge... Wink, wink...
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."
That one stretches credulity past the breaking point. Kinda like saying "but Your Honor, while I knew that pit bulls could be violent when attacking other pit bulls, I had no knowledge that they could be violent against human beings". The judge surely would have accepted that assertion, uh, right...
Thanks for the ping..........Have often wondered about Teri & Don.
As for this:
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."
I thought all the money WE donated to JW was what offset the expenses of any and ALL trials undertaken by JW??????
I remember quite a few people saying that Don and Teri needed new lawyers; they were roundly trashed for having the nerve to say that JW couldn't get the job done.
I guess they were right. A demand for ONE MILLION DOLLARS????? Preposterous!
*Snort*
Amen, bro. They crack me up.
Pointedly so, IMHO. To my ear, it sounded like the judge was deliberately being absurd, so that nobody would miss the direction of this railroad.
Unfortunately, the financial squabble with Judicial Watch, combined with a possible "loser pays" judgment against Don and Teri, could mean the end of the entire effort to obtain justice.
Imagine: being beaten to a pulp for political speech, and your only restitution is to be put on trial and then destroyed financially. I wish I knew how to stop it.
When you're in a Kafkaesque nightmare as deep as theirs, I don't know that there is much in the way of "otherwise". The fact that they are still in there swinging, however, shows that they are very hard people to keep down.
Haven't seen Terry post on FR for a long time.
Teri is deliberately avoiding FR, so as not to say or do anything to jeopardize the case. (Considering what I was presented with during the 8 hours the Teamsters grilled me a year and a half ago, pursuant to this case, I believe that's a wise policy.) Any consultation I have done with either of them recently has been strictly to verify factual statements; all opinions and errors here are purely my own.
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."
Larry Klayman turned out to be a greedy disappointment.
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.