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

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

[Physicist]

By the way, I can't remember a single Democrat in the country standing up for Don and Terri Adams.

Their lawyer, Samuel Stretton, is a Democrat. He's the one who got Don acquitted of the trumped-up charges against him. I will also add that he bears no responsibility for the fact that this phase of the civil case did not survive summary judgment, as he came on after the arguments were in the judge's hands.

What can we do to help the cause, Physicist?

I wish I knew. It may be time to resurrect the Don Adams Legal Defense Fund, but I'm afraid that never got very far in any case. If anyone has any ideas for supplemental legal assistance, perhaps that would be useful in the future phases.

[Angelwood]

Thank you for keeping us informed on the outcome of this case. I hope Don and Teri are in good health and can keep their spirits up despite this ruling by Judge Yohn to exonerate the bad guys (IMHO) once again. Please pass along my best wishes to them in case they don't see this post.

[DeSoto]

Thanks Physicist for the ping.

This ruling stinks. It stinks to high heavan and is a result of a gaggle of lawyers screwing up our legal system. Judicial watch should be tarred and feathered and the judge should...... should...... I can't think of anything bad enough that would be appropriate for this forum.

I wish the best for Don and especially Teri. Even though I haven't been able to 'talk' to her in a long time, I still consider her to be a great friend. What has happened to these two good people shouldn't happen to anyone (unless it is the Clintons).

Teri: If you are reading this, Freepmail me. I would love to talk to you again.

[longshadow]

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."

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but.... it seems to me that the determination that "Rendell said one thing but implied another to Morris" is a matter for a jury to decide, not the judge. 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. In the extant case, it would appear the judge did exactly the opposite.

And if I am correct about that, Don and Teri have grounds for appeal, and eventual overturning of the ruling.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks so much for the update.

Judicial Watch has been a disappointment for quite some time. I don't think they ever won a case, did they?

[anymouse]

I think this confirms what many of us have been thinking about Judicial Watch and Larry Klayman as they have disappointed us over the years since their early suits against the Clintons that brought them notoriety.

Given this poor treatment of fellow FReepers, is it appropriate to drop FR's front page link to Judicial Watch?

I remember a time when the "Bloodied but not Beaten" picture of Don Adams held a promanent position on the front page of FR. I understand the legal sensitivities involved, but wouldn't it be appropriate for a FReeper to host an archieved version of the original Don Adams page and have it linked on the FR front page again?

[FreedomPoster]

Wow! Thank you for your summary of events. A little before my introduction to FreeRepublic, so that is very much appreciated. What an important case.

I've helped organize and participate in two FReeps. When you see how nasty some of the Lefties we encounter are, the thought of having to deal with a physical confrontation comes to mind. I'm unsurprised to hear of it happening with that group, in that locale.

Fingers crossed for a favorable-to-FReepers outcome on ongoing litigation.

[PatrickHenry]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but.... it seems to me that the determination that "Rendell said one thing but implied another to Morris" is a matter for a jury to decide, not the judge.

Correct. 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. Of course, if the plaintiffs have absolutely no evidence of intent, other than: "Well, everyone knows the teamsters are a pack of thugs," I can see some merit to the judge's thinking. I know nothing of this case except what I've seen here, so I'm just discussing the general principles involved.

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.

[TheOtherOne]

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

Did they serve jail time?

[Physicist]

Did they serve jail time?

Not a nanosecond. They were all sentenced to probation.

[PackerBoy]

I want justice as much as anyone, but if the only evidence was that the Mayor invited the Teamsters, how does that translate into his personal liability for whatever th eTeamsters did once there?

From what I have heard about this case, I think the decision was correct.

[freekitty]

The Union has a history of violence. I can't imagine how Rendell wouldn't have an idea that some kind of violence could be possible, if just to scare the protestors.

And the Clintoons track record is no secret.

[Physicist]

I want justice as much as anyone, but if the only evidence was that the Mayor invited the Teamsters, how does that translate into his personal liability for whatever th eTeamsters did once there?

Were the Rolling Stones to blame for what the Hell's Angels did at Altamont, just because they hired them to work security?

Are the Taliban responsible for the actions of OBL and Al Qaeda, just because they hired them to work security?

Teamster Local 115 wasn't just a random group of Teamsters. The local was out of control, and had a long history of violent behavior in Philadelphia. At the time of the incident, they were under several court injunctions to cease their violent activities. (Yeah, I know. Fat lot of good any restraining order ever does.) Rendell could not reasonably have been unaware of this, as his acquaintance with Morris went back a long way.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I can't believe someone would actually trust/hire them.

[AGreatPer]

Mark for further reading.

Something stinks here.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Something stinks here.

It's called JW. Wonder if they wined and dined the judge after they got dropped.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

If only his mum had been a Teamster...

[dirtboy]

We can't begin to thank you enough for your efforts in this matter. I guess Morris kicked the bucket while I was out in Colorado. I don't think that revelation will keep me up tonight.

[dirtboy]

Rendell could not reasonably have been unaware of this, as his acquaintance with Morris went back a long way.

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.

[Howlin]

Ah, the only case he actually won...........LOL.