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.)
Judicial bias raised its ugly head.
Watch Rendell around the end of the year. These were his goons, doing his work. He isn't going to want them to suffer under the disability of a felony conviction. He'll pardon them.
Like I said, they were his muscle then, and they're his muscle now. While they're still on probation he can't use these particular ones for breaking skulls... the pardon is in the mail.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Teamster Trio To Be Sentenced Today For Beating Clinton ...
... and conspiracy, for the October 2, 1998, mob beating of Clinton protestors Don
Adams, and his sister, Teri Adams, during a presidential fundraising trip to ...
Thank You Rush Limbaugh (Rush discussed Don Adams,John Morris ...
... Thank You Rush Limbaugh (Rush discussed Don Adams,John Morris, Freepers&Fund'sWSJ
11-26 Article)!! Crime/Corruption Announcement Keywords: LIMBAUGH,ADAMS,MORRIS ...
Three More Teamsters Plead Guilty In Don Adams Case [Free ...
... Three More Teamsters Plead Guilty In Don Adams Case Crime/Corruption News Source:
Self Author: Teri Adams Posted on 09/12/2000 12:12:17 PDT by TAdams8591. ...
Three MoreTeamsters Plead Guilty in Don Adams Case,Thread 2! ...
... Three MoreTeamsters Plead Guilty in Don Adams Case,Thread 2!! Crime/Corruption News
Keywords: ADAMS,TEAMSTERS, JOHN MORRIS Source: Self Author: DonAdams Posted ...
Bill & Hill's Pal Union Boss Arthur A. Coia Forced To ...
... The Don Adams Defense Fund. PO Box 306. Cheltenham, PA 19012. 11 Posted
on 10/01/1999 20:13:47 PDT by po'boy [ Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ] ...
Last of the Molly Maguires (ATTENTION!! re:The Man who had ...
... Last of the Molly Maguires (ATTENTION!! re:The Man who had Don Adams Assaulted--TAdams8591)
Crime/Corruption News Keywords: JOHN MORRIS, DON ADAMS Source: Time ...
Of Guns and Goons [Free Republic]
... Teamster beatings at the anti-Clinton rally was to press assault charges against
Don Adams, one of the protesters who was beaten up; Mr. Adams ultimately was ...
However, there is no way to prove it, none at all.
The entire case has been corrupted by the judicial system in Philly. Imagine Don Adams being the ONLY person to go to trial. WHAT A COMPLETE TRAVESTY
I wouldn't necessarily say that.
I will have much more for you about Ed Rendell. Stand by.
"A republic, if you can keep it" bump...
Can't you say the same thing for just about everyone in that crowd, including the guy that sued?
You could indeed...so what do you conclude from that? That we should either expect to be secure in our persons OR exercise our rights under the First Amendment, but not both?
I reject that. I demand both, always.
You seem to be saying that Don and Teri are out of line in suing those responsible, because they knew beforehand that the situation was dangerous. But if we accept that, there are very dire consequences. It means that, at any time, the men in power can bring in muscle to silence the opposition, and there's nothing we can do about it. If you're going to say, "well, facing the danger was their choice," all that remains is for the totalitarians to ensure that the danger is always present. Where are our rights then?
The wonder is how Ridge got elected in that state.
The fact that Larry is a liar and fraud should cause anyone to stop and consider their ties with him. But then maybe some people don't care.
I certainly expected violence. Does that mean that I surrendered my legal right to be secure in my person? Or does it mean that my First Amendment right to free speech was null and void, so I should not have exercised it?
I don't know where you get the idea that if you expect a crime, you are not entitled to redress when it occurs.
Getting probation for assult is preposterous!
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.