Replies

While there isn't enough info posted here (i.e., the full summary judgment decision) and in the links to get a full picture of the present disposition, the following is likely:

1) Filing a motion to collect one's legal fees does NOT mean that the party filing wins or is likely to win. Anyone can file a motion. It's a form of intimidation, a shot fired across the bow, so to speak. The statements in many posts here reflect a misunderstanding and show that such intimidation works, i.e., it intimidates. Don't be fooled. This motion will NOT succeed.

2) The reason it won't succeed is that the dismissal of the conspiracy case only infers that the plaintiff failed to show enough facts about Rendall's state-of-mind in his communications with the Teamsters, i.e., that Rendall was not alleged with supporting facts to know beforehand that the teamsters would resort to violence. The Teamsters, on the other hand, are and remain a liable party directly. As such, they do not come to the court with clean hands, there has been no final disposition as to their civil liability to the Adams's, and there are already criminal findings against their members individually. That would seem to easily overcome a threshold of "legal seriousness" and "legal sufficiency" sufficent to prove that the Adams' allegations are non-trivial and non-frivolous, which is enough to beat the Teamster's claim under discussion here.

3) Do the Adam's live in Pennsylvania? If yes, then no diversity jurisdiction exists to keep the claim in Federal court, once the civil rights based claims were dismissed. So they will have to pursue the assault and battery claims in state court. But dismissal from Federal court does NOT mean that the federal court has ABSOLVED the teamsters of wrongdoing. It simply means that the limited federal jurisdiction for those matters is ended, and the matter belongs in state court.

It's a form of intimidation, a shot fired across the bow, so to speak.

This is the point we all have to realize. This whole sorry episode is simply about intimidation, from the point of these people being beaten on the street by the union thugs to having the Teamster legal thugs beat them up in court. They're sending a message to any and all who might hear them: don't screw with us. It's precisely what liberals do. The whole Clinton era is rife with such outrages, Waco, Little Havana, Billy Dale, Kathleen Wiley, and countless other nameless victims. I can see how easily people would be tempted to take things into their own hands if these outrages continue. Why be an obedient citizen and play by the rules for a system that marginalizes you as your reward for playing by the rules? Who do you go to for help and protection when the cops are crooked rogues, and the courts are controlled by your enemies? The answer is, you can't go to anyone. You have to take care of yourself. What form that "care" takes under extreme conditions, well, one can only guess.

One would think the circuit court of appeals would reverse the summary judgment on the civil rights claims since the Adams have a prima facia case for violations of their civil rights. The problem on the civil rights claim might be a bit of difficulty in establishing that the teamster thugs were acting under color of law or official authority.

The fact that Adams was arrested when he in fact was the person assaulted would support such a claim; assuming Judicial Watch preserved the claim within the statutory time limitation period. If they didn't, the Adams might have a claim for legal malpractice against JW.