Replies

For the civil rights claim the plaintiff has to prove that a state actor violated his rights -- and, from what I can gather, since Adams could not provide any threshold evidence to support a conspiracy between the alleged state actor (Randell) and the thugs, you can't sustain a civil rights claim.

Hold that thought. I will post evidence of such a conspiracy soon. Obviously it did not convince this judge, but it might be grounds for appeal.

I actually hoped to have it posted by now, but it's rather long and I haven't found the time to finish typing it in.

You are, of course, correct. Although rarely used, I think a 42 U.S.C. 1986 action would have been appropriate. Granted the case law regarding 1986 actions are anything but clear. I think the appellate courts have not really understood the real function of 1986 actions, especially when many appellate courts have ruled that for a section 1986 action to be maintained, there must also be a section 1985 violation. This makes no sense because if that was the intent, section 1986 severves no purpose. I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1871 intended to hold state actors responsible if they knew private citizens were conspiring to violate the civil rights of other private citizens and then did nothing to stop it or punish the offenders. In reading some of the legislative history regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1871, that seems to be the intent.

I think in the Adams case, it is pretty clear that the police knew and observed the teamster thugs assaulting Adams and intentionally refused to do anything about it. This being the case, the police were deliberately indifferent to the violation of the civil rights of the Adams and are therefore liable under 1983/1985 and the teamsters knowing that the police would ignore or condone their actions make the teamsters state actors for the purposes of 1983/1985.

Rendell's statement that the teamsters own the courts is evidence that the judge is biased against the Adams' and should be disqualified. There are some decisions that are so outrageous that any reasonable person must conclude that it was obtained through fraud. This appears to be one such case.

The fact that there was a criminal conviction at a minimum establishes a clear prima facia case for a tort claim for assault against the teamsters.

The Adams have a clear basis for an appeal of the dismissal of their case for several reasons. I certainly hope the adams appeal the dismissal of their case.

Like you, I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell that the Teamsters will prevail on the legal fees and costs motion. The cicuit court will slap such a ruling down so fast, it will make one's head spin. This is nothing more than an attempt at intimidation in the hope that the Adams won't appeal the dismissal of their case.