Vindicator

Rioting spreads across London, to 3 other cities - World news - msnbc.com

2011-08-09T06:36:00.000-07:00

Rioting spreads across London, to 3 other cities - World news - msnbc.com

Lyndal Kimble and Melanise Kimble, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Greg Hoso; Frank Tempesta; Michael Stabile; John Mandopoulos; and the City of Warren, Defendants-appellants - 439 F.3d 331

2011-02-04T11:58:00.000-08:00

Lyndal Kimble and Melanise Kimble, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Greg Hoso; Frank Tempesta; Michael Stabile; John Mandopoulos; and the City of Warren, Defendants-appellants - 439 F.3d 331

The UN Commisson on Human Rights to end Torture Hears from U.S. DOJ Official in 2000 about the Steubenville Ohio Consent Decree

2010-12-03T18:14:00.000-08:00

UNITED STATES MISSION TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS GENEVA. SWITZERLAND

William Yeomans

Chief of Staff to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice

Remarks to the U N. Committee Against Torture

Geneva, Switzerland

May 10, 2000

Mr. Chairman:

Good Morning My name is William Yeomans and I am the Chief of Staff to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Justice. Thank you for the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the U S government's domestic civil rights program and its work to fulfill our country's obligations under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The Department of Justice is committed to working to ensure that the United States fulfills its obligations under the CAT and other international treaties We are a member of the White House Inter-Agency Working Group on Human Rights, chaired by the National Security Council, which helps link our domestic enforcement to our international treaty obligations and

includes representation from the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and other agencies whose work is closely related to our international obligations.

Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States No person who commits abuse while acting under color of state or federal law is immune from prosecution. When the Department of Justice is informed of credible allegations of abuse or mistreatment by police officers, prison guards, or other state actors, those matters are investigated. If the evidence supports a prosecution, those cases are tried in open court. In criminal matters, because of our federal system, state prosecutors also have the ability to bring the abuser to justice. Either way, those who commit torture in the United States are not above the law.

However, while the United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention, within the United States there continue to be concerns warranting continuing vigilance regarding matters such as the excessive use of force by law enforcement officers and physical and sexual abuse of inmates.

The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice bears principal responsibility for

the enforcement of federal civil rights laws, including laws designed to combat discrimination on account of race, national origin, citizenship status, religion, sex, age, or disability. We are also

the entity responsible for enforcing federal laws that protect against the use of excessive force by law enforcement, and that protect the constitutional and other federal rights of prisoners. These laws are enforceable in federal court In most instances, these federal protections complement similar guarantees pursuant to state law.

In the United States, it is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U S C §§ 241, 242) "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include the use of excessive force and sexual assault. If the Department determines that a law enforcement official has violated the federal excessive force statute, that official can be criminally prosecuted m federal court and sentenced to serve time in a federal prison.

At any given time, the Department is investigating several hundred allegations of criminal police misconduct around the country.

Specific examples of successful federal prosecutions of law enforcement officers include:

(1) In April 1996, a New Orleans, Louisiana police officer and two other individuals were convicted of conspiring to murder a woman who witnessed the police officer beating a young man. The day after she reported the beating incident to the police department's Internal Affairs Division, the woman was shot to death while on a street comer;

(2) A correctional officer at the Pelican Bay State Prison was recently convicted of shooting an inmate because of the officer's dislike of inmates committed to the

facility for child molestation and other sex offenses.

(3) And, recently, we obtained convictions of four New York City police officers for participating to or making false statements about the severe abuse of Abner Louima while m police custody.

It is important to bear in mind that law enforcement officers who engage m misconduct can also be prosecuted at the state level and can be subjected to administrative discipline.

The Civil Rights Division is also responsible for enforcement of 42 U S C § 14141, which was enacted in 1994. This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage to a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, the use of excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests.

If we conclude that a law enforcement agency has engaged m a pattern or practice of misconduct, the Department of Justice can sue it m federal court to obtain injunctive relief, such as court orders to end the misconduct and court enforced changes to the agency's policies and procedures that resulted m the misconduct. Private individuals may seek similar relief, as well as monetary compensation, pursuant to other federal and state laws.

Examples of our work include:

(1) In April 1997, a Federal District Court entered a consent decree between the United States, the City of Pittsburgh, and the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police resolving the United States' allegations that the Police Bureau had engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force and had conducted improper searches and seizures. The consent decree requires the Bureau to institute comprehensive reforms m police supervision, training, discipline, and the manner in which it investigates public complaints of police misconduct; and

//////(2) Shortly thereafter, we entered into a similar consent decree with Steubenville, Ohio.////////////////////////////////

(3) We recently entered an agreement with the New Jersey State Police requiring that they stop using racial profiling in determining whom to stop for traffic violations and subsequent searches.

The Civil Rights Division is currently involved m several ongoing civil investigations of police departments regarding issues of excessive use of force. These include investigations of the Los Angeles Police Department, the New Orleans Police Department, and an investigation of the New York City Police Department undertaken in conjunction with the U S Attorneys for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

The Department's work to combat police misconduct rests on the principle that our nation cannot afford to tolerate officers who abuse their positions by mistreating citizens, or who bring their own racial bias to the job of policing .No person should be subject to unreasonable force,

and no person should be targeted by law enforcement based on the color of his or her skin.

The Civil Rights Division also works to combat systemic abuse and misconduct in our nation's prisons and jails. Since the enactment of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) in 1980, the Civil Rights Division has investigated more than 300 facilities in 39 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the Virgin Islands. As a result of the Department's CRIPA efforts, tens of thousands of institutionalized persons who were living in dire, often life-threatening, conditions now receive adequate care and services.

The Division's work focuses on protection from abuse and harm, provision of adequate medical and mental health services, and proper sanitary and fire-safety conditions. For example, in 1997 we entered into consent decrees with institutions in Wisconsin and Tennessee regarding those facilities' provision of proper medical treatment, use of restraints, and use of psychotropic medications on the mentally retarded. In that same year, the Division settled a lawsuit against the Montana State Prison with an agreement that protects vulnerable inmates from predatory inmates. In recent years, the Division's work has also focused on problems such as abuse and neglect in nursing homes and juvenile facilities, sexual victimization of women prisoners, inadequate education in facilities serving children and adolescents, and the unmet mental health needs of inmates and pre-trial detainees.

To date, the Division has been successful in resolving the vast majority of CRIPA investigations that have uncovered unlawful conditions by obtaining voluntary correction or a

judicially enforceable settlement designed to improve conditions. If state or local officials fail to correct the deficiencies or to agree to an appropriate settlement, CRIPA authorizes the Attorney General to file suit in federal court.

I would like to describe briefly what the Justice Department is doing to comply with Article 3 of the CAT, which requires member states not to "expel, return (`refouler') or extradite" a person to another state where he or she would be tortured. In 1998, President Clinton signed into law a statute that required the promulgation of regulations to implement U S obligations under Article 3. On February 19, 1999, the Department of Justice published an interim rule to establish procedures for an alien to raise a claim to protection from removal to a country where he or she fears torture. These regulations provide that an immigration judge will consider a claim to protection under the CAT, along with any other applications, during removal proceedings. The Department's expectation is that the various safeguards that are part of this new interim rule will ensure fair and accurate decisions.

The Department of Justice remains committed to prosecuting law enforcement officers for excessive use of force and other misconduct, protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners, and ensuring that police departments across the country refrain from engaging in patterns of misconduct. We have more work to do, but we are confident that we can continue to make progress.

Thank you.

Sixth Circuit Again Turns Down Several Defense Procedural Motions to Dismiss or Deny Scipio's Appeal

2008-12-04T19:56:00.000-08:00

The Sixth Circuit again, for the second time in five months, has turned back a strong defensive attempt to have a collateral procedural argument become the basis for the Circuit to not hear nor actually construe the arguments on appeal as presented inside the Scipio briefs before the Sixth Circuit.

The Court recognized certain procedural irregularities existed on the briefing aspects of the Scipio appeal due to the pro se nature of the appellate process on the Scipio party side of the case, nonetheless, the Circuit refused to grant for that reason alone, a dismissal of the entire appeal or on its major arguments as requested in a second attempt by the City of Steubenville's lawyers to do so.

The Sixth Circuit has ruled that the pro se nature of the appeal and the fact that the Sixth Circuit has the view that such appeals are normally decided not on purely procedural grounds or pro forma compliance with the FRAP rules, but rather on "the merits of the appeal itself." With this noted, the Sixth Circuit stated clearly it is rejecting this collateral attack on the pending appeal on purely those grounds alone and that it will allow the substantive arguments and claims on appeal to be heard due to the fact they believe the pro se attempts of Mr. Sean Scipio have clarified for the court, the various issues and appellate arguments which the plaintiff has made inside the same sufficiently so that this case can be decided
on the merits at the Sixth.

This is significant in that both the recent ADA amendments signed into law by the President recently, just after Congressional approval passed for the same, this fall and the original policy claims of the case brought against the City and the original false arrest claim which was first allowed then oddly rejected by the lower district court, were going to be considered actively within the present pending appeal.

This means the case will continue on at the Sixth Circuit as the parties await for the next direction from the court as to what is to occur with the appeal, which has been subjected to complete briefings by both sides at this time.

So, next up, is for the court to set down either an oral argument date and/or make a ruling that it will simply make its decision and give an opinion on the merits of the briefs submitted by the parties to date. All this gives a reserved but strong sign which is encouraging for the plaintiff, is so far the Court today believes that the plaintiff's briefs do sufficiently clarify for the Court's purpose those issues which have been engaged on appeal by the plaintiff, well enough in order for the court to decide the same.

Thus, the Scipio family awaits anxiously the final outcome on a years long litigation effort at the Sixth which has now turned back once more, the final procedural collateral attack of the City defendants to not have these issues actually decided on their merits.

Sixth Circuit Grants Steubenville Plaintiff Civil Rights Claim Procedural Right of Appeal on All Relevant Issues Including City Policy and ADA Claims

2008-06-22T14:05:00.000-07:00

The Sixth Circuit has decided an important procedural matter in favor of Plaintiff
Sean Scipio Sr in relation to his pending appeal of his Steubenville related civil rights
police misconduct case.

Sean Scipio had filed a complaint against the city of Steubenville in 2005 through
Attorney Richard Olivito. The case was managed thru discovery and until summary
Judgment briefs by Mr. Olivito until his license went under Ohio Supreme Court
Review in late 2006. The case was tried on one claim only, w/three other claims withheld
from the jury late last year. The verdict was a defense favorable verdict on the excessive
force claim but there were a number of remaining issues and various serious deficiencies
which produced a timely filed notice of appeal of both the verdict and the outstanding
claims that were not litigated at trial.

The defense lawyers then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal this past Spring as one not proper and incomplete and as not granting jurisdiction to the remaining claims of the
case.

The underlying procedural history of the district court level case had a series of very odd occurances and in court related decisions that do not appear to meet the demands of basic due process and fairness as well as incorporating the sense of broad liberal interpretation that is supposed to follow such Section 1983 litigation claims.

Thus, after these several unique decisions by the district court in Columbus and after his subsitute counsel filed a responsive summary judgment brief but also made a mistake in terms of the false arrest claim, incorrectly misfiling a pre trial motion that stated that there was no false arrest claim despite the fact the responsive brief contained an argument in favor of one and also the complaint mentions four separate times the nature of one of the claims being based on the Fourth Amendment
improper search and seizure, the plaintiff based his notice of appeal as one inclusive of all the remaining claims, not just the one excessive force claim that was tried to a jury last November, including a very strong false arrest related claim that the lower court had months prior to the trial, taken away from the jury, on procedural related grounds.

The district court had held upon the original responsive brief filing of the plaintiffs, that there was a sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment on the false arrest claim. Then, two weeks later, in a very odd reversal, the court after the misnomer was pointed out to the court by the defendant's reply brief, it changed its mind and issued an order recinding its earlier decision stating that the case contained no false arrest claim.

This irony was very obvious and it led to more irregularities in the case
Now, the sixth circuit has granted now the plaintiffs the right to appeal over the objection of the defense lawyer procedural motion to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal, the right to appeal the false arrest claim, as well as several critical claims that were also dismissed by the district court against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The decision represents a victory on procedural grounds for Scipio at this time and represents a critical allowance for the three year old litigation effort to continue and for the plaintiffs to have a true independent chance to present their substantive varied claims before a truly independent judicial review perhaps for the first time since the case was actually filed in 2005 by Attorney
Richard Olivito.

It also produces a great deal of torque on the local system from the City of
Steubenville who has had the longest consecutive police misconduct Federal
DOJ consent decree in the United States history which was at the time of the incident
complained of in this and related cases still operative and supposedly being enforced
at the time of the alleged Scipio constitutional violations and events.

The fact that the Sixth Circuit will be hearing various claims including the critical
pattern and practice Section 1983 'policy' claim from inside the City of Steubenville represents a major milestone in these various related civil rights police cases and present circumstances facing the plaintiffs in this very timely high federal court decision.

The plaintiff and Midwest Center Director Richard Olivito will anxiously await the final briefing schedule and outcomes on this closely watched interested legal theory case containing several novel approaches to police misconduct and citizen police encounters including a claim which
raises the issue of whether or not the American w/Disabilities Act applies to police
citizen arrest encounters, an issue which several Circuits have spoken to in the past
but one that needs further clarification from the Sixth Circuit going forward.

Sixth Circuit Grants Plaintiffs A Clean Sweep Victory on Thorne's Appeal

2007-09-28T12:46:00.000-07:00

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati this past week affirmed the lower district court opinion of Judge Algenon Marbley [see below] denying summary judgment to the City of
Steubenville on two Fourth Amendment related constitutional claims arising from a warrantless search of their residence and the resulting misdemeanor arrest of the Thorne teen aged son, thereby clearing the Thorne family civil rights police misconduct main excessive force case and these related constitutional claims against the city officers for remand and trial.

This decision represents a major legal victory for the plaintiffs and their lawyers. Noting that the opinion is an unpublished opinion, the sixth Circuit granted the plaintiffs a favorable decision in an extremely short period of time following the mid- September oral arguments on the case, which speaks of just how unamious and serious the Cincinnati federal Court of Appeals was quick to affirm the otherwise clearly detailed opinion of Judge Marbley in favor of the plaintiff's original pleadings and constitutional claims which were originally brought and prosecuted by attorney Richard Olivito on behalf of the Thorne family against the City of Steubenville and the two offending officers named as defendants in the federal lawsuit.

"This simply is an astounding and very strong but briefly stated appellate federal court opinion and one that has great impact on both this case and as important, all related issues which demonstrates the particular nuances and clear necessity that all potential civil rights litigants including cities and their police officers ought to pay very careful and serious attention to;

The federal three judge panel' ---a very conservative panel---quick willingness to decide a case on its merits in favor of the plaintiff civil rights litigant, well distinct and apart from any often perceived 'conservative' bias against such plaintiffs inside related civil rights constitutional claims when over zealous officers clearly violate well established fourth amendment standards and related laws," Olivito remarked.

"This case's outcome at the Sixth Circuit is so unique, so special and especially meaningful because," as Olivito adds, 'it was the first case brought against the City of Steubenville with the background of the historical Steubenville DOJ consent decree still pending. Soon after this case was filed, the same original and often referenced consent decree, the nation's longest such decree in history of such police pattern and practice issues, was terminated by the Justice Department under former Attorney General Gonzales.

Again, Olivito states, "while we were confident of the case's merits and the original distirct court opinion and the efforts of Attorney James McNamara, who worked on the appellate briefing stage of this case, we were somewhat concerned in part, at the Sixth because of some of the putative very serious conservative leaning judicial officers of the Sixth Circuit who were to hear the oral argument."

"That worry proved to be completely misplaced and unfounded; if any such concerns existed prior to the case's arguments, on our side, one can only imagine our solid relief and mild surprise at the same very common but strong misperception of any such thing ever affecting this case's outcome afterwards."

Olivito continues, "In fact, we would like to see more judging --and there ought to be more such judicial concern expressed across the entire spectrum of the region's judiciary as the kind we witnessed at the oral arguments on this case, since it affirmed not only the centrality of the fundamental civil rights of every American citizen in this midwest bell weather region, but it also affirms the best of the american legal system itself."

"Such strong judicial reasoning restores confidence for plaintiffs within the law and to the notion simple fairness and due process of law both is alive and well at the Sixth Circuit.

This decision also demonstrates the strong judicial independence of the Sixth Circuit justices, so that this case clearly demonstrates that, if and when the right kind of unique facts present themselves inside a constitutional claim of this measure and proportion as the Thorne family case did, the nation's highest courts will not sit idly by and allow the constitutional violations of the citizens and individual as are contained in this case's record.

"We learned from this Sixth Circuit decision today that inside this particular Circuit, the fundamental Constitutional rights of the people, if properly framed, presented and developed during the important discovery phase of such a Section 1983 claim, will be both respected and completely protected...

Again, this is quite separate and distinct from oftentimes misperceived partisian political and/or economic special interests who may have contributed years ago to the appointment
of any one or group of the federal judiciary.

"This is exactly why when this kind of special litigation and law works, inside these appellate and district federal courts, these courts in combination with the powerful civil rights cases themselves, if properly done, often demonstrate the majesty of the real constitution, the Bill of Rights and the related Fourteenth Amendment provisions...

....its truly an experience of a life time for all involved to witness how such heavy excercises in this type of complex civil litigation can make at times, these fundamental documents of our nation shine the brightest....."

A Second Win for A Section 1983 Plaintiff Claim in Southern District of Ohio: Attorney Rich Olivito Takes A Victory Lap

2007-08-23T14:08:00.001-07:00

A Second Section 1983 excessive force claim brought against the city of Steubenville and several police officers overcame summary judgment on behalf of Sean Scipio Sr. in March of this year. (2007)

Mr. Sean Scipio had been alleging false arrest and an excessive claim in connections with
a police arrest arising out of a odd set of circumstances occuring during the federal Dept
of Justice consent decree [See Consent Decree Link left box] when he went to the local Steubenville High School and attempted pick up his son after a disciplinary action.

When the senior Scipio was leaving the school, a set of police officers came up to him and
told him he was under arrest for striking his 16 year old son, in the head. Sean denied the charges and verbally stated he was not going along with them. Within a minute, he settled down and simply cooperated and then "allowed" the arresting officers to handcuff him.

When this occured, the officer responding to the original scene then walked away, without incident. After this, two other steubenville police then began to become forceful and over bearing against sean as they attempted to place him in a cruiser to take him to jail. Sean is a large size individual and was handcuffed behind his back and was unable to move freely and easily fit into the squad.

He became upset because of his inablity to enter the vehicle without significant risk of injury and repeatedly asked the officers if they could merely accommodate him and his size and escort him to the local jail. This was in the middle of the morning and sean has no criminal record whatsoever and has been a lifelong resident of the City of Steubenville.

The officers refused and while he was in handcuffs, simply maced him and then began to strike him behind the knee with a baton like object. The police deny striking him.

However, an eye witness, from within the high school, a high school senior has testified she saw the instrument and she saw the police striking sean behind the knees.

Sean's domestic violence charge was dismissed by the local municipal court after Sean retained significant criminal defense counsel and after a brief local independent mental health exam demonstrated he had no such problem whatsoever.

Sean treated for his injuries to his leg and back and knees.

After attempting unsuccessfully to find counsel to file a claim against the police, the Scipio's heard of Mr. Olivito's background from the Thorne case [see below] and contacted him and asked for his representation. Their case was filed in August of 2005 and was litigated throughout 2006.

The district court of Columbus Ohio held that because there are twin accounts and there are material differences, the police are not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

Originally, the court also held that Scipio had overcome the summary judgment motion of the city's defense on the false arrest claim also. However, less than two weeks later the same court then oddly reversed itself on this sole single false arrest claim.

Such a rare reversal by the same district court on an issue that just two weeks prior had itself found as a valid constitutional claim, citing strong factual recorded evidence, creates a strong basis for a later appeal on the same issue for the Sixth Circuit.

Nonetheless, the plaintiff's officer excessive force claim survived the motion to dismiss on summary judgment and the case now heads to trial later this year. It is presently scheduled for trial this November before the Southern District Court.

[The plaintiff as stated, had won the false arrest issues as well but had this ironically reversed in an highly unusual manner. This false arrest claim will be appealed by Sean after the underlying excessive force claim goes to trial. He is confident that he will prevail at the sixth circuit on what can be said to be a hypertechnical, if not, arcane "notice" pleading issue. ]

But in the meantime, this decision demonstrates two separate Section 1983 claims have survived strong large firm legal challenges on summary judgment grounds from the defendant's city efforts to quash and stop the litigation from moving forward at this juncture on two separate cases/cleints represented by Attorney Richard Olivito in 2005 and 2006.

This serious legal challenge and subsequent victory is particulary significant in so far the plaintiff's original lead attorney, Richard A. Olivito who not only investigated but plead and did most of the original discovery on these important constitutional federal claims, has been recently singled out for subsequent lawyer disciplinary action by the all republican State of Ohio Supreme Court officials, and a local bar association out of Youngstown, since bringing such federal claims both within Ohio and out of state within the past two years.

However, with these two southern federal district court significant but separate major case legal victories, the respective plaintiffs' cases will be now prepared for trial and /or for appeal to the Sixth Circuit by the defense on the Thorne case. [See Below]

Mr. Olivito now enjoys the distinction of being the only plaintiff's lead trial lawyer in Ohio who has successfully initiated such constitutional claims arising out of a city where the nation's historical DOJ civil rights division federal consent decree first went into effect in September, 1997 . These cases represent two critical federal police misconduct civil rights cases which have been litigated to this point inside the United States District Court's Southern District in Columbus, Ohio.

"I am very proud to have been a part of this signficant legal victory and effort on behalf of both of these very strong and courageous clients", says Mr. Olivito in view of the second significant federal court legal victory, coming on the heals immediately having won such a similar case just 60 days prior to the Scipio case decision being issued in march of 2007. [See blog post below re: Thorne Case.]

"We are looking forward to having the clients cases' heard in open court and allowing for the opportunity to have their constitutional right to a 'day in court' within such signficant
and complex litigation as any police misconduct cases are today."

Olivito adds, "I believe this also clearly settles any question that some seriously motived, inexperienced [in this field of law] official distractors are raising about my ability to function as a lawyer on behalf of litigants anywhere at any time in recent months and years.

Perhaps, even more important, it helps to put an important present tense coda on the years of effort and sacrifice that went into the creation of one of the nation's first DOJ pattern and practice consent decree's which we [James McNamara, Edward Skip Nixon ,Joyce Iott, myself, the DOJ, et. al] accomplished back in the Clinton administration for which many have paid an important heavy price...both then and now."

2007-08-23T10:38:00.000-07:00

Olivito Wins Once Again in the Southern District of Ohio

2007-08-23T07:53:00.000-07:00

After nearly a decade and the first fully investigated nationally recognized DOJ consent
decree later, [see Consent Decree link @ left box] attorney richard olivito took a case from Steubenville, Ohio, his ground zero with the issue of police and prosecutor misconduct.

In doing so, this case, Dan Thorne Jr. vs. John Lelles, et. al. was the first federal
case filed in 2005 in Columbus' southern district court. It was Attorney Olivito's 'return'
case to the very ground zero of his initial groundbreaking work on police misconduct
inside his hometown where his father was a highly respected veteran senior trial judge.

Judge Marbley was assigned to hear the case and the case proceeded thru
an almost two period where the parties litigated the case intensely thru
discovery.

In December of 2006, Judge Marbley issued his opinion on the summary judgment
motion that the city had filed against the plaintiffs seeking to obtain a complete
dismissal of this lawsuit on federal legal grounds which provide official immunity
for defendants in such cases.

As a result of the ruling, the plaintiff came out a clear winner, by wining both of the
excessive force claims and the false arrest claims which were first plead and then developed by Attorney Richard A. Olivito.

The judge wrote a 36 page opinion in this ruling, at the district court level, somewhat
unusual in the sense most of these types of rulings do not extend beyond 15 or 20 pages.

Most of the opinion, which is a published opinion and can be found on lexis , is clearly and strongly worded in the plaintiff's favor over and against that of the defendants and their Columbus insurance defense counsel, Maznec, Raskin and Ryder.

This case represents the strongest indication to date, that Attorney Richard A. Olivito
has done recent solid legal work for his clients and despite many false and misleading comments posted on the net and in public about his work by those in high places who oppose him and his
legal advocacy for those who have been clearly abused by their local police and governments.

Nonetheless, Judge Algenon Marbley's opinion clearly supports Richard Olivito's arguments and briefing on the official immunity claims and also pays a tribute to his hard fought efforts by listing his name on the published opinion of the Southern District Court of Ohio.

It is clearly a victory for the Thorne family and the historical efforts of Mr. Olivito in bringing to light serious police and human rights violations which are occuring right inside of Southern Ohio again it appears.

The case has been partially appealed by Maznec and the City of Steubenville, but ONLY on the false arrest claim. Experienced Columbus civil rights Attorney James McNamara who is now on the case, has written the appeals briefs and within his own public, various in court statements has clearly given credit to the hard work and detemination of Mr. Olivito in getting the case to the point it is today, before the both the U.S. Southern District Court and before the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati.

The case will heard on oral argument on September 14, 2007 in Cincinnati, at the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the false arrest claim appeal filed by the City in light of the clear win afforded to both the Thorne family plaintiffs and for Mr. Olivito as their original lead counsel

The exceesive force claim was NOT appealed by the City and thus, this claim was basically "admitted" or "acknowledged" by the city as not only being a valid one, but one of a constitutional level violation which needs to be either settled or further litigated into trial. By NOT appealing this issue, at this stage, the City clearly demonstrated the validity of both the lawsuit, and the truth behind the excessive force claim which the family brought with the sole legal assistance and professional acumen of Attorney Richard A. Olivito.

The results are to follow here, once this case concludes later this year. This was the second major civil rights case Mr. Olivito has won before the southern district of columbus; the first
Hython v. City of Steubenville et. al. including Raymond Terry and Steve Stern, helped to set the stage for one of the most important consent decrees in U.S. History, a case over a decade old but still causing an impact in the region and upon the way policing is performed in this southeastern Ohio region.

This article is placed here with the aim to counter some of more blatant false light descriptions of Mr. Olivito's law practice and professional constitrubtions to both citizens of Ohio and elsewhere and to his clients, and to the profession and communities he worked within, itself.

Prologue: Update on the Efforts of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court: Taped Conversations reveal illegal and highly unethical conduct between high ranking Supreme Court lawyers and their "inside" highly placed republican friends regarding the person of Attorney Richard A. Olivito {This will be subjected to further blogging here and on related site links see link to 'Supreme Lies'}

What also is interesting, is the Ohio Supreme Court's disciplinary counsel Lori Brown and its investigators within 30 days after this opinion was written, committed a highly unethical if not illegal act by performing an ex parte communication with a judicial officer inside an official proceeding in which Ms. Brown, the ODC first assitant prosecutor and the former panel chair, a corporate insurance defense counsel and key republican party and close friend of Tom Moyer's together conspired to seek to have Mr. Olivito submit to a 'mentally evaluation' by judicial fiat, without any medical basis to do so, just on Ms. Brown's own determination and whims...

This move against Mr. Olivito was brought on the basis that Mr. Olivito was
supposedly, "not able to function as a lawyer" as per the Supreme Court's Ms. Brown and her numerous republican and large firm allies inside their twisted and distorted disciplinary attack on him.

This bizarre allegation was brought against him in early 2007, within one month immediately after the United State's Southern District of Ohio Thorne opinion was formally published by Judge Marbley of the United States Southern District Court in Columbus, Ohio granting Olivito's clients a clear legal victory on this complex federal civil rights claims.

This very opinion clearly indicates, contra those at the Ohio Supreme Court's disciplinary office, working for an all republican supreme court, that Mr. Olivito is not only competent to manage and achieve a very serious victory over great odds for his civil rights clients, from within a very rarified enviroment but that he is also very capable of doing the kind of serious litigation that most lawyers in a solo practice would not even begin to attempt; much less succeed within;

[As indicated on the record and above, Attorney McNamara acknowledged Mr. Olivito did all of the initial heavy work on the Thorne case; investigating the claim, creating and filing the pleadings, doing all the discovery and then did all of the heavy lifting in written and deposition phases of the case on up to the initial critical briefing of the serious legal issues on summary judgment implicated in this Section1983 litigation case; once again, taking on considerable burderns and related risks just in doing the same again in a case arising out of his hometown area, Steubenville. ]

For his legal career, this was yet another case which simply once again, demonstrated his unique ability and committment to the fundamental civil rights of every individual american citizen, white or black or yellow or red.

Olivito's ability to create the type of litigation which results in serious favorable consequences inside the federal courts of the United States [both in Ohio and elsewhere] is clearly both supported and demonstrated, and contra to a few opinions published on google and those done in a very falsely derived and extremely infirm, if not, false light, if not wholly defamatory conclusory manner drawn by the current heavily insurance driven Ohio Supreme Court and its "official findings and records".

{See Supreme Lies link here inside the link box for the New York Times 10/1/06 article on the Ohio Supreme Court and its Serious Major Donor Money Trail and Ohio Municipal chamber of commerce and major insurer's Donors who put this present Supreme Court's campaign funding together like it was a jigsaw puzzle]

Mr. Richard Olivito's work remains unique, to those who are famililar with the same and in this decades old tradition, inside the Thorne case, by doing the courageous thing and taking a case many declined and did not wish to touch, even where a federal consent decree had been in existence for over 7 years, we [the Thorne family, & particularly Dan Sr. ] were making the concept of american human rights and the ideal of freedom for all mean something other than nice a historical sentiment and empty phrase inside America's important jurisprudence, right here in the heart of it all.

Olivito says of this important case:

"Without any kind of the funds or resources that these stubborn officials have had at their finger tips to both oppose my efforts and that of my client's cases, both at the supreme court -ODC- office investigation level and/or at the litigation site of large municipal insurer defense law firms and their deep pocket city clients, with this win, we have overcome...."

he also adds, "Dan Thorne Sr. is also to be given strong recognition here for his critical ability, insight and action taken early in defending his son's civil rights, as well as his courageous standing up for his family and for 'simply' enduring some of the most intense kind of litigation possible today in America."

Dan now understands just how complex and how difficult it is for an American citizen to vindicate his important fundamental Bill of Rights based constitutional claims inside a federal court of law today in America in Ohio.

Together, the plaintiffs and their counsel have already overcome...despite the next moves by either the city of Steubenville, their lawyers, and/or the ODC Supreme Court. The public awaits this case's important outcome despite the best efforts of the insurance industry's and their corporate lawyers corrupt ties to the present state system of judicial elections.

The influence peddling inside the State of Ohio's ODC lawyer disciplinary office is obviously a problem in this state.

Yet, this case, demonstrates that even when a lawyer and his modest clients are willing to go up against very heavy monetary and political odds and influences, the individual with the right case, can, if willing to suffer and endure much, still make a difference in enforcing his contitutional rights inside the USA today.