Thread: Judge issues order upholding anonymity of Plantiffs

Munley furthers order in IIRA suit (Hazleton Standard-Speaker)
Submitted by Small Town Defender on Tue, 2006-12-19 13:00. ::
By L.A. TARONE
Standard-Speaker Staff Writer

The judge who issued an order upholding the anonymity of plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Illegal Immigration Relief Act has issued another order furthering that order.

Federal Judge James M. Munley issued the second order Friday, though City Hall just received it Monday. This eight-page order exempts the plaintiffs in the case listed as “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” from being involved in the discovery phase of the trial.

Discovery is the portion of the process where the sides gather information, looking to evidence to support their legal claims. The sides must share what they find during discovery. And discovery involves interviewing the plaintiffs and defendants in the case.

The ruling came as a result of a request filed by plaintiffs Pedro Lozano, Carlos Fuentes, Humberto Hernandez, Jose Luis Lechuga, Brenda Lee Mieles, Casa Dominica of Hazleton Inc., the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association, the Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Association and 10 plaintiffs identified as either John Doe or Jane Doe, four of whom are identified as minors six years of age or younger.

They requested Munley issue a protective order shielding them from disclosing any information during the discovery phase. The city opposed the request. But Munley sided with the plaintiffs and issued the protective order.

In it, Munley cites his previous order, which barred initial identification of the 10 John and/or Jane Does.

“A party seeking a protective order must demonstrate ‘good cause’ for its issuance,” Munley wrote. He cited the 1994 case of Pesny v. Stroudsburg as defining “good cause” as “showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury” to the party requesting protection.

“Plaintiffs seek the protective order because certain Doe plaintiffs fear the potential consequences of disclosing their identities and immigration status and may decide not to continue with the suit if they are forced to reveal the information,” Munley wrote. “They fear that the ordinances will render them homeless and jobless.”

Munley added plaintiffs claim a protective order would encourage them to continue their involvement in the case and that “evidence at issue carries limited relevance, if any.”

The city, Munley wrote, claims it needs to know their identities to determine whether they have standing.

“We are not convinced,” Munley wrote. “Apparently (the city) seek(s) to question the plaintiffs to determine if they are illegal and therefore, according to the defendant, lack standing.”

Citing the admission that several plaintiffs are here illegally, Munley wrote that their legal immigration status “is not in controversy.”

“In other words, to the extent that the information is relevant to the defendant’s standing argument, it is admitted by the plaintiffs,” Munley concluded.

The city also opposed the request because it feared anonymous plaintiffs could be easily interchanged – one “John Doe” would drop out of the case and be replaced by another “John Doe” with no one knowing there’d been a change in the plaintiffs’ roster. Munley dismissed the argument.

“The fact that the Does may have been changed from the Complaint to the Amended Complaint does not indicate that the plaintiffs are engaging in some type of abuse of the judicial process,” Munley wrote. “In fact, it does not raise any concern at this juncture as the identities were changed in an Amended Complaint which superceded the original complaint... If, in the future, the defendant (the city) finds that some type of serious abuse occurs with regard to switching the identities of the Does, it may raise the issue with the court at that point.”

In his conclusion to the order, Munley wrote, “…We find that the defendant has no need for the information at issue.

“We balance this lack of need against the plaintiffs’ fears of the consequences if they reveal the information,” Munley added. “We find that the Doe plaintiffs may legitimately fear removal from the country and separation from their families if they reveal their identities. Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, public identification of the Does in this case, which has become highly publicized, would cause the plaintiffs to become targets of intense anti-immigrant and anti-Latino sentiment. Those fears may cause them to abandon this suit that seeks to vindicate their allegedly substantial constitutional and statutory rights.”

He further adds, “This is not an action to enforce United States immigration laws. Plaintiffs’ interest in keeping this information confidential outweighs the defendant’s need for it…”

In granting the order, Munley gave the city the option of objecting each time a John or Jane Doe invokes it, adding, “The parties will be able to resolve such disputes between themselves without court intervention.”

Monday afternoon, Mayor Lou Barletta was angry at the order.

“This is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous,” he said. They (the Does) can be professional actors for all we know. We are trying to protect ourselves from illegal aliens and they’re being protected from us. I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Barletta said that without knowing the identities, the city has no way of knowing whether the John and Jane Does have actually been staying in Hazleton and would therefore perhaps be affected by IIRA, or if they were part of what he termed “a shell game” of professional plaintiffs being moved around the country for involvement in several suits.

The city can appeal both Munley orders and Barletta said that is under consideration.

If it does, the appeal would be heard by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which will also hear the expected appeal to the decision of the case en toto.

However, that court is not compelled to hear an appeal to either of Munley’s protective orders.


http://www.smalltowndefenders.com/public/node/110

Interesting article I will be looking for the follow up story.

Yes, I think there will be many follow ups on this story. Media is referring to Hazelton as the Alamo of the illegal immigration issue. The Aclu wants to make Hazelton an example by whipping it into submission so no other cities will be brave enough to follow suit.I have a lot of admiraton for the Mayor of Hazelton. He is vowing to stand firm in the face of this great adversity even though it is very costly. American citizens are donating to his legal fund in order to further this fight. If anyone is interested the website is http://www.smalltowndefenders.com/public/

So now illegal aliens can use their status as illegals to shield their identity and circumvent the rules of procedure (evidence and discovery). It figures, since they don't have to follow any of the rules the rest of us do. And they do this with the complicity of the federal government and federal court system. They are free to sue anyone for any reason, in a system tilted in their favor.

Yes and they are so sure that they can do this without repurcussion they rub it in the face of not only Hazelton citizens but all American citizens. I cannot find the words to say how outrageously corrupt this is. It is a slap in the face to every American citizen.

Illegals just get one right after another and they aren't even suppose to be here. Just another episode to the twilight zone we're experiencing.

Am I wrong or is this ruling contrary to the Constitution?

Amendment VI - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You are very correct Crusader, however like Jean said we are in a twilight zone episode where there is no respect by our government for the Law or the Constitution of United States of America. This is truly an American Tradegy.

Citing the admission that several plaintiffs are here illegally, Munley wrote that their legal immigration status “is not in controversy.”

So the judge admits that the so-called John/Jane Doe plaintiffs in the case are illegal alien lawbreakers. It seems to me he is using this insane order to aid and abet their illegal status and shield them from the true function of law enforcement and the government, namely to serve the citizens of this country, enforce the Constitution and uphold existing laws by deporting them back to their own countries.

This is sheer insanity to begin with. A city, in trying to protect its citizens against the crimes, fraud and abuses of lawbreakers are the defendants while those who are the real criminals are the aggrieved plaintiffs sueing for their right to continue freely with their crimes, fraud and abuses.

What's next, do we start prosecuting rape victims for scratches done to rapists, trying to defend themselves? Do we start prosecuting banks for using armed guards trying to stop bank robbers? Hell, why not? They already prosecute Border Patrol agents trying to stop Mexican drug cartel illegal alien narcotics smugglers, it surely must only be a matter of time.

I know the insantity of it is mind boggling.........this is an attempt by the government to break the back/spirit of the American people, hoping that by forcing Hazelton into bankruptcy, it will oppress the rest of America and we will stop standing against this illegal immigration issue. Our government is in bed with the huge corporations and they have no interest in getting out. They are being paid very well to stay there.