It's disappointing that in a small town like Philly, the attorney - Michael P. Laffey - doesn't even get name credit for this accomplishment.
They had to drag someone over the bridge from New Jersey to defend the township. Unsurprisingly, he and his law partner were regular contributors to conservative Republican former NJ Congressman Mike Pappas.
The actual motion is here:
http://www.johnberryhill.com/upperdarby/motion.pdfAnd the judge's order (on a number of pre-trial issues) is here:
http://www.johnberryhill.com/upperdarby/order.pdfThey also wanted to keep out Lischner's CV, the text of his sign, and his humanitarian beliefs.
The motion relative to Bush, in its entirety is:
Defendant, by and through their attorney, Michael P. Laffey, hereby files this
Motion in Limine to preclude evidence identifying President George W. Bush as the
featured political candidate at the Drexelbrook Catering Facility, and avers the following
in support thereof:
1. On September 15, 2003, President George W. Bush appeared at the Drexelbrook
Catering Facility at Drexelbrook for a dinner organized by local supporters.
2. Plaintiff appeared at Drexelbrook and displayed a sign that, purportedly, opposed
the war in Iraq.
3. Plaintiff was ultimately arrested for Defiant Trespass.
4. According to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, President George W. Bush has “the
worst approval rating of an American president in a generation.” (See May 5, 2007
MSNBC article, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit “A”).
5. Currently, sixty two per cent (62%) of Americans believe that President Bush’s
actions in Iraq show he is “stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes.” (See Exhibit
“A”).
6. The war in Iraq was ongoing at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest.
7. Organized protests against the war in Iraq were ongoing in the United States at the
time of Plaintiff’s arrest. (See February 16, 2003 CNN article, attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit “B”).
8. The identity of George W. Bush has no relevance to Plaintiff’s claim and should
not be admitted.
9. Alternatively, any probative value of George W. Bush’s identity is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendant.
10. First, President Bush’s identity, in and of itself, presents the danger that the jury
will favor Plaintiff. (See Exhibit “A”).
11. Additionally, revealing President Bush’s identity to the jury presents the danger
that the jury will infer that Plaintiff was protesting the war in Iraq (a war that is as
popular among Americans as the war in Vietnam).
12. Plaintiff’s political affiliation played no part in the decision to arrest him; thus, the
identity of Plaintiff’s political foes has no relevance and should play no part in the jury’s
decision.
13. It will be sufficient for Plaintiff to testify that he displayed a sign in opposition of
a “presidential candidate.”
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court preclude
evidence identifying President George W. Bush as the featured political candidate at
Drexelbrook.