A shocking Judicial Watch deposition by a Sergeant in the Anaheim Police Department proves a code of silence exists within the department in order to protect fellow police officers that allegedly allowed leftist radicals to physically assault peaceful anti-immigration protestors.

On December 8, 2001, Judicial Watch filed suit against the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Police Department for refusing to help anti-immigration protestors who were abused by counter-demonstrators as they gathered peacefully on the steps of Anaheim’s City Hall. The police department has been stonewalling Judicial Watch¹s efforts to get to the truth in the matter and to hold accountable those responsible.

"This is clearly a cover up," said Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman. "There is no need for a code of secrecy if there is nothing to hide." Though Judicial Watch expected resistance from the Anaheim Police Department, the testimony, under oath, of a Department Seargant was stunning:

Q Is there a code of silence within the Anaheim Police Department?

A To a very small degree, yes, some.

Q To what extent? To what degree?

A It would have to do with an assessment of risk as to what the code of silence would bring about, but right now it's very minuscule, very minuscule.

Q I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "it would have to do with an assessment of risk."

A If you did something wrong and I knew about it but kept quiet, it would all depend upon the availability of somebody finding out that I knew that you had done something wrong. If the assessment was high, then chances are I would speak. If it was very low, then I would not. And it would also depend upon the severity of your misconduct.

Q The more severe, the more likely to speak?

A Right.

Q The less severe, the less likely to speak?

A Yes.

On February 24, Judicial Watch demanded that the court address the stonewalling and obstruction of justice perpetrated by the Police Department. The Honorable Stephen J. Hillman responded by granting a motion by Judicial Watch, in full, ordering the production of 71 different categories of documents within 14 days.

"The court’s ruling vindicates our contention that the defendants are using a code of silence to impede the quest for justice," continued Mr. Klayman. "Judicial Watch will continue to put pressure on the defendants to come forward with the truth."