IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

____________________________________

)

RICARDO RAMIREZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 01-2190 Civ-Seitz

v. )

)

JANET RENO, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

)

DONATO DALRYMPLE, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Case No. 00-1773 Civ-Moore

v. )

)

JANET RENO, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

)

LAZARO GONZALEZ, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 00-3621 Civ-Highsmith

)

JANET RENO, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

ON WHETHER SHOW CAUSE ORDERS SHOULD ISSUE

AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This motion is brought on behalf of Ricardo Ramirez – a Special Agent in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). Mr. Ramirez was assigned by the INS to participate in the INS’s illegal April 22, 2001 raid on the Miami home of Lazaro Gonzalez in which 6-year old Elian Gonzalez was seized at gunpoint. This incident led to the filing of the three cases at issue here: Ricardo Ramirez v. Janet Reno, et al., Case No. 01-2190 Civ-Seitz, Donato Dalrymple, et al., v. Janet Reno, et al., Case No. 00-1773 Civ-Moore, and Lazaro Gonzalez, et al., v. Janet Reno et al., Case No. 00-3621 Civ-Highsmith. Mr. Ramirez is represented by Judicial Watch, Inc., in all three of these cases and plays a key role in each of them – he is a party and witness in Ramirez v. Reno, a key witness in Dalrymple v. Reno, and a key witness and putative Defendant in Gonzalez v. Reno. Because of his key role and the incredibly damaging evidence he can produce, Defendants Doris Meissner, Janet Reno and Eric Holder are alleged to have conspired together and embarked on a scheme to destroy the evidence and silence Mr. Ramirez. This scheme has also included intimidating threats and use of racial slurs as well as the outright destruction of evidence. These activities violate 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional rights and constitute obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b). Because this scheme has severely compromised and prejudiced the very ability of Mr. Ramirez and the other Plaintiffs to proceed with their litigation – as well as the ability of this Court to ultimately render a fair verdict because evidence is being destroyed – Mr. Ramirez and the other Plaintiffs in these cases are seeking an immediate evidentiary hearing to determine whether show cause orders should issue based on the apparent criminal contempt of the Defendants. Mr. Ramirez also seeks an injunction to halt the ongoing retaliation and continuing scheme aimed at keeping him quiet. Finally, this matter must be heard immediately because, since this scheme has succeeded in destroying evidence and silencing witnesses, it has made it impossible for this Court to fairly consider any other pending motions^[1] until this threshold issue has been resolved and may leave the Court with only one remedy – entering judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in all three of these cases based on the Defendants’ egregious and continuing obstruction of justice.

MEMORANDUM

II. Introduction.

What occurred in the “Little Havana” section of Miami, Florida in the early morning hours of April 22, 2000, is still fresh in the minds of many Americans. It was then that Immigration and Naturalization Service agents, with a stunning display of force and intimidation, forcefully seized young Elian Gonzalez from the home of his uncle Lazaro so that he could be returned with his father to Cuba. The sheer brutality of the scene both inside and outside the Gonzalez home was shocking, as dozens of Cuban-Americans, who had spent weeks outside the Gonzalez home in a hopeful and prayerful vigil, were beaten and gassed by agents of United States government. Regardless of one’s views relating to whether young Elian should have been returned to Cuba, many Americans were appalled by the ferocity and Nazi-like tactics displayed by INS agents involved in the seizure. Mr. Ramirez, a Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has spoken out and shed some light on these issues, and this case emanates from its shameless and continuing attempts to silence him, and others.

The chaos surrounding the Gonzalez seizure spawned three cases. In addition to Ramirez v. Reno, et al., there is currently pending in this judicial district Dalrymple, et al. v. Reno, et al., Case No. 00-01733-Civ.-Moore, and Gonzalez, et al. v. Reno, et al., Case No. 00-3621 Civ.-Highsmith. Within a matter of weeks after the Dalrymple case was filed, Reno, Holder and Meissner embarked on a scheme to suppress the true story of what went “behind the scenes” by ordering the destruction of evidence and by threatening and intimidating witnesses, including Mr. Ramirez, who possesses a wealth of knowledge about both the April 22, 2000 raid and the rampant hostility and bias against Cuban-Americans and Hispanics that permeated and continues to permeate the INS.

The Defendants’ conduct in furtherance of the scheme violates not only federal criminal and civil rights statutes such as 18 U.S.C. §1512(b) (proscribing witness tampering) and 42 U.S.C. §1985(2) (prohibiting conspiracies to, by intimidation, threat or force, prevent witnesses from testifying in federal court) but, because critical evidence has been destroyed and is gone forever, it threatens Mr. Ramirez’s and the other Plaintiffs’ very right to an orderly and just adjudication of their claims.

Mr. Ramirez respectfully submits that because the Plaintiffs in these cases have a right to this documentary evidence to assist them in the disposition of their claims, the cases cannot move forward until the threshold issue of the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice has been addressed. Indeed, this obstruction of justice--once set forth under oath before this Court--will likely require that judgments be entered against one or more of the Defendants, obviating the need for a trial. The Court must put a halt to the ongoing scheme aimed at destroying documentary and other evidence and at keeping witnesses such as Mr. Ramirez quiet and immediately convene an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature and quantity of evidence already destroyed. It must also hold those and responsible accountable in subsequent criminal contempt proceedings.

III. Facts.

As noted, Mr. Ramirez is employed by the INS as a Special Agent in its Miami District Office (“Miami District”). He began his career with the INS with the U.S. Border Patrol after successfully completing training at the federal law enforcement training center in Glynco, Georgia. After serving with the Border Patrol in Texas for 13 years and being promoted to the rank of Special Agent, he transferred to the Miami District in January of 1999, working in the Miami District’s Alien Criminal Apprehension Program in a position requiring that, among other things, he arrests immigrants who have been convicted of felonies. Declaration of Ricardo Ramirez, attached as Exhibit 1 (“Ramirez Dec.”), ¶¶2-3.

Mr. Ramirez’s job performance over the course of his career with the INS has always been exemplary. In October 1999, he was nominated for a “Hero Award” after he arrested 50 convicted felons in three operations and he has received numerous commendations for his job performance. Ramirez Dec., ¶4.

After being been detailed to the Miami Division, Mr. Ramirez observed a widespread, open hostility and prejudice against Cuban-Americans and Hispanics, a hostility and bias that was exhibited by many officers as well as managerial and supervisory personnel in a variety of ways and permeated the Elian Gonzalez seizure. For example:

a. Following Elian Gonzalez’s seizure, Robert Wallis, then the District Director at the Miami Office, stated to a gathering of approximately 50 INS agents that one of his happiest moments during the whole episode came when he saw a photograph taken during the seizure of a shotgun pointed at the head of a Cuban-American. Ramirez Dec., ¶6.

b. Several high-ranking INS officials circulated insulated cup wrappers throughout the Miami District Office depicting a Cuban flag with the international “no” symbol surrounding the flag. Assistant District Director of the Miami District, George Waldroup, kept such a cup on a desk in his office. This cup also had the number “154" printed on it, a reference to the number of seconds taken to complete the seizure of Elian Gonzalez. Id.

c. Prior to the seizure, Miguel Domingo, a supervising Special Agent in the Fraud Unit of the Miami District office, sent several Special Agents an e-mail in which Domingo referred to Elian Gonzalez as a “little creep.” Id.

d. Prior to the seizure, and until just recently, many employees in the Miami District office, some of whom are high ranking officials, displayed banners in their offices stating “Banana Republic-Miami Florida.” One such banner was displayed by Assistant District Director Waldroup. Another such banner displayed in the Personnel Office expressed how “lazy, loud mouth, criminal Cubans are, and they should all be sent back to Cuba on a banana boat.” Such banners were known to be highly offensive to individuals of Cuban and Hispanic ancestry. Id.

e. One non-Hispanic agent who was a member of the seizure team urged his co-workers who were not of Cuban ancestry not to speak with their colleagues of Cuban and Hispanic ancestry because “they are spies.” Id.

f. The same agent also asked “Who was going to be the first one up in a tree to shoot Elian?” Id.

g. Section Chief of Investigations of the Miami District, John Wood, kept a cardboard box approximately two (2) feet high outside of his office for several weeks. This box had a picture of Elian Gonzalez affixed to it, with the words “Kick Me” written on the box below the picture of Gonzalez. Id.

h. INS agents of Cuban and Hispanic ancestry were excluded from the Elian Gonzalez seizure team. Id.

Rampant ethnic bias was not all that concerned Mr. Ramirez. Approximately 1½ to 2 months following the Elian Gonzalez seizure - i.e. in early to late June, 2000, shortly after the initiation of Dalrymple et al. v. Reno et al. - Mr. Ramirez received an order unlike any he had received before in his 15 year career with the INS. Miami District Section Chief Mario Cavallo, Mr. Ramirez’s second line supervisor, ordered that INS agents delete anything relating to the Elian Gonzalez matter from their computers, including e-mails. Mr. Ramirez was told that the order came directly from INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, who, upon information and belief, was acting at the direction of Defendants Reno and Holder, during a phone meeting attended by Cavallo’s supervisors. Ramirez Dec., ¶7.

After lawsuits were filed by Donato Dalrymple, members of the Lazaro Gonzalez family and others, the U.S. Department of Justice assigned several attorneys to represent several of agents at the Miami District Office, including Mr. Ramirez. Concerned about having to testify about the destruction of evidence and the anti-Cuban American bias described above, Mr. Ramirez approached Miami District counsel Daniel Vera for advice. Vera said “Don’t worry about it. If you have any kind of evidence that is detrimental toward the service, the DOJ attorney will make sure you don’t take the stand.” Ramirez Dec., ¶8. To Mr. Ramirez, this sounded like a cover-up, and subsequent events would prove that’s precisely what it was.

Following Meissner’s order and his conversation with Vera, Mr. Ramirez, having concluded that things had gone too far, concluded that the time had arrived for a public airing of these matters. But, he was afraid to speak out for fear of losing his job. Consequently, on December 12, 2000, Mr. Ramirez’s counsel, Donald Appignani, subpoenaed by plaintiffs’ counsel in the Gonzalez case, gave deposition testimony in the Gonzalez lawsuit in which he related what Mr. Ramirez has told him about anti-Cuban American and anti-Hispanic bias at the Miami District as well as Meissner’s order to destroy evidence in the Dalrymple and Gonzalez litigation. Ramirez Dec., ¶¶9-10.

A transcript of Mr. Appignani’s deposition was subsequently filed by the Gonzalez’s lawyers in Gonzalez, et al v. Reno, et al., and, on January 6, 2001 stories began to emerge in the media. Ramirez Dec., ¶11. Unfortunately, while the public may have been in the dark about the identity of Mr. Appignani’s source, INS believed they knew, and the campaign against Mr. Ramirez began.

On January 9, 2001, Mr. Ramirez’s first line supervisor, Gwen Reed, told him that Cavallo suspected that Mr. Ramirez had disclosed the damaging information Mr. Appignani testified about. Cavallo planned on retaliating against Mr. Ramirez by making it impossible for him to succeed with his work performance plan, thus enabling Cavallo to falsely rate Mr. Ramirez’s performance as “unsatisfactory.” Reed also commented that Mr. Ramirez that his work was not up to par, even though a month earlier, during a mid level performance review, Reed had told Mr. Ramirez that he was doing a good job and to keep up the good work. Ramirez Dec., ¶12.

On January 10, 2001, a co-worker told Mr. Ramirez that he should be careful and watch himself as “upper management,” such as then District Director Robert Wallis and Deputy District Director John Bulger among others whose identity is presently uncertain, believed it was Mr. Ramirez who had made the disclosures to Appignani. Two days later, another co-worker informed Mr. Ramirez that other management officials, including Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, and Wallis had decided that he was responsible for the disclosures to Appignani and that he should watch himself because retaliation was forthcoming. Several other co-workers made similar statements to him that day. Ramirez Dec., ¶13.

On January 16, 2001, Reed and Spearman ordered Mr. Ramirez to limit the use of the cell phone the government issued to him to use in the course of the performance of his duties. Mr. Ramirez objected, explaining that his use of the phone was necessary because many government officials, including attorneys with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, could only contact him on that phone when he was in the field. Spearman did not reply, but went further by ordering that Mr. Ramirez was prohibited from associating or talking to any co-worker during work hours except during the lunch break. Needless to say, these orders hindered Mr. Ramirez in the performance of his duties. Ramirez Dec., ¶14.

On January 24, 2001, Reed spoke with Mr. Ramirez and, told Mr. Ramirez that Cavallo, Spearman and Goldman were watching his every move because they had all decided that he was responsible for the disclosures to Appignani. Ramirez Dec., ¶15.

On January 29, 2001, Mr. Ramirez parked his government issued vehicle at the INS parking garage for the entire day. It is a secured garage. When he returned that evening to go home, he discovered that an unidentified individual or individuals had written on the rear right side passenger window “We know its you. Watch out traitor.” Mr. Ramirez took this as a grave threat not only to his employment but also to his and his family’s physical well-being. Indeed, Mr. Ramirez’s costly decision to move his family to a gated community was based, in part, on this threat. See Exhibit 3, Chuck Strouse, “Elian Plus One,” www.miaminewtimes.com, April 19, 2001; Ramirez Dec., ¶16. Incredibly when Ramirez told Goldman, Spearman, Cavallo, and his acting supervisor, Annette Rivera, about the incident, they were unconcerned. Goldman’s response was that Mr. Ramirez would be prohibited from further use of the government issued vehicle, that he was to ride with another agent at all times, and that he was temporarily assigned to office work only. Cavallo went on to state that it was his expectation that Mr. Ramirez’s new assignment would have no negative impact upon his performance or production. Of course, these expectations were impossible for Mr. Ramirez to meet due to the restrictions placed upon his ability to communicate with his co-workers and his use of a vehicle. Ramirez Dec., ¶17.

On February 2, 2001, Spearman requested that Mr. Ramirez write a memorandum stating that he in fact did not feel threatened by the writing on the vehicle window. When Mr. Ramirez responded that quite the opposite was true, Spearman replied that until he wrote the required memorandum, Mr. Ramirez would not be allowed the use of a government issued vehicle and would not be allowed to perform field work or otherwise resume his normal duties. Ramirez Dec. ¶19.

On February 6, 2001, Mr. Appignani sent a letter on Mr. Ramirez’s behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft requesting that he transfer Mr. Ramirez out of the Miami District, and that an appropriate investigation be conducted by an impartial individual. Mr. Appignani specifically requested that the Attorney General’s office not inform the Miami District of the letter, for fear that Mr. Ramirez’s situation would only become worse. Ramirez Dec., ¶20. However, Mr. Ramirez’s letter to Mr. Ashcroft was sent to the Special Agent in charge of investigations at the Department of Justice’s Fort Lauderdale Office of the Inspector General, Alan Hazen, who is a close friend of Goldman. Because of what Mr. Appignani and Mr. Ramirez viewed as an obvious conflict due to Hazen’s friendship with Goldman, they were reluctant to meet with Hazen. Only after Hazen assured Mr. Ramirez that the meeting would be confidential and that his allegations would be properly investigated did Mr. Ramirez and Mr. Appignani ultimately agree to meet with Hazen on March 15, 2001. Ramirez Dec., ¶¶21, 22.

Importantly, the day after Mr. Ramirez and Mr. Appignani met with Hazen, Mr. Ramirez was informed that he was to be put on what is known as a “personal performance plan.”(“PIP”). A PIP serves to warn an employee that unless his or her performance level is improved in 90 days, he or she is subject to demotion or discharge. In the Miami District, it is common knowledge among the employees that a PIP is used by management as a retaliation tool against employees. Ramirez Dec., ¶23. Not surprisingly, on April 4, 2001, Mr. Ramirez was told that, due to the issuance of the PIP, he was to be denied a “step increase” in pay that had been scheduled for May 6, 2001. Ramirez Dec., ¶25.

It was not until April 19, 2001 that Mr. Ramirez’s name formally surfaced for the first time as the source of the allegations of bias and obstruction of justice at the Miami District. See Exhibit 3. Since then, Mr. Ramirez has been interviewed on television and radio on a number of occasions. His superiors made it conspicuously known to him that they were carefully scrutinizing tapes of these interviews in order to determine whether anything he may have said would allow them to initiate a disciplinary action, going so far as to seek an unedited tape of the interview from a reporter for “Univision.” Ramirez Dec., ¶26.

The Defendants’ campaign of harassment and intimidation has continued, and in fact been stepped up since Mr. Ramirez filed his Complaint in Ramirez v. Reno, et al.^[2] Many of Mr. Ramirez’s superiors have become increasing hostile and antagonistic towards Mr. Ramirez. This behavior has manifested itself in a number of subtle yet quite disturbing ways. For example, Spearman and others have taken to addressing Mr. Ramirez in a snide and derisive tone as “Ricardo,” his Spanish surname. While Ricardo is Mr. Ramirez’s full first name, Mr. Ramirez has always been called “Rick” by his peers and superiors at the INS. Ramirez Dec., ¶30.

Mr. Ramirez recently received his annual “Officer Corps Rating,” prepared by Reed and Cavallo. See Exhibit 4. These ratings are important to agents because the INS management uses them to determine eligibility for promotions and position transfers. Ramirez’s rating of 70, or “not recommended,” is the lowest he has received in 16 his years of service with the INS. Notably, for 14 of those 16 years, Mr. Ramirez’s rating has been a perfect 100. Mr. Ramirez’s contrived and opportunistic low rating likely explains why a transfer to the Houston Seaport that he had requested in March of 2001 was summarily denied. Ramirez Dec., ¶¶27-28.

On May 30, 2001, Mr. Ramirez attended a deposition as a witness in Gonzalez, et al., v. Reno, et al., Case No. 00-3621 Civ-Highsmith, pursuant to a subpoena and request for authorization for testimony issued by Plaintiffs’ counsel in that case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida granted a very limited authorization for Mr. Ramirez to testify during the deposition, basically allowing him only to respond to questions of credibility and any knowledge he may have of any alleged instructions to destroy documents in reference to the seizure of Elian Gonzalez, and further limited the authorization to any matter within the authorization that might violate a statute or specific federal regulation. During the deposition, C. Salvatore D’Alessio, Jr., a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, threatened Mr. Ramirez that if he answered any question outside the limited authorization, that he would report this to his supervisors for possible disciplinary action. At that point, Mr. Ramirez felt very threatened and refused to answer any questions. Ramirez Dec., ¶32.

Finally, after Mr. Ramirez’s complaint was filed in this case, incredibly he was served with a memorandum requiring him to appear, without counsel, to give sworn testimony to the INS’s Office of Internal Audit (“OIA”) regarding the same issues raised in the Ramirez case, as well as matters relevant to the Dalrymple and Gonzalez cases. See Exhibit 5. The memorandum, which cleverly puts Mr. Ramirez in a Catch-22 situation, states:

“You are hereby directed to personally appear on Tuesday, June 21, 2001, at 10 AM before SSA Dale McIntosh at the agreed upon location (reference is made to our 6/8/01 telephone conversation.)

You are advised that your willful refusal to appear, as directed herein, and provide sworn testimony in accordance with the authority outlined in 8 CFR 103.1(a) and 8 USC 1357(b), may be construed to be insubordination, which in and of itself could result in revocation of any security clearance you may hold and the institution of disciplinary action against you, up to and including dismissal from the Service.”

You will be questioned concerning your knowledge of alleged misconduct relating to: Discrimination by employees of the Miami District Office.

Id.

The inherent unfairness and potential prejudice of such an ex-parte examination have motivated Mr. Ramirez to object and to advise the OIA, upon advise of counsel, that he does not intend to participate. At this point, it appears likely that the axe may be ready to drop on Mr. Ramirez’s career. Ramirez Dec., ¶29. However, not only is this tactic patently unfair, it is unethical given the pending litigation and the fact that lead counsel will not be able to attend the interrogation. The fact that it has been undertaken by agents of the United States Government acting under color of federal authority makes it no less so. On June 8, 2001, lead counsel

responded to the outrageous conduct of the INS/OIA. See Exhibit 6.

Utilizing this latest ruse, the Defendants, unless they are restrained from doing so, shall be able to accomplish the goal intended by the events described above - either preventing Mr. Ramirez from testifying any of the three cases pending in this judicial district that were spawned by the Elian Gonzalez seizure, or the retaliatory ruination of his 16 year career with the INS for doing so.

IV. Argument

A. The Court Should Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing On Whether Show Cause Orders Should Issue

The declaration of Special Agent Ramirez constitutes a prima facie showing that some or all of the Defendants engaged in obstruction of justice by not only “tampering” with witnesses, Ramirez, et al., but also by carrying out Meissner’s order to destroy potential electronic and documentary evidence concerning the raid on Little Havana. See 18 U.S.C. 1512(b) which is directly applicable and provides in relevant part that:

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation . . . , threatens . . . or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, . . . with intent to -

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to -

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

. . .

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The destroyed evidence is now forever lost to Ramirez and the Plaintiffs in the three pending cases arising out of the Gonzalez seizure, and it is difficult to envision a remedy the Court could fashion which would cure the prejudice caused Ramirez and the other Plaintiffs short of the entry of judgment. In any event, and putting “first things first,” Ramirez submits that the Courts presiding over the three pending civil actions arising out of the seizure of Elian Gonzalez should immediately convene evidentiary hearings^[3] to determine what and how much has been destroyed, if the issuance of orders to show cause against some or all of the defendants is appropriate and, if so, to whom those orders should be directed. The Court has the inherent power to conduct such a judicial inquiry because “tampering with the administration of justice . . . involves more than an injury to a single litigant . . . It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.” Hazel - Atlas Gloss Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944); See also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 - 631 (1962) (Such powers are “ . . . necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton it Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987). If necessary, following show cause hearings, the Court also has the inherent authority to fashion such sanctions and/or remedial relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances, including, if necessary, the entry of judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor. Chambers v. Nabisco, Inc. 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991). ( Courts have the inherent discretionary authority “ . . . to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.”) Certainly the Court has the inherent authority to do so.

B. Ramirez is Entitled to the Entry of a Preliminary Injunction In Ramirez v. Reno et al., Protecting Him From Further Threats and Retaliation

In Count II of his Complaint in Ramirez v. Reno, et al., Mr. Ramirez requests injunctive relief enjoining Cavallo, Spearman, Goldman, Bulger, Wallis, Hazen, Vera, Waldroup, Domingo, Wood and the currently unknown Defendants from their attempts, through continuing threats and retaliation, to at once punish Ramirez for the exercise of his right to freedom of speech, and to silence him. Because, in an apparent continuation of the obstruction of justice that began with Meissner’s order to destroy electronic and documentary evidence following the initiation the Dalrymple case, Defendants’ conduct continued to focus on Mr. Ramirez after he filed his complaint, he is now constrained to request same injunctive relief during the pendency of this proceeding.

The standard in this Circuit for the entry of preliminary injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b) requires that the movant demonstrate:

1. A substantial likelihood of success on the merits;

2. The threat of irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted;

3. That such injury outweigh the harm that the entry of a preliminary injunction would cause the opposing party; and

4. That the entry of a preliminary injunction be in the public interest.

See GAW, Inc. v. Long County, 999 F. 2d 1508, 1518 (11^th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. States Department of Agriculture, 734 F.2d 774, 781 (11^th Cir. 1984); United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1520 (11^th Cir. 1983).

Ramirez has demonstrated the presence of each of these factors. First, it is well-settled that the deprivation of a constitutional right, such as is involved here with respect to the continuing deprivation of Ramirez’s First Amendment rights, constitutes irreparable harm per se. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976); Henry v. Greenville Airport Commission, 284 F.2d 631, 633 (4^th Cir. 1960).

Second, while Ramirez does here contend that he can demonstrate an absolute certainty of success on the merits of his complaint, it is not necessary that he do so, particularly since his case implicates matters of great public concern. See Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 441 (U.S. 1944). Clearly, Ramirez’s complaint and the declaration accompanying this motion, at a minimum, raise substantial and serious issues requiring deliberative adjudication by this Court. See Johnson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture 734 F.2d 774, 781 (11^th Cir. 1984). On its face, Ramirez’s declaration demonstrates serious, purposeful and continuing deprivations of valuable First Amendment rights, all with the apparent intent of obstructing judicial proceedings currently pending in the Courts of this judicial district. He also assets facts squarely indicating the sort of conspiratorial conduct actionable under 42 §1985(2).

Third, the Constitutional injury Ramirez seeks to enjoin by this motion will cause no conceivable harm to any of the defendants, unless their being ordered to refrain from committing felonious acts can be viewed as “harm.”

Fourth, there can be no serious doubt that the granting of a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. It is obvious that the matters Ramirez has bravely spoken out about are of national public concern, regardless of whether one views the seizure of Elian Gonzalez as symbolizing a shameless repudiation of bed-rock principles underlying the U.S. Constitution or as a triumph in a battle over fundamental parental rights. Surely, the public has a right to know about all of the circumstances surrounding that tragic event, and Ramirez shall testify honestly about what he knows. By the same token, this Court should not allow the Defendants, by unlawful threats and intimidation, to extract a price from him for doing so.

5. The Courts Presiding Over Each of the Three Gonzalez Seizure Related Cases Should Enter Orders Prohibiting Further Witness Tampering and Evidence Destruction Pursuant to Their Inherent Authority.

Whatever the disposition of Mr. Ramirez’s request for a preliminary injunction, given the illegal conduct engaged in by some of the Defendants in the three cases pending in this judicial district that arose from the Gonzalez seizure, the Courts presiding in each case should immediately order the Defendants to cease and desist from engaging in further threatening and retaliatory conduct towards witnesses and from engaging in any other form of obstruction of justice. The entry of such an order would be in keeping with the Court’s inherent authority to regulate the conduct of the parties to this case. As the court stated in Carroll v. Jaques 926 F. Supp 1282, 1288 (E.D. Tex., 1996) (“Federal courts undisputed, inherent power to regulate practice in cases pending before them.”)

Surely, an appropriate occasion for the Court to exercise its inherent authority would be where, as here, parties to pending litigation have and are engaging in conduct that is tantamount to obstruction of justice. Surely, responsible Defendants should be ordered to cease and desist from that conduct, regardless of whether Ramirez has established the for requisites for necessary to obtain preliminary injunctive relief.

V. Conclusion.

Based on the foregoing considerations, it is clear that the Court should not allow the retaliation and threats against Ramirez to continue unabated any longer, and that a preliminary injunction restraining such conduct, at least during the pendency of these proceedings, should be entered. Further, immediate evidentiary hearings should be convened in each of the three cases arising from the events surrounding the seizure of Elian Gonzalez to determine whether show cause orders should be issued, as well as other appropriate relief. As the illegal conduct and harm is continuing, and in fact has increased in recent days since Mr. Ramirez filed his lawsuit on May 29, 2001, time is of the essence.

Respectfully submitted,

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

_____________________

Larry Klayman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0246220

Paul Orfanedes, Esq.

(Not a Member of the Florida Bar)

Suite 725

501 School Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

Tel: (202) 646-5172

Fax.: (202) 646-5199

Counsel for Mr. Rick Ramirez and

the other Plaintiffs in Case No. 01-2190

Civ-Seitz and Case No. 00-1773 Civ-Moore.

_____________________

Donald Appignani, Esq.

Attorney at Law

Florida Bar No. 0115071

10489 N.W. 10^th Court

Coral Springs, FL 33071

Tel: (954) 752-8478

Fax.: (954) 755-1420

Counsel for Mr. Rick Ramirez in

Case No. 01-2190 Civ-Seitz

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 12, 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON WHETHER SHOW CAUSE ORDERS SHOULD ISSUE AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION was served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, on the following:

Attorneys for Defendants Janet Reno, Doris Meissner, Eric Holder:

Nina Pelletier, Esq.

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

1425 New York Ave., NW

Rm. 8116

Washington, DC 20005

Guy A. Lewis, Esq.

U.S. Attorney’s Office

99 N.E. 4th Street

Miami FL, 33132

Attorneys for Lazaro Gonzales, Angela Gonzalez, and Marisleysis Gonzalez:

Ronald S. Guralnick, Esq.

RONALD S. GURALNICK, P.A.

600 Bayview Plaza Building

3225 Aviation Ave.

Miami, FL 33133

Attorneys for the City of Miami:

Alejandro Vilarello, Esq.

Henry J. Hunnefield, Esq.

City Attorney

945 Miami Riverside Center

444 Southwest 2nd Avenue

Miami, FL 33130-1910

Robert Wallis

INS Dallas District

8101 North Stemmons Freeway

Dallas, TX 75247

John Bulger

USINS Miami District Office

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33138

James Goldman

USINS Miami District Office

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33138

Daniel Waldroup

USINS Miami District Office

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33138

Daniel Vera

USINS Miami District Office

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33138

Alan Hazen

Special Agent in Charge

Investigations

Office of Inspector General

3800 Inverrary Blvd.

Suite 312

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319

James Spearman

USINS Miami District Office

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33138

Mario Cavallo

USINS Miami District Office

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33138

Miguel Domingo

USINS Miami District Office

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33138

^[1] The following pleadings are pending in Dalrymple, et al., v. Reno, et al., Case No. 00-1773 Civ-Moore: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, filed July 27, 2000; Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed October 6, 2000; Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss, filed October 19, 2000.

^[2] Plaintiff has recently become aware of an additional witness, an INS agent of Puerto Rican descent who currently works at the Miami District and who was employed there at the time of the April 22, 2000 raid. This agent participated in a television interview regarding the raid as well as bias towards Cuban and Hispanic Americans in the Miami District behind a screen at his apartment. This interview was televised on May 6, 2001 on Univision. This witness will corroborate the allegations made by Mr. Ramirez in his affidavit. Ramirez Dec., ¶33. Other agents are also prepared to step forward under suitable circumstances where they can receive protection. Plaintiff will promptly supplement this motion when they receive a videotape of this interview.

^[3] A consolidated hearing would be a more efficient use of the Courts’ time.