ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 15
Mar 8 13 9:19 PM
By Ed Oliver July 8, 2002 The full power of both state and local government was used in court last month to defend the Mass. law which allows the assignment of children to different schools based solely upon their race -- and pays a premium to those schools who do so. The eight lawyers against Darling [the plaintiff who seeks an injunction against the un-Constitutional racist policy of the public school system] and his tiny staff were two apiece from the City of Lynn, the state Dept. of Education, the Atty. General's office, and the national office of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund. The trial started on June 3 and ended on June 25. Atty. Darling presented only one witness, a black, from his eight plaintiffs. The mother testified that her child was not given a choice of schools outside of her "district" because of her race. The judge is the ultra-liberal Nancy Gertner (her husband is lead counsel for the local ACLU) who somehow seems to be appointed to every case that Darling files even though the judges are supposed to be assigned at random from the eighteen who sit on Boston's U.S. District Court. Atty. Darling had Gertner removed from a similar case involving the City of Boston last year. The U.S. Court of Appeals said at that time that Gertner gave "an appearance of partiality" and should have removed herself from the case. Judge Gertner has set Sept. 25 for final argument in this case and will probably decide the matter within a few months after that. Atty. Darling expects that the case will end in the U.S. Supreme Court because Judge Gertner will undoubtedly hold against him. Most Plaintiffs Suddenly Given their Choice in Lynn It was difficult for Darling to find plaintiffs for the suit. Every time one was announced, the City immediately reassigned him to the school he wished and made the matter moot. After Darling was on Rivera Live a few years ago, a limo showed up at a plaintiff's door to drive her around to the various schools so that she could choose one for her daughter. These tactics made it difficult to find plaintiffs. The eight government lawyers, plus their vast number of assistants, attempted to swamp Darling with paperwork. A few weeks before trial, they served upon him 983 documents which had to be sifted through before the trial began. Judge Gertner reproached him for not keeping up with the paperwork and told him he should have "adequate staff." But near the end of the trial, she complimented his staff on their knowledge and control of the documents. A similar suit was filed in Boston in June 1999 but two weeks later, the City stopped classifying children by race and giving assignments by race. However, they are still bussing the children. The City has spent over $1 million with Hill & Barlow and other white-shoe firms to defend their practices. The state law rewards Lynn and other school districts with extra money if they follow the state law [assigning students based on their race]. Under the Lynn plan, a child who normally would have a choice of schools is denied his choice if it would upset a racial "balance" at the sending or receiving school. It does not matter what race the child is. All are subject to denial of transfers based on racial quotas. "Any way you slice it, it's discrimination by the state against children because of their color," said Darling. Asst. Attorney General Richard Cole defended the policy, warning the court that if Lynn halts the plan, there would likely be racial violence in the future. Judge Gertner said the case raises issues of national importance. Currently, Lynn and twenty-one other Massachusetts school districts are approved for funding under the Act. Elementary schools are considered balanced if they are within 15% of the school district's racial make-up. Middle schools and high schools are considered balanced if they are within 10%. Racial balance is measured in terms of "minority" and "non-minority." The defendants are the Lynn School Committee, the Mayor and members of the Massachusetts Board of Education. The case was originally filed in 1999. Plaintiffs have been added and withdrawn over time based on changing family circumstances. Article 111 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights says: "No student shall be assigned to or denied admittance to a public school on the basis of race, color, national origin or creed." The defendants have already admitted in pre-trial stipulations that: The plaintiffs were denied assignments because of their race. The Lynn Plan restricts transfers based upon a child's race. The Plan was adopted under the Racial Imbalance Act and the Department of Education helped to draft the plan. The Lynn Plan and the "Racial Imbalance Act" violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violates Article 111 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and violate Title VI of the Civil rights Act of 1964. The defendants have conspired to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, or alternatively that the defendants negligently permitted the plaintiffs' rights to be violated in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (by failing to stop the violation of the plaintiffs' civil rights when they could have done so). Attorney Chester Darling is the head of Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, Inc., a non-profit law firm. (CPCR). http://www.julyfourth.net/help.htm
By Ed Oliver July 8, 2002
The full power of both state and local government was used in court last month to defend the Mass. law which allows the assignment of children to different schools based solely upon their race -- and pays a premium to those schools who do so.
The eight lawyers against Darling [the plaintiff who seeks an injunction against the un-Constitutional racist policy of the public school system] and his tiny staff were two apiece from the City of Lynn, the state Dept. of Education, the Atty. General's office, and the national office of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund.
The trial started on June 3 and ended on June 25. Atty. Darling presented only one witness, a black, from his eight plaintiffs. The mother testified that her child was not given a choice of schools outside of her "district" because of her race.
The judge is the ultra-liberal Nancy Gertner (her husband is lead counsel for the local ACLU) who somehow seems to be appointed to every case that Darling files even though the judges are supposed to be assigned at random from the eighteen who sit on Boston's U.S. District Court. Atty. Darling had Gertner removed from a similar case involving the City of Boston last year. The U.S. Court of Appeals said at that time that Gertner gave "an appearance of partiality" and should have removed herself from the case.
Judge Gertner has set Sept. 25 for final argument in this case and will probably decide the matter within a few months after that. Atty. Darling expects that the case will end in the U.S. Supreme Court because Judge Gertner will undoubtedly hold against him.
Most Plaintiffs Suddenly Given their Choice in Lynn
It was difficult for Darling to find plaintiffs for the suit. Every time one was announced, the City immediately reassigned him to the school he wished and made the matter moot.
After Darling was on Rivera Live a few years ago, a limo showed up at a plaintiff's door to drive her around to the various schools so that she could choose one for her daughter. These tactics made it difficult to find plaintiffs.
The eight government lawyers, plus their vast number of assistants, attempted to swamp Darling with paperwork. A few weeks before trial, they served upon him 983 documents which had to be sifted through before the trial began. Judge Gertner reproached him for not keeping up with the paperwork and told him he should have "adequate staff." But near the end of the trial, she complimented his staff on their knowledge and control of the documents.
A similar suit was filed in Boston in June 1999 but two weeks later, the City stopped classifying children by race and giving assignments by race. However, they are still bussing the children. The City has spent over $1 million with Hill & Barlow and other white-shoe firms to defend their practices.
The state law rewards Lynn and other school districts with extra money if they follow the state law [assigning students based on their race].
Under the Lynn plan, a child who normally would have a choice of schools is denied his choice if it would upset a racial "balance" at the sending or receiving school. It does not matter what race the child is. All are subject to denial of transfers based on racial quotas.
"Any way you slice it, it's discrimination by the state against children because of their color," said Darling.
Asst. Attorney General Richard Cole defended the policy, warning the court that if Lynn halts the plan, there would likely be racial violence in the future.
Judge Gertner said the case raises issues of national importance.
Currently, Lynn and twenty-one other Massachusetts school districts are approved for funding under the Act. Elementary schools are considered balanced if they are within 15% of the school district's racial make-up. Middle schools and high schools are considered balanced if they are within 10%. Racial balance is measured in terms of "minority" and "non-minority."
The defendants are the Lynn School Committee, the Mayor and members of the Massachusetts Board of Education.
The case was originally filed in 1999. Plaintiffs have been added and withdrawn over time based on changing family circumstances.
Article 111 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights says: "No student shall be assigned to or denied admittance to a public school on the basis of race, color, national origin or creed."
The defendants have already admitted in pre-trial stipulations that:
The plaintiffs were denied assignments because of their race.
The Lynn Plan restricts transfers based upon a child's race. The Plan was adopted under the Racial Imbalance Act and the Department of Education helped to draft the plan.
The Plan was adopted under the Racial Imbalance Act and the Department of Education helped to draft the plan.
The Lynn Plan and the "Racial Imbalance Act" violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violates Article 111 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and violate Title VI of the Civil rights Act of 1964.
The defendants have conspired to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, or alternatively that the defendants negligently permitted the plaintiffs' rights to be violated in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (by failing to stop the violation of the plaintiffs' civil rights when they could have done so).
Attorney Chester Darling is the head of Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, Inc., a non-profit law firm. (CPCR). http://www.julyfourth.net/help.htm
Interact
Share This