\doc\web\99\05\nans.txt
From:           	RHaws@aol.com
Date sent:      	Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:47:38 EST
To:             	arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:        	NEWS UPDATE


NEWS UPDATE 3/23/99
from   The National Association for Neighborhood Schools


APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST BOARD 
     A panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19 ruled against
     all
eight appeals before them saying none of them had merit and calling the
actions of the "new school board" guerrila warfare against provisions of a
remedial decree to which their predecessors had consented.  The court said
that by such action the appellants "are missing the proper route to the
speedy termination of this litigation."
     The Board's appeals challenged budget requirements by the federal
magistrate judge.  They argued that budgets approved by the magistrate
were inflated by the cost of progress oriented toward provisions of the
decree that the Appeals Court had invalidated in 1997and that in putting
together a budget, the master had demonstrated bias against the board.
        Their appeal to have the magistrate judge removed from the case
        was
denied.
      Three of the board members had voted against a levy to finance court
ordered  "desegregation" projects out of the district tort immunity fund,
a usage that had been ruled illegal by the state.  The magistrate judge
had then ordered the three to change their vote and given them a deadline
for doing so. The three had changed their vote as ordered and then asked
for intervenor status in the case to challenge the order.  Their motion
for intervenor status was denied in the district court, and they had
appealed.  The appeals court upheld the district court decision denying
intervenor status.
     In the March 19 ruling the Appeals Court panel acknowledged a line
between orders that are remedial and the invalid goal of seeking equality
of results.  However, the panel reminded the Board that institutional
reform litigation "is remote from the conventional Anglo-American model of
litigation."  Their ruling states,  "This is especialy true of the
remedial phase which often, and in this case, thrusts the federal courts
into a managerial rather than adjudicative role."
     The ruling was also sharply critical of the Board for spending money
     on
continued litigation and threatened imposition of sanctions for
prosecuting frivolous appeals if the Board persisted in litigation
strategy.
     The Board was reminded  that they had argued that full compliance
     with
the decree was achievable by 2002.  In effect, then, the Board's
peripheral appeals were seen as in conflict with their indication that
they will comply.
     The panel reminded that when compliance is achieved, the decree must
     be
dissolved.  The ruling stated that the next logical step is for the Board
to consult with the plaintiffs and the master and propose a modification
of the decree to the magistrate judge that includes an appropriate
termination date (or different dates for different programs).
     In a prior 1997 ruling the Appeals Court had shown an understanding
     of
the difference between true desegregation and remedy and the racial
control and social engineering that devastates school districts and
violates the civil rights of students.  The 1997 ruling had inspired hope.
      Citizens across the nation who believe government is by the consent
      of
the governed, are exasperated by arrogant social engineering required by
the courts and frustrated by the lack of Congressional effort to deal with
such runaway power usurped by the courts.  They are naturally disappointed
with the March 1999 ruling.
     Citizens  who care about the laws of their country believe in common
sense and wisdom, and that although good decisions are not always made,
errors in judgment are corrected through the democratic process.  They
expect the same common sense and wisdom from the courts.
     Courts, however, seem to make decisions primarily by recalling and
     citing
other cases and relying on the presentation of the arguments.   When
decisions are handed down based on such arguments as what the meaning of
"is" is,  the public begins to realize how difficult it is for wisdom and
true justice to prevail.
     In the real word of common people there is no question that current
members of the Rockford School Board were elected to represent the people
of Rockford.  Previous boards no longer are in that role.  In the mind of
the court, the school board as a defendant party is in effect the same
entity now as it was when the order first came down.  Thus current
representatives of the people, and thus the people themselves, cannot seek
redress of grievances brought about by previous boards in the
"desegregation" case.
     There is no question in the minds of people in the real world that
     the
ordering of their elected representatives to change their vote was a form
of judicial tyranny.  Such abuse of power could not go unchallenged.  
     The Appeals Court notation that institutional reform litigation "is
remote from the conventional Anglo-American model of litigation,"
thrusting the federal courts into a managerial role, is also something
that must be challenged by Congress.  Such managerial role by those who
answer to no one has devastated hundreds of American school districts. 
This role was set up by a twisted definition of "desegregation" and has
benefitted attorneys, special administrators, bus companies and petroleum
companies, but not the children it deceitfully pretended to benefit.  The
managerial practices of federal judges were put into play on a pretense of
ending and remedying racial control of school assignment and
discrimination, but in reality the practice perpetuated racial control, in
many cases increasing it. 
     The Rockford School Board is to be commended for challenging the
magistrate's managerial orders.  Not to have done so would have put the
board members in position of consenting to orders that violate civil

rights, violate state law, misuse taxpayer money and circumvent the will
of the people they were elected to represent.  
     To achieve an end of the case, the court requires these elected
representatives of the people on the school board to carry out, without
further challenge, the managerial orders handed down by the magistrate.  
     While an end to the case appears possible and in sight, the end of
judicial mischief does not appear to be in sight.  If all impacted cities
were to find their cases ended  tomorrow, Congress has still to act  to
end the disaster by decree that  has plagued our nation for decades. 
Joyce Haws Communications Office The National Association for Neighborhood
Schools, Inc. (216) 398-4667   http://www.nans.org