Court Showdown Over Boston “Zip Code Quota Plan” And Concealment of School Committee Anti-White Texts
Parents group: “… if the motivation behind the Zip Code Quota Plan was truly based on something other than race (as Defendants and Intervenors have repeatedly claimed), why cover up these racially motivated messages?”
On Friday, July 9, 2021, at 3 p.m., U.S. District Court Judge William Young is scheduled to hold a hearing on whether the Boston School Committee improperly concealed anti-white and anti-asian text messages and thereby deceived Judge Young into finding that the “Zip Code Quota Plan” had no racist intent.
We covered the background to the dispute in a recent post, Leaked School Committee Texts Showing Anti-White Bias May Reopen Boston “Zip Code Quota Plan” Case.
You can read the Memorandum In Support of Motion for Relief From Judgment for the allegations of misconduct (emphasis added):
New evidence, in the form of highly relevant text messages between two members of the Boston School Committee, has recently come to light. These text messages have long been in the possession of the City of Boston, and should be been provided to the Boston Parents in response to its public records request and should have been made a part of the agreed-upon record in this case when the Court originally considered it. But the City, instead, concealed the messages, thereby depriving the Boston Parents and the Court of the opportunity to consider them. The reason for the City’s actions can and must be inferred from the content of the concealed evidence: the text messages show clear racial motivation and anti-White racism on the part of two School Committee members who were leading proponents of the Zip Code Quota Plan. In fact, the content of this previously suppressed evidence is so damning that both members have now been forced to resign.
hese facts are unique. They warrant the relief sought, and they elevate the Boston Parents’ request beyond that of other Rule 60 motions. As this memorandum explains, the Boston Parents timely exercised their rights under state law to obtain copies of these and other text messages exchanged between members of the School Committee during the meeting where the Zip Code Quota Plan was adopted. But when the School Committee responded to that request, it deliberately concealed clearly racist statements, first, by deleting racist portions of text messages from what it claimed was a “transcript” of text messages, and, second, by misrepresenting that it had produced complete records when it knew that it had not. This prejudice was further compounded when neither the City of Boston nor the individual Defendants came clean when it came time to provide this Court with an agreed-upon record. It was only after the Boston Globe published leaked copies of the offensive texts that the City of Boston finally produced them to the Boston Parents, long after this Court issued its decision in this case. That is what prompts this Motion.
When the School Committee lawyers asked for more time to respond, Judge Young denied the request (bold in original):
Judge William G. Young: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 115 Motion for Extension of Time to August 17, 2021 to File Opposition to Rule 60 Motion and Continue Hearing (Partially Assented-To) by Brenda Cassellius, Hardin Coleman, Ernani DeAraujo, Michael O’Neil, Alexandra Oliver-Davila, Lorna Rivera, Jeri Robinson, The School Committee of the City of Boston, Quoc Tran. Motion denied. The Plaintiffs’ Rule 60b motion raises profound and most serious allegations – potentially fraud on the Court. It must be addressed via a detailed written explanation (preferably accompanied by affidavits) and an oral hearing – and soon. (Gaudet, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/02/2021)
On July 6, after what must have been a pretty miserable holiday weekend, the School Committee filed its Opposition To Motion for Relief From Judgment:
On June 22, 2021, the Coalition moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to reopen the Judgment entered by this Court in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence, Corp. v. The School Committee of the City of Boston, No. 21-CV-10330-WGY, 2021 WL 1422827 (D. Mass. Apr. 15, 2021), and which is now pending on appeal before the First Circuit. See No. 21- 1303. The Coalition asserts that BPS had a legal obligation to disclose certain text messages between members of the Boston School Committee and that its failure to do so requires that the judgment be reopened. BPS opposes the Motion on the grounds that there has been no violation that triggers the application of Rule 60(b), as it had no legal obligation to produce or provide the text messages to the Coalition and there was no direct or indirect cover up of those text messages. Further, those text messages do not provide a basis for any change of this Court’s decision as required by Rule 60(b).
The details of the School Committee’s opposition is fairly confused and convoluted. The heart of the defense is that the text messages were not withheld from legal discovery in the case, but in a public records request from a person they claim they did not know was affiliated with the plaintiffs in the case. They also deny any improper redactions, and say that if the plaintiffs were not happy with what they were given, they should have appealed pursuant to the public records law.
A group of Intervenors supporting the School Comittee made similar arguments in Intervenor’s Memorandum in Opposition To Motion for Relief From Judgment.
The plaintiffs pretty much ripped these defense to shreds in their Reply filed on July 8, Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Relief From Judgment.
The gist of the Reply is that no appeal under the public records law was taken because they didn’t know that documents had been withheld and a false transcript (allegedly) given to them. That deception, they claim, led them to enter into a stipulated record in the case rather than the normal discovery process which likely would have uncovered the problem. The case was submitted to the Judge on that stipulated record, so the Judge did not have all the evidence and in fact was deceived into thinking there was no evidence of racial animus. What the plaintiffs request is not for the Judge now to rule on the merits, but to reopen the case and let them take normal litigation discovery.
From the Reply:
Exiting the March 2021 virtual hearing, the Boston Parents were also “pleased” that the parties were able to negotiate what appeared to be a robust joint statement of undisputed facts that included relevant documents obtained from the City of Boston through public records requests. The documents produced by the City included what the Boston Parents were led to believe were complete transcripts of requested text messages between School Committee Members, including Vice-Chairperson AlexandraOliver-Davila and Member Lorna Rivera. Exhibit 72. On that basis, the Boston Parents were pleased to proceed on the closed, agreed-upon record with no further discovery. Had the Boston Parents known then what we all know now, namely that, in creating those transcripts, the City of Boston intentionally omitted racist text messages, they never would have so agreed. Instead, the Boston Parents would have insisted on conducting discovery, not only to obtain the full text message records but, perhaps more importantly, to discover why the City’s officials were motivated to cover up these racist messages and what else they may be hiding.
These images, showing the transcript of a key text message next to the (leaked) actual text seems pretty devastating. From the Reply:
The text message transcripts did not show redactions on their face. There was no stamp of “redacted,” or some other marking to show where it had made the decision to rip text messages out from the very conversation being transcribed. The below screenshots demonstrate that the statements “Wait til the white racists start yelling st [sic] us! And “Whatever . . . they are delusional” were omitted without any marking whatsoever:
I don’t make predictions. But I do expect that Judge Young will reopen the case and allow plaintiffs to partake in the normal discovery litigation process to answer this question raised in the Reply:
…. if the motivation behind the Zip Code Quota Plan was truly based on something other than race (as Defendants and Intervenors have repeatedly claimed), why cover up these racially motivated messages?
Judge Withdraws Opinion Dismissing Boston Zip Code Quota Plan Case – “I’ve Been Misled” By Concealment of Anti-White Text Messages
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Don’t you love it when you get to look behind the mask and realize that it was always the petty, racist BS you thought it was?
These idiots are giving us conspiracy “theorists” a good name.
I think the level of corruption is a surprise to a lot of people. This Populist Movement has drawn back the curtain and revealed a shocking level of fraud and dishonesty, like removing a cast from you broken foot and discovering gangrene.
How about some criminal charges? Or, at the very least, the judge having them jailed for criminal contempt of court?
Criminal charges for what? What contempt? They’re not the ones who covered up their texts. That was whoever at the board produced the doctored transcript.
You know what. For someone who has an opinion on EVERYYHING you sure do know sweet fuck all about most things.
Try and engage that peanut you call a brain and actually think about what was said.
Clearly willfully lying to a court is a huge fucking issue that SHOULD result in the harshest punishment possible.
But not to the man with a brain the size of a planet 🤣
No, he’s right. The guy on the hot seat is the guy who doctored the transcript, not the two who made the comments he doctored away. But I’m sure we can find “hate” laws enough in Massachusetts to needle all three.
The guy who “doctored the script” isn’t the guy who released these documents. The School Committee is. THEY are on the hot seat. See my comment below.
He’s the one responsible for the fraud on the court. Anyone above him is only responsible if they told him to do it. Individual committee members had nothing at all to do with the process; they were not personally involved and cannot be criminally liable for what their representatives did.
No such “laws” would survive their first contact with a judge.
A) Milhouse is correct
B) Sanctions are rarely imposed – regardless of how egregous
C) Judges seldom reopen what would otherwise be considered a closed case. Based on the my experience in court, dont be surprised if the Judge rules the deleted/omitted texts are insufficient to provide a basis that the zip code was intentionally discrimatory.
He’s wrong and it’s a very serious issue regardless of how it affects the outcome. Submitting false documentation or lying to the court should never be tolerated, no matter how minor, for if it is then nobody can trust the veracity of anything coming out of that court.
let me back off a little on item C) – the tone of his order implies that he may reconsider his ruling in light of the additional evidence . Though sometimes, judges feign anger at the “deception”
Nobody suggested otherwise. But the two who made the comments to each other didn’t do that. They were not involved in preparing or submitting the transcript, and have not said anything to the court, truthful or false.
You idiot. They did not lie to the court. They didn’t say anything to the court. All they did was make racist comments to each other, and that isn’t a crime.
You buffoon. It’s not the writers of the e-mail who committed the offense. They are not the ones who lied. It’s the school administrators WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION. Haven’t you ever had to sign a sworn attestation that the information BEING SUBMITTED (not information YOU prepared) is accurate and true? YOU are willingly holding yourself responsible for the information YOU were ordered by the court to provide!
The racist comments are NOT the issue here. It’s that the SCHOOL COMMITTEE that signed off on their accuracy and completeness! You may delegate the work but not the ultimate responsibility. The School Committee DID lie you buffoon!
No wonder all of your opinions lead to the hopelessness of even trying. Trying is the first step to failure because you frame everything in terms of “we can’t win”.
Millhouse – You assume that they had no role in what was presented to the court. As senior folks, they very likely were privy to what ever submissions were made. It will all come out in discovery. If they has a role in false submissions to the court – they should be prosecuted. The fact that they resigned so quickly says a lot.
What email? What are you talking about? The two individuals who wrote the text messages that were omitted from the transcript were not responsible for preparing the transcript for the court. They did not submit it. You have no reason to believe they ever saw it, or that they signed anything. Even if they had, they certainly would have had no obligation to carefully proofread it and check it against their records; the most they could possibly have signed to would have been that it was accurate to the best of their knowledge. Even in such a case they couldn’t face criminal charges if it turned out not to be accurate. But you have no basis for believing they ever signed anything in the first place.
Ben Kent, they were school committee members. Certainly “senior folks”, but not personally involved in the litigation, and certainly not in such details as the preparation of transcripts for submission. That’s the job of the committee’s permanent staff, and it’s the lawyers’ job to check what they’re given. Committee members’ role is to show up to meetings, discuss policies and the budget, and get a report from the superintendent.
Boston being Boston, I’m sure they have a wonderfully unconstitutional hate-crime law with outrageous penalties. Drag that m*f*r out, plug it in, and turn it on.
You and I are on the same page. Its the Subject Matter Expert who needs to sort his shit out.
I doubt they have any such “laws”, but if they do the only way to preserve them is to keep them out of court, so they’re unenforceable.
Like the Logan Act; it’s been kept on the books for so long by carefully keeping it out of any judge’s reach. It’s like a faulty gun that you can use to threaten people with, but you’re careful not to try to fire, because you know if you do it will explode.
For lying! Failure to disclose critical information with intent to deceive is lying. Lies are lies whether by acts of commission or by acts of omission.
And also for failure to supervise. People in charge are supposed to be IN CHARGE and so, are responsible for their underlings’ actions while under their supervision. They MUST have signed a document attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the records being released. They should at least be PUBLICLY forced to provide an accounting for that failure and presented with a further demand that any other information withheld now be produced.
Individual school board members were not under order to disclose anything. They were not involved in the court case. They were not involved in preparing or submitting the transcript. So they did not lie to the court.
And there is no such crime as “failure to supervise”. You have no basis for supposing that they were ever asked to sign anything about the transcript, and they certainly had no duty to carefully proofread it and check it against their own records for accuracy.
The only way they could be in contempt is if they ordered the transcript to be doctored, and there’s no evidence of that.
1. Individual school board members WERE under order to disclose lots of things. Each school board member is individually named as a defendant in the case. They each were instructed by Boston’s public records office to turn over their text messages (which they did) because Mass Public Records LAW required that they do so.
2. They WERE involved in preparing and submitting the transcript. Each one of them signed and attested to the accuracy of the transcript that was submitted to the Court.
3. Of course there is basis for supposing that they were ever asked to sign anything. Read the court documents. Both of the school committee members who signed the Agreed Statement of Facts (the only document the Judge used in making his decision) KNEW that the Statement of Facts had incomplete and inaccurate information (aka LIES) in it.
4. The SC members whose racist texts were doctored and hidden from the Court probably wont be held in contempt because A) they did turn them over to the City’s legal department, and B) they are not lawyers and did not make the decision to doctor the evidence. But the attorneys and BPS leaders who DID make that decision may face sanctions (or just some yelling by the judge).
Fraud on the Court is very serious. The opposing attorney, whether knowingly or not, entered false evidence that misrepresented “factual findings” that interfered with the court’s proceedings. It will likely entail a criminal investigation.
Don’t argue with the idiot. He will drag you down to his level and then neat you around the head with his years of experience 🤣
So the attorney is in trouble. What has that got to do with these two? How does that justify ThePrimordialOrderedPair’s demand that they face criminal charges?
No, it’s the person who deleted the evidence that is in trouble. I doubt the attorney would do this.
As for the school board members who are pushing this zip-code quota plan, they are risking their lives. We are in a civil war, right now. People wrongly believe civil wars involve lot’s of gunfire and explosions, like the American Civil War. But, in most civil wars, the it’s not apparent a war is occurring.. A key indicator that a nation is in a civil war is when there is a constant drumbeat of negative news and when there is no cooperation between between political parties. People who publicly advocate for these leftist causes are risking their lives, because when leftist revolutions occur, the worst fury is directed at their own, They must do this, because a faction must kill off the other factions, before they themselves are killed. It’s not good to be a target when a civil war is occurring.
I’m not sure I would assume that the attorney wouldn’t do this. They either have to blame the client, saying that the client defrauded the court, or the client has to say they did it and told the attorney or that the attorney helped them, or something. I suppose it doesn’t matter in terms of the ultimate ruling since the court was deceived regardless of who deleted it.
Brain-washed ideologues will do anything. Even lawyers can be brain-washed. Last summer two lawyers were caught in NYC after throwing Molotov cocktails into a police car. One was an Associate at a major law firm. They threw their law license and career away b/c they could not resist a dumbass move.
@Ben Kent, regarding those two lawyers. They, erm, haven’t had their licences suspended: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/judge-extremist-attorneys-who-firebombed-police-car-can-still-practice-law-in-ny-but-giuliani-cant/
Outrage at fraud on the court is still held as useful theater apparently.
Lack of outrage at fraud on the court is a much larger, much more serious problem.
Diversity is just another word for racism, i.e., Racism with a smiley face.
Only racial diversity. The school board’s claim, now shown to be false, is that they weren’t aiming for racial diversity, but only for geographic and/or socioeconomic diversity, and the fact that that also produced racial diversity was merely a happy coincidence. Trying for those other kinds of diversity is equally wrong, because there’s no rational reason to want it, but it’s not illegal.
Now you have to wonder how much evidence has already long since been despoliated.
A police officer friend of mine once remarked, “if all the criminals were smart the prisons would be empty.” His point, of course, is that most people who violate the law aren’t very smart.
Like, for example, the people who doctored these transcripts. Did they truly believe that their ham-fisted efforts would never come to light? Or were they told “don’t worry, you’re protected”? Do they not understand that it’s the underlings who first given up? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
And, of course, the other set of stupid people are the ones who made these racist comments in a recorded medium. Not only is the internet forever, but so are text messages. The people who texted this stuff deserve a day in jail just for general stupidity. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
There are more stupid people in this story, and I think we’re going to learn who they all are. We won’t do anything about it in the next election, and that will make us the fools. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
They had no reason to suppose their tampering would ever come to light. And it wouldn’t have, if not for a whistleblower within their camp.
Thank god for whistle blowers.
I remember reading one time that a criminal proceeds as though he will never be caught, thus passing stricter punishments for crimes doesn’t affect their actions at all. Sadly, in today’s “woke” environment, for so many criminals, there really IS no punishment~even when they are caught on video.
Surely the school’s attorneys had to know this–aren’t they looking at sanctions from the court?
Any update on this? Anyone live streaming the hearing ?
Judge has withdrawn his approval on the grounds of being misled