Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Judge Withdraws Opinion Dismissing Boston Zip Code Quota Plan Case – “I’ve Been Misled” By Concealment of Anti-White Text Messages

Judge Withdraws Opinion Dismissing Boston Zip Code Quota Plan Case – “I’ve Been Misled” By Concealment of Anti-White Text Messages

“This was my opinion, my signature’s on it, I was misled”

Judge William Young has just announced in court that he is withdrawing the Opinion he issued dismissing the case brought by a Boston parents group over the so-called Boston “Zip Code Quota Plan.” For background see our posts:

The hearing has just concluded. The Judge was not happy. He found that the text messages concealed from the court were important, and that he was misled. He said he felt he had no choice but to withdraw his Opinion, and will decide later after the parties submit briefing, what he is able to do beyond withdrawing the Opinion given that the case is on appeal.

Here are some quotes from the Judge I wrote down during the hearing:

“This was my opinion, my signature’s on it, I was misled”

“The opinion is wrong, it’s wrong because the facts on which it was based … an opinion I issued under my signature is factually incorrect”

“I’m inclined to withdraw the opinion, I’ve never done that [before in 35 years]”

“I work very hard on my opinions, and this one’s no good.”

The clerk will enter the note: “The opinion entered in this case is withdrawn on the ground the court is satisfied it is factually inaccurate in certain material effects.”

The Judge said he wants briefing as to his authority to do more than just withdraw the Opinion, including whether the school committee counsel and defense counsel violated ethical rules in the redactions of text messages and failing to call the court’s attention to the deception after it was revealed.

UPDATE – Here is the Court’s docket entry:

Date Filed # Docket Text
07/09/2021 121 Electronic Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge William G. Young: Motion Hearing held on 7/9/2021 by video re 112 MOTION Pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b) filed by Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. After hearing arguments of counsel, the Court withdraws it’s opinion on the basis that it is factually inaccurate and sets a further briefing schedule. Briefs shall be filed within 30 days. The Court expresses no opinion as to any of the substantive legal analysis. (Court Reporter: Richard Romanow at [email protected])(Attorneys present: Attorney Hurd for the plaintif; Attorney Hodge for the defendants and Attorney Rachal for the intervenors) (Gaudet, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/09/2021)

[This post has been updated since original publication]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“I’m inclined to withdraw the opinion, I’ve never done that before in 35 years…”

Nothing of the likes of what is happening in our country has ever occurred in 35 years. Or 161 years.

Great decision, Your Honor.

    Great decision? This plan sounds like thinly veiled quota/reverse discrimination on its face but this clod of Massachusetts judge originally gives it a thumbs up? He’ll just re-write his opinion a little but ultimately side again with Defendants.

VICTORY AGAINST NEO-RACISM

This will inspire many others to fight neo-racism. Judges will not stand for the lies and deceit and other such tactics that the neo-racists need to do to get this over on parents and the general public. They must lie because they know that parents of all political backgrounds find their neo-racism to be regnant. They are just race-baiters who are stoking racial animosity.

    bear in reply to Ben Kent. | July 9, 2021 at 4:26 pm

    Mr. Ben Kent, I must caution your optimism with a referral to the number of times the 9th circus court has been reversed. Judges WILL stand for the lies and deceit, as we have seen from Oregon, Hawai’i, Washington, etc..

    Thank God that Pres. Trump got hundreds of (hopefully) conservative federal judges confirmed.

      Ironclaw in reply to bear. | July 9, 2021 at 5:00 pm

      This is in Boston, not the 9th circus.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Ironclaw. | July 11, 2021 at 12:54 am

        Ben made a comment that was general in nature, bear made a comment in reply that was likewise general in nature. Ben did not comment on a particular circuit’s opinions, bear remined him of the nature of the 9th Circuit.

      Arminius in reply to bear. | July 9, 2021 at 7:04 pm

      Don’t forget the FISA court. Remember Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI attorney who altered a CIA email? The CIA informed the DoJ that Carter Page was an operational contact. Or, in plain English, Carter Page was actually assisting the CIA. Clinesmith altered the language in the affidavit to the FISA court to say that Page was NOT an operational contact. To assist the FBI as it perpetrated the “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax against Trump and, since Page was associated with the Trump campaign, smear Page as a Russian operative and “trick” the FISA court to approve the wire tapping warrant so they could spy on the Trump campaign.

      In January of this year U.S. District Judge James Boasberg slapped Clinesmith’s wrist with a sentence of 12 months probation even though the felony carries a maximum of 5 years in prison and a $250k fine. Boasberg apparently doesn’t think that lying to a court to get a search warrant that, had he told the truth the DoJ never would have gotten, is no big deal. Boasberg argued that Clinesmith had been “punished” enough due to his loss of “professional and personal standing” in the community.

      What loss of professional standing? The D.C. bar where Clinesmith is licensed to practice law could have and I believe is supposed to at least suspend the license of an attorney who is convicted of a felony. But Clinesmith never lost his law license. But the D.C. bar association still lists Clinesmith as “active” and “in good standing” according to Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations. So apparently a felony committed in the name of OrangeManBad is something to be proud of in the eyes of the D.C. bar association.

      Oh, and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg? He’s not just a District Court Judge.

      https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/district-judge-james-e-boasberg

      “Judge Boasberg also served a seven-year term on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court beginning in May 2014. Appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, he was the Court’s Presiding Judge from January 2020 to May 2021…”

      Boasberg was on the FISA court when Clinesmith lied to it, and the presiding judge when he tried Clinesmith. He had to convict him because that apparently was part of the Kabuki theater. He had to convict him, but he sentenced him to as little punishment as possible.

      So Boasberg is complicit in the weaponization of federal law enforcement, the IC, and federal bureaucracy against conservatives. I can’t find any information on whether Clinesmith even had to pay any fines or serve community service. He simply lost his government job but can still practice law in the private sector. I can absolutely fucking guarantee you that in D.C. Clinesmith will get the felony conviction expunged from his record. Hell, Boasberg will probably help Clinesmith with the paperwork before personally granting the request. And if Clinesmith wants his job back he’ll get it.

      In other words, Boasberg ensured that Clinesmith suffers no serious consequences for lying to HIM and HIS court. And that’s if the felony conviction remains on his record; he only has to sit in the felony “penalty box” for a year. And if his conviction is expunged Clinesmith will suffer no consequences at all.

        Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 9, 2021 at 7:18 pm

        Do I need to mention that Boasberg is an Obama appointee to the U.S. District Court and was recommended to fill the vacancy by notorious leftist Eleanor Norton Holmes, the delegate to the House of Representatives representing D.C.?

        guyjones in reply to Arminius. | July 10, 2021 at 5:49 pm

        Excellent post and points. That Clinesmith wasn’t referred for disbarment proceedings, or, alternatively, referred to a Bar committee for a lengthy suspension of his law license, was an absolutely disgraceful act of corruption by the vile Boasberg. But, you said it — an anti-Trump act, no matter how brazen, lawless, illegal and unethical, is a badge of honor for the Dhimmi-crats of the Swamp, and, they will do their utmost to protect each other from legal consequences.

        puhiawa in reply to Arminius. | July 10, 2021 at 8:54 pm

        The entire FISA court is corrupt and has been since Obama’s second year as president.

    alohahola in reply to Ben Kent. | July 9, 2021 at 5:28 pm

    You mean *good* judges.

      20keto20 in reply to alohahola. | July 10, 2021 at 6:31 am

      My thought was that Ben left out the word honest as a descriptor of judges. Then again, honest lawyer has for years been known as an oxymoron. Since 99.99% of judges are lawyers, maybe Ben believed that a descriptor was not necessary. Boasberg likely had known “vulnerabilities” before his appointment. These “vulnerabilities” were then easily appropriated in decisions that Obama and his associates needed.

    Many judges will in fact stand rfor lies if they agree with the narrative being put forward. Its sad, that is what has become of our corrupted judicial system.

From Jew privilege to White privilege, while bias is intrinsic, prejudice is progressive. Baby Lives Matter

What kind of people would deliberately mislead a judge?

now he needs to blast them at the ethics hearing where those lawyers will face the real consequences. Now is not the time for a slap on the wrist or some note to file or minimal fine that they will get back with a few billable hours.

    NotSoFriendlyGrizzly in reply to buck61. | July 9, 2021 at 5:58 pm

    If the lawyers arguing the case were not aware of the lie by the schoolcity, then I highly doubt there will be an ethics hearing. Admonishment by the judge in open court? Sure. But actual punishment for the attorneys? Highly doubtful.

Interesting. Not sure what to make of it because I don’t hold much hope on getting a good outcome on anything in the NorthEast, but interesting nonethess.

rabid wombat | July 9, 2021 at 5:04 pm

Hopefully repercussions for all offending parties more than Klinesmith got….

On the prior post this morning – I stated that it is unlikely that the would reverse his opinion (highly unlikely to reverse his opinion) since it is very rare for such an event to occur.

I happy to admit I was wrong.

That being said, the question no becomes a procedural issue. Does the judge have the legal authority to reverse and/or withdrawal his opinion after the expiration of the statutory deadline for when an opinion becomes final under Federal law, or after the deadline for filing an appeal or after an appeal has been filed.

clearly the judge has the moral authority. However, procedural rules can get quite sticky ( and may limit the judge’s authority to act).

    Ben Kent in reply to Joe-dallas. | July 9, 2021 at 5:49 pm

    Joe – Especially powerful decision since the judge said it is the first time he’s reversed himself in over 25 years on the bench. There should be serious repercussions for all found to be involved in this debacle. Send a message that this behavior will not be tolerated in a country that depends upon the rule of law.

    Parents now have to wonder – if they would lie to a Judge – what would these despicable people NOT lie to you about ?

    Publius_2020 in reply to Joe-dallas. | July 10, 2021 at 12:18 am

    … an appeal was filed, so the case is still active. The judge cannot modify the judgment (due to the pending appeal), but he can do so after remand from the Circuit. The question on the table right now is whether he will tell the Circuit that he intends to modify the judgment.

Should he find enough of an issue to punish the lawyers, will he face revocation of his license to practice?

I would guess the judge will be referring the attorneys for discipline, and they may be barred from practicing in that district by the federal courts. I’ve seen federal judges refer attorneys for far less than this.

I recall a good deal of crowing about a certain attorney being disciplined by NY for making misleading statements.

I feel certain all those media outlets and individuals clutching pearls in that example will soon be calling for even greater sanctions against the attorneys here and their clients, who seem to have deliberately mislead the CT.

He might legally be too late to withdraw his opinion, but I should think that his input to the appeals court is going to carry a lot of weight, just as a prosecutor’s withdrawal of charges upon finding they were based on false information should.

This is one judge possessing integrity. Next up — sanctions and referral for Bar discipline, for any attorneys who participated in perpetrating a fraud upon the court.

    guyjones in reply to guyjones. | July 9, 2021 at 7:26 pm

    And, of course, not only was a fraud perpetrated upon the court, but, the plaintiffs and their attorneys were denied evidence to which they were entitled, via concealment by the defendants. I forgot to mention that part.

The appeals court ought to immediately remand the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding proceedings.

Publius_2020 | July 9, 2021 at 9:56 pm

Technically “withdrawing the opinion” doesn’t actually do anything here.

The operative document in the case is the final order or judgment, not the opinion. The opinion is merely the rationale for the order or judgment. The appeal is taken from the final order or judgment, not the opinion.

So what the judge has done is remove his written commentary explaining his decision, but not the decision itself. Hence, the “further briefing” would appear to be fairly significant here.

The plaintiffs’ motion was to vacate the judgment under Rule 60, a motion that cannot be granted due to the pending appeal. Plaintiffs asked for a Rule 62.1 indicative ruling in which the Court would say, in effect, that it intends to grant the Rule 60 motion once the Court of Appeal remands. That decision has not actually been made yet. The briefing (30 days out) will focus on that question. (Defendants likely will argue that the discovered emails should not change the result.)

Bottom line: the preview from the bench seems favorable, but the real decision has yet to come.

Is this the first time in American history that a judge admitted error? How refreshing.

My daughter just graduated from BLS 2 weeks ago and TG she’s done. I can’t believe anyone in good faith would think this lottery system would work anyway. BLS is hyper competitive and has all these kids who want to get into MIT and the Ivy’s and already has a 30-40% attrition rate in the first 2 years. When they have their first orientation for the incoming class of 7th graders the first thing they tell the kids is look at the person to the left of you and at the person to the right of you. In a year and a half one of you won’t be here. I’m sure they somehow think they’re going to change that but it’s one place that still is a meritocracy and bringing in kids who have no business being there is not going to work.

    jimB in reply to bandit. | July 12, 2021 at 5:08 pm

    Many years ago (1957, to be precise) in my first day in Georgetown Law we were given that same admonition. It was correct. My graduating class in 1960 was less than 67% of those who started out together. Rigorous but necessary. Not the practice nowadays. Even comments about poor performance of students got an adjunct dismissed. We flee from reality.

Retired in Chicago | July 10, 2021 at 11:39 pm

to use the judge’s own words against him, I think the Judge lost personal and professional standing. he should be disbarred. clearly, he is biased and you got to wonder what else did his bias affect his opinion on. a biased judge cannot properly judge.

“The opinion entered in this case is withdrawn on the ground the court is satisfied it is factually inaccurate in certain material effects.”

Now do the election.

It is human nature to tune-out certain views without in-depth examination and to accept the conventional wisdom. For example, one would assume without a deep dive into the facts that people who are fighting against discrimination would not practice discrimination. In general, when deciding a 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, one assumes all facts in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Mentally, this is a difficult thing to do because it is hard to accept a factual world view that is contrary to the judge’s own belief system. I appreciate the judge’s honesty in admitting his mistake.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend