"Many of our nations' most cherished notions of justice and equality have acquired the force of law because of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Funds, Inc."
As I read the brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the HCS desegregation lawsuit, I wonder how an organization steeped in civil rights law could be so out of step with the Plaintiffs, as outlined by the United States Department of Justice in their motion opposing the school districts rezoning plan? Is this a case of divide and conquer?
Wardynski and the BOE, enabled by the media, insist the NAACP LDF sides with them against the Department of Justice. I have read the BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS REGARDING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR APPROVAL OF DEFENDANTS STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN page by page, line by line, footnote by footnote, and it is my understanding the special counsel for the Plaintiffs (Norman J. Chachkin) is not opposed to the new school construction plan because of penalties the BOE would incur if they don't start construction of the new Grissom and the new Johnson High Schools by a certain date due to Arbitrage (Page 6-7 and footnotes page 6). The Plaintiffs attorney (NAACP LDF) reserved the right to oppose the rezoning plan and further litigate whatever issues he deems are in the best interest of the class.
The motion filed by HCS request the courts approval, and DOJ agreement, to build a new Johnson High School and a new Grissom High School (footnotes page 4). The court did not approve, and the DOJ did not agree to closing Johnson, renaming Johnson High School , or combining Butler High School with Johnson High School. In other words, the LDF has not dismissed this lawsuit.
That said, I can see how some interpret the motion as the NAACP LDF siding with the school board, and that is what Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Norman J. Chachkin and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (not to be confused with the NAACP) need to clarify publicly and in plain English.
Counsel spoke for the Plaintiffs without speaking to the Plaintiffs, and therein lies the problem. Chachkin justifies his actions by noting he has a special obligation granted to him by the court in rule 203, as amended in 2003, to protect the rights of the class. The class needs to know if he is with the class or, with the school district. Should the court revisit the decision to name a specific counsel/ firm as special counsel for the Plaintiffs?
I'm just saying..... the NAACP Legal Defense Fund has some splannin' to do.
Norman J.Chachkin, Attorney for Plaintiffs
Sherrilyn A. Ifill
President and Director-Counsel NAACP LDF
Chief Development Officer