School Committee’s Opposition to Request for Direct Appellate Review

The Attorney General admits in an earlier filing that the School Committee has no legal responsibility to oppose our request for direct appellate review (“Due to financial considerations the Ipswich School Committee has not yet decided whether to authorize its counsel to file a brief on its behalf”).  The filing below seems to imply that they in fact made the decision to divert money from the school budget to fight a process that would settle the matter sooner than later.

Appeals – SC – 121001 – Opposition to Request for DAR

Advertisements

Extension Request from the Attorney General & School Committee

Apparently following in the footsteps of the Feoffees, now come the Attorney General and (most inexplicably) the School Committee asking for more time to reply to the petition for Direct Appellate Review.

Appeals – AG – 120904 – Request for Extension To File Response to DAR

Appeals – SC – 120904 – Request for Extension to File Response to DAR

Joint Status Report

This is a joint status report of the Feoffees, the School Committee and the AG in which they complain about our appeal and ask the court to order an expedited briefing and hearing schedule, even though it was the School Committee’s own motion to compel that was prolonging the Probate Court action.  As reported in the previous post, the Appeals Court granted our stay of the appeal until July 24th so that the Probate Court could assembly the record.

Appeals – Joint – 120525 – Status Report

School Committee Opposition to Motion to Stay

Your tax dollars hard at work, regardless of what the Selectmen think.  More than just “settling” the Probate Court case, the School Committee is now sending money to its lawyers so that they can craft arguments that are diametrically opposed to the arguments they made with the first $700,000 of taxpayer money.

Appeals – SC – 120222 – Opposition to Motion to Stay

 

The School Committee wants it both ways

At the January 5th, 2012 School Committee meeting, Chairman Loeb made the comments in the audio clip below, finishing up by saying that “The Judge was leaning on counsel to have discussions.”

Now comes the School Committee counsel, in a joint affidavit with the counsel for the Feoffees, stating before the Appeals Court that “Any statement that the trial judge, in any way, applied any “pressure” or coercion on the parties to settle is false.”

Appeals – Joint – 120221 – Affidavit

So, the School Committee is presenting one picture to the public to explain their actions while their lawyer presents a completely different picture to the Appeals Court.  Who should the citizens believe?