Thank God that there are more Californians fighting against the corrupting, anti-Christian, anti-Judeo Christian ethic on which this country was founded.
Islam is a cult, and a dangerous cult at that.
It's wrong for left-wing ideologues to push their agenda onto our students, and to prevent parents from standing up to this destructive agenda.
I am glad for the parents and the attorneys who are fighting back against CAIR and the arrogant San Diego School Board!
|
In the matter of FCDF v. San Diego Unified School District, SDUSD has been expedited by the Court to produce "ALL DOCUMENTS in the POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF DEFENDANTS CONCERNING CAIR and its employees, agents, and representatives sent or from Defendants since July 25, 2017, which concern the “ANTI-ISLAMOPHOBIA INITIATIVE” and/or the “POLICY”, and including the "ISLAMOPHOBIA TOOLKIT".
As you will recall, the July rescision of the policy by the SDUSD Board of Trustees was a sham and evidence shows the Superintendent continued her association with CAIR. The Court, in a 14-page opinion, found the plaintiffs "established a reasonable need for their expedited discovery" in their Preliminary Injunction.
These records are to be submitted by April 9, 2018, which is the deadline for the district to file an opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing date on the motion (no oral argument) is scheduled for April 23, 2018.
Mary Baker, CQE SD
|
|
|
FEDERAL JUDGE: SAN DIEGO UNIFIED MUST PRODUCE RECORDS OF ALLEGED COLLUSION WITH ISLAMIC ORGANIZATION
Families Have “Reasonable Need” for Expedited Records in Light of Request to Shut Down School District’s Supposedly Rescinded “Anti-Islamophobia Initiative”
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Contact: Daniel J. Piedra, Exec. Dir.,
Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund
858-759-9948; dpiedra@fcdflegal.org
SAN DIEGO, Calif. – Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) must hand over critical evidence to five families as part of their legal challenge to the district’s “Anti-Islamophobia Initiative.” The program, which was enacted last April, singles out Muslim students for special protections and empowers a controversial Islamic advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), to vet and revise school curriculum. The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) is representing the five families in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed last May. Two local organizations, San Diego Asian Americans for Equality Foundation and Citizens for Quality Education San Diego, are also plaintiffs in the suit.
On February 20, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with over 200 pages of supporting evidence, asking the Court to stop SDUSD’s superintendent and school board from further implementing the initiative. The school board claimed to have rescinded the program at a public board meeting in July 2017, but extensive evidence uncovered over the past several months shows that the alleged cancellation of the policy was a “sham.” To prepare for the tentative hearing on the preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs now seek communications and other records that took place after the July 2017 board meeting.
Federal procedural court rules typically prohibit early “discovery” until the parties’ attorneys meet to set up a corresponding timeline. However, a court can grant a request for expedited discovery if there is a showing of “good cause.” In this case, the Court found that access to additional SDUSD records is “in the interest of the administration justice” to “more fully develop the factual record on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.”
According to the Court’s 14-page opinion:
Whether or not Defendants’ rescission was a “sham,” facts pertaining to the District’s conduct after the public rescission of the Policy may be relevant to the question of whether Plaintiffs face ongoing irreparable harm from a policy that allegedly violates the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Plaintiffs’ assertion of irreparable harm in their preliminary injunction motion stems from the existence and implementation of an allegedly unconstitutional policy.
Charles LiMandri, FCDF’s president and chief counsel, said:
The Court’s ruling affirms that there are significant First Amendment questions in this case. It is only fair that our clients have the necessary evidence to vindicate their constitutional rights. Therefore, we are pleased the Court recognizes the potential irreparable harm San Diego Unified has caused these families.
As part of its ruling, the Court narrowed down several proposed records requests, finding that they were “overly broad.” This included narrowing names and documents to those referenced in the preliminary injunction motion and tailoring the requests to focus exclusively on the Anti-Islamophobia Initiative’s policies and subsequent iterations, not to the case at large.
SDUSD must produce the records by April 9, 2018, which is the deadline for the district to file an opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing date on the motion is scheduled for April 23, 2018.
# # #
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment