Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/237792110/Vouchers-Joint-Resp-to-Emerg-Motion-Final-2
Timestamp: 2016-08-28 19:19:18
Document Index: 709821602

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 4', '§ 8', '§ 115', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 115', '§ 8', '§ 4']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreNo.304P14 TENTH DISTRICT SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ************************************************* ALICE HART, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. Defendants-Appellants, and CYNTHIA PERRY, et al. Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. )
From Wake County No. 13-CVS-16771 REV. ROBERT RICHARDSON, III, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. Defendants-Appellants, and CYNTHIA PERRY, et al. Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. )
From Wake County No. 13-CVS-16484 ************************************************* PAINTIFFS’ OINT ESPONSE TO INTEENOS’ OTION FO TEPOA STA ************************************************* - i - INDEX TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES ............................. ii STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 7 CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 12 VERIFICATION ..................................................................... 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................ 15 APPENDIX: Letter from Kelley to Tillis and Berger, 31 March 2014 ............................................... App. pp. 1-2 Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of J oanna King ............... App. pp. 3 Exhibit 3 to Affidavit of Michael Ward ............ App. pp. 4 Affidavit of Elizabeth V. McDuffie ............... App. pp. 5-8 Exhibit 3 to J oint Motion by Richardson and Hart Plaintiffs for Modification of Scheduling Order .............................................. App. pp. 9 - ii - TAE OF CASES AND ATOITIES C P N.C. Const. Art. IX, § 6 ............................................................ 11 1868 Const. Art. IX, § 4 ........................................................... 11 S Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013, 2013 Session Law 360, § 8.29 .............................. 2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-562.7(a) .............................................. 10 Session Law 2014-100, § 8.25(e) ............................................. 10 N.C. R. App. P. 23 ...................................................................... 8 N.C. R. Civ. P. 58 ....................................................................... 8 No. 304P14 TENTH DISTRICT SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ************************************************* ALICE HART, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. Defendants-Appellants, and CYNTHIA PERRY, et al. Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. )
From Wake County No. 13-CVS-16484 ************************************************* PAINTIFFS’ OINT ESPONSE TO INTEENOS’ OTION FO TEPOA STA ************************************************* - 2 - The Hart plaintiffs and the Richardson plaintiffs (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) submit the following joint response to defendant-intervenors’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay, filed on 25 August 2014. Plaintiffs will file a response to intervenors’ Petition for Supersedeas by no later than 5:00 p.m. on 28 August 2014. STATEENT OF TE FACTS In 2013, the General Assembly enacted legislation providing taxpayer-
funded vouchers for students to attend private elementary and secondary schools. Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013, 2013 Session Law 360, § 8.29 (the “Voucher Legislation”). In December 2013, the Hart plaintiffs and the Richardson plaintiffs filed separate actions in Wake County Superior Court asserting that the Voucher Legislation violates several provisions of the North Carolina Constitution (Hart v. State, 13-CVS-16771, and Richardson v. State, 13-CVS-16484, respectively). On 13 J anuary 2014, plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunction. On 21 J anuary 2014, in response to a joint request by all parties, Senior Resident Superior Court J udge Donald W. Stephens appointed J udge Robert H. Hobgood to preside over all proceedings in both cases, pursuant to Local Rule 2.2. On 30 J anuary 2014, two parents applying for vouchers, Cynthia Perry and Gennell Curry - 3 - (the “parent intervenors”), filed a motion to intervene as defendants, which the trial court granted. On 28 February 2014, after full briefing and argument by all parties, J udge Hobgood entered orders granting plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and enjoined all implementation of the voucher program. At this point, the applicant lottery had not yet been conducted and no voucher recipients had been selected. On 3 March 2014, the parent intervenors – but not defendants State of North Carolina, State Education Assistance Authority, and State Board of Education (the “State defendants”) – filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. J udge Hobgood denied the motion to stay on 12 March 2014. On 17 March 2014, the parent intervenors – but not the State defendants – filed a notice of appeal of the orders granting the preliminary injunction. In a letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives Thom Tillis and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Phil Berger dated March 31, 2014, Chief Deputy Attorney General Grayson G. Kelley explained why the Attorney General’s Office elected not to appeal the preliminary injunction orders that the trial court issued on 28 February 2014: There are reporting and information exchange requirements that impose responsibilities on the Authority, the Department of Public Instruction and schools accepting students receiving scholarship grants. These are substantial responsibilities involving personnel time - 4 - and costs that may be wasted should the courts ultimately determine the legislation to be unconstitutional. For these reasons, we concluded that the more prudent course would be to forgo challenging the preliminary injunctions and move forward to defend the lawsuits on the merits. Letter from Kelley to Tillis and Berger, 31 March 2014 (emphasis added) (Appendix (“App.”) pp. 1-2). On appeal, the parent intervenors moved the Court of Appeals for a temporary stay of the preliminary injunction and petitioned for a writ of supersedeas. The Court of Appeals denied the motion on 19 March 2014 and denied the petition on 2 April 2014. The parent intervenors filed a petition for writ of supersedeas in this Court and a motion for temporary stay of the preliminary injunction. Six weeks later, the Court granted the intervenors’ requests on 14 May 2014 in one-line orders without addressing the merits of the case. The parties continued proceedings in the trial court. In response to a joint request from all parties, J udge Hobgood entered a Scheduling Order on 9 J une 2014, setting a 22 August 2014 date for hearing cross motions for summary - 5 - judgment.
All parties requested a compressed briefing schedule for the express purpose of facilitating consideration of the motions before the beginning of the school year. On 23 J une 2014, Speaker Tillis and President Pro Tempore Berger moved to intervene as defendants, which the trial court granted. From the date these actions were filed in December 2013 through the date the trial court entered the Scheduling Order on 9 J une 2014, the website of defendant State Education Assistance Authority (“SEAA”) consistently stated that S was the date on which “Funds disbursed to nonpublic schools for the fall semester.” Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of J oanna King (App. p. 3); Exhibit 3 to Affidavit of Michael Ward (App. p. 4). On 20 February 2014, the State defendants filed the affidavit of Elizabeth V. McDuffie, the SEAA director responsible for implementation of the voucher program. McDuffie attested: “The Authority anticipates that it will begin disbursing funds for the Opportunity Scholarship Grants Program on S .” Affidavit of Elizabeth V. McDuffie, ¶ 12 (App. p. 7). After the trial court entered its scheduling order, on 20 J une 2014, the SEAA amended the timeline on its website, changing the first date for “funds delivered to nonpublic schools” to A , one week before the date set for the 1
To accommodate his schedule, the court later changed the hearing date to 19 August 2014. - 6 - summary judgment hearing. Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ J oint Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order (App. p. 9). The State defendants have never explained why it was necessary to accelerate the date for disbursement of voucher funds. After engaging in discovery, all parties filed motions for summary judgment on 7 J uly 2014. In open court on 21 August 2014, J udge Hobgood orally granted plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, denied defendants’ summary judgment motions, and entered a permanent injunction barring the State defendants from any further implementation of the voucher program, effective 10:23 a.m. As of the issuance of the trial court’s ruling, no State funds for vouchers had been disbursed. No parent or private school has received any voucher funds. At the conclusion of the hearing on August 21, J udge Hobgood directed plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a proposed order. On 25 August 2014 at 3:00 p.m., plaintiffs’ counsel sent a 4-page proposed order to defendants’ counsel, requesting their comments by noon today (August 26). Plaintiffs’ will submit a proposed order to J udge Hobgood this afternoon.. Immediately after the trial court issued its ruling, parent intervenors moved the court to stay the injunction pending appeal. The court denied that motion. On 22 August 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the “order and final judgment rendered” on 21 August 2014. - 7 - On August 22, defendants also moved the Court of Appeals for a temporary stay of the permanent injunction and petitioned for a writ of supersedeas. Because the appeal was premature before the entry of a written order, the Court of Appeals denied the requests on 25 August 2014 without prejudice to re-filing upon entry of the trial court’s order. Rather than re-file with the Court of Appeals, intervenors – but not the State defendants – requested from this Court a temporary stay and writ of supersedeas. AENT This response is limited to intervenors’ Motion for Temporary Stay, in which they request an order temporarily staying enforcement of the permanent injunction until this Court determines whether it will issue a writ of supersedeas. (Defs.’ Mot. at 9.) Plaintiffs will file a response to intervenors’ Petition for Supersedeas by no later than 5:00 p.m. on 28 August 2014. In that response, plaintiffs will explain why they will succeed on appeal and why they will be irreparably harmed if taxpayer funds are expended pursuant to the Voucher Legislation during the appeal. Intervenors ask this Court to enter a temporary stay even before they have filed a proper notice of appeal,
before the Court of Appeals has ruled on their 2
Defendants improperly filed a notice of appeal before a final judgment was - 8 - supersedeas petition,
and before plaintiffs have had the opportunity to address their petition for supersedeas. They implore the Court to put millions of taxpayer dollars at risk by turning on the spigot of public funds almost a month before the SEAA’s long-planned disbursement schedule, nullifying a decision by a senior trial judge entered after months of discovery and consideration of hundreds of pages of evidence and briefs. Given the extraordinary relief requested by intervenors, they bear the burden of producing clear, unequivocal evidence that they will suffer imminent harm if the trial court’s injunction is not immediately stayed. Intervenors have not and cannot meet this burden. Intervenors have produced no evidence of any prejudice that would result if this Court waits until plaintiffs’ response to the supersedeas petition before deciding whether to grant the motion. They have failed to produce evidence of a single student who would be required to withdraw from a private school if voucher funds are not disbursed immediately. Moreover, even if some prospective voucher recipients would be unable to attend a private school now, continued attendance at entered by the trial court. See N.C. R. Civ. P. 58 (requiring entry of judgment to be a document signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of court). No order has been filed in the trial court. 3
Intervenors have not complied with Appellate Rule 23(a)(2) because the Court of Appeals is required to decide a supersedeas petition before a party may bring the petition before this Court. The Court of Appeals has not so decided here; it simply deferred ruling until the trial court enters its order. - 9 - a free public school and receipt of an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, as required by the Constitution, is not a recognized form of harm. No prejudice would result from following the ordinary appellate process. The SEAA originally intended to disburse voucher funds in mid-September 2014. All private schools enrolling voucher recipients presumably found the SEAA’s original disbursement schedule acceptable, and thus would have no reason to remove a voucher recipient from its program if the trial court’s injunction remains in place for several more days. And all private schools have been aware that the Voucher Legislation faces a constitutional challenge that could result in a halt to the disbursement of voucher funds. Intervenors have produced no evidence demonstrating why allowing the normal appellate process to proceed – which would permit a decision on the supersedeas petition well before the original disbursement date – would now result in imminent harm sufficient to justify the extraordinary relief they seek from this Court. Any possible prejudice from the timing of the trial court’s injunction is due to the parent intervenors’ decision to seek a stay of the preliminary injunction. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction on 28 February 2014. While the Attorney General’s Office was properly concerned about the consequences for students, parents, schools, and taxpayers if the OSP were implemented before a - 10 - final judgment on the merits, and thus did not appeal the interlocutory order, the intervenors had no such concerns. Any uncertainty due to imposition of the permanent injunction on 21 August 2014 would have been avoided if the preliminary injunction had been left in place. Intervenors contend that the Court’s prior ruling granting the request to stay the preliminary injunction somehow determines the merits of these cases. (Defs.’ Mot. at 5.) The Court’s orders, however, did not decide the merits of the constitutional claims or the propriety of staying the permanent injunction. Issuing a stay of the preliminary injunction was simply a determination that the voucher program should proceed until a final judgment on the merits, based on the evidence obtained in discovery.
Now that the trial court has considered the evidence and granted plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment on all their constitutional claims, a permanent injunction is necessary and proper. This case raises profoundly important questions of constitutional law. Since 1868, when our Constitution first declared that state funds for education shall be 4
Plaintiffs’ lawsuits are based on multiple provisions of the State Constitution – Article I, Sections 15 and 19; Article V, Section 2; and Article IX, Sections 2, 5, and 6. The trial court’s preliminary injunction order was based solely on plaintiffs’ claims under Article IX, Section 6. The General Assembly itself recognized that the original legislation was constitutionally suspect and recently repealed the provision (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-562.7(a)) that required deductions from public school district funding to account for voucher awards, mooting one of plaintiffs’ claims under Article IX, Section 6. Session Law 2014-100, § 8.25(e). - 11 - “faithfully appropriated” to support “a system of Free Public Schools and for no other purposes or uses whatsoever,” 1868 Const. Art. IX, § 4,
the State has abided by that command and prohibition. From 1868 until it enacted the Voucher Legislation in 2013, the General Assembly complied with the public purpose clause, and never appropriated taxpayer funds to unaccountable private schools. J udge Hobgood, one of the most experienced and respected judges in North Carolina, considered hundreds of pages of evidence and briefs, followed by three and a half hours of oral argument. The only court to have fully explored and decided these issues concluded that the Voucher Legislation violates the North Carolina Constitution beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court should not nullify the trial court’s injunction without allowing the Court of Appeals to first consider the issues. At the very least, this Court should not stay the injunction until it fully considers the issues after receipt of plaintiffs’ prompt response to the supersedeas petition. 5
Carrying forward the same prohibition, current Article IX, Section 6 provides that such funds “shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools.” - 12 - CONCSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that defendants’ motion for temporary stay be denied. Respectfully submitted, this 26th day of August, 2014. PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP Electronically submitted Burton Craige NC Bar No. 9180 1312 Annapolis Dr., Suite 103 Raleigh, NC 27607 Tel: 919-755-1812 Fax: 919-942-5256 Email: bcraige@pathlaw.com N.C. R. App. P. 33(b) Certification: I certify that all of the attorneys listed below have authorized me to list their names on this document as if they had personally signed it. Narendra K. Ghosh NC Bar No. 37649 PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP 100 Europa Dr., Suite 250 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Tel: 919-942-5200 Fax: 919-942-5256 Email: nghosh@pathlaw.com Christine Bischoff NC Bar No. 41792 Carlene McNulty Robert F. Orr N.C. State Bar No. 6798 rorr@poyners.com Edwin M. Speas, J r. N.C. State Bar No. 4112 espeas@poynerspruill.com Carrie V. McMillan N.C. State Bar No. 46257 cmcmillan@poynerspruill.com POYNER SPRUILL LLP P.O. Box 1801 Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 - 13 - NC Bar No. 12488 NORTH CAROLINA J USTICE CENTER 224 South Dawson Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel: 919.856.3195 Tel: 919.856.2161 Fax: 919.856.2175 Email: christine@ncjustice.org Email: carlene@ncjustice.org Counsel for Hart Plaintiffs Telephone: 919.783.6400 Facsimile: 919.783.1075 Counsel for all Richardson Plaintiffs, except Chatham County Board of Education, Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education, Board of Trustees for Roanoke Rapids Graded School District, and Granville County Board of Education Deborah R. Stagner N.C. State Bar No. 24543 dstagner@tharringtonsmith.com Kenneth A. Soo N.C. State Bar No. 16270 ksoo@tharringtonsmith.com P.O. Box 1151 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: 919.821.4711 Facsimile: 919.829.1583 Counsel for Chatham County Board of Education, Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education, Board of Trustees for Roanoke Rapids Graded School District, and Granville County Board of Education - 14 -
- 15 - CETIFICATE OF SEICE The undersigned counsel for the plaintiffs hereby certifies that a copy of Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Temporary Stay was sent via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Lauren M. Clemmons Special Deputy Attorney General NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Laura Crumpler Special Deputy Attorney General NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE 114 W. Edenton Street P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Melissa L. Trippe Special Deputy Attorney General NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Tiffany Y. Lucas Assistant Attorney General NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Attorneys for all State Defendants Attorneys for the North Carolina. State Board of Education Robert T. Numbers, II WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE P.O. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27602 Noah H. Huffstetler III Stephen D. Martin Nelson Mulls Riley & Scarborough 4140 Parklake Ave., Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27612 Richard D. Komer Renée Flaherty INSTITUTE FOR J USTICE 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Attorneys for Officer Intervenors Attorneys for Parent Intervenors This the 26th day of August, 2014. Electronically submitted Burton Craige CONTENTS OF APPENDIX Letter from Kelley to Tillis and Berger, 31 March 2014…….…..…….App. pp. 1-2 Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of Joanna King……..………………...….….……...App. p. 3 Exhibit 3 to Affidavit of Michael Ward..…………………….…………... App. p. 4 Affidavit of Elizabeth V. McDuffie ………………….………………..App. pp. 5-8 Exhibit 3 to Joint Motion by Richardson and Hart Plaintiffs for Modification of Scheduling Order…….........………………..App p. 9 HC)Y C(J()PEH i\TTC)RNEY GENEfV\L VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Thom Tillis Speaker of the House State of North Carolina Department of Justice PO Box 629 Raleigh, Nortl1 Carolina 27602 March 31, 2014 North Carolina House of Representatives 16 W. Jones Street, Room 2304 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1096 The Honorable Phil Berger President Pro Tempore North Carolina Senate 16 W. Jones Street, Room 2008 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2808 Re: Richardson, et al. v. North Carolina Hart, et al. v. North Carolina Dear Speaker Tillis and President Pro Tempore Berger: REPLY TO: Grayson G. Kelley (919) 716-6400 FAX: (919) 716-0135 The Attorney General has asked me to respond to your letter dated March 28, 2014 expressing your views that an appeal should be taken from the preliminary injunctions entered in the above referenced cases. We are mindful of the General Assembly's interests and the importance of our duty to defend the constitutionality of enacted legislation. For these reasons, litigation decisions in these cases have been made only after careful consideration. As you are aware, the Opportunity Scholarships established by Section 18.29(a) of Session Law 2013-360 are required to be administered by the State Educational Assistance Authority which is authorized to spend up to $400,000 annually for administrative costs. The Authority is directed to award $1 O million in scholarships for the 2014-15 fiscal year through an application and lottery process. Rules and regulations are required to be established for the lottery and for verification of applicant information. There are reporting and information exchange requirements that impose responsibilities on the Authority, the Department of Public Instruction and schools accepting students receiving scholarship grants. These are substantial responsibilities involving personnel time and Appendix Page 1
Honorable Thom Tillis Honorable Phil Berger March 31, 2014 Page 2 costs that may be wasted should the courts ultimately determine the legislation to be unconstitutional. We are also concerned about the potential ramifications for parents, students and schools ifthe legislation is struck down. $10 million expended through an unconstitutional program could raise significant issues, including whether scholarship funds should be repaid. For these reasons, we concluded the more prudent course to follow in this litigation would be to forgo challenging the preliminary injunctions and move forward to defend the lawsuits on the merits. If the courts ultimately uphold the legislation the program can move forward. While your concern about delay is understandable, we believe the consequences if the law is not upheld should be considered. Our attorneys will continue to defend these lawsuits to the best of their ability through our Special Litigation Division and will keep you advised as the cases move through the courts. Appendix Page 2
Opportunity Scholarship Program Timeline (subject to change) 1/13/2014 January 10, 2014 January 21, 2014 February 1, 2014 February 25, 2014 March 3, 2014 March 10, 2014 March 18, 2014 May 1, 2014 March-June July 15, 2014 July 22, 2014 Nonpublic school registration opens Nonpublic school training webinar (recorded for future viewing) Student application opens Student application priority deadline Selection notifi cations to applicants Notification of lottery results to nonpublic schools Program Rules published on the Scholarship webpage Target date for all participating schools to complete registration Verification of information for selected applicants Deadline for applicants to inform SEAA of the nonpublic school in which students will enroll (if unknown at time of application) Nonpublic schools must report the annual tuition/fees expense for each recipient attending their schools August 1, 2014 Fall Semester parent endorsement forms provided to each school August 21, 2014 Parent endorsement forms returned to SEAA for September disbursement September 19, 2014 Funds disbursed to nonpublic schools for the fall semester December 1, 2014 Spring semester parent endorsement forms provided to each school December 19, 2014 Spring semester parent endorsement forms returned to SEAA January 16, 2015 Funds disbursed to the nonpublic schools for the spring semester !f . . ->t.. . Appendix Page 4
Vouchers -- Joint Resp to Emerg Motion -- Final (2) by NC Policy Watch753 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionVouchers -- Joint Resp to Emerg Motion -- Final (2)Vouchers -- Joint Resp to Emerg Motion -- Final (2)Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedForced Conversion Under the Academies Act 2010 Crby emilyanna0820120621 Tort Complaint FINALby Educational FraudCitizenshipby Staedtler F. TriasRULE 138 REQUIREMENTSby Robert Ross Dulay description: tags: miami-fulldecisionby anon-149591PDS 212by Ronel Sayaboc AsuncionRights of Parentsby Ativak BaliNotice of Objection to the 2dDCA Hearing This Cause 2D14-5388by Neil GillespieBihar High Court Relaxation Tet Case Judgementby VIJAY KUMAR HEERSouthern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, Dallas, TX by RogerCroftCitizens Chart for Schoolsby Jersson Juario description: tags: miltrby anon-36099PGCPS_-_Ball-Rice_Complaint_filed_on_May_23_2011by Thalia SandersS. 729by Jeremy GreenH.R.1751 American Dream Actby TomLehnerMetal 2010 Notification Englishby Neelima VermaSb2033 Engrossed Version of School Reform Billby RestoreOKPublicEdMcArdle Lawsuitby Journal StarGlobal South African News Wrap 18 January 2013by glosafcause and effect.docxby tagoreyGrover Duvall Legacy-Member Application 2012-2013by Bob BarnesTeacher Lifestyle Choice and Out of School Conductby tsmallwood7Public Noticeby vainandaArticle 2180 Digestby Jenifer PaglinawanDOJ/DOE Letter on Affirmative Actionby HuffPost PoliticsUTKCD Constitutionby UTKcollegedemsAmerican Government(2pg)by Kevin K Mburu10. in Re Munesesby Timothy WilsonSimilar to Vouchers -- Joint Resp to Emerg Motion -- Final (2)Forced Conversion Under the Academies Act 2010 Cr20120621 Tort Complaint FINALCitizenshipRULE 138 REQUIREMENTS descriptionPDS 212Rights of ParentsNotice of Objection to the 2dDCA Hearing This Cause 2D14-5388Bihar High Court Relaxation Tet Case JudgementSouthern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, Dallas, TX Citizens Chart for Schools descriptionPGCPS_-_Ball-Rice_Complaint_filed_on_May_23_2011S. 729H.R.1751 American Dream ActMetal 2010 Notification EnglishSb2033 Engrossed Version of School Reform BillMcArdle LawsuitGlobal South African News Wrap 18 January 2013cause and effect.docxGrover Duvall Legacy-Member Application 2012-2013Teacher Lifestyle Choice and Out of School ConductPublic NoticeArticle 2180 DigestDOJ/DOE Letter on Affirmative ActionUTKCD ConstitutionAmerican Government(2pg)10. in Re MunesesSuperintendents' LetterFL Dept of Edu 03-12LegislativeUpdate