what is our next step to keep the libraries open? - Melani
Melani, As citizens of Philadelphia, we are co-plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against defendant, Michael Nutter. A judge sustained our attorney’s argument that the defendant’s plans to permanently close libraries violated the separation of powers between executive and legislative branches according to our local constitution or charter. The court outlined, in the initial decree, that defendant, M. Nutter, could either comply with city law or could appeal the ruling and challenge the applicable law. Note: Co-plaintiff, Councilman Green, immediately informed the media that the defendant could ask city council for a special session, if he chose to comply with the city law and the appropriate legal separation of powers. The defendant was accorded all legal and acceptable remedies in the court order and without delay. Defendant, M. Nutter, engaged in retaliation against the plaintiffs, the people of Philadelphia, by forcing the staff transfers from the 11 libraries in question as of January 2nd, 2009. This retaliation causes irreparable harm to the entire Philadelphia Free Library System. Numerous commitments between library staff and public schools, community organizations, and individual program elements have been destroyed for the 11 branches in question, as well as causing serious harm to individual staff and programs city wide. Defendant’s argument that a library is simply a building did not prevail in the courts decision. Defendant can not justify ignorance of the court order sustaining our argument of the interdependence of staff and programs to the essential library services of any branch, which denial of, was defendant’s core argument during deliberations. By engaging in clear and serious retaliation against plaintiffs rather than complying with the law in question or exercising defendant’s appropriate legal appeals, I submit that this defendant is in contempt of the court’s ruling. Melani, will you join me in bringing legal action against defendant, M. Nutter, for engaging in retaliation against the people of Philadelphia in contempt of the order for injunctatory relief. The judge sustained our argument that defendant did not have the right to unilaterally close the branches, which are filled with various ongoing programs. Transferring existing staff on January 2nd, 2009 caused a de facto closing of all of these programs, which are part of the essence of branch library services to the community. Proceeding with the full closure plan, except for an actual lock-down, is not a justifiable action for defendant, who is ignoring the legal and appropriate remedies for his claims. The retaliatory action against plaintiffs further causes irreparable harm to these programs and libraries throughout the entire city. See the appropriate standards for finding M. Nutter in contempt. Copied from wikipedia A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt: • existence of a lawful order • the contemnor's knowledge of the order • the contemnor's ability to comply • the contemnor's failure to comply ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
