LTISD Info

“Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from Federal Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts, and the U.S. Party/Case Index via the Internet.”

PACER is a resource that for a small cost, you can access court filings such as the current legal proceedings against the LTISD.

I thought it might be helpful to let you see some of the documents filed by the district in their lawsuit against the Meadows regarding the violation of parental rights. The district is trying to twist the truth into a story about student safety and the district’s erroneous and questionable reliance on the Raptor system. Remember Raptor, that money sink that has questionable value other than to enrich the vendor and some lobbyists?

Oh, the district’s lawyers and part time lobbyists are a real interesting bunch. By the way, Chris Gilbert is going to be represent the district in court again. By the way, I wonder if Chris is aware of what a 501(c)(3) is?

The district’s lawyers filed a “Motion in Limine” on August 11. A “Motion in Limine” is “a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial.“

After reading the district’s Motion in Limine, they don’t want anyone to mention almost anything related to the case! Let’s take a look at some of the 52 items they think may prejudice the jury:

… The following matters should not be raised, mentioned or discussed in the presence of the jury for any purpose:

1. RESOURCES OF DEFENDANT The financial condition or net worth of Defendant, the fact that the Defendant may have access to substantial financial resources or the fact that Defendant derives its funds from public dollars.  This evidence is not probative of any fact that is of consequence to this lawsuit. Mention of the financial condition or status of Lake Travis ISD would only serve to inflame and unfairly prejudice the jury in favor of awarding money to the Plaintiffs.  See FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.
2. DEFENDANT’S NET WORTH Any references, testimony or argument comparing the size of Plaintiffs’ claims to Lake Travis ISD’s net worth.  Evidence of or comments regarding net worth in any context is unduly prejudicial and will undoubtedly influence the jury’s deliberations on claims where this evidence is not relevant. FED. R. EVID. 402 and 403.

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know that the school district has infinitely more resources and the parents and tax payers suing them for alleged wrongful acts.

4. CLIENTS SERVED BY LAW FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS The Plaintiffs also should be prohibited from mentioning or suggesting that the law firm of Thompson & Horton LLP: (1) specializes in representing the management of companies or large companies, (2) specializes in the defense of lawsuits involving school districts or colleges, or (3)  has used numerous attorneys or any specific number of attorneys or received any amount of fees in handling this case.  Such comments are inherently prejudicial against the Defendant. See FED. R. EVID. 403; see also Bufford v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 994 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1993) (when a party makes unsupported, irresponsible attack on integrity of opposing counsel, it is the duty of the trial court to suppress it, quickly and unqualifiedly); Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 980 F.2d 171, 206-209 (3d Cir. 1992) (trial counsel exceeded the bounds of propriety in suggesting that defense counsel had a motive to misrepresent the evidence because it was paid $1.1 million in legal fees).

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know that Thompson & Horton are lobbyists. When they are not being paid by school districts to persecute parents and tax payers, they are taking your school tax dollars to lobby your government!

8. OTHER LAWSUITS AND CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT Any and all references to any other allegations, claims or lawsuits against Lake Travis ISD which have been filed in the past or which are currently pending, including any adverse verdicts or findings against the District. Such matters would be wholly irrelevant to any issue in this case and would be mentioned to the jury solely for the purpose of prejudicing the jury by the existence of collateral matters, the merits of which should not be litigated in this lawsuit.  The existence of any such suits, claims or accusations would be meaningless, irrelevant, immaterial to any issue in this case, and the allegations of claimants in such suits would be hearsay.  Such matters are irrelevant and immaterial to any of the issues in this case; the probative value, if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury.  FED. R. EVID. 402 and 403.

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know about how the district spends your tax dollars in their many wasted legal proceedings.
  

12. COSTS OF DEFENSE The amount of attorney’s fees paid by Defendant to counsel in connection with this lawsuit or for any other purpose.  These facts are not probative and are wholly irrelevant to any issue of consequence to this lawsuit, and only would serve to inflame or unfairly prejudice the jury against the Defendant and its attorneys. See FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.

• We wouldn’t want anyone to know about how easy it would have been to fix the problem causing this law suit. But that would result in the district actually doing something about their screw ups.

22. MOTION IN LIMINE Any reference to the filing of this Motion, the presentation of this Motion, or the determination by the Court of this Motion, or any other motion the purpose of which was to seek the exclusion of matters from evidence.  In this connection, the Defendant moves that the Plaintiffs be instructed not to suggest to the jury by argument or otherwise that Defendant has sought to exclude from proof any matter bearing on the issues in this case or the rights of the parties to this suit. Such matters are inherently prejudicial in that they suggest or infer that the Defendant has sought to exclude proof of matters damaging to the Defendant’s case.  See FED. R. EVID. 403.

• Let’s not remind anyone that this Motion in Limine has been filed and these outrageous requests have been made!

31. USE OF INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE TO APPEAL TO THE JURY’S EMOTIONS AND APPEALS TO THE “GOLDEN RULE” Any suggestion or argument that the jury should “send a message,” that the jury should put themselves in the Plaintiffs’ place or “walk a mile in the Plaintiffs’ shoes,” that the jury should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or invoke the “Golden Rule” or other such inflammatory and prejudicial suggestions.

• Oh, this one is a good one. Let’s not have the jury consider anyone’s position other than the district’s.

32, “DAVID VS. GOLIATH” COMMENTS Any reference that Plaintiffs are merely individuals up against a powerful educational institution. Such argument or inference is wholly irrelevant to any issue of consequence in this lawsuit and could only serve to inflame or unfairly prejudice the jury against Defendant and its attorneys.  See FED. R. EVID. 402 and 403.

• Again, we wouldn’t want the jury to consider the fact that the district is Goliath and the defendant is “David.” I wonder if the bunch at Thompson & Horton know that not only did David kill Goliath, but David cut off Goliath’s head!

  ⁴⁵ David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. ⁴⁶ This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. ⁴⁷ All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

  ⁴⁸ As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. ⁴⁹ Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

  ⁵⁰ So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

  ⁵¹ David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.
  -1 Samuel 17:45-51 (New International Version)

37. LIABILITY INSURANCE Any reference or argument that Lake Travis ISD has an insurance agreement that would cover its payment of part or all of the judgment in this case.  Evidence that an individual was or was not insured is not admissible to prove that the individual acted negligently or wrongfully.   Such reference would be wholly irrelevant to any issue of consequence in this lawsuit and could only serve to inflame or unfairly prejudice the jury against the Defendant.  FED. R. EVID. 402, 403, 411.

38. EMPLOYMENT BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY Any questions of the jury panel as to whether they, or any members of their family, friends, or associates are employed by an insurance company.  Lake Travis ISD objects to any emphasis upon insurance companies as employers for the reason that it would suggest to the jury panel that the District is insured, reveal information made confidential by law, and would unduly prejudice the jury. FED. R. EVID. 402, 403, 411.

• Ah, the reason that the district has no problem with this wasted pursuit!? Will it cost them? Or will it not cost them? When does the insurance company tell the district that they have spent more money than necessary and should seek alternative means to settle their dispute? Doesn’t the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) provide the district’s legal liability insurance?

43. HEARSAY Any reference to any out-of-court statements made by any present or former employee or student of Lake Travis ISD or any other person or any testimony concerning any ex parte statement or report of any person not then and there present in court to testify and to be cross-examined.  Such matters consist totally of hearsay.  See FED. R. EVID. 402.

• Oh, now this is grand. We should ask the district’s lawyers if they used hearsay in the affidavits sworn by school employees? (Stay tuned for more on this later)  I’m sorry, I guess that they don’t want the other side to use hearsay, but it is o.k. for them?

44. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Any reference to this Court’s prior rulings on the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  This evidence should be excluded pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.

• We wouldn’t want the jury to know that the district sought a summary judgment to circumvent common law which grants citizens a jury of peers? Even J. David Thompson III who made numerous claims of “common law” should understand this, or does he?

  “English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury of peers.”

52. SENATE BILL 9 AND SECTION 38.022 OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE Any testimony or commentary from Plaintiffs or their counsel concerning their “theories” related to the alleged involvement of Raptor Technologies, Inc. in the passage of Senate Bill 9. Plaintiffs’ theories are purely speculative, are not based on personal knowledge, and are not relevant to, or probative of, any claim asserted by Plaintiffs in their lawsuit.  See FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.

• What else should we exclude from the jury, the United States Constitution?

Words of encouragement for the Meadows:

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.