Thursday, November 27, 2008

Update on Monteiro Case

Bob La Trémouille reports:

A. Report.

We keep you abreast on Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Superior Court case MICV2001-02737, because it should have very major impact on the reprehensible Cambridge, MA city government.

Apologists for the nine extremely bad city councilors say their environmental destructiveness with holier than thou hypocrisy is acceptable because they are so great on civil rights. A lot of the apologists are unaware of the secret definition being used and the real situation on that front.

A jury, 12 people not influenced by the massive organization in Cambridge that runs around calling black white, decided the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

Malvina Monteiro fits even the secret definition of civil rights. She is a black Cape Verdean woman who was head of the city's Police Review board. The jury said she was fired in retaliation for filing a civil rights complaint. The jury awarded $1.1 million plus in actual damages and $3.5 million in penalties. Those penalties show the contempt that decent people have for the situation in Cambridge.

That verdict came down in May. Cambridge filed post trial motions most of which would appear to have already been denied by a prior judge with slightly different wording in the motion, although it is certainly possible that the trial judge would disagree. The one apparently new item would be an attempt to reduce the well earned and very large penalty awarded.

A hearing was conducted on the motions in June and the last, apparently related, papers were filed on August 4.

That last filing is instructive. It was a motion to strike. Apparently, at the hearing, the judge allowed Cambridge to file papers in support of its argument and allowed the plaintiff to respond, but did not create yet another step in which Cambridge could further respond to the plaintiff. Cambridge moved to strike the plaintiff's response, a highly unusual action but technically allowed. My guess is that the plaintiff's response was deadly to Cambridge's argument.

A week or so ago, the plaintiff's attorneys filed a letter to the judge apparently suggesting that six months total and nearly four months after filing of last papers should give her time to make her decision.

On November 21, 2008 (these things take a few days to get posted), the city's attorney filed her letter with the judge.

I cannot see the contents of these various documents. The file is on the judge's desk. All that is available is the title, which I essentially just gave you.

It is reasonable to assume that the city's lawyer agreed with the plaintiff's lawyers that six months after jury verdict and nearly four months after last filing is adequate time for the judge to come to a verdict.

The Boston Globe did a good write up on the case when jury decision came down. The report may be found at: