Monday, June 27, 2011

Appeals Court chastises both Sides in Monteiro v. Cambridge case

1. Court papers.
2. Analysis.
A. General background.
B. This Decision.

1. Court papers.

The following notations are the most recent on the Appeals Court Docket in Monteiro v. Cambridge. They are copied directly from the Appeals Court Docket. Paragraphing is added for clarification of presentation and to more closely communicate the docket which is a table with three columns. So, instead of providing columns, I provide paragraphing.

In each instance, the date is the date of posting, the number is the number of the formal entry in the docket. Then follows the description


Letter pursuant to MRAP 16(l) filed by City of Cambridge.@

Response to paper #29, filed by Malvina Monteiro, Mary Chui Wong, & Linda Stamper. *@

ORDER: The office of the Clerk has received letters from counsel for appellant City of Cambridge dated May 16, 2011, and from counsel for appellee Monteiro dated June 7, 2011. Both letters purport to be submissions pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 16(l). Neither letter complies with the letter or purpose of the rule; both constitute an unauthorized additional stage of repetitive argument. The court will not accept or consider the letters. (Mills, Sikora & Rubin, JJ.)

2. Analysis.

A. General background.

I have been following the civil rights case of Monteiro v. Cambridge on this blog for a number of reasons.

One very big reason is the judge’s calling the City Manager “reprehensible” and apparently proving it. This civil rights judge’s analysis certainly fits a reasonable analysis of the environmental situation on the Charles River.

If the Superior Court decision stands, the Cambridge City Council will be forced into a position where it really should fire the Cambridge City Manager.

Firing the Cambridge City could have major impact on the environmental corruption which is business as usual in the City of Cambridge, including the attacks on the Charles River.

B. This Decision.

One or both sides tried to do something.

All I have is the docket. I do not have the papers, although the order is probably completely posted.

This sort of exchange occurred a number of times in Superior Court with the judge being quite considerate in acknowledging and responding to comments.

Whatever one or both sides tried to do, the Appeals Court is much less gentle than the Superior Court judge.