|
||||||
|
SLRC UPDATE: SLRC Weekly Update
DuPont
Compatriots and fellow Confederate Southern-Americans:
The Court has issued its order with respect to Attorney's fees, part of which is substantially at variance with the sentiments expressed at the hearing on January 30, 2004.
We respectfully disagree with the findings and reasoning of the court regarding $10,000 in sanctions against me personally and $27,450 in attorney's fees and costs against my clients. Contrary to the Court's finding, the lawsuit filed against DuPont was not frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation. The only 4th Circuit opinion regarding Confederate Southern-American is the unpublished Terrill decision, which the court concedes has no precedential value.
By rejecting the case law and substantial arguments for a broad national origin definition and by ignoring the numerous affidavits filed, the court pays the Plaintiffs and counsel the highest possible compliment in dismissing their claims as Confederate Southern-Americans. Although not a Supreme Court decision, the DuPont case is the modern Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy was the case that institutionalized Jim Crow in the United States for 60 years. DuPont, now playing the role of the old segregationists to perfection, will now find their name as the rallying cry for the multi-national corporations that see elimination of Confederate Southern-American aspirations as the key to achieving a "worker's paradise" - NOT!
The justice of our cause will eventually come out. DuPont's over-reactive fear of the slumbering giant - of Confederate Southern-Americans becoming aware of their status and legal rights drove this case of trial by A-Bomb, but if we stick together and continue the fight, we cannot lose.
In the order, the Court reaches its conclusions (in our opinion and with no disrespect to the Court) based on unfairly strict interpretation of what constitutes an "adverse employment action," and from a misconstruction of
Plaintiff's race discrimination claim. Plaintiffs have never based their race discrimination claim based on being Confederate Southern American's - which is their national origin and a national origin that includes
other races as members. No, the race claim is based on DuPont seeing White guys, (who happen to be Confederate Southern-Americans), with "rebel flags" and thinking : "RACISTS!!!" That is the basis of the race
claim, that DuPont's
We have gone completely over to the defensive. We can no longer maintain an offensive against DuPont. Plaintiffs are not appealing the dismissal of their claims. Had they done so Plaintiffs undoubtedly would be facing the full $61,000 in fees and costs PLUS sanctions against me. These men trusted me and the SLRC. An appeal on the merits would have been suicidal in the face of the lack of support we have received thus far. If anyone out there was willing to put up 71K or their house for these men's appeal, they should have spoken up before now.
My goal now is to appeal the award of sanctions and fees to DuPont and in so doing prove the reasonableness of our claims and reduce the financial burdens on the Plaintiffs and protect their jobs. This is Dunkirk, not Normandy. Until we build an army that understands what it takes to fight the multi-nationals - this is how we have to fight it. The unspoken voice of dread and fear whispering in the ears of this case, from the initial ban to the EEOC to the lawsuit itself, that permeated this case from the beginning was: Granting Confederate Southern-Americans their legitimate rights under the law legitimizes the Confederacy and its cause - THAT CAN NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!!!!
It WILL happen if we take the same posture as our ancestors did when faced with adversity and overwhelming odds.
Counsel and Plaintiffs will confer as to the best course of action.
We ask for your prayers and support in this most difficult hour.
Respectfully, Kirk D. Lyons ======================================= KEVIN LAMBERT CHAPLIN, et al Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CV-469 vs. DUPONT ADVANCE FIBER SYSTEMS, Defendants.
FINAL ORDER
(Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions and Granting Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses) This case was before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [hereinafter “Rule”] 11 and Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. For the reasons stated both in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and from the bench, Defendants’ Rule 11 MOTION FOR sanctions is DENIED as to all counts under Rule 11 (b)(1) and (b)(2). Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, under Rule 11 (b)(3), is DENIED as to Count I GRANTED as to Counts II and III. For his violation of Rule 11 (b)(3), the Court awards sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, Kirk D. Lyons, Esquire, in the amount of $10,000.00.
Henry Hudson Please visit our website at www.slrc-csa.org and click on the "How You Can Help" tab. We accept Visa , MasterCard, Discover http://www.slrc-csa.org/site/helpus.php and paypal: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=slrc%40slrc-csa.org
Please send in your pledge or donation today. ALL PLEDGES OR DONATIONS ARE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE!
Our address is SLRC, P.O. Box 1235, Black Mountain, NC 28711. Phone: 828-669-5189
For more background on the plaques see our Texas Plaques webpage at: http://www.slrc-csa.org/site/misc/txplaques/txplaques.php
If anyone has received this who does not wish to be on our distribution list, please let us know.
Allison Schaum
PLEASE SEND YOUR TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO: SOUTHERN LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER
|
||||||
|
Home Our Purpose Board of Advisors Board or Directors Contact Us Case Law Current Cases Editorials Legal Research Model Statutes Letters Press Releases Report A Violation Speeches SLRC Bulletins SLRC In The News SLRC Updates Southern Civil Rights Advice |
|||||||
|
|||||||
