MRS. ROESER: Objection, your Honor. It is full of hearsay, among other things.

THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection. But I don't think you are harmed in any way, because I think it is a matter the Court can take judicial notice of, that most people cannot spend thousands and thousands of dollars for counsel to represent them in matters of this sort, or any sort as far as that goes. So I don't believe you are in any way harmed by my not accepting it. I would personally take judicial notice of that as a common fact. I will take judicial notice of it, that most people can't afford lawyers.

MR. ENSTROM: I think this is particularly hard on the youngsters, your Honor, who we contend are pawns — became pawns in this type of situation without representation, and this series [of] cases have shown that.

I will close by making two points, your Honor. That the District now has a plan which is non-discriminatory and voluntary. To introduce mandatory assignments would be to introduce discrimination into a voluntary non-discriminatory plan. And (sic) obvious government involvement in discrimination. I made that point in my brief. I would just reiterate, we have many, many children in the District who are opposed to the — to their being assigned away from their schools without their consent, or the consent of their parents. I do cite the Reitman case for the proposition that government — the government should not inject discrimination into the — to a voluntary non-discriminatory plan which would occur in the event of mandatory assignments, on account of the race of the children assigned.

THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Enstrom. And thank you for being patient. Thank your clients for being patient, also.

MR. ENSTROM: Thank you.