Apparently without even considering the statutory language, intervenors, based on two letters from disgruntled parents, seek any opportunity to create mischief in any program which seeks to accomplish integration....”
 

Groundswell Complains the Other
Proposed Final Orders Do Not Respect
Order to Terminate Jurisdiction at this Time

My closing argument, mailed July 18, related the January 12 formal order granting the Groundswell motions to terminate all court jurisdiction and to discharge the writ of mandate; and the presentations on March 19, May 15, May 23, and May 30, 1996, detailing modifications required to bring the present integration plan into compliance with the Constitution.

I complained:

On July 12, 1996 both the Board and the Plaintiff-Class filed memoranda opposing the modifications proposed by Intervenors, and proposed final orders which omitted reference to the discharge of the mandate and extended the Court's jurisdiction without limitation.

I reiterated my earlier arguments to require elimination of the unconstitutional aspects of the program, and upon their elimination from the plan forthwith, to discharge the writ of mandate. Also we reiterated that speculative lessening of state integration funds was not a legal basis for continuing jurisdiction, particularly since the program could continue to receive state integration funds as had the Los Angeles program long after discharge of the writ of mandate in that case.