LOS ANGELES - Seven months after the ACLU, other civil rights groups, and the law firm of Morrison & Foerster sued the State of California for failing to provide an equal and adequate education to thousands of children in California, the State today filed a 147 page cross-complaint against 18 school districts. The schoolchildren named in the original complaint attend schools in the 18 districts sued by the State. None of the districts was a defendant in the suit brought by the ACLU on behalf of schoolchildren. The filing of the cross-complaint comes on the heels of the state's announcement that it will be deposing all of the 46 principals of the schools that the plaintiffs attend starting on December 21, 2000 until January 15, 2001.

"The State's decision to sue the districts makes no sense," said ACLU of Southern California Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum, "because the judge has already decided that 'local districts are the state's agents for local operation of the common school system, and the state's ultimate responsibility cannot be delegated to any other public entity.' So the state is really just suing itself."

"The state's action," said Rosenbaum, "illuminates the complete absence of any effective or even rational system of accountability over public education. The state has already admitted that it has no idea whether students throughout California have textbooks or not. Nor does it have even a basic inventory of the schools where unsafe, unsanitary, and unhealthful conditions endanger our children and make it impossible for them to obtain a decent education. It appears that the only means the State has to find out what's going on at the local level is to wait for poor and minority children to bring a lawsuit. And, the only way the state can figure out to make sure that students in local districts receive the bare essentials of an education is to sue them. You could not design a more dysfunctional, 'pass the buck' system of oversight and accountability if you tried."

"By suing the districts," said Rosenbaum, "the State is forcing those districts to make a choice between spending limited funds on books, teachers, and safe facilities on one hand, and paying lawyers on the other. This behavior is consistent with the state's decision to use taxpayer funds to hire O'Melveny & Myers, one of the largest law firms in the country, to represent the state. Neither decision is in the best interest of schoolchildren or taxpayers."

"The state's harassment tactics, such as forcing principals to spend part of their hard-earned Christmas vacation being deposed by the State's own lawyers," said Rosenbaum, "outscrooge Scrooge, undermining Governor Davis' public position that education is his number one, two, and three priorities. It's like a general going to war against his troops. By suing the school districts, the state is not only playing Scrooge for the Christmas season, it is putting districts in an untenable position. By forcing the districts to defend themselves against a complaint brought by the State, the State is forcing the districts to waste money and delaying the improvements for poor and minority students that they so desperately need."

LOS ANGELES - Advocates and social service providers are distributing today to Los Angeles downtown's homeless population copies of the final order issued in federal court yesterday in the case Justin, et al., v. City of Los Angeles. The case deals with LAPD harassment of homeless people in the downtown area frequently referred to as "Skid Row." Twenty-three homeless individuals said that police had engaged in a widespread practice of harassment.

Judge Lourdes G. Baird issued a tentative order on Friday, December 1, and finalized the order on Tuesday, December 5. The order bars the city and the police from engaging in the following activities:

1. Stopping the homeless without reasonable suspicion while they are simply standing or walking on public streets and sidewalks, and not obstructing such streets or sidewalks;

2. Demanding production of identification on threat of arrest, and arresting individuals if no identification is procured;

3. Searching the possessions of those homeless without reasonable suspicion;

4. Ordering the homeless to move along from where they are standing unless they are obstructing or blocking the free passage of pedestrians;

5. Confiscating the personal property of the homeless when it has not been abandoned and destroying it without notice; and

6. Issuing citations to the homeless for loitering.

- Judge Lourdes G. Baird's order

"A legal victory is merely a victory for lawyers if things don't change on the streets," said Diana Gordon, one of the civil rights attorneys who brought the lawsuit at the urging of homeless advocates working downtown. "Through education and through continued advocacy this ruling will become a victory for the humanity and dignity of homeless people."

"This order is resoundingly clear," said Gordon. "It leaves no room for doubt about the illegality of the actions carried out against homeless people by the city and its police department and communicates that in language that both the homeless and the police will have no trouble understanding. The order also enjoins every single type of harassment cited by the individuals in the case."

Alice Callaghan of Las Familias del Pueblo and other advocates and groups are distributing the order. Callaghan and others are also establishing an informal system for gathering complaints should police violate the terms of the order, adding to the reproduction of the order a note urging homeless people to report complaints to Las Familias del Pueblo or to the Hippie Kitchen.

"Homeless people have civil rights," said Callaghan, "and the city and its police cannot abridge those rights simply because they consider the homeless to be bad for business or otherwise publicly troublesome."

LOS ANGELES - A U.S. District Court judge today issued a temporary restraining order to stop the Los Angeles Police Department from continuing its pattern of harassment and intimidation of homeless people in downtown's "Skid Row" area. The campaign of harassment and intimidation included:

' stopping homeless people and demanding to see identification without a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed;

' threatening to arrest homeless individuals who did not produce identification; ordering homeless individuals to move from pubic sidewalks and streets;

' arresting homeless individuals without probable cause;

' searching, seizing, and destroying the property of homeless individuals, and

' issuing citations for violations such as jaywalking or blocking a sidewalk when no such violation has occurred.

Advocates for the homeless urged civil rights attorneys to look into the matter and to protect the Constitutional rights of homeless people. Civil rights attorneys Carol Sobel, Diane Greene Gordon, Douglas Mirrell, and Dilan Esper and the ACLU of Southern California responded by filing a lawsuit, Justin v. City of Los Angeles, on November 21, 2000. Eighteen homeless individuals submitted testimony in the case about their experiences of harassment and intimidation at the hands of the LAPD.

"You don't have to have a roof over your head to enjoy the protections of the U.S. Constitution," said Carol Sobel, cooperating counsel in the case. "The court clarified that basic principle today for the City of Los Angeles and its police department, who were under the mistaken impression that being poor is a crime, and that not having a home disqualifies a person from being treated as human being and an equal in the eyes of the law. It's a shame that the city has to be forced to recognize the basic rights and humanity of homeless people."

The temporary restraining order, which was issued today in preliminary form, but which will be issued in final written form on Monday, bars the police department from continuing its pattern of harassment.

"The court finds," wrote Judge Lourdes G. Baird in the preliminary ruling, "that Plaintiffs have succeeded in showing that they will suffer irreparable injury and have no other adequate remedy at law if injunctive relief is not granted."