 |
 |
|
A
REPRESENTATIVE COPY OF THE FILING
-1-
Finney v. Nugent
Case No. 04-55769
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I. INTRODUCTION
Had Dr. Kenneth Clark¹ tested children paralyzed by polio in
1953, he would have asked:
“Show me the doll that you like best…
Show me the doll that is the nice doll…
Show me the doll that looks bad…
Give me the doll that looks like the [normal] child…
Give me the doll that looks like the [poster] child…
Give me the doll that looks like the [crippled] child…
Give me the doll that looks like you.”
Dr. Clark would have testified as he did in the consolidated cases
known as Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954):
“The conclusion which I was forced to reach was that these
children…, like other human beings who are subjected to an
obviously inferior status in the society in which they live, have
been definitely harmed… [emp. supp.] I think it is the kind of
injury which would be as enduring or lasting as the situation endured,
changing only in its form and in the way it manifests itself.”
¹ At trial in Brown's consolidated case Briggs v. Elliott, the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP) presented compelling testimony by Dr. Kenneth Clark. He performed
psychological tests using dolls to identify harms inflicted on the plaintiff children due to segregation. Dr.
Clark described the tests to validate his conclusion that discrimination against African-American children
and that discrimination against any segment of society causes harm. At trial in Davis v. Prince Edward
County, Dr. Isidor Chein testified that discrimination also caused Jews to feel inferior as to status,
supporting Dr. Clark’s conclusion.
-2-
Finney v. Nugent
Case No. 04-55769
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The California judiciary exploited appellant’s disabilities to prevent
access to the courts which has caused great harm, and by so doing, has:
“…endorsed the basis for some of the very discrimination subject to
congressional remedy under § 5… [L]ike other invidious
discrimination, they classified people without regard to individual
capacities, and by that lack of regard did great harm. [emp.
supp.] In sustaining the application of Title II today, the Court takes
a welcome step away from the judiciary’s prior endorsement of blunt
instruments imposing legal handicaps.” Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S.
Ct. 1978 (2004), Justice Souter concurring.
II. THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES
PERMITTING DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IS WELL
SETTLED AND ABSTENTION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED
A. The California Court System Has Acted Under Color of State Law to
Violate the U.S. Constitution and ADA Title II.
Pursuant to CRC 989.3, the California court system, its judges,
administrators and jury commissioners have conspired to violate the U.S.
Constitution and ADA Title II by enacting statutes and policies
reminiscent of states’ resistance to desegregation.
The U. S. Supreme Court’s opinion regarding racial discrimination in
1962 held:
1.
“Since the unconstitutionality of the state statutes requiring racial
segregation in publicly operated facilities is so well settled that it is
foreclosed as a litigable issue… and jurisdiction of this appeal is
vested in the Court of Appeals…
2.
There was no occasion for abstention from decision… appellant’s
jurisdictional statement is treated as a petition for certiorari prior to
-3-
Finney v. Nugent
Case No. 04-55769
1
2
3
4
5