Letter to Judge Roth from Roumell, Jr. RE: Order

    («
Ri ley  and  Roumell

A T T O R N E Y S  A N D  C O U N S E L O R S  A T  LAW

7 T~H F L O O R  FORD B U I L D I N G

W A L L A C E  D .  R I L E Y  

G E O R G E  T .  R O U M E L L ,  J R .  

D O R O T H Y  C O M S T O C K  R i L E Y

D E T R O I T ,  M I C H I G A N  4 8 2 2 6 T E L E P H O N E  

(313) 9 6 2 - 3 255

J A N E  K E L L E R  S O U R I S  

L O U I S  D .  B E E R  

K. P A U L  Z O S E L  

E M M E T  E .  T R A C Y ,  J R .  

T E R E N C E  V. P A G E  

T  P A T R I C K  F R E Y D L

Dear Judge Roth:

I have your Order of August 15, 1972, in regard to the 
filing of objections to the report of the Panel, Prior to receipt 
of your Order, I had been advised by counsel for the Defendant- 
Intervenors Allen Park Public Schools that there would be an extens­
ion of time for filing objections to the Panel's report and it 
would apply to all parties.

I am assuming that the Order also applies to the Detroit
Board of Education, although we did not formally file a Motion 
for Extension as our policy is to follow all orders of the Court 
when issued.

We reiterate to the Court that the Detroit Board is
commited, if there be a remedy, to a metropolitan remedy. However, 
we may have objections to some of the details formulated by the 
Panel which we would like to make known to the Court.

Although we were prepared to file a broad outline of
objections by the 15th of August, we assumed that we would have 
the additional time. Therefore, I ask that the Board's staff 
delve into the Plan with specificity so as to furnish the details 
of any objections to the Court.

If I am incorrect that the Order does not apply to the
Detroit Board, I would like to be so advised so I can file the 
appropriate motion.

J O H N  W. F R A S C O
August 16, 1972

Honorable Stephen J. Roth 
United States District Court 
600 Church Street 
Flint, Michigan 48500

Re: Bradley v. Milliken, et al

Most respectfully
r\

GTR: L
CC: All counsel of record