Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board Motion to Strike

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT CF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 74-1672

BERYL N. JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-intervenor,

vs.
CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,
JERRY ADAMS, et al.,

Applicants for Intervention- 
Appellants .

Appeal From The United States District Court 
For The Western District. Of Louisiana

MOTION TO STRIKE

HILRY HUCKABY, III 
501 Petroleum Tower 
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

JACK GREENBERG 
JAIMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
MARGRETT FORD

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 74-1672

BERYL N. JONES, et al.(
Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

vs.
CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,
JERRY ADAMS, et al.,

Applicants for Intervention- 
Appellants .

Appeal From The United States District Court 
For The Western District Of Louisiana

1 -------------------

MOTION TO STRIKE

Appellants, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully 
pray that the Court strike Appendices A and E to the Brief for 
Appellees Jones, et al.. Argument III at pp. 22 through 27 of 
the Brief for those appellees-, and other references to the 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., or “LDF" throughout 
the brief for the reason that the Appendices are outside the record



in this matter and. have absolutely nothing to do with the 
constitutional issues presented by this appeal. Appellants 
further represent that the letter reproduced as Appendix A 
through the Brief of Appellees Jones, et al. was prepared for 
the sole purpose of being attached to their brief and bears 
no relationship to any actual events which have ever transpired.

The appellants in this matter are individual black citizens
of Caddo Parish of Louis:.ana, not the Louisiana Education
Association or the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. insofar as the
comments contained in the Brief for Appellees Jones, et al.
and the materials reproduced in the Appendices suggest that counsel

*  •

for appellants do not represent their clients or do not consult 
with their clients about this litigation, they are scandalous 
and impertinent and should be striken from the record. At the 
same time, we cannot fail to note the irony of the situation: 
had the district court held a hearing on the substitution of 
counsel, or the intervention, class representative matters could 
have been resolved on the basis of fact rather than remaining 
right for the sort of malicious innuendo contained in the Brief 
for Appellees Jones, et al.

WHEREFORE, appellants respectfully pray that the Court 
strike Appendices A and E and Argument 1X1 of the Brief for 
Appellees Jones, et al., as v/ell as all other references to the

2



to the Legal Defense Fund contained therein.
Respectfully submitted,

HILRY HUCKABY,/ III 
501 Petroleum Tower 
Shreveport, Loiiisiana 71101

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, III 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
MARGRETT FORD

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants

3



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 4th day of June, 1974,
I served two copies of the Motion to Strike upon counsel 
for the appellees herein, by depositing same in the United 
States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to each 
as follows:

Murphy W. Bell, Esq.
617 North Boulevard 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
John R. Pleasant, Esq.
10004 Mid South Towers 
P. O. Drawer 1092 
Shreveport, Louisiana 71163
Hon. Donald E. Walter, Esq. 
United States Attorney 
Federal Building 
Shreveport, Louisiana 7H01
Brian Landsberg, Esq.
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530