Yes, what Barbara McKinzie did NOT include in her letter to the sorority is that the presiding judge Natalia Combs-Greene and defendant Vicki Miles-LaGrange were HOWARD LAW SCHOOL CLASSMATES! Judge Combs-Greene should have RECUSED herself.
Mo’Kelly said he smelled a rat! THERE you have it!
Vicki Miles-LaGrange – Click HERE
Judge Natalia Combs-Greene – Click HERE
The Howard Law Alumni Directory – See Page 3 and Page 5 HERE
Dear Sorors:
Alpha Kappa Alpha has prevailed in the lawsuit filed by Joy Elaine Daley, et al.
In a resounding denunciation of the action, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia tossed out the lawsuit and dismissed the case. In her ruling, Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene rejected Plaintiffs’ suit on all counts and, in essence, ruled that the case had no merit and no substance.
In essence, Alpha Kappa Alpha won!
Writing in the Washington Business Journal, reporter Melissa Castro, noted that the judge was emphatic in her decision. “Judge Natalia Combs Greene used just 17 pages — and several pointed words — to eviscerate the claims of the eight AKA member-plaintiffs.”
The judge also accurately characterized the case as being “largely about several disgruntled AKA members.” She dismissed the evidence presented as “unnecessary and frivolous exhibits, arguments, counts and facts.”
This victory underscores what the leadership has been saying all along: that this was a suit motivated by a personal vendetta against the leadership. The ruling confirms this.
This triumph is an affirmation of the process and the structure of governance that has withstood the test of time for 102 years. Our Founders bequeathed to us the gift of loyalty and a mandate to never exhibit the type of treasonous behavior that the Plaintiffs demonstrated.
We do not revel in this victory because we have paid a dear price for it. This has been a painful saga in our history but one that could have been avoided had the Plaintiffs held their vows sacred and not violated the very rituals they pledged to uphold.
There is a lesson in this for us and I urge the membership to view this legal action –and its outcome – as a wakeup call. Let’s use this victorious occasion to revisit our sacred vows and recommit ourselves to the sanctity of Alpha Kappa Alpha and the strength of the sisterhood. This is what has sustained us for over 100 years and will continue to serve as a sturdy foundation as we begin our second century of sisterhood and service.
Now, let’s get ready for our biennial conference in July. Let’s meet in St. Louis where we can connect and bond with one another in the way that has always made Alpha Kappa Alpha first in service…first in sisterhood.
Sincerely,
Soror Barbara A. McKinzie
Supreme Basileus
________________
(And in other news…Mo’Kelly continues putting together his special and extensive package for Lois Lerner of the IRS.)
[Stay tuned…the new mrmokelly.com website is coming to you in 2010. Set your browsers now.]
27 responses to “Defendant Vicki Miles-LaGrange and Judge Natalia Combs-Greene=CLASSMATES”
I'm sorry if I'm missing the connection. Ms. Lagrange graduated in 1977 from Howard and Ms. Combs-Greene in 1979. Surely that does not make them classmates. What was the size of the graduating classes? How many students were in the School of Law duting the overlapping period? Please clarify because I do not understand. Thurgood Marshall also was a HU School of Law graduate. Would he have to recuse himself from hearing a case brought before him by a student of HU's School of Business? I understand desperate times call for desperate measures, but this seems a bit much.
HU's School of Business and HU's School of law are just that…two different schools. There is a distinct likelihood given the small nature of HU alumni in the judiciary they know each other…not only that, know each other WELL. It's not about them being in the same class. It's the same EXCLUSIVE FIELD (judges) and having a case involving them both. It's relevant.
Recusing oneself is about the removing the APPEARANCE of impropriety, erring on the side of caution so there can't be any speculation.
Isn't it important for judges to remove any sign of impropriety? If we were looking at a difference of ten or even five years that would be a point. Two years is close. I don't think it's desperate to ask questions. For example What if the judge had gone to school with one of the plaintiffs and had decided to let the case go forward. Would the defendants have said Okay no questions no problem?
I don't in any way think it's likely that two HU Law graduates who have BOTH worked at the Justice Department (though not at the same time) and BOTH are Clinton appointees don't know each other. That's simply foolish to believe.
They've never attended any alumni functions…nothing. Two federal judges at HU Law at the same time, both have ties to the Justice Department and don't know each other on any level?
Really? Honestly? Two women at the top of their field from the same law school during the same period, in that small exclusive corner of their profession…don't know each other?
Uh, yeah. That's why judges are to recuse themselves, to avoid these "coincidences" from being "misinterpreted."
Would this connection have been acceptable if Stacey Koon or Laurence Powell (Rodney King beating officers) had such "closeness" to the judge adjudicating their case and came back with an acquittal…or better yet…DISMISSED even before DISCOVERY?!
Really? That would fly?
Something else really bothers me. Why did the judge "eviscerate" using Ms. Castro's word the plaintiffs? What is gained by that? Why was the documentation dismissed as frivolous? Why in her decision does she seem to accuse the plaintiffs' attorney of wasting the courts' time? Why does she say the suit should have been a class action. Then dismiss it with prejudice so that can't happen. if the judge felt there was no jurisdiction why in her dismissal does she cite things that a jury would have decided? Was there impartiality in the beginning?
The hits just KEEP coming. This is utterly ridiculous. Whether or not there was true improproiety is not the issue here @EnCouraged.
Sometimes the appearance of something is just as/more powerfui than the occurence of that thing.
I pray this is enough to have the case reviewed…
Keep it up, Mo!
forgive my typo, please…
*impropriety*
You simply will never believe or accept that no inappropriate actions occurred and that the national board of directors approved all actions the plaintiffs protested in their lawsuit. While you are entitled to your opinion, an unending search for conspirators and MI6/CIA-level plots is less than helpful. God bless you but maybe it's time to move on.
Legacy AKA from the South
@Txskilover…I have no problem with dissenting opinions…but the "approval" of actions by the directorate do not make the actions legal. And to your point, if everything is on the up and up, there would be no reason to hide the books (from members) or run from a forensic audit. It's nice to "say" nothing illegal was done, but more than one million dollars (that we know of) plus a pension for an "unpaid" position says otherwise.
Not only that, there's a whole lot of documentation I have to support as much.
Legacy AKA from the South-WAKE UP& smell the coffee!! I know folks r slow, but give me a break.The Directorate r CROOKS..The case was dismissed b4 discovery?? The case was dismissed b4 being decided on the merits..I hope no 1 is STUPID enuff 2 believe these clowns r innocent. I always suspected there was a connection btween the two. Howard is a very small law school, where if u do not know someone personally, u know of them!!
Anyway, ONWARD IRS, let's nail the CROOKS!!
Thanks Mo for the continued spotlight! And THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for the 'extensive package' of documentation you are preparing for Lois Lerner of the IRS. I appreciate your efforts.
You (and AKA) are welcome Mia. This isn't over yet.
Legacy from the South…Although you and others are looking at this as if it were a schoolyard girl fight, it is NOT!!! None of the very serious financial questions have been answered. The rights of individual members have been weakened. The responsibilities of a nonprofit board who are the trustees of the organization have been changed. This is not about being jealous. Prior to this, I only had great pride in the women who chose to become leaders in our sisterhood. Please do not trivialize what is happening.
Legacy..One more thing…If the judge had ruled in the plaintiffs' favor and the defense found out about the school connection would that have been okay? By connection I mean a connection with the judge and a plaintiff. That would not have caused concern?
Von, it is unlikely you will get an answer (much less an honest one…to you your question). You might as well just make it rhetorical because clearly it would have mattered to the defense. BAMbots want us to take their word for it that there wasn't any connection. Oh, ok.
Mo' You are right of course. Legacy and all the others don't have a clue about the big picture. I am so sick of BAM playing the victim.
Too much time on your hands!!! There so many other things that we should be concerned with. Poverty, Poor Education in this country, Hunger things that are about humanity!!!
I don't know who that comment was directed towards but if you actually READ my site on a daily basis, you would know such topics are broached here consistently. But thanks for the suggestion as to how someone should allocate one's time. Do pray tell what you do with every waking moment you have and let's compare notes.
Legacy From the South, are you the daughter of a formal Regional Director who has benifited from BAM. Did your mom along with NSW pin BAM over a drink. Can you read? It is know way that the judge used the law. I once had so much respect for the Clintons. I am getting more and more disappointed with them. This judge was not ready to be appointed…Sorry Legacy, I was MADE.
Many of the words that Grooms used in her decision were words that BAM has used to say why she was going to win this case. I wonder how much did she have to pay. Remember in July she walked out of National with almost $500.000.00. Was this a payoff? Maybe the Judge needs to be investigated? Could this be done? Cell phone calls…..
Toy..If that comment is directed to members of AKA, please understand that is EXACTLY why we are very upset. Our true mission is "service to all mankind." Our history has many OUTSTANDING service projects. We DO NOT want the public to see us as a bunch of suit wearing (designer) bobbleheads who only believe in photo ops. We want our financial resources to support our communities. We are NOT trying to support a bunch of over indulgent,narcissitic crooks. Please believe there are many AKAs who are very dedicated to community service. I hope you'll do some research about how we used to be. Also know this we are fighting to get back to what our Founders wanted us to do. If that fails, we WILL still continue to serve mankind in other ways.
Looks like the attempt to sway Ms. Castro fell on deaf ears based on the 02-05-10 article she wrote. Another door slamming….
Deaf ears? Why did she print it only DAYS later?
Exactly. if it wasn't "newsworthy" it wouldn't have been IN THE NEWS or part of the story…a story in which AKA headlined. You can spin it all you want. But it's out there and this genie isn't going back in the bottle.
A deal had been made, this is why the case went the way it did. The judge should have been honest. Sorry that didn't happen. However, she to will have her day in court. Wrong is wrong. There is an end to a man made cycle.
Hey Mo, Pictures of the plaintiffs are on the WI website.
Just saw…VERY classy.
[…] RELATED: Mo’Kelly Breaks the Vicki Miles-LaGrange/Judge Natalia Combs Greene connection […]