Reply Brief — Bryant v. Waltham School Committee

. {

No. 99-13

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

George Greeley, Kim Elizabeth,

George Nicholas, Nyssa Gale: Bryant

Petitioners

v.

Waltham School Committee,

Associate Justice Margaret S. Fearey,

Respondents

On petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court,

Reply to Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

George Greeley: Bryant,

Kim Elizabeth: Bryant,

Mail location:

Attention: Joseph Adams

Friends of the Constitution

Post Office Box 620115

Newton Lower Falls, Massachusetts

i

Structure of this Reply

This Reply to Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

iS divided into two Parts. Part | contains the reply to the

Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

(“Opposition”) Submitted by the Attorneys for

— —_ —_———=— > P

i Giulia aepeaieeaemeenn_ataateaeaaniiemena ana aiel

iii

Table of Contents

Structure of this Reply i

Table of Contents iii

Table of Cited Authorities iv

Part !. Reply to Brief in Opposition to Petition for

Writ of Certiorari Submitted by Attorneys for

Respondent Waltham School Committee |

1.1 Reply to Oppositions Questions Presented for Review |

1.2 Reply to Opposition’s Statement of the Case............. 2

1.3 Reply to Opposition’s Reasons Writ Should Be Denied

Sa MnadaaeeincindasnedlaashGivermaiabestbcnctseudesiorienlemectontesscessorios 4

A. Challenge to Petitioners Question (a) .................... 4

B. Challenge to Petitioners Question I(e) ...............00.... 5

C. Challenge to Petition’s Supreme Court Jurisdiction. 5

D. Oppositions to Waltham’s Claim of Authority in

Oversight of the Bryant Family and as Guardians of the

A RETR een ee eC a POOP ANP 7

E. Opposition’s Claim that Petitioner failed to

Demonstate [sic] that a substantial federal question has

been raised or decided below regarding the Application

of the Referenced Alaska Statute. ...0..00000.0.00000.cccccceee. 7

Part ll. Reply to Opposition submitted by Amy

Spector, Assistant Attorney General 8

Conclusion 9

1V

Table of Cited Authorities

Constitutional Provisions

Massachusetts Constitution, Part !, Article |...................

Massachusetts Constitution, Part |, Article XIl...............

Massachusetts Constitution, Part !, Article XVIIl............

united States Constitution, Article IV, section 4 .............

united States Constitution, Ninth Amendment................

united States Constitution, Tenth Amendment...............

Statutes

Massachusetts G.L. ch 119 section 24.00.0000.

Massachusetts G.L. Chapter 76 section 1................ —

Cases

Care and Protection of Charles , 399 Mass 324, 504

ERR OER Poel Se

5)

_

Part !. Reply to Brief in Opposition to

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Submitted by

Attorneys for Respondent Waltham School

Committee

1.1 Reply to Oppositions Questions Presented for

Review

The Attorneys for the Respondent Waltham School

Committee (“Waltham”) present two new questions for

review by this court in addition/opposition to the two

questions presented by the Bryant Family._In their first

question Waltham asserts that the Massachusetts

Supreme Judicial Court:

“... affirmed the homeschool approval process

required by the Respondent School Committee as

being reasonably related to the state’s legitimate

interest in ensuring that all its citizens are

educated.”

No such affirmation is stated within the decisions of the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. See Petition

for Writ of Certiorari, (“Petition”) Appendix A and B.

The false assertion of a “state interest” has already

been addressed by the Bryant Family within their

Petition and so will not be discussed further here.

Additionally, Waltham asserts that “the decisions are

not in conflict with decisions of the United States

Supreme Court or decisions of the First Circuit Court of

Appeals or other decisions of the Supreme Judicial

Court of Massachusetts’. This statement is

contradicted by the opinion of Associate Justice Fearey

who found that “under any fair reading of the case law

interpreting the statute there is Clearly insufficient

2

evidence to make a finding of current parental

unfitness”. Yet, in conflict with her list of numerous

decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

and United States courts she found the children in need

of care and protection. See Petition for Writ of

Certiorari, (“Petition”) Appendix C, at page 39-40.

While the Bryant Family could list other numerous

opinions that this decision is in conflict with, including

Care and Protection of Charles , 399 Mass 324, 504

N.E. 2d, 592 (1987) itself, what is more important is that

this decision and the proceedings before the

Massachusetts Courts have been arbitrary, vague. And

that they circumvent due process, and are repugnant to

the Law found in the Constitution of the Commonweaith

of Massachusetts, and the Constitution of the united

states of America.

The second question raised by Waltham,

whether’...the statute of another state should be

applied as a less restrictive measure within the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts” is a matter of the

Waltham making a claim that the Court erred in

permitting the admission of the Statute of the state of

Alaska into evidence as a least restrictive measure.

Thus it is not an opposition, but a cross-petition

contrary to the title of the document. This issue was

not raised by Waltham during appeal, is not properly

before the Court.

1.2 Reply to Opposition’s Statement of the Case

In accordance with Rule 15.2. The Bryant Family

addresses the following further misstatements of fact

and law contained within the text of the Opposition.

1. The Bryant Family identifies the erroneous

3

Statement “...was informed by an elementary school

principal that the children were not enrolled in

school.” is not in evidence. Petition p. 3

2. The Bryant Family has a duty to support their

compact with the whole of the People. In

furtherance of this they have a duty and a

constitutional right per Massachusetts Constitution,

Part the First, Article XVIII to refuse to provide

information to persons Claiming authority until proof

of such authority is provided in the form of law; proof

never proffered by Waltham. Waltham has

erroneously, misstated this exercise of duty and

constitutional right as denial of legitimate authority

which it is not. Waltham alleges that this exercise of

@ constitutional right is a violation of law. For this to

be the case, the inevitable conclusion is that

Massachusetts G.L. ch 119 section 24 is

unconstitutional. '

3. The attorney for the Parents did in fact submit a

notice of appeal against the Father and Mother's

wishes. This Notice was redundant with the Petition

to Vacate submitted by the Parents on August 14"

1998 as the Petition to Vacate is treated as a notice

of appeal in Massachusetts.

4. The Statement that “The parents appealed the

October 7, 1998 order to the Massachusetts

Appeals Court, which was denied by a Single

Justice on January 20, 1999.” is false as evidenced

by the sentence submitted by Waltham following it.

5. Waltham misstates that “The Care and Protection

matter is still pending in the district court before

Judge Garinger pending receipt from the parents of

‘ Waltham has listed the date of the statute to be 1999. The Bryant

Family may not be charged with a violation of law before that law

existed. As the Care and Protection petition was brought in 1997 this

date must be false.

4

progress reports for each child for the school year

ending June 30, 1999 and for the submission of

home school plans for the 1999-2000 school

year...”. This false statement and alleged order is

contradicted by the Brief in Opposition to Petition for

Whit of Certiorari (“Opposition”) p. 2, See Petition,

page 46. No order of the court requires the parents

to do this.

1.3 Reply to Opposition’s Reasons Writ Should Be

Denied

A. Challenge to Petitioners Question 1(a)

Contrary to stated claim of Waltham that this question

was not raised during trial, the Attorney for the Father

and Mother made clear in his arguments:

“These parents believe that they're responsible

before God to direct, nurture, and care for these

children, all of their needs, not just their physical

needs, but their educational needs as well.” (Trial

transcripts, Day Ill, page 75-76)

This is supported by documents submitted by the

Parents and entered as evidence within the record by

Waltham. The Petition to Vacate submitted by the

Parents clearly states the issue of free exercise of

religion Petition p. 77 this document was incorporated

in the petition for judicial review brought before the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and its appeal.

Waltham also alleges that the parents’ reasons are

philosophical rather than religious. This allegation is

not properly before the court, per rule 15.2 as it does

not address the jurisdiction of the court to hear this

question. Was the Oath taken before God to support

the constitution by the Attorney's for the Respondent

Pa Es

5

Waltham School Committee and each member of the

Waltham School Committee only philosophical? The

Constitution was not created and does not exist in a

vacuum but implored the direction of the Creator of the

Universe in so interesting a Design. Furthermore as

philosophy is based on reason and religion based on

faith the two are inseparable in our law. To support the

Constitution is to Support His law and His goodness in

affording us the Opportunity to create such a

government. It is profoundly religious.

B. Challenge to Petitioners Question 1(e)

The Bryant Family notes that Waltham agrees with the

point of fact and law that Article Xi! provides for council

and that the Bryant Family's council was consistently

excluded. The issue that “The entire care and

protection proceeding was not based on law, and was

conducted in a manner repugnant to justice,” was

properly raised in the Father and Mother's document

Emergency Amen Petition for Judicial Revi

P n .L. C. 211 §. 3 brought before the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Inherent to

this was the noted denial of the provisions of the

Massachusetts Constitution, Part the F irst, Article XII.

C. Challenge to Petition’s Supreme Court Jurisdiction.

The Bryant Family has listed numerous laws they

allege the Waltham School Committee, its

representatives, and the Respondent Courts by their

actions have violated. Waltham has not presented a

single constitutional Provision or statute that supports

the Respondent's actions. Although numerous

opinions are listed, the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Clearly states that

6

Inhabitants are not controulable by opinion, only law

Petition p. 54. As no law has been presented in

evidence, the logical conclusion is that it does not exist.

In stating “The family is not beyond regulation.”

Waltham asks the Bryant Family to prove a negative,

rather than proving the positive and providing the

regulation Waltham purports to be enforcing.

The Bryant Family is unaware of any action taken that

has given Waltham authority over the family. As far as

the Bryant Family knows they did not enter into a

contract with the Commonwealth by which they would

obey the dictates of the school department. The Bryant

Family does not receive any compensation to provide

education, nor are they receiving any entitlements from

the Commonwealth or Waltham. The Father and

Mother's authority over the lives of their offspring

comes from the Creator. With this authority comes a

duty, obligation and responsibility to provide for and

protect the children. If the Bryant Family has given the

Commonwealth or Waltham the authority over them to

approve or disapprove their family life, it is the duty and

Obligation of those making a claim of authority over the

Bryant Family to provide verification of this in the form

of law.

Waltham’s statement “...there is nothing in neither the

record nor the decisions below that support any federal

questions presented under said sections.” Opposition, p

6. In addition to being false and grammatically poor

this statement epitomizes the confusion and

misconduct of the entire Massachusetts proceedings.

Waltham has twisted the clearly stated words of the

Bryant Family to be contrary to their meanings. The

united states Constitution, Ninth and Tenth

Amendments reaffirm the jurisdiction to the Court to

7

hear this Petition, to enforce Article IV, section 4.

D. Oppositions to Waltham’s Claim of Authority in

Oversight of the Bryant Family and as Guardians of the

Children

The Parents are not charged under Chapter 76 section

1 as this charge was dismissed with prejudice. The

failure of the Massachusetts District Court and Waltham

to clearly identify the Charge is one of the issues raised

in this Petition. See Petition, page | (question 1c).

Waltham in this section of their Opposition makes

numerous misleading claims and cites court opinion as

authorization of its actions and justification for its claim

to be exempt from the Deciaration of Rights of the

Inhabitants contained in the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Waltham appears

to be claiming to be above the Law. The fact that this

Case is not identical to other decisions was raised in the

Petition, page 40, 45, 63, 65-66.

E. Opposition’s Claim that Petitioner failed to

Demonstate [sic] that a substantial federal question has

been raised or decided below regarding the Application

of the Referenced Alaska Statute.

Waltham claims “Further the lower courts never

addressed the issue of the constitutionality or

unconstitutionality of said Alaska Statute” Opposition p.

8-9. The constitutionality of Alaska Statute 14.30.010

is not in question in any Court that the Bryant Family is

8

the Bryant Family. Is Waltham claiming that to protect

the liberty of Families to rear their children absent

government intrusion may be unconstitutional? An

examination of Article 1 of Part the First of the

Massachusetts Constitution shows the absurdity of

such a claim. The failure of Massachusetts to support

its own constitution places the union at risk, thus

making this a substantial federal question. Waltham

appears to desire all families to be dependent on

government without any personal responsibility.

Neither totalitarianism, socialism nor communism is the

form of government in these united states.

Part ll. Reply to Opposition submitted by

Amy Spector, Assistant Attorney General

Ms. Spector has apparently confused this matter with

another matter as she indicates in her Waiver that she

is Counsel of Record for respondents MARGARET

FEAREY and TINA SOARES. The respondents in this

matter are not individuals Margaret Fearey and Tina

Soares as the cover page of the petition shows.

Further her statement that the petitioners are acting pro

se is false.

Ms. Spector, while claiming to be a member of the Bar

of the Supreme Court of the Unites States, is

apparently not well versed in its rules. Rule 15.3 clearly

states that “A brief in opposition may not be joined with

any other pleading...” Ms. Spector while submitting a

Waiver stating that she does not intend to file a

response has included her opposition to the Petition for

a Writ of Certiorari with no supporting facts, argument

or law, within the text of her letter to the Clerk.

Therefore this court should not consider her opposition.

9

The Bryant Family, Inhabitants of the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, is outraged at the incompetence

shown by their employee, Amy Spector in her

Submissions to this Court

Conclusion

For the reasons stated in their Petition and this Reply,

the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted this th day of August, 1999

for the Bryant Family, by our hands,

George Gree! y: Bryant Kim Elizabeth: ryant

Mail location:

Attention: Joseph Adams

Friends of the Constitution

Post Office Box 6201 15

Newton Lower Falls, Massachusetts