This morning I posted Gary Rubenstein’s post revealing that Success Academy agreed—after five years of litigation—to pay $1.1 million to parents whose children with disabilities were on the SA “got to go” list.
Leonie Haimson has more on the story.
SA never produced the documents demanded by parents. They never paid the attorneys’ fees.
Here is the August 2018 decision by the US District Court Judge, Fredrick Block, who refused Success’ request to dismiss the case, and instead described the horrific treatment that these five children with disabilities were subjected to starting at the age of four and five, including repeatedly being removed from class early, dismissed, suspended and denied their mandated services.
Here is the February 2020 acceptance by the families of Success’ Offer of Judgement of $1.1 million plus reasonable attorney fees; which the charter chain chose to provide before going to trial, rather than release the full documentation ordered by the Court, which would further detail the abusive treatment of these children.
To this day, Success has refused to pay the attorneys’ reasonable fees, so here is the most recent court filing by the families’ attorneys from Advocates for Justice, NY Lawyers for Public Interest, and Stroock Stroock and Lavan, detailing all the hours and work they put into the case over nearly five years, along with fees for the various experts who validated the fact that these children’s civil rights were repeatedly violated.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Apparently, parents and children of special ed. kids who’d been unfairly kicked out of pressured out of Success Academy were protesting outside Eva’s house, so the the whole Moskowitz clan grabbed one of posters away from one of the Special Ed. protestors, and started mocking them, cackling maniacally like The Joker or The Riddler
Photos were taken such as this: (the tallest one with the black hair and navy blue hoodie appears to be the wunderkind educator Culver, the college freshman who stepped in to teach S.A. High classes.)
Here’s my comment about this photo:
“A picture is worth a thousand words.”
For full effect, play some Joker laughs underneath.
Eva & her clan bear a striking resemblance to the guards at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War:
(here’s one such Abu Ghraib photo ,… minus the naked Iraqi P.O.W.’s being tortured, of course)
What’s indescribably creepy is what’s on display is this picture accompanying Leonie’s article. Apparently, there were protests outside Eva house, protests about the very things that the judge just found both Eva and her organization likely guilty of, or likely enough to be guilty of that he rejected Eva lawyers’ calls for a dismissal, and instead called for a trial.
Look at this photo, I’m utterly gobsmaked, and wondering:
What sick, demented thought process led $800,000/year-salaried Eva, her husband Eric, and their three spoiled brat kids to run outside, grab away a poster from a protestor, and make a laughing, mocking pose with that poster for news photographers.
“Eric! Kids! Wanna go have some fun?! Let’s go outside and mentally torment and abuse the special ed kids protesting!”
*“”Sounds great, Honey!”** replies Eric Grannis (Eva’s hubby.)
“Yeah, mom, we’re all down for it! Maybe if we’re cruel enough, we can even make of few of those retards actually cry!”
“”We can sure try!” replies Eric
Eva chimes in, “Yeah, great idea!”
“I know,” chimes in hubby Eric, “I JUST LOVE making special ed kids and their parents cry.”
Eva concurs, “Me too! Well, we’re never gonna know if we CAN actually make that bunch o wussies cry if we don’t try. Put on your coats and let’s get to it!”
Then they all run outside:
Look at the picture, and the words on it:
POSTER CAPTION:
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
”Success Academy (led by Eva) threatens to call 9-1-1 on first graders (i.e. 6-7 year olds).
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Check out the looks of pure evil and utter sadism on the faces of Eva and her family members. The son (or daughter) on the left with the red knitcap giving the thumbs-up really stands out in this regard.
Real funny, ya family o’ creeps!
It’s almost as if, by holding it up, then acting this way for photographers, Eva & family are saying back:
“Yeah, we DO abuse and kick out special ed. kids. We admit to all of it, and so what if we do? We don’t give a sh#% about the damage that doing all this — and the other things —inflicts on the children and parents upon whom we inflict it. We’re gonna keep it up, and there’s not a damn thing any of you can do about it. We got SUNY’s Joe Belluck, Bloomberg, Klein, countless hedgefund billionaires, and tens of millions of dollars of lawyers protecting us. Ha! Ha! Ha!”
Well guess again, Moskowitz family.
There actually IS something that your victims can do to challenge your evil. They can file a lawsuit, and take you all out to the metaphorical woodshed for a good ol’ fashioned metaphorical horse-whipping, and do it publicly (the woodshed part doesn’t really work with the public part, but who cares?)
If I were the plaintiffs who are suing Eva & Co., I would blow up that photo to the size of a garage door, glue onto a similarly-sized piece of plywood,. and enter it as an exhibit for the judge and jury to view, leaving it up for the jury to peruse for as long as possible.
Or perhaps, while Eva’s on the stand, bring back the garage-door-size blow up and have the plaintiffs’ lawyers pummel her with questions, asking her to defend what she’s doing in that picture:
Here’s the original article:
https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2018/08/federal-court-rules-lawsuit-vs-success.html
And here’s the photo again, best when accompanied by this audio montage of the various Joker’s cacklilng (JUST BELOW):
Here’s some Joker laughs to accompany the photo:
“What sick, demented thought process led $800,000/year-salaried Eva, her husband Eric, and their three spoiled brat kids to run outside, grab away a poster from a protestor, and make a laughing, mocking pose with that poster for news photographers.”
Particularly egregious because Moskowitz and her son are paid by the public. Success Academy is publicly funded.
Also- aren’t charters supposed to have regulations forbidding hiring family members? She hired her son? Is her husband on the payroll too?
there’s a study which could offer some interesting results across the nation: how many charter schools have family members on the payroll
What sick, demented thought process led $800,000/year-salaried Eva, her husband Eric, and their three spoiled brat kids to run outside, grab away a poster from a protestor, and make a laughing, mocking pose with that poster for news photographers.”
The same sick, demented thought process that guides Success Academy whenever its leaders identify a misfit child tarnishing their classrooms. The same thought process that humiliates 5 and 6 year old children when SA leaders maliciously leak private details about them to the press; and when SA leadership demeans children for learning differently due to a disability; when families of black and brown children are treated with contempt for merely requesting children’s legal rights be protected.
To all parents and all lawyers related in this particular threat:
I sincerely input a simple idea for all powerless people who have to suffer from corrupted and abusive authority.
Please remember that the invincible and subtle workers have contributed income tax in order to alleviate all troubles in society for a common good.
Yes, in another word, “the common good” leader is a truly hero or heroine who will protect and sustain the justice for all from the rich class to the poor class and from the educated class to the uneducated class.
If you have understood the common good, please all of you shall advocate for a leader who has relentlessly done the common good many years or many generations.
Yes, please be brave, decisive, and heartfelt voting in the upcoming Presidential Election
October – November 2020 to make it happen in your action for the common good and for a real justice in America. Back2basic
And where is the SUNY Charter Institute which is supposed to be protecting the children who enroll in charters instead of covering up for their favorite billionaires’ favorite charter CEO?
Those trustees and executive director at the SUNY Charter Institute should be investigated for wrongdoing themselves. Apparently, those white trustees at SUNY would rather believe the most absurd and racist excuses of their favorite white charter CEO over the African American parents that Eva Moskowitz implies are blatant liars, just like she implies their children are violent and dangerous at age 5 and 6.
After all, who should the SUNY Charter Institute believe? The white charter CEO who told America that Betsy DeVos was a great choice for Secretary of Education, or the African American parents that the very same Betsy-DeVos endorsing white charter CEO implies are liars?
The answer, if you are one of the white lawyers or businessmen at the SUNY Charter Institute, is of course they know that it is the white charter CEO who endorsed Betsy DeVos who is the truth-teller and the African American parents that white charter CEO implies are lying whose complaints must be ignored because the white charter CEO who endorsed Betsy DeVos must always be taken at her word.
Violating the law blatantly with impunity. Sound familiar?
Why is Success Academy continued to be allowed to operate? Their accomplishments have been undermined by reams of data showing that only a small percent of original cohorts graduate; that their practices are abusive (remember the first grade teacher who ironically yelled at a little girl to go to the “calm down” area?); and the recent high level departure because of the racist practices there. Seriously, it’s time to close up this dangerous shop for good!
“Why is Success Academy continued to be allowed to operate?”
Because the SUNY Charter Institute rewards Eva Moskowitz’ bad behavior — in fact, SUNY incentivizes it.
Success Academy could not act like this if Eva Moskowitz was not absolutely confident that the SUNY Charter Institute would always believe a white charter CEO over African American parents, and it doesn’t even matter if the white charter CEO has a history of making false statements like:
“Betsy DeVos has the talent, commitment, and leadership capacity to revitalize our public schools and deliver the promise of opportunity.”
“Future generations have much to lose — but plenty to gain — in the next four years, and they will have a strong ally fighting for them in Washington, DC, when Betsy DeVos is confirmed.”
Why wouldn’t the white SUNY Charter Institute trustees believe the woman who said those “true” comments about Betsy DeVos when she tells the white trustees that the African American parents complaining about the harsh treatment given to their children are simply lying and it is the parents who are guilty of raising some of the violent children that – according to Moskowitz — just keep winning seats in her kindergarten lottery at an extraordinarily high rate!
Who should white SUNY Charter Institute trustees believe? A white charter CEO who endorsed Betsy DeVos and makes racist innuendos about the violent nature of the very youngest students who win the lottery and attend her charters, or a “lying” African American parent whose complaints they ignore?
The answer is clear. 191 freshmen enter high school and only 99 graduate 4 years later. And the SUNY Charter Institute lavishly praises and rewards that as superior work.
Eva Moskowitz must have read Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” that he didn’t write. Doesn’t that book teach fellow narcissists and psychopaths how to cheat everyone, defy judges and courts, and get away with it?
An interesting follow up to the Success (de facto) expulsions of students with lower test scores might be to see where the rejected students ended up.
Presumably they are in schools. Which schools? Which schools act as the safety net for Success Academy? Are they the same schools over and over again?
If ed reformers were actually interested in “systems” they would look into that. A privatized system is still a system. There’s no interest in the schools that take the students charters reject? Why? Those students aren’t important?
I didn’t look at this in detail but Haimson’s presentation of this dispute seems very misleading, or, dare I say, dishonest. I don’t see any court “order” requiring SA to pay attorneys’ fees. It looks like SA agreed to settle the claims for $1.1 million plus “costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as determined by the Court.” Plaintiffs gave SA an itemization of their attorneys’ fees. SA made a counteroffer, which SA was entitled to do: the settlement didn’t require SA to simply pay whatever fees Plaintiffs demanded; it required SA to pay “reasonable” fees, “as determined by the Court.” Plaintiffs didn’t like the counteroffer so now they’ve filed a motion for an order requiring SA to pay the full amount of fees and costs that Plaintiffs asked for. If the court grants that motion in its entirety, then SA will be required to pay the fees Plaintiffs are asking for.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/115U7eOTBIVD3BDhwIs9n-Glm0VZDpjvQ/view
If I understand you correctly, if SA made a “counteroffer” that was, to you, absolutely “reasonable” — ie what you would have been thrilled to get as a lawyer since it was typical of what you believe would be a reasonable fee for your work for those hours — that would make Haimson’s presentation of the dispute “very misleading, or, dare I say, dishonest”.
So, as a lawyer, you are saying that if you were given a counteroffer like the one that Success Academy made, you would characterize it as “reasonable” and presumably lecture any law firms that don’t acknowledge how “reasonable” the offer was as “dare I say, dishonest”.
The bottom line seems to be that you felt that the “reasonable fees” in Success Academy’s counteroffer were those that you would be happy to get for yourself, being “reasonable”, of course.
On the other hand, we can presume that if Success Academy made a counteroffer that no decent lawyer would believe was “reasonable”, then Haimson’s presentation was honest.
Success Academy doesn’t usually settle — it spent a huge amount of money appealing a court decision that required transparency from them that they did not want to happen and were willing to spend any amount of money to prevent (whereas good non-profits with nothing to hide would never use resources that could have been used for charitable purposes to prevent taxpayers from knowing how their money was spent.)
So perhaps it is not surprising that Success Academy dragged this out, but settled as soon they realized that the judge would require them to provide information that they had spent so much effort to keep hidden!
I am surprised that you looked at the Success Academy counteroffer and deemed it so “reasonable” that you basically accused Leonie Haimson of lying.
I have no idea whether the requested fees are reasonable or whether the counteroffer was reasonable. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the court will decide, which is exactly what the settlement agreement contemplated. The suggestion that SA has violated some order of the court by refusing to pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers what they asked for is false.
FLERP,
Do you think it reasonable that the case dragged on for five years?
I don’t remember the timeline of the motion practice and discovery, but litigation can be slow. Usually, the slower the case, the more it benefits the defendant. I’ve been on both sides of this, and it’s a plaintiff’s job to push cases forward, but they also need a judge who doesn’t tolerate delays.
FYI. Leonie’s post was based on her discussions with the lawyer for the plaintiffs. She is neither dishonest nor wrong.
She’s definitely wrong, there is no question about it. Note that the attorneys themselves do not assert in their memo of law that SA failed to comply with a court order requiring it to pay reasonable attorneys fees. That’s because it’s not true, and nobody would know it’s not true more than the judge himself would.
FLERP!,
Here is what the memo said:
“Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs provided Defendants with timesheets from each of their three counsel’s offices to support their fee claims, shared a breakdown of the fees and costs incurred, and omitted wholesale categories of hours and costs, Defendants failed to
meaningfully engage in negotiations or to provide any counter-offer whatsoever.”
No negotiations and no counter-offers at all. Apparently Success Academy just said no until the court makes them? And if someone calls that “refusing to pay” that is a lie?? Because Success Academy was NOT refusing to pay, according to your standards? Are you really serious?
If you send a bill to your client and your client just blows you off, no matter how many times you try to get him to explain why he isn’t paying the bill, your client is refusing to pay. If your client is eventually forced to pay, that doesn’t change the fact that up until then he was intentionally refusing to take any action that involved him paying you anything.
For you to basically say Leonie Haimson is a liar for what you call “the suggestion” that SA has violated some order of the court because she accurately reported that Success Academy (who did not even make a counter-offer) “refused to pay”, is very interesting. Because you used to attack me all the time for daring to suggest that Eva Moskowitz was a liar when she “suggested” that the only reason some of her schools with virtually no white students gave multiple out of school suspensions to an extraordinarily high number of 5 and 6 year old students is because those students made unprovoked violent actions that were entirely the fault of those 5 and 6 year old children, who thus deserved the harshest punishment possible.
Leonie Haimson’s characterization of Success Academy’s lawyers not even providing a counter-offer as “refusing to pay” is certainly a lot more accurate than Eva Moskowitz’ ugly characterization of all of the Kindergarten and first graders who have been given the most severe punishment possible — suspension from school — because Eva Moskowitz says those 5 and 6 year olds were violent and dangerous to their classmates and teachers for absolutely no reason except their own violent natures. And yet you won’t ever characterize Eva Moskowitz as a liar the way you to do Leonie Haimson.
Think about it.
Or maybe you believe Eva Moskowitz when she explains how very violent so many of the 5 year olds who win her lottery are.
But I think you aren’t racist and I doubt you believe that Eva Moskowitz is telling the truth when she is entirely blaming the 5 year olds.
So it’s odd to see you jumping in to call Leonie a liar, when you never acknowledge that Eva Moskowitz is far more interested in covering up the truth and misleading the public than Leonie ever was. Leonie is clearly right about the intent, which is that Success Academy did not want to pay any lawyers fee period, until they were absolutely forced to by the court and were clearly not negotiating in good faith. Whereas Eva Moskowitz is clearly intending to mislead the public into believing her claims that students who win Success Academy lotteries happen to have a high rate of violent actions that are entirely due to their own violent natures.