The posted agenda for the meeting is here.

Audio of the meeting – it is in two parts and very short.

Mr. King – The cost of an electronic copy only of the transcript for the above-mentioned hearing, would be $259.95. If you would like a hard copy as well, the cost would be $277.95.

Since you do not have a credit history with us, we would require payment in advance, payable by either check or credit card.

If you have any questions or if we can be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you,

Kim Livingston
REGENCY-BRENTANO, INC.
SHUGART & BISHOP
Certified Court Reporters
13 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 140
Atlanta, GA 30329
ph: 404-321-3333
fax: 404-321-3307
kim@regencybrentano.com

Photo: Bitalia & Co

Sent via email tonight at 10;13

Please consider this my official request for public records under state law.

IERB

Please send me the minutes of the February 28, 2018 IERB meeting.

Please send me any existing taxpayer funded audio or video recording of the February 28, 2018 meeting.

Please send me a list of the IERB members the Chairman counted as ‘present’ at the February 28, 2018 meeting.

As I have never been allowed to see or address these documents, please send me the written responses (including ‘Stipulations of Dismissal’) sent to the board by all of the respondents who had complaints addressed in the February 28, 2018 IERB meeting.

Please send the minutes of the IERB meeting in which Shawn Hanley was elected Chairman to replace Ben Vinson.

Please send me contact information for the court reporter who worked the February 28, 2018 IERB meeting.

Please send me any all documents that identify the person (male) who addressed the board and had the dismissals organized for the board to address and his position and title.

Please send me a copy of any IERB rule that addresses and allows any member to be regarded as “present” if that member is not physically in attendance at a “hearing.”

Please send any document or reference to a IERB rule that allows an initial hearing of a complaint and action on that complaint without allowing the complainant to offer or explain evidence or to address the board.

Please send any document or IERB rule that puts a time limit on a complainant’s question or observation in addressing the board.

D.A. King
2984 Lowe Trail
Marietta, Ga. 30066

ForWeb.com

1) The 1982 SCOTUS Plyler v Doe decision made us do it:

Plyler v. Doe has essentially guaranteed a right to pursue a high school diploma to all students (children) regardless of immigration status. It applies to K-12 education.

An easy to read and accurate synopsis: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children and a municipal school district’s attempt to charge undocumented immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding.[1] The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their status as immigrants must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a “substantial” government interest.

The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling. Other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno 441 U.S. 458 (1979) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996[2] have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny undocumented immigrants students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or even bar them from enrollment at public colleges and universities.

Plyler v Doe applies to admittance, enrollment and education of illegal aliens K-12 . It does not provide for any education of parents of students. Neither does it mean that school systems can or should provide any public benefit to parents (adults) in the name of furthering the education of the child/student.

The USDOE has distributed guidance letters which are linked below. Although many of the responses from Georgia school districts cite Plyler v Doe and these letters as evidence of the legality of adult education for already enrolled K-12 students, the letters all clearly address enrollment of K-12 students, not adult education.

The (English) guidance documents:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201405.pdf

Lastly, the argument that verifying the eligibility/immigration status of parents for public benefits or not providing illegal aliens parents (adults) of K-12 students language classes hinders the education of the child can be expanded to say that we cannot verify the legal status of the parents for a teaching or contractor job in the school system and that use of the E-Verify or SAVE system aimed at a parent is a “civil rights violation” or somehow damages the child’s education. Taken to extremes, use of the E-Verify system for parents of any or all Georgia K-12 students could be said to hinder the education of an illegal alien’s child because the parent cannot lawfully be employed. Shorter: The Plyer v Doe argument is intended for people who do not know the law.

2) Title lll made us do it and authorizes English classes for illegal alien parents of K-12 students already enrolled in Georgia’s school system.

I do not dispute that there is language in Title lll concerning parents and English language assistance. But partial quoting of Title lll without noting the federal requirement that all programs be in compliance with individual state law is incomplete and deceptive.

I insert a link to Title III text here

Title III — Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students

Please note Section 3116 Local Plans “(a) PLAN REQUIRED – Each eligible entity desiring a subgrant from the State educational agency under section 3114 shall submit a plan to the State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the State educational agency may require.
(b) CONTENTS – Each plan submitted under subsection (a) shall —
…(1) each local educational agency that is included in the eligible entity is complying with section 3302 prior to, and throughout, each school year;
(2) the eligible entity annually will assess the English prof iciency of all children with limited English proficiency participating in programs funded under this part;
(3) the eligible entity has based its proposed plan on scientifically based research on teaching limited English proficient children;
(4) the eligible entity will ensure that the programs will enable children to speak, read, write, and comprehend the English language and meet challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and
→(5) the eligible entity is not in violation of any State law, including State constitutional law, regarding the education of limited English proficient children, consistent with sections 3126 and 3127.

And Section 3126 LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW.
→“Nothing in this part shall be construed to negate or supersede State law, or the legal authority under State law of any State agency, State entity, or State public official, over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the State agency, entity, or official.

SEC. 3127. CIVIL RIGHTS.
Nothing in this part shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with any Federal law guaranteeing a civil right. Use of Funds Requirements in OMB Circular A – 87

3) Title lll and Title l made us do it:

“Translation and Interpretation for English Learners – Requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Related to National Origin Discrimination and Use of Funds Under Title III, Part A and Title I, Part A of the ESEA.” See linked info ( for some reason, the link must be pasted into your browser to open the fed document). https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/titleititleiii421.pdf

“Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A – 87 requires that the use of funds for a specific purpose be: necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient performance and administration of the program; and authorized and not prohibited under State and local laws or regulations.
—

photo: academicpgcc.edu

Title III — Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students HERE

We like Sections 3136 and 3126.

Click on page to view 4 page document.

ForWeb.com

Attachment to complaint against the City of Atlanta – D.A. King

The IERB has already found the City of Atlanta to be in violation of OCGA 50-36-1 in that Atlanta illegally processed and renewed business licenses without offering or collecting the required SAVE affidavits. These violations were estimated to number about 1400 each year for a period of at least five years – (2012-2016) – depending on when the 2017 business license renewals were processed.

1) Additional violation: False annual compliance report

OCGA 50-36-1 also requires that each agency administering public benefits file an annual compliance report. Assuming that the City of Atlanta filed such a report each of the years in question, those reports would be false. There is also a violation if such reports of compliance were not filed.

(OCGA 50-36-1 – “(k) It shall be unlawful for any agency or political subdivision to provide or administer any public benefit in violation of this Code section. Agencies and political subdivisions subject to the requirements of this subsection shall provide an annual report to the Department of Audits and Accounts pursuant to Code Section 50-36-4 as proof of compliance with this subsection. Any agency or political subdivision failing to provide a report as required by this subsection shall not be entitled to any financial assistance, funds, or grants from the Department of Community Affairs.”

2) Request for remedial action and investigation of settlement of prior complaint against the city of Atlanta: Re; Business license/occupational tax certificate for La Amistad, Inc. located at 3434 Roswell Road, NW Atlanta, GA.

La Amistad Inc. is operating in the city of Atlanta and was apparently one of the businesses from which Atlanta had not collected a SAVE affidavit as described above. A reply to an open records request (attached, marked “A”) reveals that the city of Atlanta does not have a SAVE affidavit (or an E-Verify affidavit) on file from La Amistad as of October 18, 2017. This is despite the pledge from Atlanta to rectify the violation for which the IERB has fined Atlanta.

I hereby request that the board investigate the original date of any business license issued to La Amistad Inc. so as to confirm that business was part of the list of non-profits excluded from the affidavit requirement of OCGA 50-36-1 by Atlanta.

Regardless of the original date of licensing, I also request that the board use its investigative authority and budget to learn why Atlanta has not collected the required SAVE affidavit from La Amistad. Operating a lawful administration of public benefits was a condition of the settlement of the prior complaint and sanction of $1000.00.

Georgia law on Immigration Enforcement Review Board HERE 

Decatur anti-enforcement immigration policy HERE

Georgia state law on sanctuary cities HERE.

 Bonus # 1: Federal sanctuary city law HERE.

Bonus # 2 Sanctuary Cities and Immigration detainers: A Primer HERE.

Bonus # 3 HERE.

CBS 46 news video added November 7, 2:38PM HERE