Freshwater Update (Re-updated 21 Sept)

Is Hamilton basically throwing out anything he and Freshwater can think of to see what sticks?

Wheels said: Is Hamilton basically throwing out anything he and Freshwater can think of to see what sticks?

RBH said: ...this one may cost him (and/or Freshwater) some money.

O well, as long as they are wasting money on lost cases like this, that money cannot be used for more damaging purposes....

RBH said:

Wheels said: Is Hamilton basically throwing out anything he and Freshwater can think of to see what sticks?

That's what it looks like to me. And this one may cost him (and/or Freshwater) some money.

Sheesh; it looks like these ID/creationists are trying to emulate a metastasized, inoperable cancer. Making sure the patient dies in the process.

I am much pleased. I absolutely called this ages ago. When the Freshwater people spun their conspiracy theory and said the school board's attorney was a major player in that conspiracy, I said that was unethical, disturbing, and likely to get R. Kelly Hamilton sanctioned. I believe it will stick. Going after opposing counsel legally is completely unprofessional and unethical, and that's been established law for centuries now, and in dozens of countries.

I'm inclined to agree. The legal strategy employed in this case does strike me, as a non-lawyer, as one that is destined to fail.

It would make more sense to just go before the Board and the arbiter and provide Freshwater's defense.

As matters appear to me, just reviewing the record, the District didn't persecute Freshwater, in fact, it went out of its way not to fire him. The clear, proximate cause the district deciding to initiate action against him was the student filing a lawsuit.

The only thing that does (almost) make a little sense to me is that the attorney for the district engaged in ex parte communication with the outside personnel firm hired to investigate Freshwater. As I recall, he sent it back to the personnel firm two or three times asking for more information.

I would imagine that the board's attorney is conspiring with the board to defeat Freshwater. And Freshwater's attorney is conspiring with Freshwater to defeat the board.

Isn't that what lawyers do? Isn't that why you hire them in the first place? Wouldn't an attorney who's not conspiring against the other side be committing some kind of ethical breach?

WikiAnswer.com: A writ of mandamus is a court order instructing an inferior court, a corporation or a person to perform some duty specified in the order. +2 deleted sentences.

Do not feed that troll, please. All responses are gone to the BW.

Thanks.

Maybe there's both a short term and a long term element to this strategy. The short term goal is to grind down the school board into a disposition more favorable to Freshwater. The long term goal (giving perhaps more credit than they deserve) is to do everything possible to maximize the dollar cost of firing anyone for such offenses.

The thought process can be heard from here: "Yeah, he's preaching in the classroom and having his students pray to Jesus and flunking biology students who don't give biblical test answers, BUT in the first place he's doing God's work as a true Christian should, and in the second place the last time we fired someone it costs us millions, forcing up taxes, causing the board to get voted out of office in favor of more creationists, and changed nothing fundamental. So let's ignore it."

raven said: 2. Time is not on Freshwater's side. The school board is playing with tax payer money. He is playing with his own and whatever fundie xian sources want to kick in.

And also probably in part what Flint said.

If they can elect the one known Freshwater sympathizer, prevent two from voting (Watson & Goetzman) by virtue of their having testified in the hearing (that’s the goal of the mandamus request), and bring sufficient pressure to bear on the member who is an administrator at the Nazarene university, they’d have a 2-1 majority among those remaining to vote on the recommendation of the hearing referee.

Re: the update. I think we've reached the throw-your-hands-up point where it is no longer worth dealing with this level of lunacy.

Seconded. Learned counsel has chug-a-lugged the koolaid and let go the things of Earth. Train wreck unfolding as we watch.

There you have it. It’s a done deal. It’s all in the names.

— Richard B. Hoppe

So, let me get this straight, God told this guy he would be fighting for justice. All the names are in the Bible somewhere with the guys on his side having all the good names, (even though you should always do what the shepard wants, the Bible says that), and all because the holy mission is to defend the "free speech" of branding students. RIGHT. Now why would God want you to brand students with an "X"? Does't say nothin bout that in the Bible, at least nothin good. On the other hand, if they are now admitting that the brand was a cross, then it makes perfect sense, at least in bizzaro world.

Look, you cannot claim that you are defending this guys religious freedm or right to preach in class as free speech. That is why he was fired, because that is illegal. Why doesn't the other attorney go on the radio and explain how God told him to fight against the liars who break the law and endanger students all while denigrating and misrepresenting the science they were hired to teach? How can these jerks claim the moral high ground here? Who would be dumb enough to fall for that? Who would give this guy money for a defense that can only cost tax payers more?

So in other words, this guy has no real interest in actually defending his client's interests before the school board. Instead of arguing the case, he's going for political grandstanding and praying that the composition of the school board changes.

In principle, there's nothing inherently wrong with using publicity and pressure to further a client's cause. But this seems to go beyond any effort to actually win and argue the case.

This guy strikes me more as a con man than a true believer. When it's over, Freshwater still won't have a job or a settlement, because this guy just won't go argue the facts and the law.

I can't say I feel sorry for Freshwater.

Hamilton: that God made it very clear that one day I would be arguing about the First Amendment as it relates to His Bible.

This guy strikes me more as a con man than a true believer.

The symbolism argument was very entertaining and he's obviously speaking to a very specific audience. I would venture to guess that he would not present this argument to the general public, unless he's attempting career suicide.

As an aside, I'm extremely grateful that my last name is not "Fierycaraccident".

raven said:

Hamilton: that God made it very clear that one day I would be arguing about the First Amendment as it relates to His Bible.

1. So what happens when Hamilton loses? Does this mean god is losing his super powers?

Note to self: never hire an attorney as nutty as you are.

I also agree with Flint about the purpose. I think that's been clear for a while. Raising the cost of firing a teacher who violates the court rulings on teaching creationism is the main point.

raven:

Technically, the claim made by Freshwater is that he does NOT teach or support teaching intelligent design theory in science class. He is simply teaching the kids to critically evaluate evolution. This is in keeping with how the strategy has changed with various court decisions. Creationism was ruled unconstitutional, then creation science, then intelligent design. So now, the fundies are teaching "explore evolution" and "critically analyze evolution."

He is also seeking to separate the Bible in the class, his First Amendment right, the "Here!" to show evolution skepticism, and the Tesla coil. And the implication, without it being openly expressed, is that hundreds of kids and teachers have been buzzed with the coil, and the kid in question is a big fag for whining over a little red X you can barely see that goes away.

the kid in question is a big fag for whining over a little red X you can barely see that goes away.

Flint said: I suspect this isn't the point. The branding, albeit physically temporary, is an initiation ceremony, "marking" the student as a member of a club. It is an enormously powerful symbol. To subsequently accept evolution, a student now must not only deny his god, but must reneg on solemn social vows binding him to his community.

Marion Delgado said: I also agree with Flint about the purpose. I think that's been clear for a while. Raising the cost of firing a teacher who violates the court rulings on teaching creationism is the main point.

Waynef said: The symbolism argument was very entertaining and he's obviously speaking to a very specific audience. I would venture to guess that he would not present this argument to the general public, unless he's attempting career suicide.

bk said: Freshwater may be angling for a deal, but if that settlement will leave Hamilton without his mission, what will happen? Freshwater may find that he's being manipulated into an increasingly costly case so that Hamilton can fulfill his destiny.

the kid in question is a big fag for whining over a little red X you can barely see that goes away.

Robin said:

raven said:

Hamilton: that God made it very clear that one day I would be arguing about the First Amendment as it relates to His Bible.

1. So what happens when Hamilton loses? Does this mean god is losing his super powers?

Of course not. It just means that we simpltons can't fathom God's vast, intricate plan or know the full impact of His plan that includes Hamilton and Freshwater losing. I mean, clearly if Hamilton loses, God planned such, and likely in the grand scheme of things Hamilton will become greater because of it. Clearly God planned Jesus's and Paul's deaths, right? Must be the same sort of thing - set an example of the poor state of the world that needs to be forgiven (or better still, destroyed) by punishing the good. Isn't that the most logical course of action? /sarcasm off

stevaroni said:

the kid in question is a big fag for whining over a little red X you can barely see that goes away.

Nonetheless, I suspect that things would be going a lot differently if Freshwater was a Muslim, and the kids had been marked with something that could be construed, even remotely, as a half moon.

What if instead of Freshwater, the name was Llipshitz? Or Tinkle?

What if instead of Millstone, the name was Cedar or Gladstone?

Do I take it that Hamilton's motivation and dedication to justice and the rule of law would have taken on different qualities and goals?

He ought to be glad they weren't all named Smith. Including Hamilton. He'd be speechless, apparently.

There is a .. the opposing attorney in this particular case, his last name is Millstone. All you need to do is go to the book of Luke, and when you take a look at the book of Luke it will say, you know, “It would be better for someone to put a mill stone around their neck than to keep these little ones from me.”

There’s an election in November, with two BOE slots up. There are 5 candidates: two incumbents who voted to terminate Freshwater, a person who would have voted to do so, one who would not have, and one unknown.

There's a line in C. S. Lewis' science-fiction trilogy: "Not for nothing are you called Ransom".

But then these guys probably never read anything deeper than "The Screwtape Letters".

Wheels said:

There is a .. the opposing attorney in this particular case, his last name is Millstone. All you need to do is go to the book of Luke, and when you take a look at the book of Luke it will say, you know, “It would be better for someone to put a mill stone around their neck than to keep these little ones from me.”

Well, maybe that's the basis of the "conspiracy" accusations. Symbolism.

I will contribute a nominal sum to Freshwater's defense fund if Hamilton will make the Millstone and Freshwater name cases before a judge.

But it should be videotaped.

Then, of course, the judge’s last name in this particular case, his last name is Shepherd. So you start putting some of the symbolism together just on the names, you start to see some of the unique intervention that God has had in this particular matter.

Ha -- is it not perfectly obvious?

The judge MUST recuse himself because of his divine bias.

--S.

You know, my birth name was "Verily, every nubile virgin in john freshwater's church shall be sent, free of rainment and bearing on their heads 40 talents of gold each, to the home of this man."

I was usually called "Verily" for short.

I hope that was "on their backs" because a talent is a measure of weight and 40 talents would probably break their necks.

Is their anything in Lawyer Hamilton's previously published effusions that indicates he knew all this was coming before it happened, e.g. last year? Or is it strictly one of those "I knew that" rationalizations?

fnxtr said: There's a line in C. S. Lewis' science-fiction trilogy: "Not for nothing are you called Ransom". But then these guys probably never read anything deeper than "The Screwtape Letters".

A talent is normally taken to be about 60 pounds, so forty talents is about a ton. Any virgin who can carry a ton on her head can walk free of rainment anywhere she likes, and I'd like to see the bozo that'd give her any trouble.

That's RAIMENT. "Rainment" I guess is what happened to all those wicked infants and unborn fetuses that the merciful god of love mercifully murdered in the time of Noah.

Monado said: Is their anything in Lawyer Hamilton's previously published effusions that indicates he knew all this was coming before it happened, e.g. last year? Or is it strictly one of those "I knew that" rationalizations?

I'm not sure the details matter, as long as what you're saying sounds sufficiently Biblical. And I think Kelly and John agree with me.

It is in fact "rainment" - garments, clothing, especially rich apparel.

Dave Luckett said: It is in fact "rainment" - garments, clothing, especially rich apparel.

Well, there you go. Another bit of stuff I thought I knew shot down. Although it would appear that "rainment" is commonly used, as a google of the word shows, it would also appear that it is incorrect.

Dave Luckett said: Well, there you go. Another bit of stuff I thought I knew shot down. Although it would appear that "rainment" is commonly used, as a google of the word shows, it would also appear that it is incorrect.

Since Hamilton is an apparently self-taught expert at names, do you think he could tell what the slogan "With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good" is supposed to mean?

bk said: Since Hamilton is an apparently self-taught expert at names, do you think he could tell what the slogan "With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good" is supposed to mean?

Monado said: I hope that was "on their backs" because a talent is a measure of weight and 40 talents would probably break their necks.

ben said:

bk said: Since Hamilton is an apparently self-taught expert at names, do you think he could tell what the slogan "With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good" is supposed to mean?

It took me about 35 years to figure that out myself. It's saying that the quality of the jelly must be very high, in order to overcome the handicap presented by the weird name. I think.

As hilarious as all this is, it's interesting that Richard sees no signs of Thomas Moore-type coaching. (No way Discovery Institute would be that inept).

seriously is a lawyer named R Kelly drawing attention to names??

To paraphrase Gandhi:

When it comes to the struggle against Evolution:

First they laugh at you.

Then they roll on the floor helplessly

Then you attack them once they've broken a few ribs.

Freshwater been in Russia lately?

"Quranic Verses 'Appear' on Baby's Body - Russians flock to see 'miracle' baby"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWLKdVlFbps