As you will recall, two of John Freshwater's trial attorneys in the federal suit in which he is a defendant, attorneys who were retained by the school's insurance company,
withdrew in late April citing professional ethics concerns. Freshwater then requested that the insurance company appoint new counsel, arguing that with the withdrawal of Stoffer and Deschler he was left with no legal representation. However, Stoffer and Deschler had said in their request to withdraw that
Defendant Freshwater continues to be represented by R. Kelly Hamilton.
The insurance company has agreed to retain another attorney for Freshwater but asked that Freshwater request a continuance from the Court so that new attorney could get up to speed. In an email, the insurance company's claim analyst wrote
Mr. Hamilton is your attorney for purposes of defending the lawsuit against you, as was the firm of Mazanec Raskin, Ryder & Keller [Stoffer's and Deschler's home firm].
So the insurance company regarded Hamilton as co-counsel in the federal suit's defense.
In their request for a continuance Freshwater and Hamilton claimed that Hamilton had never represented Freshwater in the Dennis's federal suit but only represented him in the
counterclaim that the Court dismissed a few weeks ago. But as the Court's ruling says, in opposing the motion for a continuance the Plaintiffs argued that Hamilton
... has been intimately involved with the preparation for the trial, including participation in discovery, participation in conferences before this Court, in person and on the telephone, after the dismissal of Freshwater's counterclaims. (Italics in the original.)
While the judge granted the continuance until July 26, 2010, he had some strong words for Hamilton:
This court agrees with Plaintiffs' assessment of Attorney Hamilton's involvement in Freshwater's defense. Despite Hamilton's insistence that he was not involved in Freshwater's defense, his actions spoke otherwise. After this Court's dismissal of Freshwater's counterclaim Hamilton on several occasions held himself out as trial counsel for Freshwater and this Court accepted him as such. Indeed, after the final pretrial conference during the approximately five hours of settlement negotiations held with this Court's assistance, Hamilton participated most aggressively on behalf of Freshwater. The Court is sorely disappointed at the current unbelievable assertions of uninvolvement made by Hamilton.
I titled an earlier post
Playing fast and loose with the truth. It appears that Hamilton does that in a federal court as well as Freshwater does in radio interviews.
37 Comments
truthspeaker · 11 May 2010
Even for someone with no ethics at all, wouldn't lying to a judge seem like a profoundly stupid thing to do?
vince · 11 May 2010
Are we now in the "string it out as long as we can and hope that something breaks in our favor soon because we are sure getting our asses kicked" category?
Sojourner · 11 May 2010
"The defense" is always on the slow side of the case. After all, Plaintiff could die, lose interest, move 3000 miles away to get married and start a new life, etc., etc. The defense is never in a hurry for justice.
Counsel cannot withdraw from representation of a party in Federal Court without first obtaining the express approval of the Trial Judge. So I find it astonishing that any cognizant attorney could believe that it would be permissible to represent a defendant "only on the counterclaim" in Federal Court without first obtaining the Court's express permission to do so (which I do not believe would ever happen).
Juicyheart · 11 May 2010
So, now that Freshwater's first set of insurance lawyers have made a noisy exit, and his personal lawyer made a blatently 'unbelievable' statement in writing to the trial judge, what happens if the insurance company can't secure anyone to represent Freshwater? Or if the new concile also makes a noisy exit? Can this 'unbelievable' statement be used in court to attack the credibility of Freshwater? What about in the on going hearing?
Nick (Matzke) · 11 May 2010
Wow...I'm so confused. Why couldn't Hamilton just bail, like Freshwater's other attorneys did when they said they could no longer represent Freshwater (presumably due to some malfeasance they knew about?).
Pierce R. Butler · 11 May 2010
The Court is sorely disappointed at the current unbelievable assertions of uninvolvement made by Hamilton.
A statement sure to feature prominently in R. Kelly Hamilton's application to join the Thomas More Law Center.
Juicyheart · 11 May 2010
Ralph · 11 May 2010
Holy Smokes! I don't know how this all works, but can a lawyer infuriate a federal judge so much that he/she could be held in contempt? Just what could happen here if Hamilton continues on this path? Sanctions? Reprimands? Removal from a case? etc.
RBH · 11 May 2010
RBH · 11 May 2010
Daffyd ap Morgen · 11 May 2010
SPECULATION: 1). Insurer's attorneys withdraw citing possible ethics violation; 2). Freshwater claims he "fired" the attorneys for not taking required depositions; 3). Hamilton took statements from ("deposed") minors, sometimes without their parents present. Did the attorneys withdraw rather than share a federal courtroom with Hamilton and illegally obtained "statements"?
Ichthyic · 11 May 2010
Wow…I'm so confused. Why couldn't Hamilton just bail, like Freshwater's other attorneys did when they said they could no longer represent Freshwater (presumably due to some malfeasance they knew about?).
why did the Dover defendants lie to the judge so obviously, when they really had no need to (they were bound to lose anyway - their own lawyers told them so -, why risk perjury)?
This is what happens when your brain becomes so convinced it needs to support a house of cards, that you will automatically say or do anything to try and prevent it from tumbling down.
This is your brain on evangelical religious claptrap.
Unfortunately, instead of sounding a clarion for others caught up in similar beliefs, living in denial like they are Freshwater and Dover will instead cause them to merely put up more lies as defenses. It's kind of a catch 22.
Like the defendants at Dover, like Freshwater himself most likely, and like millions of others, Hamilton likely sees himself as the only champion for "religious truth" participating in this case. He simply cannot withdraw, as his own beliefs would probably be severely traumatized in doing so.
Someday, hopefully this behavioral pattern will start being treated as the psychological malady it really is. I continue to be ashamed of both the AMA and APA for NOT officially recognizing it as such, simply because of fear of backlash.
The head in the sand approach taken by the APA, and the decades of moderate religious ignorance and tolerance of this extreme behavior have allowed it to grow like a cancer, unchecked, and has now caused it to become a major thorn in the paw of the future of the States.
It has infected politics to such an extent, that even those who recognized the problem decades ago were shouted down. I even recall John McCain sounding warnings back in 2000, for which he lost his party's nomination in that run. I think he very clearly showed just how deep the cancer runs in his last bid, which I often wonder if his choices (changed his religion, picked Palin as running-mate) were deliberately chosen not to get him a victory, per se, but rather just as testimony to how bad it is.
Utilizing the evangelical right as a grassroots power base has probably been the greatest evil the Neocons perpetrated on the entire country.
It's like throwing bones to an army of schizophrenics.
RBH · 11 May 2010
Mike Elzinga · 11 May 2010
Dave Luckett · 11 May 2010
I dunno. For once, I agree with Icthyic, except over terms. This is a psychological disfunction - a retreat from reality, mandated by a fixed idea that has become non-negotiable. I'm not sure I would call it a "malady", though, in deference to those who suffer from identifiable neurological conditions that also produce disjuncts with reality.
I don't think that even the most subtle analysis of Hamilton's, or Matolyak's, or Freshwater's neurology, brain activity or physical brain structure would yield any evidence of a lesion or malfunction or disease state of any kind. Nevertheless, they are malfunctioning. They have disconnected from reality.
It's almost enough to make me wonder if there is some sort of spirit, something immaterial, going on in the human consciousness. But in this case, that sure as hell isn't a good thing.
"Sure as hell". Heh.
sparc · 11 May 2010
raven · 12 May 2010
robert van bakel · 12 May 2010
Carrying on Juicyhearts earlier observation (and others) that it might be hard to find anyone to defend the guy; Hamilton sees this as a viable constitutional out (i.e. that no one will defend him therefore his rights are constitutionally unfulfilled):Hey Presto! Case Dismissed.
DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 12 May 2010
Looks like them other two lawyers got out while the gitt'n was good.
Mike in Ontario, NY · 12 May 2010
Without agreeing or disagreeing with Ichthyic's assertion that fundies suffer some sort of mental illness, I think we can agree that it is fun to make up names for said disorder. How about Religio-Narcissistic Complex?
eric · 12 May 2010
I'm really confused about Freshwater's request. If he's happy with Hamilton's representation, why is he even bothering to ask for additional lawyers? Is it:
1 - to slow down the process
2 - to cost the insurance company more money (and is this the district's insurance, or the teachers union's insurance?)
3 - because he needs more people for actual work
4 - the confusion of multiple law teams may help with future appeals
5 - some other reason?
RBH · 12 May 2010
RBH · 12 May 2010
carlsonjok · 12 May 2010
raven · 12 May 2010
JRE · 12 May 2010
Ichthyic · 12 May 2010
However, it depends on what situations a society considers as being religious or culturally accepted.
well, that's why many of us work so hard to marginalize such behavior via ridicule. Someday the rational among us hope it will indeed NOT be considered culturally accepted.
:)
Sojourner · 12 May 2010
Religion offers the masses hope, social integration and shared resources among all socio-economic groups. Remove religion from American society, and there would be large swaths of isolation, poverty and social unrest . . . i.e., unless something takes the place of religion. What else works? What does the rest of the moderen Western world do in place of religion?
raven · 13 May 2010
The Innkeeper · 13 May 2010
rpsms · 13 May 2010
there is definately a religious component, but hamilton's behavior seems pretty normal for a former police officer
Sojourner · 13 May 2010
I agree with Inkeeper that in the rest of the moderen Western world the social safety net, primarily, has replaced religion to comfort the masses. And for all the reasons pointed out by Raven, the social saftey net is ultimately much more desireable than religion. When American society casts a social safety net around those who would otherwise be at the social abyss, they will no longer feel the need "to get all fundie," as Inkeeper would say, and instead buy into a more rational world view. We have to provide them the safety necessary for their decision.
robert van bakel · 14 May 2010
Good for you Sojourner. you were presented with an argument against your assertion about, 'what can replace religion in society', and you graciously accepted it.
Inkeeper is right about the 'social safety net', and Raven is an attack dog; in the nicest possible sense: We are all in agreement; yes?
Who knows? Maybe universal health care in your country might lead to a more 'touchy feely' Republican party, that can get in touch with its fellow 'earth passenger'?
J. Biggs · 17 May 2010
I wonder if Hamilton is trying to get the insurance to pick up his tab for Freshwater's defense. Consider that at this point this case is looking pretty strange, and perhaps Hamilton is the only attorney willing to work on this case, however, he claims he is not the defense attorney. Is it possible that the insurance won't be able to find any other representation in this case and therefore will be forced to pay Hamilton for his services.
Another thing I would like to note is that in many insurance cases if the plaintiffs and insurance co. can come to a settlement, and the defendant refuses to accept the terms, the insurance company can limit its financial responsibility to the terms of the settlement. This means in many cases that if attorney fee's and/or judgments above the settlement amount become the responsibility of the defendant. Is it possible that the insurance company offered a settlement to the Dennis family which was accepted but Freshwater decided not to allow the settlement?
Patre · 25 May 2010
Did anyone catch the final Law and Order episode? Rife with "branding of students" references. Crosses and all.
seabiscuit · 27 May 2010
Yes, watched it last night on the internet on this link:
http://ch131.com/
The episode is called The Rubber Room
seabiscuit · 27 May 2010
The part that is references the "branding" is about 18 minutes into the show.