Freshwater: More sanctions coming against Hamilton?

Posted 25 August 2010 by Richard B. Hoppe

The defendants in Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education, et al. have requested that R. Kelly Hamilton, John Freshwater's attorney, be subject to sanctions for failure to comply with discovery demands. What's interesting about the request (pdf) is that it specifically singles out attorney Hamilton for the sanctions, and not Freshwater. Recall that in Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al., sanctions were also imposed on Freshwater and Hamilton. In that case the operative paragraph of the Court's order (pdf) was

6. GRANTS Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court ORDERS Freshwater and Attorney R. Kelly Hamilton to pay the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs that Plaintiffs incurred as a result of Freshwater's and Attorney Hamilton's failure to comply with this Court's Written Order Compelling Production and this Court's Verbal Order Compelling Production and ORDERS Freshwater and Attorney R. Kelly Hamilton to pay the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs that Plaintiffs incurred as a result of filing their Motion to Compel. (italics added)

The italicized phrase plainly says that both Freshwater and Hamilton are responsible for the costs. However, what was offered as supposedly satisfying that order was an unrecorded lien on a parcel of land nominally belonging to Freshwater. Hamilton put nothing into the payment pot. In the new request (pdf) filed in Freshwater v. MVBOE the defendants specifically single out Hamilton for sanctions. They say

Further, this Court should order Attorney Hamilton to pay the expenses incurred by Defendants. "Rule 37 permits a court to order the attorney who advised the conduct necessitating a motion to compel to pay the expenses thereby incurred... when it is clear that discovery was unjustifiably opposed principally at his instigation." Id. at *19-20 citing Humphreys Extermination Co. v. Poulter, 62 F.R.D. 392, 395 (D. Md. 1974). For the foregoing reasons, it is clear that Attorney Hamilton controlled the disposition of his clients' discovery responses. Attorney Hamilton chose not to call Defendants' counsel to notify them that responses were in the mail and chose not to file for an extension of time. It was Attorney Hamilton who did not work with Defendants' counsel to provide adequate discovery in a timely fashion.

I've heard some talk among attorneys not associated with the matter to the effect that Hamilton should be subject to some sort of discipline for his behavior in the several cases involving Freshwater, and this request for sanctions specifically directed at him may foreshadow even more serious measures to come.

75 Comments

Malchus · 25 August 2010

Thank you for your continuing efforts with regard to this case: it has been a fascinating read, and a sad indictment of the ethics of certain Christian lawyers. Freshman seems to me to be fundamentally out of his league here.

Gary Hurd · 25 August 2010

Yea!

I have been checking PT three times a day for more Freshwater news.

MememicBottleneck · 25 August 2010

I was hoping that there was some way that Hamilton would pay for his shenanigans. As stupid and misguided as Freshwater is, I can't help but feel that he was Hamilton's patsy. If things went well, Hamilton's the hero, if they go south, Freshwater pays.

Don't get me wrong, I feel strongly that Freshwater should have been fired, but a competent lawyer with his client's best interest in mind would have ended this a long time ago.

Hamilton may be an idiot as well, but he is being paid to know better.

nmgirl · 25 August 2010

Question, who has a senior claim to freshwater's assets? Hamilton or the various people suing him.

eric · 25 August 2010

nmgirl said: Question, who has a senior claim to freshwater's assets? Hamilton or the various people suing him.

IANAL, but I think lawyers typically get paid before anyone else does. Here's the reasoning: if they didn't get paid first, people being sued would have a very difficult time hiring good legal representation. No good lawyer would want to take a case where there's a chance the client could go bankrupt, because they wouldn't get paid for it.

EJH · 25 August 2010

I have been checking PT for updates as well -- sometimes much more often than three times a day. I thought the referee (Shepherd) in the administrative hearing would want to wrap up that procedure soon after it ended and before the MV schools started session. In fact, I thought there was a deadline that had already passed for him to file his final ruling.

Is there a reason why Shepherd might be delaying his decision? Could the settlement that has been alluded to in recent court filings include some language that allows Freshwater to leave "quietly" and "on his own account" rather than having the hearing's results affirm the BOE's right and decision to fire him?

stevaroni · 25 August 2010

MememicBottleneck said: I was hoping that there was some way that Hamilton would pay for his shenanigans. As stupid and misguided as Freshwater is, I can't help but feel that he was Hamilton's patsy. If things went well, Hamilton's the hero, if they go south, Freshwater pays.

Such is typically the case with "Lawyerin' for Jesus" Just ask the good taxpayers of the Dover school district.

RBH · 25 August 2010

EJH said: I have been checking PT for updates as well -- sometimes much more often than three times a day. I thought the referee (Shepherd) in the administrative hearing would want to wrap up that procedure soon after it ended and before the MV schools started session. In fact, I thought there was a deadline that had already passed for him to file his final ruling. Is there a reason why Shepherd might be delaying his decision? Could the settlement that has been alluded to in recent court filings include some language that allows Freshwater to leave "quietly" and "on his own account" rather than having the hearing's results affirm the BOE's right and decision to fire him?

The original date for submission of final briefs was extended twice at Hamilton's request, and was Friday, August 13. Both sides then had until this last Monday the 21st (I think) to submit replies to the opposing briefs, or at any rate sometime this week. Then the referee said he would consider the exhibits in evidence, the testimony, the briefs and replies, and when he has done so according to him the 10-day clock for his recommendation to the Board of Education starts running. So there's an indeterminate period during which the referee stews over the evidence before making a recommendation.

kp · 25 August 2010

nmgirl said: Question, who has a senior claim to freshwater's assets? Hamilton or the various people suing him.

In this case, does it matter? If Hamilton and Freshwater are both responsible, it seems possible that whoever has the money would pay. This is working under the assumption that the legal concept of 'jointly and severally liable' applies. IA(also)NAL, but my layman's understanding is that each party is completely responsible for the entire debt, not only some portion of it. So if Hamilton has all of Freshwater's money/land/whatever, he has to hand it over. My first comment, but as with others, I have been following this case with fascination for months and was very happy to see an update.

MikeMa · 25 August 2010

Nice to finally have an end (almost) in sight. Also nice that R Kelly may get some blame for his piss poor advice to a defendant bright enough to know better but with a brain so deeply shrouded in jesus, he couldn't see or think straight.

Mr Hoope, your efforts stand with Ms Lebo from Dover PA. Your final, full account should be a cautionary tale told on dark, scary nights by a campfire.

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle · 25 August 2010

With regards to checking PT regularly, try using their RSS feed or maybe even a Google news email / rss alert.
http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us
I've got mine set up searching for John Freshwater "as it happens" and am counting on it to know when to pop the champagne!

dogmeat · 25 August 2010

nmgirl said: Question, who has a senior claim to freshwater's assets? Hamilton or the various people suing him.

I'm not in any way familiar with Ohio specifically, but from what I know of property law, the liens on a property are settled in order of their filing. If Freshwater has a situation where his property is auctioned, foreclosed, etc., any mortgage holder would be the primary party. Following that there would then be whatever money was left over granted to whomever had the earliest liens. Whenever the pot runs out of money, whomever is left over has to try to squeeze blood out of the stone. Odds are good, unless Freshwater somehow manages to win some sort of major financial settlement, or his farm is worth a great deal of money, he will end up bankrupt trying to fight this case. That's why I have to agree with MememicBottleneck in that I hope Hamilton does see some sort of sanctions. IANAL but were I one I would likely have advised my client to settle a long time ago. Had they done so early in this case, odds are good there could have been some sort of minor financial settlement (likely legal fees) and probably an apology of some sort. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Freshwater didn't lose everything. He might end up a martyr for the "cause," but odds are good he wont be the one seeing the money.

C.E. Petit · 25 August 2010

RBH said: What’s interesting about the request (pdf) is that it specifically singles out attorney Hamilton for the sanctions, and not Freshwater.

I'm afraid I find this less interesting, as discovery sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 are almost always against counsel and not against the client. Discovery sanctions against the client are appropriate only when the client itself (in this instance, Freshwater) took an action, or made an omission, or otherwise refused to cooperate, in a manner distinct from the obvious advice of counsel. For example, refusing to answer questions during a deposition, or providing only evasive answers, despite the advice of counsel to respond properly, would subject a client to sanctions. Similarly, so would refusing to turn over documents or answer interrogatories. The conduct that is the subject of this particular motion, however, is not Freshwater's conduct made independent of the advice of his counsel (Hamilton), but Hamilton's own failure to cooperate (and, it is implied, intent to evade Rule 26 requirements, but that's less than clear... and is usually not something that big law firms like to raise due to the "pot, meet kettle" context). Just a persnickity procedural point. But then, I'm a civil procedure geek.

RBH · 25 August 2010

C.E. Petit said: I'm afraid I find this less interesting, as discovery sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 are almost always against counsel and not against the client.

In which case, the interesting sanctions are those in Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE, since they were imposed jointly on Freshwater and Hamilton. And Freshwater made the only attempt to pay up, though the attempt was pretty feeble; Hamilton has not AFAIK made any attempt at all to pay off the fees and costs charged to him and Freshwater in that case.

MosesZD · 25 August 2010

Lying for Jesus should be costly, not rewarded. Therefore, I agree with and all sanctions leveled against Freshwater and Hamilton.

MosesZD · 25 August 2010

stevaroni said:
MememicBottleneck said: I was hoping that there was some way that Hamilton would pay for his shenanigans. As stupid and misguided as Freshwater is, I can't help but feel that he was Hamilton's patsy. If things went well, Hamilton's the hero, if they go south, Freshwater pays.
Such is typically the case with "Lawyerin' for Jesus" Just ask the good taxpayers of the Dover school district.

True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.

MosesZD · 25 August 2010

Gary Hurd said: Yea! I have been checking PT three times a day for more Freshwater news.

I check every day.

CMB · 25 August 2010

RBH said:
C.E. Petit said: I'm afraid I find this less interesting, as discovery sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 are almost always against counsel and not against the client.
In which case, the interesting sanctions are those in Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE, since they were imposed jointly on Freshwater and Hamilton. And Freshwater made the only attempt to pay up, though the attempt was pretty feeble; Hamilton has not AFAIK made any attempt at all to pay off the fees and costs charged to him and Freshwater in that case.

In Hamilton's defense, he did have 2 tires and a laptop to pay for! And thanks Richard! It seems like there has been a news blackout on Freshwater for about 3 weeks-haven't seen anything anywhere until today.

John Vanko · 25 August 2010

I also.

Ever since Kansas in 1999 (go Pedro Irigonegaray!) and Dover (the greatest trial since Scopes; thank you Lauri) got me started on TO/PT I check multiple times every day for the final word on Freshwater. (Thanks to Richard.)

Will Louisiana be our next big trial? Or will the Discovery Institute shun the spotlight, with its tail between its legs? (It sure would be more entertaining to see them get a whoopin'.)

RBH · 25 August 2010

CMB said: In Hamilton's defense, he did have 2 tires and a laptop to pay for! And thanks Richard! It seems like there has been a news blackout on Freshwater for about 3 weeks-haven't seen anything anywhere until today.

That's 'cause everything interesting that's going on is happening behind the veil of the gag order in Doe v. MVBOE and no one is talking on the record.

SEF · 26 August 2010

Did no-one local (or with specialist connections) manage to track down the former holders of that phone number (740-397-9104) in all this time?

The Founding Mothers · 26 August 2010

Richard, thanks again for the news. I've also been salivating like Pavlov's pooch, just waiting for an update reward.
Hieronymus, thanks for the google tips.

The Discovery request is scathing, to put it mildly ("Further showing Attorney Hamilton's gamesmanship...").

General questions to Lawyers and those more familiar with the subject than LA Law reruns (my level): How common are the 'delaying tactics' (or 'shambolic time wasting') of Hamilton? How easy is it for this behaviour to escape without punishment? How common is such derogatory language from those proposing the sanctions?

Looking forward to the denouement of these various chapters!

The Founding Mothers · 26 August 2010

Wait! there's an even better quote:

Another illustration of Mr. Hamilton's contumacious conduct...

Alliteration at its finest.

DS · 26 August 2010

The Founding Mothers said: General questions to Lawyers and those more familiar with the subject than LA Law reruns (my level): How common are the 'delaying tactics' (or 'shambolic time wasting') of Hamilton? How easy is it for this behaviour to escape without punishment? How common is such derogatory language from those proposing the sanctions?

Well the judge might have just gotten a heads up on this one. After all, remember that it took almost three years to get Freshwater fired and nearly two years for the appeal, mostly because of delaying tactics that accomplished absolutely nothing but to run up court costs. If I were in charge of this three ring circus, I would sure want to send a message loud and clear that such behavior would not be tolerated in a real court of law. Also, it should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that these guys are lying through their teeth. The judge must certainly know by now that they have something to hide. It is his job to get to the truth. Why let the liars get away with it? This whole thing reminds me of the movie The Invention of Lying. In that movie, the lead character suddenly realizes that he can lie and people will believe him no matter how outrageous the claim. Then he has to decide whether to use his new found powers for good or for evil. Freshwater has already made that choice. Lying about it now should cost him even more. You would think he would get a clue by now.

eric · 26 August 2010

John Vanko said: Will Louisiana be our next big trial? Or will the Discovery Institute shun the spotlight, with its tail between its legs?

Livingston Parish, LA, was probably the frontrunner for a suit, and they've punted the question of teaching creationism to next year (or longer - a "delay" is often how you kill bad legislation). However, the DI has already come out with backpedaling op-eds, so we can be pretty sure that if or when something goes to court, they will be hiding and claiming that what is happennig has nothing to do with them.

OgreMkV · 26 August 2010

I think everyone's given up on Livingston Parrish. I think someone suggested that they read about the Dover trial and the school board nearly wet their pants.

What's much more interesting is the textbook/supplamentary material discussion coming up in Texas. As I understand it, science texts will not be approved due to lack of money, but supplamentary materials will be approved. Which means that Pandas (or whatever they call it now) could get official sanction, while the newest Miller/Levine text won't.

That's going to be fun to watch.

Rich Blinne · 26 August 2010

OgreMkV said: I think everyone's given up on Livingston Parrish. I think someone suggested that they read about the Dover trial and the school board nearly wet their pants. What's much more interesting is the textbook/supplamentary material discussion coming up in Texas. As I understand it, science texts will not be approved due to lack of money, but supplamentary materials will be approved. Which means that Pandas (or whatever they call it now) could get official sanction, while the newest Miller/Levine text won't. That's going to be fun to watch.

If you look at this the intent is to go under the radar and not have the materials "approved" at all. For example, if Miller/Levine 2004 is your approved textbook either teachers or students can use this to obfuscate and disrupt teaching of the material with your standard set of creationist BS tied to a particular page of the text. http://textaddons.com/Docs/10_06_2004_Biology_Miller_Levine.pdf See also: http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Teacher.Resources.htm The last thing they want is for the details to be official policy. Rather they want to promote a disruptive learning environment. This is a lawsuit that the ID folk prefer, a so-called viewpoint discrimination lawsuit: http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/BrookerComplaint.pdf Again, since Dover killed the school board route and Freshwater will kill the teacher route, the movement is looking to recruit students to carry the water. This is a legally stronger approach since it would be more of a free exercise clause issue rather than an establishment clause issue.

Gary Hurd · 26 August 2010

OgreMkV said:Pandas (or whatever they call it now) could get official sanction, while the newest Miller/Levine text won't. That's going to be fun to watch.

The post-Dover replacement for "Pandas" is "Explore Evolution" by Steve Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jon Moneymaker, Paul Nelson, nad Ralph Seelke. It is as open to scientific correction, and refutation as was Pandas. But, the scientific weakness of "Pandas" was seemingly less impressive to the Court than the obviously religious basis of the book.

Ted Herrlich · 26 August 2010

MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.

That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?

JASONMITCHELL · 26 August 2010

Ted Herrlich said:
MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.
That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?

they did get off 'scot free' - it is up to the DA (not the Judge) to persue a pergury charge - and that didn't happen the scholl board members lost re-election and the community had to foot the $1M bill (including $20K+ to weaseling expert witnesses that never showed up for the trial AKA the DI schubs)

JASONMITCHELL · 26 August 2010

Ted Herrlich said:
MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.
That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?

sorry for double post if any YUP the perguring b@$tards got off 'scot free', it's up to the DA to persue charges and that didn't happen. In fact the guilty parties had NO PERSONAL penalties imposed at all- the Dover community had to pay the costs of the case (including $20K+ for the DI expert witness THAT NEVER SHOWED UP- i.e. Dumbski) the Dover community DID vote those members off the school board - but as far as punishment/responsibilty....none

Juicyheart · 26 August 2010

JASONMITCHELL said:
Ted Herrlich said:
MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.
That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?
sorry for double post if any YUP the perguring b@$tards got off 'scot free', it's up to the DA to persue charges and that didn't happen. In fact the guilty parties had NO PERSONAL penalties imposed at all- the Dover community had to pay the costs of the case (including $20K+ for the DI expert witness THAT NEVER SHOWED UP- i.e. Dumbski) the Dover community DID vote those members off the school board - but as far as punishment/responsibilty....none

Did they get off scott free? I mean they were nationally exposed as lying SOBs, who would sacrifice the good of their community so they could score points in their small churches. They were voted out because of this. The cost of pursuing charges against them and or incarcerating them would just add to the costs incurred by Dover, and not be covered by any potential fines. So, Dover cut their losses. Probably a wise, if not satisfying, decision.

CMB · 26 August 2010

JASONMITCHELL said:
Ted Herrlich said:
MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.
That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?
sorry for double post if any YUP the perguring b@$tards got off 'scot free', it's up to the DA to persue charges and that didn't happen. In fact the guilty parties had NO PERSONAL penalties imposed at all- the Dover community had to pay the costs of the case (including $20K+ for the DI expert witness THAT NEVER SHOWED UP- i.e. Dumbski) the Dover community DID vote those members off the school board - but as far as punishment/responsibilty....none

Hopefully between the hearing and the 2 trials, there will be SEVERE consequences for Freshwater and Hamilton and a great "teaching moment" for any of the other teachers that want to preach in school on the public's dime.

Juicyheart · 26 August 2010

Out of curiousity, was there ever an itemized list of the material turned over to the police by Freshwater and Hamilton?

JASONMITCHELL · 26 August 2010

Juicyheart said:
JASONMITCHELL said:
Ted Herrlich said:
MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.
That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?
sorry for double post if any YUP the perguring b@$tards got off 'scot free', it's up to the DA to persue charges and that didn't happen. In fact the guilty parties had NO PERSONAL penalties imposed at all- the Dover community had to pay the costs of the case (including $20K+ for the DI expert witness THAT NEVER SHOWED UP- i.e. Dumbski) the Dover community DID vote those members off the school board - but as far as punishment/responsibilty....none
Did they get off scott free? I mean they were nationally exposed as lying SOBs, who would sacrifice the good of their community so they could score points in their small churches. They were voted out because of this. The cost of pursuing charges against them and or incarcerating them would just add to the costs incurred by Dover, and not be covered by any potential fines. So, Dover cut their losses. Probably a wise, if not satisfying, decision.

I would have liked to have seen the school board that got voted in SUE to get the fees back - Dembski did not show up to testify and IFAIK did not return the $20K+ - breach of contract

John Vanko · 26 August 2010

You can read the Dover trial transcripts in the Talkorigins.org archive.

As I recall, after the trial Judge Jones submitted evidence of perjury to the District Attorney. The DA reviewed the evidence, presumably, and declined to prosecute.

As you read the transcripts there is no doubt Bonsell and Buckingham withheld information in their original depositions where they had sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God.

Yet their weasel-word answers in court may have convinced the DA that no jury of their peers would unanimously convict. I presume that is why there was no prosecution.

But all you have to do is ready the depositions and the transcripts to see for yourself.

The last chapter of Lauri Lebo's book, The Devil in Dover, is telling. Bill Buckingham is alone in the hospital. Lauri visits him when none of his church members or former board members will. She is a better friend to him than any of them.

Doc Bill · 26 August 2010

Let's follow the money. Nothing else matters, really, well, except for Freshwater.

Freshwater is a moron who want's to be "proved" right. Ain't gonna happen. His termination will be upheld and he will be out.

So, what about Hamilton. He can't be expecting a big payout from Freshwater because the guy is as poor as a church mouse. He has some land. Big deal.

What's in it for Hamilton? How is he going to reap a bundle from this? He's not doing it for free, but surly there are better prospects

MikeMa · 26 August 2010

Hamilton might be aiming for a stipend from the folks at the DiscoTute or maybe Liberty University would value his brand of legal expertise. Lots of places value ideology over everything/anything.

Ichthyic · 26 August 2010

Lots of places value ideology over everything/anything.

ayup. ask Howard Ahmanson.

or these guys:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1

RBH · 26 August 2010

Juicyheart said: Out of curiousity, was there ever an itemized list of the material turned over to the police by Freshwater and Hamilton?

It was introduced as evidence in the administrative hearing, though I never saw a complete list. There were over 400 pages of text and photos in the black bag (which is what I assume you're referring to).

Paladin · 27 August 2010

RBH said:
Juicyheart said: Out of curiousity, was there ever an itemized list of the material turned over to the police by Freshwater and Hamilton?
It was introduced as evidence in the administrative hearing, though I never saw a complete list. There were over 400 pages of text and photos in the black bag (which is what I assume you're referring to).

The Mount Vernon Police Department placed the bag in its evidence room. They did not create an inventory the bag, although most of the interested parties made arrangements to review the bag and its contents and made requests for copies of the documents in the bag.

Ed · 27 August 2010

Doc Bill said: So, what about Hamilton. He can't be expecting a big payout from Freshwater because the guy is as poor as a church mouse. He has some land. Big deal. What's in it for Hamilton? How is he going to reap a bundle from this? He's not doing it for free, but surly there are better prospects

Some time back, Hamilton "confided" to a radio show host that he felt God had appointed him to be in a First Amendment case. From what I've read about Hamilton's behavior here -- coupled with having seen "The Blues Brothers" a dozen times over the years -- I wouldn't doubt he was in "on a mission from God" mode. The Freshwater farm is just a nice extra.

stevaroni · 27 August 2010

Ed said: Some time back, Hamilton "confided" to a radio show host that he felt God had appointed him to be in a First Amendment case.

If I were a lawyer expecting a big first amendment case from God, and God gave me Freshwater as a client.... well, I would probably wonder what I had done to piss God off.

Mike in Ontario, NY · 27 August 2010

Ed said: Some time back, Hamilton "confided" to a radio show host that he felt God had appointed him to be in a First Amendment case.

Hehe, so much for God not giving someone more than they can handle. Freshy and Hammy are so far out to sea that they can't be seen from land.

Mike Elzinga · 27 August 2010

Mike in Ontario, NY said:
Ed said: Some time back, Hamilton "confided" to a radio show host that he felt God had appointed him to be in a First Amendment case.
Hehe, so much for God not giving someone more than they can handle. Freshy and Hammy are so far out to sea that they can't be seen from land.

And a whale of a tale it is.

jackstraw · 27 August 2010

stevaroni said:
Ed said: Some time back, Hamilton "confided" to a radio show host that he felt God had appointed him to be in a First Amendment case.
If I were a lawyer expecting a big first amendment case from God, and God gave me Freshwater as a client.... well, I would probably wonder what I had done to piss God off.

To paraphrase well-known expert-about-everything, Donald Rumsfeld: "As you know, you go to court with the client you have, not the client you might want or wish to have at a later time."

ed · 27 August 2010

For a self-professed Fundamentalist Christian like Freshwater, even going to court should be a little odd.

He might of heard of the following advice:

"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." -- (Jesus)

or updated to our time: settle out of court, or you might end up losing everything.

and of course without a debtor's prison, he could only make to jail by lying to the judge...

OgreMkV · 27 August 2010

stevaroni said:
Ed said: Some time back, Hamilton "confided" to a radio show host that he felt God had appointed him to be in a First Amendment case.
If I were a lawyer expecting a big first amendment case from God, and God gave me Freshwater as a client.... well, I would probably wonder what I had done to piss God off.

Apparently god never said he would win... just that he would be in the case.

Leszek · 27 August 2010

"Apparently god never said he would win… just that he would be in the case."

Even with God you have to read the fine print. Actually, on second thought, especially with God you have to read the fine print. The "Works in mysterious ways" clause God is fond of seems to give him all sorts of lattitude to "help" you and his people.

fnxtr · 27 August 2010

"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -- Tom Waits

"If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, Get it in writing. His word isn't worth shit. Not with the good lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal." -- Wm. S. Burroughs

RBH · 27 August 2010

I was thinking about that notion of Hamilton's. If you look at the signs he's been given (da Flood, two flat tires, the Tesla coil concealed in the freezer, a fatal accident on the interstate delaying his discovery response) he may be missing the message. In one of his responses to Judge Frost, Hamilton said he doesn't believe in good luck or bad luck. For example here he wrote

Not believing in luck either good or bad, Attorney Hamilton presents evidence herein and can attest under oath his vehicle was inoperable due to two flat tires on the passenger side of his Chevy Tahoe.

And again from the same document:

Again, not believing in luck either in the form of good or bad, Attorney Hamilton has documented proof as to the reality of a water pipe break having occurred at his office located at 3800 Broadway.

Apparently all events are determined and meaningful (on the 'sparrow's fall' principle?). I wonder if he's missing the real meaning of those incidents.

BoogyMan · 27 August 2010

Again, not believing in luck either in the form of good or bad, Attorney Hamilton has documented proof as to the reality of a water pipe break having occurred at his office located at 3800 Broadway. Apparently all events are determined and meaningful (on the 'sparrow's fall' principle?). I wonder if he's missing the real meaning of those incidents.

There's a bus route from his law office to the court house that takes less than 45 minutes. A taxi would be quicker. It's less than 10 miles from Grove City to downtown Columbus.

DS · 27 August 2010

RBH wrote:

"Apparently all events are determined and meaningful (on the ‘sparrow’s fall’ principle?). I wonder if he’s missing the real meaning of those incidents."

God might know about the sparrow, but the sparrow still fell. Hamilton should get a clue. (Thanks to Mary Doria Russell for the insight).

So Hamilton thinks he was chosen by god to be in a first amendment case. Well as the Jews are fond of saying, next time choose someone else.

Henry J · 27 August 2010

There’s a bus route from his law office to the court house that takes less than 45 minutes.

Ooooh... Can I resist the temptation to ask about the length of the bus that follows that route...

RBH · 28 August 2010

The Mount Vernon News has a story on this up now. Considering some limits imposed by space and the occasional editorial qualms, the News has had pretty good coverage of the Freshwater stuff.

Debbie Henthorn · 28 August 2010

Ed said: The Freshwater farm is just a nice extra.

If I recall correctly, the supposed "paper" that Hamilton holds for Freshwater's farm is not recorded. Hamilton can't pay his own bills with an IOU. I can't imagine how he could possibly have any other paying clients, since he is so short on time. I've waved a theory to a couple of friends that Hamilton IS receiving money - very possibly those "xian handshakes" Freshwater's pastor spoke of long ago, or even special collection plates. As always, RBH - I've waited for an update with baited breath and you deliver just as I'm ready to hang it up. BTW - since we've heard no news of a settlement in quite some time, I wonder if it's possible that the settlement talks in Doe v. MVBOE et al may have broken down following the sanctions hearing?

RBH · 28 August 2010

Debbie Henthorn said: If I recall correctly, the supposed "paper" that Hamilton holds for Freshwater's farm is not recorded.

That's correct, or at least it was as of a few weeks ago.

Hamilton can't pay his own bills with an IOU. I can't imagine how he could possibly have any other paying clients, since he is so short on time. I've waved a theory to a couple of friends that Hamilton IS receiving money - very possibly those "xian handshakes" Freshwater's pastor spoke of long ago, or even special collection plates.

I wouldn/'t be amazed. Freshwater has spoken of getting "Christian handshakes"--gifts of cash.

As always, RBH - I've waited for an update with baited breath and you deliver just as I'm ready to hang it up. BTW - since we've heard no news of a settlement in quite some time, I wonder if it's possible that the settlement talks in Doe v. MVBOE et al may have broken down following the sanctions hearing?

If they were irreparably broken down the trial would be rescheduled, I think, and that's not (yet) happened. My speculation is that the insurance company lawyers want a settlement pretty badly, but Freshwater as the client has to accept any settlement. I suspect that behind the scenes Hamilton and Matolyak (FWater's pastor) are urging him to hang tough, that it's his duty to be martyred to fulfill their fantasies. Freshwater has had bad advice from the beginning (Daubenmire???), and it continues.

Matt Young · 28 August 2010

My speculation is that the insurance company lawyers want a settlement pretty badly, but Freshwater as the client has to accept any settlement.

Don't quote me, but I think his insurance company can drop him if he unreasonably refuses a settlement. Anyone know?

Mike Elzinga · 28 August 2010

I see that the National Center for Science Education is keeping up with the events in Mount Vernon also.

Many years of this carefully-recorded damning behavior on the part of these creationists will hopefully make things more difficult for them in the future; that along with the accumulated evidence of their incorrigible propagation of mangled science.

The only way this can continue for more decades into the future is for the general population in the US to get steadily stupider right along with the creationists.

We still have our work cut out for us.

harold · 28 August 2010

RBH said -

Freshwater has had bad advice from the beginning

Indeed, but it is a common human failing to seek out those whose advice we can predict, and which will be what we want to hear. It's not as if Freshwater was a paragon of informed professionalism, adamantly in favor of accurate science and strictly appropriate student teacher relationships, before Daubenmire, Matolyak, and Hamilton came along and corrupted him.

BoogyMan · 28 August 2010

"I’ve waited for an update with baited breath"

I hope that means you've been eating sushi and not worms.

RBH · 28 August 2010

Mike Elzinga said: I see that the National Center for Science Education is keeping up with the events in Mount Vernon also.

Yup, NCSE has been an invaluable help, particularly in getting the court filings up so I can reference them.

The only way this can continue for more decades into the future is for the general population in the US to get steadily stupider right along with the creationists. We still have our work cut out for us.

Indeed we do. Given the past 8 or so years, I'm not at all convinced that the Enlightenment won't be rolled back within the lifetime of children now alive. I'm grateful sometimes that I'm old enough that I won't see it. I'm not at all optimistic.

RBH · 28 August 2010

Matt Young said: Don't quote me, but I think his insurance company can drop him if he unreasonably refuses a settlement. Anyone know?

I'm not sure. It's the district's insurance company, since he is being sued for acts allegedly committed while he was operating in his capacity as an employee of the district. I'm not sure how the lines of responsibility run, but a while back I was told by someone who should know that he has to accept any proposed settlement.

RBH · 28 August 2010

I said in a comment above that

suspect that behind the scenes Hamilton and Matolyak (FWater’s pastor) are urging him to hang tough, that it’s his duty to be martyred to fulfill their fantasies.

I should have developed that a little. Recall that Hamilton is himself under sanctions in Doe v. Mt. Vernon BOE, and in the oral arguments on his motion to reconsider sanctions he said explicitly that he could not advise Freshwater to accede to breeching attorney-client confidentiality because it was not in his (Hamilton's) interest for Freshwater to do so. Hamilton's advice to his client Freshwater is being predicated on covering Hamilton's ass, not on his client's best interests. Hence his advice now is irreparably tainted. I don't doubt that feeds into the apparent impasse in the settlement talks.

MosesZD · 29 August 2010

JASONMITCHELL said:
Ted Herrlich said:
MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.
That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?
they did get off 'scot free' - it is up to the DA (not the Judge) to persue a pergury charge - and that didn't happen the scholl board members lost re-election and the community had to foot the $1M bill (including $20K+ to weaseling expert witnesses that never showed up for the trial AKA the DI schubs)

1. It's not the "DA," it's the Justice Department. 2. Losing an election is not a criminal sanction for perjury. 3. Having cost the school district $2 million, of which $1 million was waived by the plaintiffs, is not a criminal sanction for perjury, but a civil sanction to the district. 4. Perjury is has a very, very high burden to over-come from a prosecutorial standpoint as you're having to prove the people deliberately lied about a material fact instead of "mis-remembered" or "got it wrong." That's why you seldom see it pursued. Look at Barry Bonds, indicted in 2007, it's been three years and they still haven't had the trial and what case they do have has been gutted because much of the evidence being hearsay or inadmissible that it may never get pursued. That doesn't mean he didn't lie. So, at this point, it looks like they're getting off scot free. No pursuit of perjury despite some obvious perjury.

MosesZD · 29 August 2010

Ugh. Working from the laptop on crappy wi-fi isn't helpful. I meant to reformat the quote the post before the post I quoted. But I hit that stupid built-in tray mouse and away I went.

RBH · 29 August 2010

MosesZD said: Ugh. Working from the laptop on crappy wi-fi isn't helpful. I meant to reformat the quote the post before the post I quoted. But I hit that stupid built-in tray mouse and away I went.

Looks OK to me -- I can't figure out how to fix it, anyway, that'd look better.

jjjs · 30 August 2010

I think that town is nuts! Really contact DURING school hours??

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/
By PAM SCHEHL

News Staff Reporter

MOUNT VERNON — Beginning Sept. 1, educators in Knox County will be able to meet and pray together. The prayer group will assemble at 6:45 a.m. on Wednesdays at the Jetter Business Building on the campus of the Mount Vernon Nazarene University.

The goal of the program, which will last about one-half hour each Wednesday, said organizer Christian Cagle, is to “encourage educators in the county to get together and pray, to integrate their spiritual life and work life. Sometimes we need encouragement with one another in our profession.”

Cagle said any educator, any support staff and anyone who works within the school systems are welcome.

“We will be praying for one another,” said Cagle, “ but our emphasis in September is prayer for students, parents, our community members and businesses, and our administration and school boards.”

Bagels and coffee will be provided.

For more information contact Cagle during school hours at 397-5820, ext. 3051, or e-mail christian_cagle@kccc.k12.oh.us

Mike in Ontario, NY · 30 August 2010

Oh yeah, praying in public, just like the pharisees. I like the biblical reference to this phony spectacle, likening the public prayer-bots to sepulchres, all whitewashed on the outside yet full of stench, rot, and decay on the inside. At least it's at a private college and not in a public school.

The goal of the program, which will last about one-half hour each Wednesday, said organizer Christian Cagle, is to “encourage educators in the county to get together and pray, to integrate their spiritual life and work life. Sometimes we need encouragement with one another in our profession.”

If you're an educator in the public sector, please just leave your spiritual life at the classroom door and stop trying to indoctrinate other people's children.

JASONMITCHELL · 30 August 2010

MosesZD said:
JASONMITCHELL said:
Ted Herrlich said:
MosesZD said: True that. I still wish they'd have thrown the perjuring board members in jail.
That is the one part of the Dover Trial that always puzzled me. Did Judge Jones, who was pretty scathing in his judgement concerning the school board members, ever say why they got off scot free after lying their jesus-filled heads off?
they did get off 'scot free' - it is up to the DA (not the Judge) to persue a pergury charge - and that didn't happen the scholl board members lost re-election and the community had to foot the $1M bill (including $20K+ to weaseling expert witnesses that never showed up for the trial AKA the DI schubs)
1. It's not the "DA," it's the Justice Department. 2. Losing an election is not a criminal sanction for perjury. 3. Having cost the school district $2 million, of which $1 million was waived by the plaintiffs, is not a criminal sanction for perjury, but a civil sanction to the district. 4. Perjury is has a very, very high burden to over-come from a prosecutorial standpoint as you're having to prove the people deliberately lied about a material fact instead of "mis-remembered" or "got it wrong." That's why you seldom see it pursued. Look at Barry Bonds, indicted in 2007, it's been three years and they still haven't had the trial and what case they do have has been gutted because much of the evidence being hearsay or inadmissible that it may never get pursued. That doesn't mean he didn't lie. So, at this point, it looks like they're getting off scot free. No pursuit of perjury despite some obvious perjury.

we are in agreement - my inital comment was a lament! 1) A distinction w/o a difference in the contect of this thread 2)I never said it was- but the one could argue that losing was a consequence of thier actions - I wish they had MORE consequenses 3)Buckingham, Bonsell et. al. cost the district $2Million (later Kitzmiller et al waived $1Million of that - good on them- no point in punishing the community as a whole for the actions of a few asshats*) - how much came directly out of the defendants' pockets? ($0.00?) 4)no argument from me I wonder if Buckingham, Bonsell et. al. have asked forgiveness from THE LORD for sinning against him (bearing false witness, blasphemy) - somehow I doubt it.

RBH · 30 August 2010

jjjs said: I think that town is nuts! Really contact DURING school hours??

Yeah, I just put up a post on that story. It's being taken care of.

Mary · 31 August 2010

RBH, I'm more optimistic than ever! Have you been following the "strippers protest church" showdown here in Central Ohio? This "man bites dog" story has gone global in the last 2-3 weeks.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcXySeTAkVL92rH9L8AzVrMpy0KQD9HROVM80
To sum up briefly, the pastor of a small church in rural Warsaw, Ohio has been protesting at a strip club nine miles away every Fri. night for four years. About 4 - 6 weeks ago, the strippers decided to return the favor and start protesting at the church on Sun. mornings. A "peace settlement" was arranged for but Pastor Bill Dunfee gave the ultimatum that he would only stop protesting at the strip club when the club closed down permanently. Pastor Dunfee was a member of Coach Dave's now defunct Christian dominionist group "Minutemen United". So was John Freshwater! Both Daubenmire and Freshwater have protested at the strip club which included harrassing patrons entering and leaving the club as well as taking photos of the club's patrons' license plates which were then posted on a website for shaming purposes.
I have been following all the commentary attached to the local news stories as well as reading some of the local forums. Easily 95%
of commenters have been speaking AGAINST the church's actions. That doesn't mean that everyone is supporting the strippers, although a lot the commenters are making "You go, girls!" remarks, but the vast majority of commenters and posters think the church needs to mind its own business.

In this rural, conservative, small town Ohio community there seems to be a lot of pent up anger at evangelical churches and their attempts at pushing their theology down everyone's throats. I was a little surprised at the vitriole unleashed at this pastor and his flock. People seem to be really fed up with fundie evangelicals! Interestingly, I've read many comments suggesting that churches need to start paying taxes like every other business does including strip clubs.

I find all this to be very encouraging. Small town, blue collar Ohioans are finally starting to think for themselves and speak out.

Miriam St. Jean · 31 August 2010

The requested sanctions were awarded.

D. P. Robin · 31 August 2010

The story is here.

dpr

RBH · 31 August 2010

D. P. Robin said: The story is here. dpr

Yup. I just got a copy of the ruling, and will post on it shortly.