Judge Gregory Frost has denied a motion by John Freshwater and his attorney R. Kelly Hamilton that sought reconsideration of the sanctions imposed on them for noncompliance with discovery orders (
report of the hearing). I'll link to the ruling as soon as it goes up on
NCSE's site on the suit, but there are a few choice quotations from it below the fold. Judge Frost pretty firmly spanked Hamilton and Freshwater in his ruling.
Update: The ruling
should go is now up on NCSE's site on the case. later today Meanwhile, here's a teaser, a candidate for the funniest footnote in a federal court ruling this year. It reads in its entirety
In response to a question by the Court, Attorney Hamilton explained that his wife mistakenly believed the Tesla coil was groceries and put it in the freezer at their home.
The Mount Vernon News now has the ruling up on its site
here. It's a good story, too.
Regarding the 'new evidence' claims:
A motion for reconsideration is "not intended to re-litigate issues previously considered by the Court or to present evidence that could have been raised earlier." (citation omitted). The evidence currently before the Court could have been, and in most cases was, already presented to this Court or was available to be presented to this Court before it issued its Sanctions Order. That is, even if the Court accepts Attorney Hamilton's assertion that he suffered two flat tires on the way to the first hearing, that does not explain why no request for a continuance of the hearing was made. Nor does it explain why no post hearing brief was filed by Attorney Hamilton to submit the evidence that was available to be presented at the last hearing. Even if, however, the Court were to agree that Freshwater and Attorney Hamilton possess "new evidence," that evidence does nothing to persuade the Court that its previous decision was incorrect, as explained below.
On the credibility of testimony
The Court finds that Freshwater's testimony, and the reasonable inferences drawn from his testimony, in several instances was incredible. For example, while on the witness stand Freshwater viewed his previous deposition testimony related to the Tesla coil that is at the heart of this case, which was read out loud to the Court by Attorney Mansfield. Freshwater clearly stated in that deposition testimony that he destroyed the Tesla coil by smashing it and then threw it in the trash. He speculated that the Tesla coil was in a garbage "landfill." Freshwater then went on to testify, however, that he actually did not throw the Tesla coil in the trash, but instead gave it to Attorney Hamilton, whose wife in turn put it in the freezer. Freshwater made no attempt to explain this inconsistent testimony. Freshwater's sworn testimony about the Tesla coil given on two separate occasions simply cannot both be true.
and
With regard to the testimony of Superintendent Short and Attorney Millstone, the Court found both witnesses forthcoming and believable. Short's testimony was completely consistent with his affidavit testimony regarding the same issues. (See Doc. # 114-3.) The Court has no uncertainty whatsoever as to the truthfulness of the testimony of these two witnesses
and
And, it
appears to the Court that the language utilized in Attorney Hamilton's affidavit is carefully
crafted to appear to state that he attached the affidavits to Exhibit 161 but does not actually state
such. Moreover, although the affidavit does not state that Attorney Hamilton attached the
affidavits to Exhibit 161, to the extent that the affidavit was meant to state such, the Court finds the testimony unbelievable.
The Court concludes that the evidence before it does nothing to render its Sanctions Order incorrect in any way.
The Court's conclusion
Based on all of the evidence and briefing before it, the Court concludes that granting the Motion for Reconsideration would not prevent a manifest injustice. Indeed, the opposite. Based on Freshwater's and Attorney Hamilton's less than forthcoming behavior, it would be a manifest injustice for Plaintiffs to be required to pay their attorneys for work necessitated only by Freshwater's and Hamilton's misconduct.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant John Freshwater and Attorney R. Kelly Hamilton. (Doc. #07.)
Settlement imminent?
One other note of interest. In a footnote the judge wrote
1In their memorandum in opposition, Plaintiffs request judgement to be entered against Freshwater or for evidentiary inferences to be permitted against Freshwater at trial. That request, however, has been rendered moot by the settlement of this matter.
However, as of ten minutes ago the principals would say only that "There's nothing we can say right now except that the parties have not signed a settlement agreement" (a direct on-the-record quote). It appears that the gag order is still in effect.
147 Comments
CMB · 2 August 2010
Thanks as always Richard. It certainly appears that Judge Frost has seen right through the Freshwater/Hamilton smoke screen. It appears that the Dennis family hold the upper hand here. Hopefully they will either be able to force Freshwater/Hamilton into a VERY favorable settlement (public apologies from Freshwater/Hamilton for all their lies would be a good start) or the Dennis family could refuse to settle and let Judge Frost impose the sanctions and continue the trial. I know a jury trial is always risky but I can not see any rational person could accept the Freshwater/Hamilton account of events.
Wheels · 2 August 2010
Score for the bullshit detector behind the bench!
So the case may reach a private settlement, but Freshwater and Hamilton are still facing possible fines for noncompliance with the discovery orders regardless, have I got that right?
Legal procedures are a dark and muddy river for me.
RBH · 2 August 2010
Michael J · 2 August 2010
Given the lack of sense shown so far by the two, I wouldn't be surprised that the two might think they could win a court case.
I guess that Freshwater will now come out and say that he was innocent but had bad representation. At least he will be half right.
W. H. Heydt · 2 August 2010
As I read it (IANAL), they are already supposed to the Dennis' costs for their failure to produce discovery. All this decision does is confirm what the judge already decided: Freshwater and Hamilton must pay.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
RBH · 2 August 2010
MrG · 2 August 2010
Doesn't this guy show every rare now and then? I'd think he was joking but it's too belabored to be funny by anyone's standards.
Mike Elzinga · 2 August 2010
DS · 2 August 2010
If a settlement is reached, can Freshwater still be charged with perjury? Can he still be charged with contempt of court? Can he still be charged with obstruction of justice? Can he still claim that he was not represented by competent council? Can he still sign over his house, even if he has already signed it over to Hamilton? Can he still claim that he is a martyr? Can the settlement include anything more than monetary considerations, such as public apologies or jail time? Will he still get the message that what he did was wrong? Will everyone else get the message, or will they conclude that he got off lightly?
RBH · 2 August 2010
MrG · 2 August 2010
Mary · 2 August 2010
Just so you know, the preceding post was not sent by my BIL. This post is too far out even for him.
Parse · 2 August 2010
Flint · 2 August 2010
RBH · 2 August 2010
W. H. Heydt · 2 August 2010
MosesZD · 2 August 2010
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
MosesZD · 2 August 2010
RBH · 2 August 2010
And Hamilton has to practice law in central Ohio and will doubtless have to argue cases before this judge again in future.
Doc Bill · 2 August 2010
Who in their right mind would want to deal with Freshwater especially with land? Freshie can sell his land all by his ownself. Cash only and move on.
MosesZD · 2 August 2010
Divalent · 2 August 2010
I suspect the big issue for Freshwater and Hamilton regarding the sanctions is that these are outside the scope of the insurance company's liability. Unless the insurance company agrees to roll them into the settlement (which would be in the Dennis's best interest, since it would mean they wouldn't have to go asset-hunting to collect that portion of their legal bills).
This may be the last remaining issue before the final settlement is inked: figuring out how much (if any) Freshwater and Hamilton personally have to pony up for the settlement (and ensuring that they actually put up something of value).
Chris Lawson · 2 August 2010
I think Freshwater has burnt his future prospects. After a brief tour of fundy talk shows, he will return to teaching in a fundamentalist college, that'll be it for him. Hamilton, on the other hand, will probably find himself a cozy spot at the DI or Thomas More within the next few years.
Mike Elzinga · 2 August 2010
RBH · 2 August 2010
John Vanko · 2 August 2010
Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle · 2 August 2010
Trying to add a bit of levity, this decision reminds me of this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16R4aeYBXww
I'll have the lyrics to that song stuck in my head now, "Roll up the Bill of Rights and Whack Whack Whack 'em on the head..."
Mike in Ontario, NY · 2 August 2010
No death, no martyrdom, dammit!
That's my new motto for these would-be martyrs.
Jon H · 2 August 2010
Freshwater will be able to move down to the Cincinnati area and become the Creation Museum's martyr-in-residence.
He'll probably do tesla coil cross demos for volunteers on their way out of the gift shop.
robert van bakel · 2 August 2010
Ever since the judges' flippant, 'as strange as a tessla coil wrapped and dumped in a freezer' comment, I have had absolutely no qualms about his ability to see the reality despite the lies.
In a settlement if a public apology could be wrangled that would be, to die for. It would be something, (like, 'breathtaking innanity') that you bring up and beat creationists around the head with time, and time again. You know; 'Have you heard about the trials and tribulations of John Freshwater? No? He's one of your lot. Yeah! Brain dead from the neck up, and prone to listen to self important yobbos with the intellectual credability of a boiled prune.'
tsig · 2 August 2010
RBH · 3 August 2010
W. H. Heydt · 3 August 2010
And the 5th Amendment protections don't apply in civil trials...Freshwater can be compelled to testify.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
RBH · 3 August 2010
W. H. Heydt · 3 August 2010
IANALeither, but I've been reading Groklaw for several years. While Freshwater did claim 5th Amendment privilege to not answer deposition questions, depositions are, apparently, a rather odd beast. Any claim to 5th Amendment protection would be against *criminal* charges arising out of the civil proceedings. He can--so far as I know--be compelled to testify. We need more commentary from actual lawyers reading this thread....
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
Juicyheart · 3 August 2010
Juicyheart · 3 August 2010
Just out of curiousity did judge Frost make any mention in his ruling about the multiple times Freshwater failed to turn over evidence in discovery, only to then present it at his school board hearing?
Juicyheart · 3 August 2010
I can't help but feel that the whole evidence-in-the-dumpster debacle was an attempt to break that pattern. Have the cake and eat it too. Are we really supposed do believe that Short wouldn't have returned Freashwater's briefcase to him?
RBH · 3 August 2010
Juicyheart · 3 August 2010
Robin · 3 August 2010
DS · 3 August 2010
You would think that these jackasses would be desperate to avoid a real trial at this point. Certainly they must know that their trail of lies and deceit will catch up with them big time. I would be pushing for a very favorable out of court settlement if I were the opposition. They seem to have these jokers in a no win situation. EIther admit that you are illegal and immoral, or go to trial and prove it to everyone. Excellent!
MrG · 3 August 2010
raven · 3 August 2010
raven · 3 August 2010
Taking the Fifth amendment in a civil trial has different rules and implications than a criminal trial. Not entirely sure what the difference is, but something about implied guilt sounds right. People do this when what they say in a civil trial could be used for later criminal prosecution.
In Freshwater/Hamilton's case, this may hold true. They are getting far into perjury and obstruction of justice territory, both felonies.
The judge is warning them that they don't have much chance of winning. Unreliable and contradictory testimony and refusal to produce documents and evidence during discovery means they will probably lose the case.
Only question now is whether they will cut their losses and run or go down with the ship. If Freshwater is determined to be a martyr, they may see it through to the bitter end even with a high probability of losing.
Flint · 3 August 2010
I would expect that if they can get a jury of creationists, they couldn't lose a jury trial. The jury would not see any pattern of deceit, the jury would see consistent attempts to remain true to Christian principles despite anti-Christian interfering rules and regulations a good-faith effort was made for years to work around. A creationist jury would see their duty as helping to beat back the forces of secular humanism and restore God to His rightful place.
eric · 3 August 2010
DS · 3 August 2010
Well I was assuming that competent council would prevent stacking the jury. On the other hand, I suppose they are only allowed so many dismissals. Perhaps a change of venue would be in order. That process alone should add another year to the trial proceedings. Just how much is this guys land worth anyway?
On the other hand, you might be able to find twelve honest christians who would want to punish someone who broke the law, injured students, committed perjury and obstruction of justice and cost the school system millions of dollars. Come on, it's possible.
Stanton · 3 August 2010
WayneF · 3 August 2010
RBH · 3 August 2010
RBH · 3 August 2010
The other federal case
In another thread I described the three legal actions currently under way. One is a suit Freshwater and his wife brought against the Board of Education, two individual Board members, and some school administrators. On June 26 those defendants filed a motion to compel the Freshwaters to comply with discovery requests. This is similar to the motion to compel that was granted in Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al., the action that led ultimately to the sanctions imposed on Freshwater and Hamilton.
The Freshwaters were given until August 3, today, to respond. As of July 29 they had not responded, and the United States Magistrate Judge on the case has recently taken note of their lack of response and issued an order reiterating the August 3, 2010, deadline.
DS · 3 August 2010
Wayne wrote:
"First, a settlement could be reach which would allow Freshwater to claim that he's been exonerated."
Right. That's why any settlement should include a public apology, including an admission of guilt, which should be tape recorded, written down, witnessed and notarized. That can be shown every time he claims he was "exonerated" by being left off the hook for a jury trial.
Any settlement should also include some kind of guarantee that Freshwater will not attempt any further legal action against those he has wronged, in order to preclude any more shenanigans such as those currently underway.
It would also be nice if they could get him barred from ever teaching in any school again, at least a public school.
CMB · 3 August 2010
CMB · 3 August 2010
RBH · 3 August 2010
H.H. · 3 August 2010
RBH · 3 August 2010
RBH · 3 August 2010
JGB · 3 August 2010
Would this decision about sanctions be admissible by the other Federal Court in regards to another failed discovery attempt? If so that couldn't possibly be good for Freshwater.
RBH · 3 August 2010
dogmeat · 3 August 2010
Mike Elzinga · 3 August 2010
RBH · 3 August 2010
dogmeat · 3 August 2010
dogmeat · 3 August 2010
IANAL but, based on my overall experience, I would say that there are two major reasons why Freshwater would potentially continue and not make a settlement.
First, there is likely a part of the guy who honestly believes he is Right™, and a "victim," and that the Truth™ will be revealed in a trial. Given what we've seen from the truly impressive work done by Richard to this point, this is obviously a delusional position. The guy can't maintain an honest, coherent position on the simple facts of the case, but, based on my interpretation of the evidence of his character and beliefs, I don't think he can allow himself to be wrong. He appears to truly believe that he is an honest Christian doing God's work and therefore has done nothing wrong. You could also argue that he sees this as a challenge of faith that will be rewarded, etc.
Second, I believe to some degree it has gone on so far he almost can't afford to give up now. Though the sanctions might lead to his realization that if he does lose it is likely to be a massive financial penalty, I think he is likely looking at how much he and his family have spent so far, how much it has cost him with his career, etc., and in concert with point one (believing he is Right™), I think he has dug himself in too deep to let it go.
----------
Above and beyond that, with a jury trial there is always a shot at Freshwater winning. While a judge can be unethical, biased, etc., you can generally expect them to be honest and base their ruling on the constitution. A jury, on the other hand, can be utterly ignorant of the constitution. We see it all the time with those arguing that a violation of their first amendment rights is to point out how stupid their position is (Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, etc.). Add to that a disturbingly large number of Americans believe that teaching evolution is wrong, teaching creationism is right, and burning a kid now and then is probably good for their character. Personally I would give this case an 80-85% chance that the Dennis' will win.
Jon H · 3 August 2010
"Freshwater burned their child. That’s not something any parent on a jury is going to overlook."
That depends on whether they see it as "burned", or as something less severe. Which is entirely possible. A parent on the jury might convince themselves that it was the burn equivalent of a minor paper cut, or a minor scrape received sliding into base in gym class, and that it wasn't intended to hurt, and that Freshwater's intentions were good, after all, he's a Christian don't you know.
Hell, religious schools are were you still find them using parent-sanctioned corporal punishment.
Flint · 3 August 2010
These Tesla coil exercises, as I understand them, were implicitly if not explicitly understood by Freshwater and many years of students, as being a sort of initiation into the Brotherhood of Jesus. Very powerful symbolic ceremony.
Physically, they didn't hurt much, they didn't last long, they left nothing permanent EXCEPT the knowledge that one had become an Initiate, had been Chosen and Privileged and such. And that NEVER wears off.
I simply don't see how any honest person could describe this practice as irresponsible in its intent. Quite the contrary, these initiates were being charged with a Deep Responsibility to do Christ's work in every aspect of their lives. I think the description of what Freshwater DID ("burned a child") completely misses the point. One might as well describe baptism as irresponsible simulated drowning.
C.E. Petit · 3 August 2010
Answering a few general legal-type questions without providing legal advice for any particular situation...
(1) The Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment can be invoked in any proceeding, so long as the underlying conduct is still potentially the subject of criminal proceedings. In fact, this is a frequent problem with getting testimony before Congress from alleged corporate malefactors.
The distinction between civil and criminal proceedings is that in a civil proceeding, all parties can be forced to testify and take the Fifth Amendment in front of the trier of fact... whereas one cannot force a defendant to testify in a criminal matter. The rules on what asserting the Fifth Amendment in front of the trier of fact can be used for are marvelously complex, and basically boil down to this: A judge will, properly, disregard it if the trier of fact is the judge (a bench trial), whereas a jury, even though instructed to disregard it by the judge, will engage in Olympic-caliber conclusion jumping for not just that issue, but the general credibility of that particular witness.
(2) Jury trial: If either party requests a jury trial, in a timely fashion, it must be granted (for matters involving more than $10 that would have been heard "at law" in 1792 — and a personal injury suit would qualify). If both parties withdraw their jury trial requests in a timely fashion, or never request a jury, the matter gets converted to a bench trial (the judge acts as the finder of fact, just as Judge Jones did in Kitzmiller... although there was no jury trial right in Kitzmiller in the first place).
That said, Freshwater would be a fool* to waive a jury trial at this stage. The other potential trier of fact (Judge Frost) has already commented on Freshwater's credibility — or abject absence thereof — in a way that will not allow any motion to force Judge Frost to recuse himself to succeed. With a jury, he has at least a theoretical chance of
conningconvincing people who haven't seen his schtick before.(3) Forced apologies: Not gonna happen, at least not in any settlement that an insurer would sign off on. Leaving aside the potential constitutional problems, insurance companies just won't agree to it. The whole point of a settlement in a personal injury action is to put things behind the parties... and the dominant meme is that an apology or actual admission of fault "does not constructively enable the parties to obtain closure; it instead acts as a constant, forever-open-to-the-public reminder of their past sins and injuries."
(4) Judge Frost should have said (and no doubt meant) "tentatively settled." It's not settled until it's signed and approved by the court.
* Yes, I know. Please allow me the rhetorical flourish and pretend it's not already obvious.
W. H. Heydt · 3 August 2010
W. H. Heydt · 3 August 2010
Re: C. E. Petit. Thank you very much for the insights into the legal niceties. Also...thanks for the insight into what can and can not be expected in a settlement.
I would surmise that the insurance company wants out of this mess as cheaply as it can achieve that end. One wonders how much the insurance company can be on the hook for...if the plaintiffs insist on more than the insurance limit, will Freshwater agree to the settlement knowing it's going to cost him personally, over and above what the insurance will pay?
Were I involved in a case like this, knowing what you've said about public apologies, I think I would be inclined to state that the public apology is what I want and then see what the insurance company offers in lieu of that.
One wonders if the insurance company can pressure Freshwater to relinquish his teachers license as a condition of the settlement...
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
Dave Luckett · 3 August 2010
Flint, if the practice of using the Tesla coil had the intent and symbolic significance you describe (and I think you're on to something there), then it is strictly reasonable to call it a religious ceremony. That is, a religious ceremony conducted in a public school classroom, using public resources, by a teacher on a salary paid by the State, on paid time. A clearer breach of the Constitutional prohibition on State establishment of religion would be difficult to define.
I suppose it would be impossible to prove that, though. Freshwater, lying through his teeth if necessary, would assert that he was merely demonstrating an interesting scientific phenomenon.
DS · 3 August 2010
cronk · 3 August 2010
Would Flint be as understanding if a star and crescent had been burned into the student's flesh? A pentagram?
RBH · 4 August 2010
Careful. Flint is the best I know at getting into and representing the creationist/fundamentalist mindset. But be wary of the second person singular pronoun when you respond to him. :)
snaxalotl · 4 August 2010
i'm fascinated by multiple appearances in recent years of claims of "misspeaking" in public and legal appearances. apparently the concept means "i was being honest but my mouth was lying without my control or awareness"
does anybody know how this originated?
Jon H · 4 August 2010
DS · 4 August 2010
DS · 4 August 2010
For example, what if one were to go into a public school classroom and brand his students with the number "666" on their foreheads? Now what do you suppose would be the consequences of one's actions in that case? Now, how can one distinguish between that scenario and the actions of Freshwater?
DS · 4 August 2010
MrG · 4 August 2010
DS · 4 August 2010
MrG · 4 August 2010
fnxtr · 4 August 2010
ed · 4 August 2010
John Kwok · 4 August 2010
DS · 4 August 2010
Mike from Ottawa · 4 August 2010
"I’m sure that as a lawyer, Hamilton is even more acutely aware of the nonpunishment for nonpayment than Simpson is."
As a lawyer, Hamilton is at risk, if he does not honour court orders, of disciplinary action by the state bar in Ohio. In Ontario, not obeying court orders arising out of your conduct of your practice is the kind of thing that will get you disbarred. Lawyers here are considered officers of the court and have a higher standard to meet in dealing with things like court orders than do others.
Flint · 4 August 2010
Mike Elzinga · 4 August 2010
Stanton · 4 August 2010
MrG · 4 August 2010
Pah! Hovind all but DARED the law to bust him. The IRS repeatedly gave him opportunities to make amends, and every time they did he gave them a poke in the eye.
Mike Elzinga · 4 August 2010
DS · 4 August 2010
Flint wrote:
"If you were in Iran and Iranian law required that you stone someone to death, would you regard this legal requirement as so wrong that you would deliberately violate the law in deference to your own conscience? Acting according to one’s deeply held moral principles might be admirable if you share those principles, but such principles clearly tend to be culture-dependent."
I would not live in a country that required me to violate my own ethical rules. Likewise Freshwater should not have been employed as a science teacher in a public school if he had no intention of following the rules. He was perfectly free to preach in a church or teach in a church school or teach his own kids at home. He choose to do none of those things. He apparently thought that his own moral principles overrode those of the country that he freely choose to inhabit and the government that paid his salary. The fact that he did it with religious symbols and initiation rituals only makes it worse
I understand perfectly well the motivation behind his actions. However, I categorically reject his reasoning and his morals. He thought he was above the law. He is about to find out that he is not. If he was at all honest, he would confess to what he did and accept his punishment. Why isn't he able to demonstrate the christian values that he supposedly sacrificed himself for? Doesn't he think he will get his reward in heaven?
As for why this was tolerated for so long, I assume that there are others sympathetic to his cause that were not courageous enough to abuse their authority directly. Perhaps if he had not been preaching to the choir more people would have complained sooner.
RBH · 4 August 2010
W. H. Heydt · 4 August 2010
RBH · 4 August 2010
Gary Hurd · 4 August 2010
Reading the Court's ruling, I got a kick out of this gem from page 6:
"In the Motion for Reconsideration and at the July 29, 2010 hearing, Freshwater and
Attorney Hamilton argued that the Court should grant their motion and withdraw the sanctions
ordered against them because there is new evidence available and to prevent a manifest injustice.
This Court disagrees."
MrG · 4 August 2010
MrG · 4 August 2010
Sorry, got my negatives wrong -- NON-separation of church and state can be read as bad for RELIGION.
Gary Hurd · 4 August 2010
Gary Hurd · 4 August 2010
Oops. The administrative hearing transcript was introduced in the Federal case, so obviously the Judge can consider it.
Gary Hurd · 4 August 2010
My new favorite line: "Based on all of the evidence and briefing before it, the Court concludes that granting the Motion for Reconsideration would not prevent a manifest injustice. Indeed, the opposite."
Gary Hurd · 4 August 2010
RBH, Is there some way to read "Doc. # 161-1 at 2, ¶ 5 and Exhibit attached thereto at 5863," the admin hearing transcript where Freshwater was asked about the "five arm fulls" of personal items? I recall you posted part of the inventory earlier.
Not a big deal, just curious.
RBH · 4 August 2010
CMB · 4 August 2010
wonderin · 4 August 2010
I can't believe he questioned the credibility of a Federal Judge! The little movie clip he tries to relate to Freshwater is also very telling.
Flint · 4 August 2010
RBH · 4 August 2010
Ralph · 4 August 2010
Wayne Francis · 4 August 2010
RBH · 4 August 2010
RBH · 4 August 2010
C.E. Petit · 4 August 2010
RBH · 4 August 2010
How does something like that get brought? By the federal judge?
Juicyheart · 4 August 2010
holycow · 4 August 2010
Very interesting, I don't think I heard of anyone having a different mark. I think everyone testified to a cross or an X.
raven · 4 August 2010
Marion Delgado · 4 August 2010
In a surprise revelation, Freshwater's attorney, Beldar Hamilton, said his wife, Primat, had mistaken the Tesla coil for a food source.
"Where we come from ... France ... that's a very common mistake to make" the lawyer added. "I guess I'm lucky i didn't consume mass quantities of RF coil."
RBH · 4 August 2010
C.E. Petit · 4 August 2010
Juicyheart · 5 August 2010
RBH · 5 August 2010
Jon H · 5 August 2010
nmgirl · 5 August 2010
Richard, did you ever hear why Freshwater's previous attorneys withdrew?
RBH · 5 August 2010
Miriam St. Jean · 6 August 2010
RBH
I'd like to take the the opportunity, along with the many before me, to thank you for taking so much of your time to accurately reflect the facts in all three of the on-going Freshwater sagas.
As an added bonus, when I first started following your site, I must admit that many of your other articles were quite "over my head," but that, in time, I'm actually starting to comprehend information previously not studied in the past. I guess I want to thank you, too, for increasing my learning curve in the area of science over the last few years.
Kudos to you, sir.
RBH · 6 August 2010
CMB · 6 August 2010
The local news is reporting that Freshwater and Hamilton are getting overwhelmed with all the work on the 3 different legal matters going on now. The article is headed "Freshwater asks for time" which
I for one would like to see him get (but not in the sense he and Hamilton are asking for in the artilce).
Here's the link. http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/10/08/06/freshwater-asks-for-time
Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2010
RBH · 6 August 2010
eric · 6 August 2010
Sheikh Mahandi · 6 August 2010
So basically Freshwater, and Hamilton are requesting a time-out in order to generate further evasions reegarding non-compliance with legitimate discovery motions while not being penalised? Surely Freshwater at least must be aware that "the dog ate my homework" is not going to fly? Also annoying the same judge who already thinks you are a lying little toad doesn't seem to me like a sound legal tactic, at this rate they just might get longer then Hovind.
DS · 6 August 2010
CMB · 6 August 2010
DS · 6 August 2010
Gary Hurd · 6 August 2010
I really think that this is going to hurt Hamilton as much as Freshwater.
I have been wondering about the billing records for apparently disappearing affidavits. I occurred to me that if Hamilton had billed Freshwater for everything he owned, he could claim that Freshwater had no assets avialable to pay other fees, or fines, or settlements. They might think that with God on their side, that this would merely be "insurance." But, if there was no work done, the billing is fraud. And if our dynamic duo are dumped into the garbage (along with Freshwater's five armfuls of crap), and they lose their cases- Hamilton is in worse trouble than Freshwater.
These guys could be in very bad trouble.
I wonder if they could share a cell with Kent Hovind?
EJH · 6 August 2010
Here are the posted comments on the discussion page that comes along with the article reporting Hamilton's request for more time:
**************
#1 Tough s@#%.
#2 ditto
#3 well said
can you believe he’s pulling the same stunts in this federal case he pulled in the last; the same stunts which cost him and his attorney $28,000.00?
is ANYONE still taking this guy seriously?
#4 If he doesn’t have the necissay (sic) time to represent Freshwater adequately, he should turn some of the responsibilities over to another attorney who does. This is not the courts problem, this is Freshwaters (sic) and Hamiltons (sic) problem. If they’re not willing to do that, then they should drop their lawsuit.
**************
It's a small sample, I know, but it supports what I've thought would happen eventually. Local public sentiment is turning ugly and (IMO) decidedly anti-Freshwater.
As a local I have run into Freshwater in Mount Vernon several times in the past two years, and he looks more and more haggard each time. I do feel sorry for the man and for the financial burden he is laying on his family...then I think about my kids and what they will have to do without because the school district is being forced to pay for defending their position in this fiasco.
Divalent · 6 August 2010
Minor clarification, but in his motion Hamilton does not refer to burden of 3 cases, but only 2 (the administrative hearing and his suit against the board), despite what the newspaper article states.
BTW, wasn't it Freshwater (and Hamilton) who dragged out the administrative hearing by, among other things, exercising his prerogative not have sessions when school was out, for no good reason other than, apparently, he could? I mean, but for those delays, the administrative hearing would have been over long ago, leaving them both free to work full time on the remaining action. And then there is the time spent dealing with the motion to compel, and motion for sanctions, and motion for reconsideration of sanctions in the Doe v Freshwater, which they brought upon themselves by engaging in tactics that earned them sanctions (and arguably sapped Freshwater of whatever remaining the ability he had to pay for more legal help in this case).
It would appear that Hamilton probably realizes he is now working for Freshwater for free, as otherwise there really is no good reason to not hire more help to avoid another set of punitive sanctions. Did the board make counter claims for damages in their case that would prevent Freshwater/hamilton from unilaterally cutting their losses and just dismissing the action?
Mary · 7 August 2010
Somewhere in this Freshwater thread was a short discussion of Freshwater's choice of fellow fundie Hamilton as his legal representative. Hamilton is a fundamentalist Christian therefore he must be a good man of sterling character may have been Freshwater's fundie logic.
I was discussing this with a friend a couple of weeks ago. Today she alerted me that Freshwater supporter Coach Dave had recently interviewed one Neal Horsley on his radio show. She suggested that I google this Horsley character and prepare to be shocked. I had never heard of Horsley so I researched him.
Wow. Wow. Horsley is the most extreme fundie nutcase ever. He makes Kent Hovind and Peter LaBarbera appear moderate.
In an interview with Alan Colmes, Horsley bragged about the debauched lifestyle he led before his prison cell conversion. Drugs, excessive drinking and bestiality were among the vices he indulged in. Yep, that's right...bestiality. According to Horsley, "if you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule." "If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it", Horsley told Alan Colmes.
After Horsley came to Jesus, he became a fierce anti-abortionist. His website "Nuremburg Files" listed the names and addresses of all doctors performing abortions in the United States. The site was used by James Charles Kopp to track down and kill Buffalo doctor Barnett Slepian in 1998.
Horsley ran for governor of Georgia last year. His platform at a secessionist brought him few votes. What really got him some attention were his comments in an interview where ""he indicated he’d kill his own son to dissolve the United States (in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade). Asked if he was ready to sacrifice his own son in a national insurrection, Horsley recounts a fight with his son where he almost killed him. “I was one foot from killing my own son, or hurting him really, really bad,” Horsley told Krider. “If he would have attacked me again, I would have stuck him. Or cut him or sliced him or done something to stop him. That’s the point, your hypothetical has literally already been worked out with me, and that’s what makes me different from the other candidates for Governor.""
Different? That's an understatement if I've ever heard one.
I have no idea whether or not Coach Dave had any knowledge of Horsley's background before he interviewed him on the subject of abortion. Maybe he just assumed that Horsley, being a fundamentalist Christian, is a good solid God-fearing man. Then again, given some of the crackpots that Coach Dave has interviewed, I'd say that his bar is set a low as it can go when it comes to the character and sanity of his guests.
Mary · 7 August 2010
Oh, I forgot to mention that Horsley's son is a an Army Sergeant.
RBH · 7 August 2010
W. H. Heydt · 11 August 2010
Any new word on settlement? New trial date? Freshwater turning blue from holding his breath? Hamilton dead of apoplexy from the rulings?
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
RBH · 12 August 2010
Juicyheart · 12 August 2010
Just out of curiousity, is there any itemized comparison between, the list of items returned to Freshwater by Short, the items the Dennises asked for in discovery but were not produced by Freshwater, and the items Freshwater and Hamilton turned over to the police from the dumpster? I'd wager they'd over lap quite a bit, and I'd like to know if I'd lose that wager or not.
RBH · 12 August 2010
techreseller · 16 August 2010
From the SANS Newsletter on how to recover a water soaked laptop. This case covers salt water in particular but can be extended to Mr. Hamilton's case:
FEEDBACK ON DATA RECOVERY FROM SALT WATER IMMERSED DEVICES In NewsBites
Volume 12, Number 63 we asked for feedback on the data recovery
process for devices that have been immersed in salt water. Here is
some of the information that you shared with us:
Tom McGrane suggests:
For electronics in general, once they're in water for any length
of time you need to leave them in water until they can be properly
cleaned and dried, especially if it was salt water. As soon as air
hits the wet metal parts corrosion really takes off. Much slower
while under water. Do remove any batteries.
Leaving it in saltwater is better than out in the air, but if you
can move it to fresh water that's better--the more water the better
to dilute the salt. Letting fresh water flow through the container
would be good.
There are companies that do electronics cleaning where they'll submerge
the appropriate parts in special cleaning fluid. Often used with
smoke damaged stuff, but would probably work with water damage, too.
For quick dunks, like dropping a cell phone into a pond or toilet,
it makes sense to quickly remove it, pull the battery to reduce
possible damage, open it up in any easy way and shake out as much
water as possible, then if you can, put it in a bag of rice and leave
in a warm place to dry. Or just open and set up however seems logical
to allow moisture to drain out. Leave it to dry as long as practical
before applying power again. Use a fan to blow air through it.
I've lived on the Alaskan coast and it's often surprising what can
be rescued when live-aboard boats have taken on water if you keep
stuff away from air.
Rob Blader did some research and found moisture removing bags:
http://www.rei.com/product/793223 And then did further research and
found a similar thread on the High Tech Crime Consortium Listserv:
"I used the NoWrite Hard Drive Evidence case, filled it with silica
bags, closed the case and left it in a warm place. One day, the phone
was dry inside and out."
" I've had good luck so far just removing the battery and putting the
items in a bag of rice for a couple of days. Worked on a cell phone
left on the ground overnight in the rain, and a cell phone dropped
in the dog's water bowl."
We do not think we have enough definitive information for a SCORE
checklist yet. If you have experience with recovering data from devices
that have been exposed to salt water, please drop stephen@sans.edu
a note. Thanks!
**********************************************************************
The Editorial Board of SANS NewsBites