Freshwater: A Christian Conspiracy Theory

Posted 17 September 2010 by Richard B. Hoppe

I haven't re-read R. Kelly Hamilton's summary brief in order to write a comprehensive post yet (and I may gouge my eyes out in order to avoid doing so), but one of the more interesting (and paranoid) parts of the brief is his invocation of conspiracies to account for the jam Freshwater is in. I'll sketch one of them below the fold to give the flavor of the reasoning (I use that term loosely) Hamilton engages in. It's liberal Christians what done it Over the course of 10 pages in the first part of his brief Hamilton advances the notion that Freshwater was set up--framed, scapegoated, you pick one--by a cabal of liberal Christians bent on discrediting him and somehow or other screwing the school district and/or insurance company out of money. I have no idea where that came from--I don't recall any foreshadowing in the administrative hearing--but it's a significant part of Hamilton's defense of Freshwater in the brief. First the groundwork. We learn early in the brief in a section titled "Evidentiary Considerations" that Superintendent Steve Short and the investigators from HR OnCall were bullies:

Lord Acton famously asserted "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Corrupted power is in part why this case came about. Part of the reason why this case developed is as old as the Bible and occurs in too many school yards across the nation. Part of this case is about bullies, about bullying, being bigger, stronger or having some kind of power that is misused. Superintendent Short and HR on Call, Inc., the delegates of the BOE, misused their power. They misused their power willfully, in part because of incompetence but also because of a lack of integrity. Evidence shows they misused their power intentionally and in some acts even maliciously in violation of BOE Policy 3361.01 - Threatening Behavior Toward Staff Member. (p. 37)

But then we are told that in spite of being powerful bullies ("absolute power," remember), they (along with Freshwater) were actually no more than helpless pawns:

Could it be that John Freshwater and Superintendent Short were pawns of a larger scheme for which they were simply game pieces to be moved around? (p. 38)

With the groundwork in place, Hamilton introduces the conspiracy theory starting on page 46 where he claims that Lynda Weston, former Director of Teaching and Learning, has a personal animus toward Freshwater:

Although Dr. Weston lacked any "rapport" with John Freshwater she was clearly troubled, maybe even jealous, by the positive rapport Teacher Freshwater had with his students. Dr. Weston's personal motivations toward John Freshwater prevented her from respecting the validity of the "OAT scores" (Ohio Achievement Tests) achieved by Teacher Freshwater and his students. (p. 46)

In the next paragraph Hamilton introduces former Board of Education President Ian Watson:

Former board member-witness Ian Watson's interest in this matter was to be expected as he was the BOE president. But it seems Ian Watson's interest went beyond just that of a BOE member considering he conducted his own "investigation" and contacted the American Civil Liberties Union. Ian Watson's participation with HR on Call, Inc.'s investigation is evident and reveals involvement when examining the May 15, 2008, audio transcript of the interview HR on Call, Inc. conducted of John Freshwater. HR on Call, Inc.'s Thomas Herlevi stated to John Freshwater on May 15, 2008, in pertinent part: "It is very possible, and the purpose of that is if we talk to some people to get some information, if there's anything there that we feel you should have the opportunity to respond to, we want you to have that opportunity. Okay, rather then, you know, just, you don't know and you never get a chance to respond. (inaudible) So therefore there will, and we'll let you know ah if we have that need, and we'll certainly work with Ian as well and it will be with a little bit of notice, you know, and we'll make sure it fits everybody's schedule, then again our goal is."(pp. 46-47; bolding Hamilton's)

And then comes the conspiracy theory:

Combine the "more than probably ten" conversations Ian Watson had with Steve Dennis with the fact Mr. Watson and Dr. Weston attend the same "..socially active church" which is "..interested in social issues" upon which Mr. Watson serves on the church's board, and an impression is made that Mr. Watson's interest in this matter transcended his capacity as a BOE member. (p. 47)

But what is that interest that transcended his capacity as a BOE member? That becomes clear in the next paragraph:

Is it possible this matter is less about John Freshwater but maybe a guise as the matter could serve dual ends in furthering a socially active church while providing a prospect for reaping funds from public coffers, or insurance proceeds, money seemingly nobody will miss? The only missing element of such a plan would be the necessity to create an outcast. (pp 47-48)

There you have it: Two Christians (Watson and Weston) from a "socially active" liberal Protestant church plotted with a Roman Catholic (Steve Dennis) to frame John Freshwater (a conservative Christian) in order to "further" (how?) a socially active church and to somehow run a scam that takes funds from public coffers and insurance companies (though where those funds are supposed to go isn't made clear), using the administrators and investigators as bullies and pawns. How stupid of me not to have thought of that (with apologies to THH).

89 Comments

Rilke's Granddaughter · 17 September 2010

Is Hamilton as incompetent as his writing makes him out to be? I realize he's pretty driven on this case by his Christian sense of martyrdom for the cause, but this is ridiculous.

RBH · 17 September 2010

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Is Hamilton as incompetent as his writing makes him out to be? I realize he's pretty driven on this case by his Christian sense of martyrdom for the cause, but this is ridiculous.

Having listened to him at length in the administrative hearing, the brief seems to me to be an accurate reflection of his mode of thinking.

DS · 17 September 2010

Seems to me that the only one benefitting from Freshwater and his antics is Hamilton. Maybe he set the guy up. Of course, if Hamilton ends up in jail≤ I suppose his little scheme will have backfired. I guess he must at least be in on the scam, since he is the one who has done everything in his power to make sure that this has cost the taxpayers as much money as possible.

DavidK · 17 September 2010

Of course it's a conspiracy. Part of the war on christmas, liberals (all atheists) ousting christians, banning prayer in schools, not displaying the 10 commandmants or nativity scences wherever these christian martyrs want to display them, ad nauseum. If this weren't such a lame case, the dishonesty institute would be all over it. And Freshwater is to be martyred, if by no one else then by himself.

The Tim Channel · 18 September 2010

I am not a lawyer, but given my experience in watching this type of legal flimflam over the course of my life I have a prediction.

Hamilton is about to get the legal bitch slapping of his life.

Enjoy.

Time to kill? Submitted for your approval:

http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/prettier-than-palin/

http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/surely-you-jest/

Vince · 18 September 2010

Delusional....

Frank J · 18 September 2010

If this weren’t such a lame case, the dishonesty institute would be all over it.
The DI's silence is the most fascinating part of this case. And yet, as eventually happens with any politically motivated pseudoscience, it ends in a the same charge of "conspiracy" that the DI is increasingly relying on in the absence of any hope of an alternate theory. Any guess when Hamilton will play the "Hitler" card?
— DavidK

eric · 18 September 2010

The Tim Channel said: Hamilton is about to get the legal bitch slapping of his life.

I doubt he'll get it from the administrative hearing. Those folks have bent over backward to be considerate to him; even if they rule against him I bet it will be with as neutral a tone as possible. My own thought is that all this deference (on the part of the board) was strategically intended to prevent or help them win any follow-up lawsuit. If that's the case, it would be foolish to give a 'perception of bias' now. Personally, I think he's going for press martyrdom. He knows the judge/administrator isn't going to consider anything which was not presented in open court. So he can throw the rhetorical kitchen sink in now, and then complain to the fundie community that these new arguments were unfairly ignored when he loses. And I wouldn't be surprised if we see this strategy by other fundies in the future. When you're losing, put some extra stuff in your final brief aimed squarely at convincing your other audience - i.e. your religious compatriots. Then you can collectively claim martyrdom when these belated "arguments" are rightfully ignored by the court. One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn't the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular? Seems to me if these religious conspiracies are fighting each other in the halls, that would be an argument against allowing teachers the freedom to put up religious posters, keep religious books on their desk, etc...

Rich Blinne · 18 September 2010

It appears that Hamilton and Freshwater have learned their conspiracy theories from the master:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcrM4HQQyg

Rich Blinne · 18 September 2010

Rich Blinne said: It appears that Hamilton and Freshwater have learned their conspiracy theories from the master: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcrM4HQQyg

Some more on the "conspiracy". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9-N7xCQQ0

Frank J · 18 September 2010

One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn’t the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular?
— eric

IMO, yes, and especially in science class. Even if I felt "liberal" enough to put a Bible on my desk in an English class (not that I ever would, or could, teach English), I would no more dare put it on my desk in a science class as I would a book about baseball. If only because I know that some students would take any opportunity to talk about something they find more interesting than science, and thus distract the whole class from what has earned the right to be taught. BTW, I'm very aware that the main objection to discussing religion in public school science class is because it's against the law. I'm just saying that it would be a bad idea even if the law allowed it.

eric · 18 September 2010

Frank J said: IMO, yes, and especially in science class. Even if I felt "liberal" enough to put a Bible on my desk in an English class (not that I ever would, or could, teach English), I would no more dare put it on my desk in a science class as I would a book about baseball. If only because I know that some students would take any opportunity to talk about something they find more interesting than science, and thus distract the whole class from what has earned the right to be taught.

One of my co-workers had a Red Sox background on his computer. Whenever the boss (also a BoSox fan) came around to talk, inevitably, the conversation turned to baseball. The guy was hoist by his own petard though, because it caused the boss to come around more often. :)

Ryan Cunningham · 18 September 2010

Are you sure you didn't accidentally copy and paste a Dan Brown novel into your blog entry, RBH? Did you confuse the PDFs or something?

I still can't believe those sentences all came from a legal brief. I keep repeating, "a professional lawyer wrote this" like a mantra, but I still don't believe it. Hamilton is pretty good at this paranoia thing, though. If the lawyer thing doesn't work out, maybe he's got a future in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The Founding Mothers · 18 September 2010

eric said: One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn't the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular?

Please excuse my presumtiveness, eric (I´m writing from Europe and I´m not a US citizen), but this is exactly why there is a constitutional separation of church and state in the US. The Founding Fathers were more than a little fed up of the (absolute) power yielded and abused by the Church of England in the motherland, often at the cost of their own (considerably less powerful) denominations, and wanted to make sure that a similar situation couldn´t arise in their new country. Keeping any and all churches out of political business was, and is, the simplest and safest way to avoid this sort of thing. Richard, thanks for the continued updates. Can you remind me which of the 3 concurrent cases this particular piece of horsecrap relates to? Is it the Admin Hearing?

The Founding Mothers · 18 September 2010

Ahhh, wait. I see from your last post that it is for the Admin Hearing.

Apologies. Early morning flights do not make for sensible blog comments.

I wonder if any rational people ever used Hamilton as a lawyer prior to this case? Based on this sort of evidence, I´m positive he´s trying to make sure none will bother emplying him when it´s finally over.

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

Bring on da krazy!

I think that someone should load a tranquilizer dart with Thorazine, STAT!

Karen S. · 18 September 2010

I think that someone should load a tranquilizer dart with Thorazine, STAT!

That's a good idea, but how would you be able to tell their butts from their heads when you shoot?

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

Interesting that Hamilton spends just over a page (bottom of page 6 to the top of page 8) in a discussion of the contract termination process in a manner that attempts to intimidate the referee.

Then pages of BS about removal of professional licenses (top of page 11 to top of 17. Is Freshwater losing his teaching credential, or his job? Hamilton even admits that much of what he wrote is irrelevant, footnote 30, page 14. Nothing relevant to Freshwater's case is actually mentioned, other than a vague assertion of procedural irregularities, "Striking similarities exist between Ongom and John Freshwater’s matter in that a mandated reporting requirement was not followed, ..." (second paragraph page 17).

ralph · 18 September 2010

I found this line humorous...p54

"It is true John Freshwater speaks while he is thinking and often before arriving at an answer he believes is responsive to a question, all the while wanting and expecting an opportunity to further clarify."

I really can't figure out what the hell it means, but it's still funny.

Thank you for your work and the latest updates.

Mary Hunter · 18 September 2010

Here's a different twist on conspiracy (maybe).
Hamilton bets Freshwater he can win the case, Freshwater bets the farm (literally), Hamilton puts on a "show". If he wins, he gets paid and becomes a fundy legal star, maybe even a DI lawyer. If he loses he gets the farm. It doesn't matter what Hamilton does he wins, so why bother trying to make a case he has to have known (benefit of the doubt) he was going to lose. This last document is him pulling every trick he can to finally win this case, but at this point I doubt he even cares enough to even try.

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

My first laugh out loud:

"Furthermore, Attorney Millstone’s inflammatory orchestration of igniting a piece of paper with the Tesla Coil in an
unvented, public facility, a criminal act58, was never an action allegedly conducted by John Freshwater. It was neither an accurate portrayal of the Tesla Coil nor was it a comparable demonstration to ANY proposed use by John Freshwater in his classroom. Attorney Millstone’s demonstration was a symbolic gesture hoping this Referee would conclude ‘where there is smoke there is fire’. But as the late, great President John F. Kennedy observed, “Where there is smoke there may not always be fire; there may be a smoke making machine”.

56 Transcript Page 1441

57 Transcript Page 1443 and 1424

58 R.C. 2903.03(A)(3) and 2909.07(A)(2) and prohibitions against opening burning without a valid permit."

So, Millstone had better watch out!!!

fredgiblet · 18 September 2010

eric said: One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn't the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular?

Only if you're sane.

BoogyMan · 18 September 2010

That’s a good idea, but how would you be able to tell their butts from their heads when you shoot?

Easy, their heads are on the inside.

eric · 18 September 2010

Karen S. said:
I think that someone should load a tranquilizer dart with Thorazine, STAT!
That's a good idea, but how would you be able to tell their butts from their heads when you shoot?

Aim for the opening that doesn't lie. [/snark]

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

Fairly amusing is Hamilton's dissertation on how a good investigator behaves (bottom pg. 29 to middle pg. 30). Particularly ironic since Hamilton was playing billing games by mixing his hours spent a either a lawyer, or investigator.

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

This is a real gem of contorted reasoning:

"Superintendent Short mistakenly asserted the Bible verse on his son’s artwork was from
Romans 13:8, which states, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law”. In reality the inspirational artwork made by Superintendent Short’s son contained a Bible verse cited from Romans 12:6, which reads, “Having their gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them,". (118) Perhaps Superintendent Short made the scriptural mistake because he was contemplating the “debt” stated in Romans 13:8 as the debt he personally owed to John
Freshwater for the egregious transgressions he and HR on Call, Inc. lead the BOE to take against John Freshwater." (Page 39)

Michael Roberts · 18 September 2010

What is a liberal Christian?

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

120 Aldridge – need full cite

Hamilton - need proof editing

Frank J · 18 September 2010

Michael Roberts said: What is a liberal Christian?

One who is too conservative to: 1. Demand that taxpayers pay for students to learn pseudoscience that they can already learn on their parents' dime. 2. Demand that any class include misleading material that has not earned the right to be taught. 3. Condone bearing false witness to students about evolution and the nature of science.

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

Pg 45 - 46

"Dr. Weston’s personal motivations are obvious in view of her contention John Freshwater “cannot separate science from teaching creationism/intelligent design” (139) considering she makes an admitted “assumption” (140) without any further proof. Dr. Weston admits, “I did not have communication with John”. (141)"

This stank of quote-mine gas.

The references are to

139 Board Exhibit 6, p5

140 Transcript Page 2519, Line 19-23

141 Transcript Page 2585, Line 13

"Quotes" juxtaposed from different sources, and separated by 66 pages of testimony.

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

I cannot take any more.

CMB · 18 September 2010

The Mount Vernon News is reporting that Douglas Mansfield,
attorney for the Dennis family, has filed an amicus brief as a "friend of the court" with hearing referee R. Lee Shepherd. The brief defends the credibility of the Dennis family and advises Mr. Shepherd "that a federal court has determined that Freshwater is not credible."

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/10/09/18/brief-examines-witness-credibility

Mike Elzinga · 18 September 2010

Man, my head hurts!

This gives me the same sense of nausea I get when plowing through Morris, Gish, Parker, Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Sewell, Abel, Lisle, Purdom, Gitt, and the rest of the “scientific bulwark” of ID/creationism.

This unmistakably diseased form of thinking obviously extends to their lawyers also.

Whether it is the sectarian beliefs and mind-bending emphasis on hermeneutics, exegesis, etymology, and generalized word-gaming, or whether sick minds are attracted to this kind of “reasoning,” might be up for debate.

But there is no mistaking the association. And you can see why demagogues like Ken Ham, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the purveyors of conspiracy theories are attracted to this kind of market. There is money along with zombie followers to be had by the millions.

It is unfortunate that people with better things to do have to slog through this crap; but if no one does, the crap overwhelms everything and nothing else gets done.

RBH · 18 September 2010

CMB said: The Mount Vernon News is reporting that Douglas Mansfield, attorney for the Dennis family, has filed an amicus brief as a "friend of the court" with hearing referee R. Lee Shepherd. The brief defends the credibility of the Dennis family and advises Mr. Shepherd "that a federal court has determined that Freshwater is not credible." http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/10/09/18/brief-examines-witness-credibility

Yup, there are five documents: the Board's summary brief, Freshwater's summary brief, the Board's reply to Freshwater's summary brief, Freshwater's reply to the Board's summary brief, and an amicus brief submitted by the Dennises. I've sent them all to NCSE and when their database guy gets in (Monday, I think) they'll go up on NCSE's site. The reference to Freshwater's (and Hamilton's) credibility is in Judge Frost's ruing on the motion to reconsider sanctions in Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE.

RBH · 18 September 2010

By the way, for those with a strong stomach, Don Matolyak, Freshwater's pastor, was on Bob Burney's Christian radio program yesterday. I haven't listened to it, but it's reportedly about Hamilton's brief along with a plea for money. The direct link to the audio is here and the show archives are here if the direct link is problematic. Matolyak is in the 4:30 "Christians in the News" segment.

JJ · 18 September 2010

Ummmmm....just expanding on the creo/id laughable argument that they are repressed and persecuted by science, society, and now apparently some churches....

Wheels · 18 September 2010

JJ said: Ummmmm....just expanding on the creo/id laughable argument that they are repressed and persecuted by science, society, and now apparently some churches....

It's not really an expansion, illusions of sectarian persecution have been a feature of this fundamentalist strain since inception.

Gary Hurd · 18 September 2010

On the radio program, Don Matolyak claims that the 11 school children who testified all agreed that Student Dennis was not burned on the arm.

???

wgwII · 18 September 2010

He also claims he is responsible for most of the legal work!! The 11 students said the tesla coil was applied to the students arm. Hamilton and Freshwater don't call the mark a "burn". Some of those students said they had a mark on their arm too.

Pierce R. Butler · 18 September 2010

... the same “..socially active church” which is “..interested in social issues” ...

Tonight I lack the intestinal hardiness to plow through the relevant sources, but I'm seeing a penumbra of G. Beck's (& probably other Fox Noise gasbags') dire accusations against "social justice" concerns in churches.

Is anybody else's dogwhistle detector reacting to this?

Rich Blinne · 18 September 2010

Pierce R. Butler said: ... the same “..socially active church” which is “..interested in social issues” ... Tonight I lack the intestinal hardiness to plow through the relevant sources, but I'm seeing a penumbra of G. Beck's (& probably other Fox Noise gasbags') dire accusations against "social justice" concerns in churches. Is anybody else's dogwhistle detector reacting to this?

See my previous comment. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/09/freshwater-a-ch.html#comment-232197 The "master" I referred to was Glenn Beck.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 18 September 2010

It's pretty clear Hamilton left out some stuff we agreed on at Bohemian Grove last year, most notably the Obommunist-Kenyan Forced Abortion connection. Can't he even try to keep from forgettin that?

RBH · 18 September 2010

Gary Hurd said: On the radio program, Don Matolyak claims that the 11 school children who testified all agreed that Student Dennis was not burned on the arm. ???

That's a flat lie. At least five students testified that the Tesla coil left a mark on students on whom it was used, including several who saw a mark on Zachary. And Matolyak was in the hearing room when they did so. See here for Ben Neilson's testimony. While Neilson changed his story about the shape of the mark, he confirmed it left a mark on Zachary.

W. H. Heydt · 18 September 2010

wgwII said: He also claims he is responsible for most of the legal work!!

Ummm... Doesn't the Guild of Lawyers object to non-members attempting to practice their profession...? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Ryan Cunningham · 19 September 2010

ralph said: I found this line humorous...p54 "It is true John Freshwater speaks while he is thinking and often before arriving at an answer he believes is responsive to a question, all the while wanting and expecting an opportunity to further clarify." I really can't figure out what the hell it means, but it's still funny.

Translation: Freshwater just starts babbling incoherently whenever someone asks him a question.

mario · 19 September 2010

Gary Hurd said: Fairly amusing is Hamilton's dissertation on how a good investigator behaves (bottom pg. 29 to middle pg. 30). Particularly ironic since Hamilton was playing billing games by mixing his hours spent a either a lawyer, or investigator.

But the billing problems were not a part of this hearing? They were brought up in the civil court case...I think...now I'm confused and that may have been Hamilton's intention all along! Seems to me that he's shooting all his darts to see which one sticks...he might get away with the ranting in front of an arbitrator, but let this bs fly in his court.

mario · 19 September 2010

Sorry, the end of the last post shoul be "but a judge wouldn't let this bs fly in court (or so I hope)"

raven · 19 September 2010

Personally, I think he’s going for press martyrdom. He knows the judge/administrator isn’t going to consider anything which was not presented in open court. So he can throw the rhetorical kitchen sink in now, and then complain to the fundie community that these new arguments were unfairly ignored when he loses.

Probably. It looks like they have given up any thought of winning and are going for the martyrdom option. Even that is a mistake. They made too many points in a very long document. Fundies aren't smart and don't read much. Virtually none of them will read it. Instead, their leaders will recite a few small verses, oops I mean sentences, and then explain what they mean for 20 minutes.

Gary Hurd · 19 September 2010

RBH said:
Gary Hurd said: On the radio program, Don Matolyak claims that the 11 school children who testified all agreed that Student Dennis was not burned on the arm. ???
That's a flat lie. At least five students testified that the Tesla coil left a mark on students on whom it was used, including several who saw a mark on Zachary. And Matolyak was in the hearing room when they did so. See here for Ben Neilson's testimony. While Neilson changed his story about the shape of the mark, he confirmed it left a mark on Zachary.

That is what I recalled from your summary of their testimony. Don Matolyak in the radio program asserted that, other than the Dennis family, there were no corroborating witnesses. Q: So, you have the student and his two parents, was that the only witness corroboration on that (the tesla coil "branding")? Matolyak: "That's it." Q: And you had 10 or 11 students testified who were actually there, who were eyewitnesses, who testified that it didn't happen. Correct? Matolyak: Exactly!

Gary Hurd · 19 September 2010

Bottom, Page 59 of the Summary Brief:

1. Ten (10) eyewitness students testified John Freshwater did not use a Tesla Coil arc to make any crosses upon any student nor did John Freshwater hold any student’s arm against an overhead.

************

This seems to be a major lie, based on what I have read.

Gary Hurd · 19 September 2010

Page 68

Board Exhibit 1, section (1)(b) asserts in part John Freshwater branded a religious symbol
on the skin of some eight grade students. Only one student, Zach Dennis, was presented for
testimony by the representatives for the BOE regarding this specification. Clearly and
convincingly ten (10) classroom eyewitnesses testified, each of whom shared the same class with Zach Dennis, and each denied any mention of crosses (religious symbols) or making of crosses occurred by the mouth or hand of John Freshwater. The ten (10) eyewitnesses include students Corbin Heck, Miranda Baer, Kayla Wells, Tokayla Redman, Angelita Conkel, Allison Ruhl, Maggie Wayne, Joshua Grubaugh, Aaron Morris and Jake Stotts. (See Diagram – Did John Freshwater mark students in the shape of a “cross”?) Each of the ten (10) classroom
eyewitnesses denied Zach Dennis’ claim that his arm was held down on an overhead during the
Tesla Coil experiment. (See Diagram – Did John Freshwater hold down Zach Dennis’ arm?)
How can Zach Dennis be believed regarding any of his allegations if ten (10) classroom
eyewitnesses testify Zach Dennis is “lying”223 or is a “liar”224 or is being untruthful225? Even Principal White testified he learned Zach Dennis had been dishonest with his parents as reported to Principal White by the Dennis parents.226

Gary Hurd · 19 September 2010

"Dr. Princehouse was verbose during her first appearance but her second appearance was more objectionable as representatives of the BOE called her a second time during rebuttal."

Page 85.

Verbose! Hamilton objects to "verbose."

RBH · 19 September 2010

Gary Hurd said: Bottom, Page 59 of the Summary Brief: 1. Ten (10) eyewitness students testified John Freshwater did not use a Tesla Coil arc to make any crosses upon any student nor did John Freshwater hold any student’s arm against an overhead. ************ This seems to be a major lie, based on what I have read.

and

On the radio program, Don Matolyak claims that the 11 school children who testified all agreed that Student Dennis was not burned on the arm. ???

Note the careful wording in the first quotation: "mark any crosses" and "hold any student's arm against an overhead." and "was not burned" in Matolyak's claim. Blurred by in a radio interview, that leaves the impression that Freshwater didn't do anything to students. But even in their narrow meaning both are contradicted by at least one other student's testimony. Those claims are apparently based on this testimony, where Hamilton re-enacted what Zachary said happened in an exaggerated and over-dramatic fashion, and asked if it happened that way. They all said no. However, in that testimony, -Girl A testified that she saw marks on students' arms after the exercise; -Girl B testified that Freshwater "would hold their arm and he would use [the Tesla coil]"; -Girl C testified that Freshwater told them the Tesla coil would leave a mark; -Girl D said that Freshwater made an "X" on students' arms, and that the picture in the newspaper looked worse than what she saw on Zachary's arm on the bus that day, meaning, of course, that there was in fact a mark on Zachary's arm on the bus; -Girl E testified that Freshwater said the mark "would show up for a few minutes" and that she saw the mark on Zachary's arm in the shape of a cross or a T; -Girl F didn't even remember whether she herself volunteered for the exercise; -Boy A testified that Freshwater told them it would leave a mark; -Boy B couldn't remember anything; -Boy C testified that Freshwater said it would leave a mark; -Boy D testified that he saw Zachary being zapped with the Tesla coil. In addition, Taylor Strack, a student in the class, testified that it happened pretty much as Zachary described. Finally, student Ben Neilson told the investigators that the mark on Zachary's arm was, like his, a cross. He later changed his story, saying the mark was a simple vertical line. However, he did not deny that there was a mark on Zachary's arm that was made by the Tesla coil. So Matolyak and the brief are misrepresenting the students' testimony. Quelle surprise!

Gary Hurd · 19 September 2010

Oh my???
29. Section (2) Conclusion

“A generation of kids are missing out because John Freshwater is not teaching”.490

Why is this “man of integrity”491 absent from his classroom? It is because of one untruthful
student’s opportunistic parents, and an incompetent administration’s handling of the lies. Jealous colleagues, who had been waiting for years for an occasion against the students’ favorite teacher,492 eagerly aided investigators. Add to the mix arbitrary enforcement of non-existent policies and a lack of communication, and here is a recipe for a stellar teacher’s destruction. Put
John Freshwater back in the classroom where he belongs, and let’s have another generation of
kids shouting, “I love science!”

Page 133

Gary Hurd · 19 September 2010

Reading the Summary Brief* was entering the Bizzzaro World stoned on red krytonite.

I could by dint of training see that Hamilton, Freshwater, and even Matolyak might believe what they have stated is the truth. They can only think this is true so long as they never pause for a single moment to wonder if it is actually true. Just like Wiley Coyote never falls until he looks down, these men can maintain they are honest so long as they never doubt that they are "righteous in the Lord."

* I deserve full credit for not making the obvious pun regarding a 166 page "brief."

kevin · 19 September 2010

"As noted above, Turner is youth pastor at a nearby church. (The Superintendent of Schools, Steve Short, is a member of Turner’s church.) On direct examination by David Millstone, attorney for the Board of Education, Turner testified that as a youth pastor he spoke to Fellowship of Student Athletes several times at both the high school and the middle school where Freshwater was an FAC faculty monitor for one group of kids. On direct examination Turner testified that his dealings with the high school FCA were always via students. The FCA manual and school policy requires that students must be the leaders in FCA; faculty members are not to lead, supervise, or participate, but only monitor. At the middle school, however, Turner was mainly in contact with Freshwater."

That was from Day 7 of the hearings according to Pandas Thumb. Now look at that chart over on Stickle's page. I'm confused!

RBH · 19 September 2010

kevin said: That was from Day 7 of the hearings according to Pandas Thumb. Now look at that chart over on Stickle's page. I'm confused!

Linkies, please.

JRE · 19 September 2010

WOW! I'm speechless.

(I think Mr Hamilton stole all the words ...))

stevaroni · 19 September 2010

(29. Section (2) Conclusion) John Freshwater back in the classroom where he belongs, and let’s have another generation of kids shouting, “I love science!”

If you love something, John, set it free. Freshwater loves science like the Inquisition loved truth.

Daniel Edd Bland III · 19 September 2010

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Daniel Edd Bland III · 19 September 2010

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

tresmal · 19 September 2010

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

kevin · 19 September 2010

RBH said:
kevin said: That was from Day 7 of the hearings according to Pandas Thumb. Now look at that chart over on Stickle's page. I'm confused!
Linkies, please.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/freshwater-day-2.html then http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k8FZCWXbq6w/TJLs1Ars8_I/AAAAAAAAASQ/jaiRtcjQzFE/s1600/Freshwater%27s+Closing+Statement+Brief+copy.jpg

kevin · 19 September 2010

I guess what I am asking is if you have notes where Turner said he was directly asked and answered that Freshwater made the initial contact? Or is Hamilton's chart wrong in regards to Turner's testimony?

RBH · 19 September 2010

kevin said: I guess what I am asking is if you have notes where Turner said he was directly asked and answered that Freshwater made the initial contact? Or is Hamilton's chart wrong in regards to Turner's testimony?

Rereading my notes, the account I gave in the linked post is an accurate summary of the notes. Note that Turner testified that "... his dealings with the middle school FCA – topic guidelines, scheduling, logistics, and so on – were conducted through Freshwater." The table Hamilton prepared was careful to list a very narrow issue--"Give specific topic"--while Turner testified that Freshwater gave him "topic guidelines." So Hamilton's table is technically accurate in that one narrow respect but by omission it misleadingly misrepresents Turner's testimony regarding the breadth and nature of Freshwater's contacts with him.

Ryan Cunningham · 20 September 2010

kevin said:
RBH said:
kevin said: That was from Day 7 of the hearings according to Pandas Thumb. Now look at that chart over on Stickle's page. I'm confused!
Linkies, please.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/freshwater-day-2.html then http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k8FZCWXbq6w/TJLs1Ars8_I/AAAAAAAAASQ/jaiRtcjQzFE/s1600/Freshwater%27s+Closing+Statement+Brief+copy.jpg

If I was given a chart like this, I would be tempted to rule against whoever gave it to me just for insulting my intelligence so completely.

Marion D · 20 September 2010

Not only is the conspiracy true, THEY WERE PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS TOGETHER! Once our photos are released - they are a little grainy but they show the TRUTH - this case will be blown wide open!

Robin · 20 September 2010

Marion D said: Not only is the conspiracy true, THEY WERE PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS TOGETHER!

:) Now that's funny!

ed · 20 September 2010

a 166 page summary.

Now I feel bad for poor Hamilton...

I can see why it was so hard to respond to evidence requests.

He was busy writing a science(less)-fiction novel.

Juicyheart · 20 September 2010

B. Witness testimony from credible sources clearly demonstrates John Freshwater never asked non-familial students to lead prayer in FCA meetings. (From page 4 of the summary)

Sounds alot like he's using his children as loopholes. Does it really matter which students he's giving directions to? He's still no longer just monitoring the meeting. I think he'd be right a home with Lot when the mob comes around.

Juicyheart · 20 September 2010

I can't wait to read the Board's reply to this document. And not just because there's no way I'll be able to read the entirety of Hamilton's managaling of legalise, but I hope the eviserations of Hamilton's arguments to be highly entertaining.

DS · 20 September 2010

ed said: a 166 page summary. Now I feel bad for poor Hamilton... I can see why it was so hard to respond to evidence requests. He was busy writing a science(less)-fiction novel.

Why oh why couldn't his computer have been flooded again before he saved the file with all of this crap in it? Why couldn't he have gotten a flat tire on the way to deliver this load of manure? I wonder if the court can be awarded compensation for pain and suffering stemming from the reading this pile of dung. I would sure like to see the billing records to find out how much he charged Freshwater to create this collection of fecal material.

RBH · 20 September 2010

Juicyheart said:
B. Witness testimony from credible sources clearly demonstrates John Freshwater never asked non-familial students to lead prayer in FCA meetings. (From page 4 of the summary)
Sounds alot like he's using his children as loopholes.

That theme recurred several times. For example, there was a claim in testimony sometime or other that an email to a speaker sent from Freshwater's school account was actually sent by his daughter Jordan. And it was Jordan who was supposed to have been involved in initiating the showing of "The Watchmaker" video in FCA, though Kerri Mahan testified that she originally sent the link to that video to Freshwater himself and that it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater's classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.

W. H. Heydt · 20 September 2010

RBH said:For example, there was a claim in testimony sometime or other that an email to a speaker sent from Freshwater's school account was actually sent by his daughter Jordan.

Which, of course, opens Freshwater up to a charge of misusing school district e-mail account...by supplying his daughter with the password, negligence in leaving his account carelessly logged in, setting up an insecure password, not reporting that his daughter hacker her way into his account, or some other failure to properly use the account. Sounds like an open admission of violation of likely e-mail policies to me... In many businesses, that would be a potential firing offense in its own right. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Flint · 20 September 2010

Mostly, this sounds like Freshwater either didn't know the rules about adults being limited to monitoring, or didn't expect anyone to ever point them out or enforce them. Also sounds like the students weren't expected to do as thorough a job of proselytizing as Freshwater deemed crucial to their souls' eternal health. Now that the spotlight is on them, they have to find a workaround. Hopefully (as Heydt points out), nobody will notice or enforce the rules that would have been required for the workaround - itself so transparently phony they probably didn't consider it anyway.

But I think these things illustrate why the fundamentalists feel so persecuted by the secular authorities. One roadblock after another being put into the path of doing God's Work, and when they do their evangelical best despite these hassles, they get attacked for it! What are they expected to do - sit on their hands in silence while their own children face the forces of Doubt, all alone and helpless?

Ryan Cunningham · 20 September 2010

RBH said:That theme recurred several times.

Kids make the darndest violations of the first amendment.

RBH said: it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater's classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.

Au contraire, my friend. Au contraire.

stevaroni · 20 September 2010

Juicyheart said: I can't wait to read the Board's reply to this document.

Hopefully, it'll be one page of bullet points.

School Districts Summary Brief in the J Freshwater Discipline Case * The idiot burned kids in the name of God. Then he did it again. And then some more. * The idiot was evangelizing when he should have been teaching science class even after we told him not to and then he lied about it. * The idiot got a year and a half of hearings, nobody can reasonably say he didn't get his due process or chance to state his case. * And yet a year and a half later he's still playing martyr shoveling shit about the incident. That's it, your Honor. The Adults rest.

sirhcton · 20 September 2010

Is there any possibility that the hearing officer will order a re-submitted brief or is he more likely to wade through it without comment, in order to stick with his schedule and just get this out of his hands and over with?

RBH · 20 September 2010

Ryan Cunningham said:
RBH said: it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater's classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.
Au contraire, my friend. Au contraire.

Hm? Kerri Mahan initially testified that she specifically remembered "The Watchmaker" being shown in Freshwater's class (that was her word). In later testimony she altered that story, saying that she couldn't remember if it was shown in class. From my earlier post on her second round of testimony:

However (and most missed this) she described herself as seeing the video while sitting in her normal place in the back of Freshwater’s classroom with a full complement of students in front of her when it was shown. Now, FCA did not meet in Freshwater’s room; it met either in the band room or a stage off the lunch room. The only FCA meetings in Freshwater’s room were ‘leadership’ meetings at which there were on the order of only half a dozen students, not a full complement of students. Further, Mahan testified that she had never attended a leadership meeting. Obvious conclusion: She saw the video in Freshwater’s science class.

RBH · 20 September 2010

sirhcton said: Is there any possibility that the hearing officer will order a re-submitted brief or is he more likely to wade through it without comment, in order to stick with his schedule and just get this out of his hands and over with?

I strongly doubt that he'd order a resubmission. If he were going to do so he'd have done it already.

Flint · 20 September 2010

I interpreted Ryan Cunningham to be saying that, on this and perhaps other occasions, the science class WAS an FCA meeting. Clearly, it was not always a science class.

Ryan Cunningham · 20 September 2010

RBH said:
Ryan Cunningham said:
RBH said: it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater's classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.
Au contraire, my friend. Au contraire.
Hm? Kerri Mahan initially testified that she specifically remembered "The Watchmaker" being shown in Freshwater's class (that was her word). In later testimony she altered that story, saying that she couldn't remember if it was shown in class. From my earlier post on her second round of testimony:
However (and most missed this) she described herself as seeing the video while sitting in her normal place in the back of Freshwater’s classroom with a full complement of students in front of her when it was shown. Now, FCA did not meet in Freshwater’s room; it met either in the band room or a stage off the lunch room. The only FCA meetings in Freshwater’s room were ‘leadership’ meetings at which there were on the order of only half a dozen students, not a full complement of students. Further, Mahan testified that she had never attended a leadership meeting. Obvious conclusion: She saw the video in Freshwater’s science class.

Oh, sorry RBH. That was supposed to be humor. I imagine the distinction between Freshwater's class and FCA meetings was almost nonexistent, so I was trying to riff on that (i.e. "He showed it in his class, so it couldn't have been been an FCA meeting." "Not necessarily...") I made you go back through all kinds of documents over a lame joke. Sorry again! :(

Ryan Cunningham · 20 September 2010

Flint said: I interpreted Ryan Cunningham to be saying that, on this and perhaps other occasions, the science class WAS an FCA meeting. Clearly, it was not always a science class.

Whew. Glad someone got it. :P

RBH · 20 September 2010

Man, I totally missed that. I plead a medical problem for which I'm taking some real good drugs. I'm lucky to get literal meanings, say nothing of jokes.

Gingerbaker · 21 September 2010

I'm still hypnotized by "three stopwatches, a whistle, and $45 in cash".

It could mean anything - a recipe for mischief in a Harry Potter novel, the title of the next album by Bob Dylan or a new short story by Stephen King, or what one needs to have in one's pockets when the Rapture arrives.

jasonmitchell · 21 September 2010

stevaroni said:
Juicyheart said: I can't wait to read the Board's reply to this document.
actually pretty close - it's 58 pages - but concludes: VII. CONCLUSION “A teacher affects eternity, he can never tell where his influence stops.” The Education of Henry Adams, Chapter XX, Henry Adams, 1905 (The Project Guttenberg, Jan. 2005). As our educators have a broad and enduring effect, it is imperative the rights of the students left in their charge are guarded with vigor and diligence. John Freshwater taught in Mount Vernon Middle School for twenty-one years. He accepted an enormous responsibility to educate, protect and guide thousands of students. Mr. Freshwater failed to live up to his responsibility: • Mr. Freshwater engaged in religious advocacy and promoted his Christian faith until he was removed from the classroom after the 2007-20008 school year; • Mr. Freshwater improperly used a Tesla Coil to burn 500-600 students and put them in harm’s way; • Mr. Freshwater exceeded his role as a monitor of the FCA by participating in its activities rather than serving as a non-participant; and • Mr. Freshwater intentionally and publicly refused to follow legitimate directives of his supervisors, engaging in gross insubordination. Each one of these actions constitutes good and just cause for the termination of Mr. Freshwater’s employment with the Mount Vernon City School District. Hopefully, it'll be one page of bullet points.
School Districts Summary Brief in the J Freshwater Discipline Case * The idiot burned kids in the name of God. Then he did it again. And then some more. * The idiot was evangelizing when he should have been teaching science class even after we told him not to and then he lied about it. * The idiot got a year and a half of hearings, nobody can reasonably say he didn't get his due process or chance to state his case. * And yet a year and a half later he's still playing martyr shoveling shit about the incident. That's it, your Honor. The Adults rest.

Juicyheart · 21 September 2010

Gingerbaker said: I'm still hypnotized by "three stopwatches, a whistle, and $45 in cash".

It's a DYI Rapture Ready Resource and Rememberance Kit. Three stopwatches to keep in mind the Trinity will stop time. One whistle to remember to listen for the horn of Gabriel. $45.00 to bribe St Peter, because you know heaven is based on the dollar, it has hIS name on it, and no plastic is accepted.

Tom Baillieul · 21 September 2010

Could it be that John Freshwater and Superintendent Short were pawns of a larger scheme for which they were simply game pieces to be moved around? (p. 38)

Clearly, God has chosen to torment John Freshwater (see the Book of Job).

Chris Rhetts · 21 September 2010

I think the Catholic guy did it in the library with the rope.