Freshwater: One federal suit dismissed

I note that the AP report referenced in the comment linked above says that according to court documents, settlement talks had been taking place earlier. I'm not aware of any such settlement talks, and IIRC the documents correctly they don't refer to any such talks, and this new development is not a "settlement," it's a withdrawal of the complaint on Freshwater's part. I think the AP reporter conflated Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al and Freshwater v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al.. Anyone else up for going through all the docs at NCSE's site?

Well...it is a stipulated withdrawal, and it's with predjudice so I rather suspect that the subpoenas either yielded, or Hamilton knew they would yield, something would completely blow Freshwater's case apart.

I wonder if the Stickle brothers will let everyone know what it was...

At least now Hamilton can't complain about too many things going on to delay action in other cases...

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

You gotta wonder how this will affect the (apparently stalled) settlement talks in Doe v. Mount Vernon, too. I'm not sure how much cross-talk there might be regarding the product of the subpoenas and depositions in Freshwater v. Mount Vernon BOE which apparently stimulated the dismissal of the latter.

Wild speculation:

(a) The Stickle brothers had ended up with Hamilton's supposedly flood-destroyed laptop; or they had at least seen it or received something produced on it after it was allegedly inoperable.

(b) The Stickle brothers had something which identified the mystery phone number used in the curious incident of the black bag in the night-time.

(c) The Stickle brothers had some knowledge or copies of material from the weirdly dumped bag which the Freshwater side had wanted to keep secret.

Obviously we can only speculate, but in the light of the sudden acceptance of the motion to dismiss (not even settle) after years of dragging out every possible deferment, I think we can increase our confidence that the defence team did indeed know exactly what they were doing and that the "fishing expedition" was actually as broad as it was to prevent further weaselling by the plaintiffs. When the subpoena asked for everything, it meant there was no room to say "I didn't think you meant that when you asked for everything."

To put it another way: possibly the blanket subpoena was an antidote to future flat-tyre and flooded-computer strategies. And, you know, I think we were a little ungenerous to the defence team when we thought that they had weathered months of manipulation, deferral, dissembling, and publicly orchestrated campaigns against them while maintaining an exemplary professional demeanour only to become, suddenly and without precedent, amendment-baiting legal piranhas just as the case was coming to a close.

For those of you with legal background, asking for a little clarification for those of us without:

The first amended complaint was when they added Mrs. Freshwater and the loss of consortium complaint.

http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1107

When the complaint is amended, does it negate the original complaint - the one filed by John Freshwater? It might seem like splitting hairs, but as the blanket subpoena reflected - it's all in the details.

@ Chris Lawson:

This wasn't the close of the previous case. It was the abortive "start" of another of the 3(?) cases - viz the law-suit brought by Freshwater against the Board Of Education. Thus the defence team may also have been somewhat different in its lawyerly constituents (and hence behaviour), rather than being exactly the same bods who were on the attack team of the other case(s).

Chris Lawson said: And, you know, I think we were a little ungenerous to the defence team when we thought that they had weathered months of manipulation, deferral, dissembling, and publicly orchestrated campaigns against them while maintaining an exemplary professional demeanour only to become, suddenly and without precedent, amendment-baiting legal piranhas just as the case was coming to a close.

So I just heard Freshwaters "press release" on the local radio. I think I will yak. He is the hero for dismissing the case. All they want is the truth and they feel the best way for this is to wait for the referee. He left a "large sum of money" on the table, that's not what he wanted.

You know if this was the truth you would think they would have thought of this two years ago!

comeon said: So I just heard Freshwaters "press release" on the local radio. I think I will yak. He is the hero for dismissing the case. All they want is the truth and they feel the best way for this is to wait for the referee. He left a "large sum of money" on the table, that's not what he wanted.

Chris Lawson said: Obviously we can only speculate, but in the light of the sudden acceptance of the motion to dismiss (not even settle) after years of dragging out every possible deferment, I think we can increase our confidence that the defence team did indeed know exactly what they were doing and that the "fishing expedition" was actually as broad as it was to prevent further weaselling by the plaintiffs.

comeone said: So I just heard Freshwaters “press release” on the local radio. I think I will yak. He is the hero for dismissing the case. All they want is the truth and they feel the best way for this is to wait for the referee.

eric said: Yep, it looks that way. Looks like I was wrong. :)

I saw Freshwater selling apples out of his pickup Wednesday night. And he had a customer! It was the first time I ever say a customer at his apple "store". Maybe he is doing so well with the apples that he doesn't need the money from a lawsuit.

Hopefully the Dennis family will win big (or settle big) and demonstrate to the fundies what the truth really is.

I'm having trouble following Freshwater's logic here. (Yes, I know I'm assuming that he's acting rationally - I'm still on my first cup of coffee.)

According to the Mount Vernon News piece, Freshwater claims that accepting a settlement (which he claims was on the table) would have ended the state hearing before the referee had a chance to rule. But that doesn't explain why he didn't just wait it out - there was any hurry in his federal case....

Am I missing something?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEACHER_BIBLE_OHOL-?SITE=OHMOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

err... should be "there *wasn't* any hurry"

So, my question is: does he have something up his sleeve, or is this just a proactive martyr move?

burk said: So, my question is: does he have something up his sleeve, or is this just a proactive martyr move?

“Nancy and I prayerfully considered the settlement terms and have decided to reject the terms presented. From the beginning, my wife and I have only sought the truth. Revelations in the last few days exposed to us the strategy of those who have harmed me, a strategy designed to obscure the truth rather than seek justice and reconciliation. It has become obvious this federal platform and process will never result in the truth coming forward. Truth is not to be compromised or negotiated or hidden behind money. “We feel confident that the hearing completed in August 2010, after 38 days of testimony before Referee R. Lee Shepherd, is the best opportunity for revealing the truth we sought from the beginning. Therefore, we have decided to withdraw our federal lawsuit against all parties without any personal compensation or monetary gain as proposed, and we have instructed our attorney to file the proper paperwork. We seek no other option than to continue to patiently await the finding of Referee R. Lee Shepherd as he is the only person to hear all of the testimony and most importantly see all of the students from my 2007-08 class speak about the truth of what went on during my class. “We have already spent our life savings and have pledged our farm to get to the truth. It is better to leave the money on the table than to take the Bible off of my desk.”

Freshwater has been interviewed by the local paper regarding dropping his lawsuit. Looks like he is going the martyr route and pinning his hopes on the referee in the termination hearing.

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/10/10/22/freshwater-drops-case-against-school

Two clarifying comments on civil procedure issues:

(1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) is how a case gets taken off the docket after a fully executed settlement. That is, this is almost certainly related not to the recently issued subpoenas, but to that "motion to compel settlement." Rule 41 is a procedural device only, and has no substantive meaning; without it, all settlements would be subject to approval by the judge as fair to all parties, and further could not include confidential clauses without a showing of good cause for the confidentiality and a separate motion to seal (I think that would be a good idea, but that's not the law).

In short: Nothing to see here, netizens; back to your virtual lives.

(2) In federal practice (this is not true in every state's state courts), an amended complaint, once accepted for filing — there is not an unlimited right to amend complaints, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 — substitutes for the preceding complaint for almost all purposes. The two purposes for which it does not act as a substitute, though, are precisely those that I infer are behind the subpoenas: Discovery misconduct (sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37) and certain kinds of frivolous-claim regulation (sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, not to mention the "inherent power" of the court).

The dismissal, however, cuts off all proceedings under Rule 37 and Rule 11, so perhaps there was a little nudge after all... but the dismissal has no effect on § 1927 and inherent-power sanctions; the settlement might, but we'll never know, will we?

Thanks for that, Counselor Petit.

Oopsie. The foreshadowing of the motion to compel settlement was in Doe v. Mount Vernon Board of Education, et al., not in the suit that was dismissed, Freshwater v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al.. So I don't understand the suggested relationship.

Wow. Thanks, C.E. Petit!

I suspect that the Accountability in the Media website will one day soon completely disappear from the face of the earth much like the website for the Council for Free Expression did.

Yes, Freshwater will now assume the role of martyr which makes me sick to my stomach but he has nothing else to do. It is likely the local radio station will broadcast his statement over the air waves "ad nauseam" as their Operations Manager has been a staunch supporter of Freshwater.

In all likelihood Mt. Vernon's levy will fail and there will more things to think about. One of the local pastors finally wrote a good Letter to the Editor in our local newspaper which in my mind should have been done "ions" ago by the religious community.

Where this goes from here is anyone's guess. I hope that Freshwater does not get a favorable judgment from Sheppard as it would allow this fiasco to continue and its well past it's "day in court". Hopefully, the town can begin to move on and leave this travesty behind.

The end of the Freshwater statement struck me, he still thinks it about the Bible on the desk.

To each his own - but you just lost your farm, your job and any future occupation is going to haunt you. People may forget but Google never does.

This is beyond unwavering faith - it's insanity.

“There was no settlement offer to accept or reject. There was no money on the table for [Freshwater] to leave there. We were baffled when we received the e-mail from him and we can't even begin to speculate why he is saying what he is saying.”

One add'l thought re this statement made by Freshwater:

"most importantly see all of the students from my 2007-08 class speak about the truth of what went on during my class".

This statement is just one more exaggeration as the entire class DID NOT receive a subpeona and every student from that class DID NOT testify before Sheppard.

Nancy and I prayerfully considered the settlement terms and have decided to reject the terms presented.

“There was no settlement offer to accept or reject. There was no money on the table for [Freshwater] to leave there. We were baffled when we received the e-mail from him and we can't even begin to speculate why he is saying what he is saying.”

I'm not sure who to credit with wording Freshwater's statement. Him or his
attorney. Maybe it is a blend.
The truth just isn't in this guy. Only a creationist would not see thru
the lies in that statement. Or would never state there are lies.

Charley Horse said: I'm not sure who to credit with wording Freshwater's statement. Him or his attorney. Maybe it is a blend. The truth just isn't in this guy. Only a creationist would not see thru the lies in that statement. Or would never state there are lies.

Revelations in the last few days exposed to us the strategy of those who have harmed me, a strategy designed to obscure the truth rather than seek justice and reconciliation.

'the strategy of those who have harmed me'

"It is better to leave the money on the table than to take the Bible off of my desk.”

Anubis bloodsin said: [SNIP] I still think that the BOE lawyers knew what they were after when they ordered the subpoenas. They were shaking a tree and look what fell out, coincidence, not a bit of it!

I know we are in the realm of the hypothetical here but if the BOE defense attorney's subpoenas did in fact cause Freshwater / Hamilton to drop their lawsuit because of the fear of something coming to light, is it possible that that "something" is (or may become) known to the Dennis family attorney (Mr. Mansfield, I believe) ? In other words, if Ms. Moore has a strong suspicion about collusion or whatever, would it be legal or ethical to communicate that suspicion to Mr. Mansfield? I would think any information that would cause Freshwater to end his lawsuit would be very important to Dennis' in their suit against Freshwater. Or am I reaching too much here?

It's hard to say. I don't know how much (or whether) information-sharing is permissible between the attorneys for different clients in different legal proceedings. Maybe Counselor Petit can enlighten us.

Well, Cornelius Hunter just wrote a post on UD about how Kitzmiller was really a loss for us evilutionists, so I imagine Freshwater will be proclaiming his victory for years to come.

Any clues as to the nature of the gag order now? Does it remain in place for details relating to the Dismissed suit? Or did it apply to the Doe vs Freshwater suit? Will the BOE lawyers be able to respond to the alleged lies being promoted by Freshwater about settlements with their own version of the truth?

It really would be nice to find out exactly what the BOE lawyers were gunning for in those subpoenas, to end the speculation, as much fun as it is.

Incidentally, I noticed the Freshwater affair has almost made it into the hallowed pages of the journal Nature. I say "almost", as it's only being rehashed over on a Nature Network blog so far.

I'm having trouble imagining what the broad subpoenas could have turned up that would spook Freshwater et al.

Maybe something about black bags, flooded computers, or flat tires. Perjury and obstruction of justice are felonies after all, and can turn a civil case into a criminal conviction like Martha Steward or Hovind.

This whole case is totally surreal. RBH, there is a book in here every bit as gothic and bizarre as the Twilight Zone or the Dover books. And you've already written most of it on PT.

raven said: 2. It cost us a lot of money. Which is false, loser paid. Dover schools were ordered to pay $2 million, $1 million graciously waived by the science supporters because the district was small and underfunded.

raven said: I'm having trouble imagining what the broad subpoenas could have turned up that would spook Freshwater et al. Maybe something about black bags, flooded computers, or flat tires. Perjury and obstruction of justice are felonies after all, and can turn a civil case into a criminal conviction like Martha Steward or Hovind.

Something else to consider: Some have asked on why "carpet-bomb" subpoena everyone for info? The data received would help the BOE defense to re-construct a time-line of what Freshwater and Hamilton did (or did not do). An accurate timetable of actions would be disastrous for F&H.

CMB said: I know we are in the realm of the hypothetical here but if the BOE defense attorney's subpoenas did in fact cause Freshwater / Hamilton to drop their lawsuit because of the fear of something coming to light, is it possible that that "something" is (or may become) known to the Dennis family attorney (Mr. Mansfield, I believe) ? In other words, if Ms. Moore has a strong suspicion about collusion or whatever, would it be legal or ethical to communicate that suspicion to Mr. Mansfield? I would think any information that would cause Freshwater to end his lawsuit would be very important to Dennis' in their suit against Freshwater. Or am I reaching too much here?

The Founding Mothers said: Any clues as to the nature of the gag order now? Does it remain in place for details relating to the Dismissed suit? Or did it apply to the Doe vs Freshwater suit?

Will the BOE lawyers be able to respond to the alleged lies being promoted by Freshwater about settlements with their own version of the truth?

It really would be nice to find out exactly what the BOE lawyers were gunning for in those subpoenas, to end the speculation, as much fun as it is.

Revelations in the last few days exposed to us the strategy of those who have harmed me, a strategy designed to obscure the truth rather than seek justice and reconciliation.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Don't fundies ever look in the mirror?

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Is he talking about Hamilton here? He's certainly done more harm to Freshwater's position than anyone else other then Freshwater himself, primarily by obscuring the truth. Don't fundies ever look in the mirror?

Richard, one thing I'm curious about is the release of the written final arguments and responses in the hearing. How did NCSE get their copies of them? Did Stickle or Fresh/Ham forward them to the NCSE or were they made available thru another party? The Stickle’s subpoena was issued on Wednesday 9/22/10, five days after those documents were published, first Hamilton’s summary argument on Stickle’s site then all four on the NCSE site. The NCSE links to the documents were removed promptly, but Stickle’s site continued to link to them for a while after. So I’m wondering if it was this action that triggered the subpoenas? Also what was the community’s reaction to Stickle’s subpoena?

I also have to wonder what there was that would cause Hamilton to drop this like a hot potato, it is way out of character, did he ask the advice of a competent lawyer? In dropping the suit, do they become liable for expenses the defense has accrued up to this point? Or do they get to walk away after dropping this suit?

I wonder if Sarah Moore will more powerfully respond to Freshwater/Hamilton's claims of an offered settlement.

That story has been picked up uncritically by four media outlets, according to a google news search.

I also wonder if that could effect the Judge's dismissal ruling which might happen today or Monday.

David said:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Is he talking about Hamilton here? He's certainly done more harm to Freshwater's position than anyone else other then Freshwater himself, primarily by obscuring the truth. Don't fundies ever look in the mirror?

I'm *betting the farm* (too early?) Freshwater is subtly saying the School Board is harming him. That's been his script for a while. A great conspiracy.

As we have seen with creationists, including Freshwater, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, William Dembski, the Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis and their supporters: evidence and court rulings don't matter.

Not matter how much Freshwater lies, he will maintain his supporters who choose to see this as a battle between Christianity and Satan.

If they cared about the facts they wouldn't support Freshwater or creationism to begin with. They support his religion which gives Freshwater carte blanche for whatever they no matter how many children get effected.

It's quite sad.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Don't fundies ever look in the mirror?

Juicyheart said: Richard, one thing I'm curious about is the release of the written final arguments and responses in the hearing. How did NCSE get their copies of them?

The Stickle’s subpoena was issued on Wednesday 9/22/10, five days after those documents were published, first Hamilton’s summary argument on Stickle’s site then all four on the NCSE site. The NCSE links to the documents were removed promptly, but Stickle’s site continued to link to them for a while after. So I’m wondering if it was this action that triggered the subpoenas?

Also what was the community’s reaction to Stickle’s subpoena?

I also have to wonder what there was that would cause Hamilton to drop this like a hot potato, it is way out of character, did he ask the advice of a competent lawyer? In dropping the suit, do they become liable for expenses the defense has accrued up to this point? Or do they get to walk away after dropping this suit?

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Yes, I understand that Freshwater is lashing out at the BOE, the Dennis family, and all of the associated attorneys ranged against him. Still, Hamilton has definitely made things worse from Freshwater's perspective.

Thank you for the reply, Richard. I'm still burning with curiousity.

Because, evolutionists had to lie through their teeth to win the [Dover] case.

It’s quite sad.

RBH said: From what I've been able to pick up from hints in various places, the subpoenas were a while in the making and were stimulated (in part at least) by material that apparently came out in depositions.

david said: Crazy loses to common sense.

Steve said:

RBH said: From what I've been able to pick up from hints in various places, the subpoenas were a while in the making and were stimulated (in part at least) by material that apparently came out in depositions.

Will the depositions be made public? I really hope so.

I would like to state how influential Pandas Thumb has been to my research over the years and to tell you all how wonderful it is for people standing up for Science. I too believe in Evolution, but not in a neodarwinistic, nor a Darwinistic form of Evolution. I just believe in Science. I have been diving into some powerful Scientific research support from some of the more prominent names within the peer reviewed journals of today.

Keep up the hard work as we promote Evolution together..in support of what true Science really says.

From what I understand the BOE decides to fire Freshwater way back when. Freswater decided to use his rights, under his contract, to have a hear. The ourcome of the hearing will be forwarded to the BOE. Who will then vote on his termination again. Will the BOE be able to reference the evidence produced in the discovery of Freshwater's suit, when making that descision, even though it wasn't entered into evidence in the hearing? Would the BOE lawyer's have informed the BOE of the evidence discovered, or would they be prevented from doing so to keep the BOE impartial during their deliberations?

faith4flipper said: I would like to state how influential Pandas Thumb has been to my research over the years and to tell you all how wonderful it is for people standing up for Science. I too believe in Evolution, but not in a neodarwinistic, nor a Darwinistic form of Evolution. I just believe in Science. I have been diving into some powerful Scientific research support from some of the more prominent names within the peer reviewed journals of today. Keep up the hard work as we promote Evolution together..in support of what true Science really says.

mrg said: "WTF"?

John Vanko said: I Big?

Here are a couple thoughts/questions that have come to my mind.

First, even though Freshwater has filed the motion to dismiss, doesn't Judge Frost have to approve it or sign off on it before it takes effect?

If that's true, does all this talk about whether or not there was a settlement still fall under the Settlement Talk Gag Order?

Is it possible that Judge Frost will not approve the motion to dismiss because of all the confusing talk that is going on since Freshwater signed this motion?

Seems to me like the Freshwater camp may be jumping the gun a little bit here? Is that possible?

Since it seems that there are posters who know more about the law than I do, I'm hoping someone can provide some clarity regarding this for me.

The truth is there was money offered to me several times to leave the district and stop the state hearing before Referee Shepherd could make his finding. If I took the money and left the district the opportunity for truth would never have come out ... Nancy and I prayerfully considered the settlement terms and have decided to REJECT the terms presented. ...

Revelations in the last few days exposed to us the strategy of those who have harmed me, a strategy designed to obscure the truth rather than seek justice and reconciliation.

Steve said: The Freshwaters double-down on the settlement claim per Stickle's blog:

The truth is there was money offered to me several times to leave the district and stop the state hearing before Referee Shepherd could make his finding. If I took the money and left the district the opportunity for truth would never have come out ... Nancy and I prayerfully considered the settlement terms and have decided to REJECT the terms presented. ...

I don't think the judge can compel the plaintiffs to pursue their case. If Freshwater wants to drop it ge can do so, but he'll have deal with what ever fallout there is from that action. The gag order was for the settlement negotiations in a separate case where Freshwater is the defendant. A settlement was supposed to be close there, but seem to have broken down, because the Dennises' have filed a motion to compel settlement. How, dropping this case will affect the other, I cant say, but it probably won't be favorable for Freshwater.

seabiscuit said: Here are a couple thoughts/questions that have come to my mind. First, even though Freshwater has filed the motion to dismiss, doesn't Judge Frost have to approve it or sign off on it before it takes effect?

If that's true, does all this talk about whether or not there was a settlement still fall under the Settlement Talk Gag Order?

Is it possible that Judge Frost will not approve the motion to dismiss because of all the confusing talk that is going on since Freshwater signed this motion?

Seems to me like the Freshwater camp may be jumping the gun a little bit here? Is that possible?

Take your pick, seabiscuit. :)

Steve said: The Freshwaters double-down on the settlement claim per Stickle's blog:

The truth is there was money offered to me several times to leave the district and stop the state hearing before Referee Shepherd could make his finding. If I took the money and left the district the opportunity for truth would never have come out ... Nancy and I prayerfully considered the settlement terms and have decided to REJECT the terms presented. ...

Source: http://www.accountabilityinthemedia.com/2010/10/freshwater-lawsuit-dismissed.html Freshwater does admit material in the last few days is the reason why he won't push forward:

Revelations in the last few days exposed to us the strategy of those who have harmed me, a strategy designed to obscure the truth rather than seek justice and reconciliation.

Funny, he thinks the discovery period where people get documents/evidence would have prevented "the truth" (or his lies) from coming out.

Juicyheart said:

Steve said: [snip, redundant] Will the depositions be made public? I really hope so.

Me too, me too. C. E. Petit, what are the chances of this happening. Can the BOE just release it? Could a FOIA request get it?

Drat. But does the gag order cover this case? I thought it just applies to the other. Could the judge seal the discovery, when he grants the motion to dismiss?

seabiscuit said: Here are a couple thoughts/questions that have come to my mind. First, even though Freshwater has filed the motion to dismiss, doesn't Judge Frost have to approve it or sign off on it before it takes effect? If that's true, does all this talk about whether or not there was a settlement still fall under the Settlement Talk Gag Order? Is it possible that Judge Frost will not approve the motion to dismiss because of all the confusing talk that is going on since Freshwater signed this motion? Seems to me like the Freshwater camp may be jumping the gun a little bit here? Is that possible? Since it seems that there are posters who know more about the law than I do, I'm hoping someone can provide some clarity regarding this for me.

Given a sotto voce remark Judge Frost made during the sanctions hearing some weeks ago, he will be overjoyed to have this puppy poo out of his court.

Steve said: I wonder if Sarah Moore will more powerfully respond to Freshwater/Hamilton's claims of an offered settlement. That story has been picked up uncritically by four media outlets, according to a google news search. I also wonder if that could effect the Judge's dismissal ruling which might happen today or Monday.

Here's yet another denial by the BOE's attorney:
"An attorney for the school board, however, said her clients never made a settlement offer and no money was on the table.

"We're dumbfounded," said Cleveland attorney Sarah Moore. "We can't even begin to speculate as to what he's trying to do."

Full story at http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/oct/21/4/ohio-cross-burning-lawsuit-ended-ar-267827/

There IS a gag order on any discussions regarding settlement on this case:

filed 6/17/10 and aproved on 6/18/10
http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1379

"The parties are hereby ORDERED not to disclose or to permit others to disclose any of the confidential settlement negotiations that have been or will be exchanged by and between the parties involved in this action.
The Court will not tolerate violations ofthis Gag Order. Any violation will meet serious consequences, including monetary sanctions and other sanctions up to and including the most severe this Court can impose.
IT IS SO ORDERED."

another untruth-
" We seek no other option than to continue to patiently await the finding of Referee R. Lee Shepherd as he is the ONLY person to hear all of the testimony and most importantly see all of the students from my 2007-2008 class speak about the truth of what went on during my class"

RBH you were there. Did the whole class testify? I thought only around 12 or 13 kids testified from the class. I know he had more than that in it.

wonderin said: There IS a gag order on any discussions regarding settlement on this case: filed 6/17/10 and aproved on 6/18/10 http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1379

wgwII said: RBH you were there. Did the whole class testify? I thought only around 12 or 13 kids testified from the class. I know he had more than that in it.

I'll add that the testimony from the students in his class was not uniformly supportive of Freshwater's story. At least two students (and maybe three--I don't recall offhand) contradicted that story.

RBH said:

wgwII said: RBH you were there. Did the whole class testify? I thought only around 12 or 13 kids testified from the class. I know he had more than that in it.

No, the whole class didn't testify. I think (trying to be charitable) that Freshwater meant that Shepherd was the only trier of fact who heard all of the students who testified. Recall that one reason Freshwater fell out with his first set of insurance company lawyers was that they didn't list those dozen or so students Hamilton paraded in the hearing as potential witnesses in Doe v. Mt. Vernon BOE.

Don Matolyak, Freshwater's pastor, claims in this radio interview that there was a financial offer to Freshwater from the Board's insurance company attorneys. As I recall it was in the first segment of the two under August 12 at the link.

RBH said: I'll be darned. I'd forgotten that. You're right. There are gag orders in both cases. So what's Freshwater doing babbling about leaving money on the table and having been offered "terms"?

wgwII said: another untruth- " We seek no other option than to continue to patiently await the finding of Referee R. Lee Shepherd as he is the ONLY person to hear all of the testimony and most importantly see all of the students from my 2007-2008 class speak about the truth of what went on during my class" RBH you were there. Did the whole class testify? I thought only around 12 or 13 kids testified from the class. I know he had more than that in it.

W. H. Heydt said:

RBH said:

wgwII said: RBH you were there. Did the whole class testify? I thought only around 12 or 13 kids testified from the class. I know he had more than that in it.

No, the whole class didn't testify. I think (trying to be charitable) that Freshwater meant that Shepherd was the only trier of fact who heard all of the students who testified. Recall that one reason Freshwater fell out with his first set of insurance company lawyers was that they didn't list those dozen or so students Hamilton paraded in the hearing as potential witnesses in Doe v. Mt. Vernon BOE.

And damned good thing they didn't. The "deposition" process was highly irregular and the Insurance Co. lawyers weren't there for them, as I recall--nor the Dennis' lawyer, either. Every one of them would have had to be deposed again, with full safeguards for them (since they're underage). There could probably have been accusations of witness tampering over the earlier "depositions" as well. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

C.E.Petit

Your comment says it all:

No, I don’t get a commission from all of the ibuprofen that will undoubtedly be consumed trying to figure this out… more’s the pity.

And thank you, RBH and others for their answers to my questions. In this case, questions seem to beget more questions because there's no rhyme or reason to what the Freshwater camp does. They just do whatever comes to mind and at times it is a bit psychotic.

I'd love to see all the "truths" exposed in this case, unfortunately, it is my belief that is what the dismissal is trying to avoid.

Why Sheppard has not closed this case is beyond my understanding of reason. His handling of this hearing is more the problem than the solution.

MaryM said: Here's yet another denial by the BOE's attorney: "An attorney for the school board, however, said her clients never made a settlement offer and no money was on the table. "We're dumbfounded," said Cleveland attorney Sarah Moore. "We can't even begin to speculate as to what he's trying to do." Full story at http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/oct/21/4/ohio-cross-burning-lawsuit-ended-ar-267827/

Air said:

MaryM said: "We're dumbfounded," said Cleveland attorney Sarah Moore. "We can't even begin to speculate as to what he's trying to do." Full story at http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/oct/21/4/ohio-cross-burning-lawsuit-ended-ar-267827/

That article does not now appear to contain that quote - has it been removed?

there’s no rhyme or reason to what the Freshwater camp does. They just do whatever comes to mind and at times it is a bit psychotic. I’d love to see all the “truths” exposed in this case, unfortunately, it is my belief that is what the dismissal is trying to avoid.

Sorry but I can't explain why the article no longer has the quote from attorney Moore.

MaryM said: Sorry but I can't explain why the article no longer has the quote from attorney Moore.

wonderin said: There IS a gag order on any discussions regarding settlement on this case: filed 6/17/10 and aproved on 6/18/10 http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1379 "The parties are hereby ORDERED not to disclose or to permit others to disclose any of the confidential settlement negotiations that have been or will be exchanged by and between the parties involved in this action. The Court will not tolerate violations ofthis Gag Order. Any violation will meet serious consequences, including monetary sanctions and other sanctions up to and including the most severe this Court can impose. IT IS SO ORDERED."

Dave Daubenmire was on 88.9 WLRY this morning spouting his usual outrageous beliefs. He is now saying that JF did not burn a cross on the kid's arm (I wonder if he needs to go back and watch his interview with Geraldo?), brought up the potential settlement amount supposedly discussed with Freshwater and talked about the lawyer's asking about John and Nancy's sex life....okay, duh, you filed a complaint indicating loss of consortium. As my husband just jokingly said, I don't think they're going to be asking you about your shoe size!

I find it fascinating that Freshwater "supposedly" gives up a financial settlement for "the truth" but his buddies, Daubenmire and Matolyak, get on radio shows in the last two days, 88.9 WLRY Pass The Salt & 880 WRFD Bob Burney, respectively, and ask (beg) for money from listeners to deliver what they decide is "the truth".

You know... When Freshwater talks about having "left money on the table" maybe he means that he wanted to offer the Board money to settle various claims in his favor...

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Even if you accept Freshwater's claims as true, it doesn't make sense on the face of it. So let me see if I understand what Freshwater is saying.

"From the beginning" Freshwater filed a lawsuit against the BOE in an effort only to (according to Freshwater) bring the "truth" forward. Freshwater saw an effort by the BOE "in the last few days" (ie subpoenas) which would have made more information a part of the public record as a "strategy designed to obscure the truth..." [WTF #1] The BOE (according the Freshwater) offered "terms" including "money", presumably because the BOE wanted to prevent the suit from coming to trial, presumably to stop the "truth" from coming out. Freshwater (in his, his wife's and God's wisdom) decided to reject any monetary offer to stop the suit because, "Truth is not to be compromised or negotiated or hidden behind money." So..., instead of accepting an offer of "personal compensation and monetary gain" to stop the suit and thereby hide the truth, Freshwater instead decided to voluntarily stop the suit thereby, um... uh... well... allowing the Referee (in another venue) as the only person to "speak about the truth". [WTF #2]

Funny thing. In science (and law), the "truth" is everybody's truth, just like the facts are everybody's facts. But in the creationist mind, there are "truths" that belong only to them. Only some people have one set of truths (and facts), while others claim to have a different set of truths (and facts). Even be they diametrically opposed, both set of truths are "true".

Remarkable. It's the "crocodile god" versus all the other gods of the Nile all over again. And again... (google: crocodile Henty).

It took me a little while to find it:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/freshwater-day-13.html

If Steve Thompson approached the Dennis family to "open the line of negotiations", who's to say he didn't do the same thing with Freshwater.

@ Scott F. Part of what freshwater is claiming is he was offered money to drop the appeal and move out of the district. If this were so there's some merit to his statement for sticking up for the truth. Of course when faced with a situation where he has to back- up his assertions, he bails. For the good of his family.

Debbie Henthorn said: It took me a little while to find it: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/freshwater-day-13.html If Steve Thompson approached the Dennis family to "open the line of negotiations", who's to say he didn't do the same thing with Freshwater.

Juicyheart said:

Debbie Henthorn said: It took me a little while to find it: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/freshwater-day-13.html If Steve Thompson approached the Dennis family to "open the line of negotiations", who's to say he didn't do the same thing with Freshwater.

Wouldn't surprise me

Paul Burnett said:

Air said:

MaryM said: "We're dumbfounded," said Cleveland attorney Sarah Moore. "We can't even begin to speculate as to what he's trying to do." Full story at http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/oct/21/4/ohio-cross-burning-lawsuit-ended-ar-267827/

That article does not now appear to contain that quote - has it been removed?

The AP article is everywhere: http://www.thestate.com/2010/10/22/1525905/teacher-drops-lawsuit-in-burning.html http://newsystocks.com/news/3761945 http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20101022/NEWS11/101029819

Part of what freshwater is claiming is he was offered money to drop the appeal and move out of the district.

Juicyheart said: @ Scott F. Part of what freshwater is claiming is he was offered money to drop the appeal and move out of the district. If this were so there's some merit to his statement for sticking up for the truth.

Wild speculation (cont.):

(d) The Stickle brothers were part of a local religious group which had actually planned, discussed and prepared the religious material which went into Freshwater's classroom for him to preach rather than teach (but they hadn't been forewarned to destroy all their records).

(e) Ditto but this was material Freshwater was presenting at the student sports meetings - where he was also not supposed to be preaching.

(f) The Stickle brothers had copies of other depositions from students which supported the Dennis' account and contradicted Freshwater's versions of events; and hence these had not even been admitted by him and Hamilton as taking place at all.

(g) The Stickle brothers have documentary evidence of Freshwater et al's active involvement in the hounding of the Dennis family (whether in planning or execution).

Wild speculation, indeed. I suspect you're wandering way off into Neverland.

air said: I see that, but the story on NBC from Central Ohio does not include the 'dumbfounded' quote - my interest is in whether it was there and has been subsequently removed.

IANAL bit here is my 2cents:
Federal courts mandate you have settlement discussions. This obviously happened or else they wouldn't have asked for a gag order. During these discussions the insurance lawyer probably said something to the effect we will pay you a year or two salary if you just accept the termination. That is what an insurance lawyer is supposed to do. Get the case over with as cheaply as possible. Perhaps Freshwater thought those offers still stood even thought he didn't agree to them at the time.
Who knows? We probably will never know for sure!

You might, considering that there might be another hearing.
Freshwater has pretty plainly violated the gag order, which includes forbidding talking about the negotiations.

SEF said: Wild speculation (cont.):

Ryan Cunningham said:

SEF said: Wild speculation (cont.):

(h) The Stickle brothers were in WTC 7 digging up Jimmie Hoffa with Elvis and JFK's ghost when they uncovered the stage where the moon landing was hoaxed.

Kevin B said: No, can't be right. There's nothing about Hamilton's laptop being abducted by aliens in UFOs and being implanted with a fake birth certificate and a copy of the original version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Thinking about it, there are a couple of other potentially more realistic possibilities for what happened to set Freshwater off about a possible settlement and withdraw his suit. According to his pastor, Don Matolyak, in a radio interview linked about in this thread, Freshwater was upset about some sort of settlement references in a meeting involving him and his wife, Attorney Hamilton, and the defendants' attorneys led by Sarah Moore a week or so before he withdrew the suit.

Sarah Moore, the Board's insurance company lead attorney, has been emphatic in stating that no settlement offer was made and that "there was no money on the table." Freshwater has been very vague about just who made the settlement suggestion--in fact, as far as I can tell, he never actually says it was the Board's attorneys. He says "Money was offered to me several times" but never tells us who made the offer or when it was made or in what context it occurred.

So how about this possibility: Hamilton introduced the notion of a settlement at the recent meeting. Rather than the Board's attorneys, Freshwater's attorney suggested the possibility of a settlement, and Freshwater and/or his wife blew him off and withdrew the suit.

That seems more consistent with all (really, what little) we know and takes everyone's statements about it at face value. Freshwater is telling the truth when he claims a settlement was suggested, and the Board's attorneys are telling the truth when they say that they made no settlement offer. The last man standing is Hamilton. Hamilton has been complaining that the case has cost him significant income because of refusing other clients, so he has a motive to settle the Freshwater mess and get on with his life. And as far as I can tell, Hamilton hasn't let out a peep about the withdrawal of the suit or about Freshwater's claims about settlement. He's been utterly silent. Matolyak is doing all the talking in public while Hamilton has a law license to protect.

Of course, that would mean that Freshwater and Matolyak would be deceiving by omission in not mentioning that it was Hamilton who made the suggestion rather than the Board's attorneys, but then that's not a big deal, right?

Another possibility: It wouldn't amaze me if a settlement offer was made way back in 2008 prior to the administrative hearing to avoid the pain and expense of the hearing. Freshwater said in his written statement about withdrawing the suit that "If I took the money and left ... the eleven students from my 2007-2008 class would not have been able to testify ...". That means the offer referred to was made prior to their testimony in late April 2010.

Perhaps Hamilton revived talk of it recently in light of the information that was being sought by the subpoenas recently issued by Moore (which I now believe was not a mere fishing expedition), setting Freshwater and/or his wife off on the line of thinking that led to withdrawing the suit.

Does anyone know how far into the deposition process this most recent federal suit progressed before Freshwater pulled the plug? Perhaps the school district's "fishing expedition" and discovery were more productive than anyone imagined they would be. Would love to read those depositions, if they were conducted before the suit was dropped.

wonderin too said: Does anyone know how far into the deposition process this most recent federal suit progressed before Freshwater pulled the plug? Perhaps the school district's "fishing expedition" and discovery were more productive than anyone imagined they would be. Would love to read those depositions, if they were conducted before the suit was dropped.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't two lawyers for the insurance company drop out. Long before these things came to light?

David said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't two lawyers for the insurance company drop out. Long before these things came to light?

Debbie Henthorn said: For those of you with legal background, asking for a little clarification for those of us without: The first amended complaint was when they added Mrs. Freshwater and the loss of consortium complaint. http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1107 When the complaint is amended, does it negate the original complaint - the one filed by John Freshwater? It might seem like splitting hairs, but as the blanket subpoena reflected - it's all in the details.

jasonmitchell said:

David said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't two lawyers for the insurance company drop out. Long before these things came to light?

IIRC the lawyers you are referring to represented FRESHWATER's insurance company! (not the school board's)

I have no idea what that comment was about, but it tells me this thread is dead. I'm closing comments on it.