Freshwater: Settlement in Doe v. Mt. Vernon BOE (UPDATED w/statement from family)

When this mess is finally over, I'll have to go back to watching re-runs of the Lawrence Welk show.

Looks like Freshwater chose not to put his spin this settlement.
The cash should cover the "forced" moving expenses and a trip to
Disney with a good sum left over.
An apology would have been appropriate though terribly late. If the
Dennis' are happy with the settlement, I am, too.

In a voicemail left this morning, Freshwater said he had no comment regarding the settlement.

"This leaves just one formal proceeding still in progress, the administrative hearing on Freshwater’s termination as a teacher in the district"

This sentence sums up an absolutely mind bending reality. It gives me a headache to even contemplate it. Two federal cases have been settled before the administrative hearing of a single high school teacher in a relatively small district. We have the expression "make a federal case out of it" for a reason!

The referee for the administrative hearing should be so embarrassed by the time and resources he allowed to be wasted on this circus.

Ryan Cunningham said: This sentence sums up an absolutely mind bending reality. It gives me a headache to even contemplate it. Two federal cases have been settled before the administrative hearing of a single high school teacher in a relatively small district. We have the expression "make a federal case out of it" for a reason! The referee for the administrative hearing should be so embarrassed by the time and resources he allowed to be wasted on this circus.

VICTORY!

1) The Plantiffs accepted the settlement - they didn't want to put the kids through a trial - Freshwater (via his insurer) pays damages (in my book this is tantamount to an admission of guilt)

2) School district to (did?) train teachers on keeping religion OUT of the classroom.

3) Freshwater dropped his case vs. the schoolboard

I cannot see how the referee cannot now recomend that Freshwaters termination goes forward, and (IANAL) but I don't see what legal recouse Freshwater now has - he's gone.
anyone know if under the terms of his contrct he looses his pension?

I hope that the message that comes out of this is
1) to administrators - ACT it will be expensive to your district (and your reputation) if you allow your classrooms to be used as ministries
2) to teachers that would be preachers - your actions will be costly to your community, your school district, your career and YOU financially - wouldn't be better for everyone concerned if you took a job at a religious school?

also those high volatage devices are not toys - don't burn your students

"As part of the settlement agreement, the Dennis family has agreed to forego recovery of the sanctions awarded to them by the federal district judge presiding over the case."

Gary Hurd said:

"As part of the settlement agreement, the Dennis family has agreed to forego recovery of the sanctions awarded to them by the federal district judge presiding over the case."

Damn it! That let Hamilton off the hook.

Gary Hurd said:

"As part of the settlement agreement, the Dennis family has agreed to forego recovery of the sanctions awarded to them by the federal district judge presiding over the case."

Damn it! That let Hamilton off the hook.

The cash should cover the “forced” moving expenses and a trip to Disney with a good sum left over.

Gary Hurd said:

"As part of the settlement agreement, the Dennis family has agreed to forego recovery of the sanctions awarded to them by the federal district judge presiding over the case."

Damn it! That let Hamilton off the hook.

Karen, I imagine that the cash in question is going to the Dennis family. They were the plaintiffs in this case.

So it looks to me like the Dennis family will be getting about $455K plus an additional $115K that goes to their lawyer all being paid by the district's insurance carrier. I think that is way too much for their pain and suffering but that's just my opinion. Hamilton doesn't have to pay sanctions (that sucks) but John Freshwater still has to pay Hamilton. Freshwater claims to be nearly bankrupt but I really wonder how much his total legal bill will be. Is he really going to have sign over his farm to his incompetant attorney? Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

Mary M said: Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

Mary M said: So it looks to me like the Dennis family will be getting about $455K plus an additional $115K that goes to their lawyer all being paid by the district's insurance carrier. I think that is way too much for their pain and suffering but that's just my opinion. Hamilton doesn't have to pay sanctions (that sucks) but John Freshwater still has to pay Hamilton. Freshwater claims to be nearly bankrupt but I really wonder how much his total legal bill will be. Is he really going to have sign over his farm to his incompetant attorney? Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

Mary M said: So it looks to me like the Dennis family will be getting about $455K plus an additional $115K that goes to their lawyer all being paid by the district's insurance carrier. I think that is way too much for their pain and suffering but that's just my opinion. Hamilton doesn't have to pay sanctions (that sucks) but John Freshwater still has to pay Hamilton. Freshwater claims to be nearly bankrupt but I really wonder how much his total legal bill will be. Is he really going to have sign over his farm to his incompetant attorney? Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

Mary M said: So it looks to me like the Dennis family will be getting about $455K plus an additional $115K that goes to their lawyer all being paid by the district's insurance carrier. I think that is way too much for their pain and suffering but that's just my opinion. Hamilton doesn't have to pay sanctions (that sucks) but John Freshwater still has to pay Hamilton. Freshwater claims to be nearly bankrupt but I really wonder how much his total legal bill will be. Is he really going to have sign over his farm to his incompetant attorney? Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

jasonmitchell said:

Mary M said: So it looks to me like the Dennis family will be getting about $455K plus an additional $115K that goes to their lawyer all being paid by the district's insurance carrier. I think that is way too much for their pain and suffering but that's just my opinion. Hamilton doesn't have to pay sanctions (that sucks) but John Freshwater still has to pay Hamilton. Freshwater claims to be nearly bankrupt but I really wonder how much his total legal bill will be. Is he really going to have sign over his farm to his incompetant attorney? Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

too much for their pain and suffering I agree - I suspect that the majority of this would be punitive damages vs compensatory damages (punishment vs actual pain/suffering) and I really hope that Hamilton isn't off the hook - maybe Judge Frost will do whatever judges do to get lawyers dis-barred

eric said:

Mary M said: Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

Its only crazy because the two were probably partners in their various lies, so such a move would be a form of mutually assured destruction. Ignoring that, if Freshwater got highly competent representation I imagine he could win. Hamilton's performance in court does not appear to be very good. And he wouldn't be able to use his standard tricks of failing to show up or not turning over evidence in a timely manner, since doing those things just add further support to the incompetence claim.

Mary M said: So it looks to me like the Dennis family will be getting about $455K plus an additional $115K that goes to their lawyer all being paid by the district's insurance carrier. I think that is way too much for their pain and suffering but that's just my opinion. Hamilton doesn't have to pay sanctions (that sucks) but John Freshwater still has to pay Hamilton. Freshwater claims to be nearly bankrupt but I really wonder how much his total legal bill will be. Is he really going to have sign over his farm to his incompetant attorney? Maybe Freshwater will sue Hamilton for poor representation. Nah! Even Freshwater isn't crazy enough to do that.

I doubt that Freshwater will sue Hamilton. I think that in such a situation, the usual attorney-client confidentiality is waived, and Hamilton would be free to tell everything he knows to defend himself. It wouldn't be pretty.

CMB said: Hi Mary, I have to respectfully disagree with you about the sum of money being paid as being too much. The family did have to move from their home of a number of years, Zac was subjected to taunting and harassment (imagine how he felt seeing signs that said "The Bible must stay, the student must go"). He and his family were called liars at various times by both of the Freshwaters in various media outlets. I regret that the insurance company is the one to pay for this instead of Freshwater but perhaps some good will come of that.

The Curmudgeon said: When this mess is finally over, I'll have to go back to watching re-runs of the Lawrence Welk show.

I'd like to point out that Sam Stickle's website hasn't reported the news that the "Doe" case is settled yet, despite immediately posting other information.

As usual, the right wing religious press has released a "story" today that contains few relevant facts. It's from "OneNeuronNow" and it's a funny read if you can stand it. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1216140

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle said: As usual, the right wing religious press has released a "story" today that contains few relevant facts. It's from "OneNeuronNow" and it's a funny read if you can stand it. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1216140

eric said: One possible reason the referee might have bent so far backwards for Freshwater is to lessen the chance of a successful suit after the finding (i.e. a suit based on the claim that the hearing process was unfair).

Steve said:

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle said: As usual, the right wing religious press has released a "story" today that contains few relevant facts. It's from "OneNeuronNow" and it's a funny read if you can stand it. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1216140

Even though the article omits several important details (like creationism in public schools is illegal and Freshwater was found to be a liar in federal court) all the comments are negative about Freshwater. Also the author, Bill Bumpas, has a history of a wacko articles. See his "Schools claim Lucifer as model and guardian" article.

One possible reason the referee might have bent so far backwards for Freshwater is to lessen the chance of a successful suit after the finding (i.e. a suit based on the claim that the hearing process was unfair).

Karen, I imagine that the cash in question is going to the Dennis family. They were the plaintiffs in this case.

eric said:

Ryan Cunningham said: This sentence sums up an absolutely mind bending reality. It gives me a headache to even contemplate it. Two federal cases have been settled before the administrative hearing of a single high school teacher in a relatively small district. We have the expression "make a federal case out of it" for a reason! The referee for the administrative hearing should be so embarrassed by the time and resources he allowed to be wasted on this circus.

One possible reason the referee might have bent so far backwards for Freshwater is to lessen the chance of a successful suit after the finding (i.e. a suit based on the claim that the hearing process was unfair). It is somewhat frightening to contemplate the idea that this might not be over - there might be a 4th legal proceeding. But even with that justification, I agree the ref should be embarrassed. Particularly in terms of timetable, he's gone far beyond what he needed to do to be 'fair' Freshwater and Hamilton.

Stuart Weinstein said:

eric said: One possible reason the referee might have bent so far backwards for Freshwater is to lessen the chance of a successful suit after the finding (i.e. a suit based on the claim that the hearing process was unfair). It is somewhat frightening to contemplate the idea that this might not be over - there might be a 4th legal proceeding. But even with that justification, I agree the ref should be embarrassed. Particularly in terms of timetable, he's gone far beyond what he needed to do to be 'fair' Freshwater and Hamilton.

One would have to think that with two Fed suits dismissed, if the ref still is worried about his ruling being challenged he seriously needs a clue.

Flint said: I wonder if the referee is a local guy, who would perhaps be subject to the same kind of harrassment the Dennises faced, should he rule against Freshwater. Does he have children in the local schools? Does he have another day job that might be jeopardized?

C.E. Petit said: The administrative hearing officer doesn't have much of a choice. He is obligated to produce a "complete and accurate record" of the parties' allegations and the evidence presented in support of those allegations. He cannot stop the presentation once he's convinced, like a judge can; he must make the record. Further, he cannot rule things inadmissable; he must make the record. He can later discount some of what he heard; he can later make credibility determinations; but if one of the parties offers an argument or evidence, unless that argument or evidence is not even conceivably relevant to any possible claim or defense, the hearing officer must include it in the record. Blaming the hearing officer for a bloated proceeding is like blaming the referee of a basketball game between the Crips and the Bloods for calling a lot of fouls and slowing the game down. Sometimes one, or both, sides is there more for grandstanding than for victory...

Richard,
Thanks many times over for keeping all us readers (lurkers?) that don't often comment up to date on this whole Freshwater thing. I would have thanked you all the times before for each and every post you have made on the subject but didn't want to clog up the comments.

I also want to thank C.E. Petit for giving us the benefits of his (or her) legal expertise... it really helps in understanding the mechanisms and methods behind results as reported.

I would also like to thank most of the commenters for their speculations and ideas on the case(s).

Thank you all.

You're welcome. :) Thanks for the kind words.

What David said. Me too.

Gary Hurd said:

"As part of the settlement agreement, the Dennis family has agreed to forego recovery of the sanctions awarded to them by the federal district judge presiding over the case."

Damn it! That let Hamilton off the hook.

And my thanks also (again). I know this hasn’t been easy.

RBH said:

Gary Hurd said:

"As part of the settlement agreement, the Dennis family has agreed to forego recovery of the sanctions awarded to them by the federal district judge presiding over the case."

Damn it! That let Hamilton off the hook.

In Doe v. Mt. Vernon BOE, et al maybe, but not in Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon BOE, et al. There Hamilton alone was sanctioned and ordered to pay attorney costs for discovery violations. The Doe settlement has no effect on that.

Stuart Weinstein said: One would have to think that with two Fed suits dismissed, if the ref still is worried about his ruling being challenged he seriously needs a clue.

C.E. Petit said: The administrative hearing officer doesn't have much of a choice. He is obligated to produce a "complete and accurate record" of the parties' allegations and the evidence presented in support of those allegations. He cannot stop the presentation once he's convinced, like a judge can; he must make the record.

Part of the issue with the "summer break" is that it was allowed by the state - it was Freshwater's right to not have the hearing sessions when school wasn't in session.
The referee was also singularly responsible for some of the scheduling delays. I think RBH mentioned he has a private practice (in Richland County) plus the city law director position. Trying to get 3 attorneys with schedules that "mesh"?
I still agree that the entire admin hearing process took way too long. This is Central Ohio, not Washington, DC.

Debbie Henthorn said: Part of the issue with the "summer break" is that it was allowed by the state - it was Freshwater's right to not have the hearing sessions when school wasn't in session. The referee was also singularly responsible for some of the scheduling delays. I think RBH mentioned he has a private practice (in Richland County) plus the city law director position. Trying to get 3 attorneys with schedules that "mesh"? I still agree that the entire admin hearing process took way too long. This is Central Ohio, not Washington, DC.

Steve said:

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle said: As usual, the right wing religious press has released a "story" today that contains few relevant facts. It's from "OneNeuronNow" and it's a funny read if you can stand it. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1216140

Even though the article omits several important details (like creationism in public schools is illegal and Freshwater was found to be a liar in federal court) all the comments are negative about Freshwater. Also the author, Bill Bumpas, has a history of a wacko articles. See his "Schools claim Lucifer as model and guardian" article.

Debbie Henthorn said: Part of the issue with the "summer break" is that it was allowed by the state - it was Freshwater's right to not have the hearing sessions when school wasn't in session.

Freshwater will most likely lose a job he held dearly, and will have to move, and leave a church that’s offered him a lot of support, if he wants to replace the job.

C.E. Petit said: The administrative hearing officer doesn't have much of a choice. He is obligated to produce a "complete and accurate record" of the parties' allegations and the evidence presented in support of those allegations. He cannot stop the presentation once he's convinced, like a judge can; he must make the record. Further, he cannot rule things inadmissable; he must make the record. He can later discount some of what he heard; he can later make credibility determinations; but if one of the parties offers an argument or evidence, unless that argument or evidence is not even conceivably relevant to any possible claim or defense, the hearing officer must include it in the record.

Ryan Cunningham said:

C.E. Petit said: The administrative hearing officer doesn't have much of a choice. He is obligated to produce a "complete and accurate record" of the parties' allegations and the evidence presented in support of those allegations. He cannot stop the presentation once he's convinced, like a judge can; he must make the record. Further, he cannot rule things inadmissable; he must make the record. He can later discount some of what he heard; he can later make credibility determinations; but if one of the parties offers an argument or evidence, unless that argument or evidence is not even conceivably relevant to any possible claim or defense, the hearing officer must include it in the record.

Seriously? What kind of system is this?! Show and tell for lawyers? It's like it's designed to produce a completely disgraceful, wasteful circus. Why does the referee even need to be there? Just have the two parties submit video of whatever the hell they want.

Why do people think Freshwater will lose his job?

The referee has shown exceptional indulgence for an extremely extended period of time.

Now Freshwater has even been forced to settle a civil suit, which was the direct result of his deliberate illegal behavior, for a mid-six figure sum, which will be paid by insurance.

Still no word from the referee.

Here's a possible outcome of the hearing -

"Go ahead and 'preach' sectarian Protestant fundamentalist dogma as science, in a bullying and abusive way that is designed to put negative pressure on students from other backgrounds. Mix it with plenty of inappropriate after-school behavior. Even if you do it so blatantly that you are successfully sued, you still won't be fired."

I would not be at all surprised to see this outcome.

Aagcobb said: [snip] All I know is that in my state, as the hearing officer I can prohibit irrelevant and unduly repititious evidence, and I can't imagine it would've taken more than a few days, max, to create a complete record when a teacher has been accused of burning a student. Plus we have tribunals hear the evidence and make the decision, and I wouldn't put them through the torturous process RBH described.

W. H. Heydt said: Probably to least bad solution (I refuse to say either "best" or even "optimal") is to try to sanction those that abuse due process afterwards.

W. H. Heydt said: I read it a little differently, even though I agree that the hearing was dragged out to absurd lengths. It reads to me as a matter of "due process". You know, one of those Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

C.E. Petit said: The key is to think about how to protect against bad faith not by the parties, but by the decisionmaker;

harold said: Why do people think Freshwater will lose his job? The referee has shown exceptional indulgence for an extremely extended period of time. Now Freshwater has even been forced to settle a civil suit, which was the direct result of his deliberate illegal behavior, for a mid-six figure sum, which will be paid by insurance. Still no word from the referee. Here's a possible outcome of the hearing - "Go ahead and 'preach' sectarian Protestant fundamentalist dogma as science, in a bullying and abusive way that is designed to put negative pressure on students from other backgrounds. Mix it with plenty of inappropriate after-school behavior. Even if you do it so blatantly that you are successfully sued, you still won't be fired." I would not be at all surprised to see this outcome.

John Freshwater told The Associated Press in an e-mail Thursday he had little say in what was really a deal between the family and the school's insurer.

Ryan Cunningham said:

W. H. Heydt said: Probably to least bad solution (I refuse to say either "best" or even "optimal") is to try to sanction those that abuse due process afterwards.

Doesn't seem that way to me. I'd prefer trying to put systems in place so this kind of abuse doesn't happen in the future. A sane system would have an impartial authority with the power to make decisions about what was fair and sanction those who broke the rules... you know, like those guys that wear the funny outfits in a football game. What are they called again?

W. H. Heydt said: I read it a little differently, even though I agree that the hearing was dragged out to absurd lengths. It reads to me as a matter of "due process". You know, one of those Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

We seem to do just fine protecting these rights in real courtrooms, where adults are in charge.

"please realize that those who are so ingrained with an ideal, no matter how wrong it may be, will portray themselves as martyrs, and those doing wrong, will re-frame the argument as them being wronged."

I found this astute comment following a a Columbus Dipatch article on the Freshwater case dismissal. The martyrization of Freshwater has already started with Daubenmire declaring to the Christian Post that "he believes the charges against Freshwater were all motivated out of bias and prejudice".

Fundies are never losers, they are either winners or victims.

An Ohio teacher accused of burning the image of a cross on students' arms says he signed a settlement agreement with one family because he was required under a judge's order. John Freshwater told The Associated Press in an e-mail Thursday he had little say in what was really a deal between the family and the school's insurer.

RBH said: Freshwater claims he was ordered to settle Building on MaryM's comment above, the Port Clinton, Ohio, newspaper is carrying a story from AP citing an email from Freshwater as saying he signed the settlement because the judge ordered him to:

An Ohio teacher accused of burning the image of a cross on students' arms says he signed a settlement agreement with one family because he was required under a judge's order. John Freshwater told The Associated Press in an e-mail Thursday he had little say in what was really a deal between the family and the school's insurer.

RBH said: Freshwater claims he was ordered to settle Building on MaryM's comment above, the Port Clinton, Ohio, newspaper is carrying a story from AP citing an email from Freshwater as saying he signed the settlement because the judge ordered him to:

An Ohio teacher accused of burning the image of a cross on students' arms says he signed a settlement agreement with one family because he was required under a judge's order. John Freshwater told The Associated Press in an e-mail Thursday he had little say in what was really a deal between the family and the school's insurer.

W. H. Heydt said: I read it a little differently, even though I agree that the hearing was dragged out to absurd lengths. It reads to me as a matter of "due process". You know, one of those Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Probably to least bad solution (I refuse to say either "best" or even "optimal") is to try to sanction those that abuse due process afterwards.

Ryan Cunningham said:

C.E. Petit said: The key is to think about how to protect against bad faith not by the parties, but by the decisionmaker;

I can't bang my head hard enough on my desk after reading this. If the person who is making the decisions is prejudiced against you, who cares how long they let you sing and dance in front of them?

C.E. Petit said:

Aagcobb said: [snip] All I know is that in my state, as the hearing officer I can prohibit irrelevant and unduly repititious evidence, and I can't imagine it would've taken more than a few days, max, to create a complete record when a teacher has been accused of burning a student. Plus we have tribunals hear the evidence and make the decision, and I wouldn't put them through the torturous process RBH described.

The problem here is that you're assuming that you know what was "irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence" (1) before hearing it, (2) in a purely employment context, which has really strange burdens of proof for unionized and government workplaces regarding what constitutes either "just cause" or "unlawful pretext," (3) by a hearing officer already familiar with the local customs, (4) without having seen the preliminary presentations by counsel in which they laid out their positions. To my mind, (4) is the most damning problem: Leaving aside the post hoc rationalization of (1) — however much those of us who frequent this board would tend to agree, it's just plain bad logic — one of the main differences between an administrative hearing and a court hearing is precisely that emphasis on a complete record in administrative hearings, versus a relevant record in court hearings. I'm not going to try to reproduce an entire semester's worth of basic Administrative Law and Labor Law here. The short version — and it's misleading, but provides the right window — is that the "complete record" requirement is there as protection against arbitrary and capricious actions by unelected, unconfirmed-by-the-elected-officials bureaucrats who may have personal/hidden agendas inconsistent with truly disinterested decisions. The long version takes those six credits of law school courses, plus a couple of years of litigation and arbitration experience, to really assimilate (I did it in the reverse order, as I was actually a nonlawyer ALJ concerning one specific federal RIF/reorganization program in the early 1990s). The key is to think about how to protect against bad faith not by the parties, but by the decisionmaker; that's the purpose of the "complete record" rules. That it results in some ridiculous proceedings is what those of us in my former profession called "collateral damage." In short, as ridiculous as this was in this particular instance, the alternative(s) are/were worse. And that is the entire point of the rule of law — a point, I might add, that is entirely missed by Freshwater's advocates, defenders, instigators, etc.

The referee’s recommendation it not binding on the board.

Sorry, forgot a final paragraph tying those disparate strains together.

Angle is a teacher and science denying creationist. The public reaction is to elect her to one of the most powerful positions in the government.

Do not take sanity for granted.

Incidentally, the piece is intended as a puff piece, trying to show that Angle is “moderating”.

harold said: CMB said -

The referee’s recommendation it not binding on the board.

Technically that's true, but unless the referee recommends termination the board will be in an intensely uncomfortable position. Going for dismissal against the referee's recommendation is probably not what any of the people on that board want to have to do. Everyone should stop counting chickens. Here's what public school teacher/soon to be United States senator has to say... "Evolution is a theory just like creation is a theory. If we truly want educated children, we should give them opportunities to have every theory presented to them and then they can make up their minds which one makes the most sense. Because at the bottom of each theory, we can't prove it. We weren't there. We can't see and hear for ourselves and say absolutely this is how it happened. If we could, there would be no debate. When we're trying to raise logical thinkers, we have to give them every argument and allow for the debate." From - http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/secret-recording-shows-new-side-of-sharron-angle/19590480 Incidentally, the piece is intended as a puff piece, trying to show that Angle is "moderating". She will be elected to the United States Senate.

Hopefully Harry Reid will win that race.

C.E. Petit said: I do, because having a complete record is how I win on appeal from the prejudiced decisionmaker... and I have a pretty darned good track record on that. A court reviewing the decision below (whether from an administrative hearing, a board affirming/rejecting a hearing officer's decision, or a lower court) doesn't take new evidence; instead, the record in that court below is what is being reviewed. Yes, there are times that the court can and will say that the factfinding process was so flawed that the matter must be retried... but the reviewing court does so on the basis of that record.

RBH said:

C.E. Petit said: I do, because having a complete record is how I win on appeal from the prejudiced decisionmaker... and I have a pretty darned good track record on that. A court reviewing the decision below (whether from an administrative hearing, a board affirming/rejecting a hearing officer's decision, or a lower court) doesn't take new evidence; instead, the record in that court below is what is being reviewed. Yes, there are times that the court can and will say that the factfinding process was so flawed that the matter must be retried... but the reviewing court does so on the basis of that record.

From remarks he made a number of times during the hearing Hamilton was very aware of that. I'm not sure he was thinking about the possibility of an appeal (which would be to the Court of Common Pleas in this county), but he was surely aware of it.

I would be surprised if Freshwater appeals. This has to have been a grueling ordeal for him and his family. If Freshwater is "near bankrupt" as he claimed to be, he doesn't have the money to appeal anyway.

I wish we had a mole at Freshwater's church. From what I've read/heard in the community, most Christians have long ago lost their enthusiasm for supporting this particular Christian brother.
I'd be curious to know what Freshwater's fellow congregants are saying about him now.
I find it interesting that the course of this case has followed a similar trajectory to his buddy/advisor Dave Daubenmire's ACLU case in London, OH. Both Daubenmire and Freshwater got a lot of community support at first while the accusers got condemnation. Then as the facts came out, both Daubenmire and Freshwater's supporters started falling away.
Daubenmire really ticked off the community when he sued his accusers for libel, lost, sued on appeal and lost again. The community had grown so sick of him they just wanted him to shut up and go far, far away yet he kept coming back for more. It looks to me like Freshwater isn't willing to go down fighting to the bitter end and is trying to cut his losses.
I also would be surprised if Freshwater goes on to public speaking career. He just doesn't seem to have it in him, doesn't seem to be someone who craves public attention like Daubenmire.
My guess is that Freshwater will crawl back into his private life and avoid any publicity in the future.

This is post-modern, post-industrial, post-education, post-bubble America.

A cult of hysterical racism/panicked homophobia/delusional reality denial/sadism/narcissism/irrational greed/superstition/jingoism/suicidally unsustainable militarism is on the ascent. It's adherents refer the themselves, in ironic Orwellian fashion, as "Conservative Christians". Although this cult is anything but either, it is unclear whether there is anyone left who self-describes as "conservative" who has not joined, and, although there are unequivocally many people who self-identify as "Christian" who have not joined, such people probably deserve "endangered" status.

The United States is engaged in a number of unique experiments. Rolling back educational opportunity, rolling back skill training, rolling back economic stabilizers, loss of basic common sense subsistence skills, ramping up damage to the environment, degradation of the infrasture, and abandonment of basic enlightenment values - all at one time.

In this environment, I will not take Freshwater's dismissal for granted until it has been announced, and not then until every avenue of appeal has been exhausted.

harold said: A cult of hysterical racism/panicked homophobia/delusional reality denial/sadism/narcissism/irrational greed/superstition/jingoism/suicidally unsustainable militarism is on the ascent.

Rolling back educational opportunity, rolling back skill training, rolling back economic stabilizers, loss of basic common sense subsistence skills, ramping up damage to the environment, degradation of the infrasture, and abandonment of basic enlightenment values - all at one time.

MaryM said: I would be surprised if Freshwater appeals. This has to have been a grueling ordeal for him and his family. If Freshwater is "near bankrupt" as he claimed to be, he doesn't have the money to appeal anyway.

RBH said:

MaryM said: I would be surprised if Freshwater appeals. This has to have been a grueling ordeal for him and his family. If Freshwater is "near bankrupt" as he claimed to be, he doesn't have the money to appeal anyway.

Equally important, I doubt that Hamilton will continue serving pro bono.

Is the settlement too much? We'll see. Hopefully it will be enough to make some other rightwing science teacher think twice about mixing Biblical nonsense with science.

I'll bet they would have gotten more if they hadn't settled.

Enjoy.

The Tim Channel said: Is the settlement too much? We'll see. Hopefully it will be enough to make some other rightwing science teacher think twice about mixing Biblical nonsense with science. I'll bet they would have gotten more if they hadn't settled. Enjoy.

Steve said: It looks like the story is breaking in various outlets today. Stickle's "journalist" blog hasn't posted a word about it.

Weaver said:

RBH said:

MaryM said: I would be surprised if Freshwater appeals. This has to have been a grueling ordeal for him and his family. If Freshwater is "near bankrupt" as he claimed to be, he doesn't have the money to appeal anyway.

Equally important, I doubt that Hamilton will continue serving pro bono.

I thought he was getting paid in the form of a lien on Freshwater's farm? And that his billing records were on the laptop destroyed in the Flud?

Is Freshwater still getting paid by the School District? If he appeals and continues to drag out proceedings could he continue to get paid until he decides to retire? Tell me it ain't so!

Doc Bill said: Is Freshwater still getting paid by the School District? If he appeals and continues to drag out proceedings could he continue to get paid until he decides to retire? Tell me it ain't so!

Juicyheart said:

Doc Bill said: Is Freshwater still getting paid by the School District? If he appeals and continues to drag out proceedings could he continue to get paid until he decides to retire? Tell me it ain't so!

He's been on unpaid leave since 2008.

A little OT, but has anyone else noted that the discussion pages of Freshwater-related articles on the Mt. Vernon News seem to have been disabled? I can still discuss other news items, but on the last 3 articles, comments were allowed for a while but not any longer. I guess the editors decided either it was too heated, or that the Freshwater supporters were getting a sound beating, so gave them the last word.

Here we are several days later and Sam Stickle's www.AccountabilityInTheMedia.com hasn't mentioned the $450,000 settlement yet.

(I'm not surprised.)

Mike in Ontario, NY said: A little OT, but has anyone else noted that the discussion pages of Freshwater-related articles on the Mt. Vernon News seem to have been disabled? I can still discuss other news items, but on the last 3 articles, comments were allowed for a while but not any longer. I guess the editors decided either it was too heated, or that the Freshwater supporters were getting a sound beating, so gave them the last word.

C.E. Petit said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

eric said: One possible reason the referee might have bent so far backwards for Freshwater is to lessen the chance of a successful suit after the finding (i.e. a suit based on the claim that the hearing process was unfair). It is somewhat frightening to contemplate the idea that this might not be over - there might be a 4th legal proceeding. But even with that justification, I agree the ref should be embarrassed. Particularly in terms of timetable, he's gone far beyond what he needed to do to be 'fair' Freshwater and Hamilton.

One would have to think that with two Fed suits dismissed, if the ref still is worried about his ruling being challenged he seriously needs a clue.

The administrative hearing officer doesn't have much of a choice. He is obligated to produce a "complete and accurate record" of the parties' allegations and the evidence presented in support of those allegations. He cannot stop the presentation once he's convinced, like a judge can; he must make the record. Further, he cannot rule things inadmissable; he must make the record. He can later discount some of what he heard; he can later make credibility determinations; but if one of the parties offers an argument or evidence, unless that argument or evidence is not even conceivably relevant to any possible claim or defense, the hearing officer must include it in the record. Blaming the hearing officer for a bloated proceeding is like blaming the referee of a basketball game between the Crips and the Bloods for calling a lot of fouls and slowing the game down. Sometimes one, or both, sides is there more for grandstanding than for victory...

Stuart Weinstein said:

C.E. Petit said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

eric said: One possible reason the referee might have bent so far backwards for Freshwater is to lessen the chance of a successful suit after the finding (i.e. a suit based on the claim that the hearing process was unfair). It is somewhat frightening to contemplate the idea that this might not be over - there might be a 4th legal proceeding. But even with that justification, I agree the ref should be embarrassed. Particularly in terms of timetable, he's gone far beyond what he needed to do to be 'fair' Freshwater and Hamilton.

One would have to think that with two Fed suits dismissed, if the ref still is worried about his ruling being challenged he seriously needs a clue.

The administrative hearing officer doesn't have much of a choice. He is obligated to produce a "complete and accurate record" of the parties' allegations and the evidence presented in support of those allegations. He cannot stop the presentation once he's convinced, like a judge can; he must make the record. Further, he cannot rule things inadmissable; he must make the record. He can later discount some of what he heard; he can later make credibility determinations; but if one of the parties offers an argument or evidence, unless that argument or evidence is not even conceivably relevant to any possible claim or defense, the hearing officer must include it in the record. Blaming the hearing officer for a bloated proceeding is like blaming the referee of a basketball game between the Crips and the Bloods for calling a lot of fouls and slowing the game down. Sometimes one, or both, sides is there more for grandstanding than for victory...

I don't think you have parsed my comment correctly, or not at least as it was intended to be parsed. I should have been more clear. Basically my complaint is, what is taking him so long to issue his findings *now*? I understand that he was doing his due diligence in this protracted hearing. Although it did seem to take an excessively long time, and IMHO, that was not fair to anyone, even Freshwater. Of course as a litigator you have a different POV and for good reasons.

harold said: CMB -

Hopefully Harry Reid will win that race.

I agree, but I think we live in dangerous times if we are forced to utter the word "hopefully" in the same sentence as the words "Harry Reid". Reid does appear to have caught an unexpected lucky break that might help him over the finish line... http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101028/el_yblog_upshot/john-mccain-to-campaign-with-sharron-angle-in-nevada

I don't see school board results - but Mt. Vernon residents voted DOWN for "emergency funding" for Mt. Vernon schools

jasonmitchell said: I don't see school board results - but Mt. Vernon residents voted DOWN for "emergency funding" for Mt. Vernon schools

CMB said:

jasonmitchell said: I don't see school board results - but Mt. Vernon residents voted DOWN for "emergency funding" for Mt. Vernon schools

There were no Mount Vernon school board election this time. And sadly all 4 school issues in the county failed.

I'm hoping someone can figure this out because I'm not really getting it.

This was printed in Thursday evenings, Mount Vernon News Classified Section under Special Notices:

"The school administration, evolutionists, and ACLU have avoided the abhorence(sic) of the 'human body cordwood' evolutionist Nazi era. Humane Humanists?"

Ralph said: I'm hoping someone can figure this out because I'm not really getting it...

Drawing on my extensive experience as a literary critic, I would say that the subtextual imagery suggests that the person placing that notice was small, probably an only child, ambidextrous, slightly afflicted with hay fever, and barking mad.

Ralph said: I'm hoping someone can figure this out because I'm not really getting it. This was printed in Thursday evenings, Mount Vernon News Classified Section under Special Notices: "The school administration, evolutionists, and ACLU have avoided the abhorence(sic) of the 'human body cordwood' evolutionist Nazi era. Humane Humanists?"

CMB said: We have a local person who writes a religiously themed letter to the editor once a month. I believe the quotes came from his letter that was printed earlier this week... ...He is fixated to say the least.

As of November 5, 2010, Sam Stickle's www.AccountabilityInTheMedia.com still makes no mention of the $450,000 settlement.

I guess he can't spin the settlement.

... Hearing referee R. Lee Shepherd told the News on Monday that within the last week to 10 days additional written materials have been submitted by both the school board attorney David Millstone and Freshwater’s lawyer Kelly Hamilton. ...

It's the court case which won't die! Zombie litigation. Perpetual motion to dismiss / strike / compel / quash or whatever.