Updated: Freshwater: Ohio Supreme Court oral arguments next week

Thank you, Richard, for your tireless work on this.

In the "bait and switch" link, you mention a "motion to strike". Although the state supreme court has accepted the case, do you know if the court responded directly to the "motion to strike" request? I didn't find anything obvious on the previous thread.

Thanks.

Oral arguments [...] are scheduled for the morning of Wednesday, February 27. Oral arguments will be live streamed on The Ohio Channel.

I am just aghast that Freshwater has been able to use and tie up the courts in Ohio for so long on this, and second the thanks for your attention on this Richard!

Scott F said: Thank you, Richard, for your tireless work on this. In the "bait and switch" link, you mention a "motion to strike". Although the state supreme court has accepted the case, do you know if the court responded directly to the "motion to strike" request? I didn't find anything obvious on the previous thread. Thanks.

I was wondering, is the Ohio Supreme Court open to the public? I went to their website and was still uncertain.

Ed Elfrink said: I was wondering, is the Ohio Supreme Court open to the public? I went to their website and was still uncertain.

Thanks, Richard. You continue to do a top-notch job in your coverage of this spectacle.

It's all moot because I'm going to offer Freshwater an opprtunity to teach creationism at double the salary he was making, and guarantee at least as many students as he had before. Though there's a "slight" chance that he'll turn down the lucrative offer because of my tiny little requirement that he teach all the creationism he wants and more.

RBH,

Remember Freshwater friend and adviser Coach Dave? Dave was fired from his football coaching job at a Christian school in Lancaster last Nov. Six years ago, he was hired to start a football team from the ground up, which he did, and did rather well (he took his team to 2 playoffs). But about 2 years ago he started to cross swords with the administration (something he has a history of doing). He pulled the baseball coach and athletic director into his posse. The administration gave him the run-around probably hoping that he would sit down and shut up. Dave upped the ante by drafting some parents into his posse. The posse stormed the administration building led by Dave carrying a cross in one hand and an American flag in the other! (sarcasm) The administration heard The Truth According to Dave! The next day the baseball coach was fired, on the second day the athletic director was fired, on the third day Dave was fired. The administration said he was too "divisive". Just like Freshwater, the baseball coach and the athletic director got "daubenmired". Throwing in your lot with this loose cannon has some serious consequences.

Grey Wolf said: Remember Freshwater friend and adviser Coach Dave?

I love the "Where Reality Shatters Illusion" motto of that site.

For another taste of what he's been up to lately, check out CoachDaveTV on youtube. You can watch him get all worked up but do wear your personal protective gear, he just loves to jab his finger in his audience's face. I'd like to know how much this little attempt at big time Christian leader fame is costing him, what with all those swirling graphics, professional voice over intro and catchy theme music. A CBN star in the making!

Paul Burnett said:

Grey Wolf said: Remember Freshwater friend and adviser Coach Dave?

For a taste of what Daubenmire is up to now, see http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave311.htm - full P4 personal protective equipment is advised - Coach Dave has drunk deeply of the foaming-at-the-mouth ultra-right-wing fundagelical Kool Aid.

That's sulphuric.

It is a shame to me to share a name with this Nazi. Then I recall that Harpo Marx and Hitler had the same problem.

Mike Elzinga said:

Paul Burnett said:

Grey Wolf said: Remember Freshwater friend and adviser Coach Dave?

For a taste of what Daubenmire is up to now, see http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave311.htm - full P4 personal protective equipment is advised - Coach Dave has drunk deeply of the foaming-at-the-mouth ultra-right-wing fundagelical Kool Aid.

Sheesh; more like Pass the Surphuric Acid Ministries. This character is corrosive.

Quote the Coach...." People are getting ready to leave the church and run to God. The religious system can’t save you. Your pastor can’t save you. Nor can his books and tapes. Only the Truth can. Religion has become a business…a spiritual ponzi scheme…shearing the sheep."

Well, that explains why you see no ads on that web page..especially for books and tapes...:)

That guy's anger and rants would put him in first place as a future recruiter
for the first Xian suicide bombers...the epitome of a Retaliban.

Charley Horse said: (Daubenmire's) anger and rants would put him in first place as a future recruiter for the first Xian suicide bombers...the epitome of a Retaliban.

Coach Dave was my soccer coach in high school, 1978-1982. I have to say he never prayed or spouted any religious talk when I knew him, something must have happened to convert him.

Quoth the Coach...." Calling oneself an eagle does not make it possible to fly.... If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck… The truth is harsh. It sounds mean, hateful, and intolerant. But the way one swallows the medicine does not determine whether or not the medicine is effective.... Anything that is not the truth is a lie. A half-truth is a full lie. They call that deception. That is how most Americans operate. There is no “no-spin zone” anymore.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlcQQiUmhnnI548KOk_jPMs0OOm21vEpPA said: Coach Dave was my soccer coach in high school, 1978-1982. I have to say he never prayed or spouted any religious talk when I knew him, something must have happened to convert him.

something must have happened to convert him.

Grey Wolf said:

something must have happened to convert him.

God cured his sister of cancer. She had been told by several doctors that she probably had cancer. She prayed and felt that God had cured her. She went ahead and had the surgery anyway (I guess her faith wasn't THAT strong) but when they opened her up, no cancer. A miracle!

Most likely, the doctors were going on a shadow on an MRI image. MRI can pick up non-solid body tumours that no other external investigation can, but in the 'eighties, the MRI technology wasn't good enough to say better than "probably" there was a growth there. As good physicians, they went with the odds. If the best test they had said there was a likely tumour, they had to go in, because the risk of not doing so was greater. False positives in this case are better than false negatives.

This wouldn't satisfy the Vatican's guidelines for investigating a miracle. It would fail at the first hurdle.

And yet, it seems to have had a very great effect. It turned a person who appears to have been a reasonably ordinary decent man into an extreme bigot, one suffused with rage against an entire nation, a fanatical sectarian of the Phredd Felps stripe who has influenced others towards his own evil designs, and yet others towards disgust with and alienation from all Christianity.

If this were a miracle cure, one wonders exactly what supernatural power worked it.

Grey Wolf said:

something must have happened to convert him.

God cured his sister of cancer. She had been told by several doctors that she probably had cancer. She prayed and felt that God had cured her. She went ahead and had the surgery anyway (I guess her faith wasn't THAT strong) but when they opened her up, no cancer. A miracle! She dragged Dave to her church so he could be saved. He answered the altar call, fell to his knees, and was born again. Most significantly: he's never drunk a beer since. You see, according to him, he used to serve the King of Beers (Budweiser - blechh!). Now he serves the King of Kings. Analyze that, Dr. Freud. This was in the late '80's.

From Daubenmire's website bio:

"Dave Daubenmire, a veteran 25 year high school football coach, was spurred to action when attacked and eventually sued by the ACLU in the late 1990’s for alledgedly (sic) mixing prayer with his coaching. After a two year battle for his 1st amend-ment (sic) rights and a determination to not back down, the ACLU relented and offered coach an out of court settlement. God honored his stand and the ACLU backed off. Coach’s courageous stand, an inspiration to Americans everywhere, demonstrated that the ACLU can be defeated."

This is from the ACLU's website:
"During discovery depositions held in the last two weeks, Head Coach David Daubenmire admitted to leading the football team in the Lord's Prayer after games, passing out a scriptural verse to team members, allowing ministers to lead the team in prayer, and to using Bible stories as a part of certain team meetings. Daubenmire denied having engaged in such misconduct after November 1997, although witnesses told the ACLU that such conduct persisted into the fall of 1998.
The settlement comes just one day before the case was scheduled to be heard in Federal Court. Judge James Graham had set a hearing for today, but canceled yesterday afternoon, when attorneys agreed that a settlement seemed likely. Yesterday evening, the London School Board voted unanimously to accept the terms offered by the ACLU.
Under the agreement, for the next two years the principal of London High School must report all complaints of religious activity not only to the district superintendent, but also to the ACLU.Violations of the Establishment Clause could result in a citation for contempt of court. A second agreement, previously ratified by the lawyers in the case, awards the ACLU nearly $18,000 in attorney fees and court costs."

"A second agreement, previously ratified by the lawyers in the case, awards the ACLU nearly $18,000 in attorney fees and court costs.”

Oh yeah, that's a victory for Jesus. They could have got $19,000!

Just Bob said: "A second agreement, previously ratified by the lawyers in the case, awards the ACLU nearly $18,000 in attorney fees and court costs.” Oh yeah, that's a victory for Jesus. They could have got $19,000!

It seems possible that Dave Daubenmire may be partly, indirectly responsible for much greater expenses incurred by the Mount Vernon district.

We'll never know, but we can note that one Freshwater characteristic is that he seems to obsessively believe that he can win his case. He had the easy choice of just teaching science and keeping his job. This may well have been true even despite the successful action of the Dennis family (the current case is not related to that incident).

The case isn't over yet, and it is odd that the Supreme Court of Ohio is hearing it at all, so maybe he is right, but I'll go out on a limb and say that I think he probably isn't.

R. Kelly Hamilton is one enabler, but Freshwater was an associate of Daubenmire as well.

For your amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn4USVRMAAc

Coach Dave defends John Freshwater on "Geraldo". You can see why Dave was kicked off the Freshwater support team shortly after this.

Grey Wolf said: For your amusement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn4USVRMAAc Coach Dave defends John Freshwater on "Geraldo". You can see why Dave was kicked off the Freshwater support team shortly after this.

Take a look at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-science-teacher-fired-over-creationism-to-head-to-ohio-supreme-court-90830/ - "Christian Science Teacher Fired Over Creationism to Head to Ohio Supreme Court"

Live now, Freshwater case. Chief Justice Pfeiffer expressing that he is baffled the Board fired Freshwater. Uh oh.

http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/OhioChannelLive.aspx?liveStreamId=4

Ugh ugh ugh. That was very badly argued by the Board's attorney. I've never seen Smith before--he has to be an insurance company lawyer, and he did a pitiful job. I'll have more commentary after I've reviewed the video, but I'm apprehensive.

Shit. That did not look good. Several justices are clearly ready to reinstate Freshwater and make he district pay damages and back wages.

I eagerly await Richard's dissection of Justice Pfeiffer's mocking the "theory" of evolution by describing his feeling dubious about the "cows in his pasture and weeds in his yards" being interconnected with his own life. Wow.

John said: Live now, Freshwater case. Chief Justice Pfeiffer expressing that he is baffled the Board fired Freshwater. Uh oh. http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/OhioChannelLive.aspx?liveStreamId=4

Well that was a little like watching a Twilight Zone episode.

Judge Pfeiffer is from Crawford County -- long known as even more benighted than ours.

I eagerly await Richard’s dissection of Justice Pfeiffer’s mocking the “theory” of evolution by describing his feeling dubious about the “cows in his pasture and weeds in his yards” being interconnected with his own life. Wow.

You know, I'm not a big fan of professional wrestling, but let me use an analogy here.

If there's a tag team, and one member of the team is a "heel" who uses dirty tactics, do you consider them okay guys because the other guy is more restrained?

No. It's a "heel" tag team. The other guy chose his partner. He implicitly endorses his partner's tactics by being part of the team.

Stop voting for the party that chooses to be a haven for science denying religious authoritarians. Stop doing it.

Now get ready for someone to say "The 'left' is 'just as bad' because...horoscopes and organic vegetables! Yeah!"

j. biggs said:

John said: Live now, Freshwater case. Chief Justice Pfeiffer expressing that he is baffled the Board fired Freshwater. Uh oh. http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/OhioChannelLive.aspx?liveStreamId=4

That is really sad. The court seems to be taking the appellants arguments seriously even though Freshwater's attorney basically stated that were Freshwater re-instated he would probably continue to teach material prohibited by the school administration by invoking his 1st amendment rights.

Let me clarify one thing.

Now that my initial irritation has subsided.

It's not always about party labels. Judge Jones was appointed by George W. Bush. The Kansas school board of 1999 was defeated at the primary level, by superior Republicans.

However, when damage like appointing, to a high court, a reality-denying or insanely ignorant judge who makes comments like the "cows and weeds" nonsense described above is done, it can't always be undone.

Ronald Reagan wasn't extreme by current Republican standards but he appointed Scalia, and Scalia wrote a long dissent in Edwards, in favor of taxpayer funded teaching of creationism.

If a Republican candidate for any position that could involve appointing or approving judges, or overseeing school curricula, does not specifically indicate support for sound, complete coverage of science and specifically indicate condemnation of insertion of sectarian dogma into public schools, assume by default that they WILL directly or indirectly favor creationism.

And something like "I personally feel that there is strong evidence for evolution" is a weasel move and not good enough. That could mean "Ha ha ha sure I think there is strong evidence but I'm still throwing a 'teach both sides' bone to my buddies", or "I also think there is 'stronger' evidence for ID".

Going forward, unless they specifically state that they will oppose creationist evolution denial in public schools, assume that they will actively or passively assist it.

DS said: The court is about to find out that failure to uphold the law carries some very stiff penalties.

DS said:

j. biggs said:

John said: Live now, Freshwater case. Chief Justice Pfeiffer expressing that he is baffled the Board fired Freshwater. Uh oh. http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/OhioChannelLive.aspx?liveStreamId=4

That is really sad. The court seems to be taking the appellants arguments seriously even though Freshwater's attorney basically stated that were Freshwater re-instated he would probably continue to teach material prohibited by the school administration by invoking his 1st amendment rights.

But Freshwater has no such right. And if he is reinstated and he tries to pull this crap again, he will be sued by dozens of people and institutions. The court is about to find out that failure to uphold the law carries some very stiff penalties.

From Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/creationism-john-freshwater_n_2773977.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

They might not get sued for claiming that Freshwater didn't violate school policy, even though he obviously did. But they will certainly get sued if they go against c;ear legal precedent, not to mention common sense and common decency, and try to say he has first amendment rights on this issue. He doesn't plain and simple. Trying to say he does is illegal, immoral and possibly fattening. In the words of Rebecca Howe, "There are some things up with which I will not put".

Besides, if they let him get away with it, every religious fanatic from coast to coast will try to pull the same thing with one thousand different religions, thus violating the civil rights of every student in the country. There will be so many Korans on so many teachers desks they will break under the strain. Gish tracts will flood every school in the country, along with all manner of crap from every nut job with access to a printing press. There will be a very large price to pay for such stupidity and everyone will know exactly who to blame.

This just in!
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/02/27/Freshwater_Supreme_Court.html

j. biggs said:

DS said: if he is reinstated and he tries to pull this crap again, he will be sued by dozens of people and institutions. The court is about to find out that failure to uphold the law carries some very stiff penalties.

I don't know, I think if Freshwater were re-instated and the school district were forced to pay him some outrageous sum of money in back-pay and damages that it would empower Freshwater to do anything he damn well pleases

The most annoying thing about all of this how it could have been avoided. Why didn't the school list "using a telsa coil to brand students" as a reason for his dismisal. Child abuse would have ended this sham right from the start.

Did they do it to save face? Lack of evidence? eitherway it sounds like that choice is costing them.

harold said: "Only some of them" are science denialists, racists, and religious authoritarians isn't good enough.

The video is already up on the Ohio Channel archive.

eric said:

j. biggs said:

DS said: if he is reinstated and he tries to pull this crap again, he will be sued by dozens of people and institutions. The court is about to find out that failure to uphold the law carries some very stiff penalties.

I don't know, I think if Freshwater were re-instated and the school district were forced to pay him some outrageous sum of money in back-pay and damages that it would empower Freshwater to do anything he damn well pleases

Depends on how the judges rule. They could rule on procedural grounds (i.e. the adminstrative hearing was unfair). Or on some technical bit of law. Those sorts of ruling would not open up a bag of worms with regards to anyone's first amendment right to teach creationism in Ohio schools. I'd be surprised if that happens though. Like probably most posters here, I suspect they took the case because they want to address the substantive issue. Informative commentary so far - thanks to those who watched it and commented on it. Depressing, but informative.

eric said: Depends on how the judges rule. They could rule on procedural grounds (i.e. the adminstrative hearing was unfair). Or on some technical bit of law. Those sorts of ruling would not open up a bag of worms with regards to anyone's first amendment right to teach creationism in Ohio schools. I'd be surprised if that happens though. Like probably most posters here, I suspect they took the case because they want to address the substantive issue.

Now months of waiting as this kangaroo court pretends to "deliberate" their foregone conclusion. They could have just announced that they favor the science denial, arguments be damned, months ago. No effort was even made to present an appearance of neutrality. They didn't even try as hard as George W. Bush "deliberating" about whether or not to shut down funding for stem cell research. I find this whole thing stunningly arrogant and offensive. The smug deceptiveness of making a show of going through the process, while contemptuously demonstrating unreasonable favoritism, is truly repugnant.

Meanwhile, what is the best thing we can do to make absolutely sure their decision is instantly and powerfully appealed to SCOTUS, in a way that will make it very, very hard for them to refuse to hear, or to find in Freshwater's favor?

It's important to remain calm. It's also important to recognize how outrageous this is. The Supreme Court of Ohio just told every taxpayer in Ohio that they all have to pay taxes, but that Freshwater's sectarian ideology is not only privileged over their beliefs, but so privileged that it will be taught to their children as "science", at their own expense.

Kevin Brown said: Why didn't the school list "using a telsa coil to brand students" as a reason for his dismisal.

These kinds of political shenanigans by ID/creationists can be better combated by forcing them to confront real science in the science classroom.

In recent years, the professional societies have come to understand that public education and public school teachers need broader professional support. When science teachers are properly trained and informed, we will see more teachers like those in Dover Pennsylvania standing up to ID/creationist bullies and refusing to participate in pushing pseudoscience. The public can also learn to throw out stupid school administrators just as they did in Dover.

Among the many things that have become clear in the last 40 – 50 years is that ID/creationists don’t know even the basics of science; and they cannot articulate any evidence or scientific programs to support their ID/creationism.

They have left a huge pile of crap that teachers can rub their faces in if it comes down to stupid “challenges” to science in the classroom. I can think of dozens of ways to make an ID/creationist student and his/her parents regret that they ever attempted to derail the course onto their pseudoscience.

In fact, I suspect that many well-prepared science instructors can do these days what they didn’t know how do back when everybody was blind-sided by ID/creationism back in the 1970s and 80s. Professional societies and teaching organizations are now more aware of this issue; and teachers don’t have to be isolated and cowed any longer by this ID/creationist crap.

ID/creationist pushers, despite their attempts to appear outwardly reasonable, are pure meanness through-and-through. They are bullies; but they can’t respond to people who are knowledgeable in the science and familiar with the socio/political tactics of ID/creationists.

Nobody needs to – nor should they – debate ID/creationists any longer. And no instructor needs to put up with ID/creationist crap in the classroom. If a student refuses to learn the science, they should flunk; period. And the instructor doesn’t need to get bogged down in justifying that flunking grade by arguing against ID/creationism. ID/creationism is irrelevant; and the instructor is not obligated to test on what ID/creationist kids are taught in their churches.

Bully ID/creationist instructors can and will be marginalized by their incompetence and their lack of understanding of the basics of science; just as their ID/creationist “PhD” leaders are. This “Expelled” crap that ID/creationists whine about is very revealing just by itself. It shows that even ID/creationist “PhDs” don’t get it. They have no clue about how to do real science; so why tell them? Just let their self-imposed ignorance flunk them. There are lots of dead ends in the pursuit of science; ID/creationism is one of the more obvious ones, and ID/creationists are simply too stupid to figure that out.

Here is a thought. If they do reinstate Freshwater, can the school district give him administrative duties or other duties that keep him out of the classroom? Do they have to put him back in front of children? Do they have to give him another chance to defy the law?

DS said: Here is a thought. If they do reinstate Freshwater, can the school district give him administrative duties or other duties that keep him out of the classroom? Do they have to put him back in front of children? Do they have to give him another chance to defy the law?

I think that if the OSC reinstate Freshwater that it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the creationists. It will turn what is for most people another ho-hum story about a creationist teacher to something that has world wide attention. I don't think that the judges, the Ohio government and the progressives in the state will enjoy being laughed at by the rest of the world as science illiterates and religious bigots.

MichaelJ said: I think that if the OSC reinstate Freshwater that it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the creationists. It will turn what is for most people another ho-hum story about a creationist teacher to something that has world wide attention. I don't think that the judges, the Ohio government and the progressives in the state will enjoy being laughed at by the rest of the world as science illiterates and religious bigots.

Sorry - bad thing for creationists, that is.

harold said:

MichaelJ said: I think that if the OSC reinstate Freshwater that it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the creationists. It will turn what is for most people another ho-hum story about a creationist teacher to something that has world wide attention. I don't think that the judges, the Ohio government and the progressives in the state will enjoy being laughed at by the rest of the world as science illiterates and religious bigots.

This is plausible and something we should aim for. I've been criticized by many for wasting my time even paying attention to what creationists are up to. A vast number of people simply don't understand the authoritarian relentlessness and deviousness of creationists and those who pander to them. As outrageous as this is, it's potentially a win-win. If the court sobers up and realizes that it can't reinstate Freshwater, that's good. Although only in the limited sense that a troublemaker's ability to violate the rights of others and waste public resources will be curtailed. If they do reinstate him, financially ruining a humble school district in the process, that might make people sit up and take notice. And that might turn out to be a bad thing.

Ugh, it would be nice if there were a transcript of that oral argument.

Listening to the video turns my stomach.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

DS said: Here is a thought. If they do reinstate Freshwater, can the school district give him administrative duties or other duties that keep him out of the classroom? Do they have to put him back in front of children? Do they have to give him another chance to defy the law?

Hard to say. It might hang on the precise wording of the Court's decision, if it goes that way. But I'm already thinking through recommendations to the Board and administration should he be reinstated in a teaching capacity. Those recommendations will take into account his propensity to use creationist materials, unsourced materials, and plainly false claims.

harold said: Meanwhile, what is the best thing we can do to make absolutely sure their decision is instantly and powerfully appealed to SCOTUS, in a way that will make it very, very hard for them to refuse to hear, or to find in Freshwater's favor?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hVRHCnZug_xllssnKFJTN4zOUQGXHwN4#7215b said:

harold said: Meanwhile, what is the best thing we can do to make absolutely sure their decision is instantly and powerfully appealed to SCOTUS, in a way that will make it very, very hard for them to refuse to hear, or to find in Freshwater's favor?

It can't be appealed to SCOTUS, at all. What was before the Ohio Supreme Court was simply a question of Ohio administrative law, so the US Supreme Court can't hear it. What could happen, if Freshwater is reinstated and begins teaching creationism, is that the School District can be sued for violating the 1st Amendment, and get hit for a massive judgment like Dover was. It will suck to be them if Freshwater is reinstated.

Robin said:

harold said:

MichaelJ said: I think that if the OSC reinstate Freshwater that it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the creationists. It will turn what is for most people another ho-hum story about a creationist teacher to something that has world wide attention. I don't think that the judges, the Ohio government and the progressives in the state will enjoy being laughed at by the rest of the world as science illiterates and religious bigots.

This is plausible and something we should aim for. I've been criticized by many for wasting my time even paying attention to what creationists are up to. A vast number of people simply don't understand the authoritarian relentlessness and deviousness of creationists and those who pander to them. As outrageous as this is, it's potentially a win-win. If the court sobers up and realizes that it can't reinstate Freshwater, that's good. Although only in the limited sense that a troublemaker's ability to violate the rights of others and waste public resources will be curtailed. If they do reinstate him, financially ruining a humble school district in the process, that might make people sit up and take notice. And that might turn out to be a bad thing.

I'm not so optimistic in the short run, but perhaps the later scenario could have a positive effect somewhere down the road. To me, if the OSC overrules the two lower courts on this and reinstates Freshwater, or even just sends this case back to the lower courts to retry, it will send a horrible message that religious teachings masquerading as science must be tolerated because it's a financial and legal fool's errand to pursue. However, it might also embolden folks like the DI and Freshwater - and other Freshwaters - to get more cocky and blatant about their ID ruse. They might make a mistake that ultimately proves far more disastrous. Still, I can't help but think that in the short run, an OSC turnaround for Freshwater would be horrible for both science and education.

In the 1992 Lee v. Weisman case, the Court ruled that public schools may not sponsor invocations at graduation ceremonies. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten then, that while concern must be given to define the prot ection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hVRHCnZug_xllssnKFJTN4zOUQGXHwN4#7215b said:

harold said: Meanwhile, what is the best thing we can do to make absolutely sure their decision is instantly and powerfully appealed to SCOTUS, in a way that will make it very, very hard for them to refuse to hear, or to find in Freshwater's favor?

It can't be appealed to SCOTUS, at all. What was before the Ohio Supreme Court was simply a question of Ohio administrative law, so the US Supreme Court can't hear it. What could happen, if Freshwater is reinstated and begins teaching creationism, is that the School District can be sued for violating the 1st Amendment, and get hit for a massive judgment like Dover was. It will suck to be them if Freshwater is reinstated.

Part of the appellant's argument seems to be that he has a 1st amendment right to present Creationist arguments against evolution so long as he doesn't mention Christianity, God or Jesus.

Wow. The school district may have to pay a huge lump sum for Frystudent's back wages. Then reinstate him. Then Frystudent tells Jewish and Muslim and gay students they deserve to go to Hell.

Then the school district gets hit by more lawsuits from parents.

Double dip.

Somehow the clueless OSC judges reminded me of the cretinous senators interviewing Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Very disappointing.

I saw some discussion of this on general public news sites.

There is an excellent chance of a major silver lining here.

The Tesla coil incident isn't part of the case, technically, but it is part of the public record, and it outrages people.

Freshwater's connections to fundamentalism are obvious.

Even the link to a Christian site posted above shows a great deal of hostility to Freshwater.

He isn't a sympathetic figure.

And the public doesn't even know his track record of double talk.

Almost all other creationism cases have flown way, way below the radar. On the rare occasions when they're even mentioned in the national media, they're either presented as "atheism versus religion" issues, or, also frequently, as irrelevant antics of flat earth types in some rural backwater, with no possible national impact. The relative ease with which creationists have been defeated in the past has contributed to that. For example, I learned about political creationism in 1999, when I was living somewhat near Kansas. Creationist school board members wanted to remove evolution from the Kansas curriculum. It was a regional story. The creationists were primaried out in the next election. Obviously, some people work, live, pay taxes, and send children to local schools in Kansas, but the attempt to deny their children education in order to privilege a narrow sectarian ideology wasn't national news.

However, science denial is actually a serious and growing national problem. One of the two major political parties panders to it. It takes several major forms - climate change denial, evolution denial, HIV denial, various false claims surrounding contraception/sex education/orientation, vaccine denial, cigarettes/health denial (still exists), etc. These various strains aren't remotely independent. We all know that if someone expresses one, it is massively more more likely that they have bought into most of the others, and their attitudes on a number of other things can be predicted with ease. This is a massively harmful social movement, and a paucity of national awareness fuels it.

Freshwater has already caused a lot of division and financial pain to a humble school district. He caused this pain simply because he was asked to teach the curriculum instead of science denying sectarian nonsense, and refused to comply. He's changed his claims and behaved in a suspicious way on numerous occasions.

A decision in his favor, especially after this superficial and seemingly biased hearing, may open a can of worms.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Even if the Court rules for Freshwater on very narrow grounds, he and his supporters will still trumpet it as broadly endorsing his follies--one justice in the oral arguments actually asked that. I don't recall the full answer, but the implication is already out there.

eric said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Even if the Court rules for Freshwater on very narrow grounds, he and his supporters will still trumpet it as broadly endorsing his follies--one justice in the oral arguments actually asked that. I don't recall the full answer, but the implication is already out there.

It'll be bad if one of the judges broadly endorses the teaching of creationism, in either the court opinion or in writing a separate opinion. But we have to expect that Freshwater's PR will misrepresent any ruling as broad endorsement. IMO that will happen no matter what the ruling says. After all, the DI still puts out the occasional commentary about how Dover was a win for them. And I believe Coppedge's lawyers also made public comments to the effect that the ruling against him was some sort of victory for ID. With these guys, claiming broad support for ID creationism when the ruling obviously says something else is just part of their standard MO.

eric said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Even if the Court rules for Freshwater on very narrow grounds, he and his supporters will still trumpet it as broadly endorsing his follies--one justice in the oral arguments actually asked that. I don't recall the full answer, but the implication is already out there.

It'll be bad if one of the judges broadly endorses the teaching of creationism, in either the court opinion or in writing a separate opinion. But we have to expect that Freshwater's PR will misrepresent any ruling as broad endorsement. IMO that will happen no matter what the ruling says. After all, the DI still puts out the occasional commentary about how Dover was a win for them. And I believe Coppedge's lawyers also made public comments to the effect that the ruling against him was some sort of victory for ID. With these guys, claiming broad support for ID creationism when the ruling obviously says something else is just part of their standard MO.

harold said: Is this correct?... 1) If the Supreme Court says that he can't be fired because somebody crossed a "t" incorrectly during the administration hearing, thus evading the "freedom of speech" issue, administrators can still order him to stick to the curriculum going forward and he can be fired and/or sued if he doesn't. 2) If the board says he has to be rehired because his First Amendment rights were violated, then surely the case can go to SCOTUS.

For your amusement:

Coach Dave has begun video series on "Judicial Tyranny" in which he explains how "through Judicial Tyranny we have lost the foundation of this once great nation built upon Christian values". In part one: Dave explains in 7 minutes how Everson vs. The Board of Education started our descent into secular hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT2auDyCqKU&list=UUcCMnLarXBq2Kke0J3dq5dA&index=1

Some of the statements he makes just make me want to bang my head on my desk. According to Dave, "[Justice Black], IN FACT, rewrote the 1st amendment to the Constitution in his decision." This is just flat-out untrue. A judge cannot rewrite or amend the Constitution, only Congress can. A judge is supposed to interpret Constitution law which is what happened in this case.

Not sure about 2.

Its also possible for them to overturn the ruling on some technical or administrative grounds, and then remand the case back to the lower courts. I.e., require a do-over instead of outright giving him his job back.

One of the judges will openly endorse the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. The ruling will be immediately challenged on the grounds of constitutionality and the entire country will learn that it is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. Freshwater will get what he deserves and the cause of creationism will be set back decades. Well, I can dream can’t I.

The lawyer lady in the Frystudent case worked for the Rutherford Institute.

What do we know about the Rutherford Institute? Christofascist? Homo-killin'? Neo-Confederate? Funded by Pizza magnate?

Grey Wolf said: A judge is supposed to interpret Constitution law which is what happened in this case.

diogeneslamp0 said: The lawyer lady in the Frystudent case worked for the Rutherford Institute. What do we know about the Rutherford Institute? Christofascist? Homo-killin'? Neo-Confederate? Funded by Pizza magnate?

I cringed in my seat watching this, like I cringe watching a Jerry Springer show. Are 10th graders educated about the "interplay" between evolution and creationism in science class? REALLY? A judge asked this question-- a state supreme court judge? And evolution is a THEORY after all...isn't it? I don't have a legal bone in my body but I would've been better prepared to answer some of these challenges than the school board's attorney did. He barely touched on and supported the argument that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community! But the Yer Onners seemed biased and ignorant. In Ohio! And the drama continues....

He barely touched on and supported the argument that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community!

harold said:

diogeneslamp0 said: The lawyer lady in the Frystudent case worked for the Rutherford Institute. What do we know about the Rutherford Institute? Christofascist? Homo-killin'? Neo-Confederate? Funded by Pizza magnate?

None of the above. It's a weird mixed bag. It could be described as the "world's only sincere libertarian organization". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Institute

“The [Supreme] Court, by seeking to equate Christianity with other religions, merely assaults the one faith. The Court in essence is assailing the true God by democratizing the Christian religion.” [John Whitehead]

Tom McIver wrote: Reconstructionist John Whitehead, following Rushdoony, switches the order around: he argues that the South defended slavery only because the heretical, revolutionary abolitionists sought to destroy the whole Christian, Calvinist, Southern way of life, of which slavery was but a part. In order to prevent this anti-Christian attack, Southerners were obliged to defend slavery. “The abolitionists, while utilizing the slave issue as a base, had a more fundamental motive than slavery for attacking the South” (1977:70): namely, destruction of the Calvinist, Bible-based society of the South. Whitehead, quoting a Calvinist theologian and historian, writes:

‘The leaders of the South and the Democrats in the North opposed the abolitionist movement, not because of slavery per se “but because of the philosophy and theology which it [abolitionism?] represented and because they clearly saw that if this radicalism were to gain supremacy in the national government then there must certainly come in its wake a radical political and social program which would threaten the established order and constitutional government for the nation as a whole.”' [1977:71]

[McIver's thesis, p.33]

John Whitehead co-authored with former Congressman John Conlan the seminal 1978 law review article, “The Establishment of Secular Humanism and Its First Amendment Implications,” that defined secular humanism as the cause of society’s evils. Whitehead is founder and president of the Rutherford Institute, which is active in many important religious rights cases, including creationism cases. The Institute is named after Samuel Rutherford (eulogized by D. James Kennedy) who, in his 1644 Lex Rex, argued against the “divine right” of kings, declaring that the law—God’s sovereign Law—was king, and not vice-versa (not ‘Rex Lex’). Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation was “instrumental in establishing the Rutherford Institute,” according to Rutherford promotional literature. In a 1977 book, The Separation Illusion, heavily influenced by Rushdoony (who wrote the Foreword), Whitehead dismissed democracy as mob rule, and explained that religion was never intended to be separated from government. Whitehead, as already noted, defended the Calvinist South against the Northern Unitarian-Statist aggressors in the Civil War. [McIver's thesis, p.246]

The Coalition on Revival (founded 1982) provides a wonderful snapshot of the extent of the influence on the Christian Right, and even on the secular Right, that Reconstructionism wields at this point in time. Clarkson points out in his book, on Pages 97 and 98, who the members of the Coalition on Revival were at the time of formation. Those members included: John Whitehead (president of the Rutherford Institute (see also this link and this link), Michael Farris (founder Patrick Henry College and the Home School Legal Defence Association), Randall Terry (Operation Rescue anti-abortion group), Franky Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer's son from Eagle Forum), Don Wildmon (American Family Association), Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America), Connaught Marshner (Free Congress Foundation), Dr. Stephen Hotze (Houston GOP, see http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/11/23/85532/138), Robert Dugan (National Association of Evangelicals), former Representative Bill Dannemeyer (Republican politician from California), Timothy LaHaye (televangelist), Ron Haus (televangelist), D. James Kennedy (televangelist, Coral Ridge Ministries), and the following: R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Joseph Morecraft (Chalcedon Presbyterian Church – see also http://www.chalcedon.org/), David Chilton, Gary DeMar (American Vision, Rus Walton (deceased, Plymouth Rock Foundation) and the Reverend Raymond Joseph. [“Invitation to a Stoning"]

"It has been my observation that anyone who is sure he is a Christian is likely to be mistaken." "No one expects judicial brilliance in the lower courts anyway, especially when it frequently fails to appear in the higher courts.",

diogeneslamp -

I'm talking about the cases they have argued, many of which I have agreed with.

This has come up in many other venues. See Ed Brayton's comments on the Rutherford Institute. Or actually read the brief Wikipedia article.

Whatever their motivations, Rutherford has a mixed bag, and has been on the progressive side on some things.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. It's the facts and the quality of the arguments in this case that matter.

Also, of course, if it was so easy for you to form this opinion, why did you initially ask for the opinions of others, but only then reveal your own? Looking for a pointless fight with others who agree on this issue, to distract everyone from paying attention to something that really matters?

diogeneslamp -

I should add, RI is a very bizarre organization.

I didn't mean to seem to defend them overall. There are lots of ugly connections.

The weird fact remains, though, that I pretty much disagree with everything the TMLC has done. Rutherford, for whatever bizarre reason, sometimes uses its resources for things that progressives agree with.

harold said: Also, of course, if it was so easy for you to form this opinion, why did you initially ask for the opinions of others, but only then reveal your own?

harold said: Looking for a pointless fight with others who agree on this issue, to distract everyone from paying attention to something that really matters?

harold said:

He barely touched on and supported the argument that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community!

Based on the general content of your comment, I assume this is a typo. In fact biologic evolution is not scientifically controversial at all. It unequivocally occurs, and although there is always more to be learned, the basic mechanisms by which it occurs are well explained by the theory of evolution. As an analogy, even now new elements can be discovered or synthesized and more can be learned about basic atomic structure, but the Periodic Table of Elements is not scientifically controversial. It has not been scientifically controversial for a very long time. Some ignoramus can make it socially and politically controversial at any time, of course, by making a show out of publicly denying it, but it is not scientifically controversial. This is equally true of the theory of evolution.

harold said:

He barely touched on and supported the argument that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community!

Based on the general content of your comment, I assume this is a typo. In fact biologic evolution is not scientifically controversial at all. It unequivocally occurs, and although there is always more to be learned, the basic mechanisms by which it occurs are well explained by the theory of evolution. As an analogy, even now new elements can be discovered or synthesized and more can be learned about basic atomic structure, but the Periodic Table of Elements is not scientifically controversial. It has not been scientifically controversial for a very long time. Some ignoramus can make it socially and politically controversial at any time, of course, by making a show out of publicly denying it, but it is not scientifically controversial. This is equally true of the theory of evolution.

He barely touched on and supported the argument that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community!

I think everyone here knows that is not my style!

Harold wrote: I don't entirely "get" Rutherford. But whatever may be going on in their unreadable minds, they often do the right thing. Not here. But they aren't TMLC

Mcsnebber said: I don't have a legal bone in my body but I would've been better prepared to answer some of these challenges than the school board's attorney did.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

DS said: Here is a thought. If they do reinstate Freshwater, can the school district give him administrative duties or other duties that keep him out of the classroom? Do they have to put him back in front of children? Do they have to give him another chance to defy the law?

Hard to say. It might hang on the precise wording of the Court's decision, if it goes that way. But I'm already thinking through recommendations to the Board and administration should he be reinstated in a teaching capacity. Those recommendations will take into account his propensity to use creationist materials, unsourced materials, and plainly false claims. harold said:

MichaelJ said: I think that if the OSC reinstate Freshwater that it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the creationists. It will turn what is for most people another ho-hum story about a creationist teacher to something that has world wide attention. I don't think that the judges, the Ohio government and the progressives in the state will enjoy being laughed at by the rest of the world as science illiterates and religious bigots.

This is plausible and something we should aim for. I've been criticized by many for wasting my time even paying attention to what creationists are up to. A vast number of people simply don't understand the authoritarian relentlessness and deviousness of creationists and those who pander to them. As outrageous as this is, it's potentially a win-win. If the court sobers up and realizes that it can't reinstate Freshwater, that's good. Although only in the limited sense that a troublemaker's ability to violate the rights of others and waste public resources will be curtailed. If they do reinstate him, financially ruining a humble school district in the process, that might make people sit up and take notice. And that might turn out to be a bad thing.

tomh said: That seems to have been the problem, it wasn't the school board's attorney, it was the insurance company's attorney arguing the case. RBH can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the case would have been better served if David Millstone, who represented the district through the two-year administrative hearing, had argued for the board.

I would like to issue a general warning.

We may be angry about Judge "it's a theory in't it" Pfeiffer, but we should avoid attacking the Ohio judges personally, making accusations not based on evidence, speculating, etc. If we criticize the judges, our criticism should be limited to their professional behavior in the matter at hand.

I don't want us to launch off into personal attacks analogous to the despicable behavior of Dembski and the DI's attack on Judge Jones from Kitzmiller v. Dover.

We all remember Dembski's Flash animation of Judge Jones being string-pulled by the ACLU, and making farting noises, provided by Dembski.

I hope you all remember how the DI's John West launched his for despicable and revolting quote-mine of Judge Jones, a dishonest attack unrelated to the text of Jones' Dover decision.

And Stephen Meyer's dishonest, personal attacks on Jones in Signature in the Cell.

Let us not, therefore, speculate about the Ohio judges' religious beliefs or other such topics. Let us limit ourselves only to criticisms which:

1. Are relevant to the topic at hand, and
2. Are backed up by evidence, not speculation.

Unfortunately the Mount Vernon School District is already close to financial ruin. A new levy has not passed for years and the school board has cut deeply. A new levy will appear on the ballot in the near future and if it fails, almost all extra-curricular activities and some non-mandated courses will be cut.

Re, the reinstatement issue.

The school district in a worst case, might have to rehire him. They don't have to let him near kids. In fact, they would be cosmically stupid to do so.

What they do in these cases is give the teacher an office and desk and no duties. Or makework if they are feeling generous.

There are near countless private xian schools everywhere and I'm sure a few around Mt Vernon. Any of them could have hired JF. None did. Even the xians aren't going to risk their kids with this guy.

Sigh...., where are Steve Harvey, Eric Rothschild, Nick Matzke (and other attorneys/staff that so well represented the plaintiffs at Kitzmiller v. Dover) when you need them?

You know the teaching point that this is reinforcing, over and over, to school boards all over the country?

Dover says, if you find that one of your teachers (or the school board itself) is a creobot fundamentalist who plugs their religion in class, you have to get rid of him or her, or sooner or later you're going to get sued, and it will ruin you. The Freshwater affair says that if you do get rid of him or her, you're going to have to fight through court after court, and it will ruin you. The creobot, buoyed by fanaticism and his co-religionists, has effectively limitless means and motivation, but every penny the school board spends come straight out of their levy, and nowhere else.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Seems to me that there has to be some sort of fighting fund set up by rational people to help out the school board that is trying to get rid of the loonies.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

IANAL, but this thought occurred to me on reflection after watching the video.

It seems to me that several of the questions from the justices were about things for which no evidence was presented at the trial. The lawyer for the school board could not be expected to give testimony about whether evolution was a theory. Even if he knows better, he is not qualified to argue that point, and, I dare say, this is an inappropriate forum for him to argue that - I say that he ought not argue that point with the justices. He may have been personally embarrassed not to get into that, but that's not his job.

Therefore, I say, an appropriate ruling from the OSC would be that the case must go back to the trial court and evidence must be obtained to determine points like whether evolution is controversial. I envision the re-trial turning out to be another one of the cases where expert witnesses are called to testify that evolutionary biology is standard science, and there is no non-religious alternative, and therefore to present objections to evolution is nothing other than to advance a (particular sectarian) religion.

TomS said: It seems to me that several of the questions from the justices were about things for which no evidence was presented at the trial. The lawyer for the school board could not be expected to give testimony about whether evolution was a theory. Even if he knows better, he is not qualified to argue that point, and, I dare say, this is an inappropriate forum for him to argue that - I say that he ought not argue that point with the justices. He may have been personally embarrassed not to get into that, but that's not his job.

eric said:

TomS said: It seems to me that several of the questions from the justices were about things for which no evidence was presented at the trial. The lawyer for the school board could not be expected to give testimony about whether evolution was a theory. Even if he knows better, he is not qualified to argue that point, and, I dare say, this is an inappropriate forum for him to argue that - I say that he ought not argue that point with the justices. He may have been personally embarrassed not to get into that, but that's not his job.

But it IS his job to point that out to the panel, to refocus the court's time on his evidence and the case. Sure, if they have an agenda that's going to be impossible to do. But its his job to try. To say, basically, that whether evolution is a theory or not is irrelevant to the case at hand; Freshwater was fired for breach of discipline having to do with teaching material he was ordered by the principal not to teach. If the court finds that ID is teachable, that will affect future administrative decisions, but it cannot be applied post hoc to Freshwater's case: it is still the case that he disregarded a request by his boss that was perfectly legitimate at that time. Let me draw a comparison. The speed limit outside my house is 25. If I go 35 and get caught, I've broken the law. If three years later a court decides that the speed limit should be 35, I don't retroactively get my money back or my record wiped - I still broke the law. Same thing here. If this court decides that it should be legal in Ohio schools to present ID creationism, the disciplinary case against Freshwater should still be grounds for firing him.

eric said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Even if the Court rules for Freshwater on very narrow grounds, he and his supporters will still trumpet it as broadly endorsing his follies--one justice in the oral arguments actually asked that. I don't recall the full answer, but the implication is already out there.

It'll be bad if one of the judges broadly endorses the teaching of creationism, in either the court opinion or in writing a separate opinion. But we have to expect that Freshwater's PR will misrepresent any ruling as broad endorsement. IMO that will happen no matter what the ruling says. After all, the DI still puts out the occasional commentary about how Dover was a win for them. And I believe Coppedge's lawyers also made public comments to the effect that the ruling against him was some sort of victory for ID. With these guys, claiming broad support for ID creationism when the ruling obviously says something else is just part of their standard MO.

alicejohn said: I assume the attorneys for both sides will have a chance to give a written summary of their briefs. Both attorneys responded to questions with clear suppositions (how could they possibly know details that are not in the records). Also, I assume the judges will actually review the administrative hearing to find out the facts. Finally, I have never understood this appeal. From what I saw, this was a new trial using arguments not even brought out by the original defense. If appeals courts can do that, why not save a lot of time and money by making all trials one-time, one-hour presentations in front of a panel of judges???

Dave Luckett said: You know the teaching point that this is reinforcing, over and over, to school boards all over the country?

diogeneslamp0 said: I would like to issue a general warning. We may be angry about Judge "it's a theory in't it" Pfeiffer, but we should avoid attacking the Ohio judges personally, making accusations not based on evidence, speculating, etc. If we criticize the judges, our criticism should be limited to their professional behavior in the matter at hand. I don't want us to launch off into personal attacks analogous to the despicable behavior of Dembski and the DI's attack on Judge Jones from Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Dave Luckett said: You know the teaching point that this is reinforcing, over and over, to school boards all over the country?

The teaching point I see in watching the mess from the beginning is 'Document the hell out of things as they are occurring!' Had the prior administration of the district done that, the initial case would have been firmly established and the record would have been unequivocal. Because the documentation was scanty, there was way too much room for Freshwater to change his story through the several legal venues.

One of the issues this case highlights, as alluded to by Richard, is that school administrators can be incredibly cowardly and stupid, with no knowledge of the law; and it is the students, the school district, and the teaching staff that end up paying the price.

I watched a similar situation in which the administration was too cowardly and stupid to step in and terminate an untenured, proselytizing teacher until it was too late. Now they are stuck with him. The rest of the teaching staff had to carry the extra load while this teacher was placed in a non-teaching set of “remedial activities” - with full pay - for several years. The idiot couldn’t even teach the subject matter in which he was alleged to be trained.

He still bribes students with extra points – points unrelated to course content - in order to get them to give him good student evaluations. His social interactions with other people in social situations are still scripted segues into his sectarian beliefs.

I don't understand why the comments here are so sanguine. Have you seen the video? "Don't criticize the judges."?! Especially on the bench there is a clear need to have a judge that recognizes clear falsehood. Freshwater's lawyer kept throwing out some of the oldest and most discredited canards in creationism and the only reaction in the room was essentially an "Amen". The level of ignorance among the judges on the key facts in front of them, and the clear prejudice for Freshwater displayed by several, is completely shocking.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the issues this case highlights, as alluded to by Richard, is that school administrators can be incredibly cowardly and stupid, with no knowledge of the law; and it is the students, the school district, and the teaching staff that end up paying the price.

trnsplnt said: I don't understand why the comments here are so sanguine. Have you seen the video? "Don't criticize the judges."?!

eric said:

trnsplnt said: I don't understand why the comments here are so sanguine. Have you seen the video? "Don't criticize the judges."?!

I am sanguine because RBH had an earlier post detailing just how corrupt they could be. For example, some of them take reelection campaign contributions from people in cases they are presently hearing. That was unbelievable to me. But now that I know it, how they acted in this court case is not surprising. The calm is due to them living down to my expectations, not because I agree with the job they're doing. Am I disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No. Secondly, ever since they agreed to take the case, a lot of the PT posters have been speculating that it can only mean they intended to support Freshwater. There was really no other obvious reason to take it. Sure, we could've been wrong about their motives for taking the case. But now it appears that we weren't, its (again) not much of a surprise.