Ohio Supreme Court denies Freshwater mandamus motion

| 21 Comments

The Ohio Supreme Court today denied John Freshwater’s motion for a writ of mandamus to compel Board of Education members to testify at the administrative hearing on his termination. The Court web site says only

09/30/09 DECISION: Upon consideration pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5), cause (sic) dismissed

According to a news report (see also here) the justices voted 7-0 to deny the motion. Since it is a procedural issue, the Court will not elaborate in an opinion.

No word yet on what effect that will have on the course of the hearing.

21 Comments

Well Ray already told us that all federal juges are “darwinists”. Now I suppose he will claim that all supreme court justices are biased “darwinists”.. Gee Ray, looks like you are out numbered, what with you being the only true creationist and the only real christian and all. Tough rocks.

So now the board members will not have to testify and they can now decide to deny the Freshwater appeal. Seems like a pretty foregone conclusion given the shinanigans this guy and his lawyer have tried to pull. Now if there was only some way to force him to personally pay for the court costs. I bet the case would come to a pretty quick conclusion then.

Wow! I guess the Supreme Court members don’t have the correct last names!

Someone should remove the “[sic]” in the quotation: “Cause” is correct.

Since this is a mandamus question in an existing case pending in another tribunal, the Supreme Court of Ohio cannot (under either general rules of civil procedure or Practice Rule X) dismiss the “case.” Instead, it refers to “cause” as shorthand for “cause of action” – which is what mandamus really is.

If this had been a freestanding mandamus petition, such as a request from a petitioner to have the court direct an administrative agency to rule on a petition that had been sitting before the agency for thirty months, calling it a “case” would be correct. Nobody ever said legal terminology had to be consistent; a foolish consistency, after all, is the hobgoblin of small minds, and nobody ever accused a judge of having a small mind (or large ego), even truthfully… without spending a couple of nights in jail for contempt, anyway.

Leaving all of this aside, a mandamus petition was the wrong procedure to adopt if Mr Hamilton actually wanted to get what he asked for on the face of the petition. He instead needed to file a motion to compel discovery, followed by an interlocutory (during-the-proceedings) appeal to the appropriate court. I infer that, instead, his real strategy – if, on the basis of his representation thus far, he even had one – was to create an appearance of partiality on the part of the Supreme Court of Ohio for the inevitable appeals…

We now return you from Civil Procedure Trivia 419 to something that matters. ;-)

Jaws said:

Someone should remove the “[sic]” in the quotation: “Cause” is correct.

Since this is a mandamus question in an existing case pending in another tribunal, the Supreme Court of Ohio cannot (under either general rules of civil procedure or Practice Rule X) dismiss the “case.” Instead, it refers to “cause” as shorthand for “cause of action” – which is what mandamus really is.

Ah. Thanks! IANAL, obviously. :)

DS said:

Well Ray already told us that all federal juges are “darwinists”. Now I suppose he will claim that all supreme court justices are biased “darwinists”.

Scalea? Thomas? The mind boggles.

wile coyote said:

DS said:

Well Ray already told us that all federal juges are “darwinists”. Now I suppose he will claim that all supreme court justices are biased “darwinists”.

Scalea? Thomas? The mind boggles.

Except this is the Ohio State Supreme Court. No Scalia or Thomas their unless there is a coincidence of names.

a lurker said:

Except this is the Ohio State Supreme Court. No Scalia or Thomas their unless there is a coincidence of names.

Silly, do you think our charming and articulate little Darwin-basher is going to make that distinction? Of course they’re all evil.

$300,000 spent so far in defending the school board. Imagine how the teachers and students could have benefited from those funds rather than waste it on Freshwater’s idiotic case. So now Freshwater & attorneys will dust themselves off, pull their thumbs out, and figure other ways to delay this case for perhaps another year. Ah, the penalty for not following proper procedure and dumping this guy for violating policy when they had a chance.

DavidK said: Ah, the penalty for not following proper procedure and dumping this guy for violating policy when they had a chance.

I think its worth remembering that there was a change in executive authority at some point: the school administrators now trying to fire Freshwater are not the same people who tacitly condoned his behavior for the past 10 years.

IMO the “they condoned it before” defense doesn’t fly for the situation where a new administration comes in, issues you a warning not to continue the behavior you got away with under the old administration, and you do.

Ah, the penalty for not following proper procedure and dumping this guy for violating policy when they had a chance.

Very true. These are circumstances they brought on themselves. Maybe one of these days the taxpayers will get fed up with having to support the school districts over lawsuits like these and hold the school board and administrators responsible for their (in)actions.

“Ohio Supreme Court denies Freshwater mandamus motion”

Headline: Creationists Lose ANOTHER Court Case.

eric said:

I think its worth remembering that there was a change in executive authority at some point: the school administrators now trying to fire Freshwater are not the same people who tacitly condoned his behavior for the past 10 years

That’s true, though the handling by the new administration was not … erm … flawless. Nevertheless, it was better than under the previous administrators, one of whom thanked a middle school guidance counselor for “ministering” to students.

Headline: Creationists Lose ANOTHER Court Case.

Lose?

That’s giving it way too much credit. Creationists didn’t lose the case, the argument was so flawed that the court refused to even consider it to begin with.

There’s a reason that Supreme Court cases seem to always break 4:3 or 5:4, that’s because the higher level courts are supposed to decide complex, subtle issues that can be interpreted many ways.

When a high court rejects your case 7:0 without comment, that’s the judicial equivalent of saying “Get this piece o’ crap off my desk”.

jane said:

Wow! I guess the Supreme Court members don’t have the correct last names!

Well there’s a Justice Cupp – and there are Cups of Wrath..

There’s a Justice Moyer – this is just more o’ the same.

And Justice Pfeifer which sounds like piper (somewhat) is somewhat just following the music?

Thank you, Richard, for your dogged determination in following this case.

This is good news. Way too long.

And thanks for the report.

Dunno why this is such an addicting story, but it is.

It’s tragicomic at this point.

stevaroni said: When a high court rejects your case 7:0 without comment, that’s the judicial equivalent of saying “Get this piece o’ crap off my desk”.

Execept for SCOTUS, since they get to choose which crap goes on their desks. :) For them, a unanimous vote tends to mean “Look Congress, stop being idiots and passing blatantly unconstitutional laws.”

DS:

Ray? Is that Ray Martinez of Talk Origins infamy? He, now that Eugene Scott is dead, that is the only TROO Christian? He of the great unfinished paper that will destroy Darwinism forever?

BTW how’s that going? His deadlines reminded me of Garner Ted Armstrong’s end-of-the-world prophecies.

– Martin

Martin,

That’s the guy. He’s a legend in his own mind. Check out some of of his comments on the pseudoscience thread.

Call out the firetrucks! Looks like another fundagelical crash and burn!

Just finished re-reading Freshwater’s Wiki entry, “shocking a special needs student in the back”? Shit, send him to Iraq and let him loose on the insurgents, he’d have a ball, and they’d all change from Muslim nut jobs to Christian nutjobs; game over!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on September 30, 2009 11:49 AM.

Louisiana is sinking was the previous entry in this blog.

Travel Award for Evolution-Themed Blog is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter