Freshwater: Summary of legal proceedings and main players

| 10 Comments

I’ve been informed that I’ve been negligent in keeping the dramatis personae and various legal actions in the Freshwater affair clearly distinguished. Let me summarize below the fold.

Legal Proceedings

There are three legal actions currently in progress (using that word loosely).

1. First is the administrative hearing held under state statutes to arrive at a recommendation concerning the Mount Vernon, Ohio, Board of Education’s Resolution of Intention to Consider Termination of John Freshwater’s contract as an 8th grade science teacher. Testimony and evidence gathering has ended and the parties have until July 26 to get their summary briefs to the referee and Aug 2 to get replies to their opponent’s summaries to him.

2. Then there is Doe v. Mount Vernon Board of Education et al. This is the federal suit brought by the Dennis family against the Board, several administrators, and Freshwater on June 13, 2008. This proceeding has been the arena for the discovery shenanigans by Freshwater and Hamilton that I recently posted on, and the jury trial is due to start on July 26, 2010. Freshwater filed a counterclaim on Sept 2, 2008, which was dismissed on summary judgment (pdf) by the court on April 6, 2010. There was a partial settlement with the family in September 2009 and the Board and administration defendants were dismissed on Oct 1, 2009. Freshwater remains the sole defendant.

3. Finally there is Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education et al.. This is a federal suit brought by Freshwater on June 9, 2009, against the Board and two individual Board members (Watson and Goetzman), several administrators, the Board’s attorney David Millstone, HR OnCall (the Board’s investigators) and its two principals individually, and 8 unnamed John and Jane Does. This suit is still in the depositions and discovery phase and has not yet been scheduled for trial. The same judge, Gregory Frost, is presiding over both trials. The Board’s attorney, David Millstone, was dismissed as a defendant by the federal judge.

Main Players

Referee R. Lee Shepherd of Poland Depler & Shepherd Co LPA, Shelby, OH. The referee was chosen from a slate of three proposed by the State Department of Education by agreement of the two sides. Shepherd has a private practice and is also the city attorney for Shelby. His demeanor is very difficult to read.

Mt. Vernon District Board of Education, which passed the resolution to initiate termination proceedings at its June 20, 2008, meeting. In particular, former member Ian Watson and current member Jody Goetzman are individual defendants in Freshwater’s federal suit noted below. Two new members were elected after the hearing was in progress for over a year, one a Freshwater supporter and fundraiser and father of a teacher who testified for Freshwater in the hearing (Steve Thompson), and one whose son testified against Freshwater in the hearing (Paula Barone). Both have recused themselves from discussions and voting on the federal suit in which the Board is still a defendant, and Barone has also recused herself from discussions and voting on the outcome of the administrative hearing. Both used the qualifying phrase “at this time” in their letters of recusal so nothing is set in concrete in that respect.

Steve Short, Interim Superintendent in late 2007 and appointed Superintendent in early 2008 when all this was blowing up.

David Millstone of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, attorney for the Mt. Vernon Board of Education for the hearing and for a while a defendant in Freshwater’s federal suit.

John Freshwater, middle school science teacher in Mt. Vernon Middle School who appealed the resolution of intent of the BOE to consider terminating him for cause.

R. Kelly Hamilton, formerly of of Hamilton & Hawkins (Grove City, OH) but now apparently a sole practitioner who is Freshwater’s attorney for the administrative hearing. Hamilton was formerly Freshwater’s attorney of record in Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE et al. and is currently attorney of record for Freshwater in Freshwater v. BOE et al.

There have also been several additional attorneys in the hearing more or less regularly, two representing Freshwater in the Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE et al. suit (retained by the district’s insurance company), one (Sarah Moore) who represented the BOE in the Doe suit (and maybe in the Freshwater v. BOE et al. suit) and one (Douglas Mansfield) representing the Dennis family in the Doe v. BOE et al. suit against Freshwater as the sole remaining defendant. There have been sundry others sitting in the hearing occasionally as observers in their various clients’ interests when they testified in the hearing. I think the peak during the administrative hearing was 8 attorneys in the room, though one or two of them may have been paralegals. Total billing that day had to be in excess of $1,500 per hour of the hearing session.

10 Comments

If judge Frost finds an evidencery inference that Freshwater displayed religious materials with no secular purpose, could Dennises request and be granted summary judgement on th 4th admendment issues? Such a judgement could make mighti fun reading. Of couse I’d still like to hear freshwater make the argument in court that a kid can consent to be burned by an authority figure without the assent of the kid’s parents.

Reading the documents on the NCSE site I read that the Freshwater vs School suit is scheduled for trial. It is the summer of 2011. I will go find the document again and post.

Found it!

http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1234

(5) The jury trial is scheduled to commence on June 20, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

Many thanks! You have been anything but negligent, but I (at least) found the summaries and the dramatis personae very helpful in sorting out exactly who is doing what to whom and with whose assistance.

What, no pictures?

(Seriously, thanks for reporting on this story.)

Juicyheart said:

If judge Frost finds an evidencery inference that Freshwater displayed religious materials with no secular purpose, could Dennises request and be granted summary judgement on th 4th admendment issues? Such a judgement could make mighti fun reading. Of couse I’d still like to hear freshwater make the argument in court that a kid can consent to be burned by an authority figure without the assent of the kid’s parents.

They’ve already asked for a default judgment as a sanction for the dilatory responses to discovery requests and the obfuscation associated with Hamilton’s billing records. See this post for details. In the event that the judge grants the request I don’t know how much he’ll actually write as an opinion, since he will have heard no evidence in a court trial but only the submissions and one or two oral arguments for the various pre-trial motions.

RBH, I want to thank you, as many others have, for your hard work reporting and recording this long-drawn out, confusing, and ultimately important event. You have the basis for a really good book here. If you do not feel that the time spent writing such a book is possible, may I suggest a collaboration with Lauri Lebo? I’ve read her book on the Dover trial,and others, and hers was the best one, in my opinion. Thanks again.

Bob

Lauri’s been following it, and I had her out here last year to lecture and spend three hours in my seminar on the history of the socio-cultural and religious controversies surrounding the theory of evolution. She’s done a couple of articles on it and I’m supposed to be writing one for publication soon, and maybe we’ll talk later when there’s some sort of resolution here. Dover had a nice sharp conclusion–Judge Jones’ decision coming down in December 2005. Here, with the several legal processes overlapping, it’s not as clean.

The problem with the Freshwater affair, as distinguished from the Dover trial, is that there are multiple story lines intertwined, and finding a narrative scheme will be tough without distorting the story. Lauri had a perfect narrative–her relationship with her father–and she used that as an orienting scheme to tie together the larger events as they unfolded in Dover.

With many other I’ve said thanks before, but I’ll say it again; Thanks!

The untangling of the narratives above has been immensely helpful to me as I follow this trainwreck from far away.

Is it just me or do I perceive Freshwater losing allies left and right? Do you envisage RBH, at any time Hamilton himself distancing himself from his former client in the Federal case, or does his too close association mean mutually assured distruction?

You say thr referee R. Lee Shephard is inscrutable, in my experience (not of courtcases) of people, inscrutability is often a badge of a person who has a shrewd judge of character. As Freshwater and Hamilton completely lack a moral compass this bodes well.

robert van bakel said:

Is it just me or do I perceive Freshwater losing allies left and right? Do you envisage RBH, at any time Hamilton himself distancing himself from his former client in the Federal case, or does his too close association mean mutually assured distruction?

I think they’re too closely associated for Hamilton to try now to separate himself.

You say thr referee R. Lee Shephard is inscrutable, in my experience (not of courtcases) of people, inscrutability is often a badge of a person who has a shrewd judge of character. As Freshwater and Hamilton completely lack a moral compass this bodes well.

We’ll see, I guess. A good deal will depend on the summary briefs the two sides submit.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on July 8, 2010 12:36 AM.

Freshwater: Will a quick settlement be reached? was the previous entry in this blog.

Chris Comer loses appeal 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 4.361

Site Meter