Freshwater: A Christian Conspiracy Theory

| 89 Comments

I haven’t re-read R. Kelly Hamilton’s summary brief in order to write a comprehensive post yet (and I may gouge my eyes out in order to avoid doing so), but one of the more interesting (and paranoid) parts of the brief is his invocation of conspiracies to account for the jam Freshwater is in. I’ll sketch one of them below the fold to give the flavor of the reasoning (I use that term loosely) Hamilton engages in.

It’s liberal Christians what done it

Over the course of 10 pages in the first part of his brief Hamilton advances the notion that Freshwater was set up–framed, scapegoated, you pick one–by a cabal of liberal Christians bent on discrediting him and somehow or other screwing the school district and/or insurance company out of money. I have no idea where that came from–I don’t recall any foreshadowing in the administrative hearing–but it’s a significant part of Hamilton’s defense of Freshwater in the brief.

First the groundwork. We learn early in the brief in a section titled “Evidentiary Considerations” that Superintendent Steve Short and the investigators from HR OnCall were bullies:

Lord Acton famously asserted “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Corrupted power is in part why this case came about. Part of the reason why this case developed is as old as the Bible and occurs in too many school yards across the nation. Part of this case is about bullies, about bullying, being bigger, stronger or having some kind of power that is misused. Superintendent Short and HR on Call, Inc., the delegates of the BOE, misused their power. They misused their power willfully, in part because of incompetence but also because of a lack of integrity. Evidence shows they misused their power intentionally and in some acts even maliciously in violation of BOE Policy 3361.01 - Threatening Behavior Toward Staff Member. (p. 37)

But then we are told that in spite of being powerful bullies (“absolute power,” remember), they (along with Freshwater) were actually no more than helpless pawns:

Could it be that John Freshwater and Superintendent Short were pawns of a larger scheme for which they were simply game pieces to be moved around? (p. 38)

With the groundwork in place, Hamilton introduces the conspiracy theory starting on page 46 where he claims that Lynda Weston, former Director of Teaching and Learning, has a personal animus toward Freshwater:

Although Dr. Weston lacked any “rapport” with John Freshwater she was clearly troubled, maybe even jealous, by the positive rapport Teacher Freshwater had with his students. Dr. Weston’s personal motivations toward John Freshwater prevented her from respecting the validity of the “OAT scores” (Ohio Achievement Tests) achieved by Teacher Freshwater and his students. (p. 46)

In the next paragraph Hamilton introduces former Board of Education President Ian Watson:

Former board member-witness Ian Watson’s interest in this matter was to be expected as he was the BOE president. But it seems Ian Watson’s interest went beyond just that of a BOE member considering he conducted his own “investigation” and contacted the American Civil Liberties Union. Ian Watson’s participation with HR on Call, Inc.’s investigation is evident and reveals involvement when examining the May 15, 2008, audio transcript of the interview HR on Call, Inc. conducted of John Freshwater. HR on Call, Inc.’s Thomas Herlevi stated to John Freshwater on May 15, 2008, in pertinent part: “It is very possible, and the purpose of that is if we talk to some people to get some information, if there’s anything there that we feel you should have the opportunity to respond to, we want you to have that opportunity. Okay, rather then, you know, just, you don’t know and you never get a chance to respond. (inaudible) So therefore there will, and we’ll let you know ah if we have that need, and we’ll certainly work with Ian as well and it will be with a little bit of notice, you know, and we’ll make sure it fits everybody’s schedule, then again our goal is.”(pp. 46-47; bolding Hamilton’s)

And then comes the conspiracy theory:

Combine the “more than probably ten” conversations Ian Watson had with Steve Dennis with the fact Mr. Watson and Dr. Weston attend the same “..socially active church” which is “..interested in social issues” upon which Mr. Watson serves on the church’s board, and an impression is made that Mr. Watson’s interest in this matter transcended his capacity as a BOE member. (p. 47)

But what is that interest that transcended his capacity as a BOE member? That becomes clear in the next paragraph:

Is it possible this matter is less about John Freshwater but maybe a guise as the matter could serve dual ends in furthering a socially active church while providing a prospect for reaping funds from public coffers, or insurance proceeds, money seemingly nobody will miss? The only missing element of such a plan would be the necessity to create an outcast. (pp 47-48)

There you have it: Two Christians (Watson and Weston) from a “socially active” liberal Protestant church plotted with a Roman Catholic (Steve Dennis) to frame John Freshwater (a conservative Christian) in order to “further” (how?) a socially active church and to somehow run a scam that takes funds from public coffers and insurance companies (though where those funds are supposed to go isn’t made clear), using the administrators and investigators as bullies and pawns. How stupid of me not to have thought of that (with apologies to THH).

89 Comments

Is Hamilton as incompetent as his writing makes him out to be? I realize he’s pretty driven on this case by his Christian sense of martyrdom for the cause, but this is ridiculous.

Rilke’s Granddaughter said:

Is Hamilton as incompetent as his writing makes him out to be? I realize he’s pretty driven on this case by his Christian sense of martyrdom for the cause, but this is ridiculous.

Having listened to him at length in the administrative hearing, the brief seems to me to be an accurate reflection of his mode of thinking.

Seems to me that the only one benefitting from Freshwater and his antics is Hamilton. Maybe he set the guy up. Of course, if Hamilton ends up in jail≤ I suppose his little scheme will have backfired. I guess he must at least be in on the scam, since he is the one who has done everything in his power to make sure that this has cost the taxpayers as much money as possible.

Of course it’s a conspiracy. Part of the war on christmas, liberals (all atheists) ousting christians, banning prayer in schools, not displaying the 10 commandmants or nativity scences wherever these christian martyrs want to display them, ad nauseum. If this weren’t such a lame case, the dishonesty institute would be all over it. And Freshwater is to be martyred, if by no one else then by himself.

I am not a lawyer, but given my experience in watching this type of legal flimflam over the course of my life I have a prediction.

Hamilton is about to get the legal bitch slapping of his life.

Enjoy.

Time to kill? Submitted for your approval:

http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/[…]-than-palin/

http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/[…]ly-you-jest/

Delusional.…

DavidK Wrote:

If this weren’t such a lame case, the dishonesty institute would be all over it.

The DI’s silence is the most fascinating part of this case. And yet, as eventually happens with any politically motivated pseudoscience, it ends in a the same charge of “conspiracy” that the DI is increasingly relying on in the absence of any hope of an alternate theory. Any guess when Hamilton will play the “Hitler” card?

The Tim Channel said: Hamilton is about to get the legal bitch slapping of his life.

I doubt he’ll get it from the administrative hearing. Those folks have bent over backward to be considerate to him; even if they rule against him I bet it will be with as neutral a tone as possible. My own thought is that all this deference (on the part of the board) was strategically intended to prevent or help them win any follow-up lawsuit. If that’s the case, it would be foolish to give a ‘perception of bias’ now.

Personally, I think he’s going for press martyrdom. He knows the judge/administrator isn’t going to consider anything which was not presented in open court. So he can throw the rhetorical kitchen sink in now, and then complain to the fundie community that these new arguments were unfairly ignored when he loses. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we see this strategy by other fundies in the future. When you’re losing, put some extra stuff in your final brief aimed squarely at convincing your other audience - i.e. your religious compatriots. Then you can collectively claim martyrdom when these belated “arguments” are rightfully ignored by the court.

One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn’t the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular? Seems to me if these religious conspiracies are fighting each other in the halls, that would be an argument against allowing teachers the freedom to put up religious posters, keep religious books on their desk, etc…

It appears that Hamilton and Freshwater have learned their conspiracy theories from the master: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcrM4HQQyg

Rich Blinne said:

It appears that Hamilton and Freshwater have learned their conspiracy theories from the master: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcrM4HQQyg

Some more on the “conspiracy”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9-N7xCQQ0

eric Wrote:

One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn’t the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular?

IMO, yes, and especially in science class. Even if I felt “liberal” enough to put a Bible on my desk in an English class (not that I ever would, or could, teach English), I would no more dare put it on my desk in a science class as I would a book about baseball. If only because I know that some students would take any opportunity to talk about something they find more interesting than science, and thus distract the whole class from what has earned the right to be taught.

BTW, I’m very aware that the main objection to discussing religion in public school science class is because it’s against the law. I’m just saying that it would be a bad idea even if the law allowed it.

Frank J said: IMO, yes, and especially in science class. Even if I felt “liberal” enough to put a Bible on my desk in an English class (not that I ever would, or could, teach English), I would no more dare put it on my desk in a science class as I would a book about baseball. If only because I know that some students would take any opportunity to talk about something they find more interesting than science, and thus distract the whole class from what has earned the right to be taught.

One of my co-workers had a Red Sox background on his computer. Whenever the boss (also a BoSox fan) came around to talk, inevitably, the conversation turned to baseball. The guy was hoist by his own petard though, because it caused the boss to come around more often. :)

Are you sure you didn’t accidentally copy and paste a Dan Brown novel into your blog entry, RBH? Did you confuse the PDFs or something?

I still can’t believe those sentences all came from a legal brief. I keep repeating, “a professional lawyer wrote this” like a mantra, but I still don’t believe it. Hamilton is pretty good at this paranoia thing, though. If the lawyer thing doesn’t work out, maybe he’s got a future in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

eric said: One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn’t the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular?

Please excuse my presumtiveness, eric (I´m writing from Europe and I´m not a US citizen), but this is exactly why there is a constitutional separation of church and state in the US.

The Founding Fathers were more than a little fed up of the (absolute) power yielded and abused by the Church of England in the motherland, often at the cost of their own (considerably less powerful) denominations, and wanted to make sure that a similar situation couldn´t arise in their new country. Keeping any and all churches out of political business was, and is, the simplest and safest way to avoid this sort of thing.

Richard, thanks for the continued updates. Can you remind me which of the 3 concurrent cases this particular piece of horsecrap relates to? Is it the Admin Hearing?

Ahhh, wait. I see from your last post that it is for the Admin Hearing.

Apologies. Early morning flights do not make for sensible blog comments.

I wonder if any rational people ever used Hamilton as a lawyer prior to this case? Based on this sort of evidence, I´m positive he´s trying to make sure none will bother emplying him when it´s finally over.

Bring on da krazy!

I think that someone should load a tranquilizer dart with Thorazine, STAT!

I think that someone should load a tranquilizer dart with Thorazine, STAT!

That’s a good idea, but how would you be able to tell their butts from their heads when you shoot?

Interesting that Hamilton spends just over a page (bottom of page 6 to the top of page 8) in a discussion of the contract termination process in a manner that attempts to intimidate the referee.

Then pages of BS about removal of professional licenses (top of page 11 to top of 17. Is Freshwater losing his teaching credential, or his job? Hamilton even admits that much of what he wrote is irrelevant, footnote 30, page 14. Nothing relevant to Freshwater’s case is actually mentioned, other than a vague assertion of procedural irregularities, “Striking similarities exist between Ongom and John Freshwater’s matter in that a mandated reporting requirement was not followed, …” (second paragraph page 17).

I found this line humorous…p54

“It is true John Freshwater speaks while he is thinking and often before arriving at an answer he believes is responsive to a question, all the while wanting and expecting an opportunity to further clarify.”

I really can’t figure out what the hell it means, but it’s still funny.

Thank you for your work and the latest updates.

Here’s a different twist on conspiracy (maybe). Hamilton bets Freshwater he can win the case, Freshwater bets the farm (literally), Hamilton puts on a “show”. If he wins, he gets paid and becomes a fundy legal star, maybe even a DI lawyer. If he loses he gets the farm. It doesn’t matter what Hamilton does he wins, so why bother trying to make a case he has to have known (benefit of the doubt) he was going to lose. This last document is him pulling every trick he can to finally win this case, but at this point I doubt he even cares enough to even try.

My first laugh out loud:

“Furthermore, Attorney Millstone’s inflammatory orchestration of igniting a piece of paper with the Tesla Coil in an unvented, public facility, a criminal act58, was never an action allegedly conducted by John Freshwater. It was neither an accurate portrayal of the Tesla Coil nor was it a comparable demonstration to ANY proposed use by John Freshwater in his classroom. Attorney Millstone’s demonstration was a symbolic gesture hoping this Referee would conclude ‘where there is smoke there is fire’. But as the late, great President John F. Kennedy observed, “Where there is smoke there may not always be fire; there may be a smoke making machine”.

56 Transcript Page 1441

57 Transcript Page 1443 and 1424

58 R.C. 2903.03(A)(3) and 2909.07(A)(2) and prohibitions against opening burning without a valid permit.”

So, Millstone had better watch out!!!

eric said: One final thought - lets say Hamilton is right and this whole case is sect-on-sect machination. Wouldn’t the occurrence of such infights be an arugment in favor of keeping classrooms secular?

Only if you’re sane.

That’s a good idea, but how would you be able to tell their butts from their heads when you shoot?

Easy, their heads are on the inside.

Karen S. said:

I think that someone should load a tranquilizer dart with Thorazine, STAT!

That’s a good idea, but how would you be able to tell their butts from their heads when you shoot?

Aim for the opening that doesn’t lie. [/snark]

Fairly amusing is Hamilton’s dissertation on how a good investigator behaves (bottom pg. 29 to middle pg. 30). Particularly ironic since Hamilton was playing billing games by mixing his hours spent a either a lawyer, or investigator.

This is a real gem of contorted reasoning:

“Superintendent Short mistakenly asserted the Bible verse on his son’s artwork was from Romans 13:8, which states, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law”. In reality the inspirational artwork made by Superintendent Short’s son contained a Bible verse cited from Romans 12:6, which reads, “Having their gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them,”. (118) Perhaps Superintendent Short made the scriptural mistake because he was contemplating the “debt” stated in Romans 13:8 as the debt he personally owed to John Freshwater for the egregious transgressions he and HR on Call, Inc. lead the BOE to take against John Freshwater.” (Page 39)

What is a liberal Christian?

120 Aldridge – need full cite

Hamilton - need proof editing

Michael Roberts said:

What is a liberal Christian?

One who is too conservative to:

1. Demand that taxpayers pay for students to learn pseudoscience that they can already learn on their parents’ dime.

2. Demand that any class include misleading material that has not earned the right to be taught.

3. Condone bearing false witness to students about evolution and the nature of science.

Pg 45 - 46

“Dr. Weston’s personal motivations are obvious in view of her contention John Freshwater “cannot separate science from teaching creationism/intelligent design” (139) considering she makes an admitted “assumption” (140) without any further proof. Dr. Weston admits, “I did not have communication with John”. (141)”

This stank of quote-mine gas.

The references are to

139 Board Exhibit 6, p5

140 Transcript Page 2519, Line 19-23

141 Transcript Page 2585, Line 13

“Quotes” juxtaposed from different sources, and separated by 66 pages of testimony.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

RBH said:

kevin said:

That was from Day 7 of the hearings according to Pandas Thumb. Now look at that chart over on Stickle’s page. I’m confused!

Linkies, please.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/200[…]r-day-2.html

then

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k8FZCWXbq[…]ief+copy.jpg

I guess what I am asking is if you have notes where Turner said he was directly asked and answered that Freshwater made the initial contact? Or is Hamilton’s chart wrong in regards to Turner’s testimony?

kevin said:

I guess what I am asking is if you have notes where Turner said he was directly asked and answered that Freshwater made the initial contact? Or is Hamilton’s chart wrong in regards to Turner’s testimony?

Rereading my notes, the account I gave in the linked post is an accurate summary of the notes.

Note that Turner testified that “… his dealings with the middle school FCA – topic guidelines, scheduling, logistics, and so on – were conducted through Freshwater.” The table Hamilton prepared was careful to list a very narrow issue–“Give specific topic”–while Turner testified that Freshwater gave him “topic guidelines.” So Hamilton’s table is technically accurate in that one narrow respect but by omission it misleadingly misrepresents Turner’s testimony regarding the breadth and nature of Freshwater’s contacts with him.

kevin said:

RBH said:

kevin said:

That was from Day 7 of the hearings according to Pandas Thumb. Now look at that chart over on Stickle’s page. I’m confused!

Linkies, please.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/200[…]r-day-2.html

then

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k8FZCWXbq[…]ief+copy.jpg

If I was given a chart like this, I would be tempted to rule against whoever gave it to me just for insulting my intelligence so completely.

Not only is the conspiracy true, THEY WERE PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS TOGETHER! Once our photos are released - they are a little grainy but they show the TRUTH - this case will be blown wide open!

Marion D said:

Not only is the conspiracy true, THEY WERE PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS TOGETHER!

:)

Now that’s funny!

a 166 page summary.

Now I feel bad for poor Hamilton…

I can see why it was so hard to respond to evidence requests.

He was busy writing a science(less)-fiction novel.

B. Witness testimony from credible sources clearly demonstrates John Freshwater never asked non-familial students to lead prayer in FCA meetings.

(From page 4 of the summary)

Sounds alot like he’s using his children as loopholes. Does it really matter which students he’s giving directions to? He’s still no longer just monitoring the meeting. I think he’d be right a home with Lot when the mob comes around.

I can’t wait to read the Board’s reply to this document. And not just because there’s no way I’ll be able to read the entirety of Hamilton’s managaling of legalise, but I hope the eviserations of Hamilton’s arguments to be highly entertaining.

ed said:

a 166 page summary.

Now I feel bad for poor Hamilton…

I can see why it was so hard to respond to evidence requests.

He was busy writing a science(less)-fiction novel.

Why oh why couldn’t his computer have been flooded again before he saved the file with all of this crap in it? Why couldn’t he have gotten a flat tire on the way to deliver this load of manure? I wonder if the court can be awarded compensation for pain and suffering stemming from the reading this pile of dung. I would sure like to see the billing records to find out how much he charged Freshwater to create this collection of fecal material.

Juicyheart said:

B. Witness testimony from credible sources clearly demonstrates John Freshwater never asked non-familial students to lead prayer in FCA meetings.

(From page 4 of the summary)

Sounds alot like he’s using his children as loopholes.

That theme recurred several times. For example, there was a claim in testimony sometime or other that an email to a speaker sent from Freshwater’s school account was actually sent by his daughter Jordan. And it was Jordan who was supposed to have been involved in initiating the showing of “The Watchmaker” video in FCA, though Kerri Mahan testified that she originally sent the link to that video to Freshwater himself and that it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater’s classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.

RBH said:For example, there was a claim in testimony sometime or other that an email to a speaker sent from Freshwater’s school account was actually sent by his daughter Jordan.

Which, of course, opens Freshwater up to a charge of misusing school district e-mail account…by supplying his daughter with the password, negligence in leaving his account carelessly logged in, setting up an insecure password, not reporting that his daughter hacker her way into his account, or some other failure to properly use the account.

Sounds like an open admission of violation of likely e-mail policies to me… In many businesses, that would be a potential firing offense in its own right.

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Mostly, this sounds like Freshwater either didn’t know the rules about adults being limited to monitoring, or didn’t expect anyone to ever point them out or enforce them. Also sounds like the students weren’t expected to do as thorough a job of proselytizing as Freshwater deemed crucial to their souls’ eternal health. Now that the spotlight is on them, they have to find a workaround. Hopefully (as Heydt points out), nobody will notice or enforce the rules that would have been required for the workaround - itself so transparently phony they probably didn’t consider it anyway.

But I think these things illustrate why the fundamentalists feel so persecuted by the secular authorities. One roadblock after another being put into the path of doing God’s Work, and when they do their evangelical best despite these hassles, they get attacked for it! What are they expected to do - sit on their hands in silence while their own children face the forces of Doubt, all alone and helpless?

RBH said:That theme recurred several times.

Kids make the darndest violations of the first amendment.

RBH said: it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater’s classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.

Au contraire, my friend. Au contraire.

Juicyheart said:

I can’t wait to read the Board’s reply to this document.

Hopefully, it’ll be one page of bullet points.

School Districts Summary Brief in the J Freshwater Discipline Case

* The idiot burned kids in the name of God. Then he did it again. And then some more.

* The idiot was evangelizing when he should have been teaching science class even after we told him not to and then he lied about it.

* The idiot got a year and a half of hearings, nobody can reasonably say he didn’t get his due process or chance to state his case.

* And yet a year and a half later he’s still playing martyr shoveling shit about the incident.

That’s it, your Honor.

The Adults rest.

Is there any possibility that the hearing officer will order a re-submitted brief or is he more likely to wade through it without comment, in order to stick with his schedule and just get this out of his hands and over with?

Ryan Cunningham said:

RBH said: it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater’s classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.

Au contraire, my friend. Au contraire.

Hm? Kerri Mahan initially testified that she specifically remembered “The Watchmaker” being shown in Freshwater’s class (that was her word).

In later testimony she altered that story, saying that she couldn’t remember if it was shown in class. From my earlier post on her second round of testimony:

However (and most missed this) she described herself as seeing the video while sitting in her normal place in the back of Freshwater’s classroom with a full complement of students in front of her when it was shown. Now, FCA did not meet in Freshwater’s room; it met either in the band room or a stage off the lunch room. The only FCA meetings in Freshwater’s room were ‘leadership’ meetings at which there were on the order of only half a dozen students, not a full complement of students. Further, Mahan testified that she had never attended a leadership meeting. Obvious conclusion: She saw the video in Freshwater’s science class.

sirhcton said:

Is there any possibility that the hearing officer will order a re-submitted brief or is he more likely to wade through it without comment, in order to stick with his schedule and just get this out of his hands and over with?

I strongly doubt that he’d order a resubmission. If he were going to do so he’d have done it already.

I interpreted Ryan Cunningham to be saying that, on this and perhaps other occasions, the science class WAS an FCA meeting. Clearly, it was not always a science class.

RBH said:

Ryan Cunningham said:

RBH said: it was shown by him to a full class in Freshwater’s classroom, which could not have been an FCA meeting.

Au contraire, my friend. Au contraire.

Hm? Kerri Mahan initially testified that she specifically remembered “The Watchmaker” being shown in Freshwater’s class (that was her word).

In later testimony she altered that story, saying that she couldn’t remember if it was shown in class. From my earlier post on her second round of testimony:

However (and most missed this) she described herself as seeing the video while sitting in her normal place in the back of Freshwater’s classroom with a full complement of students in front of her when it was shown. Now, FCA did not meet in Freshwater’s room; it met either in the band room or a stage off the lunch room. The only FCA meetings in Freshwater’s room were ‘leadership’ meetings at which there were on the order of only half a dozen students, not a full complement of students. Further, Mahan testified that she had never attended a leadership meeting. Obvious conclusion: She saw the video in Freshwater’s science class.

Oh, sorry RBH. That was supposed to be humor. I imagine the distinction between Freshwater’s class and FCA meetings was almost nonexistent, so I was trying to riff on that (i.e. “He showed it in his class, so it couldn’t have been been an FCA meeting.” “Not necessarily…”)

I made you go back through all kinds of documents over a lame joke. Sorry again! :(

Flint said:

I interpreted Ryan Cunningham to be saying that, on this and perhaps other occasions, the science class WAS an FCA meeting. Clearly, it was not always a science class.

Whew. Glad someone got it. :P

Man, I totally missed that. I plead a medical problem for which I’m taking some real good drugs. I’m lucky to get literal meanings, say nothing of jokes.

I’m still hypnotized by “three stopwatches, a whistle, and $45 in cash”.

It could mean anything - a recipe for mischief in a Harry Potter novel, the title of the next album by Bob Dylan or a new short story by Stephen King, or what one needs to have in one’s pockets when the Rapture arrives.

stevaroni said:

Juicyheart said:

I can’t wait to read the Board’s reply to this document.

actually pretty close - it’s 58 pages - but concludes:

VII. CONCLUSION “A teacher affects eternity, he can never tell where his influence stops.” The Education of Henry Adams, Chapter XX, Henry Adams, 1905 (The Project Guttenberg, Jan. 2005). As our educators have a broad and enduring effect, it is imperative the rights of the students left in their charge are guarded with vigor and diligence. John Freshwater taught in Mount Vernon Middle School for twenty-one years. He accepted an enormous responsibility to educate, protect and guide thousands of students. Mr. Freshwater failed to live up to his responsibility: • Mr. Freshwater engaged in religious advocacy and promoted his Christian faith until he was removed from the classroom after the 2007-20008 school year; • Mr. Freshwater improperly used a Tesla Coil to burn 500-600 students and put them in harm’s way; • Mr. Freshwater exceeded his role as a monitor of the FCA by participating in its activities rather than serving as a non-participant; and • Mr. Freshwater intentionally and publicly refused to follow legitimate directives of his supervisors, engaging in gross insubordination. Each one of these actions constitutes good and just cause for the termination of Mr. Freshwater’s employment with the Mount Vernon City School District.

Hopefully, it’ll be one page of bullet points.

School Districts Summary Brief in the J Freshwater Discipline Case

* The idiot burned kids in the name of God. Then he did it again. And then some more.

* The idiot was evangelizing when he should have been teaching science class even after we told him not to and then he lied about it.

* The idiot got a year and a half of hearings, nobody can reasonably say he didn’t get his due process or chance to state his case.

* And yet a year and a half later he’s still playing martyr shoveling shit about the incident.

That’s it, your Honor.

The Adults rest.

Gingerbaker said:

  I’m still hypnotized by “three stopwatches, a whistle, and $45 in cash”.

It’s a DYI Rapture Ready Resource and Rememberance Kit. 

Three stopwatches to keep in mind the Trinity will stop time. 

One whistle to remember to listen for the horn of Gabriel. 

$45.00 to bribe St Peter, because you know heaven is based on the dollar, it has hIS name on it, and no plastic is accepted.  

Could it be that John Freshwater and Superintendent Short were pawns of a larger scheme for which they were simply game pieces to be moved around? (p. 38)

Clearly, God has chosen to torment John Freshwater (see the Book of Job).

I think the Catholic guy did it in the library with the rope.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on September 17, 2010 10:11 PM.

Freshwater: Hearing documents released was the previous entry in this blog.

Cytisus scoparius 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