Freshwater: One federal suit dismissed

| 117 Comments

Looks like the subpoena carpet bombing may have had an effect. By agreement among all parties, Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education, et al. has been dismissed. The filing reads in its entirely

Now come all parties, by and through counsel, to stipulate that John and Nancy Freshwater dismiss all claims contained in the first Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

. I have no details yet.

Several commenters have noted this in the earlier thread; I was working Humane Society Bingo and couldn’t post until now.

117 Comments

I note that the AP report referenced in the comment linked above says that according to court documents, settlement talks had been taking place earlier. I’m not aware of any such settlement talks, and IIRC the documents correctly they don’t refer to any such talks, and this new development is not a “settlement,” it’s a withdrawal of the complaint on Freshwater’s part. I think the AP reporter conflated Doe v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al and Freshwater v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al.. Anyone else up for going through all the docs at NCSE’s site?

Well…it is a stipulated withdrawal, and it’s with predjudice so I rather suspect that the subpoenas either yielded, or Hamilton knew they would yield, something would completely blow Freshwater’s case apart.

I wonder if the Stickle brothers will let everyone know what it was…

At least now Hamilton can’t complain about too many things going on to delay action in other cases…

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

You gotta wonder how this will affect the (apparently stalled) settlement talks in Doe v. Mount Vernon, too. I’m not sure how much cross-talk there might be regarding the product of the subpoenas and depositions in Freshwater v. Mount Vernon BOE which apparently stimulated the dismissal of the latter.

Wild speculation:

(a) The Stickle brothers had ended up with Hamilton’s supposedly flood-destroyed laptop; or they had at least seen it or received something produced on it after it was allegedly inoperable.

(b) The Stickle brothers had something which identified the mystery phone number used in the curious incident of the black bag in the night-time.

(c) The Stickle brothers had some knowledge or copies of material from the weirdly dumped bag which the Freshwater side had wanted to keep secret.

Obviously we can only speculate, but in the light of the sudden acceptance of the motion to dismiss (not even settle) after years of dragging out every possible deferment, I think we can increase our confidence that the defence team did indeed know exactly what they were doing and that the “fishing expedition” was actually as broad as it was to prevent further weaselling by the plaintiffs. When the subpoena asked for everything, it meant there was no room to say “I didn’t think you meant that when you asked for everything.”

To put it another way: possibly the blanket subpoena was an antidote to future flat-tyre and flooded-computer strategies. And, you know, I think we were a little ungenerous to the defence team when we thought that they had weathered months of manipulation, deferral, dissembling, and publicly orchestrated campaigns against them while maintaining an exemplary professional demeanour only to become, suddenly and without precedent, amendment-baiting legal piranhas just as the case was coming to a close.

For those of you with legal background, asking for a little clarification for those of us without:

The first amended complaint was when they added Mrs. Freshwater and the loss of consortium complaint.

http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1107

When the complaint is amended, does it negate the original complaint - the one filed by John Freshwater? It might seem like splitting hairs, but as the blanket subpoena reflected - it’s all in the details.

@ Chris Lawson:

This wasn’t the close of the previous case. It was the abortive “start” of another of the 3(?) cases - viz the law-suit brought by Freshwater against the Board Of Education. Thus the defence team may also have been somewhat different in its lawyerly constituents (and hence behaviour), rather than being exactly the same bods who were on the attack team of the other case(s).

Chris Lawson said:

And, you know, I think we were a little ungenerous to the defence team when we thought that they had weathered months of manipulation, deferral, dissembling, and publicly orchestrated campaigns against them while maintaining an exemplary professional demeanour only to become, suddenly and without precedent, amendment-baiting legal piranhas just as the case was coming to a close.

Chris, I’ll pleade guilty to that. Lesson learned.Thanks.

So I just heard Freshwaters “press release” on the local radio. I think I will yak. He is the hero for dismissing the case. All they want is the truth and they feel the best way for this is to wait for the referee. He left a “large sum of money” on the table, that’s not what he wanted.

You know if this was the truth you would think they would have thought of this two years ago!

comeon said:

So I just heard Freshwaters “press release” on the local radio. I think I will yak. He is the hero for dismissing the case. All they want is the truth and they feel the best way for this is to wait for the referee. He left a “large sum of money” on the table, that’s not what he wanted.

Translation: “We got away with a lot of shenanigans in the administrative hearing that a federal judge wouldn’t have allowed.”

There were no sums of money on the table. What he asked for in the suit and what he might have received had he prevailed in court are two quite different things.

Chris Lawson said:

Obviously we can only speculate, but in the light of the sudden acceptance of the motion to dismiss (not even settle) after years of dragging out every possible deferment, I think we can increase our confidence that the defence team did indeed know exactly what they were doing and that the “fishing expedition” was actually as broad as it was to prevent further weaselling by the plaintiffs.

Yep, it looks that way. Looks like I was wrong. :)

comeone said: So I just heard Freshwaters “press release” on the local radio. I think I will yak. He is the hero for dismissing the case. All they want is the truth and they feel the best way for this is to wait for the referee.

Well, Cornelius Hunter just wrote a post on UD about how Kitzmiller was really a loss for us evilutionists, so I imagine Freshwater will be proclaiming his victory for years to come.

eric said: Yep, it looks that way. Looks like I was wrong. :)

And it was something nice to be wrong about, no? Always good to have doubts about your team playing fair put to rest.

I saw Freshwater selling apples out of his pickup Wednesday night. And he had a customer! It was the first time I ever say a customer at his apple “store”. Maybe he is doing so well with the apples that he doesn’t need the money from a lawsuit.

Hopefully the Dennis family will win big (or settle big) and demonstrate to the fundies what the truth really is.

I’m having trouble following Freshwater’s logic here. (Yes, I know I’m assuming that he’s acting rationally - I’m still on my first cup of coffee.)

According to the Mount Vernon News piece, Freshwater claims that accepting a settlement (which he claims was on the table) would have ended the state hearing before the referee had a chance to rule. But that doesn’t explain why he didn’t just wait it out - there was any hurry in his federal case.…

Am I missing something?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie[…]LATE=DEFAULT

err… should be “there *wasn’t* any hurry”

So, my question is: does he have something up his sleeve, or is this just a proactive martyr move?

burk said: So, my question is: does he have something up his sleeve, or is this just a proactive martyr move?

It seems likely to me that Hamilton and/or Freshwater panicked when they realized the subpoenas would uncover something they never wanted to see the light of day, and the “press release” is just to cover their retreat (think Palin’s resignation speech.)

Freshwater’s statement

Freshwater’s statement about the dismissal of the suit is now up on the MVNews site. It reads

“Nancy and I prayerfully considered the settlement terms and have decided to reject the terms presented. From the beginning, my wife and I have only sought the truth. Revelations in the last few days exposed to us the strategy of those who have harmed me, a strategy designed to obscure the truth rather than seek justice and reconciliation. It has become obvious this federal platform and process will never result in the truth coming forward. Truth is not to be compromised or negotiated or hidden behind money.

“We feel confident that the hearing completed in August 2010, after 38 days of testimony before Referee R. Lee Shepherd, is the best opportunity for revealing the truth we sought from the beginning. Therefore, we have decided to withdraw our federal lawsuit against all parties without any personal compensation or monetary gain as proposed, and we have instructed our attorney to file the proper paperwork. We seek no other option than to continue to patiently await the finding of Referee R. Lee Shepherd as he is the only person to hear all of the testimony and most importantly see all of the students from my 2007-08 class speak about the truth of what went on during my class.

“We have already spent our life savings and have pledged our farm to get to the truth. It is better to leave the money on the table than to take the Bible off of my desk.”

Freshwater has been interviewed by the local paper regarding dropping his lawsuit. Looks like he is going the martyr route and pinning his hopes on the referee in the termination hearing.

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/loca[…]ainst-school

Two clarifying comments on civil procedure issues:

(1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) is how a case gets taken off the docket after a fully executed settlement. That is, this is almost certainly related not to the recently issued subpoenas, but to that “motion to compel settlement.” Rule 41 is a procedural device only, and has no substantive meaning; without it, all settlements would be subject to approval by the judge as fair to all parties, and further could not include confidential clauses without a showing of good cause for the confidentiality and a separate motion to seal (I think that would be a good idea, but that’s not the law).

In short: Nothing to see here, netizens; back to your virtual lives.

(2) In federal practice (this is not true in every state’s state courts), an amended complaint, once accepted for filing — there is not an unlimited right to amend complaints, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 — substitutes for the preceding complaint for almost all purposes. The two purposes for which it does not act as a substitute, though, are precisely those that I infer are behind the subpoenas: Discovery misconduct (sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37) and certain kinds of frivolous-claim regulation (sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, not to mention the “inherent power” of the court).

The dismissal, however, cuts off all proceedings under Rule 37 and Rule 11, so perhaps there was a little nudge after all… but the dismissal has no effect on § 1927 and inherent-power sanctions; the settlement might, but we’ll never know, will we?

Thanks for that, Counselor Petit.

Oopsie. The foreshadowing of the motion to compel settlement was in Doe v. Mount Vernon Board of Education, et al., not in the suit that was dismissed, Freshwater v. Mount Vernon BOE, et al.. So I don’t understand the suggested relationship.

Wow. Thanks, C.E. Petit!

I suspect that the Accountability in the Media website will one day soon completely disappear from the face of the earth much like the website for the Council for Free Expression did.

Yes, Freshwater will now assume the role of martyr which makes me sick to my stomach but he has nothing else to do. It is likely the local radio station will broadcast his statement over the air waves “ad nauseam” as their Operations Manager has been a staunch supporter of Freshwater.

In all likelihood Mt. Vernon’s levy will fail and there will more things to think about. One of the local pastors finally wrote a good Letter to the Editor in our local newspaper which in my mind should have been done “ions” ago by the religious community.

Where this goes from here is anyone’s guess. I hope that Freshwater does not get a favorable judgment from Sheppard as it would allow this fiasco to continue and its well past it’s “day in court”. Hopefully, the town can begin to move on and leave this travesty behind.

The end of the Freshwater statement struck me, he still thinks it about the Bible on the desk.

To each his own - but you just lost your farm, your job and any future occupation is going to haunt you. People may forget but Google never does.

This is beyond unwavering faith - it’s insanity.

Board attorney comment

The MVNews has added a comment from Sarah Moore, lead attorney for the Board of Education:

“There was no settlement offer to accept or reject. There was no money on the table for [Freshwater] to leave there. We were baffled when we received the e-mail from him and we can’t even begin to speculate why he is saying what he is saying.”

I hope to have more later today.

One add’l thought re this statement made by Freshwater:

“most importantly see all of the students from my 2007-08 class speak about the truth of what went on during my class”.

This statement is just one more exaggeration as the entire class DID NOT receive a subpeona and every student from that class DID NOT testify before Sheppard.

Nancy and I prayerfully considered the settlement terms and have decided to reject the terms presented.

They didn’t reject the terms, they dropped the suit. Two very different things, yes?

This word “truth,” Mr. Freshwater, that you use seven times in your press release, does not mean what you think it does!

This is good Freshwater claims they were offered a settlement, but the defense counsel said:

“There was no settlement offer to accept or reject. There was no money on the table for [Freshwater] to leave there. We were baffled when we received the e-mail from him and we can’t even begin to speculate why he is saying what he is saying.”

Source: http://www.mountvernonnews.com/loca[…]ainst-school

Someone’s not telling the truth. My guess its Freshwater, the one who withdrew the suit.

I’m not sure who to credit with wording Freshwater’s statement. Him or his attorney. Maybe it is a blend. The truth just isn’t in this guy. Only a creationist would not see thru the lies in that statement. Or would never state there are lies.

Charley Horse said:

I’m not sure who to credit with wording Freshwater’s statement. Him or his attorney. Maybe it is a blend. The truth just isn’t in this guy. Only a creationist would not see thru the lies in that statement. Or would never state there are lies.

The writing style is Hamilton’s, in my perception.

wonderin said:

There IS a gag order on any discussions regarding settlement on this case:

filed 6/17/10 and aproved on 6/18/10 http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1379

“The parties are hereby ORDERED not to disclose or to permit others to disclose any of the confidential settlement negotiations that have been or will be exchanged by and between the parties involved in this action. The Court will not tolerate violations ofthis Gag Order. Any violation will meet serious consequences, including monetary sanctions and other sanctions up to and including the most severe this Court can impose. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

Shoot. I missed that. Thanks for the correction

Dave Daubenmire was on 88.9 WLRY this morning spouting his usual outrageous beliefs. He is now saying that JF did not burn a cross on the kid’s arm (I wonder if he needs to go back and watch his interview with Geraldo?), brought up the potential settlement amount supposedly discussed with Freshwater and talked about the lawyer’s asking about John and Nancy’s sex life.…okay, duh, you filed a complaint indicating loss of consortium. As my husband just jokingly said, I don’t think they’re going to be asking you about your shoe size!

I find it fascinating that Freshwater “supposedly” gives up a financial settlement for “the truth” but his buddies, Daubenmire and Matolyak, get on radio shows in the last two days, 88.9 WLRY Pass The Salt & 880 WRFD Bob Burney, respectively, and ask (beg) for money from listeners to deliver what they decide is “the truth”.

You know… When Freshwater talks about having “left money on the table” maybe he means that he wanted to offer the Board money to settle various claims in his favor…

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Even if you accept Freshwater’s claims as true, it doesn’t make sense on the face of it. So let me see if I understand what Freshwater is saying.

“From the beginning” Freshwater filed a lawsuit against the BOE in an effort only to (according to Freshwater) bring the “truth” forward. Freshwater saw an effort by the BOE “in the last few days” (ie subpoenas) which would have made more information a part of the public record as a “strategy designed to obscure the truth…” [WTF #1] The BOE (according the Freshwater) offered “terms” including “money”, presumably because the BOE wanted to prevent the suit from coming to trial, presumably to stop the “truth” from coming out. Freshwater (in his, his wife’s and God’s wisdom) decided to reject any monetary offer to stop the suit because, “Truth is not to be compromised or negotiated or hidden behind money.” So…, instead of accepting an offer of “personal compensation and monetary gain” to stop the suit and thereby hide the truth, Freshwater instead decided to voluntarily stop the suit thereby, um… uh… well… allowing the Referee (in another venue) as the only person to “speak about the truth”. [WTF #2]

Funny thing. In science (and law), the “truth” is everybody’s truth, just like the facts are everybody’s facts. But in the creationist mind, there are “truths” that belong only to them. Only some people have one set of truths (and facts), while others claim to have a different set of truths (and facts). Even be they diametrically opposed, both set of truths are “true”.

Remarkable. It’s the “crocodile god” versus all the other gods of the Nile all over again. And again… (google: crocodile Henty).

It took me a little while to find it:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/201[…]-day-13.html

If Steve Thompson approached the Dennis family to “open the line of negotiations”, who’s to say he didn’t do the same thing with Freshwater.

@ Scott F. Part of what freshwater is claiming is he was offered money to drop the appeal and move out of the district. If this were so there’s some merit to his statement for sticking up for the truth. Of course when faced with a situation where he has to back- up his assertions, he bails. For the good of his family.

Debbie Henthorn said:

It took me a little while to find it:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/201[…]-day-13.html

If Steve Thompson approached the Dennis family to “open the line of negotiations”, who’s to say he didn’t do the same thing with Freshwater.

Wouldn’t surprise me

Juicyheart said:

Debbie Henthorn said:

It took me a little while to find it:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/201[…]-day-13.html

If Steve Thompson approached the Dennis family to “open the line of negotiations”, who’s to say he didn’t do the same thing with Freshwater.

Wouldn’t surprise me

According to a radio interview with Freshwater’s pastor, Don Matolyak, (linked in a previous comment in this thread) the alleged settlement offer occurred at a recent meeting with attorneys for the defendants. So Thompson was almost certainly not involved.

Paul Burnett said:

Air said:

MaryM said:

“We’re dumbfounded,” said Cleveland attorney Sarah Moore. “We can’t even begin to speculate as to what he’s trying to do.”

Full story at http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/oct[…]d-ar-267827/

That article does not now appear to contain that quote - has it been removed?

The AP article is everywhere:

http://www.thestate.com/2010/10/22/[…]burning.html

http://newsystocks.com/news/3761945

http://www.journalgazette.net/artic[…]11/101029819

I see that, but the story on NBC from Central Ohio does not include the ‘dumbfounded’ quote - my interest is in whether it was there and has been subsequently removed. Air

About the various news versions of the press release. When a newspaper or other outlet gets a press release, that is the basis for a story, not the story. They often truncate, rearrange, or add to the information contained in it. So everyone gets the same press release and ends up with a different story.

Part of what freshwater is claiming is he was offered money to drop the appeal and move out of the district.

This lacks plausibility.

1. I can see the school district offering a settlement to a nuisance suit, especially if it is a nominal sum of money. Sometimes it is cheaper to settle than go to trial.

2. What is this about “leaving the district”? Why should the school board care? This would be way out of line. Freshwater is IMO, a deluded wild eyed religious fanatic who shouldn’t have contact with children. But after he is gone from the public schools, he is somebody else’s problem. I’m sure there are religious schools around where he would fit in much better.

Juicyheart said: @ Scott F. Part of what freshwater is claiming is he was offered money to drop the appeal and move out of the district. If this were so there’s some merit to his statement for sticking up for the truth.

Well, there might be merit to his statement for sticking up for the truth, if he didn’t then voluntarily abandon the suit anyhow.

Option A) Accept the money and abandon the search for truth. Option B) Don’t accept the money, but abandon the search for truth anyway. Option C) Don’t accept the money, but continue with the suit in an effort to seek the truth.

He chose option B), which seems to fly in the face of his claim to be seeking “the truth”. Even if you accept his statements of “facts” to be true, his subsequent actions make no sense based on those facts. He can’t both have filed suit in order to bring out the truth, and also abandon the suit in order to bring out the truth. He can’t both want “The Truth” to be revealed, yet abandon the pursuit of “The Truth” when the opposition wants to make more facts part of the official record. How is it possible (even in Freshwater-world) that more facts, more information, can be “designed to obscure the truth”, as he puts it?

As raven puts it, it lacks plausibility, even in Freshwater-world.

(And I see the part about moving out of the district as a non sequitur.)

Wild speculation (cont.):

(d) The Stickle brothers were part of a local religious group which had actually planned, discussed and prepared the religious material which went into Freshwater’s classroom for him to preach rather than teach (but they hadn’t been forewarned to destroy all their records).

(e) Ditto but this was material Freshwater was presenting at the student sports meetings - where he was also not supposed to be preaching.

(f) The Stickle brothers had copies of other depositions from students which supported the Dennis’ account and contradicted Freshwater’s versions of events; and hence these had not even been admitted by him and Hamilton as taking place at all.

(g) The Stickle brothers have documentary evidence of Freshwater et al’s active involvement in the hounding of the Dennis family (whether in planning or execution).

Wild speculation, indeed. I suspect you’re wandering way off into Neverland.

air said: I see that, but the story on NBC from Central Ohio does not include the ‘dumbfounded’ quote - my interest is in whether it was there and has been subsequently removed.

I think you are confused about the AP wire. So an Associated Press outlet reports on a story and that get sent to various outlets. Once it is on the AP wire the story is sometimes updated, sometimes not.

Pay careful attention to the publication times.

The quote from attorney Moore came from “Mount Vernon News” originally AFTER the AP story originally hit the wire.

Some later AP outlets added in the quote, which previously did not contain information about a claimed “settlement.”

Thus, there was no removal of anything, only the original reporting, which failed to add the quote from the attorney, which was given to the MV News.

__________________ Also I want to point out something: I think several months ago the BOE might have told Freshwater: “If you drop the suit and go away quietly, we’ll drop any further proceedings.” Just go away and stop wasting money. Obviously this was not to the satisfaction of Freshwater and would not have cleared his name, but shown he was guilty and the BOE was tired of dealing with this.

Not a settlement, but it would have saved the district a lot of money and ended the last several years fight.

That’s what *MIGHT* have happened, from a cost-saving issue. No way the BOE would offer him a penny. There is no reason to.

IANAL bit here is my 2cents: Federal courts mandate you have settlement discussions. This obviously happened or else they wouldn’t have asked for a gag order. During these discussions the insurance lawyer probably said something to the effect we will pay you a year or two salary if you just accept the termination. That is what an insurance lawyer is supposed to do. Get the case over with as cheaply as possible. Perhaps Freshwater thought those offers still stood even thought he didn’t agree to them at the time. Who knows? We probably will never know for sure!

You might, considering that there might be another hearing. Freshwater has pretty plainly violated the gag order, which includes forbidding talking about the negotiations.

SEF said:

Wild speculation (cont.):

(h) The Stickle brothers were in WTC 7 digging up Jimmie Hoffa with Elvis and JFK’s ghost when they uncovered the stage where the moon landing was hoaxed.

Ryan Cunningham said:

SEF said:

Wild speculation (cont.):

(h) The Stickle brothers were in WTC 7 digging up Jimmie Hoffa with Elvis and JFK’s ghost when they uncovered the stage where the moon landing was hoaxed.

No, can’t be right. There’s nothing about Hamilton’s laptop being abducted by aliens in UFOs and being implanted with a fake birth certificate and a copy of the original version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Kevin B said: No, can’t be right. There’s nothing about Hamilton’s laptop being abducted by aliens in UFOs and being implanted with a fake birth certificate and a copy of the original version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

That’s just what THEY want you to think. Trust no one.

Thinking about it, there are a couple of other potentially more realistic possibilities for what happened to set Freshwater off about a possible settlement and withdraw his suit. According to his pastor, Don Matolyak, in a radio interview linked about in this thread, Freshwater was upset about some sort of settlement references in a meeting involving him and his wife, Attorney Hamilton, and the defendants’ attorneys led by Sarah Moore a week or so before he withdrew the suit.

Sarah Moore, the Board’s insurance company lead attorney, has been emphatic in stating that no settlement offer was made and that “there was no money on the table.” Freshwater has been very vague about just who made the settlement suggestion–in fact, as far as I can tell, he never actually says it was the Board’s attorneys. He says “Money was offered to me several times” but never tells us who made the offer or when it was made or in what context it occurred.

So how about this possibility: Hamilton introduced the notion of a settlement at the recent meeting. Rather than the Board’s attorneys, Freshwater’s attorney suggested the possibility of a settlement, and Freshwater and/or his wife blew him off and withdrew the suit.

That seems more consistent with all (really, what little) we know and takes everyone’s statements about it at face value. Freshwater is telling the truth when he claims a settlement was suggested, and the Board’s attorneys are telling the truth when they say that they made no settlement offer. The last man standing is Hamilton. Hamilton has been complaining that the case has cost him significant income because of refusing other clients, so he has a motive to settle the Freshwater mess and get on with his life. And as far as I can tell, Hamilton hasn’t let out a peep about the withdrawal of the suit or about Freshwater’s claims about settlement. He’s been utterly silent. Matolyak is doing all the talking in public while Hamilton has a law license to protect.

Of course, that would mean that Freshwater and Matolyak would be deceiving by omission in not mentioning that it was Hamilton who made the suggestion rather than the Board’s attorneys, but then that’s not a big deal, right?

Another possibility: It wouldn’t amaze me if a settlement offer was made way back in 2008 prior to the administrative hearing to avoid the pain and expense of the hearing. Freshwater said in his written statement about withdrawing the suit that “If I took the money and left … the eleven students from my 2007-2008 class would not have been able to testify …”. That means the offer referred to was made prior to their testimony in late April 2010.

Perhaps Hamilton revived talk of it recently in light of the information that was being sought by the subpoenas recently issued by Moore (which I now believe was not a mere fishing expedition), setting Freshwater and/or his wife off on the line of thinking that led to withdrawing the suit.

Does anyone know how far into the deposition process this most recent federal suit progressed before Freshwater pulled the plug? Perhaps the school district’s “fishing expedition” and discovery were more productive than anyone imagined they would be. Would love to read those depositions, if they were conducted before the suit was dropped.

wonderin too said:

Does anyone know how far into the deposition process this most recent federal suit progressed before Freshwater pulled the plug? Perhaps the school district’s “fishing expedition” and discovery were more productive than anyone imagined they would be. Would love to read those depositions, if they were conducted before the suit was dropped.

I don’t know how far it had proceeded, but I do know that at least some depositions had been taken prior to the recent subpoenas being issued. It would not (now) amaze me to learn that the subpoenas were in part the result of information coming out of the depositions. Recall that there are still questions about Hamilton’s billing records for late May 2008 when the 15 affidavits comprising Freshwater’s “comprehensive response” were supposedly prepared by Hamilton and Freshwater, and there is still some mystery surrounding the loss of Hamilton’s computer in Da Flood and whether the metadata in documents (requested in the subpoenas) showed that they were from that purportedly destroyed computer. I was struck by that when I first read the subpoenas–that they demanded not only the documents but also demanded the metadata associated with them. Reading that I immediately thought of the questions surrounding the purported destruction of Hamilton’s laptop.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t two lawyers for the insurance company drop out. Long before these things came to light?

David said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t two lawyers for the insurance company drop out. Long before these things came to light?

IIRC the lawyers you are referring to represented FRESHWATER’s insurance company! (not the school board’s)

An amended complaint replaces the original complaint and is typically used to add or delete claims and/or parties as in this case.

Debbie Henthorn said:

For those of you with legal background, asking for a little clarification for those of us without:

The first amended complaint was when they added Mrs. Freshwater and the loss of consortium complaint.

http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1107

When the complaint is amended, does it negate the original complaint - the one filed by John Freshwater? It might seem like splitting hairs, but as the blanket subpoena reflected - it’s all in the details.

jasonmitchell said:

David said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t two lawyers for the insurance company drop out. Long before these things came to light?

IIRC the lawyers you are referring to represented FRESHWATER’s insurance company! (not the school board’s)

Both, actually. The insurance company (and it’s lawyers) are representing both the Board and Freshwater in the suit the Dennis’ filed against the Board and Freshwater. The Board settled and got dropped from the case. There is supposedly a settlement with Freshwater, but that’s where the motion to compel him to sign off on it comes in.

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

I have no idea what that comment was about, but it tells me this thread is dead. I’m closing comments on it.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on October 21, 2010 10:00 PM.

Dembski Coming Clean - He’s a Creationist YEC was the previous entry in this blog.

Sciurus sp. 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