Posted by J Simes on April 5, 2006 07:02 AM (e)
The new school board should have avoided any appearance of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffsâ€˜ legal representatives, and the new school board did not do that. For that, the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.</quote>
No, they couldn't. Because wing-nut echo chamber would drag them, regardless. <b>Just like it did!</b>
<quote>(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs. Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good, these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money. They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were lucky to get the chance. Question â€” what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?</quote>
We have a funny little thing here in America. It's called "the law." The law said that the Board had to make a motion and wait 30-days for the public to comment and have proper notice.
<b>And, regardless, the Board couldn't moot the case because that's the way the law works.</b> If you don't like the way the law works, I suggest you deal with it or move somewhere else where law-breakers can just say "oops, I'm reformed" to sabotage any case you bring. Only to, once the case is dismissed, start their illegal actions all over again.
<quote>(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( â€” from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ). The new boardâ€˜s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jonesâ€˜ decision to ignore the effect of the election . I think I smell a conspiracy here.</quote>
Ah, a conspiracy nut. Figures. The truth is, once the case went to court and had been heard, there wasn't any point because the case couldn't be mooted (that's what Judge Jones was talking about). Further, there was no reason to think (like happened in Kansas) the follow-up board wouldn't do the same #### thing.
Nope. What was needed was a full-on judgment preventing this garbage from happening again as <b>the cretionist board refused to enter into a consent decree settlement binding the school district forever.</b>
<quote>(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffsâ€™ attorneys, 9-10, which drove up the attorney fee award. At least five plaintiffsâ€˜ attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (â€” from http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm ). Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.</quote>
Whaaa, whaa, whaa... You know nothing of these types of Federal cases. This wasn't an excessive number of attorneys or an excessive bill. I've seen cases run into the $5 million, or more, legal fees. And we're not talking "contingency" fees. We're talking billable hours.
<quote>(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( â€”from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ). This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal, something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.</quote>
The TMLC could have won the case (if they had one). The Board (due to being unable to moot the case) couldn't change the policy to avoid fees. The board, due to the law, couldn't change the policy until January 5th at the earliest. The board wasn't the ****ing plaintiff!!!
<quote>(5) After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement, the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton, which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs, â€œI think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.â€œ â€” from http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_â€¦ Of course, since the settlement had already been approved, there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffsâ€˜ legal representatives, who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.</quote>
They were gracious. They could have billed DOUBLE, and collected, for what was settled. <b>No point in acting like an ASS and doubling your costs, now is there?</b> Or do things like actual manners and common sense get suspended by the wing-nuts?
<quote>(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement, but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.</quote>
Once again, this little thing called "the law" prevents your proposed actions. They propose a change. It must be open for 30-days for public comment. Then they must HEAR the public comment and vote.
No matter what YOU say from YOUR ignorance.
<quote>The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU â€” at the expense of Dover taxpayers.</quote>
The original board, perhaps. Your lack of knowledge otherwise doesn't make your flimsy accusation correct.
<quote>The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffsâ€˜ attorneys.</quote>
You can't prove that you're not a child molester or serial rapist. However, if I were to make those charges, <b>the burden of proof</b> (you know, taught to you 6th grade and 12th grade) <b>would be on me,</b> the accuser. And, if I made those charges, and they were completely bogus, you could sue me for libel and/or slander.