Posted on 07/20/2005 11:48:17 AM PDT by 11th_VA
WINDER - A Ten Commandments display in the Barrow County Courthouse, which was the subject of a nearly two-year legal battle, has been quietly removed, in compliance with a federal court order.
And Barrow County residents likely will be left with a $150,000 legal bill, the price it cost after one anonymous resident sued his government over the Judeo-Christian icon hanging in the breezeway of the county courthouse in downtown Winder.
U.S. District Court Judge William O'Kelley entered an order Tuesday ordering that the Ten Commandments display be removed, according to court records. As a part of that order, Barrow County will also pay the plaintiff, "John Doe," $1 in damages and will pay the $150,000 in legal fees the American Civil Liberties Union spent on the lawsuit.
"It's disappointing, but that's a part of the agreement," Barrow County Commission Chairman Doug Garrison said of the display's removal. "It has to happen."
Adding to the mask of anonymity that has shrouded the case from the start, county officials are keeping quiet about who took down the display. The person who removed the Ten Commandments wants to remain - like the person who sued over the display - anonymous.
"I do know they're down, and I do know who did (take the display down), but I can't say (who took it down)," Garrison said Tuesday morning.
Commissioner Bill Brown, who hung the Ten Commandments in the courthouse in 2002, declined to say whether he removed the display from the breezeway, but did not deny he was the one. He likewise declined to comment on the judge's order.
The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against Barrow County in September 2003 on behalf of "John Doe," an anonymous resident who wanted the Ten Commandments display removed. ACLU attorneys touted the case's conclusion as a "win for religious liberty," according to a news release the organization sent out Tuesday.
"We're pleased that the matter has been resolved," ACLU staff attorney Maggie Garrett said Tuesday afternoon. "What it means is that all citizens of Barrow County, no matter what their religious beliefs, can now feel welcome in their own courthouse."
Using private donations and money raised by Ten Commandments-Georgia Inc., Barrow County has recouped all but $51,311.40 of its legal fees - but that does not include the $150,000 in legal fees dictated by the proposed order. With the $150,000, the Ten Commandments legal battle cost roughly $415,000.
County officials say they don't know who will pay all the legal expenses, but the founder of Ten Commandments-Georgia said his group won't pay the $150,000 required by the order.
"Our commitment was to (cover) the legal expenses for the battle," said the Rev. Jody Hice, the organizer of Ten Commandments-Georgia, adding that the group plans to reimburse the county the outstanding $51,311.40 bill for the legal fees spent to keep the display hanging in the courthouse.
On Tuesday morning, Garrison would not rule out whether public money might repay the legal fees, though he hoped private donations could be raised to cover the cost.
"I'm sure it has to be (an option)," Garrison said of public money. "The county is the one that's been sued. So, the county is the one that's liable in the case."
If the county is stuck with the $150,000 tab, it would take a year's worth of property taxes from 255 families to cover the cost, according to calculations based on the county's 2004 millage rate and a house valued at $100,000.
Commissioners have not voted on the settlement, but the order is signed by the judge and a done deal. Garrison declined to comment on discussions commissioners had with Virginia-based attorney Herb Titus, who represented the county in the lawsuit that led to the settlement.
Titus did not return telephone calls Monday or Tuesday.
In March, O'Kelley granted the county's request to put the lawsuit on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month on a pair of cases - one from Kentucky and a second from Texas - over the legality of Ten Commandments displays on public property.
Barrow County officials began to weaken their position after the high court ruled displays in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion. At a pre-trial hearing July 7, Barrow County attorneys hinted they would be willing to settle the case rather than take it to trial.
At that hearing, O'Kelley also hinted he wanted to resolve the case.
"I knew the end would come, but I didn't know when or how," Garrison said of the case. "Judge O'Kelley made it pretty clear he wanted to end this thing one way or the other soon. So, I knew something was going to happen - and quickly. ... It was apparent from Judge O'Kelley where he was going."
Under the settlement, any Barrow County employee or official is allowed to display the Ten Commandments "in any form or any place on his or her person or in his or her personal office so long as such display is not in any public area of any building or property under the authority of the Barrow County Board of Commissioners."
Garrison, however, does not view the outcome of the case as a total loss.
"We may have lost the battle, but not the war," Garrison said. "I still believe that a lot of good has come out of this, that a lot of people have more of an awareness of what the Ten Commandments is, what it says.
"No one has come to me and said they disagree with the morals or with the way to live as not being a good thing," he added. "I would hope that the John Doe would even agree with that portion of the Ten Commandments."
O'Kelley's order does not require the court to release John Doe's identity, and ACLU attorneys have twice declined Athens Banner-Herald requests to interview John Doe.
"The fact that our plaintiff does not want to be identified for fear of reprisals demonstrates the divisions created in the community when the government takes sides on religious issues," Frank Derrickson, an ACLU cooperating attorney, said in a news release.
A trial set for Thursday has been canceled because of the settlement, attorneys said.
The ought to freeze teacher salaries and cut all social services to pay the fees ...
Pay the Aclu in shi'ite..
More of the slide into godlessness and the collapse of America.
I think I will start using the keyword "Slide" for all future articles of the slide I come across.
It's funny how they always cut kids sports programs or fire & police services before they cut free cable tv/free bikes/free housing/free groceries for the poor. OK, it's not funny, it's sick.
I HATE all those associated with the communist, pagan, jack-booted ACLU. Maybe someday people will get fed up enough with them to do something.
So is Sandra Day O'connor still 'Mainstream'? After all she voted to have Ten Commandments removed. Nice legacy, ay? Good riddance to her. Lets say a prayer...
Dear Lord God..we ask that Your Word be displayed freely everywhere in this USA. Those judges or govt. officials who would remove Your Words Oh God, we ask that you remove their words. Those who dishonor you God, we ask that You dishonor them. We implore you God to resist those who would resist you and remove them from influence. Do this on a grand scale O God. Honor your believers in the USA who would honor You. God save the Court(s) and this country. Blessed be your Holy Name!
What a coward "anonymous resident". It's amazing what the ACLU and 1 coward can do. We had one sue a local junior high school who was offered a community church stadium (free of charge) to hold 1500 graduating 8th graders. School had to end up renting a large stadium out of the area just because one coward (again refused to identify) themselves and called the American Communist Legal Union
I sure hope so. How about the $1 award to the plaintiff and the $150,000 to the lawyers. Just goes to show that lawsuits are only about providing income for lawyers, and judges like this are willing accomplices.
Close the local libraries to recoup all of the money and post the name of the resident who sued as part of the explanation posted on the library door.
People shouldn't be afraid to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
This is a crime.
-Eric
Amen.
Congress is what allows the ACLU to collect legal fees. If Congress would repeal or amend the law, many of these lawsuits would stop. It is just a big subsidy to keep these types of lawsuits coming.
This declaration by the Supreme Court was the first time it informed everyone that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was applicable to the states. Before that time, state-religion issues were not the province of the US Constitution or the federal courts. But was the Supreme Court right? Did the 14th Amendment make the Establishment Clause applicable to the states?
Go back to 1875 (7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified)...President Grant asks Congressman James Blaine to introduce a proposed amendment that will provide in part:
No state shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The Blaine Amendment (which would have been the 16th Amendment to the US Constution passes the House but fails in the Senate. Senator Frelinghuysen of NJ, in introducing the amendment in the Senate states:
The [Blaine Amendment] very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. Thus the [Blaine Amendment] prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office.
Senator Eaton of Connecticut, in objecting to the Blaine Amendment states, on the Senate floor:
I am opposed to any State prohibiting the free exercise of any religion; and I do not require the Senate or the Congress of the United States to assist me in taking care of the State of Connecticut in that regard.
Senator Whyte agreed:
The first amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion by congressional enactment; it prohibits the interference of Congress with the free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole power for the propagation of it with the States exclusively; and so far as I am concerned I propose to leave it there also.
One, if they cared to, could go back and review the Congressional record during the debates over the Blaine Amendment...it seems that none of the Congressmen who ratified the 14th Amendment knew that they thereby incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states...the Everson case must be another fine example of Constitutional fiction...I mean..."interpretation"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.