Posted on 01/06/2006 8:07:53 AM PST by MRMEAN
The Dover Area School District might learn as early as next week how much it owes in legal fees for its losing court battle over intelligent design.
Those fees will exceed $1 million, said Witold Walczak, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that represented 11 Dover parents who successfully sued the district to have the intelligent design policy rescinded.
Walczak and another lawyer involved in the case said they were uncertain whether the fees would approach $2 million. He said the total could be known as early as next week or by the end of the month.
A federal judge last month ruled that Dover's policy on intelligent design was religiously motivated and in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which bars government from forming or endorsing a religion. In his ruling, U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III held the district liable for legal fees.
The Dover policy required that ninth-grade students be told that evolution is "not a fact" and that intelligent design is an alternative explanation to the origin of life. Proponents of intelligent design say that some aspects of the universe and life are so complex that they might be the work of an unspecified intelligent designer.
In related news, the district formally discharged the law firm that represented it in the intelligent design trial and will refer all legal issues on the matter to its solicitor -- who warned the school board more than a year ago against adopting the intelligent design policy.
The solicitor, Stephen Russell, said in an interview that he will recommend that the school board not try to seek reimbursement of legal fees from former board members who advocated adoption of the intelligent design policy.
"I have a problem with board members being sued for taking actions that are later found to be wrong," Russell said. "Nobody would run for office."
Nor should the district try to recover legal fees from the Thomas More Law Center, the Christian law firm that represented the district in the case, Russell said.
The district's insurance carrier probably won't pay anything toward legal fees, in part because the school board last year rebuffed the insurer's offer to provide lawyers to represent the district in the intelligent design case, Russell said. The district instead retained the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the district at no charge.
"I'd be surprised if the insurance company would help the district," Russell said.
The insurer also might be dissuaded from making a payout based on the written warning Russell gave to district Superintendent Richard Nilsen on the subject of intelligent design on Aug. 27, 2004, two months before the school board adopted the policy.
In the e-mail to Nilsen, unveiled during the trial in Harrisburg, Russell said, "It may be very difficult to win the case" because it would be perceived that the intelligent design policy "was initiated for religious reasons."
Russell said yesterday he was pleased that Jones agreed with him but not surprised. He said several school board members "were hell-bent on getting what they wanted."
Russell informed the Thomas More Law Center on Wednesday that its services were no longer needed by the board, which on Tuesday voted to rescind the intelligent design policy and not appeal Jones' ruling.
"We're officially done," said Richard Thompson, president of the law center. "This case cried out for an appeal, and it was developed for an appeal. But basically, there are no options at this point."
Seven school board candidates opposed to the intelligent design policy were swept into office by Dover voters in November, four days after the six-week trial ended. An eighth candidate, also opposed to the policy, was elected this week in a re-election held in one precinct because of an apparent voting-machine malfunction.
After the lawyers who represented parents opposed to the Dover policy tabulate their legal fees, they will present them to Russell. If the two sides can negotiate an agreement, the case will end.
Parents in the district were represented by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Pepper Hamilton law firm in Philadelphia. As many as six Pepper Hamilton lawyers -- including one whose hourly rate is $400 -- were in the courtroom during parts of the trial.
If the two sides can't agree on legal fees, the district could take the issue to court, before Jones. If he were to rule against the district, it would be responsible for paying any additional fees incurred by the plaintiffs to address the fee issue in court.
"This is not about skewering the school district," Walczak said. "This is about recovering our fees."
At the ACLU, "We don't charge our clients," Walczak added. "Very few people can afford to fight in court on matters of principle. The fact we are willing to do cases at no cost to our clients is an important guarantee of constitutional rights."
In December 2004, Pepper Hamilton, the ACLU and Americans United offered not to seek legal fees if the district dropped its intelligent design policy. The district refused.
Russell said a budget surplus and shifting of spending priorities could help defray some of the legal fees. He said some people have inquired about making donations to help cover the costs.
BILL SULON: 255-8144 or bsulon@patriot-news.com.
Shift the blame for what? LOL I did not assume you were dumb just becuase you equate the school board with sinless martyrs in an attempt to ridicule Christianity -I just stated you were objectively anti-Christian. Feel free to blame me specifically for my statement...
Lying for Jesus placemark
WoW -another one...
Happy happy joy joy -NOT
Wanting to actually follow the Constitution is not "morally relative." And you started this by threatening another poster.
Still, if you prefer, I'll not post to you again.
I agree, but I also see the TMLC as big villains in this case. They shopped around the country (I remember reading about West Va. and (?) Minnesota) promising to defend school boards that adopted ID-ism.
It's about accountability. If you promote an agenda that's so flagrantly un-Constitutional that you have to hide it, and lie about it on the stand, then you don't deserve to be shielded from the consequences.
Amen
[What "science" would that be?]
There are many who would deny the existence of God using the opposition of science, falsely so called. Evolution is simply the interpretation of materialistic athiests who deny the witness of the Holy Spirit and all science that supports creationalism. The 2nd law of thermodynamics basically states that as all matter ages, it becomes chaotic,corrupt,unstable and eventually deteriates. That includes rocks,trees, people, animals, etc. This is supported by every one who thinks and discerns in their lifetime. Evolution states quite the opposite, that is , that all things are mutating into higher life forms and this has never happened in all history nor is it now. Things get old and die or just deteriate. There are no new life forms and mutations, though many believe that the adaption of life forms is mistakingly called life forms. Those scientists who study genes have stated that the genes of all living creatures are deteriating each generation and many species disappear from the earth regularly through time.
Evolution is the fable of the left blinding them to the death of all species. We as Christians know that only God can change us back to what we were created to be, His children. Jesus the Christ was the first of mankind who lives forever with God the Father and so will we because of His work at the cross. Those who don't belive, however, will not.
And so it is.
Not if they are collecting legal fees.
Isn't that the 11th commandment?
" They are not my heros and perjury (if that is what happened) is not Christian SO why would [they] be my heros? You were disparaging me and Christianity WHEN at best you could simply point out that [they] were perjurers..."
You were defending the ex-school board members. Maybe calling them your heros is overboard, but then again they are the only people to have defended ID, which you support, in the courts. Maybe I was wrong in thinking that you admired them?
Is this your disavowal of the school board members and their case?
You could have included an example or two, assuming they exist.
|
|
|
So, we see that Judge Jones served on Tom Ridge's transition team, so we know he's a Republican. Furthermore, we can see that he was appointed to the federal bench on August 2, 2002, which means he was appointed by President George W. Bush. Those in doubt about his political affiliations will want to read what they say about him over at wikipedia:
In 1994, Jones unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. House of Representatives for the Sixth Congressional District seat and then was co-chair of the transition team for Governor-elect Tom Ridge. So, once again we see Jones was a Republican, appointed by a Republican Governor to the Pennsylvania Liquor Commission, where he pursued a conservative agenda of trying to privatize the state liquor stores. What more is there to say about Conservative Republican Judge Jones? Oh, yes, for those who care about such things, he's a Lutheran. |
What does the 1st law of thermodynamics basically state?
"Shift the blame for what? LOL I did not assume you were dumb just becuase you equate the school board with sinless martyrs in an attempt to ridicule Christianity -I just stated you were objectively anti-Christian. Feel free to blame me specifically for my statement..."
If anyone is holding Christianity up to ridicule, it is you and your inane statements on this thread.
lol real hard!!!
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.