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that represented 11 Dover parents who successfully sued the district to have the intelligent design policy rescinded.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.
[Wanting to actually follow the Constitution is not "morally relative." And you started this by threatening another poster.]
Are you talking about the new, living and evolving constitution of the American Communists and Liberal United,a.k.a. the ACLU and their communist friends in the group minomered the American's United for Seperation of Church and State.
There is no seperation of Church and state enumerated in the original constitution. It is a liberal new age and destructive activist created opinion of those who despise the freedoms given of God and granted by the Christian forefather's of America who knew that secular humanists and ungodly religionists would always attack the bible beliving Christians created in Christ Jesus.
You show me where there is a seperation of church and state demanded in the Constitution; if you find it, you're a liberal.
Silly boys.
You know it doesn't count as lying if they only lie to infidels....
Thank you for posting this. The lie your way into heaven gang seems to be out in force this afternoon!
My pleasure: facts triumph over bluster, bravado, and bullsh@t every time.
The thread has pretty much gone the way I predicted - (paraphrased) "the transfer of 1 million worth of taxpayer money to the ACLU is OK because Dover needs to be punished". (Although some are incredibly trying to throw "pro-bono" in there allong with the 1 million). These people also claim to be conservatives.
Yea, the judge who ruled was indeed an G.W. appointed republican who is a Lutheran.
But he is indeed an activist judge, one who changes the Constitution and the first ammendment. He was appointed by G.W., an unfortunate mistake in my mind. Lutheran's for the most part have abandoned the biblical doctrines of Christ and largely follow the world, as most ecumenical orders who were corrupted by Satan do. It is a sign of the latter days.
Believe it or not.
They knew what they were doing was wrong, or they wouldn't have perjured themselves to hide it.
Maybe -but who cares about his background or for that matter his supposed party affiliation -- The ruling IF it is lawful should stand or fall on its own merit regardless the additonal support you feel it needs...
spontaneously-deteriorating-thread PLACEMZRJWTGZZBT
Save a good seat for me too.
I read them sometimes in disgust; however, tend not to 'participate' that much as they seem to attract and provide a safe haven for extremists that would otherwise not be provided cover on FR -some do eventually get banned though when thier supposed scientific positions become objectively apparent...
Faith?
Are they going to Hell for that?
[What does the 1st law of thermodynamics basically state?]
Basically, that is all things were perfect, they would last forever. When God created Adam in Eden, there was no death and he would have lived forever and walked with God to the Glory of God our Father. However, he disobeyed God and seperated himself by this sin and all creation with him, and us as descendents of Adam.
The first law of thermodynamics was in effect before mankinds forefather Adam fell and we in him as children of his, the whole human race was infected with sin. Christ, who did no sin and rose the third day through the power of God ,defeated the devil, death, hell and the grave at his ressurection from the dead and was the first of the new creation of man, the Holy Bible states He is the 2nd Adam; the second is greater than the first. As in Adam, all die; so in Christ shall all rise; some to everlasting life, some for the lake of fire they would not endure if they would believe God's testimony of Christ Jesus.
Romans: 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yes. The First Amendment prohibits establishment of religion, and the 14th applies the First to the States. The judge had the mandate to overrule an unconstitutional action on the part of the school board. He could no more ignore that mandate than he could ignore any other part of the Constitution.
[No, the second law of thermodynamics states that the net entropy of a closed system will never decrease.]
Entropy is what it indeed is and the earth under heaven is a closed system wherein this entropy is not decreasing.
Ouch. That's gotta hurt.
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.