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that represented 11 Dover parents who successfully sued the district to have the intelligent design policy rescinded.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.
Not appealing the decision of the judge in this case would make it virtually impossible to recover any fees from any party. If the school board tried to recover legal fees from the former board members or the Thmas More organization, they would have standing to appeal the decision. An appeal in this case would not be all that expensive to conduct and the ACLU and new xchool board would likely not want to go that route. They would be risking the reversal of a very dubious trial court decision.
It might not even matter at that since a trial court would likely dismiss any case against the former school board on a motion for summary judgment for failure to state a claim.
"P.S. since you saw fit to post your junk to me I will comment that your anti-Christian crusade cloaked in science grows tiring and as always is transparently obvious."
How is someone anti-Christian by pointing out that your heros lied in the name of Christianity?
If anything, it's the guy referenced in Post #31 who you should be offended by!
BTW, are you offended that he perjured himself in the defense of ID?
Furthermore, the entire pro-ID case was based on the argument that it's NOT a religious teaching. How could you both support them and claim that anyone attacking ID is "anti-Christian?"
LOL -your statemnt alone is evidence of what I post -YOU too huh?
The same request is extended -do not addreess you anti-Christian 'messages' to me...
WoW -three in a row -birds of a feather flock together...
Considering I have not posted my position on the legalities and issues surrounding the case nor my feelings about those that supported the Dover school board IT would be hard to comment upon my position. Maybe it is easier to post a general broad brushed bigoted statement that identifies exactly how YOU feel rather than respond to reality and deal with individual opinions?
I only posted on this thread in regards to a troll and the flies that seem to swarm any time immorality is even perceived victorious...
You'r new to the crevo threads, I see.
Wrong.
If the school board tried to recover legal fees from the former board members or the Thmas More organization, they would have standing to appeal the decision.
Wrong. They could, however, appeal the fee award.
An appeal in this case would not be all that expensive to conduct ...
Wrong.
... and the ACLU and new xchool board would likely not want to go that route.
True, but not for the reasons you suggest.
They would be risking the reversal of a very dubious trial court decision.
Wrong.
" LOL -your statemnt alone is evidence of what I post -YOU too huh?"
"The same request is extended -do not addreess you anti-Christian 'messages' to me..."
First, please paste a quote of my alleged "anti-Christian message" and explain why it's "anti-Christian?
Second, could you please answer my questions from the previous post?
1. Are you offended that he perjured himself in the defense of ID?
The entire pro-ID case was based on the argument that it's NOT a religious teaching. How could you both support them and claim that anyone attacking ID is "anti-Christian?"
Next, look at post #31. Never mind, I cut and pasted the important points below as 1, 2.
Bill Buckingham - HE is the Anti-Christian! He perjured himself in an imagined defense of Christianity.
1. Former Dover Area School Board member Bill Buckingham stated under oath during the trial that said he never read about his activities on the school board in the newspapers and never talked to anyone about them. He also said he never mentioned creationism at school board meetings or in the press or anywhere.
The plaintiffs then played a Fox 43 TV interview from June 2004 in which Buckingham said, "My opinion, it's OK to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism."
2. Buckingham also said that he didn't know where the 60 copies of the "ID" book, "Of Pandas and People" had come from. That's pretty funny, since Buckingham himself had asked for donations at his church for the book, raised $850 for the purpose, then wrote a check dated Oct. 4, 2004, to Donald Bonsell, the father of board member Alan Bonsell, for that amount with a note saying the money was for "Pandas" books.
I already quoted you -if you were blind to it and still are blind to it then then what else can I do? Maybe you should disengage and reflect some?
dude - you claimed that my asking you
"How is someone anti-Christian by pointing out that your heros lied in the name of Christianity"
is anti-Christian?
Can you explain how?
"Heaven for climate. Hell for society." - Mark Twain
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points. p105Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere. p132
Good quote in the latest Science News, vol. 168 (Nos 26 & 27), p. 414:
What is intelligent design?It's the missing link between creationism and religious instruction masquerading as biology.
Bruce Bower
The ACLU and Anti-American activist-leftist Federal Judges 1
Americans and Freedom 0
But then who is keeping score?
Since lying under oath can't be Christian behavior, your posting a report of it is obviously anti-Christian.
That would make so much more sense if the lyrics we set to a popular bag-pipe tune...
1. You claim they are my heros.
2. You claim they lied in the name of Christianity.
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...
[...it's not "lefties, commies, and God haters" who incurred all of this useless expense. It's the former school board that rightfully got turned out of office, and LOST their dictatorship.]
No, Linda, it is indeed leftist communists and Christian haters and other fools who disregard all the science that kicks evolution freaks to the curb, including the ignorant activist judge. The dictatorship is indeed of the leftist libs who could not educate any child in truth, justice, and equality.
How about all the science that supports evolution? Here is a good place to start: PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.
Enjoy.
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.