Re: DI's Law Student at It Again

"catshark" <catshark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ft2562l562lnksgik8hbl168qmqji3kiki@xxxxxxxxxx

Michael Francisco is at it again, trying to blame the $1 million that the
Dover School District has to pay in legal fees on the board that had been
elected just as the trial ended because they didn't recind the policy at
the time of the one meeting they held before the Judge handed down his
decision:

Did Dover Care About Taxpayer Money? A Response to Critics.

Seth Cooper and Joe Manzari's article, "ACLU Demands and Dover
Designs," raised fresh questions about the potential for a
dismissal of the Kitzmiller case based upon mootness, potentially
allowing the Dover Area School Board to avoid a large attorneys'
fees judgment against them by rescinding their intelligent design
(ID) policy before Judge Jones issued his decision.

Opponents of intelligent design responded harshly to the AEI
article (and my own reporting) by questioning the legal reasoning
about mootness. One critic stated that the AEI article, and my
commentary, "appear to be utterly ignorant of the voluntary
cessation doctrine" and "there was virtually no chance that the
case would be mooted." Yet several Supreme Court cases dealing
with mootness and a careful review of the law demonstrate that
there was strong case for dismissal if the anti-ID Board had
repealed the ID policy prior to the ruling. The argument is
hypothetical (one might even say, "moot"!) because the Board
ultimately rejected all arguments to repeal the policy, choosing
instead to pin its hopes that Judge Jones would rule in favor
of a policy they themselves rejected. But even if the odds were
small that Judge Jones would have dismissed the case, or that an
appellate court would have vacated the judgment on the ground of
mootness, the puzzle remains. If there was nothing to be lost by
rescinding the policy, would not even a slight chance of success
have led a prudent school board to take advantage of the opportunity?
Their choice resulted in an absolute guarantee that if the ID policy
were struck down, then the Dover Area School District would be
obliged to pay $1 million dollars in attorneys' fees.


<http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05/did_dover_care_about_taxpayer_1.html>

Besides the utter grasping at legal straws that it takes to think any
Judge
or any appellate court would render a case moot or deny legal fees after a
six week trial, it takes a special kind of chutzpah to try to blame the
outcome on the new board when you consider that the old board, back when
the case was first started and while the board's _own_ lawyer was
recommending that it not go through with the policy, rejected an offer by
the plaintiffs to drop the suit _without_ legal fees if the policy was
recinded.

Francisco and the rest of the DI really have no shame.

As I understand the time line, the old board remained in office until the
new board was certified as duly elected and a transition period passed.
This was during or when the trial was nearly over. So why doesn't Francisco
ask why the old board did not ask for the trial to be stopped and the issue
made moot?

The new board's first official meeting was in the first week in December.
By that time, the trial was over, and the detailed decision had been written
and was only a few days away from publication.

As has been pointed out by many people, including the school board's own
legal counsel, the issue could not be made moot because the trial had
already taken place, and it involved a wrong that had already been
committed, and expenses that had already been incurred by plaintiffs and
their counsel. So the question of payments could never itself be moot.
Besides, the plaintiffs wanted a ruling and were seeking financial damages
(token amounts).

If the neighbourhood bully keeps beating you up, and you get a restraining
order, the question does not become moot just because he then promises to
stop hitting you. If this was the case, he could always go back on the
promise at a later date unless there was a permanent legal restraint.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

.

Relevant Pages

  • DIs Law Student at It Again
    ... Dover School District has to pay in legal fees on the board that had been ... Did Dover Care About Taxpayer Money? ... policy before Judge Jones issued his decision. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DIs Law Student at It Again
    ... Dover School District has to pay in legal fees on the board that had been ... Did Dover Care About Taxpayer Money? ... policy before Judge Jones issued his decision. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
    ... Both groups used the calamitous situation in the Dover Area ... board's evolution policy unconstitutional, the new board could not be ... any chance of the ACLU or AUSCS's recovery of legal costs and fees from ... Area School Board, which campaigned on removing the ID policy ...
    (talk.origins)
  • ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
    ... Just ran across this article contending that the Dover School Board ... intelligent design in public schools and government, ... board's evolution policy unconstitutional, the new board could not be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
    ... Both groups used the calamitous situation in the Dover Area ... School District to launch a comprehensive attack against scientists, ... intelligent design in public schools and government, ... board's evolution policy unconstitutional, the new board could not be ...
    (talk.origins)