Discovery Institute authors cleared of charge of "plagiarizing" their own book

In an attempt to deflect attention from charges that the ID-as-science section in Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was too one-sided and was excessively copied from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief, the Darwinists charged that Discovery Institute authors tried to hide the fact that an article that they submitted for publication in a law review journal was mostly copied from one of their own books. A post on Ed Brayton's blog has cleared the DI authors of that charge. Ed's post ends by saying,

Update: Mr. Browder wrote back and informs me that Prof. DeWolf did not sign the agreement verifying originality until after the article had been rewritten. I'd say that pretty much resolves everyone of any unethical conduct in this situation and brings this little tempest in a teapot to an anti-climactic conclusion.

Here is a list of this blog's articles concerning Judge Jones' "plagiarism":

More thoughts about Judge Jones' "plagiarism"

The real reason why Judge Jones ignored defense arguments

Important conclusions of law in the Dover opinion were ghostwritten by ACLU

The Living End: Judge Jones' infamous statement about the Founders' "true religion" is a plagiarism

Ninety percent plagiarism figure suggests that Dover ID-as-science opinion is one-sided

Is "plagiarism" by judges a standard practice?

Plagiarism charge hits general media

Articles on "plagiarism" charge against Judge Jones

Brayton's answer to "plagiarism" charge against Judge Jones

Behe says Judge Jones plagiarized Dover plaintiffs' briefs

Here again are my two limericks about Judge Jones:

There once was a jurist named Jones,
who had a head just full of bones.
The opinions he wrote
did nothing but quote,
and therefore were just full of clones.

There once was a jurist named Jones,
who was known as a real lazybones.
He could not disguise
that he did plagiarize,
and his statements were just full of clones.