I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Anti-ID candidate outvoted by pro-ID candidate in Dover school board race!

Dover Area School Board incumbent Heather Geesey voted in favor of the ID policy that eventually cost the school district $1 million in an attorney fee award to the Kitzmiller v. Dover plaintiffs, and she was also the only member of the current board who voted in favor of appealing the decision. In contrast, Carol "Casey" Brown served more than 10 years on the board before resigning in protest in 2004 over the board's enactment of the ID policy. If the Kitzmiller case's cost to the school district were still an issue, it seems that Dover Area school district taxpayers would regard Brown as a hero and Geesey as a villain, but in a recent school board election, the votes were as follows:

Geesey -- 1162

Brown -- 934
.
However, neither candidate got enough votes to qualify for the fall ballot.

Anyway, contrary to what Fatheaded Ed Brayton seems to believe, the election was apparently not a referendum on the ID policy. Otherwise, how does he explain why Geesey got more votes than Brown? Also, the board incumbents who lost the fall 2005 elections all lost by comparatively small margins.

Heather Geesey is the only member of the current board who was consistent from beginning to end -- she voted for the ID policy and she voted to appeal the Kitzmiller decision. On the other hand, the two-timing other current members of the board campaigned against the ID policy but refused to repeal it in early December when a repeal might have saved the school district a lot of money in attorney fees.

.

Labels:

27 Comments:

Anonymous Spokes-Ant said...

Finally!

Thank you for acknowledging one of us as the "Intelligent Designer".

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Phineas Taylor Barnam said...

No one has ever gone broke by underestimating the intelligence or taste of the American Public.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:59:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

According to Larry, promising before the elections to allow the judge to reach a decision and then after the elections following through on that promise is being inconsistent. At least now we know why he can't get laid - he probably thinks girls have penises.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:22:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>>>> According to Larry, promising before the elections to allow the judge to reach a decision and then after the elections following through on that promise is being inconsistent. <<<<<<

The challengers made no such promise before the elections. A major factor in the defeat of the incumbents was taxpayer fear of running up a big bill for the lawsuit, and the taxpayers would not have been in favor of allowing the judge to reach a decision if that meant the likelihood of costing more tax money.

>>>>> At least now we know why he can't get laid - he probably thinks girls have penises. <<<<<

You have to be very desperate to say something like that -- and you have been losing so many arguments here that you are that desperate.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:39:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

And of course, repealing the policy could not have reduced the costs because cases with damages can't be dismissed for mootness and the only way to force a settlement without plaintiff's agreement is to make a Rule 68 Offer of Judgement that includes all costs (which in this case includes attorney fees) - and it was too late to make a Rule 68 offer.

And no, Larry, a judge can't dismiss a case because a plaintiff refuses a settlement offer for less than the total relief he could be granted by the court.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:47:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

As I've told you several times before, in a public meeting one week before the elections, the Dover CARES candidates announced their desire to let the judge make his decision. They consistently held to that particular promise. They did, however, make inquiries into whether the case could be dismissed, but the school's solicitor correctly told them they couldn't get it dismissed without being liable for attorney fees because there were claims for damages.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:09:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

BTW, all the winners of this most recent election were members of the Dover CARES group that ousted the original board members. In other words, the same group that Larry is trying to argue screwed over the Dover taxpayers. While there may be some residual resentment against Carol Brown for initiating the lawsuit, the community appears to be in full support of the "two-timing" members of the current board, three of whom won re-election and a fourth whose husband ran and won in her place. I guess all of Larry's pleading fell on deaf ears - Dover likes their new school board.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:23:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Anyway, contrary to what Fatheaded Ed Brayton seems to believe, the election was apparently not a referendum on the ID policy.<<<

Larry can't go a paragraph without uttering a lie. Nothing in Ed's one paragraph post indicates that he believes that the election was a referendum on the ID policy.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:31:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Cyberbully and pettifogger Kevin Vicklund drivels,

>>>>> As I've told you several times before, in a public meeting one week before the elections, the Dover CARES candidates announced their desire to let the judge make his decision. <<<<<

What is your evidence or source for that?

>>>>>> They did, however, make inquiries into whether the case could be dismissed, but the school's solicitor correctly told them they couldn't get it dismissed without being liable for attorney fees because there were claims for damages. <<<<<

You are really full of crap. As candidates rather than board members, it is doubtful that they could have asked the board's solicitor for legal advice -- I think that would have been a conflict of interest for the solicitor. Furthermore, the board's solicitor was not employed by the board at that time -- he had been replaced as the board's counsel by the Thomas More Law Center and was rehired by the new board in Dec. 2005.

>>>>> And of course, repealing the policy could not have reduced the costs because cases with damages can't be dismissed for mootness and the only way to force a settlement without plaintiff's agreement is to make a Rule 68 Offer of Judgement that includes all costs (which in this case includes attorney fees) - and it was too late to make a Rule 68 offer. <<<<<

We've been over this many times before. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), the Supreme Court made a decision that you Darwinists insisted could never happen -- the SC denied an attorney fee award to the plaintiff in a case that was dismissed because of the government's voluntary cessation of a challenged action. See this post.

>>>>> While there may be some residual resentment against Carol Brown for initiating the lawsuit <<<<<

What do you mean, "initiating the lawsuit"? She was not one of the plaintiffs.

>>>>> I guess all of Larry's pleading fell on deaf ears - Dover likes their new school board. <<<<

Not necessarily -- there are probably a lot of Dover residents who would like to see the current board members thrown out for (1) not repealing the ID policy in time to maybe save the school district a lot of money and (2) not following through on #1 by appealing the decision so at least a second opinion from an appeals court could be obtained. Sometimes it is a good idea to pursue a legal action that one does not support just in order to get a decision. I think that in the Cobb County evolution disclaimer textbook sticker case, the board appealed because board members felt that the judge was interfering with their prerogatives. They were not just fighting for the sticker but were fighting for the right to have the sticker. Unfortunately, the board later took a dive by settling out of court despite being in a strong position.

>>>>> Nothing in Ed's one paragraph post indicates that he believes that the election was a referendum on the ID policy. <<<<<<

I said "seems to believe" -- because he exulted over the defeat of Geesey.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter Irons said,

Larry, you failed to point out (intentionally, I'm sure) that Geesey LOST her seat on the board, and that all the Dover CARES candidates won. So, every single one of the pro-ID (read "creationist" members of the board are now toast. Fair and balanced, Larry?

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:42:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Ironic Peter Irons said,

>>>>>> Larry, you failed to point out (intentionally, I'm sure) that Geesey LOST her seat on the board, and that all the Dover CARES candidates won. So, every single one of the pro-ID (read "creationist" members of the board are now toast. Fair and balanced, Larry? <<<<<<

And Fatheaded Ed Brayton failed to point out (intentionally, I'm sure) that Geesey got MORE votes -- quite a few more -- than a former board member who quit the board in protest of the ID policy. Furthermore, you can point out my "oversight" on my blog, but I cannot point out Ed's "oversight" on his blog because I am banned there. So who is not "fair and balanced," Peter?

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Ant-ID said...

Thank you, Spokes-Ant!

I object to this blatant cover-up of the identity of the Intelligent Designer!

Remember that I have a lot of CLOUT (or at least, influence ...).

Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> and you have been losing so many arguments here that you are that desperate.<

I'm new here but all of the posts here involving discussion between you and Kevin fall neatly into two categories: 1. Kevin making mincemeat out of you and 2. You making a fool out of youreself. You don't do very well against anyone else that I have seen here either.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

Fatheaded pettifogging halfwit Larry said...

> As candidates rather than board members, it is doubtful that they could have asked the board's solicitor for legal advice <

Why not? Anyone could have asked the board's solicitor anything. He may or may not have had an obligation to respond but as interested parties they were in a better postion than most to receive answers.

> I think that would have been a conflict of interest for the solicitor. <

That is absurd. He is not giving partisan representation, just giving out what he belives to be factual information.

> Furthermore, the board's solicitor was not employed by the board at that time -- he had been replaced as the board's counsel by the Thomas More Law Center <

All the more reason that he had no conflict of interest.

> We've been over this many times before. <

And yet you still don't understand it, as is shown in your followup.

> What do you mean, "initiating the lawsuit"? She was not one of the plaintiffs. <

"Initiating the lawsuit" does not imply that she would be one of the plaintiffs.

> Sometimes it is a good idea to pursue a legal action that one does not support just in order to get a decision. <

But not in this case. It would have been a further waste of the public's money.

> And Fatheaded Ed Brayton failed to point out...<

You are not answering about your own lack failure. You are trying to divert us. It is like a small child saying "Johnny did it too."

Hector, you have an extra "e" in "yourself". I am sure that was a typo but the idiot will use that as an excuse to duck your good questions. If you had not made that mistake, he would find another excuse to duck your questions as he ducks everyone elses.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:55:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>What is your evidence or source for that?<<<

The Dover CARES website at the time had their platform and a presser on the event. The York Daily Record also had an article that has some indication of this, though it is not as clear as what the Dover CARES website had. Unfortunately, the Dover CARES website has been completely changed, and when I checked the Wayback Machine, that portion of the website wasn't archived. But here's a taste of what was said:

"Perhaps intelligent design should be added to the social studies curriculum," candidate Bryan Rehm said. "It's a current event," he said. "Whether it belongs in the district's biology class is up to a judge," Rehm said.

>>>You are really full of crap. As candidates rather than board members, it is doubtful that they could have asked the board's solicitor for legal advice -- I think that would have been a conflict of interest for the solicitor. Furthermore, the board's solicitor was not employed by the board at that time -- he had been replaced as the board's counsel by the Thomas More Law Center and was rehired by the new board in Dec. 2005.<<<

They inquired with the board's solicitor after the elections in an orientation meeting but before the meeting at which they were sworn in. Russell (the solicitor) was never fired, the old board just got outside counsel in the form of Thomas More, who was fired from representing the district at the January 2006 board meeting, not the December 2005 board meeting.

From the York Dispatch:

"I think that the judge is determined to reach a verdict. I think a verdict will bring closure; it gives a more definitive answer. Much more definitive than anything we, even as public officials, could say. I think it's very important; within two years there will be another election, and they may want to come back with this," said Judy McIlvaine.

McIlvaine added it is probably too late to dismiss the case, as "the lawyers' fees are already out there."

But Napierskie said the new school board shouldn't assume it is too late:

"I want all the board members to talk to their solicitors. Don't just say, 'David is full of it.' Go and do your own research," Napierski said.

A new member's impres sion:
McIlvaine said the issue did come up during a board orientation and that her impression from the district's solicitor, Stephen Russell of Stock and Leader, was that "it doesn't seem that it could be turned back."

McIlvaine and Reinking said they would seek more information from Russell before making any decision.

"We have to be sworn in, and then we can discuss things. Right now, we are just learning and gathering information. I think that we need one meeting to get ourselves in order," Reinking said.


And the solicitor was in fact at the December board meeting and did in fact confirm that there was no way out of the attorney fees.

>>>We've been over this many times before. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), the Supreme Court made a decision that you Darwinists insisted could never happen -- the SC denied an attorney fee award to the plaintiff in a case that was dismissed because of the government's voluntary cessation of a challenged action. See this post.<<<

Buckhannon was not a case that included a claim for damages. More precisely, when the defendants clarified the policy and moved for mootnes, the plaintiffs tried belatedly to amend the complaint to include a claim for nominal damages to prevent the case from getting mooted. The Supreme Court ruled that it was too late to amend the claim. The Supreme Court has been very consistent on this - you must specify a claim for damages in order to prevent mootness. You can't amend the claim after a mooting event occurs or try to use a generic "additional relief as the court finds appropriate" claim to invoke a damages claim to prevent mootness. A well-pleaded claim for nominal damages always precludes mootness.

>>>What do you mean, "initiating the lawsuit"? She was not one of the plaintiffs.<<<

She had no standing, so she couldn't be a plaintiff herself, but she participated from the start in bringing the suit. I agree that my phrasing was innaccurate. Change it to "participated in" for better clarity.

>>>Not necessarily -- there are probably a lot of Dover residents who would like to see the current board members thrown out for (1) not repealing the ID policy in time to maybe save the school district a lot of money and (2) not following through on #1 by appealing the decision so at least a second opinion from an appeals court could be obtained. Sometimes it is a good idea to pursue a legal action that one does not support just in order to get a decision.<<<

Well, the results of the election show that those people are in the minority - even the two newcomers beat out the independent candidate (who beat out the two original board members). And weren't you just castigating them for persuing a legal action in order to get a decision? They got the decision they wanted. Why go to the extra expense to get an additional opinion when they clearly wanted the whole thing to end as quickly as possible. Their own legal representation told them they would still be liable for attorney fees, and trying to avoid attorney fees would have certainly taken more time than simply letting the judge reach a decision. Not to mention costing even more if they lost (as well as likely losing the ability to negotiate a reduced settlement like they did)

>>>I think that in the Cobb County evolution disclaimer textbook sticker case, the board appealed because board members felt that the judge was interfering with their prerogatives. They were not just fighting for the sticker but were fighting for the right to have the sticker. Unfortunately, the board later took a dive by settling out of court despite being in a strong position.<<<

They were not in a very strong position. They were tens of millions of dollars in debt because of various unpopular decisions that led to lawsuits. Their counsel had only agreed to represent them for free at the appeal because of the "dangerous precedent" that the district court ruling had set. With the ruling vacated, he was going to resume charging them for the retrial. They had already decided they were not going to go through the expense of relabelling the textbooks. It was very unpoular in the community. Those board members up for re-election were early on platforming on not retrying the case, and all candidates (including the incumbents) were against reinserting the stickers. Most of the comments that Larry thinks indicates the Circuit Court was "leaning towards reversal" were actually upholding the District Court's ruling that the stickers did not violate the purpose prong (the plaintiffs had cross-appealed the decision contesting that the purpose prong was violated). The comments that were directed at the endorsement test were based on the missing evidence - evidence that has since been found. But they were in just strong enough of a position to negotiate a settlement that drastically reduced the legal fees they were facing.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:23:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Profoundly retarded nincompoop ViW said,
>>>>>> I think that would have been a conflict of interest for the solicitor. <

That is absurd. He is not giving partisan representation, just giving out what he belives to be factual information. <<<<<<

It was partisan. For example, if he told the challengers that there was certainty or a fair chance that the school district could save a lot of money by repealing the ID policy prior to the judgment, that would have increased the likelihood that the challengers would have favored immediate repeal, which would have increased their popularity with concerned taxpayers.

>>>>> Furthermore, the board's solicitor was not employed by the board at that time -- he had been replaced as the board's counsel by the Thomas More Law Center <

All the more reason that he had no conflict of interest. <<<<<<

It could have affected his chances of being rehired.

>>>>>> What do you mean, "initiating the lawsuit"? She was not one of the plaintiffs. <

"Initiating the lawsuit" does not imply that she would be one of the plaintiffs. <<<<<<

Then in what way did she help initiate the lawsuit? (Kevin Vicklund later said that she only "participated" in the lawsuit, but Kevin can't be trusted about anything).

>>>>>>> Sometimes it is a good idea to pursue a legal action that one does not support just in order to get a decision. <

But not in this case. It would have been a further waste of the public's money. <<<<<<<

The lawsuit already cost them $1 million. For little more or nothing (the $1 million was the result of a negotiation with the plaintiffs' attorneys), they could have gotten a second opinion from a three-judge appeals court panel.

Cyberbully and pettifogger Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>> Unfortunately, the Dover CARES website has been completely changed, and when I checked the Wayback Machine, that portion of the website wasn't archived. <<<<<<

That's not surprising. After being charged with costing the school district $ 1 million, the new school board members tried to hide the evidence.

>>>>> They inquired with the board's solicitor after the elections in an orientation meeting but before the meeting at which they were sworn in. <<<<<<

You are just making this stuff up out of thin air.

>>>>> Russell (the solicitor) was never fired, <<<<<

Wrong. News reports made it quite clear that he was being rehired by the new board.

>>>>>> Thomas More, who was fired from representing the district at the January 2006 board meeting, not the December 2005 board meeting. <<<<<<

I never said that the board fired the TMLC at the Dec. 2005 board meeting, but it was announced at the Dec. 2005 board meeting that Russell was being rehired.

>>>>>A new member's impression:
McIlvaine said the issue did come up during a board orientation and that her impression from the district's solicitor, Stephen Russell of Stock and Leader, was that "it doesn't seem that it could be turned back."
<<<<<<

That doesn't mean that Russell attended the meeting or that the new board as a whole consulted him. Anyway, the details of the matter were never discussed at the Dec. 2005 public meeting of the board -- the matter was postponed until Jan. 2006, when it would be too late. Anyway, the point is that it would not have hurt to try to avoid the fees by repealing the ID policy immediately.

>>>>> McIlvaine and Reinking said they would seek more information from Russell before making any decision. <<<<<<

So did they get more information?

>>>>>> And the solicitor was in fact at the December board meeting and did in fact confirm that there was no way out of the attorney fees. <<<<<

That was not in the official minutes of the board's Dec. 2005 meeting. I know because that was one of the things I checked for. Again you are just making things up.

>>>>>> Buckhannon was not a case that included a claim for damages. <<<<<<

We've been over this many times before. Nominal damages (often just $1) are just a token symbol of vindication -- they do not prevent cases from being declared to be moot. Otherwise every lawsuit would ask for at least nominal damages in order to prevent the case from being declared moot.

>>>>>Sometimes it is a good idea to pursue a legal action that one does not support just in order to get a decision.<<<

Well, the results of the election show that those people are in the minority - even the two newcomers beat out the independent candidate (who beat out the two original board members). <<<<<<

My above statement -- which you bolded -- was not intended to be a commentary on the recent Dover school board election results.

>>>>> Why go to the extra expense to get an additional opinion when they clearly wanted the whole thing to end as quickly as possible. <<<<<

Because it would have cost the board little or nothing to get a second opinion from a three-judge appeals court panel.

>>>>> Their own legal representation told them they would still be liable for attorney fees <<<<<

We have no evidence that they got such official advice from Russell -- there is just the statement, "McIlvaine said the issue did come up during a board orientation and that her impression from the district's solicitor, Stephen Russell of Stock and Leader, was that 'it doesn't seem that it could be turned back.' " Since the new board members were going to drop the suit anyway, they could have at least tried to avoid paying an attorney fee award. Judge Jones' decision is not binding precedent even in his own Middle District of Pennsylvania federal district court.

>>>>> and trying to avoid attorney fees would have certainly taken more time than simply letting the judge reach a decision. <<<<<<

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

>>>>>> Not to mention costing even more if they lost (as well as likely losing the ability to negotiate a reduced settlement like they did) <<<<<<

That is wild speculation -- they might have been able to negotiate the same $1 million award in any case.

>>>>>Unfortunately, the [Cobb County school] board later took a dive by settling out of court despite being in a strong position. <<<

They were not in a very strong position. They were tens of millions of dollars in debt because of various unpopular decisions that led to lawsuits. <<<<<<

WHAT? They owed only about $110,000 to their own attorneys for the original district court action and they gave $166,000 to the plaintiffs, about a third of what the plaintiffs claimed.

>>>>> Their counsel had only agreed to represent them for free at the appeal because of the "dangerous precedent" that the district court ruling had set. With the ruling vacated, he was going to resume charging them for the retrial. <<<<<<

Again I think that you are making this stuff up. I have seen no evidence that he was going to start charging them again. And others offered the board free representation. And they didn't need free representation because it was a rich school district.

>>>>>They had already decided they were not going to go through the expense of relabelling the textbooks. <<<<<<

A favorable ruling would not have required the school district to relabel the textbooks. The school board was just fighting for the right to label the textbooks (also, I don't know why the school district went to the great expense of removing the stickers -- the stickers could have just been covered up with blank stickers).

>>>>>It was very unpoular in the community. Those board members up for re-election were early on platforming on not retrying the case, and all candidates (including the incumbents) were against reinserting the stickers. <<<<<

Again, I think that you are just making this stuff up. I think that it came as something of a surprise when the board took a dive.

>>>>> Most of the comments that Larry thinks indicates the Circuit Court was "leaning towards reversal" were actually upholding the District Court's ruling that the stickers did not violate the purpose prong <<<<<

Wrong. At the appeals court oral hearing, Judge Edward Carnes told a plaintiffs' attorney something like,

"I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences. The sticker says it's a theory and not a fact -- the book supports that."

"Your problem is that you've got to take something reflective of the book you admire so much and say that it violates the First Amendment."

Another judge on the panel said that there was no evidence that the students were misled by the stickers.

>>>>> The comments that were directed at the endorsement test were based on the missing evidence - evidence that has since been found. <<<<<

No, the evidence has not been found. That is why the decision was vacated and remanded, and there were preparations for a new trial when the school board took a dive.

Anyway, all of this stuff is documented under my post label "Selman v. Cobb County." A lot of the stuff here is in this post and its links.

>>>>>> But they were in just strong enough of a position to negotiate a settlement that drastically reduced the legal fees they were facing. <<<<<

Those legal fees were peanuts for the Cobb County school district.

Heckling hectoring Hector drivels,
>>>>> I'm new here but all of the posts here involving discussion between you and Kevin fall neatly into two categories: 1. Kevin making mincemeat out of you and 2. You making a fool out of youreself. <<<<<

It looks like I have made mincemeat and a fool out of Kevin -- and you.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

The pettifogging halfwit said...

> It was partisan. For example, if he told the challengers that there was certainty or a fair chance that the school district could save a lot of money by repealing the ID policy prior to the judgment <

That was merely stating a fact. If knowing the truth causes the board to change their course of action, that is not political.

> It could have affected his chances of being rehired. <

Would his chances be better if he lied to the incoming board members?

> but Kevin can't be trusted about anything <

Kevin has backed up everything that has been challenged. You, in contrast, have lied repeatedly and have been repeatedly caught in those lies.

> You are just making this stuff up out of thin air. <

No. Kevin is not like you.

> I know because that was one of the things I checked for. <

Finding the minutes is not enough. You have to actually read them.

> My above statement -- which you bolded -- was not intended to be a commentary on the recent Dover school board election results. <

But it did apply.

> I don't understand what you are trying to say here. <

You rarely appear to understand anything anyone says here or elsewhere.

> It looks like I have made mincemeat and a fool out of Kevin -- and you. <

If you really believe that you sincerely need help. Kevin is always kicking your butt. That's why you don't like him.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:32:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> It was partisan. For example, if he told the challengers that there was certainty or a fair chance that the school district could save a lot of money by repealing the ID policy prior to the judgment<

That was merely stating a fact. If knowing the truth causes the board to change their course of action, that is not political. <<<<<<

Yes -- I agree that it was a fact that there was certainty or a fair chance that the school district could have saved a lot of money by repealing the ID policy prior to the judgment

>>>>> It could have affected his chances of being rehired. <

Would his chances be better if he lied to the incoming board members? <<<<<

He didn't have to tell them anything -- he could have told them to get their advice elsewhere because he saw a conflict of interest because he had recently represented their political opponents. I don't see why they would have even asked him for advice before they rehired him as new board members.

>>>>> Kevin has backed up everything that has been challenged. <<<<<

That's a lot of crap.

>>>>> I know because that was one of the things I checked for. <

Finding the minutes is not enough. You have to actually read them. <<<<<<

Another breathtakingly inane ViWism.

>>>>>> My above statement -- which you bolded -- was not intended to be a commentary on the recent Dover school board election results. <

But it did apply. <<<<<<

No, it did not apply at all. The school board election was not a referendum or public opinion poll on my statement, which was -- "Sometimes it is a good idea to pursue a legal action that one does not support just in order to get a decision." Kevin said that voters who agree with that statement are in the minority in the Dover school district, but he has no evidence of that. By that statement, I meant that since the school board did not try to avoid the fee award (settled at $1 million) by repealing the ID policy prior to release of the decision, the school board should have gone all the way and appealed the decision so as to get a second opinion from the appeals court, and the appeal would have cost them little or nothing. Some school board members said that they wanted to hear what Judge Jones had to say, so why did they not also want to hear what an appeals court -- or even the Supreme Court -- had to say?

Stupid fathead ViW strikes out again.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> he could have told them to get their advice elsewhere because he saw a conflict of interest because he had recently represented their political opponents. <

I suppose the janitors could not have replaced burned out lightbulbs for them without a conflict of intrest because they used to do that for their political opponents.

The pettifogging halfwit strikes out again maintaining a perfect record. In the mean time, he has shown himself to be defensless against Kevin who actually knows something about the law.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:38:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> I suppose the janitors could not have replaced burned out lightbulbs for them without a conflict of intrest because they used to do that for their political opponents. <<<<<

One cannot serve two masters: the members of the old board and their election challengers. It would have been stupid of the challengers to even ask his advice prior to the election. And there is no evidence that he ever gave them any official legal advice on whether the board might avoid the fee award by repealing the ID policy prior to the judgment. And there is still the fact that they had nothing to lose -- except a worthless decision that cost the taxpayers $1 million -- by repealing the ID policy immediately.

>>>>> In the mean time, he has shown himself to be defensless against Kevin who actually knows something about the law. <<<<<

Defenseless -- LOL! I mopped the floor with Kevin in our legal debates.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with knowledge of the law -- this is just about common sense.

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> It would have been stupid of the challengers to even ask his advice prior to the election. <

It is stupid to say that.

> there is still the fact that they had nothing to lose <

They very definitely had something to lose. They could have paid even more in legal fees to their opponents.

> I mopped the floor with Kevin in our legal debates. <

You are in a very selective group. You may be the only one on Earth who believes that you have ever won a debate with Kevin. There are probably few who even believe that you have ever won a debate with anyone. There certainly is no evidence of it on this blog.

> Anyway, this has nothing to do with knowledge of the law -- this is just about common sense. <

You strike out on both.

Friday, May 18, 2007 9:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

Your post titled "BVD-clad bloggers want privileges without responsibilities" lacks a point for comments, therefore I will place my initial comment here.

> IMO blogs that practice arbitrary censorship of comments should be required by law to post in a prominent place a message like, "This blog has a policy of censoring comments solely because (1) the blogger disagrees with them, (2) dislikes the person who submitted them, or (3) dislikes the person who the blogger suspects submitted them." <

When will you lead by example? This should be posted at the top of your blog. Of course you hide your arbitrary censorship by claiming anything you are afraid of is "personal information" or "gossip".

Friday, May 18, 2007 9:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Sherry D said...

After years of teaching the third grade I will be changing to second grade due to a change of demographics in my neighborhood. My time reading Larry's posts will put me in good stead for understanding six and seven year olds.

Friday, May 18, 2007 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Sherry D said...

>>>>>> After years of teaching the third grade I will be changing to second grade due to a change of demographics in my neighborhood. My time reading Larry's posts will put me in good stead for understanding six and seven year olds. <<<<<<

Yes, we can learn a lot from little kids. It was a little boy who was the first to say that the emperor had no clothes. And as Art Linkletter said, "kids say the darndest things."

Friday, May 18, 2007 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Wilderness driveled,
>>>>>> It would have been stupid of the challengers to even ask his advice prior to the election. <

It is stupid to say that. <<<<<<<

It's not stupid at all. Why would they ask the advice of an attorney who possibly wanted to be rehired by their opponents?

>>>>>> there is still the fact that they had nothing to lose <

They very definitely had something to lose. They could have paid even more in legal fees to their opponents. <<<<<<

WHAT? They "could have paid even more in legal fees to their opponents" by repealing the ID policy -- which they said they were going to do -- at the first opportunity? Now you really are insane.

>>>>>Your post titled "BVD-clad bloggers want privileges without responsibilities" lacks a point for comments, therefore I will place my initial comment here. <<<<<

What do you mean, "lacks a point for comments"?

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Butt-Naked Blogger said...

>>>>>Your post titled "BVD-clad bloggers want privileges without responsibilities" lacks a point for comments, therefore I will place my initial comment here. <<<<<

Solution to the censorship problem, perhaps?

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> It was a little boy who was the first to say that the emperor had no clothes. <

This situation differs here. Everyone can see that you have no clothes.

> It's not stupid at all. Why would they ask the advice of an attorney who possibly wanted to be rehired by their opponents? <

They are asking for a statement of facts, not political advice, halfwit. The attorney has no reason to lie to them.

>>>> They could have paid even more in legal fees to their opponents. <<<<

> WHAT? They "could have paid even more in legal fees to their opponents" by repealing the ID policy -- which they said they were going to do -- at the first opportunity? <

There are many ways that they could have paid even more in legal fees. One would be to appeal the case. If you can't see that, you are eve more insane than we previously believed.

>>>>>Your post titled "BVD-clad bloggers want privileges without responsibilities" lacks a point for comments, therefore I will place my initial comment here. <<<<<

> What do you mean, "lacks a point for comments"? <

What part of this statement is it that you don't understand? There is no place to post comments under that title. There still is not as of now. Try it you imbecile.

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:09:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home