Posted by I have a feeling that Michael Francisco got a warning from someone who knows what they’re talking about, who told him that he was coming dangerously close to defamation with his post at the DI blog, because last night he suddenly edited his post to make it a whole lot less actionable. That was quite predictable, of course, and I archived the original post. The first big lie is still in there, but changed to express a whole lot less certainty. Here’s the original passage:
Manzari & Cooper explain in detail how the newly elected Dover Area School Board, which campaigned on removing the ID policy actually voted to keep the policy during their first meeting. Why? Because the Board members understood that removing the policy would have ended the legal controversy. Without the school board voting to keep the policy, the same policy that board publicly opposed, the ACLU & AUSCS would not have been able to claim attorneys fees.
And here’s his sudden change of tune a few hours later, totally unacknowledged in the post:
Manzari & Cooper explain in detail how the newly elected Dover Area School Board, which campaigned on removing the ID policy actually chose to keep the policy during their first meeting. Why? Because the Board members understood that removing the policy could have ended the legal controversy. Without the school board deciding to keep the policy, the same policy that board publicly opposed, the ACLU & AUSCS may not have been able to claim attorneys fees.
All the “would haves” are now suddenly “could haves”. Why? I presume because Francisco may have actually consulted with a real attorney who told him that he was full of crap, that the chances of getting that ruling mooted bcause of a voluntary change of policy by the school board that could be reversed in the future were slim and none (and as my dad likes to say, slim just left town).
But bear in mind that without the school board knowing, or even believing, that by rescinding the policy they could moot the outcome of the trial, the entire artiface of deception on which this conspiracy theory is based comes crashing to the ground. Without that, he has to change his tune from claiming that they intentionally and willfully refused to do so for the purpose of funnelling money to the ACLU to merely claiming that by not rescinding the policy they “increased the risk” of having to pay the attorney’s fees. And a few hours after his bold accusation, he retreated to that position in a comment on Dembski’s blog:
If no decision would have been rendered, then no attorneys fees would have come. Repealing the policy would in no way guarantee that the case would be found moot, but keepign the policy in place guaranteed that the question would not even be examined.
In point of fact, it was trivially easy for Francisco to find out whether the board believed it could moot the trial by rescinding the decision. It’s right there in the minutes of the board meeting, which Manzari, Cooper and Francisco never bothered to check in the first place and would prefer to ignore now that it’s been pointed out to them:
3. Board president Reinking noted that legal counsel advised the board that the trial is over and can not change the outcome of any vote.
This is the same position, by the way, that was taken by everyone involved in the case, including the attorneys for both sides. It’s the same position taken by the Judge in the case. It’s the same position taken by every legal scholar who addressed the issue. There was virtually no chance that the case would be mooted. Everyone knew that at the time, including the school board. Only our three intrepid authors here seem to believe there was any chance the case would be mooted and they appear to be utterly ignorant of the voluntary cessation doctrine.
He then throws in this weak attempt to answer our responses to this drivel, and the changes in this paragraph are highly amusing. Here’s the original:
(Cooper and Manzari’s incredible findings stand regardless of whether the authors may have missed the point that one board member, Brian Rehm, had not yet had his election certified when the vote took place. If the best response the Darwinists can muster is to nitpick one paragraph about Brian Rehm while failing to refute the entire piece’s discussion of evidence of alleged collusion, then perhaps the Darwinists are missing the forest for the trees, just so they can engage in moral accusation!)
And here’s the amended version:
(Cooper and Manzari’s incredible findings stand regardless of whether the authors may have missed the point that one board member, Bryan Rehm, had not yet had his election certified when the vote took place. If the best response the Darwinists can muster is to nitpick one paragraph about Bryan Rehm while failing to refute the entire piece’s discussion of evidence of alleged collusion, then perhaps the Darwinists are missing the forest for the trees, just so they can attempt to dismiss this embarrassing scandal!)
Perhaps he realized how ridiculous he sounded claiming that our side was “missing the forest for the trees” to engage in “moral accusation” when he and Cooper and Manzari are the ones engaging in moral accusations with absolutely no evidence to support those accusations. As for embarrassing, the only one who is looking embarrassed at this point are these three keystone cops, busily inserting foot in mouth time and time again.
When Francisco refers to the “evidence of alleged collusion” he is simply playing a game of pretend. There was no evidence given for collusion in the original article and even the rank speculation they engaged in has turned out to be based on false premises. Their accusation boils down to nothing more than speculation and imagination and it is completely counter-intuitive.
Why on earth would the school board want to drain a million dollars from their own budget? Why on earth would they intentionally give a million dollars that they could use to improve their school and community to a group they have no connection to at all? It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it relies on the new school board being made up of completely vile people who willfully tried to screw over all of their fellow citizens and drain the school system that their own children attend. In what alternate universe does this make any sense?
Here’s the last paragraph, as amended without admission. Here’s the first draft:
In essence, the new Dover school board was fully aware that keeping the policy in place risked a large sum of Dover taxpayer funds. Manzari & Cooper explain why it now appears that there was collusion between the ACLU, AUSCS, and Dover school board members. This alleged collusion allowed the school board to effectively purchase the Kitzmiller decision at a price of $1 million dollars. This appropriation of public funds should be cause for outrage. Check out the Manzari & Cooper article for more shocking details.
And here’s the amended version:
In essence, the new Dover school board was fully aware that keeping the policy in place increased the risk of expensive attorneys fees. Manzari & Cooper explain why it now appears that there was collusion between the ACLU, AUSCS, and Dover school board members. If what Manzari and Cooper say is true, this alleged collusion allowed the school board to effectively guarantee the Kitzmiller decision at a purchase price of $1 million dollars. This appropriation of public funds should be cause for outrage. Check out the Manzari & Cooper article for more shocking details.
We’ve already established that the new school board was “fully aware” of the opposite reality than what Francisco is claiming. They really should be ashamed of themselves for pedding such ridiculous accusations without evidence. There are no “shocking details” in the Manzari and Cooper article other than the things they get completely wrong. Their entire argument amounts to noting that the school board voted not to rescind the policy in early December and engaging in unsupported speculation that they did so in order to give money to the ACLU, which they had no incentive to do and every incentive not to do. The only basis for this accusation is the fevered imagination of this bunch of wingnuts.
April 5, 2006
April 5, 2006
April 5, 2006