A California couple sues...

[Titana]

A California couple sued the operators of a university of California Berkeley web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

It also mentioned that the plaintiffs are not proponents of ID, but they object to the teachings of evolution as scientific fact.

( I just dont understand these people)



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_sc/evolution_lawsuit;_ylt=Aq_fM6tv1ouyig0oFYQwGpwbr7s F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Titana.......

[SolusLupus]

They're... suing? Suing?

This is getting very ridiculous.

[paulie jay]

But will the case actually be heard? Isn't there a safety mechanism that stops a lot of these frivolous cases getting as far as a proper hearing?

[Metricyard]

With all the real problems left to solve in the world, you'd think people would have better things to do.

Its mindless things like this that make me wonder if the USA is going to collapse into a third world country within the decade.

[Titana]

With all the real problems left to solve in the world, you'd think people would have better things to do.

Its mindless things like this that make me wonder if the USA is going to collapse into a third world country within the decade.


Yes me too.....



Titana......

[Metricyard]

But will the case actually be heard? Isn't there a safety mechanism that stops a lot of these frivolous cases getting as far as a proper hearing?

Not really. It seems that the courts are clogged with pointless lawsuits. If there's money in it for the lawyers, it will go to court.
In California, this case will probably be expedited.

[paulie jay]

Gee whiz - any wonder there are so many lawyers in the USA ...

[Hugh Jass]

If there's money they will sue...

I wish I wasn't surprised by this, but i've become acustomed to it. One of these days I'm going to sue some of these people making frivolous lawsuits for the undue stress they cause me every time I read about them, especially when they win. I just hope UCB is able to recovery legal fees from these people when it is all done.

One of only two reasons I feel like leaving California. I was born and raised here, and it is truly one of the best places in the world to live, but all of the lawyers and the implications that come with them is getting me fed up.

BTW I'm sure the reason these people are not ID supporters is because they object to the fact that ID is not fundamentalist creationism, basically I've met some of these types of people, they don't support ID because it doesn't go far enough.

[LurchGS]

I know some really fine lawyers.. honest, likeable, really good people... but then stories like this come along and i have to keep a solid grip on my temper. No rational court would even alow this on the docket

[Metricyard]

I know some really fine lawyers.. honest, likeable, really good people... but then stories like this come along and i have to keep a solid grip on my temper. No rational court would even alow this on the docket

I agree. I just had my rounds with lawyers, and they were very nice, knowledgable, and efficient. (Bankruptcy and a lawsuit against a client).
The amount of paperwork sent to me by the lawyers was staggering and extremely complicated. Better them doing it then me.

Now back on topic. Add the fact that the California lawsuit is now a news item, pretty much guarantees it will end up in court. If it doesn't, then the people that started the suit will claim that the government is infringing on their Constitutional rights. It's a no win situation.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this goes to court.

[Sticks]

What is the chance that UCB will throw in the towel and back down.

In some cases when a suit is brought, the company bean counters say that it would be cheaper to settle out of court, even if the company is in the right.

Here in the UK we have seen schools cancelling school trips, playgrounds closed down and play equipment removed, all because of the fear of litigation.


Maybe the bean counters will have a little word with their webdesigners :think:

[01101001]

If there's money in it for the lawyers, it will go to court.

The complainant's lawyer appears to be attorney Larry Caldwell, the husband of the complainant, Jeanne Caldwell.

Wikipedia: "Quality" Science Education for All (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Science_Education_for_All)

Larry Caldwell, a pro-Intelligent Design activist and attorney, has been active in bringing litigation in causes favoring the intelligent design movement.
San Jose Mercury News story (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13262018.htm) (may require registration)

But the Granite Bay couple who filed the Web site suit, Jeanne Caldwell and her husband, Larry Caldwell, who is representing her in the lawsuit, say they are not proponents of intelligent design. They object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact.
Oh, but he gets help:

The Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento non-profit that focuses on religious freedom and parental rights, has joined Caldwell in preparing both lawsuits.
"Yes, I'm a Christian,'' said Jeanne Caldwell, "but I would not categorize myself as an ID proponent. I believe God created the world.''

Yeah, sure.

[Van Rijn]

Also in Sacramento, we have a fellow who has gone after school districts for the "under God" bit in the pledge and now is trying to get "In God we trust" off of the currency. See here:

http://www.news10.net/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=14267

I don't expect he'll have any more luck than these guys. But there have been plenty of lawsuits over the years in different directions on many aspects of religion and government.

[Maksutov]

What is the chance that UCB will throw in the towel and back down.

In some cases when a suit is brought, the company bean counters say that it would be cheaper to settle out of court, even if the company is in the right.

Here in the UK we have seen schools cancelling school trips, playgrounds closed down and play equipment removed, all because of the fear of litigation.


Maybe the bean counters will have a little word with their webdesigners :think:So violations of civil rights should be a deal between bean counters and, what, other bean counters?

Go, web designers! I like the idea they're calling a spade a spade. I don't know about the UK, but here we have something called the First Amendment!

[Sticks]

So violations of civil rights should be a deal between bean counters and, what, other bean counters?

Go, web designers! I like the idea they're calling a spade a spade. I don't know about the UK, but here we have something called the First Amendment!

We are supposed to have freedom of speach here as well, but there was this one guy, the owner of a major tabloid, IIRC, by the name of "Robert Maxwell" who was prone to stifle any said free speech, especially any exposes of his criminal activities, by issueing libel writs left right and centre.

He was robbing the company pension fund to suit his personal lifestyle, but nobody dared to say a word.

Now another little story of bean counters goes back to the Ford motor company. They discovered that one of their cars had a design fault that was lethal. The bean counters said that only a certain amount of accidents would occur, so it would be cheaper not to fix the fault and only pay out of court settlements if an when an accident occurred. However someone minuted this and when a case did come to court, Ford had punative damages imposed on them.

The point is, someone somewhere usually ends up being told by the beancounters that doing the right thing is just not a good use of resources. With public bodies, who are accountable to the tax payer, they tend to take the path of least cost, and if that means treading on free speech, then sorry, "free speech" is too high a cost for the tax payer to bear.

This argument has nothing to do with the merits of evolution, creation or the FSM, at the end of the day it is about money.

Money does not talk, it shouts

:( :rolleyes:

[montebianco]

Its mindless things like this that make me wonder if the USA is going to collapse into a third world country within the decade.

Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow, but if the US does experience a collapse, I would expect fewer frivolous lawsuits...

[LurchGS]

Personaly, I'm all in favor of removing 'under god' from our pledge of allegiance - it was only added in 1954 anyway.

Re Ford and Ralf Nader - Nader picked on Ford because they were the largest motor company around - there were plenty of other cars with equally hazardous records.

-----

First, we kill all the Lawyers -- Some Obscure playwright

[genebujold]

Now you know why I keep referring to lawyers in The Never-Ending Woo-Woo thread!

BTW, in my custody case for my son, it cost me $2,000 for the psych analysis, and $15,000 for her and my lawyer to figure out a schedule describing when I could call my son. After my lawyer and her lawyer danced around the issue for a month, I finally told my lawyer, "Tell him that it's whenever I damned well feel like it, or I'll pick up my son and refile for divorce in the country in which I'm currently living, and she'll never see him again!"

They relented. News at 11 (in a few months).

[SolusLupus]

I know some really fine lawyers.. honest, likeable, really good people... but then stories like this come along and i have to keep a solid grip on my temper. No rational court would even alow this on the docket

A few bad apples that make all lawyers look bad.

[LurchGS]

yeah - of course, the problem here is that these scumsuckers are glory hogs and dance all over the news. Doesn't make me want to hit my head on the wall any less, though.

The only thing worse than one of these lawyers is a politician

[SolusLupus]

We are supposed to have freedom of speach here as well, but there was this one guy, the owner of a major tabloid, IIRC, by the name of "Robert Maxwell" who was prone to stifle any said free speech, especially any exposes of his criminal activities, by issueing libel writs left right and centre.

If it's truth, it's not libel (and if spoken, it's not slander. Then again, if written, it's not slander either).

However, actually going to civil court over libel is as important as, say, going to court for fraud. If someone spreads lies that hurts another person financially or physically, then it's something that should be prosecutable. It's not because of impeding "free speech" insomuch as punishing someone for harming another person. However, harm has to be proven.

I don't know this case, but I somehow doubt Maxwell had a good case at all ;)

[Sticks]

I don't know this case, but I somehow doubt Maxwell had a good case at all ;)

As any of the UK posters will be able to confirm, Robert Maxwell proved to be a nasty piece of work.

The mere threat of a writ was enough to keep people quiet. In the UK there is no legal aid in libel cases, and defending a case can be very very expensive. It is therefore seen, best to keep quiet and let the person keep robbing the pensioners of their pensions,which IIRC is what happened.

With regard to the the UCB case, there maybe some bean counter in there telling the authorities that this case could be quite expensive and therefore is "not worth the candle", better to instruct the web designers to aquiece and settle out of court. It would be far cheaper and a better use of university resources than to fight this case.

That is the equation that comes into play, and it was a similar equation that let Robert Maxwell get away with dispicable practices, which only saw the light of day after his death, when people were finaly safe from writs.

This argument holds whether one is a creationist or evolutionist

[beskeptical]

Perhaps they think it's tit for tat against the atheists suing to have 'god' removed from the pledge and the money.

Remember, they just don't get it. Separation of church and state protects all our freedom while science is science, not politics (except funding and that angle). Courts don't decide what is valid science, the science community does.

[Doodler]

Its mindless things like this that make me wonder if the USA is going to collapse into a third world country within the decade.

As much as it can be annoying, I do take a little heart in the fact that there's enough spare energy around to pursue this kind of nonsense. No greater sign that the US is anything BUT a third world country but the elevation of the trivial to the level of the controversial.

One of the privileges of having beaten the day to day muddle.

[Titana]

Perhaps they think it's tit for tat against the atheists suing to have 'god' removed from the pledge and the money.

Remember, they just don't get it. Separation of church and state protects all our freedom while science is science, not politics (except funding and that angle). Courts don't decide what is valid science, the science community does.


I totally agree........



Titana.......

[farmerjumperdon]

I know some very decent people who are lawyers, and while I'm not quite ready for the they-are-all-scum bandwagon, they do, as a group, seem to have a common and very different way of looking at things that seems to pervade every aspect of their life - including their relationships. It occurs to me that for most people their chosen profession does not have the same kind of influence, at least not to the same degree, over their approach to life. I think it is because practicing law is not about right and wrong, or common sense. It is about THE LAW, and everything about that topic has been removed from the realms of common sense and common people.

And though it may be true that most are sort of normal, as far as lawyers go; there must be an appreciable number who arehow would you say it, . . . questionable - at least given the number of stupid lawsuits.

[LurchGS]

There are those who joined the profession because they like it, because they think they can make a difference....

and those who joined it to make a whole bag of money.

------

I'm usafe at any speed.

[Titana]

Well, i would put it this way, their are so many that join the profession to make a whole bag of money, that the loyal ones who join the profession because they really like it are not even noticed......





Titana.......

[TheBlackCat]

Apparently one of the main points of law school is to destroy any idealism you might have. Many lawyers enter law school planning to become a public defender or something like that. Very few leave law school with the same idea. They teach you just how bad people can really be. At least that is what a very prominent lawyer I know said. Now that is not to say that every lawyer is a lieing money-grubbers, they are simply pragmatic about the role they play in society.

[harlequin]

It also mentioned that the plaintiffs are not proponents of ID, but they object to the teachings of evolution as scientific fact.


Wow. As I see others have already mentioned, that is an outright lie. The Caldwells are longtime creationists activists who litigate at a drop of a pin -- any pin. They would legislate too but they don't have the votes in California.

[harlequin]

There are those who joined the profession because they like it, because they think they can make a difference....

and those who joined it to make a whole bag of money.


This lawsuit is a harassment lawsuit. It is the second one this year from this couple. There is no attempt by the Caldwells here to make money here. In other words, they know they don't have any chance of actually winning the case. This is done since the victim's have limited money and resources and it makes it difficult for them to operate if they have to worry about lawsuits.

The website in question deals with common problems the come up during the teaching of evolutionary biology and how to handle them. What the website says it simply a matter of fact. That creationists don't like the fact that the vast majority of Christian denominations have long made their peace with science is not the concern for the First Amendment.

[montebianco]

Now that is not to say that every lawyer is a lieing money-grubbers,

I would argue that lawyers are convenient scapegoats. A lawyer cannot win one penny that is not awarded by a judge or jury, or voluntarily paid because of the threat of a judge or jury award. Now, does it make a whole lot of sense to set up a system in which it is possible to make boatloads of money by behaving in a certain way, and then be shocked and outraged when people behave in this way? One could be outraged at the juries who make the frivolous awards, or at the legislators who set up the system in which frivolous awards are possible. But the juries are selected from the public, and the legislators are elected by the public, so if it's their fault, it's really our fault. Much better to be outraged at the lawyers...

[Wolverine]

Also in Sacramento, we have a fellow who has gone after school districts for the "under God" bit in the pledge and now is trying to get "In God we trust" off of the currency. See here:

http://www.news10.net/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=14267

I don't expect he'll have any more luck than these guys. But there have been plenty of lawsuits over the years in different directions on many aspects of religion and government.
A mere mention of the above is permissible as it's loosely related to the OT. However, any discussion of the issue itself should obviously be undertaken elsewhere.

[LurchGS]

This lawsuit is a harassment lawsuit. It is the second one this year from this couple. There is no attempt by the Caldwells here to make money here. In other words, they know they don't have any chance of actually winning the case. This is done since the victim's have limited money and resources and it makes it difficult for them to operate if they have to worry about lawsuits.


Got me - I swear I meant to include self-agrandizement (which is what I consider these harrassment suits to be; "lookit me, I'm tilting at windmills!")

[Gillianren]

Wow. As I see others have already mentioned, that is an outright lie. The Caldwells are longtime creationists activists who litigate at a drop of a pin -- any pin. They would legislate too but they don't have the votes in California.

Well, you know, a lot of creationists don't consider themselves proponents of ID--after all, ID doesn't specifically mention God.

[Van Rijn]

A mere mention of the above is permissible as it's loosely related to the OT. However, any discussion of the issue itself should obviously be undertaken elsewhere.

Of course, but I trust the point is clear? Lawsuits regarding the relation of religion and government are nothing new or uncommon, and they aren't reserved to just those trying to push their religious ideas onto government. Certainly not in Sacramento.

[Wolverine]

Of course, but I trust the point is clear?

Quite. :)