Law

John Lynch has a summary of the Intelligent Design movement’s achievements for 2006, along with a short list of things they failed to achieve in 2006.

Cobb County’s school officials have settled the lawsuit with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and will not place anti-evolution disclaimers on textbooks used in their science classes. It appears that they’ve chosen to settle rather than suffer a Dover-like defeat in the courtroom. More at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Radley Balko describes an outrageous case of eminent domain extortion in Port Chester, NY: With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, the Village’s chosen developer approached [entrepreneur Bart] Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property–land the developer coveted for a Walgreens–the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat. ...

I just came across this letter from Paul LaClair at the Observer (Kearny’s newspaper) editor’s blog site, which corrects some misconceptions that have occurred in some of the reporting and commentary on this issue, as well as point out some additional details about Paszkiewicz and the school administrators’ response that have not been reported elsewhere, such as: * After receiving a reprimand on September 25 in response to Matthew LaClair’s initial complaint, Paszkiewicz made a statement in class that implied that the student who complained had misrepresented his words. (I.e., he lied.) At this point, Matthew LaClair requested a meeting with administrators and produced the recordings. * Subsequent to this, the LaClairs have asked for further corrective action, but none has been forthcoming. * The school’s attorney has been evasive and even suggested that the LaClair’s go ahead and sue. The letter is well worth reading in its entirety. You can find it here. ...

David Paszkiewicz, the U.S. history teacher at Kearny High School in New Jersey who has been using his classroom to spread his religious views and has been defended by his students and fellow residents of Kearny, has now made the New York Times. The principal is quoted as saying that he is unaware of any previous problems, but there have been comments left at my blog stating that Paszkiewicz has been doing this for many years. The principal also claims that corrective action was taken–a reprimand was supposedly given back on September 25–but Paszkiewicz’s classroom style doesn’t appear to have changed much in later classroom recordings (I have heard some samples from September 26, 27, 29, and October 3 and 4). The New York Times article makes it clear how bad Paszkiewicz has been–even conservative legal groups have no interest in defending him: ...

From the December 2, 2006 issue of The Economist (subscription required for full article): Gay marriage is legal in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the U.S. (Massachusetts). Gays have the same rights as married heterosexuals, but only in civil unions or partnerships rather than marriage in Britain, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the U.S. (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont). Gays have civil unions or partnerships with lesser rights than heterosexual marriage in Argentina (1 state), Czech Republic, France, Germany (3 states), Hong Kong, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United States (Hawaii, Maine). UPDATE (December 18, 2006): Stephen Frug has pointed out that even in U.S. states which have legal gay marriage or legal gay civil unions, they are still not equivalent to marriage, in part because of the U.S. federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton. As a result of a provision in this law, the spouse of former Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA), the first openly gay federal lawmaker, has been denied his pension benefits. UPDATE (December 19, 2006): The December 9 issue of The Economist (p. 66) points out that the inclusion of Hong Kong on the list of countries with gay civil unions is a mistake. Hong Kong “is reviewing its laws in this area,” but doesn’t currently allow them.

After a year of careful analysis of Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute has determined that the Judge made considerable use of the plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law when writing the section on intelligent design as science in his decision for the plaintiff. Somehow, they think that this common practice of using the Proposed Findings of Fact from the winning side in crafting a decision makes Judge Jones a puppet of the ACLU, even though he’s a conservative justice appointed by George W. Bush. The Discovery Institute has issued a press release touting their findings as though it discredits the decision’s reasoning. This press release demonstrates that they are still smarting over the loss in Dover, still spending their time doing things that have nothing to do with scientific research, and that they have as much credibility on legal matters as they do on scientific matters. More by attorney Timothy Sandefur at the Panda’s Thumb. This press release by the DI was telegraphed by a talk given by Michael Behe earlier this month in Kansas. UPDATE (December 13, 2006): Ed Brayton analyzes the DI report in more detail, including responding to its claims that Judge Jones incorporated “errors” from the ACLU into the decision. UPDATE (December 14, 2006): More responses: Timothy Sandefur, “Is John West Dishonest or Just Ignorant?" and “Casey Luskin–Not Too Bright” at the Panda’s Thumb. UPDATE (December 20, 2006): Wesley Elsberry has looked at how much of the plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was actually used in Jones’ decision (and how much of that section of the decision came directly from the plaintiff’s filing). Ed Brayton summarizes at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Casey Luskin has attempted to respond with a defense, but as Ed Brayton shows, he just keeps digging a deeper hole.

Justin Seay, one of the two “John Does” suing Sacha Baron Cohen and the producers of “Borat” for getting him and his pals drunk and inducing them to engage in “behavior that they otherwise would not have engaged in” has been tracked down by The Smoking Gun. As The Smoking Gun puts it, Seay “does not seem like an amateur when it comes to partying.” They found his MySpace page, which contains numerous photographs in which Seay is either carousing in a bar or has a clearly visible drink in his hand (which are helpfully pointed out with red arrows). His MySpace page has “gettin’ drunk and having a good time” as one of his interests, and friends’ comments include greetings like “Hi Drunk Friend!!!” and “Hey Hey Justin Seay, Drinks like a fish everyday!" The Smoking Gun provides pages from the lawsuit and photos from his MySpace page for handy comparison. (Hat tip to Dave Palmer on the SKEPTIC mailing list.) UPDATE: Radley Balko makes some reasonable criticisms of the Borat movie (which I’ve not seen). UPDATE: You can find more Borat backstory here. The deceit used to make this film strikes me as quite unethical, though I have little sympathy for Mr. Seay, described above. ...

The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair’s son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. He seems to be a principled and courageous young man who has caught a really bad teacher: Kearny, New Jersey November 10, 2006 A history teacher at the local public high school here may have bitten off more than he cares to chew this fall. Self-described conservative Baptist David Paszkiewicz used his history class to proselytize biblical fundamentalism over the course of several days at the beginning of this school year. Among his remarks in open class were statements that a being must have created the universe, that the Christian Bible is the word of God, and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark. If you do not accept Jesus, he flatly proclaimed to his class, “you belong in hell.” Referring to a Muslim student who had been mentioned by name, he lamented what he saw as her inevitable fate should she not convert. In an attempt to promote biblical creationism, he also dismissed evolution and the Big Bang as non-scientific, arguing by contrast that the Bible is supported by what he calls confirmed biblical prophecies. After taking the matter to the school administration, one of Paszkiewicz’s students, junior Matthew LaClair, requested a meeting with the teacher and the school principal. LaClair, a non-Christian, was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements. After two weeks, a meeting took place in the principal’s office, wherein Paszkiewicz denied making many of these comments, claiming that LaClair had taken his remarks out of context. Paszkiewicz specifically denied using the phrase, “you belong in hell.” He also asserted that he did nothing different in this class than he has been doing in fifteen years of teaching. At the end of the meeting, LaClair revealed that he had recorded the remarks, and presented the principal with two compact discs. The teacher then declined to comment further without his union representative. However, he fired one last shot at the student, saying, “You got the big fish … you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher…!" Commenting on the situation, LaClair’s father, attorney Paul LaClair said, “In a few short weeks, this teacher has displayed bigotry, hypocrisy, arrogance and an appalling ignorance of science. The school’s administrators seem not to appreciate the damage this man is doing to young minds. He has some real abilities as a teacher, but this conduct is the intellectual equivalent of the school cafeteria serving sawdust." The student and his parents have requested that the teacher’s anti-scientific remarks be corrected in open class, and that the school develop quality control procedures to ensure that future classes are not proselytized and misinformed. They have also referred the matter for disciplinary action. No apology has been forthcoming from the teacher or from the school. The parents state that because of the administration’s inaction, they have taken the matter to the school board this week, from whom they are awaiting a response.Some local press from this story is expected this week; the blogosphere may generate more attention. (This came to my attention from a post on the SKEPTIC list by Paul Harrison–thanks, Paul.) UPDATE (November 15, 2006): This story has now been reported in the Newark Star-Ledger. UPDATE: The Jersey Journal has picked up the story and put some of the audio online. The story is also being picked up by NYC-area radio and television–the LaClairs have been interviewed by or have scheduled interviews with WCBS radio, 1010 WINS radio, Fox 5 News, and NBC 4 News. UPDATE (November 22, 2006): The Observer (the weekly newspaper for Kearny, NJ) has published some quotes from the recordings and a few letters to the editor. ...

A Superior Court judge in Worcester, Massachusetts has issued a legal ruling that a burrito is not a sandwich. I think that’s pretty sound legal judgment–a sandwich has at least one piece of bread, and a tortilla, while having some bread-like properties and functions, is not bread. The ruling occurred because Panera Bread Co. was trying to prevent the White City Shopping Center in Shrewsbury from leasing space to Qdoba Mexican Grill. Panera Bread’s lease agreement stated that White City Shopping Center would not lease space to any other sandwich shop. The legal ruling stated that “A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Expert witness Chris Schlesinger stated in an affidavit that “I know of no chef or culinary historian who would call a burrito a sandwich. Indeed, the notion would be absurd to any credible chef or culinary historian." Indeed. UPDATE (November 13, 2006): The commenters at Jamie Zawinski’s blog take the discussion much further.