This morning, we received word that there would be a hearing Monday morning, in Los Angeles.
The judge (Hon. R. Gary Klausner) in the SOCCCD prayer case would be hearing arguments on our motion to allow two students to continue to use pseudonyms (Doe 1 and Doe 2).
Naturally, district lawyers want ‘em to out themselves.
There will be another hearing—this one dealing with the substance of the case—on March 8.
But then, later today, we got word that the judge cancelled the Monday hearing. This means that he will make his decision about anonymity without in-court arguments, i.e., just based on the briefs.
We’ll let you know how it goes.
To see the notorious invocation (near the beginning) and “Jesus” slide show (at the end) of the Fall ’09 Chancellor’s Opening Session, click here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict... -
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f... -
Yesterday morning, the Irvine Valley College community received an email from college President, Glenn Roquemore, announcing the coll...
19 comments:
How much will it cost the district to try and find out the names of these students?
How's the case going, Roy? We haven't heard much about it. I've heard separately that your lawyers completely abandoned two of the three claims -- those based on the California constitution. Oh, and I've also heard that your lawyers didn't even fight the district's motion to dismiss the entire case, but instead junked the original complaint and had to re-write the whole case to avoid dismissal.
Sounds like it's not going real well.
It isn't "Roy's" suit, it's a suit on behalf of all of us who are tired of religious nutjobs shoving thier beliefs down our throats.
Parenst take note.
The district wants to know the names of the students. It's not enough that faculty have put their names on the suit - but no, the district wants the names of the students.
It's Roy's case. He put his name on it, and it's not a case of "religious nutjobs" doing anything, which is why Roy's case should never have been filed and is falling apart.
It's NOT Roy's case as much as you'd like it to be - take a look at the raft of other names on it - don't diminish the other plaintiffs' commitment - why would you? Karla has been there and out front since the beginning, much more so than Roy.
(Me, I SO miss John Williams telling me that I'm going to go to hell - I mean, that was SO special.)
It doesn't matter whose case it is. Is it true that there are problems and the lawyers are retreating? It sounds like it, if 8:45 is telling the truth. Is he/she? What's going on with the case, Roy?
Why oh why, 10:20, should the case not have been filed? Do you have any rudimentary knowledge of the
1st Amendment? Apparently not.
It shouldn't have been filed because there's apparently no legal violation there, judging by how the case is falling apart, and as said above, Roy's lawyers are "retreating."
So, the matter has been decided? And hearsay is now acceptable evidence? Do you have any legal education whatsoever?
Wendy used to be Roy's "lawyer" (ouch, I know) - the lawyers on this case were contacted by other faculty, - Saddleback faculty - not Roy. Wendy's another story.
It isn't hearsay 11:18. The court records show that the California claims have been abandoned and the original complaint was superseded after the district filed a motion to dismiss. There is a whole new complaint in the file. Do Roy's lawyers have a legal education? One would assume so, but they made a big splash with their original filing and have nothing to show for it right now. That's not hearsay. That's in the public record. Notice, by the way, that Roy hasn't denied it.
The "retreating" term is rife with hearsay and speculation. If you have any knowledge of the complexities of litigation, you would know that many challenges to complaints can be made and, depending on the ideology of the judge, will be granted or denied. Then a complaint has to be amended, and the litigation continues.
So before declaring victory, what claims were removed and why? How has the complaint been amended? Inquiring minds wish to know.
Lawyer Carol Sobel represented Roy as did Wendy Gabriella, nee Phillips, nee Burgess. Years ago.
The new lawyers are representing a group of faculty and students but someone (Wendy? Say it ain't so babe.) keeps insisting otherwise. What - you think Roy has the big bucks? Didn't Wendy get all the lawyers fees from the distict when she won his case and others? (Someone quick check the public record.)
These lawyers are part of an advocacy group caleld Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. That's in the public record too.
Also in the record:
Plaintiffs are Karla Westphal, Alannah Rosenberg, Margot Lovett and Claire Cesareo-Silvais, all professors at Saddleback College; Roy Bauer, a professor at Irvine Valley College; Ashley Mockett, a former student at Saddleback and two current Saddleback students who have chosen to remain anonymous.
Check out their website:
http://www.au.org/about/
Nice try, 12:00, but Roy's lawyers retreated. They didn't even fight the motion to dismiss. This is not a case of lawyers dealing with a complex case and making changes depending on the judge's ideology. The complaint they filed was deficient on its face. That's the whole point of a 12(b)(6) motion and Roy's lawyers didn't even oppose the motion. The two claims for breach of the California constitution were abandoned completely, and the remaining claim was re-written. You can't blame it on the judge since there was no ruling. The lawyers overpleaded their case and are retreating.
Hold on:
1st, I (Roy) am among 7 or so plaintiffs on this case. I signed on very late. If the case has an owner or instigator, I would be the last person (among plaintiffs) on the list. I do support it, but it isn't "my" case. I would be inclined to say that it is Karla's.
2nd, our lawyers have explored and contemplated changes in strategy (e.g., changes in venue), and this is utterly routine. These maneuvers are an attempt to make the case stronger, not to shore up weaknesses. As far as I know, the case is going very well. Certainly, our lawyers (who communicate to plaintiffs en masse) have never suggested otherwise.
Readers need to remind themselves what Mathur and his crowd do. They bombard news stories (or editorials or blogs) with propaganda that displays utter indifference to truth or fairness. Note the red herring they've thrown into Mathur's firing. Ignore the red herrings, the nonsense. Stick to the facts. E.g., consider Mr. Williams' quote in the Reg and what Marcia red out last Monday. Stick to the facts and you'll do all right. --RB
"Retreated" is quite a loaded term. It's not uncommon to adjust after a 12(b)(6) (or a demurrer in state court) has been filed to amend a complaint. Many times the defense will cough up their strategy too early, in that the now amended complaint is better than the initial filing. Happens all the time.
I believe in this case and I hope that we prevail, but anyone who imagines that my happiness or flourishing rests on this litigation hasn't a clue what I'm about. I signed on to it because I fundamentally agree with it and the team of plaintiffs needed a representative for IVC who had witnessed the relevant events. That's about it. Here's what I most care about: will we now pursue a serious, professional, and honest search for a new Chancellor? Doing so--manifestly, seriously--would initiate a new era of decency. (It would if subsequent hires were equally professional and above board.) Finally, all I've ever wanted is the presumption of decency, not the inevitability of politics or connivery, in the affairs of our colleges. Give us that and I'll put bells on and lead the (Druid) prayer of thanks! --RB
How come Glenn's not listed as a Defendant? Considering everyone else at that admin level is.
Something fishy here...
Post a Comment