‘I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson’ says officer, who is Jewish
MSNBC The Associated Press Updated: 7:56 p.m. PT July 31, 2006
Excerpt:
CALABASAS, Calif. - The deputy who arrested Mel Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving said Monday that he feels bad for damage to the star’s reputation but hopes Gibson thinks twice before drinking and getting behind the wheel.
James Mee, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, told the Associated Press that he considered it a routine arrest and didn’t take seriously any comments that Gibson made.
Gibson reportedly unleashed an anti-Semitic tirade and made other offensive comments when he was pulled over, initially for speeding, early Friday along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. He was then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Gibson has issued a public apology for his conduct without specifying what he said or did.
“I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson,” said Mee, a 17-year deputy who is Jewish. “What I had hoped out of this is that he would think twice before he gets behind the wheel of a car and was drinking. ... I don’t want to ruin his career. I don’t want to defame him in any way or hurt him.”
*snip*
TMZ reported that Gibson said, “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked the arresting officer, “Are you a Jew?”
In the interview outside his home, Mee would not comment specifically on what Gibson said.
“That stuff is booze talking,” the deputy said. “There’s two things that booze does. It amplifies your basic personality. If you are a laid-back kind of person, just an easygoing kind of person, booze is going to amplify that and you’ll be just sitting around going how it’s a wonderful day.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Sure they did. Some lowly rogue Capitol cop decided on his own to arrest Cindy Sheehan.
Just like the lowly rogue soldiers in Iraq who have been arrested and convicted and punished because one of them had the bright idea that they should torture prisoners. None of these people could possibly have gotten orders from the Oval Office, right? Of course not. Bush hates torture, right? LOL!
Sometimes the lies are so transparent and ridiculous, all I can do is laugh.
MSNBC.com
NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped Antiwar mom removed from State of the Union for wearing protest shirt
NBC News and news services
Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.
U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.
But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”
The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.
Criticism from Rep. Young Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.”
“Shame, shame,” he scolded.
Beverly Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and was asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
“They said I was protesting,” she told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’
They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, who was ejected before the speech. Sheehan wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intended to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
She did not issue an immediate response to the charges being dropped.
“I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government,” Sheehan wrote in her blog.
Sheehan was invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She later was released on her own recognizance.
Told she could not wear shirt? Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned Sheehan that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond, she said.
Sheehan, however, told a different story in her blog.
“I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress,” Sheehan wrote. “I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things, ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.”
She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.
“I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket,” Sheehan wrote. “I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.”
She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, “Protester.”
“He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs,” she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.
Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.
The Associated Press and NBC News contributed to this report.
We've heard a lot about this story, and I think Cynthia was in the wrong. She should have gone through the check point and not around it, and explained who she was, and most importantly had her ID on. Maybe she thought since she had been in congress since 1992 they would recognize her by now. Maybe it was a reflex hit. Who knows? Either way she should not have swung on the officer.
Surely republicans with their forgiving hearts and *everyone makes mistakes* attitude will accept her apology and move on. NOT. See link.
Please pass this along to everyone that you have on your e-mail list because this is just the beginning if this arrogant, egotistical, super liberal, president wannabe gets into office....
To all,
I have read all of the emails from not only some of the MTOA board members, but from other Law Enforcement & Military personnel about Barack Obama's rudeness and what seems to be disgust for basically anyone in uniform. Well, it's my turn to add to the list of emailers and here it is:
So members of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Department, Michigan State Police, (me included) and other local agencies inside Calhoun County are working with Secret Service in the security of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's bus arrives in Battle Creek and pulls into the stadium area. Before Mr. Obama exits the bus, he has the Secret Service get off and tell all Law Enforcement personnel in uniform that they now have to stand behind the bus so Mr. Obama is not seen with anyone in a Law Enforcement uniform before he gets off or while in the public view. So, everyone from Michigan State Police, Sheriff's Departments and other agencies look at each other for a brief second, go and stand behind the bus out of sight so Mr. Obama does not have to see, or been seen with, what to him is 'undesirables' since he refuses to been seen or even acknowledge Military or Law Enforcement personnel in uniform. And he wants to be our commander-in-chief!
At a time of war and terrorism in our world, this presidential candidate who is being protected by various branches of the military & law enforcement at the tax payers expense, refuses to acknowledge, be seen with, have in his photographed background, any type of Military or Law Enforcement in uniform.
But this is not in the headlines or in the news or on TV. The TV news doesn't show us marching around behind the bus. In the future, look and see if you can see a single soldier or police officer in uniform when you see Obama. Why? I wonder what the story or media frenzy would be if it was Muslims, blacks, whites, Jews, or any other race, gender, religion, and/or occupation, that Mr. Obama refused to be seen with or have around him.
Why would I make this up? Everyone in Law Enforcement knows we have traditionally had more funding under Democrats.
Just food for thought leading up to November 4th.
Jason Kern Michigan Tactical Officer's Association Michigan State Police
Executive Board MemberMy offense does not come from
the fact that Republicans did a very noble thing - they very much did and I am grateful that those people stood up for what was right -my offense comes from you using such a horrendous situation as a way to prove some point.
But it's done. The argument is going in circles, as kam and piglet posted below. In trying to make your view known, instead of saying it in a respectful way, you are pushing the idea that 'liberals' or 'Democrats' are racist baby killers. You don't stop at saying - no Democrats have not always been the liberal party. I am not FOR abortion or the enslavement of innocent people. Period. What Democrats did whenever does not have anything to do with what I DO and believe NOW.
no offense but
and I only spend about $100 a week!!!! how in the heck do you spend that much for just two people??? Maybe you should consider leaner options...?
Some of us take offense
anything remotely similar to a great, revered American leader and have a hard time letting such preposterious comparisons go unanswered. Does well researched commentary always make you so touchy? What happened to "on the light side?" Personally, I was happy to see someone step forward and take issue with that nonsense.
I take offense at that -
I am an Obama supporter and I do not sit on the internet, watching dancing with the stars, eating doritos and flipping through people magazine whlie waiting for their check in the mail.
I go to college, I work 2 jobs, I support my family on my own with no help.
I did have help at one time, when I was 19 and my husband left me with a 3 week old baby after I had had complications with the birth and could not go back to work and I got some help for about 3 months... then I went back to work just like I had every day since I was 15 years old. And I am thankful that it was there...
All Obama supporters are not waiting for a handout!
Thanks - no offense taken
Not a problem at all. There are so many messages that have been posting it is getting confusing.
I do find it amazing that in today's day and age we have come so far in our technology, etc, but yet there are so many out there still living emotionally in the puritan times. I find it amazing that they will call people who want to have a gay relationship deviants, etc, and they give a free pass to all the heterosexual child molesters, bondage, fetishes, etc. I can't even remember the last time I saw a news story about some haneous (sp?) crime that was committed by a gay person. It's always a heterosexual doing the weird and "deviant" acts.
There is nothing deviant or abnormal about loving another human being and wanting to spend the rest of your life with them. It's called love, honor, and cherish, and last I knew God was about love, honoring, and cherishing.
Thanks for posting though and clearing it up. I think I've had enough of this thread and hope it closes soon. I believe I would have an easier time trying to have an intelligent conversation with a chimpanzee than some of these other posters. No offense...but how is this
political? no offense to you...but I keep picturing...sm
this little gecko that fell off the ceiling in Hawaii when were on vacation when I was 13 years old. This little lizard fell off the ceiling, on my father's head, bounced off onto the floor.... the little guy got so scared and twitched and twitched.....and lost his tail in the process..........
No offense taken. The charges she made sm
are based on the evidence, which is overwhelming. Popular Mechanics definitely did not debunk it. I think it shattered her belief system, just like it did mine.
No offense taken. Let me give my opinion here...sm
It sounds as if you have, like millions of Americans, health care problems and financial difficulties. No, certainly the Clinton's will not send you money, nor would Obama for that matter.
However both Clinton's and Obama's platforms address your issues, that being health care reform where,in the future, if you currently you are uninsured you will be able to become insured, along with other health care reform measures.
Both Clinton and Obama are acutely aware of the jobs losses, the cost of living situation, home foreclosures and the like, and both likewise address those issues in their respective platforms.
No offense taken. Directly, of couse, neither candidate is going to send you a check to help with your difficulties, but indirectly their platforms are well aware of your problems, and those of millions of other Americans like you, and they are very actively addressing those issues.
I hope your situation eases in the coming years.
What is offense about the comment? see message
No worse than people saying other religious organizations donated to McCain. I highly doubt that that saying a Muslim donated to Obama is offense. What is more truthful that you should have said is that you find it offense that people are finding out what kind of people are donating to Obama's campaign (you know those foreign countries that do not like us) and that he's getting donations from people who are not reputable people (like Good Will and the liquor store in NY), but her comment that it sounds like Muslim's made a donation is certainly not offensive. Most likely Obama did receive large donations from middle eastern countries. He's trying to con us all into believing that every penny he got was from grandma Jones or gradma Smith who gave him $5.00 here and there....come off it. You know better than that.
There's an old Jewish saying. TI
Prepare yourself with truth before you argue. You speak about debate, but I haven't seen any real debate here. A lot of hysteria. A lot of disinformation. No debate. Israel is not an ally because we haven't sent troops to Iraq. When I finished laughing about that, I had to be disturbed from the lack of real knowledge among you. You get all your facts from news sources, I am guessing most of them partisan. I am not only speaking to you but to other posters here. You give yourselves names like Liberal and Democrat and you speak from political points and not humanity. There is no humanity in your words. You have no idea what goes on in Israel. Unless you are there or have lived and breathed there, or know what the struggles are from minute to minute, you know only what you read. That is the truth. My Jooish friends and I won't bother to educate you. You already know everything and my time here is wasted. It's a big contest about who can paste here articles they find that say what they want. Whether they be true or no. Les enfants israeliens meurent aussi.
No offense, but I seriously doubt she will prove it in a court of law. sm
She is entitled to her belief system, but I don't agree with anything she has to say. We will have to wait and see.
No offense taken. Rumors spread so fast, especially ...sm
bad rumors intended to scare and manipulate people. I think the excitement of the people at his rallies is because they see him as someone who offers the common people hope. He has never addressed or dwelled on any of the many, many rumors being spread about him. I believe he is an upstanding American citizen, a Christian, who has a lovely wife and family and is nothing like what the right wing of the republican party is painting him to be. Keep praying on it but don't get taken in by people who are not so Christian themselves.
I didn't say because you were Jewish
I said it's not right to think that Christianity should be taken out of everything just because you don't agree.
And you did say that you are getting "Christian things shoved down your throat" everywhere. Usually when you say something is shoved down your throat it means you take offense to it.
I have a serious question to ask you though - do you not believe in Jesus? If not, what is the reasoning as far as you are concerned for getting into heaven? I mean what are the requirements from a Jewish point of view? I'm asking this in all honesty, not sarcastically or anything like that.
Not all Jewish grandparents think the way you do
@@
Republican Jewish Ad
What's with all this hating of the Jews, anyway? Sickening!
So, gt, are YOU the Jewish expert on this board. sm
So what are your thoughts on Gaza and it's historical and Biblical significance? Do you think Egypt will encroach upon the left bank? How about Hamas and their recent aggressive actions. Do you think they will rebuilt Gaza? What do you think about the relocation of the Gaza settlers? What is the significance of losing Gaza? Do you think the Arabs will uphold their part of the peace agreement, and if so, why? Don't you think Sharon is doomed as far as ever being reelected. Netinyahu is pretty steamed as are most Israeli. Do you think they should vote him back in? Tell us your thoughts.
Jewish Voices For Peace
Not all jews agree with this latest Israeli/Bush aggression, myself included. Check out the web site Jewish Voices For Peace.Org.
Jewish Voice For Peace
It is Jewish Voice For Peace.Org, not Jewish Voices For Peace as I previously posted. Sorry.
try this Republican Jewish Coalition
Not sure why it didn't show up. When I clicked on it here, it worked.
Obama pressures Philly area synagogue to drop RJC Rrepresentative from a ... The RJC has launched a new series of ads raising critical issues for the Jewish... www.rjchq.org/ - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Replace Republican with Jewish and think...
Germany. Do you really hate a group of people that much? Really?? That you want to go down the marxist path of quashing or belitting any kind of dissent or disagreement? I thought liberals were all about the right to dissent! Oh...what on earth am I thinking? They are for THEIR right to dissent and dam* anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Does really need to be said that Israel is predominantly Jewish?
When I speak of Israel, I speak of the Jews.
You Said: "And yes, I did bring Hitler into the conversation. He systematically tied to wipe out a group of people, which is exactly what Israel is doing right now."
That statement is exactly what makes you anti-Semitic. The fact that you can compare Israel to Nazi Germany is obscene and anti-Semitic. You are using something horrific done to the Jews (who make up 75% or more of the Israeli population) and using it to illustrate what you perceive is going on in the Gaza Strip. Can you not find some other means to make your point other than conjuring up prejudice perpetrated by Hitler? Could you have maybe made your comparison to Kosovo/Bosnia? Nope, you chose the holocaust to illustrate your point. You intent was to shock and to be controversial. You wanted to provoke a reaction.
What exactly did you think using the name "Hitler" would provoke? You argument in and of itself is anti-Semitic.
By the way, I am a messianic Jew. I know a little bit about anti-Semitism. So before you continue to insult both my intelligence and my homeland, choose your words wisely.
I was quoting from a Jewish website publication.
It wasn't "my statement." And it made perfect sense if you had read the article. The Gaza strip pull-out was not instigated by the settlers who were moved but by their government which is ISRAELI and is therefore JEWISH. You should read the news a little more.
Linked to a Jewish blog? I assume someone from sm
the conservative board did that. I am opposed to war and weep for all victims of war. My criticism is aimed at the state-nations responsible for them, including my own.
Who belittled Kfir's Jewish beliefs?
I might be missing something here but I can't find posts by Kfir discussing her Jewish faith. It was all about the war. It was about the state of Israel not about the Jewish religion. Isn't that 2 different things?
Citing U.N. statistics, the IMC said more than 300 children were killed in Lebanon and 1,000 wounded while a further half million youngsters were displaced by battles between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry names eight Israeli children killed by Hizbollah rockets, including two 18-year olds. The total Israeli death toll is estimated at more than 150. It is unclear how many Israeli children were wounded.
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity
This is terrible. :-(
Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity
by JewsOnFirst.org, June 28, 2006
Note: On July 11th, we posted two follow-up reports, which you can find here. And on August 23rd, we posted another update here.
Links to articles and documents cited in our report appear immediately below it
A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from state-sponsored religion.
The behavior of the Indian River School District board suggests the families' fears are hardly groundless.
The district spreads over a considerable portion of southern Delaware. The families' complaint, filed in federal court in February 2005, alleges that the district had created an environment of religious exclusion and unconstitutional state-sponsored religion.
Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for our heavenly Father's guidance for the graduates with:
I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name.
In addition to the ruined graduation experience, the Dobrich-Doe lawsuit alleges that:
The district's custom and practice of school-sponsored prayer was frequently imposed on impressionable non-Christian students, which violated their constitutional rights.
The district ignored the Supreme Court's 1992 Lee decision limiting prayer at graduation ceremonies -- even after a district employee complained about the prayer at her child's 2003 graduation..
District teachers and staff led Bible clubs at several schools. Club members got to go to the head of the lunch line.
While Bible clubs were widely available, student book clubs were rare and often canceled by the district.
When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son Jordan Doe was left alone when his classmates when to Bible club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club, regardless of his religion.
The district schools attended by Jordan and his sister Jamie Doe distributed Bibles to students in 2003, giving them time off from class to pick up the books.
Prayer --often sectarian -- is a routine part of district sports programs and social events
One of the district's middle schools gave students the choice of attending a special Bible Club if they did not want to attend a lesson on evolution.
A middle school teacher told students there was only one true religion and gave them pamphlets for his surfing ministry.
Samantha Dobrich's honors English teacher frequently discussed Christianity, but no other religion.
Students frequently made mandatory appearances at district board meetings -- where they were a captive audience for board members' prayers to Jesus.
The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha. Mona Dobrich, Samantha's mother, repeatedly called district officials to complain. A board member told her she would have to get the matter put on a meeting agenda -- then refused to put it on the agenda. The school superintendent slipped the topic onto the agenda and then told Mona Dobrich she would need to raise it during the public comment period.
School board unyielding The board opened the June 15, 2004 meeting at which Dobrich was prepared to speak with a prayer in Jesus' name. The board was not forthcoming to her request that official prayers be in God's name rather than in Jesus' name. The high school athletic director veered from his agenda topic to encourage the board to keep praying in Jesus' name.
Board member Donald Hattier followed Dobrich out and offered to compromise by keeping graduation free of prayers to Jesus. And, according to the complaint, he warned her not to hire a lawyer.
A large crowd turned out for the next board meeting and many people spoke in support of school prayer. Mona Dobrich spoke passionately of her own outsider experience as a student in Indian River District schools and of how hard she'd worked to make sure her children didn't also feel like outsiders.
Hattier again approached her after the meeting. This time, the complaint alleges, he told her he'd spoken with the Rutherford Institute, a religious right legal group.
Talk show calls out a mob The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue.
On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meetng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.
The complaint recounts that the raucous crowd applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him: take your yarmulke off! His statement, read by Samantha, confided I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy.
A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that the people would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating god and state.
A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might disappear like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. O'Hair disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.
The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to go back up north.
In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.
Killing Christ Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of killing Christ and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts. He took it off whenever he saw a police officer, fearing that the officer might see it and pull over his mother's car. When the family went grocery shopping, the complaint says, Alexander would remove the pin holding his yarmulke on his head for fear that someone would grab it and rip out some of his hair.
The Dobriches refinanced their home so that Mona and Alexander could move to Wilmington, away from a situation that had become untenable, according to the complaint; Marco stayed behind because of his job, .
Ultimately, it continues, the expense of two households forced the Dobriches to sell their home. And Samantha was forced to withdraw from the joint program she attended at Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. She is being treated for depression.
The lawsuit states that the Doe family wants to remain anonymous in order to avoid the retaliation experienced by the Dobrich family. Jordan and Jane Doe are also suffering from depression related to their opposition with the Indian River School District's religion policy.
Elusive religion policy Even after Mona and Alexander Dobrich moved to Wilmington, the family and its lawyers continued to request the district's policy on religion in the schools and to ask for meetings with the board. Their requests were stonewalled, so in February 2005 they filed suit.
In a statement issued through her attorneys and quoted by the Delaware Wave, Mona Dobrichexplained why the families were suing: We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students.
The families seek to recover damages and to compel changes in the school district's policy.
That policy, however, remains elusive.
At the request of a board member soon after the infamous graduation, the Rutherford Institute, prepared a prayer policy for the school board, according to the complaint. In October 2004 the board reportedly adopted a new policy on religion in response to the Dobrich's complaint.
It is unclear if that policy is the one prepared by the Rutherford Institute -- because no one has seen it. The Dobrich's complaint states that the policy was unavailable and when the families requested it the district told them to file a freedom of information request.
This June, the board had a reading of a proposed change in the unseen policy. They said the policy and its changes would be posted on their website, (www.irsd.net) but on June 27th, it was nowhere to be found among several dozen policy documents.
The Rutherford Institute enters the fray At the boisterous August 2004 district board meeting, the head of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, urged the board to set an example for other schools, according to the Daily Times, a local paper.
A Rutherford affiliated lawyer, Thomas Neuberger, came into the case representing one of the school board members. Before he left the case last August (because the judge dismissed the individual board members from the case), Neuberger was reportedly feuding with other lawyers.
While he was in the case, his client, Reginald L. Helms reportedly admitted one of the lawsuit's allegations: that school officials invited Pastor Fike to the 2004 graduation. That undermined the district's claim that students chose the speakers.
Neuberger was quoted by the Delaware Wave newspaper denying that the Dobrich's son Alex was taunted as a Jew by classmates. I seriously doubt that it ever occurred, he told the paper, contending that the plaintiffs were using the allegation used to defame the good citizens who serve on this school board.
In its response to the lawsuit, the district reportedly called some of the families' claims immaterial, impertinent and scandalous, and intended only to cast the district in a negative light.
Settlement rejected In February 2006, the board unanimously rejected a settlement offer that would have required renaming Christmas and Easter breaks to winter and spring, respectively, and to put a Dobrich child at the top of a waiting list for an arts school. It would have permitted board members to continue praying at their meetings. (US District Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., who is hearing the case, ruled last year that the prayer was a historic tradition and could continue.)
In April the board's insurance company, which had been representing the district in the lawsuit, filed suit against it (and the individual board members) because they had, against its advice, rejected the settlement offer. The board then fired the attorneys that had been representing them and hired a new set. The insurance company is reportedly refusing to pay for the board's legal defense from the date the members rejected the settlement offer.
According to the Coastal Point, the insurance company's complaint is sealed, as is the district's response. The district's taxpayers, who will pay the bill if the insurer prevails, cannot know the details of the case.
Attorney Thomas Allingham, who represents the Dobrich family in their case against the school district, says the board's behavior suggests it was not negotiating in good faith. Allingham told JewsOnFirst that several board members attended the settlement negotiations, which were under the auspices of a federal mediator. He said the members approved the settlement during those negotiations. But, when the board voted on the offer, they rejected it unanimously.
Allingham said the plaintiffs remained open to the possibility that the case could be settled. But the case is set for trial in June 2007 in Wilmington.
Board prayer allowed with settlement
By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 16, 2006
A settlement offered by the plaintiffs in the Dobrich/Doe prayer suit and denied unanimously by the Indian River School board on Feb. 27 would have allowed board members to continue opening monthly meetings with a prayer, a board member and two other sources close to the case told the Coastal Point. Click here for the report (a PDF file).
School board to discuss religion policy
By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 23, 2006
The policies regarding prayer at graduations and religion in school that were adopted by the Indian River School Board on Oct. 19, 2004, after they heard complaints from a Jewish family, might be amended next week.
The board held a first reading on the amended ordinances Tuesday but deferred a vote until after an executive session on Tuesday, June 27. Board members and district Superintendent Lois Hobbs wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the proposed amendments. Click here for the report (a PDF file).
School prayer lawsuit filed against district
By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, March 2, 2005
Two sets of parents filed a federal lawsuit in Wilmington on Monday that seeks to bar the Indian River School District from promoting religion at school functions.
The parents, who also are seeking damages, claim in the lawsuit that their rights to free speech and to be free from state-sponsored religion have been violated.
We didn't want a lawsuit, but at this point we feel like we don't have any other choice, said Mona Dobrich, one of the parents, in a statement provided by attorney Thomas J. Allingham. We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students. Continue
School district disputes lawsuit
By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, May 4, 2005
WILMINGTON -- Indian River school officials have filed papers in federal court denying virtually every claim in a Jewish family's lawsuit over school-sponsored Christian prayer.
John Balaguer, attorney for the school district, also asked a U.S. District judge to strike large sections of the complaint as immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.
Balaguer said the items were included solely to cast the district in a negative light. Continue
ACLU Sues to Stop School Board Prayer: Dobrich v. Walls
Rutherford Institute website entry on the Dobrich case.
JOF note: the ACLU is not involved in the case!
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU against Reginald Helms in his official capacity as a member of the Indian River School District Board of Education. The lawsuit, which was filed by the ACLU in February 2005 against school board members in their personal and professional capacities, alleges that school- sponsored prayer “has pervaded the life of teachers and students” in the Indian River District schools. In their motion to have the case dismissed, Institute attorneys argue that as a school board member, Helms should have immunity from liability claims under the established doctrine of absolute legislative immunity.
An official with the Indian River School District Board of Education contacted The Rutherford Institute for help in August 2004, after the Wilmington, Del., branch of the ACLU demanded that IRSD board members stop opening their monthly business meetings with a prayer. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute agreed to represent Reginald Helms, vice president of the IRSD Board of Education, in his individual capacity should the Delaware school district’s practice of opening meetings with a brief prayer be challenged. Despite pressure from the Wilmington chapter of the ACLU to cease issuing prayers at public events, officials with the IRSD opened a school board meeting on Aug. 24, 2004, with a brief invocation. Several hundred members of the community gathered at Frankford Elementary School for the monthly business meeting broke into applause after Board President Harvey Walls asked board member Dr. Donald G. Hattier to lead the board in a word of prayer. Hattier read a prayer given by George Washington during the Revolutionary War. During the business meeting, the board also issued a first reading of a policy concerning school prayer at baccalaureate and commencement ceremonies, which states that student-initiated, student-delivered, voluntary messages may be permitted during graduation ceremonies. Thomas Neuberger, a Rutherford affiliate attorney with the Neuberger Firm, which is based in Wilmington, Del., is defending school board member Reginald Helms against the ACLU’s lawsuit. (link)
Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
marks the location of current message within thread
MSNBC.com
