And herein lies the fallacy; the judge claims he got all he needed to know in the trial presentations.
And yet Matthew Chapman, Darwins grandson and author of a Feb. Harpers article, said the defense was incompent.
Incompetent in that the lead counsel disappered for days at a time, the two assistants were unprepared and did not know how to work the presentation equipment, and the plaintiffs had eight lawyers.
Why would the Thomas More Foundation volunteer to defend, when the Catholic Chuch does not even support ID?
I smell a set up.
There are lawyers here in Kansas who will not run away and disapppear for days at a time during trial.
Bring it on!!!
Vogeltroth-
The whole ID thing is a financial scam to sell phony textbooks and deceive people. The Thomas Moore Law Center is still demanding 1 million dollars for this incompetent representation from a poor town, who will have to forego repairs and other related expenditures at their schools. The reason why it was not better defended is because lawyers can spot a weak case. ID is crap and everyone at the top of the pile knows it stinks.
Yeah, it's not that ID is utterly vacuous, it's that the defense team who insisted on creating a test-case was incompetent.
Classic.
Commenting by HaloScan
