0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
For a bit more information on why Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater's attorney, is in this affair, there's this.On September 17th Hamilton and Freshwater were interviewed on a radio program hosted by David Barton, notorious revisionist pseudo-historian who is in the process of polluting social studies standards in Texas. Late in the interview (there are no time markers) Hamilton explains his motivation for taking Freshwater’s case:QuoteEverybody in this world is given an opportunity to be obedient at any given time, and it just so happens that I’ve known for several years prior to this event taking place that God made it very clear that one day I would be arguing about the First Amendment as it relates to His Bible. I’ve known this and I can’t wait to share that with others. But, you know, for anybody that doubts God’s intervention in this particular matter, they simply have to recall chapter 6 in Ephesians and the spiritual battle and the [bounty?] that is being fought. The symbolism is so great in this particular case. Recognize that “fresh water,” of course, represents baptism, and that’s exactly .. that’s John’s last name. There is a .. the opposing attorney in this particular case, his last name is Millstone. All you need to do is go to the book of Luke, and when you take a look at the book of Luke it will say, you know, “It would be better for someone to put a mill stone around their neck than to keep these little ones from me.” Then, of course, the judge’s last name in this particular case, his last name is Shepherd. So you start putting some of the symbolism together just on the names, you start to see some of the unique intervention that God has had in this particular matter.
Everybody in this world is given an opportunity to be obedient at any given time, and it just so happens that I’ve known for several years prior to this event taking place that God made it very clear that one day I would be arguing about the First Amendment as it relates to His Bible. I’ve known this and I can’t wait to share that with others. But, you know, for anybody that doubts God’s intervention in this particular matter, they simply have to recall chapter 6 in Ephesians and the spiritual battle and the [bounty?] that is being fought. The symbolism is so great in this particular case. Recognize that “fresh water,” of course, represents baptism, and that’s exactly .. that’s John’s last name. There is a .. the opposing attorney in this particular case, his last name is Millstone. All you need to do is go to the book of Luke, and when you take a look at the book of Luke it will say, you know, “It would be better for someone to put a mill stone around their neck than to keep these little ones from me.” Then, of course, the judge’s last name in this particular case, his last name is Shepherd. So you start putting some of the symbolism together just on the names, you start to see some of the unique intervention that God has had in this particular matter.
I see the Supreme Court of Ohio just shot down that whack-job Hamilton (7-0) in his bid to force Board members to testify.........guess his "god" was busy while the Supreme Court Judges rendered their decision.....One delay tactic down - one to go (Kirk and Thompson running for School Board)........
Yep, here's the link to the Knox Page's story on this one:http://www.knoxpages.com/?NewsID=7474&CatID=1
Supreme Court: Freshwater can’t force board members to testify Mount Vernon City School Board members do not have to testify at the termination hearing of suspended eighth-grade science teacher John Freshwater, the Ohio Supreme Court said this morning in a ruling. Justices voted 7-0 and did not issue an opinion because it’s a matter of procedure, a court spokesperson said.
For a bit more information on why Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater's attorney, is in this affair, there's this.On September 17th Hamilton and Freshwater were interviewed on a radio program hosted by David Barton, notorious revisionist pseudo-historian who is in the process of polluting social studies standards in Texas. Late in the interview (there are no time markers) Hamilton explains his motivation for taking Freshwater’s case:QuoteEverybody in this world is given an opportunity to be obedient at any given time, and it just so happens that I’ve known for several years prior to this event taking place that God made it very clear that one day I would be arguing about the First Amendment as it relates to His Bible. I’ve known this and I can’t wait to share that with others. But, you know, for anybody that doubts God’s intervention in this particular matter, they simply have to recall chapter 6 in Ephesians and the spiritual battle and the [bounty?] that is being fought. The symbolism is so great in this particular case. Recognize that “fresh water,” of course, represents baptism, and that’s exactly .. that’s John’s last name. There is a .. the opposing attorney in this particular case, his last name is Millstone. All you need to do is go to the book of Luke, and when you take a look at the book of Luke it will say, you know, “It would be better for someone to put a mill stone around their neck than to keep these little ones from me.” Then, of course, the judge’s last name in this particular case, his last name is Shepherd. So you start putting some of the symbolism together just on the names, you start to see some of the unique intervention that God has had in this particular matter.And that's the legal approach Thompson is supporting and raising money for. I don't have any problem voting for someone -- anyone! -- else.
For those interested in reviewing whether or not Kirk is an eligible candidate for the School Board, I found this link to the actual document/decision on Paula Barone's website: Petro’s opinion, No. 2003-010 reads, “The positions of member of the board of education of a local school district and principal of a school in a joint vocational district that includes the territory of the local school district are incompatible.” http://www.paulabarone.com/Site/News_Releases_files/2003-010.pdfIt looks pretty clear to me.The question is: "will another person place this town in a position to have to pay attorney's a lot of money in order to prove something that the law has already established?"..............ughhhhhhhhh!
seriously is someone named R Kelly drawing attention to names???Google that one!!
