Kansas Insitution to sue about teaching science in science room.

quote:

---

The F&S (Framework and Standards) take impressionable children, beginning in Kindergarten, into the religious sphere by leading them to ask ultimate religious questions like what is the cause and nature of life and the universe - "where do we come from?"

---

That's right. God forbid a five year old learn to ask questions.Then the plaintiff's complain about this.

quote:

---

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

---

And this I'd call the don't let your babies grow up to be scientists buffonery:

quote:

---

Plaintiffs BR, HR, BR and NR seek to enforce their rights to not be indoctrinated by Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S seek to establish, which rights are being asserted herein on their behalf by their father and mother and next friend, Carl and Mary Angela Reimer.

---

I suggest following Dr. Adequate's example and reading the complaint. It is funny stuff.

Sorry, I cannot comply. I know that some well paid lawyer wrote that complaint.I understand that the lawyers did not have much to work with, but surely something other than simply typing a 'Chick tract' into legal form was called for here.

Yes, McGown v. Maryland is a rather pathetic attempt at finding an on point case, but there simply isn't much relevant, not overturned case law to work with. There is some balancing to do between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause but for these issues, the balance has already been struck.The lawyers were handed bad facts on the wrong side of the law, but the brief probably did give the plaintiff's a warm fuzzy feeling when they read it. The same feeling they likely get when they read a Jack Chick comic.What I would have expected was an argument for overturning current law, and not a brief that ignores current law. This brief is pathetic, and I think it is laugh worthy. Maybe the law firm is doing this pro bono to get some good PR in the community.

Your teacher very likely did violate constitutional law in so doing. But almost certainly your teacher was not following guidelines anything like the ones at issue here which don't require any such thing. A child being ridiculed, particularly by a person in authority is no laughing matter. But a return to the society of 1957? No thanks.

Because it is bad advocacy to write and file complaints simply to make the client feel good. I'm not asking you to complain. I think filing such a complaint borders on malpractice, so I'm complaining. I expect they were, but a lawyer is not a stenographer. This complaint is at least arguably a violation of Rule 11, which could result in sanctions against the lawyer and/or his client.Rule 11 (b)(2)....an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Remove dupeEdited by NoNukes, : One post is enough

I don't expect that you are familiar with the standard that would be applied so I'm not surprised that you don't see even an argument that the complaint is without merit.But as a hint, if your standard were used, (i.e. the lawyer saying that the complaint is okay with him) no lawyer would ever be sanctioned under rule 11.

You certainly appeared to express some doubt. I'm sure that you have some way to interpret your remarks so that saying the above does not express doubt. I'm also sure that it would be easier to get blood from a stone than to get any kind of explanation. And you believe that sanctioning the lawyer for filing an inadequate complaint actually supports the complaint? Perhaps if you were their lawyer, you'd attempt such a strategy. But a possible rule 11 sanction is dismissal of the complaint. In what way would that 'support the complaint'. As for convincing the complainants that they are right, the court is not responsible for the plaintiff's delusion about the law. After all losing the court case is also unlikely to convince the plaintiffs that they are wrong. So perhaps the judge should just rule in their favor so that the clients don't feel persecuted? Surely not.Throw me some kind of bone here jar. Surely there is some way to find something rational in what you are posting.

Then perhaps we are arguing about two different things. The 'complaint' is the legal paper filed in court and served on the opposing party to start the law suit, and not just a description of the disagreement. Inside of a complaint is a description of the harm being wrought (maybe this is what you are calling a complaint), the remedy being sought, and the legal basis supporting the claim for relief from the described harm.The rules for the filing are described in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. Your complaint can be dismissed for things as trivial as being in the wrong font or on the wrong sized paper, or failing to meet time limits or procedure for serving the other party.The complaint can be inadequate for failing in any of those parts.A request for relief is supposed to have a legal basis. Otherwise it should be dismissed (possibly with prejudice and sanctions). In this case, and IMO, that means at least a clue why this case isn't a loser just like every other similar case that has been lost at the appellate level.Is it actually illegal to teach kids to doubt what their parents think? My dad thought that 'cold' was an positive quantity of something physical that was stored in ice rather than resulting from removal of heat energy. Was it actually illegal for my chemistry or physics teacher to teach me otherwise? Of course not.So how is this request for relief different? Well obviously because the parents believe the subject matter involves something they do have a legal right to object to. However, this complaint fails to adequate describe why they parents are entitled to relief. We know what the parents don't like. Just like you know (now) that I don't like brussel sprouts.Assuming the parents manage to avoid being dismissed under rule 2b6 and being sanctioned under rule 11, they will have an opportunity to file a more substantive brief. But this complaint risks having the case not even get that far. Nonsense. It may well support the conclusion that the plaintiff's have a bad case or a poor lawyer.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

From which we should conclude what, jar?

No law suit is needed in order to accomplish that.

Jar, you aren't making sense. They can do that stuff regardless of what does or does not happen to their complaint.What their complaint asks for is the removal of the teaching of science from other folks kids. There is no reason to honor a baseless complaint in order to allow them to separate. I suppose this is the point where we recognize the rights of the parents but deny everyone else any rights to do things like even laugh at the complaint.Yet another obtuse jar response...

Yes I have been reading what you've said. Your comments have not been limited to message 51.

Actually it turns out that it is the case. Parents are always free to take their kids out of public schools and to put them in homeschools and private schools. In some cases they can even get vouchers to pay for some of the costs with public money.

The Christian universities are predominantly liberal arts schools. And you can avoid taking geology or biology courses at most any college. I did not take that stuff in college.