Herman Cummings letter
Herman Cummings letterTo: The Brock Clay Law firm
Attn: Atty. Linwood GunnDear Sirs:Herman Cummings
At this point, proper introductions are in order. My name is Herman Cummings. I am the foremost terrestrial authority on the book of Genesis. Until you can disprove that claim, accept it as fact.
I am the person Atty. Gunn refused to talk to, concerning my contribution to the Cobb County “sticker” trial last November. I had earlier sent an email predicting how the plaintiff would try the case, and how to avoid their pitfalls. I also called twice, offering my testimony, which would have swung the judge’s decision in favor of the defense.
However, both the school board and Atty. Gunn ignored me. I wrote the board after the trial predicting (correctly) the outcome weeks before it was made known. They were told (as I remember) how foolish they were for not supporting a more formidable defense.
But enough of that. The appeal is now the focal point, and the reputation of your law firm is at stake. As reported in the news, the firm was paid $74,000 to “lose” the case. Did they “tie your hands”? Or was the “game plan” so poorly formulated that it couldn’t win “an easy case”?
Why was the case “easy”? Because all the defense had to do was two things, which were 1) prove that the exclusive teaching of evolution in public schools is unconstitutional, and 2) that another plausible explanation exists for the 600 million year fossil record. There was also a third object to convey to the court (smoking gun), but it would be better to save it for a subsequent trial (appeal).
My point is this. If a person outside the law profession can demonstrate to the lower court (using past U.S. Supreme decisions) that evolution is unconstitutional, and fails the “Lemon Test”, where is the professionalism to be expected for $74,000?
Did the School board want to lose the case? What was the reason for not having the leading expert on the book of Genesis testify? Those “creationist comments” made by the supporting witnesses for the defense were both shallow, and harmful. Proving that evolution WAS a theory, would have solidified the case for the defense.v So, why did it cost $74,000 to lose the case? Why does the board subject itself to paying an additional $200,000 in reimbursement for the plaintiff? Does your law firm plan to lose the appeal, using an even weaker argument than what was attempted in the original trial? Or shall you hire me as a court consultant and retain me as an expert witness?
Posted by: Herman Cummings at May 28, 2005