Churchill Billed For Legal Expenses, May Top $50K

Heh--may be as high as $50K.

Pravda takes up Churchill's cause.

Big post-decision link roundup at PirateBallerina.

Breaking--Ward Churchill Denied Reinstatement

**Update 6--Ross Kaminsky provides an excellent detailed breakdown of Judge Larry Naves' decision in the Churchill lawsuit; more reactions on Churchill's failed lawsuit at Drunkablog, including a roundup of links; comprehensive followups at PirateBallerina (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), including CU billing Churchill for legal expenses; ACTA's take on the decision

**Update 5--CU Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano and CU attorney Pat O'Rourke:



**Update 4--The fat lady isn't singing--Churchill's attorney, David Lane, is planning to file an appeal:

When asked if there would be an appeal, Churchill's attorney David Lane said in an afternoon press conference, "Absolutely."

"It sends a message to the public, which is: 'Oh jury verdicts, who cares?' You know?" Lane said. "I've said, you know the Constitution is only as strong as those charged with protecting it, and unfortunately it's not being protected."

The next step is the Colorado Court of Appeals, and Churchill and Lane have 45 days to file the appeal.

CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke believes CU will win the appeal.

"[The ruling is] factually strong and it's legally strong. I think that this case could get resolved at the Court of Appeals level and the higher courts could say, 'We have no reason to review it further,'" O'Rourke said.

Churchill himself had nothing to say:

Churchill did not have any comment on Tuesday.

School administrators say the ruling gives them vindication.

"This is an issue about research misconduct. I said back in 2005 and again in 2006 that Professor Churchill's speech is protected. However, there were numerous allegations of research misconduct that needed to be investigated," CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano said.

"This is a huge win for the University of Colorado because the jury found against the university and the judge throwing the verdict out now can only be considered a major judicial upset," 9NEWS Legal Analyst Scott Robinson said.

But all sides agree that the case's journey through the courts is not over.

"This case will 100 percent be appealed and it's anyone's guess how it will be resolved in appeal," Robinson said. "This is a groundbreaking decision in an area of law that has not been visited very often in the past."

**Update 3--CU and Board of Regents granted immunity:

On Tuesday Chief Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves denied Churchill's motion for reinstatement of employment as well as any "front" pay. It was part of a decision where Naves granted CU and the Board of Regents immunity from being sued, which vacates the jury verdict from April of this year.
. . .
Naves ruled "because quasi-judicial immunity was a 'defense that would have been applicable to any of its officials or employees' it is a defense available to the University and the Board of Regents. In this case, it is clear that the Board of Regents performed a quasi-judicial function and acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when it heard Professor Churchill's case and terminated his employment."

"Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants are GRANTED quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law from Professor Churchill's second claim for relief. As a result, the jury's verdict in this matter is hereby VACATED, and judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants on Professor Churchill's Second Claim for Relief."

Naves went on write: "If I granted reinstatement I believe there is a substantial likelihood that there would be future disputes about the propriety of Professor Churchill’s academic conduct... Under these circumstances and recognizing that the University’s faculty must have the ability to define the standards of scholarship, I am persuaded that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy in this case... The same 'sharply conflicting evidence' about Professor Churchill’s job performance and the fundamental disagreements between the parties lead me to conclude that 'an absence of mutual trust' makes reinstatement unfeasible."

**Update 2--CU President Bruce Benson:

"We believe the judge appropriately applied the law to recognize the Board of Regents' role as a quasi-judicial body. This ruling recognizes that the regents have to make important and difficult decisions. The threat of litigation should not be used to influence those decisions."

From the ruling:

In a 42-page decision issued today, Naves agreed with the university that Churchill's presence on the Boulder campus would suggest that the university tolerated academic misconduct.

"The evidence was credible that Professor Churchill will not only be the most visible member of the Department of Ethnic Studies if reinstated, but that reinstatement will create the perception in the broader academic community that the Department of Ethnic Studies tolerates research misconduct," Naves wrote.

"In addition, this negative perception has great potential to hinder students graduating from the Department of Ethnic Studies in their efforts to obtain placement in graduate programs," he wrote.

**Update--full text of Judge Naves' ruling (pdf), and a mini-recap of the arguments presented after Churchill's April "victory," in which he was awarded damages of $1:

In April, a Denver jury agreed with Churchill's premise that he was illegally fired, but it stopped far short of awarding Churchill a high dollar figure. Instead it awarded Churchill $1.

Last week, Lane and Churchill were back in Judge Naves' courtroom arguing that their legal victory in April was enough for the judge to order reinstatement. Calling CU leaders, "constitutional law violators," Lane told Naves he had essentially no other choice but to reinstate the embattled professor.

CU's lead attorney Patrick O'Rourke argued that the $1 judgement in April should, in essence, speak for itself. O'Rourke suggested that reinstating Churchill would further damage the university's reputation.

--extensive SP Churchill archives

--more at PirateBallerina

Perhaps the final chapter in the Ward Churchill saga:

The University of Colorado doesn't have to give fired ethnic studies Prof. Ward Churchill his job back, a Denver District Court judge ruled today.

"I conclude that reinstating Professor Churchill would entangle the judiciary excessively in matters that are more appropriate for academic professionals. In making this decision, I give considerable weight to the United States Supreme Court's recognition that 'considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions,' " Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves, said in his 42-page decision.

Naves went on to say that trial courts may deny reinstatement when, as " practical matter, a productive and amicable working relationship would be impossible" or "the employer-employee relationship has been irreparably damaged by animosity caused by the lawsuit."

A jury in April found that the university illegally fired Churchill after he was accused of research misconduct.

More from Channel 7:

Boulder learning will go on without Ward Churchill.

On Tuesday Judge Larry Naves granted CU's and the Board of Regent's motion for judgement as a matter of law that the Board of Regents is immune from being sued and vacates the jury verdict from April of this year.

Naves also denied Churchill's motion for reinstatement of employment as well as any "front" pay.

Jury Reaches Verdict In Ward Churchill Lawsuit

Breaking . . . developing, more updates and analysis as they come in:

9:36pm--PirateBallerina has extensive updates and reactions from around the country on the Churchill verdict (scroll); Drunkablog has the transcript of one of the toolheaded jurors (a bright 19 year old) who sided with Churchill

--Courtroom audio of verdict from Complete Colorado

--Denver Post's story now up

--Judge's decision on reinstating Ward Churchill's job to be determined in next 30 days

--jurors not speaking to media so far . . .

--PirateBallerina: CU's defense to blame

--"lying liars" strategy works?

--more speculation: jury may have found for Churchill, but $1 damages indicate they may strongly feel that Churchill is an academic fraud

4:21pm--jury awards $1 to Ward Churchill

4:20pm--not terminated except for protected speech activity

4:18pm--the jury finds on termination by CU Regents based on protected speech yes, for Churchill

4:17pm--jury foreman to be addressed--jury reaches unanimous verdict

4:16pm--jury entering court room

4:15pm--verdict being announced now, judge giving orders to the public inside the court room

Developing:
The jury has reached a verdict in the case of Ward Churchill vs. University of Colorado. It is expected to be delivered shortly after 4 p.m.

Speculation that jury may award nominal damages . . .

Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves read the question in the courtroom this afternoon.

"We are feeling uncomfortable about the damages portion. Would you be willing to meet with us to talk about what is required and other things regarding money," Naves said. "And is zero dollars an option?"

Naves read his reply to the jury.

"I cannot meet with you. Please re-read the instructions regarding damages and if you find in favor of the plaintiff but do not find damages, you will award in the sum of one dollar," he said.

Jurors appeared to be leaning toward the ex-professor based on questions earlier in deliberations.

Jury Leaning Toward Churchill?

Developing . . . verdict reached:

The jury has reached a verdict in the case of Ward Churchill vs. University of Colorado. It is expected to be delivered shortly after 4 p.m.

---

Things may not be looking good for CU--and academic honesty:

A question submitted this afternoon from the jury indicates that it is leaning toward granting Ward Churchill's civil claim against the University of Colorado.

But the six jurors also appear to be struggling with what to award the former ethnic studies professor in damages, if anything.

Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves read the question in the courtroom this afternoon.

"We are feeling uncomfortable about the damages portion. Would you be willing to meet with us to talk about what is required and other things regarding money," Naves said. "And is zero dollars an option?"

Naves read his reply to the jury.

"I cannot meet with you. Please re-read the instructions regarding damages and if you find in favor of the plaintiff but do not find damages, you will award in the sum of one dollar," he said.

Churchill attorney Robert Bruce said "it's one of those juror questions that seems to be leaning in our direction."

Drunkablog corroborates and is transcribing CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke's appearance on Caplis and Silverman and PirateBallerina has more.

Ward Churchill Week 4 Update--Judge Tosses One Of Two Claims, **Update: Jury Receives Case

"Are you going to allow lies to overcome the truth?"--David Lane, Churchill's attorney

"What we heard here during the course of this trial is there are two worlds - the world the University exists in and the world Ward Churchill lives in . . . Ward Churchill's world was a place where there are no standards and no accountability"--Patrick O'Rourke, CU attorney

**Update 2: Jury receives case:

A jury began its deliberations in Ward Churchill's civil trial against the University of Colorado on Wednesday after hearing the closing arguments from both sides.

"The job you are now undertaking is quite possibly the most important decision you will ever have to make," Churchill's attorney David Lane told the Denver jury during closing arguments. "You are in charge of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America."

Lane added: "Are you going to allow lies to overcome the truth?"
. . .
CU's attorney countered during his round of closing arguments.

"What we heard here during the course of this trial is there are two worlds - the world the University exists in and the world Ward Churchill lives in," attorney Patrick O'Rourke said. "Ward Churchill's world was a place where there are no standards and no accountability."

Exit questions--how quick a decision, and in whose favor?

---

Scroll for updates--as always, check out the implacable Drunkablog, who managed to cover the majority of the trial from inside the courtroom, and PirateBallerina for additional coverage . . .

**Late breaking update: No chilling of free speech--judge tosses one of Churchill's claims!:

Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves threw out one of Ward Churchill's two claims this afternoon, ruling that the former professor's assertion that the University of Colorado launched an investigation into his scholarship in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights was not "actionable."

The judge and lawyers met out of the presence of the jury Tuesday afternoon to go over the final language on the jury verdict form.

"This case will go to the jury on the other claim where there is clearly an adverse employment action, which is being terminated," the judge said.

The second claim in Churchill's civil lawsuit against the school is the primary claim -- that CU fired Churchill for exercising his free speech rights.

The first claim in his suit, which was dismissed this afternoon, was that CU launched an investigation into the former professor in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, essentially chilling those rights.

Naves said an investigation, in and of itself, is not an adverse employment action.

Churchill didn't lose his job or his pay while the investigation was ongoing, the judge said, and the possibility that an investigation could chill free expression by others who fear that making a controversial statement will result in a whole sale investigation of their scholarship is not sufficient to bring a retaliation claim.

Naves cited several other cases where judges had made similar rulings.

The jury will receive instructions Wednesday morning. Closing arguments will follow.

---

"Where do you guys get off looking at every word he has ever written when the only thing he wrote that upset you was the 9/11 essay?"--Churchill's attorney David Lane


Excellent cartoon from Face the State.

The latest updates on the Churchillpalooza trial--including extensive previous coverage:

Churchill receives the support of terrorist-sympathizer Lynne Stewart.

March 31--Defense concludes:

Ludwig took the stand for a short period Tuesday afternoon, testifying that he felt Ward Churchill was a valuable presence on campus because he served to combat the "cultural amnesia" that the larger society has about the treatment of American Indians.

He said it was "not easy" to fire the professor but that his academic transgressions were serious enough to merit it.

"We can't have one of our faculty members fall below that standard that we have," he told the jury.

March 30--Regents admit Churchill essay sparked probe:

Three former and current University of Colorado regents testified today that they authorized a review of then-Boulder professor Ward Churchill's speeches and writings only to find out whether they were protected under the First Amendment.

Former regent Patricia Hayes and regent Peter Steinhauer, both Republicans, said they found Churchill's comments in an essay about the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "anti-American." But they said they also were concerned about other instances where Churchill made speeches that they thought appeared to advocate violence and terrorism.

They testified that they wanted to know whether the speeches and essays were considered protected speech under the First Amendment if Churchill had made them as a public employee representing the university.

"Given a fair chance":

Carlisle was the lone regent to vote against firing Churchill in 2007.

She said her decision to stray from her colleagues was based on the fact that the majority of faculty members serving on CU's Privilege & Tenure Committee voted to suspend the professor.

"They're the ones with the scholarship, they were the ones who should be making the decision about what sanctions should happen to Professor Churchill," she testified.

But Carlisle said she had the utmost confidence that Churchill was treated fairly and that the academic misconduct charges against him were fully proven.

"I believe Ward Churchill was given a fair chance to state his case," she told the jury.

March 27--"We did not sacrifice Ward Churchill":

"We did not sacrifice Ward Churchill," said Don Morley, a professor of communications at CU-Colorado Springs and a member of the university's Privilege and Tenure Committee.

Morley testified that he was hoping the fraud charges against Churchill that were being forwarded to his panel from the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct would turn out to be false.

"Why?" CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke asked.

"You just don't want to see one of your own fall and he's one of our own," Morley replied.

He said the Privilege and Tenure Committee was not a rubber stamp for the previous university panels that reviewed Churchill's work for academic misconduct.

His committee gave serious consideration to each allegation of fraud, Morley told the jury, and even absolved Churchill on several when the alleged wrongdoing didn't rise to the committee's higher standard of "clear and convincing" evidence for misconduct.

But what the committee did find in terms of misconduct, Morley said, merited terminating the controversial former ethnic studies professor.

March 26--Free speech doesn't negate academic fraud:

CU Regent Michael Carrigan told the jury that the nationwide furor over an incendiary essay penned by Churchill about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was a wholly different matter from allegations that the professor had fabricated, falsified and plagiarized parts of his academic work.

And just because the misconduct investigation grew out of the firestorm over the essay — which CU later determined to be protected free speech — didn’t mean the university could disregard the information it was getting about Churchill’s scholarship, Carrigan testified.

“Essentially, if we ignored these allegations, the message would be that you can plagiarize, you can ghostwrite, you can do it, but just make sure you say something offensive so you can say you should never be investigated and your work should never be scrutinized,” he said.

March 25--Churchill's attorney rests case

March 24--Churchill calls critics "pathetic":

Ward Churchill, fired by the University of Colorado two years ago for allegedly engaging in academic misconduct, called some of his critics "pathetic" during a second day of testimony at his wrongful termination trial Tuesday.

The frank description came after Churchill's attorney, David Lane, asked his client for his reaction to previous testimony from a colleague at CU who, according to Lane, characterized Churchill's three decades of scholarship as "not worth a pitcher of warm spit."

"How did it make you feel?" Lane asked.

"Angry," Churchill replied. "But anger is no new feeling for me."

Boo hoo. Critics also labelled "shit-knitters"--that's a new one.

Ward Churchill Testifies (Finally): "I Am Not In Favor Of Terror," Profit Motive Made 9/11 Victims "Little Eichmanns"

Today's earlier Week 2 recap. Drunkablog contextualizes Churchill's contextualizations on the stand earlier today. PirateBallerina has even more.

From the Denver Post Churchill blog:

Churchill is putting the meaning of his 9/11 essay in context for the jury. "I am not in favor of terror," he said.
. . .
"If the country wanted to avoid a repeat performance, maybe they should stop doing what it was that prompted the attack in the first place."

Churchill said people did not understand that Eichmann was a "bureaucrat, a desk murderer" and his mistake was assuming people understood Eichmann's role when they read the essay.

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit for yourself and your clients, you are the moral equivelant of Adolf Eichmann," Churchill said. "He never killed anyone, but without him the killing would have taken a very different or inefficient form."

Churchill continues to perpetuate a conflation of staggering malevolence--that somehow those working in the Twin Towers on 9/11, those corporate types involved in free market capitalism, are the moral equivalent of a man who organized train schedules and facilitated the murder of millions of Jews. But he's not in favor of terror, so he has that going for him.

Maybe he can't help it--he was just a "copy editor, essentially" for one of his cases of academic misconduct.

Russell Means--Churchill just "writing the wrongs of history" or "righting the wrongs"--depending on the blogger:

"It's an insult to my people and my history," Means said. "It's a scholarly massacre and it's not right. It's full of holes and full of lies. It's unconscionsable, because they don't treat white professors at CU the same way."

Yes they would, if any of them acted as academically irresponsible as Churchill. There is "scholarly massacre" at stake here, the kind perpetrated by Churchill in pursuit of a purely political agenda.

Where's Ward Churchillpalooza Week 3: Week 2 Recap, Will He Finally Take The Stand?

"Simply made-up, simply false . . . He just cheated"--University of Colorado sociology professor Michael Radelet, investigative committee member, on one of Ward Churchill's many faulty historical claims

Week 1 Recap--Churchill is expected to take the stand today, barring any more delays or snafus

March 16--Churchill's 9/11 essay "cruel and gratuitous", more here from the Daily Camera blog

March 17--Michael Yellow Bird on inventions in "oral history"; academic debates surrounding Churchill's questionable claims should "remain in the Academy and not in the courts"

March 18--MYB continued . . . "They don't invent facts, they invent the possibility that these things happen":

For the final question CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke asked indigenous studies professor Michael Yellow Bird during his re-cross Wednesday morning, he pulled up a transcript of previous testimony the professor had given to CU's Privilege & Tenure Committee and asked him if he had made the statement that "fabricated, made-up accounts promote the truth."

With a slight pause, Yellow Bird said yes.

"No further questions," O'Rourke said, closing his binder and taking a seat.

Lynne Stewart, yes that Lynne Stewart, will be defending Churchill this week.

CU investigative committee prof: Not "part of a right-wing attempt to get professor Churchill," problems with sourcing

March 19--technical snafu's deplete Churchill's crowd of supporters; CU's lead attorney goes on the offensive

March 20--Why the Churchill case matters from Vince Carroll of the Post; Churchill "hiding behind" oral tradition

March 23--Churchill lawyer claims that the powers that be at CU "disrespect Native people"; "He just cheated":

University of Colorado sociology professor Michael Radelet, who served on the investigative committee looking into allegations of academic misconduct by Ward Churchill, said his initial concern was that his colleague was being "railroaded" by people who wanted to see him punished for writing a controversial essay.

Radelet said he even signed on to a statement drawn up by his colleagues calling for Churchill's academic freedom and First Amendment rights to be protected by the university during the days after the 9/11 essay came to light.

"I am not and was not a person they would pick if they wanted someone to frame, railroad or even convict Ward Churchill of research misconduct," Radelet told the jury.

He testified that the committee, sensitive to the concept of academic freedom, "bent over backwards" to give Churchill the benefit of the doubt.

Radelet, who looked into allegations that Churchill had falsified information through his contention that there was "pretty strong circumstantial evidence" that Captain John Smith purposely introduced smallpox to the Wampanoag Indians in Massachusetts, said the claim was "simply made-up, simply false."

"He just cheated," he told the jury.

Drunkablog has Radelet's assertions that, by Churchill's standards, just about anyone in Boulder in 1996 could be a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

Much more from the aforementioned Drunkablog, who has braved the trial's tedium and icy glares from the Chutchites for two weeks already, and PirateBallerina, who continues to serve up links galore to Churchilliana.

The Daily Camera's blog/story archives are here, and the Race to the Bottom blog offering legal insights into the trial continues to chronicle the Churchill legal saga.

Churchill Trialpalooza Week 1 Recap, Week 2 Preview

The Drunkablog continues his extensive virtual liveblog coverage of the Ward Churchill lawsuit:

Tuesday March 10--"Ordeal by trial"

Wednesday March 11--Vince Carroll's pessimism on the Churchill lawsuit; ex-CU President Betsy "C-word is a term of endearment" Hoffman deposed on video, speaking on then-Gov. Bill Owens' "plan" for Churchill

Thursday March 12--pro-Churchill testimonials from CU faculty, former students; former CU President Hank Brown's testimony

Friday March 13--Churchill's lawyer David Lane's call for "mistrial" rebuffed

Monday March 16--Prof. Marianne "Mimi" Wesson, chair of investigative committee on academic misconduct, accused of bias

The Boulder Daily Camera continues to liveblog as well, and the usual expansive links at PirateBallerina.

Bonus--"Ward Churchill was the hazardous waste dumped in the reservoir"

Churchill, Holocaust deniers--what's the difference?

Could Churchill sycophant Glenn Spagnuolo's own case put a nail in his idol's coffin?

Churchill lawsuit--insubstantial MSM coverage but still substantial interest?

Churchill Trialpalooza Opening Arguments: Churchill's Attorney--"Mob Mentality" Against Client, Churchill "Never Plagiarized"

"The media was out of control -- it was an absolute mob mentality"--Ward Churchill's attorney David Lane, in opening arguments

"Churchill lost his job because he breached the trust of being a university professor. Professor Churchill did things that an eighth grader knows is wrong"--CU defense attorney Patrick O'Rourke

From the Daily Camera--Ward's legal counsel David Lane trots out the Churchill-as-martyr trope:

David Lane, Ward Churchill's attorney, invoked the names of Italian astronomer Galileo, who heretically declared that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and Tenessee teacher John Scopes, who was condemned for teaching evolution in school, as direct comparisons to what his client has undergone in the wake of writing a controversial essay on 9/11.

"Fast forward to 2005... Boulder, Colorado," Lane said during opening statements Tuesday morning.

Lane then moves on accuse CU Boulder of conducting a essentially a "lie-finding" mission using "pet poodles" selected to oust the professor:

Once Churchill's essay became widely public in January 2005, he told the jury, the media wouldn't let it drop.

"The media was out of control -- it was an absolute mob mentality," Lane said.

He said former Gov. Bill Owens threatened to cut funding to CU if it didn't fire Churchill. National media figures also jumped on the anti-Churchill bandwagon, he said.

Lane said all of that pressure prompted CU to find any way it could to get rid of the ethnic studies professor. It didn't stand up for him and defend his free expression rights, Lane said.

"They ran like cowards and they sacrificed this man because they were afraid of the howling mob," he said. "Lacking in courage, CU hung him out to dry."

Lane said the school undertook a full fledged effort to find anything it could in the dozens of books Churchill had written or edited that would justify terminating him. The school picked its own "pet poodles" to head up its committee to look into his client's work, he said, like CU law professor Mimi Wesson. Lane said Wesson, who made disparaging comments about the former professor, was in charge of the Standing Committee for Research Misconduct.

But Lane's biggest challenge, aside from trying to prove that his client was wrongfully terminated due to bias inherent in the system, is his own goal of disproving that Churchill in fact plagiarized or was responsible for any academic misconduct:

He said he would prove to the jury that Churchill never plagiarized and never falsified his work, as the school asserts.

"I think you will see that this guy has devoted his life to telling the truth for people who are not given a voice in society," Lane said, referring to Churchill's long-time affiliation with Native American communities.

He asked the jury to make his client whole again.

Yeah, good luck with that.

CU's attorney Patrick O'Rourke defended the university's actions, declared Churchill's essay "protected speech," but that he committed the "worst kind of academic fraud" possible, and compared his ability to discern appropriate academic behavior to that of a 13-yr-old:

However, he said, when the school began receiving allegations of academic misconduct attributed to the professor, it investigated his writings and found eight instances of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. A committee of 20 tenured professors made the determination, he said.

O'Rourke said Churchill's attempts to defend his work on various occasions over the past two years came up short in the eyes of his professorial peers, who held out the possibility that Churchill may have simply made honest errors. They characterized his misconduct as severe, deliberate and damaging.

"They said this is wrong," O'Rourke said. "Churchill lost his job because he breached the trust of being a university professor. Professor Churchill did things that an eighth grader knows is wrong."

More to come this afternoon.

More on the ex-professor in SP's extensive Ward Churchill archives.

More at Drunkablog and PirateBallerina.

Perhaps the 15 minutes are over--altry attendance and lack on national press coverage.

The Denver Channel 7 has a Twitter-style liveblog going as well, and has the testimony from the first witness for the plaintiff:

Professor Evelyn Wu-Dehard [Hu-DeHart, ed.] is called to the stand.

She is a professor of history and ethnic studies at Brown University, formerly at CU.

Says ethnic studies emerged from the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s. Says the contributions of blacks, Hispanics and Asians had been ignored for years. The notion of citizenship was reserved for white people.

"When CU tried to recruit me … Ward Churchill was already here."

Her opionion: Ward Churchill is one of the leading Native American scholars. One whose scholarship crosses a wide range. His impact is perhaps the single largest of all in ethnic studies.

"I think the worst thing that can happen to a scholar is when no one cares about you. When you provoke others. That is the highest testament to scholars."

She had written that Ward Churchill was not your typical academic.

He was in academic services. He had already be publishing and writing as a scholar. He did not have the usual criteria. Absence of Phd., which says you have an analytical mind. He was able to convince CU to hire him because of his published works.

She said he was an activist... an applied scholar. He takes information and applies it to areas of social import.

Break for lunch, resume at 1:30pm.

Churchill Trialpalooza Roundup

**Update--More from Drunkablog--jury selection completed:

A jury of four men and four women -- including two alternates -- has been seated in Ward Churchill's wrongful termination trial against the University of Colorado.

Denver District Judge Larry Naves gave a set of admonishments to the jury, telling them not to read about the case in newspapers or on the Internet or to watch anything about it on television.

Opening statements are scheduled to be made Tuesday at 9 a.m.

The lawyers in the case took an hour vetting the prospective jury as a group Monday afternoon, asking questions about the role of the First Amendment and about the kind of questions a public university has the right to ask when an employee is making controversial statements.

They also asked the jurors if they thought they could be fair in the case.

Lawyers had already met individually with each potential juror in the morning.

Bonus video from last week's Ward rally at CU, with moonbats issuing support from the "free speech" cage.

---

Drunkablog made the rounds this morning in Civic Center park ("Save Ward!" rally) and the Denver City and County building for the jury selection, but not much was going on . . . yet.

Looking at the Left has more reflections on the Churchill kerfuffle, and kook-aid guzzling Ben Whitmer soldiers on in his support of his idol mentor.

Churchill's lawyer, David Lane, parrots the continued charge of a CU "witch hunt" borrowed from William "free as a bird" Ayers:

"He is looking forward to having his day in court finally in a public forum so the public can hear what this witch hunt was all about," Lane said.

The trial is being held in the courtroom of Denver Chief District Judge Larry J. Naves.

Prospective jurors began receiving questionnaires about their knowledge of Churchill and the facts of the case last week.

The jury will be asked to consider two claims: that the university retaliated against Chur chill first by launching an investigation into his academic record and then by firing him. Churchill, 61, is seeking reinstatement and a financial judgment.

"In firing Mr. Churchill, CU did the right thing in the right way for the right reasons," said Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the CU system. "Essentially, I think that Churchill has had a trial by a jury of his peers and now he wants a do-over, and so we hope the jury sees things the way we do."

Churchill was roundly criticized in the court of public opinion, justifiably terminated by due process of his academic peers, and now has his day in court.

Some see no resolution in sight, and the decision in this lawsuit as anything but the final word in the Churchill/CU saga.

Stay tuned for more "As the Ward Turns"--as the lawsuit's first full day will commence tomorrow with opening arguments scheduled for 8:30 am Tuesday.

CU Boulder Proceeds With Event Featuring William Ayers And Ward Churchill Despite Non-Payment Of Security Fees

**Update--full video of Ayers' speech courtesy of People's Press Collective:



Drunkablog has a recap and pics, updates on Ward Churchill's lawsuit, and PirateBallerina has an excellent roundup of the "slew" of Churchill/Ayers-palooza last night in Boulder.



The William Ayers/Ward Churchill farce event at CU Boulder--"Forbidden Education and the Rise of Neo-McCarthyism" will proceed with the security required for the event.

The student groups hosting the Weather Undergrounder William Ayers and ex-professor Ward Churchill are griping about the security costs, and insist that the speakers are the reason for the "extra" charges:

Students for True Academic Freedom, which is sponsoring the event, said CU officials are unfairly imposing a $3,000 security fee to try to stop the event from happening.

The fee would cover the cost of having campus police at the engagement.

"The fees are exorbitant," said Aaron Smith, an organizer with the group. Smith said his group has already arranged for student security and neither Ayers nor Churchill has requested extra security.

"There's an effort to punish us financially, our student group specifically, because of the nature of who we're bringing out," said another organizer, Sean Daly.

This is patently absurd and incorrect.

I attended CU Boulder from 1997-2001 and for a few years after in graduate school, and the speakers we brought out through College Republicans often had security requirements. This was especially true when we hosted an event with NRA President Charlton Heston in March of 2000, less than a year after the Columbine High School shooting. There were anti-gun protesters in large numbers, as well as a small contingent of gun owners who thought the NRA was too moderate. There was a heightened sense of emotion surrounding the gun control issue in the late '90s, especially in Colorado following the Columbine shooting. We needed the security.

CU's response:

CU Boulder spokesman Bronson Hilliard said the decision to add the extra security fee was based on logistics, not content.

"It's got nothing to do with any difference of opinion we would have with Mr. Churchill or anyone else," Hilliard said. "It has to do with a baseline assessment of the security needs we have to make that a safe evening for everyone in the audience and for these speakers themselves."

Hilliard said the security fee is in line with what student groups typically pay for high-profile events featuring well-known speakers.

Last summer Hilliard said the campus College Republicans paid $4,800 in security fees related to an event featuring two men who claimed to be former members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

"We're treating them exactly the same as we've treated every other student organization. There's absolutely nothing here on our part that has anything to do with the content of the program that evening,” said Hilliard.

Fairness, however, is not in the student groups' vocabulary.

Whining about oppression, obviously, is:

But Daly and Smith said their group has invited the exact same speakers to CU in the past and did not have to pay for additional security.

"Bill Ayers and Derrick Jensen and Ward Churchill have never had to pay for that kind of security cost," Daly said.

University officials said things have changed since then.

Last year, during the presidential campaign, Ayers became a household name when he was labeled an "unrepentant terrorist" who sat on an education board with Barack Obama. Since then, he has received death threats.

Smith and Daly acknowledge said if university officials feel that extra security is needed, they should pay for it.

But Hilliard said waiving the fee or having the university pay it, would set a bad precedent.

"No student organization in the history of the university has ever refused to pay and bear their share of the burden for security costs," he said.

And they won't go down without a fight:

But that is exactly what Students for True Academic Freedom plan to do and they said they will not shy away from a legal battle if the university insists that they pay.

"We'll be seeing CU in court," said Daly.

The event is expected to go forward with full security on Thursday, March 5, at 7 p.m. in the UMC Glenn Miller Ballroom.

CU officials said the students will be permitted to pay the security fee after the event and if they do not, it may go to a collection agency.

Speaking of court, Ward's lawsuit jury selection began today.

Drunkablog and People's Press Collective will be there to cover the event and provide after action reports (photos, audio--courtesy of Drunkablog's fine efforts)--stay tuned for updates.

Bonus: Behold the "free speech cage" at CU Boulder in advance of this intellectual endeavor.

Fmr. Gov. Bill Owens' Frosty Encounter With Ex-Professor Ward Churchill

"In retirement, he's starting to look a lot like Michael Moore . . . Ward Churchill is a plagiarist and a fraud and, regrettably, we continue to pay for his deception"--Former Gov. Bill Owens on ex-CU professor Ward Churchill

Owens commented on being deposed (audio courtesy of Complete Colorado) for Churchill's lawsuit on the Caplis and Silverman show--including a funny encounter with the man himself (h/t Drunkablog):

The deposition took place in the office of Churchill's attorney, David Lane. Owens, who left office in January 2007 and now is a businessman, was represented by the attorney general's office.

For his part Friday, Churchill refused to shake Owens' hand.

So Owens took a verbal jab: "I said, 'Come on, you're a big guy.'"

Lane said later: "I hope the governor's feelings weren't too hurt."

And apparently, by "big guy" Owens meant Michael Moore.

Churchill's response?

*crickets chirping*

Owens concluded:

Churchill and Lane claimed the firing was in retaliation for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.

"I very directly told David Lane that I also had a First Amendment right to speak on the subject, and I reflected what a vast majority of Coloradans were saying," Owens said.

"Unfortunately for David Lane, his client had a clear pattern of lying for virtually his entire academic career. That's why he was fired.

"I believe the jury will reject Churchill's (claims.)"

Drunkablog, Pirate Ballerina and SP will have extensive coverage of the Churchill lawsuit come next month.

In the meantime, prepare for William Ayers' defense of Churchill next month at CU.

William Ayers To Defend Ward Churchill At CU In March Ahead Of Ex-Professor's Lawsuit

Thankfully, Drunkablog was on top of this over a week ago:

Come and hear the shocking truths behind the right-wing attacks on Churchill. Hear what they don’t want you to know!

Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009
Time: 6:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: Glenn Miller Ballroom, at CU Boulder inside the UMC

Ward Churchill, Dinesh D'Souza Debate Western Civilization

And, as usual, Ward Churchill brings a knife to the proverbial intellectual gun battle against Dinesh D'Souza:

Churchill began the debate by calling Western civilization a “synthesis of lies” and a “fraud” because it plagiarized and assimilated ideas from other cultures without giving due credit. He said that he “didn’t quite know what Western civilization is,” but that it was triumphalist and supremacist.

“There is no argument against Western civilization at all from Ward Churchill,” D’Souza responded. “His argument is against the narrative of Western civilization.”

D’Souza discussed how the world has progressed and benefited from the influences of Western civilization. According to D’Souza, Western civilization has humanized the world. He noted that while Western civilization participated in slavery, abolitionism is a uniquely Western concept.

“The Chinese had slaves, the Indians had slaves, even the American Indians had slaves before Columbus ever step foot on this continent. It is not slavery that is Western, it is abolition.”
. . .
“For me Western civilization isn’t just about a theory, it’s about a life lived in America. We’re debating whether the West has made life better, and it certainly has for me,” said D’Souza. “Ward Churchill is taking the tragic facts of history and ideologizing them into white oppression.”

Of course Churchill doesn't know what Western Civilization is--but he knows that he is against it, and uses the same anti-imperialist claptrap that has gained him such a following on the left.

However, it appears it must be time to fill the legal war chest, as it would have baffled even the casual observer of Churchill's typical MO of avoiding real debate while he was still a tenured professor. Either that or the election of Barack Obama has stolen away some of Churchill's coveted left-wing victimization and tinfoil-hat crowd.

In related tinfoil-hattedness news, Drunkablog keeps an eye on the progress of those arrested during the DNC--complete with ACLU-liciousness.

Ivory Tower Of Hope--University Of Colorado Donates 21-1 For Barack Obama

Chronicling bias in the rarefied air of academia qualifies as a "dog bites man" type of story--we know the outcome, but the delight (or horror) is often found in the details.

CU Boulder has earned its reputation as a bastion of academic liberalism and extremism. Ward Churchill, anyone?

This year's election provided an opportunity to reexamine that bias via fundraising reports that would reveal, more than simple party registration or classroom indoctrination, how America's places of higher learning were treating the epic battle between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain in dollars and cents.

You guessed it--they really, really like Obama.

Using this donor list tool, you can search by candidate, name, employer, state, and zip code. We decided to see just how much "hope" there was for Obama versus McCain, and the results were a complete shock.

Not really.

The University of Colorado system saw its employees donate 21-1 for Obama. A quick check of two other schools--University of California (including Berkeley) and Harvard University--immediately reveals that CU is actually low in terms of per-candidate ratios.

University of Colorado: Obama--$112,386; McCain--$5,401

University of California: Obama--$355,242 (donations above $1,000 only); McCain--$17,620

Harvard University: Obama--$499,057; McCain--$17,046

Obama--the change he needs, courtesy (in part) of America's ivory towers of privilege.

How does your alma mater fare? Or your zip code?

Shock: Ward Churchill Opposes "Demonization" Of Terrorist William Ayers

Ex-CU Professor Ward Churchill has joined 3200+ mostly academic types and signed a petition that calls Ayers' Weather Underground past "history" and criticizes attacks as nothing more than chilling "critical dialogue" and "free thinking":

More than 3,200 supporters -- including former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill -- have signed a petition protesting what they call the "demonization of Professor William Ayers."

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama's ties to Ayers have been questioned during the presidential campaign by critics who call the professor a "domestic terrorist." Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain, conducted a robo-phone call campaign in Colorado and several other states, calling into question Obama's connection with Ayers.

The phone call campaign against Ayers began at the same time McCain told voters he wasn't concerned with "some washed up terrorist," during the last presidential debate.

The petition, circulated online, asserts that Ayers' violent actions as the co-founder of the Weather Underground were just "history." The petition calls Ayers a well-respected, nationally-known figure in the education world. It also said that critics who call Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist" and "lunatic leftist" are "part of a pattern of 'exposes' and assaults designed to intimidate free thinking and stifle critical dialogue."

Lunatic leftists unite!

Ayers' activities as a terrorist co-conspirator with the Weather Underground are more than "history." The academics and unrepentant leftists who signed this petition are exposing their own willful blind eye to one of their ideological heroes, and are themselves guilty of the type of intimidationist thinking that stifles critical dialogue--they are petitioning to have the "demonization" of Ayers dropped, while simultaneously painting those who have raised criticisms as the ones against free speech. Remember criticism of the left is a violation of free speech, since all such criticism is really "hate speech," and the critics nothing more than jackbooted, fascist, neocon, hatemongers. Or so we've been told by folks like Churchill, again and again and again.

They lead off by attacking the "dishonesty of this campaign and the slanderous McCarthyism"--and then detail their support in the full text of the petition:

We write to support our colleague Professor William Ayers, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who is currently under determined and sustained political attack. Ayers is a nationally known scholar, member of the Faculty Senate at UIC, Vice President-elect of the American Educational Research Association, and sought after as a speaker and visiting scholar by other universities because of his exemplary scholarship, teaching, and service. Throughout the 20 years that he has been a valued faculty member at UIC, he has taught, advised, mentored, and supported hundreds of undergraduate, Masters and Ph.D. students. He has pushed them to take seriously their responsibilities as educators in a democracy – to promote critical inquiry, dialogue, and debate; to encourage questioning and independent thinking; to value the full humanity of every person and to work for access and equity. Helping educators develop the capacity and ethical commitment to these responsibilities is at the core of what we do, and as a teacher he has always embraced debate and multiple perspectives.

All citizens, but particularly teachers and scholars, are called upon to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted. Without critical dialogue and dissent we would likely be burning witches and enslaving our fellow human beings to this day. The growth of knowledge, insight, and understanding--- the possibility of change--- depends on that kind of effort, and the inevitable clash of ideas that follows should be celebrated and nourished rather than crushed. Teachers have a heavy responsibility, a moral obligation, to organize classrooms as sites of open discussion, free of coercion or intimidation. By all accounts Professor Ayers meets this standard. His classes are fully enrolled, and students welcome the exchange of views that he encourages.

The current characterizations of Professor Ayers---“unrepentant terrorist,” “lunatic leftist”---are unrecognizable to those who know or work with him. It’s true that Professor Ayers participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans. His participation in political activity 40 years ago is history; what is most relevant now is his continued engagement in progressive causes, and his exemplary contribution---including publishing 16 books--- to the field of education. The current attacks appear as part of a pattern of “exposés” and assaults designed to intimidate free thinking and stifle critical dialogue. Like crusades against high school and elementary teachers, and faculty at UCLA, Columbia, DePaul, and the University of Colorado, the attacks on and the character assassination of Ayers threaten the university as a space of open inquiry and debate, and threaten schools as places of compassion, imagination, curiosity, and free thought. They serve as warnings that anyone who voices perspectives and advances questions that challenge orthodoxy and political power may become a target, and this, then, casts a chill over free speech and inquiry and the spirit of democracy.

We, the undersigned, stand on the side of education as an enterprise devoted to human inquiry, enlightenment, and liberation. We oppose the demonization of Professor William Ayers.

Anti-Palin Instructor Andrew Hallam Cleared By Metro State

**Update--Hallam needs "mentoring":

"The investigation concluded that Hallam must learn to curb the use of vulgar language in class, and that the introduction of controversal topics must have a substantial relationship with the subject of the class," according to a news bulletin released by the college Tuesday.

"While discipline is not warranted, appropriate mentoring is recommended."

The findings of the investigation was announced by Metro State College president Stephen Jordan on Tuesday.

Hallam, 36, will be assigned a faculty member to serve as his mentor for the rest of this semester, according to Cathy Lucas, spokeswoman for the college. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Lucas said the college will also add an all-day session on how to maintain political balance in classes to orientations given to part-time as well as tenure track faculty members.

Wow. More diversity training at a college/university.

Didn't see that one coming.

---

Not even a slap on the wrist or a strongly worded letter.

Shock--Metro State found no wrongdoing:

A college English instructor's assignment to write an essay on whether Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is living a fairy tale has been cleared of wrongdoing.

Metropolitan State College of Denver probed the assignment by Andrew Hallam after some students complained it was politically biased.

Hallam's class was reading "Sleeping Beauty" and the assignment was to consider Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention. The speech was based on Palin's life and the assignment was to discuss whether the nominee is living a fairy tale.

An internal investigation found the assignment didn't require students to undermine Palin. The inquiry concluded students didn't feel personally belittled or insulted by Hallam.

Oh really?

Matt Barber told WND his sister is one of five students who have been belittled by the teacher, and "bullied and harassed" by other students "because they support McCain-Palin."

The students had documented a series of incidents in which Hallam reportedly told his class, "Bush-bashing is one of my favorite things to do."

In another class, the students report, Hallam said he loved swearing and the f-word was his favorite word.

"He used the f-word a few more times that day," they reported.

When Hallam handed out the Palin writing assignment, the students reported "he said he would give the Republicans a chance to speak about it and asked who in the class was a Republican. Five of us raised our hands. When we did, [one other student] … said 'F*** you!' Mr. Hallam did nothing about this. At the end of the class period, after a lot of the Republicans had voiced their side of the issue, another kid said, 'They're full of s***, but we let them talk anyway.'"

Not even enough backbone to criticize or punish an instructor whose political derangement created an undoubtedly hostile atmosphere to those who disagreed with his views. Since those students who complained obviously held the wrong point of view, nothing could or would be done by Metro State.

I hear there is still an opening for deranged, leftist, academic hacks--perhaps Mr. Hallam should contact the CU Ethnic Studies department once his Metro State appointment has run out.

Denver ColumBUST Day 2008

The Drunkablog--"small, ineffectual, not without conflict"--as indigenous women presented a "Treaty of Transformation" to the parade organizers. As a bonus check out the special guest--someone writing as Glenn Spagnuolo (of Recreate '68 infamy)--in the comments.

Westword has a video-to-video comparison of last year's protests and arrests, from AIM's perspective, and those who were observing (using footage from yours truly).

BDS-Suffering Metro State Instructor Andrew Hallam Assigns Essay Criticising Sarah Palin

**Update 2--shocker: Metro State instructor staying silent

**Update--Metro students discuss the Palin-basing assignment with talk radio show host Mike Rosen

"Bush-bashing is one of my favorite things to do"--Metro State instructor Andrew Hallam

2000-2008: Bush Derangement Syndrome.
August 2008-?: Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Another lefty professor from the Ward Churchill school of biased teaching has earned the coveted media attention desired by so many on the left in their quest for self-promotion and "raising awareness" of their political philosophies (video):

Metro State College is investigating a professor who asked students to write an essay critical of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. One student said the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them.

"I was shocked, I was holy cow, this is just an open door for him to discuss politics with us," said Jana Barber, a student in the class.

Barber shared the first class assignment with CBS4. Instructor Andrew Hallam asked students to write an essay to contradict what he called the 'fairy tale image of Palin' presented at the Republican National Convention.

"What the faculty's responsibility is to provide opportunity for critical thinking and civic engagement so bringing something of relevancy into the classroom was the faculty's goal," said Cathy Lucas, spokeswoman for Metro State. "Should he have broadened it and included all the political figures, yes."

Metro State officials are investigating claims of bias, harassment and bullying.

Hallam declined an interview with CBS4. He has revised the assignment.

Students may now write about any of the candidates.

The Daily Blogster has the earlier known details of the story, that detail the explicit bias of the class atmosphere promoted by the instructor, including the implicit approval of harassment of self-identified conservative/Republican students in the class by their fellow students:

Matt Barber told WND his sister is one of five students who have been belittled by the teacher, and "bullied and harassed" by other students "because they support McCain-Palin."

The students had documented a series of incidents in which Hallam reportedly told his class, "Bush-bashing is one of my favorite things to do."

In another class, the students report, Hallam said he loved swearing and the f-word was his favorite word.

"He used the f-word a few more times that day," they reported.

When Hallam handed out the Palin writing assignment, the students reported "he said he would give the Republicans a chance to speak about it and asked who in the class was a Republican. Five of us raised our hands. When we did, [one other student] … said 'F*** you!' Mr. Hallam did nothing about this. At the end of the class period, after a lot of the Republicans had voiced their side of the issue, another kid said, 'They're full of s***, but we let them talk anyway.'"

The students are in the process of filing the necessary complaints.

Drunkablog makes the necessary and inevitable comparison to another local teacher with a bias problem--Jay Bennish.

DNC Moonbat Splitsville Expands As Recreate '68 Coalition Fractures Over Tactics

**Update--someone claiming to be Adam Jung says that the Adam Jung quoted in Drunkablog's comments isn't him.

Fair enough.

But Whitmer and Spagnuolo's comments still appear to be from them, so I'll keep them up.

---

Apparently the Kool-Aid Recreate '68 poured wasn't strong enough, as more moonbat protest groups part ways with Glenn Spagnuolo's "non-violent" coalition (big h/t Drunkablog):

Activists who plan to protest at the Democratic National Convention this summer are splitting with the umbrella organization, Re-create 68, because of concerns over its rhetoric and tactics.

The new coalition, called Alliance for Real Democracy, is a network of local and national groups, including Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, the American Friends Service Committee, the Green Party of Colorado, the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Colorado Street Medics, and Students for Peace and Justice.

"We've separated ourselves; we're not part of Re-create 68," said Claire Ryder, chairwoman of the Denver Green Party.

Ryder said many activists had attended Re-create 68 meetings and were not comfortable with its organizational techniques.

Nevertheless, she said, "This has all been very difficult because a lot of them are our friends. We've worked together on a lot of other issues over time."

Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with Re-create 68, said he doesn't mind the new structure.

"More power to them," he said.

And less power for you, Glenn. Spagnuolo popped up in the comments at Drunkablog to refute some of the groups alleged to have broken away, stating that they have asked the Post for a retraction.

What else does Glenn have to say? Well, that the "liberal Democrat" groups--including the Greens, mind you--are somehow illegitimate by virtue of class (rich) and race (white). Recreate '68, on the other hand, expresses solidarity with the legitimate view of the oppressed minorities--or some Marxist claptrap like that:

Spagnuolo characterizes the groups that are splitting with his as liberal Democrats who are largely white and middle-to-upper class and want their party to guide the country out of the war in Iraq.

He described Re-create 68 as representing minorities, anarchists, communists, socialists and "radicals" who don't support Democrats or Republicans.

Hey, when moonbats turn on one another, hilarity ensues. There is also a run on tinfoil, or so I'm told.

Drunkablog has more comments from Spagnuolo, Benjamin "Ward Churchill is my hero" Whitmer, and accusations that the Spag-man himself is not a member of the proletariat but a member of the bourgeoisie as well as being white.

Wow, that's a double-whammy.

Whitmer's blog calls Adam Jung of Tent State (the first group to bail on the non-violent thugs activists of Recreate '68) a "f-ing liar," says "good riddance" to the parting groups, while also criticizing their "pacifism" (refusal to self-defense, or resisting arrest, depending on who you ask) and accusing them of "bootlicking toadyism."

Contrary to expectations that this might disrupt convention protest plans, it seems that the true radicals are on target for unrestricted protestation without the mitigating moderation of some of the other moonbat groups. With separate groups there will be more separate, uncoordinated events--perhaps with each side trying to outdo one another in escalating their rhetoric or street theater.

Can't be shown up on your own radical protest turf.