The Discovery Institute steps into the legal hotseat and gets burned ... again

[Questioninggeller]

In October 2009, American Freedom Alliance, a Christian non-profit, contacted the California Science Center Foundation to show a movie as a private party on the Foundation's property. The Foundation is part of the State of California and has ties to the Smithsonian Institution. To help carry out its education mission it raises money by leasing out its rooms to private groups.

The American Freedom Alliance wanted to screen Darwin's Dilemma in the theater for a private function with the 150th anniversary of Darwin's Origins of Species. The Foundation said no problem and even gave the group a discount to show the movie.

On October 5, 2009 the Foundation then gave the American Freedom Alliance a contract and the Alliance signed it agreeing to its terms. One of the terms of the contract was that "promotional materials for events at the CSC have to be submitted for approval before they are disseminated." The Foundation doesn't want its name or relationship to private parties mispresented afterall and who can blame them?

On October 6, 2009, the next day, American Freedom Alliance and the Discovery Institute issued press releases, without the Foundation's approval. The press releases misrepresented the involvement of California Science Center Foundation. After seeing that the Alliance and the Discovery Institute violated the contract, the Foundation canceled the event.

The Discovery Institute and the Alliance's reaction?

Allege it's part of anti-Intelligent Design conspiracy and file a lawsuit suing for several things, including damages and loss of revenue. Per a press release of the Christian wire service:

American Freedom Alliance Files Lawsuit Against Leading Science Center Over Intelligent Design Movie
Group Claims Cancellation of 'Darwin's Dilemma' Resulted from Organized Effort by Science Center to Suppress Discussion
Contact: Peter Bylsma, American Freedom Alliance, 310-795-8532
Nov. 24 2009
Christian Newswire

American Freedom Alliance (AFA), a non-profit group, has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against a popular science museum for cancelling an event exploring the topic of Intelligent Design. The group says its free speech rights were violated when the California Science Center (CSC) abruptly reversed a decision to allow the showing of a pro-Intelligent Design documentary at the museum's IMAX Theater. The program was also scheduled to screen a pro-evolution film, but, the lawsuit alleges, museum officials were fearful of having Intelligent Design discussed in any context.
...

Full: Christian Newswire


In defending themselves from the lawsuit, the California Science Center Foundation lawyers sought documents from American Freedom Alliance during the discovery period. The Alliance accidentially sent over some correspondence it had with the Discovery Institute, which were interesting. Soon the Foundation subpoenaed all records related to the issue from the Discovery Institute, including founder Bruce Chapman (who personally involved).

In late September 2010, the Discovery Institute responded and very defensively argued in court not to produce the documents, alleging attorney-client privilege. What was the Institute afraid of? The Judge in the matter didn't buy it (Chapman wasn't the Alliance's attorney) and the result was . . . well remember "cdesign proponentsists" in the Dover case?

In November 2010, armed with emails between American Freedom Alliance and the Discovery Institute, the California Science Center filed a counter-suit for attorney fees, alleging fraud. From the counter-claim of the lawsuit:

AFA and the Discovery Institute consistently communicated and collaborated on the Event up to, and even after, its cancellation. ... AFA was cognizant that its publicity efforts might impact[] its alleged contractual relationship with the Foundation. ... [The Discovery Institute's Robert Crowther] noted in his email to the AFA: 'Once we let the jinni [sic] out of the bottle it's likely all hell will break loose.' ... And in a later email, [the AFA's] Avi Davis admits that the Discovery Institute warned AFA that a cancellation might happen due to the Discovery Institute's publicity.

It's really worth reading the whole document to see how the Discovery Institute was involved and even wanted to use the cancelation for media exposure. Here's a summary from the NCSE:

The CSCF's cross-complaint listed three causes of action. First, that the AFA "materially breached the alleged contract" (p. 7) by issuing publicity, both in coordination with the Discovery Institute and on its own, about the screening without seeking the approval of the CSCF, as required by the contract. Second, that the AFA's conduct in doing so violated "the covenant of good faith and fair dealing" (p. 7) even if it was not a material violation of the contract. Third, that because "AFA entered into the alleged agreement with the Foundation and agreed to seek pre-approval of any publicity materials, all the while coordinating with the Discovery Institute to promote the Event and never intending on planning to obtain such pre-approval and fulfill its obligations of the alleged contract" (p. 10), the AFA committed actual fraud. The CSCF is asking the court for compensatory and punitive damages. A jury trial is currently scheduled to begin on June 13, 2011.

It should be noted the Foundation is a department in the State of California and hence, the people of California are paying to defend the State in this case for the Alliance and Discovery Institute to play the victims.

All documents related to the case here: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/american-freedom-alliance-v-california-science-center-et-al

 

[InfidelSavant]

I'm no legal expert, but is the bit at the end, under the heading "Prayer for Relief", is "Prayer" a legal term, or are they being ironic?

 

[Dr. Keith]

This is av ery fascinating case. I like how their trumped up victim hood is going to land them in the hot seat, owing money to the Socialist Republic of California.

I'm no legal expert, but is the bit at the end, under the heading "Prayer for Relief", is "Prayer" a legal term, or are they being ironic?

Legalese. The irony is noted, though!

 

[Questioninggeller]

The Discovery Institute's October 6th 2009 press release, which did not obey the contract: http://www.evolutionnews.org/DDCalPremiereRelease.pdf

You can read the paranoia of the Discovery Institute:

Did the Smithsonian Bully the California Science Center to Expel Intelligent Design Film?
October 10, 2009
Discovery Institute News and Views


The knee-jerk response of Darwin's defenders is to suppress any message that challenges Darwinian evolution's orthodoxy. Case in point, this past week the Los Angeles Daily News reported that the California Science Center, a "department of the State of California," banned the screening of the new intelligent design film, Darwin's Dilemma, after the screening became public knowledge and there was intense pressure to cancel.
...

Full: Discovery Institute News and Views



The movie was shown at another location:

Los Angeles Premiere of Intelligent Design Film Moves to USC on Oct. 25th at 7pm
October 19, 2009
Discovery Institute News and Views


Those who live in the Los Angeles area are invited to attend a gala premiere screening of Illustra Media's new documentary, Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record next Sunday, October 25th at 7:00 pm at the University of Southern California. The event is sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance.
...

Full: Discovery Institute News and Views




ETA:
Also the Alliance's lawyer William Becker is also the lawyer in the David Coppedge/Discovery Institute case.

 

[tsig]

The Discovery Institute's October 6th 2009 press release, which did not obey the contract: http://www.evolutionnews.org/DDCalPremiereRelease.pdf

You can read the paranoia of the Discovery Institute:

Full: Discovery Institute News and Views



The movie was shown at another location:

Full: Discovery Institute News and Views




ETA:
Also the Alliance's lawyer William Becker is also the lawyer in the David Coppedge/Discovery Institute case.

From the article:

It seems pretty clear that here you have a department of the California state government --a science center clearly affiliated with the Smithsonian-- that is breaking a legal contract (for undisclosed reasons) because someone (the Smithsonian?) was upset that a pro-intelligent design film was about to be screened at a well-known science center that is a Smithsonian affiliate.

Wouldn't the filing of the lawsuit tell them why the contract was canceled?

 

[InfidelSavant]

From the article:



Wouldn't the filing of the lawsuit tell them why the contract was canceled?

I believe the contract was cancelled because the Discovery guys violated it, in that they promoted the event without giving the Science Centre the opportunity to review press releases and promotional documents, like the contract required them to.

 

[Simon39759]

Yep; that's the DI being dishonest (again) and lying, in court and to the public (again), but, after all, lying is their job...

 

[Questioninggeller]

Wouldn't the filing of the lawsuit tell them why the contract was canceled?

The October 14, 2009 original legal complaint filed by the American Freedom Alliance (signed by William Becker under penalty of perjury) states on page 6:

On October 6, 2009, Christina M Sion, Vice President, Food & Services at the CENTER, wrote an email to DAVIS stating that "we are canceling your event at the California Science Center." Ms Sion's email stated:

It has come to our attention that in a press release issued October 5, 2009 by the American Freedom Alliance, it is inferred that the CENTER as [sic] a Smithsonian Institute affliate is co-sponsoring the Darwin Debates. Your event is a private event held on the CENTER property but is not affiliated in any way with the CENTER or the Smithsonian. This press release had damaged our relationship with the Smithsonian and the reputation of the CENTER. According to the Event Policies and Procedures that you signed to reserve the date for the event, you agreed to submit all promotional materials to the CENTER for review and approval prior to printing or broadcast. Because you did not obtain this approval and the press release has had significant negative ramifications, we are canceling your event at the CENTER.

For the Discovery Institute to claim four days later that it was cancelled for "undisclosed reasons," is just classic Discovery Institute.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Does anybody think that the AFA did this on purpose to gain publicity? I think that will be hard to prove short of a confession, even though documents state the AFA thought it might get cancelled. I didn't read the Cross Complaint court document. Either way fraud seems like an appropriate charge if this is the case.

Did the agreement state what would happen if the contract was breeched?

I eagerly await the counsel of Checkmite & LossLeader.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Does anybody think that the AFA did this on purpose to gain publicity?

That's a really interesting question and should be posed to the Discovery Institute. According to the Foundation's filing on November 8, 2010 (page 5):

And in a later email, [the AFA's] Avi Davis admits that the Discovery Institute warned AFA that a cancellation might happen due to the Discovery Institute's publicity. (AFA 003211.)

So the Discovery Institute warned the AFA that the Institute's press releases might get the Foundation to cancel the event.

On page 6:

On October 5, 2009, the same day that the Foundation received a signed Event Price Estimate from AFA, the Foundation became aware of press releases that were issued over the PR Newswire relating to the Event. These press releases improperly implied that the California Science Center and the Smithsonian Institution were sponsoring the AFA's private Event. Even Joe Peterson ("Peterson") of the AFA-- who was apparently out of the loop regarding AFA's coordinating publicity with the Discovery Institute-- recognized the press releases were misleading, noting:

Whomever at [sic] wrote the copy on the Discovery Institute press releases should have his head examined . . . I thought the problem was buried in the text of the documents . . . NOT THE HEADLINES. Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull. It seems like they were deliberately trying to screw this up!!!

(AFA 0002258.)

So John Peterson of the AFA thought "it seems like" the Discovery Institute "were deliberately trying to" mess it up by "waving a red flag in front of a bull."


On page 6:

When holding the Event at the Science Center became a possibility, AFA and the Discovery Institute started to discuss the fact that it provided additional opportunities for publicity. West noted that holding the Event at the Science Center "has the potentional for some fun publicity" (DI 00631.) In another email, West tells Bylsma that "[t]he national media might get interested because the California Science Center is the west coast affiliate of the Smithsonian." (AFA 0000148.) This was one of the terms that was expressly false and misleading about the press releases. And even after the cancellation, AFA indicated that "it looks like we have some publicity opportunities out of this." (AFA 0000446)

The Discovery Institute and AFA thought they could get some publicity from this.


*West refers to John West, "a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, where he is Associate Director of Discovery's Center for Science & Culture and Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs."


If this goes to trial as scheduled, there should be more evidence offered. And its to be heard by a jury so maybe the head Discovery Institute people will be called for testimony. At that point West, Meyer or Casey Luskin can confirm or deny Peterson's statement.

 

[CurtC]

I get the Discovery Institute's podcast. In the past year or so, there have been a few episodes talking about how those meanies at the CSCF breached their contract.

Now that they've been slapped down I'll wait with bated breath to hear them recap the events.

 

[DallasDad]

I'm no legal expert, but is the bit at the end, under the heading "Prayer for Relief", is "Prayer" a legal term, or are they being ironic?

To pray is to ask, implore, beg, or importune a higher power for a certain outcome. Whether the higher power is a god or a judge does not affect the meaning of the word "pray," nor indeed its long and honorable history apart from religion.