This email was sent today. Thanks to the OC Weekly and Matt Coker for the update on the federal lawsuit.

*********************************
November 22, 2009
Via E-Mail: americansunited@au.org, and
Facsimile (202-466-2587)

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director
518 C Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002

Re:
Separation of Church and State
U.S. District Court of California, Central District Lawsuit: Westphal v. Wagner

Dear Reverend Lynn:

In response to the federal lawsuit filed by American United for Separation of Church and State ("AU"), as reported by Matt Coker in the OC Weekly (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/a-clockwork-orange/prayer-lawsuit-south-orange-co/ (shown below), I am disappointed that AU made a choice to initiate the Westphal v. Wagner federal lawsuit, as referenced above. The lawsuit targets institutions that educate young adults during a difficult economic environment. This type of lawsuit is no way to teach our children the intent of separation of church and state statutes.

As a non-attorney and advocate for the fair administration of justice, it is my belief that AU may be violating federal and state anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). I realize that AU depends on legal counsel to advice it before filing a federal lawsuit to settle a constitutional law issue. For this reason, I am respectfully requesting that you ask your counsel of record to research anti-SLAPP statutes, especially those in California. California leads the nation in legislation returning justice to victims of sex abuse crimes and the protections of children, with proactive anti-SLAPP statutes and case precedent that protects freedoms of speech, press, opinion and religion.

Protecting separation of church and state is very important in our society. However, separation of church and state does not and never will protect anyone and/or any institution from endangering the civil rights of others. In my opinion, AU is attempting to silence others via the filing of this federal lawsuit. It is very dangerous to protect separation of church and state in a court of law when the intent of the lawsuit is to silence others in participating in matters of interest.

When separation of church and state was aggressively and secretly protected, hundreds of thousands of innocent children were sexually abused by individuals employed by a religious institution. In sum, it is my belief that a negligent legal interpretation of separation of church and state is the root of the clergy sex abuse crisis that erupted in 2002. And, thanks to the courage of clergy sex abuse victims, their families and Whistleblower employees protecting children, we hope that history will never repeat itself.

If a federal lawsuit, similar to the one that AU recently filed, was filed to silence victims, families and mandated reporters--based on separation of church and state protections--how many hundreds of thousands of precious children would still be at risk of repeated sex crimes committed by individuals protected by religious institutions (separation of church and state) in a court of law? The horrific truths are now available in public civil and criminal court records for review and consideration.

The federal lawsuit filed by AU is in my opinion, just another money-making venture for the attorneys that will financially, politically and personally benefit. It is my hope that you, AU and all the attorneys participating in the federal lawsuit will find a way to resolve this issue before hundreds of thousands of dollars and court costs are taken away from education. The losers in this scenario will be the young adults needing the educational resources provided by community colleges. The winners will be ALL attorneys.

WITHOUT JUSTICE, THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE. WITHOUT PEACE, FAITH AND OUR COUNTRY'S LAWS ARE EMPTY!

Respectfully,
Debby Bodkin
bodkind@hotmail.com

cc: David Llewellyn, Esq. (DLlewellyn@LS4law.com)
U.S. Department of Justice (AskDOJ@usdoj.gov)
California Department of Justice
Attn: Attorney General Jerry Brown
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
OC Weekly

Dear Ms. Bodkin:

You write: “It is very dangerous to protect separation of church and state in a court of law when the intent of the lawsuit is to silence others in participating in matters of interest.”

I shall assume that you are suggesting that the intent of “Westphal v. Wagner” and its plaintiffs is to silence people from participating in matters of interest.

Could please spell this out for me? Who is being silenced? How does this suit, if successful, silence anyone? What, in your view, are the plaintiff’s motives for such silencing?

--Annie of the canyon

The notorious right-wingers at the South Orange County Community College District have no problem imposing narrow religious prayer on student scholarship recipients and making employees read about "Jesus Christ" saving their souls whilst listening to mawkishly sentimental "patriotic" crooning. The suit wants to put an end to that. Nobody is saying that these people can't pray somewhere else (even on campus) and play their videos and cornball tunes! I think it's about time someone stood up to these intolerant and arrogant bullies!

Trustees Wagner and Fuentes: weren't these the two who pulled the plug on Saddleback's "study abroad" program to Spain on account of the Spaniards' pulling out of Iraq? How do such nuts get on these school and college boards? And how do they get reelected?

Anonymous:

I doubt very seriously that any student attending classes in the South Orange County Community College District is FORCED or DENIED college admission if he/she does not participate in the activities complained of in the federal lawsuit. If I am wrong, please let me know.... as I have not seen a copy of the lawsuit.

As a non-attorney, all I know about Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP's) is what I have read, available to members of the public. One resource you may want to look at is at www.casp.net (California's Anti-SLAPP Project). According to the article, the lawsuit alleges school officials are accused of routinely sponsoring official invocations at events for students and faculty, including scholarship-award ceremonies, commencement ceremonies and training programs for faculty.

If I was a student or faculty member in the South OC Community College District and I made a personal choice not to participate in the activities described in the federal lawsuit, then I would just say "NO", i.e., similar to saying no to drugs, or saying no to tax evasion, or saying no to a marriage proposal, or saying no to sexually abusing a minor child. This is not rocket science!

Lawyers sometimes complicate constitutional law for self-serving financial and political gain. This lawsuit SMELLS!!!!!

I intended to sign my name to the above post at 3:48 pm..... and, in my opinion, it is now up to a federal judge to determine if the lawsuit is a SLAPP, disguised as a legitimate lawsuit that will somehow benefit the interests of justice and the common good. In the meantime, there will be attorneys collecting legal fees, taxpayer dollars will be used for court proceedings and college students will most likely be denied funding. No one will win in this scenario but the attorneys involved.

Debby Bodkin

"How do such nuts get on these school and college boards? And how do they get reelected?"

They get appointed to vacancies, in most cases. Then we voters are so ignorant of local politics that we keep re-electing them.

You seem to have very strong opinions about this lawsuit for someone who hasn’t even read it. There is a link to the lawsuit at the AUSCS press">http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/11/au-challenges-california.html>press release.

Were you to read it, you would discover that the “District requires students who have been selected for scholarships to attend the scholarship ceremony. If students do not attend, they may lose their scholarship.” (The requirement is made clear in an official college email sent to all student scholarship recipients.)

It was at one of these “required attendance” scholarship ceremonies that students and members of the community were subjected to one of the more notorious invocations described in the suit.

Faculty are required to satisfy 38 hours of staff development activities, and, by far, the most important and informative of these is the “Chancellor’s opening session.” At the last opening session, faculty and classified were subjected to a video that informed them that “Jesus Christ” died for their souls. (This, too, as Matt noted, is documented in the lawsuit.)

You say that as “a non-attorney,” all you know about SLAPPS is what you’ve read—simply assuming that Westphal v. Wagner is a SLAPP suit, something that you have done nothing to establish. As someone who has been the target of a SLAPP suit, I must confess that I have no clue why you make this assumption. No clue at all.

I observe, too, that you utterly ignore my perfectly reasonable request (1:14) that you explain and clarify your peculiar assertions and assumptions about this lawsuit and its goals.

Finally, as one who is close to some of the plaintiffs of “Westphal v. Wagner,” I assure you that they have no interest in silencing anyone. On the contrary, several of these plaintiffs have been ardent defenders of the First Amendment. They have in fact supported the numerous students and faculty who have been compelled to sue the SOCCCD in Federal Court when it grossly violated their free speech rights. (Note: in all of those suits, the plaintiffs prevailed.)

Annie

All you non beleiver,

Please read your history books with intent to learn and understand what our Four Fathers wrote and what gave them there influence for this God Blessing Nation.

Jesus Christ is forever and will always be preached. As Jesus Christ stands for Savior, so I pray and ask Jesus to save us all.

Anonymous believer-

Please read your dictionary with intent to learn and understand how to spell forefathers.