Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: js1138; longshadow
From page 115 of the opinion:
As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.
It's not wise to lie under oath in a federal court.
798 posted on 12/20/2005 12:59:41 PM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry

"It's not wise to lie under oath in a federal court."

Judges tend to be kind of unhappy about those things.

I once had a perp demand that the judge recuse himself after the perp was charged with perjury--he said that the judge was prejudiced by the fact that he lied in his court.

Guess how THAT one flew with the appellate court...


809 posted on 12/20/2005 1:03:52 PM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (MORE COWBELL! MORE COWBELL! (CLANK-CLANK-CLANK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry

But as Bill Clinton would say, lying under oath is not necessarily perjury.


836 posted on 12/20/2005 1:11:44 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
From page 115 of the opinion:

This time, with emphasis added:

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.

Bonsell AND Buckingham might well wish to retain criminal defense attorneys at this time.....

927 posted on 12/20/2005 1:40:31 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson