Posted on 11/01/2005 8:17:35 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
HARRISBURG — After Alan Bonsell finished his testimony Monday, in which he accused two local newspaper reporters of making up the information that drove the Dover Area School District into a First Amendment lawsuit, Judge John E. Jones III demanded to see a copy of Bonsell's previous sworn statements.
Steve Harvey, the plaintiffs' attorney who had cross-examined the Dover Area school board member, offered to provide a clean copy later in chambers.
"I want it now if you have it," the federal judge said. At the end of the first day of the sixth week of Dover's court battle over intelligent design in U.S. Middle District Court, Jones had some questions.
Bonsell sat quietly on the stand chewing gum and swiveling in his chair as Jones reviewed the man's Jan. 3 deposition in which he denied knowing anyone, besides his father, who had been involved in donating copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" to the Dover school district.
After he finished reading, Jones asked Bonsell when he became aware that his father, Donald, was in possession of an $850 check used to purchase copies of the pro-intelligent design textbook.
Bonsell said he had given the check to his father.
Last week, former board member Bill Buckingham testified he handed the check, dated Oct. 4, 2004, to Alan Bonsell and asked him to forward it to Donald Bonsell. Written in the check's memo line were the words: "for Pandas and People books."
"You tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham was involved," a visibly angry Jones said, staring at Bonsell as he read from his deposition.
Bonsell said he misspoke. And then, "That's my fault, your honor."
Bonsell said he didn't think it mattered because Buckingham had not actually donated any of his money. Rather, the money had been collected from members of his church.
But Jones pointed out that Bonsell had said he had never spoken to anybody else about the donations.
The judge also wanted to know why the money needed to be forwarded to his father, why Buckingham couldn't have purchased the books himself.
Bonsell stammered.
"I still haven't heard an answer from you," Jones said.
"He said he'd take it off the table," Bonsell said.
"You knew you were under oath?" Jones asked at one point.
Later, outside the courthouse, plaintiffs' attorneys had no comment on Jones' questioning, and Dover's attorney Patrick Gillen had little to say.
"I won't speculate" about the judge's actions, Gillen said. "I'm confident that he's seeking the truth in these proceedings."
Jones' exchange with Bonsell was the second time the judge has intervened in testimony and questioned school board members on his own. On Friday, Jones asked Heather Geesey about her newly acquired recollection that board members at June 2004 meetings were publicly discussing intelligent design, rather than creationism as reported in the media.
In her deposition, Geesey had been unable to recall details about board discussions during the meetings.
Much of Bonsell's testimony echoed Buckingham's from last week.
Buckingham testified about donations from his church. But like Bonsell, Buckingham said initially, in his first deposition on Jan. 3, that he didn't know from where the 60 donated copies came.
Before Bonsell was forced to defend his past recollections, he spent much of his time on the stand accusing the local press, in particular two reporters — Heidi Bernhard-Bubb, a freelance writer with The York Dispatch, and Joe Maldonado, a freelance writer with the York Daily Record/Sunday News — of incorrectly reporting that board members had said "creationism" at the June 2004 board meetings rather than "intelligent design."
Bonsell said the media continues to misrepresent the case and the concept of intelligent design — the idea that life's complexity demands a designer.
Harvey wanted to know why he keeps talking to reporters, since he doesn't feel they are correctly reporting the facts.
Bonsell said because he hoped "some of the truth would get out."
Before Bonsell's testimony Monday, former board member Jane Cleaver had also testified that board members had been talking about intelligent design at the June 2004 board meetings, but the local newspapers reported they were saying creationism.
However, under cross-examination, she said she was unsure if intelligent design had been brought up at meetings in June or later at the July board meeting.
Whether board members were talking about creationism then is important to Dover's First Amendment battle. Attorneys for the 11 parents suing the district over the mention of intelligent design in biology class say board members were motivated by religious beliefs, one of the prongs used by the courts to determine whether an action violates the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state.
At the Jan. 3 depositions, board members Bonsell, Buckingham, Harkins and Supt. Nilsen all said they did not remember other board members talking about creationism at the June 2004 meetings.
Cleaver, like Bonsell, blamed the reporters, particularly Maldonado, for making up their stories.
"Joe doesn't know how to tell the truth," Cleaver said. "Joe only knows how tell a lie."
Last week, both Maldonado and Bernhard-Bubb testified to the accuracy of their articles. They said no board members ever requested a correction from articles about the meetings.
Fighting back is not an uproar.
Neither is determination.
The uproar, such as it is, is coming from the stealth creationists who want to sneak their religion into our public schools and don't like getting caught.
I think you have it backwards but time will tell. Eventually the SC will decide what can be taught in school, just as they should. That is the job of the highest court.
Meanwhile you have apparently gone through the trouble to determine if any of your kid's teachers from K-12 were atheists.
It sounds like you are downright obsessed with atheists.
Not all the people who accepted the Copernican solar system are atheists, and most of the people who accept evolution are not atheists. It took hundreds of years for the Copernican shape of the cosmos to saturate the common perception. And during all that time, the earth revolved around the sun, regardless of what people believed.
What is your point? And aren't you getting tired of this thread yet?
I've been out of town for three days. Fresh as a daisy. Besides, It's getting closer to the time when these perjurers get slapped down, and I'm feeling pretty good.
Ping me when the indictments come down.
Exactly why would you expect atheists to be democrats? Or is this just more bigotry? The association between Republicanism and Christianity (particularly fundamentalist Christianity) in the US is a comparatively modern phenomenon. Perhaps you don't realise that in many countries round the world it is Christianity and Socialism that march hand-in-hand.
And I recently heard that only 55 percent of Britons believe in God. Doesn't surprise me.
Some democrats are atheists. You really do live in an 'either or' world.
Really I don't. It's just entertaining to see your reactions since I'm not really busy at work today.
Did you just try to insult Thatcherite and other Britons? Pretty funny.
I heard that on the news (forget which station) the other night. Don't blame the messenger.
I wish I had more time to continue this thread and discuss issues not pertaining to my interpretation of the U.S.Consitution. Throw the following into any search engine of your choice and then please come back and revise your statement: "Christian abolitionists", "founding of the Republican party," "Abraham Lincoln," and "ending salvery in the U.S.".
You'll discover that Christians founded the Republican party. And back in those days, it was still acceptable to allow your Christian beliefs to influence your public policy descision making and voting.
Another poster earlier went on about Christianity supporting slavery or some such thing. The truth is, if it wasn't for Christians, slavery in America would not have been ended when it did.
Right. The grandparents of these "republicans" were solid democrats, chanting their creationist slogans during the Scopes trial of the 1920s.
Along with their populism and anti-business ethic.
It would have been better in the long run for the GOP to stick with the Republican president who busted the segregationists in Clinton's home state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.