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.
As a Briton I'll tell you that it is nothing like that high in any real sense. Church attendance is below 5% if memory serves. I know 2 families only who attend church on Sundays and even there 1 partner is going on sufferance. Lots of people who don't believe anything in particular will still tell a pollster that they are C of E, and fill in the religion question on official forms with C of E. My wife does so for example, and she is a more militant atheist than I am.
Literal US style creationism is invisible here outside the muslim population. I doubt that even the C of E priests and bishops believe the Old Testament. Does it sound like Hell on Earth to you?
The church here is entirely identified with socialist and liberal policy (just like our current government). But Christianity has almost no support, to the point where the Church Commissionners can run fewer and fewer churches and each priest serves several churches to save money. That is where compulsory religious education in schools gets you. We have a church established with the state and 2 hours a week compulsory RE in state-run schools, and 2-3x weekly compulsory religious assemblies in most schools, and most people leave school believing not a word of it.
Oh, that the US can become more like England. We were wrong to ever want to break away to begin with.
Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarian, Pagan, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic. All just labels, with no pejorative sense. And I don't care which label attaches to my childrens' teachers, as long as they are good teachers. For example the devout Christian art-teacher of my son is a lovely lady. But then, I'm not a proud bigot, like some.
Yeah, your country has much to be proud of. Keep appeasing the Muslims so they can blow up some more of your country. Funny, we haven't had any other attacks on our soil since 9-11. You're still mad we won, aren't you?
There's not much difference in the "Southern Strategy" Republicans and for example, the "Midwest Progressives" such as Gephardt (except on abortion; they're identical on things like Walmart, etc.)
What's funny is that I know many Democrats that are pro-second amendment, pro-low taxes, pro-science, etc., but tey will never vote Republican because of the racism they feel is rampant in the GOP; many believe that the "Religious Right" consists of unreconstructed slave-holders.
Both parties have their loonies. The question is, which party lets the loonies run for major office, and which party has loons for its primary spokesmen.
On that we can be agreed (though maybe your remark is what passes in your mind for humour). So does your country, as I often tell my numerous relatives who are US citizens. And I am not joking.
Keep appeasing the Muslims so they can blow up some more of your country.
So it makes you happy when lunatics blow up bits of the UK. I guess it is because so many of us are atheists. I don't suppose our forthright support for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with the lunatic jihadists targeting us. Shame on you.
Funny, we haven't had any other attacks on our soil since 9-11.
What has that got to do with anything? Do you think they don't want to kill you still?
You're still mad we won, aren't you?
If you are referring to a war that was over about 180 years before I was born, then no. I'm not still mad about being conquered by the Normans in 1066 either.
I wonder how the average US freeper would respond to a gloating post from abroad about 9/11? "You guys had it coming to you" kind of thing. How long do you think I'd keep my account if the shoe were on the other foot?
So what actually was the point of your gloating remark about 7/7? What on earth has a 400 year ago relative got to do with it?
Leaving the computer now to calm down for a bit. Shaking with rage at the sheer nastiness of mlc.
Ignore crap like that, Thatcherite. Those folks are just FR's equivalent of the 'net kiddies who tell everyone "OMG U R SO GHEY LOL!!!!" every five minutes.
I wasn't gloating. Who would gloat over something like that? Maybe you just don't really comprehend my posts. Might be a language thing.
Funny, I don't live in England and I've got the same take as Thatcherite.
Except I don't get mad, I think you are funny in your attempts.
If it smells like a troll, if it posts like a troll, then it's a troll. Responding to such is beneath you.
When I respond to certan posters, my primary thought is how I can use their post to impact lurkers.
The nastier they are, the more fodder.
When I think about responding to certain posters, I realize that I could get banned for saying what's on my mind, even though it's the truth and well-deserved, so I just don't respond. Trolls deserve only scorn. And zero response.
A few weeks ago, I used this tagline: I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.
I remember your use ofthe tagline:
"A few weeks ago, I used this tagline: I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus."
...and also remember complaining when you changed it.
Doesn't work for me though.
Ah, if only the Creationists had a sense of shame! Maybe they would stop perjuring themselves and build some self-respect.
Remember that you are arguing with an ignorant and malicious troll here. Don't get sucked it too far.
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.