From the York Daily RecordTHE COURT: All right. Assuming Mr. Gillen has some redirect, I'm going to exercise my prerogative before we break today, because you may have some lengthy redirect, is that a fair statement? MR. GILLEN: I think that I have accumulated a considerable list of questions. THE COURT: I want to exercise my prerogative, and I have some questions before we break today. I would like, Mr. Harvey, if you would hand up to me the witness's deposition testimony, specifically as it related to the question of the $850.00 check. I believe it's the deposition as taken by Mr. Rothschild in January of 2005. MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor. My copy is marked up. Do we have an unmarked copy? Or if you want, I could just have it delivered to your chambers in a few minutes. THE COURT: I want it now, if you have it. Hand it up. And can you direct me to the pages, and specifically the pages, Mr. Harvey, that you referred to in your questions? MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor. I read from page 13, line 6, through page 16, line 20. THE COURT: All right. Give me a moment, please. That's fine. I see where you were. All right. Let me ask you. BY THE COURT: Q. When did you first become aware of the fact that your father was in possession of the $850.00 that was being donated to buy Of Pandas and People? A. Well, Mr. Buckingham gave the check to me to pass to my father. He said this was money that he collected for donations to the book. So I gave it to him. Q. So you were the conduit -- A. Yeah. Q. -- by which your father received the $850.00? A. Yes.
— the Judge
Mike Argento, whose excellent articles already have addressed many of the follies reports"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.
n the witness stand during Monday's session of the Dover Panda Trial, Dover Area School Board member Alan Bonsell accused the press of just making things up. Keeping that in mind, here's a description of what happened Monday afternoon. Wearing a nice gray suit, Bonsell answered every question to the best of his ability and was positively forthcoming and when the lawyers pointed out certain inconsistencies in his testimony, he thanked them profusely and offered expansive explanations for why he may have been misunderstood and cleared up any misunderstandings that may have arisen. OK, all of that was made up. Except for the part about Bonsell wearing a gray suit. Actually, at the conclusion of his testimony, he was in serious danger of ruining that suit.
— Mike Argento
79 Comments
Matt Brauer · 2 November 2005
Wow.
I'm a little chagrined that the trial has come to this display of mendacity and incompetence by the Dover School Board. I'd much rather see the case decided on its merits than on the antics of these particular officials. It makes me really want to check into who's on MY local school board.
The Discovery Insitute may have been clumsy with respect to the friend of the court brief ("We're not running a law school here!). But I think they knew what they were doing when they got as far away as they could from this train wreck.
Joel Sax · 2 November 2005
I'm watching this with amusement. I've often said that the reason why I am not a Creationist is that it requires me to lie and I try to avoid lying.
It appears here that the habit of lying is endemic to the Creationist state of mind as is a little fraud or larceny or what do you call what Bonsell did with that check...?
morbius · 2 November 2005
Fernmonkey · 2 November 2005
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Judge Jones doesn't sound very happy, does he?
Schmitt. · 2 November 2005
Good Lord. This trial is getting to epic proportions of silliness.
-Schmitt.
Joseph O'Donnell · 2 November 2005
Wow, the Judge just absolutely buried him.
Ben · 2 November 2005
It always amazes me how shallow the convictions of, what appears to me to be, most Creationists and evangelicals are. They pay lip service to Christianity but time and again when the chips are down they lie, cheat, and do whatever duplicitious thing they can to force their agenda. Don't they still say "So help me God" when they take the oath to tell the truth? Supposedly that isn't supposed to mean very much to me as an atheist... and yet I couldn't even consider perjuring myself in a court of law.
I'm not saying there's not some moral failings on my side of the fence... BUT they, the Christian right, claim to have a higher moral ground... It just disgusts me all the more.
Steve LaBonne · 2 November 2005
I didn't realize until I read that Argento column that the judge is a Dubya appointee. That's a nice touch!
Andrea Bottaro · 2 November 2005
Matt Brauer · 2 November 2005
Keanus · 2 November 2005
Judge Jones was a political protege of former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge. His previous public service (if I remember correctly) was as the chair of Pennsylvania's liquor control board that runs the state's $1.5 billion/year chain of liquor stores. Ridge was instrumental in getting him the Federal judgeship in 2001. I know nothing about Jones's personal political views, but Ridge, when governor, was moderate and reasonably rational {pro-choice and sought to sell the liquor stores), the complete opposite of Dubya. Jones's views are probably similar.
Flint · 2 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 2 November 2005
So, could someone familiar with the legal system fill us in? What's the usual procedure? Who brings the charges of perjury? Does that usually come after closure of the current trial?
kim · 2 November 2005
When a creationist says "So help me God" in the courtroom, they probably mean that God will help them to cover up their lies.......
Kevin · 2 November 2005
Mona · 2 November 2005
So, could someone familiar with the legal system fill us in? What's the usual procedure? Who brings the charges of perjury? Does that usually come after closure of the current trial?
Since it is a criminal matter, the usual procedure is for the Court to refer the issue to the U.S. Attorney. Given the somewhat unusual, sua sponte questioning by Judge Jones (and his rhetorical question about whether Mr. Bonsell knew he was under oath), it sure seems he is p*ssed and so may have something like that in mind.
Here's the thing: perjury, whether in state or federal courts, is rampant. Everyone involved in the judicial system knows it, including judges. Way back when I was stuck doing divorces, I was surprised folks were not growing long noses on the stand. Graduating to commercial disputes and the like in federal courts did not improve my impression of humanity's bent for truthfulness.
But you have to be slick about it (not that I am advising that people commit perjury, with the caveat that they only do it well). What went on here re: Dover is so brazen and inept, and such an insult to the Court, my mind reels. Couple that with Buckingham's quite incredible denials that he ever, EVEN ONCE, uttered the word "creationism" -- when Fox News has him on tape saying exactly that -- and Judge Jones may be concluding he has a pack of liars on his hands in the defendants. (During the cross-X of Buckingham, Judge Jones advised the plaintiffs' lawyer that he - the lawyer - had been "effective" in impeaching Buckingham.)
These Dover Idists make the DI look like models of sophistication and probity. And that is damned hard to do.
Mona · 2 November 2005
Yes, but we've got a whole new layer of mendacity forming that's so deep that the judge isn't even going to have to dig down to the original layer, which unfortunately may mean that that layer isn't going to be exposed for what it is until some other court case.
Oh, I don't think so. Remember, it is not unconstitutional to teach bad science. But it is unconstitutional to teach something religion masquerading as science for a religious purpose in public schools. Hence, all the silly posturing and denial that churches and Bible talk were ever at all involved in School Board doings re: Of Pandas and People. Why no one -- no one I tell you -- ever uttered the word creationism, or collected money for the textbook at church. Because such activities go to the unconstitutional purpose for the policy under review; hence, they did not happen, you see.
All this apparent perjury about whether creationism was discussed, and how the money for the textbook was obtained, strongly indicates that the motives for the Dover ID policy were religious, and the defendants know it. Hizzoner will have no difficulty establishing that prong of the test.
And do you really think he will be disposed to believe the testimony that "creationism" was a mere "placeholder" in Pandas, until they settled on "Intelligent Design," which absotively, posilutely is NOT creationism? Bah. This judge clearly knows mendacity when he sees it. My guess is he has about had his fill of it.
Joe McFaul · 2 November 2005
This is usually what happens when a judge detects perjury. A referral to the U.S. Attorney or District Attorney is rare. (I've only seen it happen once in 20+ years, and charges weren't filed.) I've seen a federal judge conduct his own questioning several times and it's almost always bad for the witness.
From the transcript, it appears the judge beieves that perjury was committed.
Personally, I think this is great. One problem with these cases is that the get appealed. The chances of reversal are much lower if the trial judge has indicated that one side committed perjury.
This is especially important if the whole thrust of the case is that ID is a sham for creationism. With perjury in the record to support that conclusion, appealate reversal is much less likely.
Mona · 2 November 2005
I concur w/ Joe McFaul that it is rare for a Court to refer suspected perjury to the U.S. Attorney. But if the suspected perjurer is to be personally punished, that would have to be the procedure.
I also agree that this augers very well for making Jones' expected decision less reversible. For one thing, the suspected perjury is entirely material to a crucial legal question, namely, whether there was a religious purpose in devising the Dover school board's policy. The apparent falsehoods all are attempts to remove religious commentary and activity from the chain of events giving rise to the policy under review, because at some point the defendants became aware that their religiously-motivated antics could be fatal to that policy.
Gary Hurd · 2 November 2005
OK, after I stopped laughing I started to have the same thoughts as Matt. We have a truly perfect setup here- a hanging curve ball with bases loaded- but, I wonder if there will be an appeal? And if there is no appeal, how significant will the result be outside of Dover?
mark · 2 November 2005
And this truth-challenged individual is running for reelection to the school board, isn't he?
Mona · 2 November 2005
Gary Hurd: If defendants do not appeal, then we have one district court case that, outside of its jurisdiction in which its holding is mandatory, constitutes persuasive authority. As the only Court so far to consider ID, that is more than the IDers would have next time around.
Now, of course, we want the defendants to appeal. The DI I'm sure would be adamantly opposed to it, but the Thomas More crew clearly do not take their orders from DI. What the Thomas More guys would conclude to be in their client's best interest, and whether the client would be guided by that advice, are hard to predict. And, then, there is the fact that the school board becomes differently constituted in, I believe, January. It is hard to know how a new board would feel.
Gary Hurd · 2 November 2005
Just speculation; suppose a pro-science board is elected and chooses to appeal (assuming free legal representation). They could appeal all they wanted to, with or without TMC support, or DI objections.
I think I like that.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 2 November 2005
Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠ&Gamma · 2 November 2005
Oh, goodness. Perhaps Americans United would be willing to finance an appeal just to make things even worse for the IDiots?
Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠ&Gamma · 2 November 2005
Sorry, I didn't realize this wasn't my own private rut. I'll get my mind out of it.
Jason · 2 November 2005
Gary, I like the way you think. That is the kind of stab in the face maneuvering absolutely necessary in a case like that. Kudos.
Mona · 2 November 2005
One incentive the board could have to appeal is that if they lose, I believe they are saddled with plaintiffs' atty fees. We are not talking chump change, here. But if, for whatever combination of reasons, it would not be in the school board's interest to appeal, I would doubt that even a pro-science board would do it. That body's first allegiance is, and should be, to the Dover Area School District.
Albion · 2 November 2005
It's a pity they didn't bear that in mind all along rather than using their positions on the school board to take a stand for "someone who died on a cross 2000 years ago."
Whenever I see this sort of thing, whether it's a court case where creationists contradict things they said previously or a debate where they deliberately misrepresent scientists, and remember that one of their main reasons (so they say) for promoting this stuff is to restore morality and ethics to the country after such qualities had been destroyed by the godless secular evolutionist atheist bad guys, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. The really sad thing is that so many people believe them when they claim to be the ones taking the moral high road in the face of a lot of hard evidence to the contrary.
Red Right Hand · 2 November 2005
Assuming there is an appeal, does anyone know anything about the political/ideological makeup of the appeals court?
Gary Hurd · 2 November 2005
Mona · 2 November 2005
Or consider, the testimony by Buckingham under cross-X revealed that the DI and TMC were in this up to their elbows offering "legal advice" before the suit was filed. I think that Dover SB could even consider suing the DI, and TMC for negligence (at least to cover costs + appeal).
That's an interesting, and delicious consideration. If the DI was offering "legal advice" from other than licensed attorneys, then it is in doo-doo. If its "legal strategies manual" for teaching ID was relied on by DASB, then a loss could expose DI to liability, even if the thing was drafted by lawyers. (Especially in light of DI's NOW insisting ID is not ready for the classroom.)And, TMC could have exposure for similar reasons, altho there is nothing necessarily wrong with its having been involved in advising the DASB long before the litigation.
This would all create an incentive for TMC and even DI to appeal any adverse ruling. But a suit against one or both could still be fun. For one thing, the atty-client privilege largely goes out the window when a party sues its lawyer, for the obvious reason that the lawyer needs to disclose in order to defend him or her self.
Wouldn't you just love to know everything the TMC has been telling the DASB every step of the way? To get the whole skinny on how and why the DI and other witnesses withdrew?
Well, this is all fun, but it may be premature -- we do have to prevail yet. Still, that seems increasingly likely.
Tim · 2 November 2005
Tevildo · 2 November 2005
IANAL, and that, but if it were proved that TMC or the DI had actually told Buckingham, et al, to deny that they said "creationism" at any stage in the process, despite independent witness and documentary evidence that they did, what would be the repercussions? It seems fairly clear that this _did_ happen, even if it can't be proved in court.
morbius · 2 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 November 2005
Question for the lawyer-types here ---- if, as Buckingham's testimony indicates, it was the Thomas More Law Center itself who originally suggested introducing "Pandas" into the school district, what potential liability do THEY have in this whole thing?
Mona · 2 November 2005
if, as Buckingham's testimony indicates, it was the Thomas More Law Center itself who originally suggested introducing "Pandas" into the school district, what potential liability do THEY have in this whole thing?
I haven't read Buckingham's transcript, so I'm not clear as to in what capacity TMC was acting in that early history, that is, whether they had lawyer hats on vouching that the book was legal for a public school science class. If that is how it happened (or did they just act as conduits of info about a book they had heard of?), they have potential liability, but not certain such. Lawyers cannot successfully be sued for legal malpractice merely for being wrong when the law is not settled.
But they could have to show how they arrived at a place where they felt confident about any guarantees of constitutionality they may have made, how familiar they were with ID and the book in particular. It could nasty for them.
Keanus · 2 November 2005
Someone asked about the nature of the appeals court. If one party were to appeal, it would be to the Third Circuit based in Philadelphia. For the appeal a panel of three judges (out of 16, including three senior judges) would be randomly chosen. Incidentally the Third Circuit judges include Sam Alito (the putative replacement for O'Conner on the Supreme Court), Donald Trump's sister, and Pennslvania's current Governor's wife, Marjorie Rendell. The sitting judges on the Third Circuit are evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees. Historically, it's been thought of as "liberal" but is currently considered middle of the road.
Having said that, should the DASB lose, and the new board declines to appeal, I will enjoy seeing the fight between the DASB, the TMLC and the DI. The latter two will leave the DASB holding the bag for the million plus dollars that the ACLU and AU will seek. The DASB is not a wealthy district, serving families who are mostly blue collar or farmers with very little industry. Should the DASB lose, as now seems likely, science will win but not definitively (unless the DASB appeals all the way to the Supreme Court and it takes the case), but the real losers will be the students and faculty in the Dover schools. Coming up with a million dollars will not be easy. Sadly the board members will be immune from personal liability (Buckingham has already resigned and moved to North Carolina), although I doubt any have the affluence that could meet a judgement in any significant way.
Gary Hurd · 2 November 2005
Well it raised another question in my mind, when Bonsell was asked about how he selected TMC he did not mention that it was they who had refered Pandas to the Board, but I recall this was obvious from Buckingham. Bonsell may not have "known" or maybe he "forgot" again. No other members of the board even admit to have read all of Pandas, and even Bonsell now says he didn't read all of it or can't remember much about it.
Aso prior to the filing, the board was circulating material supplied to them by the DI. But now, nobody is sure if they saw anything.
Alexey Merz · 3 November 2005
Okay, everyone, here's the fun part. I propose that we start a pool. The idea is to come as close as possible to predicting how the DI will spin this as a great victory for ID. The "winner" gets to buy everyone else a round at the 'Thumb.
K.E. · 3 November 2005
My guess is they will hire the pre war Iraqi information minister.
"I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place."
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
How many entries do we get? :)
1. The DASB and TMLC are misguided snake-handlers who thought that ID is somehow related to creationism; Behe's testimony proves that it isn't, if you read the right bits of it.
2. We would have proved that ID is science if the judge had allowed Dembski's expert report into the record as the Gospel Truth, free from any misleading contamination by cross-examination.
3. The judge ignored every witness except Forrest, who is an atheist and therefore a liar. This reinforces our need to eradicate atheism from the world, so that trials may be fair in the future.
4. (Probably won't be used by the DI, but expect it to appear on lots of websites.) Eric Rothschild is Jewish. Need we say more?
Fernmonkey · 3 November 2005
That body's first allegiance is, and should be, to the Dover Area School District.
Which perhaps they should have thought of before going with a law firm (albeit pro bono) that their insurance wouldn't cover.
I really feel terrible for the teachers and students in those schools. All that money gone to waste.
Ed Darrell · 3 November 2005
Dean Morrison · 3 November 2005
Remember that the palaintiff in this case are not the readers of the Panda's thumb ot the scientific community at large - they are the parents of children attending the school. As much as we might like to see copious amounts of egg all over the faces of the school board - if this results in: huge financial losses; inability to meet the teachers pay demands; loss of school trips; books ; an a reduced level of education for the kids - who are the losers?
I can't imagine this going down well in the playground; and no-one in their right mind is going to sacrifice their kids education for the sake of keeping a sticker out of a book, even if there is a higher principle involved. Who would want to get involved in a similar case in the future if that is going to be the likely outcome.
Can't some way be found of protecting the education of all the kids in the school? otherwise the ID'ers will be crowing that 'our' side don't really have the kids education at heart and are prepared to sacrifice it for the cause of suppressing academic freedom and the true faith.
Dean Morrison · 3 November 2005
Remember that the plaintiffs in this case are not the readers of the Panda's thumb or the scientific community at large - they are the parents of children attending the school. As much as we might like to see copious amounts of egg all over the faces of the school board - if this results in: huge financial losses; inability to meet the teachers pay demands; loss of school trips; books ; an a reduced level of education for the kids - who are the losers?
I can't imagine this going down well in the playground; and no-one in their right mind is going to sacrifice their kids education for the sake of keeping a sticker out of a book, even if there is a higher principle involved. Who would want to get involved in a similar case in the future if that is going to be the likely outcome.
Can't some way be found of protecting the education of all the kids in the school? otherwise the ID'ers will be crowing that 'our' side don't really have the kids education at heart and are prepared to sacrifice it for the cause of suppressing academic freedom and the true faith.
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
Good point. Is there any way of recovering the costs from the individual board members or their legal advisers (TMLC or the DI)?
They were, after all, repeatedly warned about the risks - by the teachers, by the Americans United representative at the board meeting that's been the main subject of the trial, by their own lawyers, and, finally, by Pepper Hamilton at the start of the process. They must have some liability, based on their ignoring of all that advice?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
Aagcobb · 3 November 2005
Tevildo, people who are elected or appointed to quasi-legislative government bodies to use their best judgment to make discretionary policy decisions are absolutely immune from civil liability for those decisions. This immunity is essential in order for democratic government to function; who would serve on boards, in state legislatures or in congress if they had to face financial ruinous lawsuits every time they voted on a controversial issue?
The IDists will certainly try to spin the massive attorney's fees they have to pay to the ACLU, however, the ACLU lawyers have to be paid somehow, and it might help make the next schoolboard to consider teaching intelligent design think long and hard about how they are about to financially ruin their school district.
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
Dean Morrison · 3 November 2005
Aagcobb · 3 November 2005
Telvido wrote: Just to clarify - this is an _absolute_ immunity, no matter how "unreasonable" or even illegal the actions of the officials are, as long as they're being done in an official capacity?
Yes, so long as the action is within the function of the office. For example, a school board member can't be held personally liable for voting to teach ID creationism in the district, but if he proceeds to slug a constituent at a school board meeting he can be held personally liable for assault.
We seem to do quite well without it in the UK. :) Officials acting ultra vires are personally liable, and we also have the tort of "misfeasance in public office" to cover the case where an infra vires act of an official is "an abuse of public power for an improper or ulterior motive" (Steyn LJ, Three Rivers vs Bank of England). There's nothing similar in the States?
There are many officials who can be sued who have only qualified immunity which can be overcome by showing they engaged in acts they should have known violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights (short form version of the test); absolute immunity is reserved for people like judges, prosecutors and legislators, which includes people on quasi-legislative entities like school boards.
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
Aagcobb · 3 November 2005
A disinterested observer might make the point that the US definiton of "legislature" seems to be set a little too wide on looking at this case
Here in the colonies we're awfully litigious and not as civilized as you Brits. For example, on another thread here there is a link to a religious group called "The Mighty Cannon" which is threatening to sue an Indiana school board to get ID taught there. If they could also threaten to financially ruin the school board members by holding them personally liable, the threat alone could cow the school board into allowing intelligent design into the classroom.
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
Mona · 3 November 2005
Inbetween things at the office today, I read the Buckingham transcript. He has been prepped to insist that all of contact with Seth Cooper and DI occurred in the context of receiving legal advice; clearly, he was so prepped because that places everything Cooper said within the atty-client privilege, and so Buckingham cannot be compelled to testify as to what transpired in those conversations.
That also moves Cooper and the DI closer to liability for anything Buckingham subsequently did in conformity with that advice. This really could get very interesting, if the DASD ends up saddled with in excess of $1 million in atty fees and costs, and they wish to be indemnified for that burden by any whose legal advice they might wish to argue resulted in it.
morbius · 3 November 2005
The original statement was (emphasis added) "absolute immunity is reserved for people like judges, prosecutors and legislators, which includes people on quasi-legislative entities like school boards." Legislators decide policy which is carried out by others, much like school board members. I think the real confusion comes from the fact that executives, being the wielders of power, tend to usurp policymaking functions, and thus the U.S. is now largely governed by "executive orders".
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
I see where confusion may have arisen - I'm afraid I will need to go into a little detail about the UK constitution, in which both setting and implementing policy are considered to be executive functions, performed by the Government rather than Parliament. The law provides the framework within which the executive can operate; the function of the legislature is to alter the law, to change the limits of executive power, rather than to change its goals.
Because of the relation between the UK legislature and executive, the actions of the legislature will be dictated by (executive-set) policy; the democratic process and constitutional precedent prevent (in theory) the resultant changes in the power of the executive from approaching too close to tyranny; and, if they fail, the mob takes to the streets to influence the executive in a more direct fashion. :)
The crucial issue, though, is that all policy-related aspects of government are considered executive in nature - the legislative immunity from personal suit applies to none of them.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
Gary Hurd · 3 November 2005
Dean Morrison · 3 November 2005
Two posts in a row row I bet you think it's sweet you clever boy (Hi 'Dr Rev' .. do you like Radiohead?)
no...seriously... answer the question?
IF you were were a plaintiff?
would YOU? be prepared to sacrifice your kids for a principle?
.. I don't think we need you on our side...?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
Dean Morrison · 3 November 2005
Dr Rev,
if?...
you had kids???
would your first instinct be to put them in the front line?
(sounds like a neo-Darwinesque, E.O Wilson type, non-squeiture to me)....
[trans for real people] ... Rev Lenny needs to chill - it goes without saying that no-one is ever (i.e plaintiff) going to do this again if all it results in is a world of shite for their kids?
Dean Morrison · 3 November 2005
Mona · 4 November 2005
It was also clear from Buckingham's trestimony that he spoke to Cooper as an agent of the School Board. So, would a school board suit aginst the DI eliminate the "privilege.
Yup. In order for a client to sue his lawyer, he has to reveal what was said that constitutes negligent advice. The lawyer, in turn, has to be able to reveal his version of what was said to defend himself.
If DI told DASD ID had nothing to do with religion, that's cool. Imagine being able to put a bunch of 'em on the stand to explain the Wedge and other documents, in light of any such representations they might have made? It wouldn't be like Dembski's web site, where unpleasant questions can be deleted.
As for the TMLC, I certainly wonder what they told the DASD (or didn't tell them) about the possibility of atty fees and costs if they lost any litigation. How did TMLC induce confidence that it was safe to employ them, as opposed to counsel from their insurance company?
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 4 November 2005
Tevildo · 4 November 2005
I don't really think that the TMLC lawyers have put up that bad a performance in court - they just don't have _anything_ to work with.
On the other hand, if it was TMLC who said to the board "Just deny that anyone ever said the word 'creationism', and you'll be fine", which appears to be what has happened, then, yes, they're negligent.
JS · 4 November 2005
They are negligent in not advising the BoE to plead guilty. At least they ought to be, though I must confess that I don't know the law of the matter. The costs they are likely to be saddled with would be far, far lower if they'd just rolled over...
Let's hope the DI get settled with the atty fees. There's a bottom to every barrel, even one the size of the DI. And it would hurt them to be mixed up in something like that.
I don't believe that the DASD needs to crash and burn. Even if the BoE escapes the $1M check, they - and everyone else who isn't terminally stupid - should still get the point. And hitting the DI is eminently worthwhile in and of itself. If they are saddled with the cost - of even a significant percentage of it - it should provide them with a powerful, ah, incentive to keep their noses out of similar cases.
- JS
Gary Hurd · 5 November 2005
Well, when I was a PI (private not principal) case conferences focused on who had the money. (As opposed to case comferences when I taught medicine). TMC and DI are both well heeled (being a bunch of heels). That would be all the "law" that many lawyers would need to start. In this case, I think we have much more.
The DI did post their version of events that was such a pathetic "it is not our fault" whine, that I am sure that they think they lost in the Panda Trail. The TMC is claiming victory, so I think they know they lost too.
DennesL · 5 November 2005
Dean Morrison: I do not know if you have much actual experience as a parent trying to raise kids in a religious school district. I do.
I assure you, there are plenty of parents out there who are willing to put their kids' needs above school board financial problems. There are plenty of parents who think that a nontoxic learning environment is more important than money.
I have faced the question myself - and y'know not once did it occur to me to not fight for my kids' rights based on concerns that it might cause hardship to the school board or the neighborhood.
In my case, I thought about whether the case was strong or weak. I thought about whether it was really important or whether I was just making a mt of a molehill. I thought about what would happen to my kids - how much abuse & harrassment they'd get, and whether I think they're able to handle it. I thought about whether the world would IMO be a better place if I filed the suit. I thought about the costs of filing the suit, and the costs of not filing the suit.
However, when I calculated the costs, I didn't even bother with the question of whether innocent kids would be deprived school services or benefits as a result of my actions. Why? Well, mostly because I think the education the kids WOULD get from such a lawsuit - that the law of the land must be obeyed whether you happen to agree with it or not - would be far more valuable to the kids in the long run than any temporary financial hardship. Also because there are people who are responsible for guarding the school's financial resources, and I don't happen to be one of those people. That's their job.
Socking it to the Dover school board would save more money, and hurt fewer children, in the long run. Protecting people from the consequences of their actions equals encouraging the behavior.
-D
Dean Morrison · 7 November 2005
Hi DennesL,
I'm actually in Britain where we don't have constitutional separation of church and state - although it doesn't stop the majority of us from being sceptical about both.
I commend your courage in facing up to the religious bigots who want to impose their views on every one - I'd like to think I'd do the same. The purpose of my comments was not to advocate compromise with the principle of standing up to these people - rather it was to sympathise with people like the plaintiffs and yourself who actually have; this at a time when it seemed to me some people were in danger of crowing about 'winning' the case.
It seems to me that 'success' would be somewhat qualified if damage was done to the education of the children of the people who brought the case in the first place. Locally elected politicians in the UK would not be able to so easily escape the consequences of their actions. The only hope of redress in the US seems to be if the Dover board decide to sue their lawyers or the DI. If the C.A.R.E's candidates get elected tomorrow how does this affect the chances of this happening?
I was thinking of suggesting that the readers of 'Panda's thumb' could show their gratitude to the Plaintiffs by having a collection? - to buy some textbooks perhaps? Or perhaps as a magnanimous gesture the ACLU lawyers could waive their fees and not seek punitive damages from the board. This would show who really cares about education, and would mean that at least the plaintiff's kid's don't pay the price.
I'm unemployed at the moment, but I'm willing to cough up a fiver(sterling) if necessary - it's been worth it for the entertainment value alone....
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 November 2005