Skip to main content

View Diary: "Evolution Teaches Nothing But Lies," And Other Dover Facts (303 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Perjury Change.... (4.00)
    From page 115 of the judge's 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."

    •  That's probably why... (none)
      ...the judge ordered them to pay court costs.
      •  Court Costs (none)
        The court costs were part of the case from the beginning: "Plaintiffs seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages, costs, and attorney's fees." (page 2 of judge's opinion)  

        There is no defense here, these people knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally lied on the stand.  It does not take a "nutcase prosecutor" to reach the conclusion that charges of perjury are reasonable in this situation.  At the very least, the US Attorney for the middle district of Pennsylvania should be investigating.

        Let him know how you feel:
        Thomas A. Marino, USA*
        P.O. Box 309, Scranton 18501-0309
        (570)348-2800
        Suite 220, Federal Building, 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg 17108-1754
        Herman T. Schneebeli Federal Building, 240 West Third Street, Suite 316, Williamsport 17701

    •  Oh I'm well aware that Judge Jones (none)
      called them deliberate liars, and therefore liars under oath. I agree with him, too. My point wasn't whether they had perjured themselves but whether a prosecutor could persuade a jury of their peers to find them guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
      If they were a bunch of corporation types, lying about how they looted their company, sure. Convincing an American jury that a defendant deliberately perjured him/herself about religious beliefs would be, in my opinion, very iffy. And I've served on three juries, including one federal one where I was the foreperson, and had to wrestle a majority into ruling justly [for the defendant].
      •  So did the judge lie? (none)
        he wrote "inescapable truth".  I suspect any competent prosecutor could reach a perjury conviction with such a court finding.
        •  Judge Jones did NOT lie. (none)
          My point, which I stand behind, and which is based on both personal experience and the statements of others (gathered through a lifetime of questioning and observation) is that inescapable truth may [and frequently does] mean one thing to a judge and another thing to a jury.
          For an American jury, protestations of religious sincerity will trump the facts of law almost every time. If ever you find yourself, as a lawyer, making an appeal to the jury based on such a situation, I urge you, as a three-time former juror, to bear my statement in mind. It could make the difference for your client.
          •  yes, my point of course was that he didn't lie (none)
            My point, which I stand behind, and which is based on both personal experience and the statements of others (gathered through a lifetime of questioning and observation) is that inescapable truth may [and frequently does] mean one thing to a judge and another thing to a jury.

            But did those experiences include presenting the judge's basis for his claim as a 139 page ruling to the jury?  I didn't make a statement about such cases in general, but about this specific one, which has unusual characteristics.

            For an American jury, protestations of religious sincerity will trump the facts of law almost every time. If ever you find yourself, as a lawyer, making an appeal to the jury based on such a situation, I urge you, as a three-time former juror, to bear my statement in mind. It could make the difference for your client.

            If I gave the impression somewhere that I'm a lawyer, I didn't mean to -- I'm not.  OTOH, I too am a three-time former juror.  But that experience alone clearly isn't enough, since we have differing opinions here.  I stated mine -- "I suspect any competent prosecutor could reach a perjury conviction with such a court finding".  I suspect that because there's behavior in this case that has little to do with "religious conviction" -- people blatantly lied about documented events and contradicted their own statements.

          •  P.S. (none)
            I really have to wonder whether you bothered to read what you responded to, when you write about "deliberately perjured him/herself about religious beliefs" and "protestations of religious sincerity":  

            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

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site