Have you exhausted your Harry accolades?
Tired of hoping for sudden news of Rove's indictment?
Or maybe, like me, you just like to snort through your nose at gun-totin' fundy rednecks who are waiting for the rapture.
Whatever your symptoms, I have the cure! Pull up a chair, pop open a beer, and watch as Judge Jones scares the beJeezus out of a witness for the defense. At issue is a check for $850, some amateur money laundering, and whether Beethoven really evolved from pond scum.
But first, the back story...
Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District is all the rage at the
ACLU these days. The bench trial is expected to end testimony on Friday of this week. Here is the brief version (for the extended version, see the links at the first link above): the Dover, PA school board voted to require a short statement be read to 9th grade biology students. The statement says, in effect, that evolution is a theory, not a fact, that Darwinism has "gaps," and that there are alternative theories that explain life, such as intelligent design. The statement further informs the eager youngsters that, should they wish to pursue this other theory, there is a book in the library,
Of Pandas and People (1993), which could give them more information. (Ah, yes, hope springs eternal in Dover. I can just hear the 9th graders: "Bonus School?? Oh, Heck Yes! I'm all over that one!")
Anyway, alert parents sued, saying "intelligent design" is creationism in new clothes, and creationism is religion, is unconstitutional per case after case, ergo, intelligent design is unconstitutional. The trial transcripts make great reading, honest to Darwin!
SO on Halloween, at the end of the day's proceedings, the judge springs an October surprise of his own. On the stand is Alan Bonsell, President of the Dover Area School Board and advocate of the curriculum change that has landed him in court. On cross, counsel for the plaintiffs exhibits a copy of a check for $850 written by William Buckingham, head of the curriculum committee, to Bonsell's father to purchase Of Pandas and People for the school.
Hmmm....Judge wants more information. He asks counsel for a copy of Bonsell's deposition in which he described giving donated money to his father for books. Who donated it? He didn't know. Was anyone else involved in the transfer of money? No.
Wait a sec, Judge thinks. This doesn't jibe with other testimony. It turns out Buckingham solicited the money for the books from his church, then claimed in deposition he didn't know where it came from! Oh, it's too rich for paraphrase. Read it yourself (from Day 18 pm transcript):
The players:
The Court: The Hon. John E. Jones III
Mr. Harvey: Counsel for the Plaintiffs, and a saint. This is not a cooperative witness.
Mr. Rothschild: ACLU Atty who conducted Bonsell's earlier deposition
Mr. Bonsell: The ant under the magnifying glass
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.
Q. Tell me why, in January of 2005, you didn't tell Mr. Rothschild on his repeated questioning that your -- that Mr. Buckingham was involved in that exchange?
A. Basically because I understood the question to be, who donated the books? Do you know anybody that donated? I only knew my father was the one that donated the books. I am still to this day convinced, you know, that Mr. Buckingham didn't give any money towards the books. He said to me, this is money that he collected towards the books. And I didn't ask him. You know, he didn't say -- if he would have said, some of this money is mine, or I put 50 bucks in the pot, or I did this, I would have told Mr. Rothschild at that time.
Q. The specific question was asked to you, sir: You have never spoken to anyone -- anybody else who was involved with the donation? And your answer was, I don't know the other people. That didn't say, who donated? That said, who was involved with the donation?
A. Okay. I'm sorry. What --
Q. Why did you -- I'm on page 16.
A. Okay.
Q. Line 9. That didn't say, who donated? That said, who was involved in the donation? Now you tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham's name.
A. Then I misspoke. Because I was still under -- from behind -- wait a second. I -- well, I'm going back here -- and so, yeah, that's my fault, Your Honor,because that's not -- in that case, I would have -- I should have said, Mr. Buckingham.
Q. Tell me again why you gave the money to your father. Why did you utilize your father as the ultimate recipient -- not the ultimate recipient, but as a conduit for this money?
A. Why he was the conduit?
Q. You took the money from Mr. Buckingham, if I understand it. You turn it over to your father. Is that correct?
A. Yes. Yes, sir.
Q. Because the check was made specifically to your father. Why was your father involved?
A. He agreed to -- he said that he would take it, I guess, off the table or whatever, because of seeing what was going on, and with Mrs. Callahan complaining at the board meetings not using funds or whatever.
Q. Why couldn't you use Mr. Buckingham's check? What was the difference?
A. My father was the one that agreed to do the books.
Q. I understand that.
A. And that basically anybody, you know, if somebody wanted to give money, they could give money to him. He just passed, you know --
Q. Now the way I understand it from Mr. Buckingham's testimony, Mr. Buckingham stood up in front of his church. Mr. Buckingham, despite testimony which was somewhat confusing, obviously, apparently made a plea for funds for this book. Mr. Buckingham received in addition to, apparently, his own contribution funds, which totaled $850.00. Why couldn't Mr. Buckingham's check be used? Why did your father have to be involved?
A. I guess it could have been used, but put the thing is, the money was going to him, and he was purchasing the books. And I think it was basically, if somebody gave money, fine. If not, he was going to buy the books. He was going to do it himself.
Q. You don't know why Mr. -- in other words, you don't know why Mr. Buckingham couldn't just purchase the books directly? Is that what you're telling me? Because I still haven't heard an answer as to why your father -- why the funds had to be paid first to Mr. Buckingham, why Mr. Buckingham couldn't write a check. Why did he have to give the funds to your father? I
still haven't heard an answer.
A. I guess he wouldn't have had to give the funds to my father. It's just that he was -- he had made -- he had made the --
Q. Who's he?
A. My father. He had made the -- oh, I don't know what word I'm looking for. [By Ahab: The word you're looking for, Mr. Bonsell, is "Oh, shiiiiiit!"] He said that he would get --donate the books, you know. So basically, I guess, he asked -- I guess you're saying, Mr. Buckingham went before his church. He collected money --
Q. You were here. You heard Mr. Buckingham.
A. He collected the money. And just -- because -- he had the check, gave me the money, I gave it to my father.
Q. I still haven't heard an answer from you as to why your father was the recipient of this money. Tell me why.
A. Because he's the one that said he would donate the books.
Q. It wasn't -- the money did not belong to your father. It came from Mr. Buckingham. He didn't donate the books. He received money from Mr. Buckingham that Mr. Buckingham received through donations from his church. Your father, unless I'm missing something, did not donate the books. He was the recipient of donated money and purchased the books.
A. No, but my father donated money towards the books. It's just that people had given money, and if -- basically, if no one had given a penny, my father would have bought all the books. So he must have went out and said, you know, if you want to give money, Mr. Bonsell is -- and so that's why the check is in his name,because the money was going to him. He was buying the
books. So he did put money towards the books, and he would have bought all the books.
Q. Now you were under oath. You know you were under oath on January the 3rd of 2005, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And your reason that you didn't mention Mr. Buckingham's name on January 3rd of 2005 is because you said you misspoke?
A. I was under the impression, Your Honor -- I was under the impression -- they were asking me who -- do you know anybody else? I mean, because I'm the one that brought my father forward in the testimony. I said, it was my father. He was the only one that I knew that put
money towards the books. Because, to be honest -- I mean, truthfully, I did not know that Mr. Buckingham gave any money towards those books. I would have said that. I would have said that. Now like I said --
Q. You knew on January 3rd that Mr. Buckingham had possession of funds that he received from his church, didn't you?
A. Not from his church, no.
Q. You knew that Mr. Buckingham had received funds,which he turned over to your father, from someplace?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Do you have any explanation for why Mr. Buckingham in this same series of depositions in January of 2005 also failed to admit that he was involved in soliciting money for the purchasing of this book? Do you have any explanation for that?
A. Why he said he wouldn't solicit money? I don't know. [By Ahab: This is not a slip on Bonsell's part. He regularly answered the question he wanted to answer, not the one that was put to him.]
Q. Were you here for Mr. Buckingham's testimony?
A. I heard part of it.
Q. Well, let me represent to you that Mr. Buckingham testified in June of 2005 in his deposition that he didn't know where the money came from. Do you have any explanation for why that is?
A. I don't have any explanation for that.
THE COURT: All right. Those are the questions I have. We'll reconvene tomorrow --
Reporters on the scene report the judge leaving the courtroom visibly angry and red in the face. Let me help you out, your Honor. Mr. Bonsell's father was involved because how would it look to have pseudoscience textbooks purchased with money solicited by the chair of the Curriculum Committe and raised through donations from his church? The under-the-table handoff to Bonsell's father was supposed to muddy the money trail. I'm telling you, never leave your money laundering to guys in polyester suits. Best leave it to the professionals.