Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 18 (October 31), PM Session, Part 2
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harvey, you may resume your cross examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION ( CONTINUED)
Q. Mr. Bonsell, at your deposition, you told us that you had either read a book or parts of a book or books by William Dembski. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read Intelligent Design, The Bridge Between Science and Theology by William Dembski with a forward by Michael Behe?
A. Can I see that?
Q. Sure.
MR. HARVEY: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
THE WITNESS: This doesn't look familiar.
Q. You don't think you read that book?
A. The cover doesn't look familiar, no. They said Dembski. I believe -- I don't know if I read the whole book. Just bits -- I mean, parts of the book of a Dembski book.
Q. Did you ever read a book in which Mr. Dembski said that, quotes, Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient?
A. No. I remember the bit -- what I can remember, I believe, of his book, he was talking about how the scientists were treated that had any other view outside of Darwin's view, how the scientific community treated them, their own friends treated them, how they were basically ex-communicated. People that were friends of his, they wouldn't even look at him anymore.
Q. Well, there's another volume called, It's Mere Creation, Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design. It's a correction of essays edited by Mr. Dembski with contributions by Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson, among others. Is that the book that you are referring to that you read?
A. No, that doesn't look familiar either or sound familiar.
Q. Now putting aside books and talking about newspapers, you testified that you read the York Dispatch. You have that actually delivered to your home, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you, many days, read the York Daily Record as well, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was true in June of 2004?
A. It probably was, yes.
Q. And at your deposition, you told us that you had read many of the news reports in this case?
A. Many of them. I mean, there's been a lot.
Q. Do you recall that in June of 2004, the York papers reported that Mr. Buckingham, who was at that time the head of the curriculum committee, had advocated at a public meeting in June of 2004 or had said at a public meeting in June of 2004 that he was concerned that the Miller Levine textbook recommended by the teachers and administration was laced with Darwinism?
A. Which meeting was that?
Q. Any meeting. That it was reported in the June -- in the York papers in June of 2004, that Mr. Buckingham had said that?
A. It sounds -- I testified that I remembered hearing him say that, yes.
Q. Well, putting aside whether you remembered hearing him. I know you testified that you heard him say that, but I just want to know, that was reported in the papers, correct?
A. Could you show me what you're talking about?
Q. Sure. Take a look at has been marked as P-44. Do you have that in front of you? Then if you go to the second page, fourth paragraph?
A. Second page?
Q. Yes, the second page of P-44. Matt, would you please bring up the fourth paragraph? It says that, quotes, Buckingham said, although the book has been available for review since May 20003, he had just recently reviewed the book himself and was disturbed the book was laced with Darwinism.
A. Okay. I read that. Okay.
Q. I just want to know, you knew that was reported in the York papers in June of 2004?
A. Okay.
Q. Right?
A. That's what it says, yes.
Q. Okay. And you knew that in June of 2004, the York papers reported that Mr. Buckingham had said that the committee, that's the curriculum committee, would look for a book that presented both creationism and evolution?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Okay. And I'm not asking you whether you recall it being said. I'm asking you if you knew that that was reported in the papers at the time?
A. Right here at this moment? Can you show it to me?
Q. Sure. Why don't you -- Matt, will you please bring up P-45? You can either look on the screen or look in your book at P-45. P-45 is a June 9th article from the York Dispatch written by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And if you go to the second page -- I'm sorry, first page, fifth paragraph, second line -- second sentence. I'm sorry. Can you highlight that, Matt? Beginning, Buckingham said. Do you see that? Buckingham said the committee would look for a book that presented both creationism and evolution?
A. I see it.
Q. You knew that was reported in the papers, in the York papers in June of 2004?
A. I mean, I see it here, yes.
Q. Well, you got the York Dispatch, didn't you?
A. Sure.
Q. I mean, there's other York papers that reported. Do we need to look at those or do you remember that you read that?
A. I'm just saying, I don't remember off the top of my head reading every report that was made by a newspaper report for, you know. So that's why I'd have to see it. I mean, yes -- I mean, that's what it says, yes.
Q. You believe you saw that in June of 2004?
A. Probably.
Q. Well, just to make sure, let's take a look at P-46. Right. That's also an article dated June the 9th, 2004, except this is from the York Daily Record, and it's written by Mr. Maldonado. Fifth paragraph. Matt, could you highlight that, please? It says that, Buckingham and other board members are looking for a book that teaches creationism and evolution. Do you see that?
A. I see it.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that was -- I guess I'm just asking you to remember that you knew that was reported in the York papers in June of 2004?
A. Okay. All right.
Q. Do you remember that, that it was reported in the York papers?
A. Well, again, I can't say I recall every article that was written in both papers and the Sunday paper and everything that I see. I don't remember exactly word for word what was said, but I see that there was one on June 9th, and I agree with that, that was reported.
Q. We can look at other articles.
A. No.
Q. There's no question that you knew in June --
THE COURT: Hang on, please. You may proceed.
Q. Mr. Bonsell, just more generally, you knew, in June of 2004, that the York papers were reporting that the board or some board members wanted creationism?
A. That's what they're reporting, yes.
Q. You knew that in June of 2004?
A. Okay.
Q. Is that right?
A. Obviously, yes.
Q. Okay. And now did you know in June of 2004, that the York papers had reported that Mr. Buckingham had said at a public board meeting, 2000 years ago, a man died on a cross, can't someone take a stand for him, or words to that effect?
A. I believe something along those lines, yes.
Q. That was reported in the York paper?
A. That was reported, yes.
Q. And did you know that, do you remember that in June of 2004, it was reported in the York papers that Mr. Buckingham had also said, this country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution, it was founded on Christianity, and our children should be taught as such, or words to that effect?
A. Probably, yes. Was that at a board meeting?
Q. I don't know whether -- I mean, I don't know whether it was at a board meeting or not, but it was reported that Mr. Buckingham had said that publicly?
A. Okay.
Q. Did you know that?
A. Probably.
Q. Do you want to take a look at an article?
A. Well, that's fine.
Q. Go to P-47?
A. If you are saying they reported it, I believe you.
Q. Okay. That's all I'm -- I'm just getting to confirm that you knew that was reported in June of 2004, right?
A. Sure.
Q. All right. Now did you know that in June of 2004, the York papers reported that a group called the Americans -- called Americans United for Separation of Church and State was considering legal action against the board if it chose a textbook that included creationism?
A. The question is whether they reported that or whether it happened?
Q. Well, did you know in June of 2004 that the Americans United for Separation of Church and State --
A. I don't recall. That, I don't recall if they did in June. I know that name came up somewhere along the line in 2004.
Q. Well, take a look at what's been marked again, back to P-45. Are you at P-45?
A. Okay.
Q. It's the seventh paragraph, begins with the words, Robert Boston?
A. Yes, I see that, yes.
Q. It says, Robert Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the district will be inviting a lawsuit if it chooses a textbook that teaches creationism. Do you remember that was reported in June of 2004?
A. Okay.
Q. Was that a yes?
A. I mean, it definitely was reported, yes.
Q. If you look at P-54 -- well, yeah, if you look at P-54, second page, tenth paragraph, again, beginning with Robert Boston. Are you at that -- tell me when you're there. It says, Robert Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has said that the district will be inviting a lawsuit if it chooses a textbook that teaches creationism.
And then it goes on to say that, Buckingham said he did not believe the members of the Americans United know what it means to be American. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I'm just trying to get you to remember that in June of 2004, you knew that Americans United for Separation of Church and State were talking about bringing a lawsuit against the board if it talked -- if it was going to teach or select a textbook that included creationism. Do you remember that?
A. I see it, that was printed. I didn't remember. You know, I don't remember exact dates, but this is from that time period, so I say, yes, I see it here.
Q. Now you never put anything in writing to any of the newspapers in June of 2004 or afterwards to say that anything they reported was incorrect, isn't that true?
A. I'm not sure if I ever put anything in writing to newspapers saying they were inaccurate.
Q. Fair enough. And, in fact, you didn't ask the reporters of the newspapers themselves to correct any statements that were reported about the board meetings in June of 2004, did you?
A. I'm not sure if I don't recall in the second meeting saying about inaccuracies in the press at the board meeting.
Q. So you may have said something about inaccuracies in the press at a board meeting?
A. I don't remember exact words, but it's -- that's what I am thinking, yes.
Q. But you never, with respect to any specific statement, asked the press -- told the press, the York papers or the reporters, that something was inaccurate?
A. Well, if I was reporting about inaccuracies in the press at the second board meeting in June, it would have had to do with the first board meeting in June, which is what this is talking about.
Q. You never said anything specific to any members of the press, the York papers or the reporters?
A. I didn't write anything, if that's what you're asking.
Q. You never said anything either, that specifically you said that --
A. Well, I might -- I can't sit here and say, yes, that is specifically what I said. But I'm saying inaccuracies at a board meeting, that's probably a pretty good indication.
Q. Mr. Bonsell, you need to let me finish my question --
A. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Q. -- before you start answering. You did it again. Just be careful about that. I guess -- I'm just trying to establish that you never went to the papers and said that anything specific was inaccurate in any way? You never said that, isn't that correct?
A. I don't -- I never went to anybody or said anything to anybody? Is that what you're asking?
Q. You never went to the papers or the reporters about the coverage in June of 200 let me finish -- about the coverage in June of 2004 and said, this statement is incorrect or that statement is incorrect or there's something specific in there that's incorrect, did you?
A. Again, I believe I had talked about inaccuracies, but I don't have specific exactly, because I just don't remember from June of 2004 exactly what I said. But obviously, when we started talking about intelligent design and the words started to be interchanged, this would be a clear example of that.
But I can't sit here honestly and say, yes, absolutely, that's what I talked about. But this would clearly indicate that that's probably what I was talking about.
Q. But you don't have any memory of saying to the members of the press that any specific statement or anything specifically that was reported was inaccurate? That's all I'm asking you to agree with me on. That's true, isn't it?
A. Again, can you say that one more time, please?
Q. You never said to anybody with the York papers that any specific statement was inaccurate, isn't that true?
A. I can't remember that, so I can't say, no, I -- again, you need to 4 didn't.
Q. Well, you certainly have no memory of doing that. That would be a fair statement, wouldn't it?
A. The thing is that, it sort of all goes together because I was saying things to reporters, especially Joe Maldonado, all the time, at board meetings, after board meetings. I talked to him on the phone. I talked to, like I said, numerous editors. But I've never written them a letter.
So, I mean, the thing is, if I was going to write every time that the media had put in something that wasn't correct, I wouldn't get anything else done.
Q. I understand your testimony on that point, Mr. Bonsell. I'm just asking you to confirm for me that you have no memory of ever going to the York papers or their news reporters with respect to anything that was reported in June of 2004 and saying, that statement is wrong, or anything specific in there is incorrect, isn't that true?
A. I guess not -- if you're asking me specifically, absolutely, that I said that, then I would have to say, no, I don't.
Q. You didn't -- you never did that, correct?
A. I'm not saying that. I'm saying, you're asking me if I have a recollection of that specific thing. No, I don't have a recollection of that specific thing. But like I said before, because of what I said at other meetings, it would lead me to believe that this possibly could be one of the reasons. But going back to your question, absolutely, no.
Q. Well, can you point to anywhere where you made or any board member or the administration made a public statement that, what was reported in the York papers in June of 2004 was incorrect?
A. I -- do you want a specific date? I can't give you a specific dates. But I can tell you that it was done at board meetings. I, sitting in that chair, have specifically said that there are things that were not reported correctly. I mean, so -- I know I've done it.
But if you're asking me specifically, that, I can't -- I didn't write it down, which dates I said that, because it was an ongoing thing. Sometimes I said it to them after the meeting. Sometimes I said it to them when I was sitting behind the table. So, I mean, I can't tell you specifically.
Q. Well, did you -- going back to where we were just a minute ago. Did you do that with respect to anything specific that was reported about what happened in the June meeting? Did you say that, this statement, creationism was discussed, is wrong? Did you ever say that to anybody in any public forum that the newspapers had got that wrong?
A. I'm sure at some point I had said about using the word creationism for intelligent design. But like again, I can't sit here and tell you what specific date that I would have said that or if I said it, because more than likely, I said it more than once. But I'm sorry, I can't answer your question as a specific date. I just can't give that to you.
Q. Well, it's not -- it's more than a specific date. You can't even remember what you said specifically, correct?
A. I'm sure I would have said something along the lines of, the teaching, we're not teaching, because I said that over and over again. We're making kids aware. I'm sure that when they say creationism, it's not creationism, because if I said that once, that intelligent design is not creationism, I said it a hundred thousand times, that it's not creationism.
So, I mean, I said that in board meetings, out of board meetings. So, but again, I mean, I said it all the time.
Q. What about Mr. Buckingham's comment that was reported, 2000 years ago, a man died on a cross, can't someone take a stand for him? Did you or any other board member ever say in any public forum that that was not said?
A. I think, in my deposition, I remember him saying that. But I think it was at a different time period. So I wouldn't say he didn't say it, because I remember, but I think it was a different time period.
Q. Well, you told us -- that's your testimony, that it was said at a different time period, it was said in November 2003, it wasn't said in June 2004. That's your testimony on that?
A. I believe that's what I had said before, yes.
Q. All right. But my question -- and you told us that, as you say, at your deposition?
A. I believe that was.
Q. But did you ever say it to any -- did you or any board member of the administration say it before then, that that was something that was inaccurate, that wasn't right in the press?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now the only statement in writing in response to what was reported in the press is Mrs. Geesey's letter to the editor of June the 27th, which has been marked as P-60. Could you please bring that up, Matt? We've got it blown up on the screen, if that's helpful, too.
A. Oh, okay. Thank you.
Q. Have you seen this before?
A. I think I saw it the other day when I was here at the hearing.
Q. This is a letter, according to Mrs. Geesey, that she wrote, and that was published in the York Sunday News on June the 27th of 2004?
A. Okay.
Q. Right?
A. All right.
Q. And in here, she is responding to some of the things that are being said and reported in the papers, correct?
A. I guess so. I believe that's what she had said, that she was responding to somebody's letter.
Q. And the question is, you're not aware of any board member or the administration ever responding in writing to anything that was said in the press other than this letter, correct?
A. I mean, about that particular board meeting? There again, I'm saying, if you're asking me, absolutely specifically on something, I'd have to say, no. When did it happen? It happened all the time. Yes. But it wasn't in writing.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. So it's your testimony then that, other than this letter by -- to the editor by Mrs. Geesey, no board member of the administration ever put in writing that they disputed anything that was reported in the York papers in June of 2004, correct?
A. Well, yeah. In writing -- well, I shouldn't speak for everybody. I don't know. I mean, I'm speaking for myself. I don't know. There could have been others. I just don't know.
Q. So you don't know of any except Mrs. Geesey's letter in which she talks about creationism, right?
A. I don't think -- she's responding to somebody writing, or another editorial letter, isn't she?
Q. Yes, she is.
A. She's responding to an editorial letter not about a board meeting, about an editorial letter, correct?
Q. We can take a look at it, if you want.
A. No, I'm just asking. I thought that's what you said. This is a response to an editorial.
Q. It was in response to something that was said in the papers?
A. Yeah, in the papers.
Q. Why don't we take a look at that?
A. Okay. Because I thought it was -- yeah, I remember it from the other day.
Q. Please bring up what's been marked as P-56. And you can turn to it in your notebook as well.
A. P-56?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You've had a chance to review that, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now this is a letter from Beth Eveland, one of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was published in the York Sunday News on June the 20th of 2004?
A. Okay.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in it, she's saying that she was very upset about something she read in Wednesday's York Daily Record, and the specific thing she mentions is the York Daily Record's report that Mr. Buckingham had said, this country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution, this country was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such. Correct?
A. That's what she says here, yes.
Q. And then Mrs. Geesey, if you go back to P-60 for just a minute, is responding to this. All right. Can you see in the first paragraph, she refers to Ms. -- to Beth Eveland?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. We're making this more complicated than it needs to be. All I'm saying is, other than Ms. Geesey's letter to the editor on June the 27th of 2004, in which she refers to creationism, you're not aware of any board member or the administration putting in writing that they -- reacting or responding in any way to the reporting of the York papers in June of 2004?
A. Am I aware of any writing? I would say, no, I'm not aware of any writing.
Q. Okay. And, in fact, the first time that the board or the administration put in writing that it disputed anything that was reported in June of 2004 was when it submitted its answer to the complaint in this litigation on January the 3rd, 2005, seven months later, isn't that right, Mr. Bonsell?
A. No. I believe there was something -- we had put those responses in the -- at the website.
Q. You're referring to -- Matt, why don't you please bring up P-104. This is the document you're referring to that was put up on the website?
A. That and the interim one that was before this.
Q. Well, this says, the interim one was on October 19th, correct?
A. I'm not sure of the date. It was before this one.
Q. I believe they're exactly the same, correct?
A. No, the smaller, little, the little one that was put on the website, that was put on our website.
Q. Matt, if you would highlight the second paragraph of this. This paragraph was the same both in the first version of what was put in the press release and the second version of what was put in the press release in November, right?
A. No. What I'm talking about, there's another smaller one that was one that we put out right after, I think, right after, before this one, the one that we had gone over earlier.
MR. HARVEY: Can I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Are you referring to what has been marked as Defendants' Exhibit 83?
A. Yes.
Q. That's a memo from you to Mr. -- to Dr. Nilsen, dated November the 12th of 2004?
A. Yes, that's a memo. But I believe that was placed on -- I believe -- I'm pretty sure that was placed on the website, on our website.
Q. Please read it for us.
A. Read it to you?
Q. Yeah, sure the substance of it.
A. The Dover Area School District is in the process of forming a fair and balanced science curriculum. We are not, underlined, teaching religion. To keep our residents informed and to clear up any misconception that they may have concerning this matter, in the next few weeks we'll be issuing an informational statement on this subject.
Q. That was the first thing that you put in writing on that subject, right?
A. Probably -- after it was -- because this was before anything was ever passed. This is after it was passed.
Q. Sure. And that's not referring to anything that was inaccurate in the reporting in the York papers in June --
A. Well, I think there's -- when you say, we are not teaching religion, that is in direct response to what has been said in the public up until that time.
Q. Okay.
A. So there wouldn't be any reason to put that in there unless there was a misunderstanding.
Q. Well, you're not -- that doesn't say anything about the fact that board members discussed creationism, as reported in the papers, right?
A. But where did Mrs. Eveland get her -- she lived in York Township at the time. She didn't even live in Dover.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. I said, Mrs. Eveland, in this letter here, says she lives in York Township.
Q. What I'm saying to you is, your November the 12th memo to Dr. Nilsen, which you say was put on the website, doesn't in any way say, the board didn't discuss creationism in June of 2004, as reported in the papers, does it? It doesn't say that or anything like that?
A. Well, it doesn't say that, but it says, we are not teaching religion. If we would have been discussing putting creationism in the schools and teaching it, then you would have been teaching religion. So we are not teaching religion.
Q. That doesn't in any way -- Mr. Bonsell, that doesn't in any way respond to the very specific reports that were in the paper in June of 2004 about the board discussing creationism, does it?
A. No. In that respect, no.
Q. It doesn't respond to the reports in the York papers in June of 200 public meeting, 2000 years ago, a man died on a cross, can't someone take a stand for him? It doesn't respond to that specifically in any way, does it?
A. It doesn't respond to that specifically, but in general, I believe it does.
Q. And it doesn't respond specifically in any way to the reports in the press that Mr. Buckingham had said in June of 2004 that, this country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution, this country was founded on Christianity, and our children should be taught as such, right? It doesn't respond to that specifically, does it?
A. Specifically? No.
Q. And then if we look at your press release that came out on the 19th of November -- we've blown up the language there. There is reports -- there is something in there that says, quotes, Some statements and opinions from the media, community members, and board members which are completely inaccurate or false have been assumed to be official district policy or curriculum procedure. And then it goes on to say, The following is the actual chronology of the district vows and curriculum development process and implementation, right? that Mr. Buckingham had said at a 4 A. Okay.
Q. And in that, you're suggesting that the media reporting was incorrect, right?
A. It says, Some statements and opinions from the media, community members, and board members -- statements and opinions from the community, media, community members, board members, which are completely inaccurate or false have been assumed to be official board policy. Yes.
Q. And that's five months after the reporting in the June York papers, right? Five months later, approximately?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, that doesn't say anything in there specifically in response to the reports that board members were discussing creationism or the other things that I mentioned to you just a minute ago, does it?
A. Not specifically, but it does mention statements from the media.
Q. Okay. And then, in fact, the first time that the board or the school district or the administration in any way specifically disputed in writing what was published in the York papers in June was at the time of the answer, right?
A. At the time of the answer?
Q. Matt, can you bring up a side-by-side of paragraph 29 of the complaint and paragraph 29 in the answer?
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, at this time I would respectfully interpose an objection on the theory that this examination is cumulative. Mr. Bonsell has testified that he didn't put anything in writing. He said that his complaints were verbal. And we're going over it numerous times now. I don't see the point of the cumulative examination. I think the point has been elicited.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, if either counsel or the witness will agree with me that no one disputed those specific reports in the June York papers until the answer in this case on January 3rd, 2003, I'll move on.
MR. GILLEN: Specifically in writing, he's been asked that question several times, and he said he didn't put anything in writing.
THE COURT: I take that as a yes. Why don't you move on.
MR. HARVEY: Okay.
Q. Now you were deposed on January 3rd, 2003, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you know, that's the same day that your counsel submitted the answer in this case?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. And when you were deposed, you denied that creationism had been discussed at the June board meetings, right? Do you remember that?
A. Can you show me that?
Q. Sure. Please go to your January 3rd deposition, page 45, line 22. You were shown an article, and then Mr. Rothschild asked you the following question, and you gave the following answers: Quote, Does this article accurately report that creationism was being debated at school board meetings? Answer, Absolutely not.
Question, There was no discussion about creationism? Answer, No. Question, So as we look through these articles, this uninterrupted series of articles about June meetings that talk about creationism being debated at the school board meetings and statements made by school board members, including yourself, about creationism, all of those are just fabricated? Answer, Fabricated?
Question, Yes, fabricated. Answer, Fabricated? You mean, she just made them up -- all up, is that what you mean? Question, There are a lot of statements in here about people talking about creationism. I think you are suggesting to me it never happened. Answer, All this debate about creationism, yes, that never did happen. It was not a debate about creationism.
A. Okay.
Q. Then if you go over to page 48, line 19 to 22. Do you have that in front of you?
A. Page 48, 19, yes.
Q. Question, So you can't remember anything he said about it, but you are sure all this discussion about creationism is just made up? Answer, I am sure about that. I mean, you have to ask Mr. Buckingham what he said.
That was your testimony, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. So on January 1st, you told us that the discussions, the reports in the paper about discussions of creationism were just made up, correct?
A. That's basically what I said.
Q. Okay. And also that day, you also said that you didn't know when Mr. Buckingham made the statement about, 2000 years ago, a man died on a cross, or at least you couldn't remember. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Can you show me that?
Q. Do you remember your testimony?
A. I would like to see it.
Q. Sure. Let's go to page 48 of your deposition.
A. Same page, okay.
Q. Line 24. Question, If you could go down -- if you could go to the next page of that article, four full paragraphs down, a statement is attributed to Mr. Buckingham, nearly 2000 years ago, someone died on a cross for us, shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him? Did Mr. Buckingham make that statement? Answer, I'm not sure he said that. I'm not sure he said that at this meeting.
Question, Do you recall him saying, making that statement at any school board meeting? It is a pretty powerful statement to say at a school board meeting. Answer, I don't think it has to do with what we are talking about, not.
Question, Do you think he made that statement at a meeting? Answer, I'm not positive. I think he said something along those lines, but I don't believe it was -- it had to do with this. What do you believe it had -- Question, What do you believe it had to do with? Answer, There was a year ago, before this, there was another discussion on the pledge, but this was the year before.
Question, You think he made a statement along those lines regarding the pledge? Answer, To be honest, I'm not sure when he said it or if it is -- if this is exactly what he said. I'm just not sure.
A. Yes.
Q. And that day, you also said you weren't aware of Mr. Buckingham ever saying, this country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution, right?
A. Well, going back to this last thing, it says, I thought it was -- had a discussion to do with the pledge, which was a year before. So I believe that's consistent with what I am, you know, thinking, you know, what I said now.
Q. Well, you also said then that you just weren't sure?
A. Well, I'm not sure. The thing is, basically, on something like this, this was January 3rd, you know, I come into a deposition like this. I've been reliving this whole thing. I've been coming to almost all these meetings. And some things, I mean, recollections do come back on some issues. I mean, I wish everything would come back, but it doesn't. But, I mean, this is pretty much along the lines of what I'm saying now.
Q. All right. So just to clarify. At the time you said, it was -- you thought that it was, it happened in 2003, but you weren't exactly sure, and today you're saying you're pretty sure it was said in 2003, not in June of 2004, right?
A. Yes, that -- that's basically, yes.
Q. Now let's talk about the October 18th board meeting, Mr. Bonsell. That's the meeting at which the board adopted the resolution that's at issue in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember Heather Geesey stating at that board meeting that somebody might be fired?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us what you remember about that.
A. What I can recall about that was is, there was talk about, I guess, a lawsuits, or something along those lines. And from our understanding was, is that what we were doing was legal per our attorney. There was nothing unconstitutional about it.
And she basically, I think -- somewhere in the conversation, she basically said, you know, well, more or less, they better be giving us right information, and if not, if we get sued, we should fire our attorney.
Q. Right. And then the paper reported the next day that Mrs. Geesey had said something about firing the teachers, right?
A. That wasn't correct.
Q. Right, but that's what the paper reported the next day, right?
A. Well, I believe so. If you can show it to me, that's fine. But I'll take your word for it, if that's what you're saying.
Q. Well, take a look at P-797. And Matt, if you could please bring that up, the second full paragraph in the right-hand column. It's on the screen in front of you as well, Mr. Bonsell. It says, if they -- quotes, If they requested Stock and Leader, they, the faculty, should be fired, said board member Heather Geesey. They agreed to the book and the changes in curriculum. Do you see that?
A. I see it, yes.
Q. At least what the paper is saying is that Ms. Geesey said the faculty should be fired, right? That's what the paper said, right?
A. That's what the paper said, but that's incorrect.
Q. Actually, if it were correct, and I'm not asking you to agree that it's correct, but if it were correct, that would be a very serious thing for a board member to threaten to fire teachers at a board meeting, correct?
A. To fire teachers at a board meeting? Yeah, I guess so.
Q. Well, if you are talking about firing teachers --
A. You don't -- well --
Q. That's a pretty serious things?
A. You don't make flip remarks like that, no.
Q. Excuse me?
A. You wouldn't make a remark like that probably, no.
Q. That's right. That would be a very serious thing if you said it, right?
A. That would be a very serious thing? In what way do you mean?
Q. If I was talking about -- if I was a board member, and I was talking about firing teachers, that would be a very serious thing, isn't that true?
A. I would agree.
Q. And, in fact, Mrs. Geesey was very concerned about this, this report in the paper, and she contacted Dr. Nilsen the very next day, didn't she?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. And were you here for Dr. Nilsen's testimony on that point?
A. I don't know if I -- I wasn't here for all of Dr. Nilsen's testimony.
Q. Matt, can you please pull up Dr. Nilsen's testimony on October the 20th in the afternoon, page 113. Mr. Bonsell, I actually have a copy of the testimony, if it would be easier for you to read it?
A. I think I can read it. He expanded it a little bit. I believe I should be able to read it. Thank you.
Q. All right. Now if you look on line, it looks like, 11. Question, Okay. Did Mrs. Geesey ever ask you to do anything as a result of the controversy surrounding her comment? Answer, Yes. The next morning, the paper reported that she had recommended firing the teachers.
And she immediately contacted me and told me that she was -- that that was -- that that was obviously not what she had said, and I agreed with her, and she did two things.
One, she sent me an e-mail explaining her position and asked me to forward that throughout all of the teachers, stating on her behalf that, or in her words, that that was not what she had intended and, in fact, that she liked all the teachers and supported the teachers.
Secondly, to prove that that was not what she had said, she requested that I develop a verbatim transcript of the October 18 meeting concerning the issues of -- or the area of curriculum. Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, I believe you have.
Q. You were here for that testimony, weren't you?
A. No. No, that's why I said, I don't remember this.
Q. Well, you know that's what happened, right, or at least you know now?
A. I know now.
Q. Now as it turns out, we can't check to see what Mrs. Geesey actually said at that meeting because, according to Dr. Nilsen, that part of the tape -- that part of the meeting was not taped, right?
A. By accident, yes.
Q. And Dr. Nilsen testified that the tapes were only kept until the minutes were approved, do you remember that, or did you know that?
A. I believe we had a letter from Denise Russell, who was the business manager for 10 years, and basically said that's what was basically the policy.
Q. That was your understanding. The board -- the tapes of the board meetings were kept until the minutes were approved, right?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. And actually, were you here for Mrs. Callahan's testimony?
A. Some of it, I believe, yes.
Q. She testified that the -- she thought the tapes were kept for like six months. Do you remember that?
A. Well, now that you say that, I believe she did say that, but that's not -- that wasn't correct.
Q. Right. It's your testimony, they were only kept until the minutes were approved, right?
A. Up until the point of these lawsuits, yes.
Q. And that's always been your understanding. You don't agree with Mrs. Callahan, right?
A. Well, we have a letter stating as such, that she isn't correct, from Denise Miller, who has, unfortunately, passed away, but she was the business manager and board secretary from 1995 up until her time when she left the school district.
Q. Do you know when the minutes of the June 7th and June 14th board meetings were approved?
A. I'm not positive. Usually, it's the next, you know, the next month. But I'm not, you know -- I don't know off the top of my head a date.
Q. Let me show you the minutes. Matt, can you bring up P-63, the minutes of the meeting on July the 12th. And I'll ask you to highlight the section on approval of minutes. P-63 is the minutes of the July 12th, 2004, board meeting, right, Mr. Bonsell?
A. That's what it says, yes.
Q. And under approval of minutes, it says, quote, Motion by Mrs. Harkins, seconded by Mr. Weinrich, that the school board approve the minutes of June 7, 2004, and June 14, 2004, motion adopted by a vote of nine yes, and zero no. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that means then that the tapes for the board meetings on June the 7th and June 14th would have been in existence, at least as of the date of these minutes, which is July the 12th, 2004?
A. It would appear that that would be the case.
Q. And if you or any other board member or the administration had wanted to dispute anything that was reported in the York papers in June of 2004, as of July the 12th, you could have gone to the tapes and made a verbatim transcript to prove that you didn't say it, just like Mrs. Geesey did when she disagreed with something in the press, isn't that correct?
A. I guess you could have.
Q. Now you knew that this issue of what was said at the board meetings was going to be an issue, at least as of August 27th, 2004, at the board curriculum meeting that date, right?
A. The board curriculum meeting, yes.
Q. Because --
A. Well, that's when we met with the science teachers.
Q. Right. Take a look at what's been marked as P-70. Do you see that? That's an e-mail from Steven Russell, who is an attorney with Stock and Leader, to Dr. Nilsen, dated August the 26th, 2004?
A. Yes.
Q. And you received this e-mail at a curriculum meeting on the 27th of August, 2004?
A. I believe. I'm not positive on that.
Q. Were you here when Dr. Nilsen testified that you did receive it?
A. No.
Q. Well, look at the bottom, the fourth sentence from the end and the third sentence from the end. Matt, if you would highlight those beginning with the words, my concern for Dover. And that says, quotes, My concern for Dover is that, in the last several years, there has been a lot of discussion, news print, etc., for putting religion back in the schools. In my mind, this would add weight to a lawsuit seeking to enjoin whatever the practice might be, close quotes. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You saw that on or around August the 27th, 2004?
A. I must have.
Q. So you knew that these reports that had been in the papers was going to be a very serious matter for the board in this lawsuit, didn't you?
A. Well, if that's what would happen, that we would have to address it.
Q. Now is it still your testimony that the discussion of the creationism at the June board meetings was just made up by the local papers?
A. Like I said before in my testimony, I don't recall it being discussed, no.
Q. Well, at your deposition, you said that it was just made up, right?
A. I'm not sure if that's what I said, it was made up.
Q. Should we go back there?
A. Yeah, let's go back.
Q. Your January 3rd deposition, page 48?
A. Page 48, okay.
Q. Lines 19 to 22. Tell me when you're there, please.
A. 48, 19. Yes, I'm there.
Q. The question was, So you can't remember anything he said about it, but you are sure all this discussion about creationism is just made up? Answer, I am sure about that.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. So is it still your testimony that the discussion of the reports about creationism in the York papers in June of 2004 was made up?
A. I believe so, because that's when -- I believe the first meeting is when we started to discussing -- ID came up.
Q. So you believe that two reporters who wrote the reports, Ms. Bernhard-Bubb and Mr. Maldonado, made it all up? Is that your testimony?
A. Well, made up, maybe that's a -- but interchange words. I guess that could be the same thing as made up. But, I mean, Mrs. Bubb and Mr. Maldonado usually sat together.
Q. Were you here the other day when Mr. Baksa testified, and he said he heard the word creationism at the June meetings?
A. No.
Q. If Mr. Baksa testified that he heard creationism at the June board meetings, is he making it up, too?
A. No.
Q. Now were you here when Bertha Spahr testified that she heard the word -- Mr. Buckingham say, 2000 years ago, a man died on a cross, can't someone take a stand for him, in June of 2004?
A. I was here for that. I'm not exactly sure -- but, okay.
Q. Do you remember that she -- do you remember that she testified that she had heard that in June of 2004?
A. I don't remember her saying that, but if you're saying that's what she said, okay.
Q. Well, do you think --
A. Like I said, I was here. I just don't remember her -- that particular testimony.
Q. Why would the press make up that statement and claim that something that was said in November of 2003 was said in June of 2004? Why would they do that?
A. I don't know.
Q. Mrs. Spahr wouldn't lie about that, would she?
A. I wouldn't say she would.
Q. If the news -- if the press is so prone to exaggerating or not getting it correct, then why do you keep making statements to them, including statements during the course of this lawsuit?
A. In the course of this lawsuit? Basically in the hopes that some of the truth will get out to what's going on, on our side.
I mean, in the newspaper, in particular, I've noticed that, in one time in particular, I was just curious, and I measured -- you know, they did a whole report on one of the days of the trial. And they always say, you know, they say, oh, fair and balanced and all that. And I just -- I had to do that.
I measured the lines of print that were on the subject. And I believe there was 40 inches of print about the day, the day's witness. And 37 and a half inches were the Plaintiffs' attorneys and 2 and a half inches were about our attorneys.
Q. You don't deny that you and Mr. Thompson have been standing on the front of the courthouse steps making statements about this case, do you, Mr. Bonsell?
A. I do that occasionally, yes.
Q. Now you're familiar with the Discovery Institute?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Discovery Institute actually came to the Dover School Board and made a presentation in executive session prior to the October 18th board meeting, isn't that correct?
A. Legal, yes.
Q. Right, but two gentlemen from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, came to the Dover School Board and made a legal presentation at some time prior to the October 18th board resolution, correct?
A. I believe it had to do with legal matters, yes.
Q. Now would you agree with me that, with the exception of the presentation that was made to the board by the Discovery Institute, which was, as you say, legal, no one made any presentation to the board about intelligent design or the subject of the October 18th resolution?
A. No one made a presentation about intelligent design, and what was the last section?
Q. Or the subject of the October 18th resolution?
A. Or the subject --
Q. The October 18th resolution. Nobody came in and said, here's why you should -- made a presentation, and said, here's why you should pass this October 18th resolution?
A. Not that I recall, no.
Q. And you never, yourself, spoke to the board about why they should support the resolution, did you?
A. Spoke to the board about it? I'm sure there was a -- I'm sure there was discussions about it, but I don't know specifically, no. Not specifically.
Q. And you're not aware that anyone provided any materials to the board about intelligent design to help them make their decision about the October 18th resolution, are you?
A. Any materials?
Q. Yes.
A. I guess the discussions, and the book and the videos were there.
Q. You're not aware that any members, that they were provided to the members of the board, were you?
A. That, I don't know.
Q. They were generally available, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don't know that they were provided to the board, right?
A. I think they were made available, but you'd have to ask each person if they looked at it. I don't know.
Q. You're not aware that either you or any member of the board or the administration contacted the National Academy of Sciences or the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences or the American Biology -- the Federation of Biology Teachers or any other organization to find out about intelligent design or evolution in helping you make your decision on October 18th, isn't that correct?
A. No, but I don't know if we've ever done that with any other form of curriculum either.
Q. Now when you passed that resolution on October 18th, 2004, you had actually been working, according to you, you had been working on that subject for approximately six months, isn't that correct?
A. Well, give or take -- I mean, it was a few months that we had been working on it, yes. Well, it was four to six months, something along those lines.
Q. Well, it included the June board meetings, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified in your direct examination that you had a meeting with the teachers in the fall of 2003?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that meeting, you learned that the biology teachers did not teach common ancestry in the Dover biology class in high school, correct?
A. They didn't teach macro evolution.
Q. Right. By that, you mean, they didn't teach common ancestry?
A. I guess that's part of it.
Q. And, in fact, you learned that they only taught evolution within a species or what you call micro evolution?
A. Well, micro evolution, adaptation over time, that type of thing, yes.
Q. Change within a species?
A. Yes, you could say it that way.
Q. And that was good news for you, because you don't have any problem with teaching -- as a personal, as a matter of your personal religious beliefs, you don't have any problem with change within a species, do you?
A. No.
Q. And as we discussed earlier, macro evolution is inconsistent with your personal religious beliefs?
A. In which respect are you talking?
Q. Well, common ancestry?
A. Common ancestry? (Witness nodded head affirmatively.)
Q. The idea that one species, over a very long period of time, could give rise to another species, that's inconsistent with your personal religious beliefs?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Nilsen testified that Mrs. Harkins designated you as the board member assigned to check out the Thomas More Law Center at the time that the board agreed to have the Thomas More Law Center as its counsel in this litigation. Were you here for that testimony?
A. No.
Q. Is it true that Mrs. Harkins assigned you to check out the Thomas More Law Center?
A. I talked to numerous attorneys, because we had offers from many attorneys.
Q. And the board engaged Thomas More Law Center to be its counsel in December of 2004, right?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. You checked out the Thomas More Law Center on its website, among other things, right?
A. And talked and spoken with them.
Q. You spoke with people from the Thomas More Law Center, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You checked out their website?
A. I believe so.
Q. Well, and you knew -- actually, you knew -- strike that. I'm going to ask, please pull up P-134, and you can turn to that. Can you bring that up so we can see it, Matt? This is from the website of the Thomas More Law Center, and it's printed out on December the 20th of 2004.
Matt, if you can go to the right-hand corner so we can see that. Down in the lower right-hand corner, it's a little cut off by the sticker, but you can see right there. It says 12/20/2004. Do you see that?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. I'm just pointing out to you that this, which was used at the depositions on January the 3rd of 2005, was actually printed off the website on December the 20th of 2004. So that would have been around the time that you were looking at the website, right?
A. I guess that was a little after that time. Somewhere in that, you know, within the month anyway.
Q. Matt, could you please go back to the body of it and highlight the sentence that begins, our purpose. Let me read this to you. It says, Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square. Do you see those words?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And did you know that Thomas More called itself the sword and shield for people of faith?
A. This is probably the first I've seen that per se.
Q. And would you agree with me that, in this case, Thomas More is providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square?
MR. GILLEN: I'm going to object to the questions. I mean, it's our mission statement. But it seems to me, there's some sort of impeachment by counsel, which is improper. And insofar as I know, it's not proper to attempt to impugn, apparently, a client based on the work of the lawyer.
I mean, certainly I know that I wouldn't do that with respect to the Plaintiffs based on their selection of counsel. And I fail to see how it's relevant or proper here.
MR. HARVEY: Relationship with Mr. Gillen wouldn't impugn anyone, I believe.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you for that, Steve.
MR. HARVEY: Furthermore, I'm not impeaching this witness with this. I'm asking him if he knew this. One of the central issues in this case is whether the board acted for a religious purpose. They have hired -- or they have not hired, excuse me, apparently they're being represented for free by an organization that has, as its express and written mission, defending the views of the religious freedoms of Christians in the public square. And I'm just asking him if he knows that and if he believes that's what this case is about.
THE COURT: I would say to Mr. Gillen, despite the evident and appropriate cordial relationship and professional relationship that exists among counsel and with the Court, I don't view this as a personal question. I view it as an appropriate question.
If he presses on this point, I might find that objectionable. I think that question in the context of this case is not objectionable, and I may not view it as you view it. I can understand why you would view it that way as counsel and as a member of the Thomas More Law Center.
So perhaps you don't have the objectivity that I have. I'll overrule the objection. I'll allow him to answer the question. Do you remember the question, sir?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Wendy, would you read the question back?
MR. GILLEN: I thank Your Honor and ask only that you be solicitous of my concern that our clients should in some way be penalized because of anything that --
THE COURT: I'm cognizant of that, and I'll consider that a continuing objection, and I'll -- if I believe that the inquiry gets into that area, I'll certainly stop the examination. Wendy, if you could, please.
(Whereupon, the court reporter read back the last question.)
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Can you say that one more time?
(Whereupon, the court reporter read back the last question again.)
THE WITNESS: Well, two answers to that. One is, I didn't pick Thomas More or -- I mean, all the attorneys that offered their services offered it for free, that I talked to. And, you know, I sort of take offense to it, that you would think that I would pick an attorney to represent the school district because they put some words in a website.
I picked Thomas More because I thought they were the most qualified to defend Dover School District. And I talked to other people, not saying that the other attorneys weren't good, I just, from my talking with them and seeing issues, this is a constitutional issue, obviously, we don't want an attorney out of the yellow pages.
We want someone that works with these types of cases. And to say I would pick someone because of words in that is absolutely ludicrous. And, you know, I really, I take offense to that, that you think I would pick someone because that's what it says in a website.
Q. Actually, that wasn't my question. My question was simply whether it's your understanding that the Thomas More Law Center is providing legal representation without charge in this case to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square. Yes or no?
A. No, that has nothing to do with what we're doing here.
Q. Let's go on with the Thomas More website. I actually went on it yesterday. Matt, can you bring up P-822? This is the Thomas More Law Center website as of yesterday, at least the home page. Do you recognize Mr. Thompson's picture?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Hard to miss that. And there's an article there that's reprinted. It's reprinted on the website at the Thomas More Law Center website from salon.com. Do you see that?
A. Okay.
Q. It's written by somebody named Gordy Slack?
A. Yes.
Q. And actually, we've pulled the article. It's P-824. It should be in your book.
A. P-824?
Q. Yeah.
MR. GILLEN: Judge, I object again. I mean, I fail to see the purpose of this examination, except --
THE COURT: Let's see where he goes. I'm going to overrule the objection because it's a speculative objection and I don't know what the question is going to be. So I'll overrule the objection. I'll allow you to revisit it as he gets into his questions.
Q. Do you have that article in front of you, Mr. Bonsell?
A. I believe. From Gordy Slack?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay.
Q. The sixth paragraph -- by the way, did you read this before now?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Go to the sixth paragraph on the first page. I'll read it. And maybe Matt can bring it up on the screen, too. The one that begins, schools that want to include. Quotes, Schools that want to include the ID debate in their curriculum deserve the right to do so, Thompson says. Denying them that right is a form of both scientific and religious discrimination.
And now he's apparently quoting Mr. Thompson directly. Quotes, ID is seeking a place in the classroom because of its merits, close quotes, he says. Quotes, But it's being kept out because it is harmonious with the Christian faith, period, close quotes. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And I just want to know if it was your understanding at the time that you passed the October 18th resolution, that intelligent design was harmonious with the Christian faith?
A. No.
Q. You didn't have that understanding on October 18th?
A. No.
Q. Now if you go to the end of this article, the last two pages?
A. The last --
Q. Yeah, it's actually the fifth and sixth. The sixth is the last page. I want you to focus on the last five paragraphs of the article. And I'll read them to you once you have them in front of you and once Matt has brought them up on the screen.
A. I am on page 5 and 6, I'm there.
Q. The paragraph that begins, as we talk. Do you see that?
A. As we talk, the third paragraph from the bottom?
Q. Yes. Quotes, As we talk, Thompson bristles at the notion that ID is and always will be excluded from science. Quotes, What is science, and what is not science, is merely a convention, close quotes, he says. Quotes, It can be challenged and changed at will by scientists themselves. And scientists are the products of their culture, too, close quotes.
Doesn't he find it a little odd that a champion of unchanging and absolute moral values should take such a relativist stance on science? He shrugs off the question.
Quotes, Look, scientists don't sit there and ask, am I doing science or not? No scientist is going to say, this is empirical truth about the wrong subject so I'm not going to study it. No, they look at whatever the empirical data is, and draw conclusions from it, close quote.
Quotes, So you want to change the definition of science to include the supernatural, close quotes. Quotes, Yes, close quotes, he says. Quotes, We need a total paradigm shift in science, close quote.
A. I see it.
Q. Now according -- at least according to what it says there, as reported, Mr. Thompson seems to think that, for intelligent design to qualify as science, the definition of science needs to be changed to include the supernatural. And I want to know if that's your understanding as well, Mr. Bonsell?
A. I guess I need more specifically what you mean by supernatural. What do you mean by that?
Q. You can't answer the question just as it is?
A. I want a specific definition.
Q. Something outside of nature.
A. Something outside of nature?
Q. Yes.
A. And what do you consider nature?
Q. The natural world.
A. The natural world? So that encompasses the whole universe is what you're saying?
Q. Yeah, the natural world.
A. I'm still not sure I understand the question. I think this was asked of me in one of my depositions. Supernatural?
Q. Can you answer the question, Mr. Bonsell?
A. Ask it again, please.
MR. HARVEY: Can you read that back, please? I'm afraid I won't be able to get it right.
(Whereupon, the court reporter read back the referred-to question.)
THE WITNESS: I think I've said this. I'm not sure if this was in my deposition or not. I mean, the thing is, I've read other scientists, and you say, you know, the search for truth is -- the search for truth, no matter where it leads. You know, if the truth leads there, then, okay.
If it doesn't, then, no. You know, it's wherever it goes. Wherever science -- wherever it takes us. I don't want science to be put in a little box and say, you can't ever look outside that little box. Is that --
MR. HARVEY: May I confer with my co-counsel for just a minute, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. HARVEY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE 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.
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. 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.
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 -- Wednesday, pardon me. We'll continue with the examination of this witness on redirect by Mr. Gillen. And our trial days will be Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
And hopefully, we're on track to finish the testimony on Friday. We'll be in recess until Wednesday at 9:00 a.m.
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
