Desparate, pathetic, and disgusting - DI's West on Judge Jones

Mr West certainly fits my stereotype of an American Christian. His is the sort of behavior I expect from the professionally righteous. While I realize that most Christians are fine folks, the face of American Christianity is the face of Pat Robertson, or Benny Hinn, or Jerry Fawell or the IDers and creationists. The face of American Christianity is dishonest, ugly and bigoted.

To be fair, I must also say my opinion of other religious sects is no better.

If West has any remaining hint of human decency, he will apologize and retract that portion of his attack. (emphasis added)

Wow. West should really be ashamed of that ellipsis. Good job, Mike.

Bill G.

I'd like to point out that ~75% of the US population is "Christian".

~25% is Roman Catholic - stable
<50% is Protestant - falling
25% is Atheist and other (Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) - growing

My guess is that the group you call "American Christians" is probably only ~1/2 of the Protestants (not that there aren't fundamentalist Catholics but they represent a very small percentage of Catholics).

So according to my recollections and guesses, the fundamentalists are only about 1/3 of all of the Christians in the US. The problem is that they're very vocal and annoying. Thus they tend to be the "face" of Christianity even though most Christians dislike them just as much as you do.

There were over 70 citations of the Pandas book in Jones' ruling. That's one every other double spaced page. It appears to me that the book was on trial. Jones' refusal to allow the publisher to defend it is a real flaw in the case. Too bad there won't be an appeal so we can see what a panel of Jones' superiors thinks about that. In any case (pun intended) the next school district to give ID a whirl will simply choose a different ID text and because the Dover case was SO focused on Pandas it'll be a whole new ballgame. As the publisher of Pandas said in his request to defend the book - if plaintiffs prevail Pandas will become "radioactive".

Watch now for a new ID text without the "scientific creationism" lineage to be the next case in a solidly red state. Not having a perjurer on the school board that makes the decision will help too. This was a real comedy of errors.

There's also some noise being made in congress about eliminating award of legal fees in establishment clause cases. The ACLU is collecting for expenses it didn't incur. Their staff is volunteer yet they ask for legal expenses like they weren't. I heard that on Bill O'Reilly last night or night before. This business of "don't try this again or it'll cost ya" doesn't serve justice it serves intimidation.

though most Christians dislike them just as much as you do

"I heard that on Bill O'Reilly "

I thought your post was wacky ....and then I understood why!

"Jones' refusal to allow the publisher to defend it is a real flaw in the case" has been dealt with already.

This case is tight and the only flaw I see is that he didn't hold the defendants in contempt.....oh well I guess he did but I mean contempt of court...

Too bad there won't be an appeal so we can see what a panel of Jones' superiors thinks about that.

This case is tight and the only flaw I see is that he didn't hold the defendants in contempt.....oh well I guess he did but I mean contempt of court...

My personal feeling is this:

Intelligent design with some of its cursory explanations really does not seem that improbable at first glance.

It's only after you dive into the issue that you discover how vacuous it is. Until they truly understand what the DI's objectives are, I think the vast majority of Xians will continue to think it's much adieu about nothing.

So to get them to wade into the battle we need to make a better case for why it is important. Since the science is so complex. It might be an easier political sell to concentrate on the DIs relations, sponsors, and objectives.

For example, I think the vast majority of US citizens would object to:
The establishment of a theocratic state
Allowing Fundamentalists to control our public education system

This whole issue reminds me of a problem I face at work. I am a highly technical person, considered an expert in many fields. We take what our customers want, interpret it, and build/configure/setup specialized engineer software to make their lives easier. The problem is, my experience is so divorced from theirs that I can not relate to the end users. What seems "obvious" to me is totally mysterious to them.

I think the science of Evolution plays out like this. The people with the greatest knowledge in these areas have the hardest time related the "obvious" to the lay public. The differences in their level of knowledge is too great to easily overcome. This is one of the reasons that scientists don't do better in public debates.

In a way, the Dover trial really helped bridge that gap. Mr. Rotheschild's (a lawyer) direct & cross-examinations and Judge Jones' ruling were excellent filters of scientist's arguments and the lay public.

Being able to point people towards that ruling has really been a boon to me in the other blog debates in which I engage.

are they waiting for help?

hell no :) Wes, nobody could ask you to do any more than you are doing already!

I'm geniunely curious why folks like the ELCA don't do more to promote their position in the media?

any thoughts on that?

Wesley,

I don't really know what you're doing, so I have no comment :) .

What I'm doing is
Taking a pro-science stand on the blog sites of the local papers
Writing pro-science letter to the editor of the local papers
Attending local school board meetings
Talking to friends and family about it

I was very surprise to learn that my mother was pro-ID. We discussed this heatedly for a couple of days. At one point she stated that speciation had never been observed. I sent her a list of papers that documented speciation events I saw posted here (~80 of them IIRC), as well as links to the relevant sections of TO.

She got mad at me because she said she DIDN'T want any references (she's researching some medical issues that the family shares and didn't have the time to actually look through them). BUT she did back down on her support of ID.

Interestingly my interpretation of her stance is that she still believes in intelligent design but not Intelligent Design. Which I think means that she thinks that God has a purpose and goal but that evolution is the mechanism.

actually, now that i think about it, you ARE the best person i can think of to answer that question round these parts.

here is the elca position on ID in schools:

http://www.thelutheran.org/news/

in which they very clearly denounce ID as being scientifically vacuous.

However, I have NEVER heard this position in the popular media.

this is a rather large christian organization.

Would it help to write them and encourage them to get this article more publicity?

For example, I think the vast majority of US citizens would object to: The establishment of a theocratic state Allowing Fundamentalists to control our public education system

STJ,

I'm certainly no expert on this...

My thoughts are:
1) It's really not that big of a media issue in most areas
2) It's really not that big of a religious issue for most religions

Pounding the pulpit, issue major press releases, speaking to the "flock" is a whole other level of effort above that required for producing the article you linked (or statements like that in the Clergy Letter project).

Unlike science which enjoys support from a broad range of religious beliefs, the "enemy" is composed entirely of hardcore Christians.

Whenever I wade into one of these battles on a blog site, I *ALWAYS* include both quotes and links to text like these. I also include words like "religious leaders and scholars representing every *mainstream* religion in the US support teaching evolution in science classes."

For a particularly dense crowd, I also include words like "if you support teaching ID, it might mean that 1) You don't understand science's position on this issue 2) You don't understand your religion's position on this issue, or 3) You don't belong to a mainstream religion.

I think the whole objective here is to get them to actually look into the issue in detail. My belief is that we'll "win over" a very large percentage of the people that actual *do* some investigation.

Do you have suggestions for what else I should be doing beyond what I already am doing?

For example, I think the vast majority of US citizens would object to: The establishment of a theocratic state Allowing Fundamentalists to control our public education system

thanks jim; i actually was addressing my question to Wes, my fault for not making that clear. However, i hope you don't mind if i respond to the points you made anyway.

1) It's really not that big of a media issue in most areas

exactly my point. it certainly should be, based on what happens when the IDCers win a board vote, like in Kansas, or Dover.

2) It's really not that big of a religious issue for most religions

?? why not?

Jones' refusal to allow the publisher to defend it is a real flaw in the case.

While most Americans don't give two hoots in Hades about science, nearly all of them, Christian or no, are adamantly opposed to a theocracy.

ya know, i was going to respond (on the lutheran site) to the article i linked to on the lutheran site, but good ol St. Nick (Matzke) beat me to it!

that guy sure gets around.

new theory:

Nick Matzke IS really Santa in disguise...

STJ,

My guess is that most (non-fundamentalist) churches don't really pay much attention to things outside of their own church/congregation/religion. To them ID is a public education issue. Some may even consider it interfering with the separation of church and state.

In short, we know it's a religious issue and we know that this could become a very major battle in our country but then we've been following this as an issue for a very long time.

Most people (including the religious leaders of moderate religions) don't know ID from a flying fig. Until/unless it comes to their town, it remains "someone elses problem". I hope a large number of the readers here know what an SEP field does.

Except for the christian exodus movement. They want south carolina

Most people (including the religious leaders of moderate religions) don't know ID from a flying fig. Until/unless it comes to their town, it remains "someone elses problem". I hope a large number of the readers here know what an SEP field does.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I believe the big reason the vocal minority wants to force ID on schools is money. The majority of people don't know enough about science to make an intelligent decision about what should be taught in schools. All they hear is one confirms their beliefs and acknowledges Gods existence and the other does not. As long as DI and other major organizations can keep convincing church leaders that %80 of the population is being discriminated against by the other %20, the donations will keep rolling in. If people don't feel threatened, they don't feel the need to give as much.
I honestly find it hard to believe the Fellows of the DI are stupid enough to fall for their own rubbish, so it has to be for the payoff. The majority of Christians just trust that the people in charge wouldn't lie to them, and never dig any deeper.

... I believe the big reason the vocal minority wants to force ID on schools is money. ...As long as DI and other major organizations can keep convincing church leaders that %80 of the population is being discriminated against by the other %20, the donations will keep rolling in. If people don't feel threatened, they don't feel the need to give as much. I honestly find it hard to believe the Fellows of the DI are stupid enough to fall for their own rubbish, so it has to be for the payoff. The majority of Christians just trust that the people in charge wouldn't lie to them, and never dig any deeper.

So... John West is publicly expressing contempt for Judge Jones personally and deliberately biasing his representation of the decisions and past career of Hizzoner to affect the opinion of some segment of the public? I suspect that John West is straying dangerously close to some sort of trouble. Hope he gets it.

Az.
.

Thanks, I had not even noticed the ellipses. The omission surely raises some interesting questions

These guys are not conservatives. They are for the most part radical theocrats. The Discovery Institute is founded by, among many others, a number of Christian Reconstructionists. (Google "Howard Ahmanson") Reconstructionism is essentially the Christian equivalent of Islamism and seeks to overthrow the U.S. constitution and replace it with old testament law (!). I believe that a few Moonies are involved as well. Reverend Moon has also stated numerous times his desire to destroy the United States and replace it with a theocracy under... guess who... Moon has made a number of strikingly anti-American statements over the years. Do a little searching, since it's important to know about this kook.

True American conservatives tend to favor local and community level government, which is a position that I favor in at least some circumstances. As a friend of mine puts it, "the problems faced by New York City are different from the problems faced by Mobile, Alabama." American conservatives also tend to be sympathetic to religion of the traditional variety, either due to personal belief or due to a belief that a certain amount of religion is "good for society." Due to these two sympathies, a lot of American conservatives have been conned into supporting the Discovery Institute.

I urge any who might be reading to do a little background checking on this organization, on the people who fund it, and on the ideologues running it. I think you'll find that they are not conservatives and are not at all interested in protecting values that could remotely be called American. They are essentially a think tank whose goal is to establish an intellectual foundation for a theocratic dictatorship.

Comment #66293 Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 30, 2005 11:38 PM It's my understanding that the reason he specifically did not charge the defendants with contempt or perjury was that it would open the case to appeal. He left that to the prosecutors office, who at last take was looking into doing just that.

Best of all possible worlds, he documents all of their lies, without actually charging them with perjury. he's no dummy.

Why would he charge them with contempt or perjury when the prosecutors' office is investigating. Is that not why there are prosecutors versus judges?
Does Larry know what are the case law or the legal statutes?

Comment #66354 Posted by PvM on December 31, 2005 04:32 AM Why would he charge them with contempt or perjury when the prosecutors' office is investigating. Is that not why there are prosecutors versus judges? Does Larry know what are the case law or the legal statutes?

Comment #66288 Posted by PartialObserver on December 30, 2005 11:23 PM There were over 70 citations of the Pandas book in Jones' ruling. That's one every other double spaced page. It appears to me that the book was on trial. Jones' refusal to allow the publisher to defend it is a real flaw in the case. Too bad there won't be an appeal so we can see what a panel of Jones' superiors thinks about that.

There's also some noise being made in congress about eliminating award of legal fees in establishment clause cases. The ACLU is collecting for expenses it didn't incur. Their staff is volunteer yet they ask for legal expenses like they weren't.

The Discovery Institute is founded by, among many others, a number of Christian Reconstructionists. (Google "Howard Ahmanson") Reconstructionism is essentially the Christian equivalent of Islamism and seeks to overthrow the U.S. constitution and replace it with old testament law (!).

Larry, please shut up and go away.

Thanks.

LaLaLarry wrote: In effect, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia. What Judge Jones did may have been legal, but there is often a huge difference between what is legal and what is right.

Comment #66380 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 31, 2005 07:45 AM Larry, please shut up and go away.

Boy can you guys really blow up a thread quickly. Do you ever sleep?

Comment #66389 Posted by Paul Flocken on December 31, 2005 08:29 AM LaLaLarry wrote: ****In effect, the book and the publisher were tried and convicted in absentia. What Judge Jones did may have been legal, but there is often a huge difference between what is legal and what is right.***** How clueless are you? Tried on what charge and convicted of what crime? This publisher hasn't been fined anything; none of its management is going to jail; they haven't been enjoined from printing or selling any books. What exactly is the punishment if they have been convicted? Are we supposed to feel sorry for them?

Comment #66288 Posted by PartialObserver on December 30, 2005 11:23 PM (e) (s) There were over 70 citations of the Pandas book in Jones' ruling. That's one every other double spaced page. It appears to me that the book was on trial. Jones' refusal to allow the publisher to defend it is a real flaw in the case. Too bad there won't be an appeal so we can see what a panel of Jones' superiors thinks about that. In any case (pun intended) the next school district to give ID a whirl will simply choose a different ID text and because the Dover case was SO focused on Pandas it'll be a whole new ballgame. As the publisher of Pandas said in his request to defend the book - if plaintiffs prevail Pandas will become "radioactive".

Watch now for a new ID text without the "scientific creationism" lineage to be the next case in a solidly red state. Not having a perjurer on the school board that makes the decision will help too. This was a real comedy of errors.

There's also some noise being made in congress about eliminating award of legal fees in establishment clause cases. The ACLU is collecting for expenses it didn't incur. Their staff is volunteer yet they ask for legal expenses like they weren't. I heard that on Bill O'Reilly last night or night before. This business of "don't try this again or it'll cost ya" doesn't serve justice it serves intimidation.

The ACLU is collecting for expenses it didn't incur.

Comment #66335 Posted by Rusty Catheter on December 31, 2005 03:06 AM So... John West is publicly expressing contempt for Judge Jones personally and deliberately biasing his representation of the decisions and past career of Hizzoner to affect the opinion of some segment of the public? I suspect that John West is straying dangerously close to some sort of trouble. Hope he gets it.

I second the "shut up and go away". I can only hope that this will carry additional weight since as far as I can remember this is the first time I've ever asked someone to do that.

The reason I'm saying this is because Larry's refusal to distinguish between criticism and denigration (asis something I've come across before. In my sister in fact. I think she's grown out of it now, but she used to be impossible to rationally discuss stuff with unless I agreed with her on every point. If I didn't, she'd throw a tantrum and quite possibly attack me (at least until I took up martial arts :D ). It was impossible to help her with her homework too - heaven help me if I corrected her spelling

As a direct result, I consider a refusal to distinguish between criticism and denigration to be one of the most dangerous "warning signs" that someone can display in a discussion or debate. The only time since then that I've come across an explicit expression of this attitude was in a Scientology related story*, and I actually had to sit down and wait for the nausea to pass. I have no desire to see PT come to resemble the battleground that was my childhood. Therefore, I ask Larry: please go away. If you don't understand the very concept of friendly, constructive criticism then the PT denizens have absolutely nothing in common with you beyond basic human biology (and Prof. Steve Steve doesn't even have that). The ability to criticise without giving offence is fundamental to science, and to any wholehearted search for understanding. If you're not interested in understanding, I for one am not interested in discussion with you.

* Quoting from the story, which is a cry from a father to a Scientologised daughter:
It had taken me far too long to understand this phenomenon. When I had thought, during your and Ben's Christmas visit in 1994, that I'd exposed some lies and half-truths being told by your "church," what you had perceived was an attack. Whenever I suggested there might be a point of view other than that you expressed, about Germany, about "psychs," about schools or whatever else, you perceived I was "making you wrong," in Scientology terms; I was therefore guilty of a crime against you, against your "religion."

PartialObserver and Larry are living in a fantasy world if they believe ID could win a similar court case under better circumstances (different ID text and a lack of imbiciles on the school board). There is NO secular purpose for including ID in a public school science class, and without such purpose it cannot pass the Lemon Test. It has no secular purpose because IT IS NOT SCIENCE. ID's own experts admitted this in the trial. BOTH sides recognized the NAS as the premeir science organization in the country, and ID's own experts admitted ID does not fit the NAS definition of science. Behe admitted ID could only be science if the definition of science were broadened so much as to allow astrology into the fold. EVERY science organization which has offered an opinion on ID has stated it is not science. And the coup de gras, Behe admitted that there are NO publications in the scientific literature which support ID.

Until that set of facts changes dramatically, the pedigree of some future ID textbook and the integrity and motive of the school board will be irrelevant.

Yes, Larry I have seen it before. And I thought is was excessive. Else why the barb about what is legal. You obviously wish there was a way for it to be il-legal. So the publisher may not be able to sell more books. They were a dishonest creationist screed and Judge Jones(and by extension the plaintiff parents) has helped the US public discover that. From where I'm standing that's a good thing.

The ability to criticise without giving offence is fundamental to science, and to any wholehearted search for understanding.

blah blah blah As Tom Bethell reminds us blah blah

Comment #66405 Posted by Paul Flocken on December 31, 2005 09:40 AM Yes, Larry I have seen it before. And I thought is was excessive. Else why the barb about what is legal.

I agree Larry. Dang ol activist judge bein all....activist. Judge Jones has a well-documented history of burning american flags, performing back-alley abortions, and handing out communist pamplets. It's a disgrace. Lemme tell you something else. It was an extremely anti-christian opinion. As I'm sure you know, Dembski is on record saying that Intelligent Design is just the gospel of John written in scientific jargon. For the judge to exclude a type of science merely because it's straight from the bible is clearly religious descrimination against religion which just so happens to be science.

I agree Larry. Dang ol activist judge bein all....activist. Judge Jones has a well-documented history of burning american flags, performing back-alley abortions, and handing out communist pamplets.

Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, and Tom Bethell. Those are your sources for objective news about the Kitzmiller trial and evolution.

Congratulations, Larry, you've become the complete walking right wing creationist cartoon.

Comment #66399 Posted by Moses on December 31, 2005 09:13 AM Ah, Pandas was not on trial. No matter how many times people float that red herring; to the point where people begin to believe it. To modestly stretch an analogy, you could equate FTE with any gun or ammunition manufacturer in a murder case. The gun is just forensic evidence to tie the murder of the victim to the alleged perpetrator.

You get awarded damages and recoup your costs when the "big guy" does wrong that is so blatantly and obviously wrong that someone in society must bear a cost he shouldn't because of their immoral, stupid and blatantly wrong actions.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 07:03 AM (e) (s) I totally agree with you, PartialObserver.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s) I think that what PartialObserver suggested is right

Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s) PartialObserver said that Congress was considering eliminating these awards only in establishment clause cases, and I think that is where the abuse has been the greatest.

Comment #66403 Posted by Corkscrew on December 31, 2005 09:33 AM I second the "shut up and go away". I can only hope that this will carry additional weight since as far as I can remember this is the first time I've ever asked someone to do that. The reason I'm saying this is because Larry's refusal to distinguish between criticism and denigration

crit·i·cism n. 1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 2. A critical comment or judgment. 3.a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. b. A critical article or essay; a critique. c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.

den·i·grate tr.v. den·i·grat·ed, den·i·grat·ing, den·i·grates 1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. 2. To disparage; belittle.

You live in a country that has no separation of church and state and that has religion in the public schools. Physician, heal thyself.

— Larry Fafarman

As for denigration, it is just an extreme form of criticism.

No, it isn't.

Words don't mean what you say they do.

And didn't you just say that you never said criticism and denigration were the same thing? The above statement is sloppy enough and poorly written enough to lead anyone to think you're a liar.

Throws some troll-food to Larry

We tried this with Larry before. Since what the Judge said does not go along with what he believes, there is no amount of evidence which anyone can present which will change that. It is rather like arguing with yourself in the mirror. The same thing gets said over and over again.

The big problem that I see with many of these 'pseudoscience individuals (Larry included) is a habit of engaging in arguments which have nothing to do with the issue at hand (i.e. they are masters of fallacious arguments) or are outright lies (e.g. criticism and denigration or disparagement are the same).

So I guess I'm wondering why bother going over the same thing over and over again. Can we just create a Larry Thread where we can go visit when we want to be pointlessly chastised?

Happy New Year All!

Comment #66440 posted by ben on December 31, 2005 01:04 PM Wrong. crit·i·cism n. 1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 2. A critical comment or judgment. 3.a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. b. A critical article or essay; a critique. c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.

Larry,
You can criticize, just not in a denigrating or disparaging way. Such as: "This out of place fossil shows that ..." As opposed to: "Evolution isn't real science..." See the difference? Lord help you open your eyes and mind if you don't.

LARRY:

ARN.

GO!!!

I tried to make it simple so even you could understand.

I'm sorry, but I vote larry as just a Troll. can we do something about it now?

Larry writes:
"So you think that the court should have its cake and eat it too --- deny the defendants the right to appeal but charge them with contempt or perjury."

Even if the decision was appealed and overturned, the testimony and evidence clearly indicates they lied.

But lying is OK if you agree with it, right Larry?

OK, to be Simon Pure, I should have said that denigration is an extreme form of unfavorable criticism (I really gotta be careful what I say on this website).

In general, when dealing with scientists (which many posters are), you need to be precise, because scientists ARE precise. This is a feature, not a bug, Mr. Troll.

"The book's publisher feared that the Dover lawsuit would possibly result in a loss of sales."

— Larry

"So you think that the court should have its cake and eat it too --- deny the defendants the right to appeal but charge them with contempt or perjury."

— Larry

I'm sorry, but I vote larry as just a Troll. can we do something about it now?

— Sir TJ

"Watch now for a new ID text without the 'scientific creationism' lineage..."

If that is your conclusion

Like many other words, "criticism" is used differently by people of various educational levels. In popular circles, criticism usually does involve negative evaluation and most people are quite unfamiliar with the kind of criticism practiced by academics and serious writers. The case is similar with the word "argument," which means a dispute in most social contexts, but refers to reaching a conclusion by some process of inference in philosophy, math, and science. When I used to teach logic several lifetimes ago, it was hard to get students to understand the later sense of argument, perhaps because they had little personal experience with disinterested discussions of any kind in which the object of the game was to figure things out rather than to impose one's will. And of course unsophisticated folks tend to refer everything to some authority or other, and therefore think that the dictionary is a sort of Bible that proscribes how words must be used instead of describing how they are used.

Yes, you can. If that is your conclusion, you can quit responding to Larry.

I see numerous posts that can only be responses to further nonsense from Larry, the stooge in the middle. Why are people STILL exchanging words with that ass?

Comment #66500 Posted by Stuart Weinstein on December 31, 2005 06:02 PM Larry writes: "So you think that the court should have its cake and eat it too --- deny the defendants the right to appeal but charge them with contempt or perjury." Even if the decision was appealed and overturned, the testimony and evidence clearly indicates they lied.

Since the defendants cannot appeal, the court should not be able to charge them with contempt or perjury. Fair is fair.

Scientists to judges - "If you'll agree not to judge our science, we'll agree not to peer-review your decisions."

I see numerous posts that can only be responses to further nonsense from Larry, the stooge in the middle. Why are people STILL exchanging words with that ass?

The opportunity to post snarky, smartass remarks. That's all he's good for.

But that's why God gave us noses to pick, to present a more palatable alternative.

Comment #66515 Posted by Don on December 31, 2005 06:56 PM Larry wrote: "The book's publisher feared that the Dover lawsuit would possibly result in a loss of sales." No no no no. The book's publisher feared that the Dover lawsuit would result in NOT A GAIN of sales to schools all over the place. This fear of losing out on a gold mine of future profits was judged, correctly, to have nothing to do with economic injury or censure.

Larry wrote: "So you think that the court should have its cake and eat it too --- deny the defendants the right to appeal but charge them with contempt or perjury." The defendants were not denied the right to appeal. What are you smoking, Larry?

Please, stop encouraging this narcissistic twit. He's in love with the sound of his own IDiot bleating and has hijacked several threads this week with the same repetitive crap, without adding a shred of insight. He's decided what he's going to believe and will obviously twist any set of facts as far as he needs to, to make himself feel like he's made a persuasive argument.

Comment #66550 Posted by Andrew McClure on December 31, 2005 08:13 PM Larry wrote -- ****Since the defendants cannot appeal, the court should not be able to charge them with contempt or perjury. Fair is fair.**** Contempt or perjury are personal offenses, committed by individual members of the Dover school board. When you say "the defendants cannot appeal", the "defendant" you are talking about is an organization, the dover school board. The "defendants" in these two cases are wholly separate.

Comment #66568 Posted by ben on December 31, 2005 09:32 PM Please, stop encouraging this narcissistic twit. He's in love with the sound of his own IDiot bleating and has hijacked several threads this week with the same repetitive crap, without adding a shred of insight. He's decided what he's going to believe and will obviously twist any set of facts as far as he needs to, to make himself feel like he's made a persuasive argument.

It should be pointed out in each thread where he posts: in addition to being one of the most intellectually lazy and dishonest creationists I've encountered in over a decade (yes, that puts him in elite company), Larry Fafarman is a holocaust denier whose name is linked in the Google database largely to deranged defenses of Confederate symbols. The bet thing to do is to either ignore him or to ask him about meteor showers.

Comment #66574 Posted by Alexey Merz on December 31, 2005 09:49 PM It should be pointed out in each thread where he posts: in addition to being one of the most intellectually lazy and dishonest creationists I've encountered in over a decade (yes, that puts him in elite company), Larry Fafarman is a holocaust denier whose name is linked in the Google database largely to deranged defenses of Confederate symbols. The bet thing to do is to either ignore him or to ask him about meteor showers.

Larry:

I've attempted to follow your logic and cannot. As far as I can tell, the judge's decision and potential perjury charges are entirely different things.

First, the perjury question is not consequence of the judge's decision. Perjury is a crime committed when an individual tells a lie under oath. I have a very hard time, as did the judge and most other reasonable people, reading the deposition and trial testimony of Buckingham and Bonsell as being anything other than deliberatly dishonest.

To review the facts:
1: Buckingham and Bonsell both testified, under oath, during their depositions that they did not know who had donated Pandas to the school district.
2: Buckingham had personally been involved in the donation process. He got up in front of his church and solicitated contributions specifically intended for these books.
3: Buckingham wrote a check for the amount of the contributions to Bonsell's father, and gave the check to Bonsell.
4: Bonsell gave that check to his father, and his father donated the books.

If those facts don't add up to perjury, I don't know what does. This is without getting into the question of when certain comments were made during meetings, or any number of other possible areas.

It is also a fact that Buckingham and Bonsell will not be involved in the decision of whether or not to appeal the ruling. They lost that right when they left the board - some time back in Buckingham's case, and after a disasterous election in Bonsell's.

Could you please outline, clearly, exactly what the inability of Bonsell and Buckingham to decide on appealing the verdict has to do with the question of whether or not they lived up to their obligation to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

"IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black, fell flat on its face --- those primitive IBM Hollerith card-reading and card-sorting machines obviously did not have the data-processing capability that the book claimed they had. Anyway, I introduced the Holocaust example just to show that a new, unorthodox way of looking at something can shed a whole new light on a matter that was considered to be settled.

Since the defendants cannot appeal, the court should not be able to charge them with contempt or perjury

And the relationship of this information to the present discussion is ---- ?

Comment #66607 Posted by k.e. on January 1, 2006 02:50 AM (e) (s) ""IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black, fell flat on its face --- those primitive IBM Hollerith card-reading and card-sorting machines obviously did not have the data-processing capability that the book claimed they had. Anyway, I introduced the Holocaust example just to show that a new, unorthodox way of looking at something can shed a whole new light on a matter that was considered to be settled." Larry you obviously have no idea what the capability and throughput a "primitive" card punch system can do. That system was able to process millions of cards by checking for a single hole in each card that signified "Jew". On top of that there were the J stamps on identity papers and Passports, anyone could be stopped anytime and had to produce their ID.

Comment #66606 Posted by Mike Dunford on January 1, 2006 02:19 AM I've attempted to follow your logic and cannot. As far as I can tell, the judge's decision and potential perjury charges are entirely different things.

It is also a fact that Buckingham and Bonsell will not be involved in the decision of whether or not to appeal the ruling. They lost that right when they left the board - some time back in Buckingham's case, and after a disasterous election in Bonsell's. Could you please outline, clearly, exactly what the inability of Bonsell and Buckingham to decide on appealing the verdict has to do with the question of whether or not they lived up to their obligation to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

That's fine Larry I'll just be happy to bring up more historical parallels with political movements who use Religious Fundamentalism and negative world view's to further their cause which in every single case has the one undeniable commonality. Hiding the truth.

Its methods of inculcating its followers,its use of the media, how it succeeds time and time again and how there are people out there who are quite happy to throw their dignity and honor away and jump right on the wagon.

There are plenty more examples that I'll be happy to show you next time you try and bend the truth which must be about every time you posted here.

ARN, Larry.

Limpidense wrote: I see numerous posts that can only be responses to further nonsense from Larry, the stooge in the middle. Why are people STILL exchanging words with that ass?

"In the Dover case, those who are going to bear the costs are the taxpayers of the Dover Area school district."

Finally, Larry makes an excellent and happy point, other taxpayers in other places may be more careful about the kinds of condidates they elect. Vote for someone who wants to teach creationism in science classrooms and it may cost your district big money. Good lesson. I suspect the Dover voters won't make that mistake again.

Actually, that's wishful thinking. In reality, I suspect the mistake will be repeated again and again.
Sad, really. Thanks tho, Larry, for trying to find a bright side.

Comment #66574 Posted by Alexey Merz on December 31, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s) It should be pointed out in each thread where he posts: in addition to being one of the most intellectually lazy and dishonest creationists I've encountered in over a decade (yes, that puts him in elite company), Larry Fafarman is a holocaust denier whose name is linked in the Google database largely to deranged defenses of Confederate symbols. The bet thing to do is to either ignore him or to ask him about meteor showers.

In compensation for this involuntary loss of the right to appeal, there should be no perjury charges filed against the defendants.

— Larry

****FAIR WARNING****

I understand the urge to point out other failings (real or imagined) in opponents. In some cases, I think it does have at least limited relevance. However, if this discussion deteriorates into a debate over the circumstances of the holocaust, I will cut off all further discussion in this thread.

Finally, Larry makes an excellent and happy point, other taxpayers in other places may be more careful about the kinds of condidates they elect. Vote for someone who wants to teach creationism in science classrooms and it may cost your district big money. Good lesson. I suspect the Dover voters won't make that mistake again.

Comment #66429 Posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s) Your gun analogy is specious. If a gun-murder case puts guns on trial, then it puts all guns and gun makers on trial, not just a specific gun model or gun maker. The correct analogy would be a lawsuit where a gun dealer is accused of selling a defective gun which causes an accident resulting in bodily harm. The gun dealer in turn accuses the gun maker of manufacturing a defective gun, but the judge does not allow the gun maker to intervene in the case. The judge then writes an opinion that finds that the gun maker made a defective gun.

They passed an unconstitutional rule, voided their liability insurance, and lied to the court. If they have to pay $1 million or so, from an annual budget of $34 million, that's hardly excessive. Consider it a 3% Stupid Misbehavior Tax.

I think it's great, because I can hear a conversation in hundreds of offices around the country next year.

"Hey, why don't we teach the bible as science?"
"Uh, because we'll lose a million dollars and be humiliated?"
"Dang."

The defendants (not just Bonsell and Buckingham) lost the ability to appeal through no fault of their own --- they were voted out of office

Comment #66749 posted by Moses on January 1, 2006 03:34 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Comment #66429 posted by Larry Fafarman on December 31, 2005 12:32 PM Your gun analogy is specious. If a gun-murder case puts guns on trial, then it puts all guns and gun makers on trial, not just a specific gun model or gun maker. The correct analogy would be a lawsuit where a gun dealer is accused of selling a defective gun which causes an accident resulting in bodily harm. The gun dealer in turn accuses the gun maker of manufacturing a defective gun, but the judge does not allow the gun maker to intervene in the case. The judge then writes an opinion that finds that the gun maker made a defective gun. >>>>>>>>> No it wouldn't Larry. That'd be a product liability suit where the manufacturer was being sued directly. This is, once again, an INDIRECT issue.

Larry, apparently you still haven't read the transcripts. I gave you the link.

I can only assume that you choose to be ignorant. And, that's your choice in a free country. Ignorance is bliss and you must be one happy guy.

Happy new year and take a long walk off a short pier if you get the chance.

From wikipedia on "Of Pandas and People":

"In his decision on the motion, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that FTE was not entitled to intervene in the case because its motion to intervene was not timely, describing FTE's excuses for not trying to become involved earlier as "both unavailing and disingenuous." Judge Jones also held that FTE failed to demonstrate that it has "a significantly protectable interest in the litigation warranting intervention as a party" and that its interests will not be adequately represented by the defendants."

Both the defendants and plantiffs agreed. Why can't you?

Larry you have single handedly take over pandasthumb.org. You have done what Dembski, West and Behe and others have failed to do and every thread you join now becomes corrosive and useless.

I suppose a congratulations is in order.

In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert witnesses, which we could have done. ... So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision, was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we thought we could present...

Comment #66815 Posted by cogzoid on January 1, 2006 09:34 PM From wikipedia on "Of Pandas and People": "In his decision on the motion, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that FTE was not entitled to intervene in the case because its motion to intervene was not timely, describing FTE's excuses for not trying to become involved earlier as "both unavailing and disingenuous."

Judge Jones also held that FTE failed to demonstrate that it has "a significantly protectable interest in the litigation warranting intervention as a party" and that its interests will not be adequately represented by the defendants."

Both the defendants and plantiffs agreed. Why can't you?

Comment #66868 posted by Mr Christopher on January 2, 2006 07:26 AM Larry you have single handedly take over pandasthumb.org. You have done what Dembski, West and Behe and others have failed to do and every thread you join now becomes corrosive and useless. I suppose a congratulations is in order.

FTE's motion to intervene was filed in June and the trial didn't start until September 26 (see "Of Pandas and People" and "Kitzmiller v. Dover" in Wikipedia). The ruling that the motion to intervene was untimely was pure unadulterated hog swill.

— Larry

You mean that Dembski, West, and Behe have actually posted on this website?

And Larry
Dembski, West, and Behe are a LOT smarter than you.

Behe revealed he was day dreaming when he made his ID WAS science claim on the witness stand in Dover you should read it, it's a scream.He even said "god is dead".
He has a Ph.D. you know ;)

And Larry
Dembski, West, and Behe are a LOT smarter than you.

That's not a very high bar.

yeah..... well we are talking about Larry's bar in comparison ;)

FTE's motion to intervene was filed in June and the trial didn't start until September 26 (see "Of Pandas and People" and "Kitzmiller v. Dover" in Wikipedia). The ruling that the motion to intervene was untimely was pure unadulterated hog swill.

— LaLaLarry

by Larry

FTE's motion to intervene was filed in June and the trial didn't start until September 26 (see "Of Pandas and People" and "Kitzmiller v. Dover" in Wikipedia). The ruling that the motion to intervene was untimely was pure unadulterated hog swill.

Wow, "synapomorphy"! I've never heard that word before. It's also not on Websters.

Care to elaborate?

Nice bit of "Ingsoc Vocabulary C" there I like latin ;>

I believe the correct term for creationism is "religious obscurantism"
or in layman's terms
abusers of reality

Wow, "synapomorphy"! I've never heard that word before. It's also not on Websters. Care to elaborate?

— jim

Fourteen lawyers who worked on OJ's defense, from a ten-minute Google search performed while holding a cranky 7-month old, eating a roast beef sandwich, and typing with one hand:

Robert Shapiro
Johnnie Cochran
F. Lee Bailey
Alan Dershowitz
Robert Kardashian
Carl Douglas
Peter Neufeld
Jo-Ellen Dimitrius
Gerald Uelmen
Robert Blasier
Dan Leonard
Shawn Chapman Holley
William C. Thompson
Karen Filipi

Two ACLU lawyers actually examined witnesses in the courtroom in KvD; in the Simpson trial it was at least a half-dozen.

So much for that line of argument, Larry.

Learning the language of biology! Great, more biology than I ever cared to learn in school :).

Not that I mind, since science is my favorite family of subjects.

"You really are even denser than another Troll we had here who called himself Blast From the Past. I didn't think it possible, but congratulations.

"

Oh I remember Blast of Hot AIR..he was fun.

I think Larry is, by far, the worst of the crack-pot trolls that has ever come to Panda's Thumb. The others wouldn't, after being shown to be wrong on the same issue a score of times, go back to it the 21st... 22nd... 23rd... 24th... 25th... Thread after thread.

I think Larry is, by far, the worst of the crack-pot trolls that has ever come to Panda's Thumb. The others wouldn't, after being shown to be wrong on the same issue a score of times, go back to it the 21st... 22nd... 23rd... 24th... 25th... Thread after thread.

Give it time, Big Mo. Major League Trolls like Charlie Wagner and Dave Heddle can go for years saying the same thing, month after month after month. When Larry's still saying the same dumb things in March, then I'll start to respect his Troll Power.

Comment #66930 posted by Don Baccus on January 2, 2006 01:35 PM LaLaLarry wrote: *****FTE's motion to intervene was filed in June and the trial didn't start until September 26. The ruling that the motion to intervene was untimely was pure unadulterated hog swill.***** In other words, FTE's motion to intervene was filed a couple of months after depositions were taken. If FTE were let in, the deposition process would've been restarted, delaying the trial by some months.

Also, people have let you off the hook for some reason when you claim that the ACLU had 9-10 lawyers while OJ's "Dream Team" consisted of merely four lawyers. Only two ACLU lawyers actually worked the trial (doing direct and cross examination of witnesses), 1/2 of OJ's "Dream Team". OJ's "Dream Team" of four lawyers at the trial, just like the ACLU's team of two lawyers at the trial, were each backed up by several lawyers doing research and preparing the questions to be asked at trial.

Not that it would matter a twit if you weren't lying. As a plaintiff I'm entitled to as many lawyers as I want, and if I win and get attorney's fees, it is tough shit for the other side.

Comment #66932 posted by i like latin on January 2, 2006 01:39 PM From judge's denial of motion for intervention -- "Because the President of FTE was aware that Pandas was involved in the lawsuit in January 2005, it was incumbent upon him to have examined the alleged substantial impact of the litigation upon the distribution of Pandas well prior to May 23, 2005, which was less than one month before the close of discovery. See Haymond v. Lundy, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18110, *13 (E.D. Pa. 2002)"

So much for your analogy with the OJ trial

And for a further bonus, he's a Holocaust 'revisionist' and Confederate apologist! This might shed further light on his, uh, lack of common sense shown here.

oh - sorry, almost forgot to relay a message for that voice in your head, Larry:

Arn.

Could FTE have contributed very much to the deposition or discovery processes? I doubt it. There was little or nothing to depose or discover in regard to the Pandas book --- it just is what it is.

— LarryTheLoser

I have filed lawsuits in federal courts, and I can tell you from personal experience that litigants are often given just a matter of days --- sometimes as few as three or five --- to submit briefs that answer very difficult legal questions.

— LarryTheLoser

Those 9-10 lawyers were not all the ACLU's. Pepper Hamilton LLP had five and Americans United for Separation of Church and State had two or three.

— LarryTheLoser

As for the OJ trial --- OJ won, but did the prosecutor, the state of California, ever have to pay any of his attorney fees?

— LarryTheLoser

Genius, you are the one who brought up the OJ Simpson trial. See your message no. 66370.

Sort of reminds me of Ghost of Paley's earnest explanations about how White Nationalism is not at all the same thing as White Supremacism, and it's not at all a bad thing, nosiree... Anyone care to offer a theory as to why this sort of crypto-racism seems to be surprisingly common in creationist circles?

hmmm... anyone else notice how you don't seem to see Ghost of Paley and Larry Faroutman in the same room at the same time? .. and how Larry has an imaginary 'friend'?

I have filed lawsuits in federal courts, and I can tell you from personal experience

Bwah-hah-hah!

And you also have extensive support in email. Riiiiiggghhhhht.

Like I said, some semblance of the truth and a fact or two would do wonders for your arguments.

If anybody wants to know where we came up with this, you can check the links to Larry's various musings that i think were posted in the first thread he started posting in. (Whoever posted those should do so again)

Comment #66986 posted by Don Baccus on January 2, 2006 06:39 PM LarryTheLoser wrote: Could FTE have contributed very much to the deposition or discovery processes? I doubt it. There was little or nothing to depose or discover in regard to the Pandas book --- it just is what it is. DonTheDunce answered: So you're saying that if the FTE had been let in, they would not have cross-examined defense or plaintiff witnesses or have introduced witnesses of their own?

I think what you're REALLY saying is ... "I don't know how trials work. I don't know that witnesses are deposed before a trial begins so that lawyers can prepare their questions for cross-examination.

You've displayed absolute ignorance about how our legal system works, the nuts, bolts, gears and wheels. My guess is that you're lying about your personal experiences. However, "being given just a matter of days to submit briefs" has nothing to do with the process of deposing those who are going to testify at a trial.

LarryTheLoser wrote: Those 9-10 lawyers were not all the ACLU's. Pepper Hamilton LLP had five and Americans United for Separation of Church and State had two or three. DonTheDunce answered: Which misses the point, of course, which is that you've lied repeatedly about the actual size of the OJ legal team

LarryTheLoser wrote: As for the OJ trial --- OJ won, but did the prosecutor, the state of California, ever have to pay any of his attorney fees? DonTheDunce answered: No, of course they didn't. OJ faced a criminal, not civil, trial

and it is another reason why comparing the Dover and OJ trials is like comparing apples and oranges

Remember to bring a pointy stick if you want to join us Lenny.. :D

This sly racism that seems to pop up fairly often among creationists is especially ironic since one of the arguments against evolution that creationists always drag out is how 'Darwinism' is to blame for Hitler and the holocaust.

Larry wrote: The bottom line is that Pandas probably had little or nothing to do with the deposition and discovery processes, and the motion to intervene was filed a humongous four months before the start of the trial (the judge's denial of the motion shows that he knew that the trial would not start until September). The decision to seek intervention might have been a difficult one and there may have been a change in circumstances, so FTE was entitled to a little tardiness in making the decision. (you can read the rest of it above if you want)

2nd and last warning:

Further digressions into the topic of racism and other such areas will result in the comments section of this thread being closed. Take it somewhere else.

I really don't care whether or not Larry is a schmuck in other areas. It is arguably relevant to point out a trend, but there is more than sufficient evidence based on his conduct in this thread alone.

I presume that all or most of the trial's expert witnesses --- including those who testified against Pandas --- did not participate in the pretrial deposition and discovery processes.

— LarryTheLoser

So your point is ---- ?

— LarryTheLoser

My personal theory is that Larry is just trying to get himself banned as a general irritant and ignoramus.

Then, like Dave Scott, he can go to his favorite public forum and scream how "darwinists" never listen to reason, and they banned him as case in point.

Unfortunately, just like Dave Scott, he must think any of us here actually care about what he says or what he thinks outside of PT.

so if that's true, larry, please feel free to go on being the biggest dumbass I've seen in a long while. When any of the contributors finally tire of your BS and ban you, feel free to go claim victory somewhere like, oh i don't know...

ARN

Wow, Larry HAS filed in Federal Court, and does appear in volume 522 of the annual Supreme Court reports!

Can anyone tell me what "certiorari denied" means? :) :)

Larry ... is that a GOOD outcome?

My point about a "matter of days" is that four months was a humongous amount of advance notice in this case. As I indicated above, depositions were probably irrelevant in regard to the Pandas book, because probably all or most of the expert witnesses who testified against Pandas had not been deposed.

— Larry

I presume that all or most of the trial's expert witnesses --- including those who testified against Pandas --- did not participate in the pretrial deposition and discovery processes.

— Larry

Moreover, Buell's testimony revealed that the very experts that insisted on private counsel from FTE to provide confidential legal advice in preparation for and during expert depositions, Dembski and John Campbell ("Campbell"), which resulted in their being terminated as experts for Defendants, will be brought back into this case if FTE is permitted to intervene.

— http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf

Further digressions into the topic of racism and other such areas will result in the comments section of this thread being closed. Take it somewhere else.

Comment #67046 posted by Mike Dunford on January 2, 2006 10:06 PM Larry wrote: ****I presume that all or most of the trial's expert witnesses --- including those who testified against Pandas --- did not participate in the pretrial deposition and discovery processes.**** Larry, you have not the foggiest clue as to what went on, so please stop wasting everyone's time. At least one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses had already been deposed when FTE filed their request, and the depositions for all of the experts in the case had already been scheduled for within the next couple of weeks. The depositions for all of the experts who wound up testifying had been completed prior to the hearing on FTE's motion.

By the way, one of the reasons that FTE wanted to intervene was because they wanted to bring back some of the expert witnesses that had been dropped by the defense due to their dispute with TMLC

As far as you assertions regarding court cases are concerned, a Findlaw search on your name reveals no federal decisions at either the circuit court or Supreme Court levels. Would I be correct in assuming that your experience at these levels of our judiciary can be summed up with "certiorari denied?"

I would think that revising holocaust is more fun than revising Dover...

Comment #67032 Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 2, 2006 09:36 PM My personal theory is that Larry is just trying to get himself banned as a general irritant and ignoramus.

Interesting --- all the people here saying that my posts are too dumb to answer --- but my posts are so persuasive that people feel compelled to keep answering them.

nah! .. the biologists amongst us have a penchant for observing the reactions bizarre zoological specimens such as trolls like yourselves - always interesting to see what they do you poke them with sticks..

now get in my menagerie like a good boy .. off to Na-na-ia with you.

Interesting --- all the people here saying that my posts are too dumb to answer --- but my posts are so persuasive that people feel compelled to keep answering them.

Interesting --- all the people here saying that my posts are too dumb to answer --- but my posts are so persuasive that people feel compelled to keep answering them.

Look, I am really getting fed up with all this superciliousness. Other people here have made misstatements of facts, too. If I had not raised this issue concerning the depositions, a lot of people would not be aware of it, and we would not be discussing it now.

— Larry

I thought that the expert witnesses were not deposed, for the following reasons --- (1) I believe that all or most of the witnesses were volunteer witnesses from out of town, and participation in the depositions would have been an extra imposition upon them (though depositions are sometimes conducted out of town).

— Larry, proving that he doesn't know how to quit when he is behind

(2) One of the main purposes of discovery (e.g., interrogatories, requests for admission, and depositions) is to establish incontrovertible facts of the case before the trial, but the expert witnesses of the case provided mostly general opinions rather than specific facts of the case.

— Larry

(3)The expert witnesses could have submitted their past writings in lieu of depositions.

— Larry

(4) There is generally no opportunity for cross-examination in depositions, particularly when the depositions are conducted out of town.

— Larry

(5) A litigant might want to add an expert witness at the last minute, particularly to replace one that bugs out.

— Larry

What was there to "discover" about the Pandas book, anyway? Anyone could "discover" the book just by reading it !

— Larry, digging ever deeper

I made a big deal about my legal experience only because of all the unwarranted attacks on my legal knowledge.

— Larry

Comment #67212 posted by Mike Dunford on January 3, 2006 01:09 PM Larry wrote: ****I made a big deal about my legal experience only because of all the unwarranted attacks on my legal knowledge.**** We're not attacking your legal knowledge, Larry, we're just pointing out that you have none.

False judge makes mockery of case for 'intelligent design' By Phyllis Schlafly Jan 2, 2006 Judge John E. Jones III could still be chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Jones issued his ruling, a 139-page rant against anyone who objects to force-feeding public schoolchildren with the theory of evolution, on Dec. 20. He accused parents and school board members of "breathtaking inanity" for wanting their children to learn that "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Charles Darwin's view." Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether Darwin's theory of evolution, as set forth in "The Origin of the Species," or the theory of "intelligent design" is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say intelligent design is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution. Students were merely to be read a brief statement asserting that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that intelligent design provides an explanation for the origin of life that could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. While not denying that those statements may be true (it is undeniable that evolution has gaps), the judge nevertheless permanently enjoined the school board "from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution" and from saying that the theory has gaps. Jones exhibited his bias for judicial activism with public remarks that should have caused his recusal. Signaling that he would exploit the dispute, Jones boasted, "It certainly is one of the most significant cases in United States history. ... Even Charles Darwin's great grandson is attending the trial." Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge described Jones as a close friend and future candidate for governor. When questioned, Jones did not rule this out. Playing up to the New York Times in an article published days before his opinion was released, Jones made the silly boast that he reads five newspapers a day. The New York Times reported that Jones was awe-struck that his case appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone, and that he even bragged to his wife about it before buying a copy. All that Jones told the New York Times is not yet publicly known, or what it told him, during his private interview with that newspaper during the trial. Jones' pursuit of the spotlight illustrates what is wrong with our judiciary today. He smeared "fundamentalists," impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction. Jones said that ninth-graders were referred to (although not assigned) a book called "Of Pandas and People" by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon ($24.95; 1993) published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, "a religious, Christian organization." Using guilt-by-association reasoning, he implied that books published by religious groups, or by people motivated by religious convictions, can and should be banned from public school. He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public." The atheist evolutionists would not have made such a big case out of the four innocuous paragraphs ordered by the Dover school board unless they were pursuing an ideological cause. They converted the trial into a grand inquisition of religious beliefs instead of addressing science or the statement to be read to students. As the reader of five newspapers, Jones was surely aware that the Dover school board had already changed hands, indicating it would be dropping mention of intelligent design. Rather than admit that the case was largely moot, as a judge should, he resorted to judicial activism to make the case a cause celebre. In an era of judicial supremacy, Judge Jones' biased and religiously bigoted decision is way over the top. His decision will ultimately hurt the evolutionist cause because it shows that the evolutionists cannot defend their beliefs on the merits; they can only survive by censoring alternate views.

I know that a judge does not need the help of a prosecutor in order to charge someone with contempt of court. And I don't know if a judge needs the help of a prosecutor to charge someone with perjury --- I am not an attorney and I do not carry rules of court procedure around in my head.

Very interesting --- you guys keep calling me ignorant and stupid but yet you keep making lengthy replies to my comments.

False judge makes mockery of case for 'intelligent design'

You figure that if you don't answer them, some lurker is going to come in here and read my comments and think, "gosh, this Larry Fafarman is absolutely brilliant !! What a genius !!"

Very interesting --- you guys keep calling me ignorant and stupid but yet you keep making lengthy replies to my comments

That's because we're sadistic SOBs who enjoy having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

You figure that if you don't answer them, some lurker is going to come in here and read my comments and think, "gosh, this Larry Fafarman is absolutely brilliant !! What a genius !!"

Very interesting --- you guys keep calling me ignorant and stupid but yet you keep making lengthy replies to my comments.

Interesting --- all the people here saying that my posts are too dumb to answer --- but my posts are so persuasive that people feel compelled to keep answering them.

Actually, you are paying me a compliment by making these ad hominem attacks --- it shows that you are unable to present reasonable rebuttals to my arguments.

Narcissist?

Pretty much. Even if you showed him AND told him, he'd still doesn't get it.

Very interesting --- you guys keep calling me ignorant and stupid but yet you keep making lengthy replies to my comments.

That's because we're sadistic SOBs. We enjoy having battles of wit with an unarmed man.

Interesting --- all the people here saying that my posts are too dumb to answer --- but my posts are so persuasive that people feel compelled to keep answering them. And many of the answers I have seen are not straight.

Comment #67212 posted by Mike Dunford on January 3, 2006 01:09 PM Depositions are not taken by the side calling the expert, they are taken by the other side.

The experts for the plaintiffs were volunteers, and were only compensated for their expenses. Keep that in mind when you bitch about the ACLU unfairly running up the costs, because the experts for the defense were paid ($100/hr for most; $200/hr for Dembski until he was fired) in addition to expenses.

One of the main purposes of a deposition is for the lawyers for the other side to get a feeling for what this witness will say when questioned, how they respond to questions, and what they will say in response to certain questions. These are the kinds of thing that the lawyers need to know in order to plan their cross-examination. The expert witnesses were required to submit written expert reports. The depositions then provided the opportunity for the opposite side to question them about their reports (as well as other relevant material). This allows for planning out a strategy, and it allows the other side to figure out if they are going to challenge the witness' credentials as an expert.

the deposition is conducted by the party that is not calling the witness, not the one that is. In effect, the whole deposition is cross examination.

Had FTE been added as a party in the case, they would have been permitted to go back and depose all of the experts for the plaintiffs.

Larry wrote: ****A litigant might want to add an expert witness at the last minute, particularly to replace one that bugs out.**** Well, yes, but the rules of disclosure and the requirement that your opponents be permitted to properly prepare for the witness prevent this.

If the book is self-explanatory, if it just is what it is, then why would the publisher need separate representation?

Larry wrote: I made a big deal about my legal experience only because of all the unwarranted attacks on my legal knowledge. We're not attacking your legal knowledge, Larry, we're just pointing out that you have none.

Scared Larry said:
"
The fact is that if the case against ID were a slam-dunk one, it would not have been necessary to conduct such a long, elaborate trial with so many attorneys.
"

Too true Larry that is the single most important thing you have said !

Whole countries have gone to war with much less justification in terms of "the real facts". Hiding the facts is the single most important thing for Fundamentalists.

Just imagine if GWB had said "Well... were going to invade Iraq because we want their oil and there WILL be blood"

Much better to call it "some feel good thingy" that appeals to the left, the middle and the right through layers and layers of BS, but hey everyone knew,because the carefully trimmed cloth (propaganda) just happened to fit their world view. If no one has the ability to apply critical thinking to discover the real facts then the whole world is your oyster.

whole world is your oyster

I think that attorneys for both sides should be present during depositions, and both sides should be permitted to question the witness.

The experts for the plaintiffs were volunteers, and were only compensated for their expenses. Keep that in mind when you bitch about the ACLU unfairly running up the costs, because the experts for the defense were paid ($100/hr for most; $200/hr for Dembski until he was fired) in addition to expenses.

— I previously

I am not aware of any law allowing hourly witness fees to be awarded to the winning side. I am bitching here about the ACLU et al. running up excessive costs that are then charged to the other side.

— larry

OK, that is a good explanation, but deposing the expert witnesses greatly complicated the case. I presume that the opposite side's preparation for the trial could have been done just by using the written expert reports that were submitted. I presume that there are many trials where expert witnesses are not deposed before the trial.

— larry

I think that attorneys for both sides should be present during depositions, and both sides should be permitted to question the witness.

— Larry

Attorneys for the non-deposing litigant are not allowed to be present for the deposition.

— Ubernatural

(sigh, yes of course, Mike. I had been hoping Larry would correct me) As you say, attorneys for the non-deposing litigant are allowed to be, and normally are, present at deposition.

Apparently Larry doesn't know this basic tidbit about court procedure that any dunce can look up on Wiki, otherwise he wouldn't be complaining about it.

Comment #67446 posted by Mike Dunford on January 4, 2006 12:20 AM The plaintiffs are entitled, according to the judge, to "nominal damages, costs, and attorneys' fees." I am told by one of my friends, who is a lawyer, that expert witness fees are most certainly "costs" for these purposes.

My experience is admittedly limited, but I suspect that experts are almost always deposed. Without a deposition, the lawyer has no idea what to expect when he or she starts cross-examination.

Larry, why on earth would the person calling the expert witness want to question them in deposition? If the lawyer who has hired the expert wants to ask the expert something, what possible advantage could there be to doing it under oath, with your opponent present???

Comment #67451 Posted by Ubernatural on January 4, 2006 12:50 AM (sigh, yes of course, Mike. I had been hoping Larry would correct me) As you say, attorneys for the non-deposing litigant are allowed to be, and normally are, present at deposition. Apparently Larry doesn't know this basic tidbit about court procedure that any dunce can look up on Wiki, otherwise he wouldn't be complaining about it.

Comment #67355 posted by Ed Darrell on January 3, 2006 06:49 PM Contempt is a different charge from perjury. Contempt is a civil issue, with no really effective appeal --- it's the tool judges use to keep their courtrooms in order and to enforce order. Perjury is a crime which carries with it the possibility of hard prison time

Of Pandas and People was not on trial, but since it is one of less than a handful of publications that say anything about intelligent design, one would expect that it would be cited in any case involving intelligent design.

In the end, it was the judgment of the defense team that the publisher and editor would be likely to do more damage to the case than help, and so they disinvited participation.

Under those circumstances, a lawyer would conclude that the book, its publisher and its editor, were treated more than fairly.

Had they been participants, it is likely the book would have come off much worse than it did.

I don't agree with the US constitution, and now I don't agree with the US legal system. 'Our side' should be able to change the rules retrospectively; and run the game again with new players. If a decision look likes its going to go against us - we should be able to call the whole game off. Even if we can choose a referee who is on our side, if he doesn't give us what we want we should be able to choose a new one until we get what we want. We didn't loose - you cheated.

I am not aware of any law allowing hourly witness fees to be awarded to the winning side. I am bitching here about the ACLU et al. running up excessive costs that are then charged to the other side.

Comment #67482 posted by Dean Morrison on January 4, 2006 08:25 AM Scarey Larry Paley Ghostey wrote: I don't agree with the US constitution, and now I don't agree with the US legal system. 'Our side' should be able to change the rules retrospectively; and run the game again with new players. If a decision look likes its going to go against us - we should be able to call the whole game off. Even if we can choose a referee who is on our side, if he doesn't give us what we want we should be able to choose a new one until we get what we want. We didn't loose - you cheated.

You're a bad loser old man, and a little whinger to boot.

The greatest aspects of our nation were formed on the school playing fields according to Winston Churchill.

Now you are literally putting words in my mouth

And no one got to choose the referee --- the judge was picked at random.

— Larry

the deposition is conducted by the party that is not calling the witness, not the one that is. In effect, the whole deposition is cross examination.

The Duke of Wellington said, "the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." Now what is this thing about something that Winston Churchill said

If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breath a word about your loss;

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 31, 2005 05:11 PM (e) (s) ... I'm sorry, but I vote larry as just a Troll. can we do something about it now?

Comment #67512 posted by Dean Morrison on January 4, 2006 11:20 AM Just in case anyone was confused by the last post I should point out I'm a Brit.

... who will actually pay the costs? .. the taxpayers of Dover (or the schoolkids and teachers through cutbacks) - including the Plaintiffs themselves. Buckingham has moved out of the district - what will he pay for his lies and folly? - precisely nothing.

Even though they were bound to lose financially by the case, win or lose - the parents at Dover chose to stand up for their constitutional rights on an important point of principle:

No wonder the buggers were voted out.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

it is believed that one of the reasons for their defeat was taxpayer fear of a big legal bill in the lawsuit

3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules

— Judge Jones

Comment #67612 Posted by Dean Morrison on January 4, 2006 02:52 PM .... in your case it's Christian Fundamentalism that's the problem

Scary Larry wrote -- ****it is believed that one of the reasons for their defeat was taxpayer fear of a big legal bill in the lawsuit**** Who by Larry? ..and on what basis? - after all the trial had already taken place - voting in a new board wasn't going to make it go away.

The school stuff is on another thread Larry - notice you can't answer the stuff I left for you there...

LOL. I look forward to reading "Scary Larry - getting scarier by the 1 x 10-398743213864 second"

Buckingham has moved out of the district - what will he pay for his lies and folly? - precisely nothing

I have never said anything to even suggest that I am a Christian Fundamentalist.

Scary Larry

Nay nay and thrice nay! Larry is the best advert to avoid being a fundie that this site has. His posts are probably persuading more lurkers to turn against ID than shed-loads of more scientific threads. )))

Scary Larry

Scary Larry

I'd been doubting the connection you keep bringing up, Dean, but maybe you are right. You'd think Larry would have at least wondered what you were talking about when you called him Paley Ghostey, considering the number of things he wonders about. Larry does seem like a real person from CA what with his other internet postings, but then again whoever the puppetmaster is behind Paley certainly has a penchant for character development.

idk. Falafelman seems way dumber than Paley.

Comment #67652 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 4, 2006 04:16 PM The ACLU is required to provide a detailed accounting of the time each lawyer put in on the case. As long as each lawyer provided meaningful contribution to the case, those hours are reasonable, regardless of the number of lawyers working. {personal opinion}

Most of those lawyers probably did not put in much time on the case, and thus will not receive a great deal of compensation - the lion's share will go to the two lawyers that represented in court (personal opinion).

In fact, the only time the number of lawyers becomes relevant is when they are in the same meeting. If the number of meetings is unreasonable, or the number of lawyers present at the meetings are unreasonable, that would be the only time you could claim the number of lawyers working on the case is unreasonable.

The defense has the right and obligation to challenge any and all charges that are claimed by the plaintiffs. And Judge Jones has already demonstrated his thoroughness in evaluating all claims. I have complete faith that he will thoroughly examine the plaintiffs claim for damages, fees, and costs.

Furthermore, you have failed utterly to demonstrate that 9-10 lawyers is unusual for a case of this type and magnitude.

At this point, I do not trust Judge Jones any further than I could throw him.

I'm afraid Larry's looking for love in all the wrong places...

Larry, you're a tiresome bore [yawn]. Give it up. You write ten-paragraph posts consisting of nothing but your uninformed caricatures of how things are and your boring personal opinions about how things should be, never really adding anything to the debate, then you pat yourself on the back narcissistically for being so persuasive and convincing. No one's buying it but you.

I would like to correct an error in a legal analysis I made in Comment #67469 on this thread.

The plaintiffs' official complaint claimed eligibility for an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988 (Title 42 US Code Sec. 1988), which is the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 as amended. Section 1988 explicitly applies to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which, however, applies only to a "burden" on the free exercise of religion, and the Dover ID rule was arguably not such a burden. However, I then checked another section, 42 USC § 1983, which is also explicitly covered by section 1988 ---

Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law -- " (emphasis added)

Since the free exercise of religion is already covered by the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act appears to be redundant regarding Section 1983 above. Anyway, it is apparent that 42 USC § 1988, in combination with 42 USC § 1983 and the Supreme Court decision in Blum vs. Stenson, form the basis of the plaintiffs' claim to eligibility for an award of attorney fees. However, witness fees for this case are not available under 42 USC § 1988.

Blum vs. Stenson is important here because it addresses the issue of awarding civil-rights attorney fees to legal representatives that are non-profit and/or originally pro bono. A lot of people have raised this issue -- not just me ! Of course, there are lots of people here who are more interested in showing off their superior legal knowledge than in learning something new about the law.

Unfortunately, the speed with which I must respond to many of the messages here often prevents me from making a full investigation of the points that I make (part of that problem is that I have a slow dial-up connection -- adequate for most purposes, but not fast enough for this purpose).

I have a great idea for driving the ACLU et al. crazy. A thousand school boards could form a conspiracy -- all would enact pro-ID rules at once, and whenever the ACLU et al. sues an individual board, that board would just repeal the ID rule. That would be such fun.

Scary Larry

ARN larry.

I have a great idea for driving the ACLU et al. crazy. A thousand school boards could form a conspiracy --- all would enact pro-ID rules at once, and whenever the ACLU et al. sues an individual board, that board would just repeal the ID rule. That would be such fun.

Comment #67715 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 4, 2006 07:38 PM ***Buckingham has moved out of the district - what will he pay for his lies and folly? - precisely nothing**** Unless he goes to jail for perjury.

Comment #67799 posted by Eugene Lai on January 5, 2006 03:47 AM ****I have a great idea for driving the ACLU et al. crazy. A thousand school boards could form a conspiracy --- all would enact pro-ID rules at once, and whenever the ACLU et al. sues an individual board, that board would just repeal the ID rule. That would be such fun.**** I like that! Maybe then you'll cry foul about how the 1000 school boards are wasting taxpayers' money on pulling pranks!

No --- this would be completely free !

"nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies."

Kitzmiller v. Dover was supposed to be an airtight, slam-dunk case that teaching, discussing, or mentioning ID in public-school science classes violates the constitutional principle of church-state separation.

although I suppose their 'expert' witnesses would make a few bucks

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 5, 2006 05:09 AM (e) (s) ... I don't see Buckingham as being any worse than Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki, who offered a new course with a title that labeled ID as a mythology and said on a publicly accessible atheist Internet forum that the course would be a "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies." He made the university a national laughingstock and some outraged state legislators threatened to cut the university's funding. All the university administration did was censure him ---- his cancellation of the course and resignation as department chairman were apparently voluntary.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 4, 2006 07:45 PM (e) (s) ... I agree. And it's nice to see you still here, Mr Elliott ------ I was afraid you had been driven off. :)

Comment #67820 Posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 06:04 AM "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies." Actually all Mirecki had do was wait - Judge Jones did this for him.

I would like to correct an error in a legal analysis I made

Comment #67831 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 5, 2006 06:30 AM Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 5, 2006 05:09 AM *****... I don't see Buckingham as being any worse than Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki, who offered a new course with a title that labeled ID as a mythology and said on a publicly accessible atheist Internet forum that the course would be a "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies."**** The difference is that Prof. Mirecki seems a lot more honest than Mr. Buckingham. Why do you insist on trying to defend the indefensible. It is not OK to lie on oath Larry, no matter what silly little details you want to whinge about.

And the widespread condemnation of Judge Jones

I would like to correct an error in a legal analysis I made

Comment #67848 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 5, 2006 08:02 AM ****I would like to correct an error in a legal analysis I made***** When did you become a lawyer, Larry.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 5, 2006 08:35 AM (e) (s) ... And why do YOU insist on trying to defend Prof. Mirecki by claiming that he is more honest than Mr. Buckingham? And Prof. Mirecki is not honest. He pretended to be more tolerant of ID than he really was. His post on the atheist forum revealed the depth of his intolerance of ID and ID proponents. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that Prof. Mirecki's misconduct did a lot of harm to Kansas University, just as Mr. Buckingham's misconduct did a lot of harm to Dover. So if Prof. Mirecki got off lightly, then why shouldn't Mr. Buckingham get off lightly?

So if Prof. Mirecki got off lightly, then why shouldn't Mr. Buckingham get off lightly?

I think we are witnessing A JAD in the pupal stage.

Comment #67856 posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 08:42 AM I would like to correct an error in a legal analysis I made When did you become a lawyer, Larry. he's not but that nice lady at the library looks after him. The best (and only) argument I've heard for cutting back spending on public libraries yet...

Posted by Savagemutt on January 5, 2006 09:16 AM (e) (s) I think we are witnessing A JAD in the pupal stage.

and have to come back under a pseudonym.

Kitzmiller v. Dover was supposed to be an airtight, slam-dunk case that teaching, discussing, or mentioning ID in public-school science classes violates the constitutional principle of church-state separation. If Dover were such a case, then it should have been possible to settle it in a single day of trial.

— Larry

As for these court cases and opinions that drag on and on, their lengths by themselves raise doubts about the certainty of the conclusions drawn.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that Prof. Mirecki's misconduct did a lot of harm to Kansas University, just as Mr. Buckingham's misconduct did a lot of harm to Dover. So if Prof. Mirecki got off lightly, then why shouldn't Mr. Buckingham get off lightly?

— Larry

Comment #67862 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 5, 2006 09:13 AM BTW Larry you seem perfectly happy posting about something that Prof. Mirecki wrote (presumably in confidence).

Yet cry blue murder about an e-mail being used in court against the Dover school board.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 5, 2006 11:18 AM (e) (s)

I'm not talking to "Larry," here, who is a redundant maroon (although it is, in a way, nice of him to hang around, continuing to demonstrate the maroonic nature of CreaIDiot thinking so well).

But note that, despite all his cheap talk of being a "Show Me" kind of a guy, "Larry" has relentlessly resisted being shown anything.

He's been shown 40 times now that the attorney-client privilege is a narrowly-construed one that is easily waived and lost, but here he is back again, claiming that an attorney-client confidence, once minted, must remain eternally untarnished.

He's been referred to TalkOrigins, which posts facts and evidence refuting all his second, third, and fiftieth-hand endlessly-recycled arguments, but he refuses to go there and be "shown" anything.

He, frankly, seems never to have read--with anything remotely resembling a minimally-open mind--anything like the entirety of the opinion of the judge he came here to criticize. He's read only the snippets reported on creationist and ID websites, misinterprets those grievously and inanely, and still couldn't catch a clue even if one flew into his mouth and jumped up and down on his tongue hollering, "Swallow, dummy, swallow!"

For Larry, the world consists of nothing but opinion, his maroonic opinion is as "good" as anyone else's, and he will never be shown to the contrary, no matter how much righteous evidence and valid argumentation is wasted on the effort.

When he proudly claims to be a "Show Me" guy, therefore, he is flat-out lying: to you, to me, and--most pitifully--to himself.

Because that was a privileged attorney-client communication. The Dover opinion treated it as unprivileged. If you have proof or evidence that this exception to the privilege was legal or considered ethical, please show it to me.

— Lasrry

you foreigners seem to be taking an inordinate interest in what is taught in American public schools

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 11:56 AM (e) (s) ... Plus it's a real pleasure to discover the likes of Tara Smith and Ken Millar who restore my faith that America has something positive to offer the world.

Whilst the University's spiritual home still remains The Ediacara Hills (grid ref: 30o 45'S by 138o 15'E), the University is fully incorporated in the Galapagos Islands, and maintains a virtual campus there, on the northern slopes of Darwin Volcano (grid ref: 0o 30'S by 91o 00'W. Here, the campus boasts a fully equiped olympic sized swimming pool which doubles as our aquatic facility to study the Aquatic Ape theory and the Laminar Flood Theory. A fully equiped luxury research yacht is also available for research cruises, when not required by the Dean. Faculty members are often found relaxing in the campus pub, "The Panda's Thumb" which also doubles as the University's Social Psycology study lab (ensuring that all fixtures, fittings and alcohol in the pub are classified as required for educational and/or research and are thus tax exempt.)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 12:19 PM (e) (s) .. should remind Scary Larry Paley that as we're in the Galapagos we're both 'foreigners':

He hasn't denied it or even questioned what the reference is yet - plus they seem to suffer from identical tech problems and give the same lame excuses about them. My guess is that Whiter Shade of Paley got fed up with my 'Mickey taking' over his silly name.

You never seem to see them in the room together at the same time .. We'll only really know when we see them talking to each other????

Imagine if you had devoted your life to becoming an expert in a subject and was constantly arguing with people who new little or nothing about your area of expertise, who were claiming you were just a liar. How would that make you feel?

I think we are witnessing A JAD in the pupal stage.

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 5, 2006 12:57 PM (e) (s) I think we are witnessing A JAD in the pupal stage. naw, if you look at Davison's CV, you'll see that at one time he was actually a decent scientists with legit publications. around 1980, he simply went nuts. it's all there; in his writings, in the actions taken by the University against him, etc. he just went nuts, that's all.

I am not comparing Mirecki and Buckingham in terms of criminality, but in terms of the damage that their actions did.

Mirecki arguably did much more damage to KU than Buckingham did to Dover. Mirecki may have cost KU $millions in government funding, alumni donations, etc., and his actions will make it harder to recruit students and faculty.

I don't see how you can argue for leniency for Mirecki without also arguing for leniency for Buckingham****

right on.. Which commandment says "thou shalt not compose an e-mail that suggests that fundies should get a big fat slap in the face"?

right on.. Which commandment says "thou shalt not compose an e-mail that suggests that fundies deserve a big fat slap in the face"?

I'd also like to point out that according to Christian values, laws, & morals that Buckingham violated one of the Ten Commandments by bearing false witness against his neighbor.

Whereas Mirecki merely expressed his own view-point, arguably in bad taste, but in violation of NO laws, morals, or values - secular or religious.

How you can possibly, not just equate the two, but claim that Mirecki's transgression was worse is beyond belief - yours or mine.

I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing and I think you're actually hurting your side in the process. Any unbiased observer is going to realize pretty quickly that your just pulling, erhm rabbits, out of your butt.

Comment #67915 Posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 11:56 AM ****you foreigners seem to be taking an inordinate interest in what is taught in American public schools***** What? - next you're going to be complaining about the 'unfairness' of scientists working internationally? You fundies might have a local majority in the USA, but you're a minority when you look at all developed countries.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 5, 2006 02:33 PM (e) (s) ... You Brits seem to have a much bigger "problem" with creationism being taught in your government-funded schools. So why don't you clean up your own house first ? I think that ID and creationism are much more popular outside the USA than you believe ---- and outside the USA, ID and creationism often have much less of a problem with the church-state separation issue. Here in the USA, ID opponents keep insisting that ID is just a religious concept --- over the protests of many ID proponents --- just so the constitutional church-state separation principle can be used to attack it. And furthermore, I am not a "fundy" --- so please stop calling me that.

Umm, quit changing the subject Larry.

You complained about what you perceived as our duplicity in how we regarded Buckingham's transgressions to Mirecki's transgressions.

We pointed out that Buckingham violated both secular and his own religious laws while Mirecki merely displayed bad taste and violated no laws, after which you promptly changed the subject.

If there are any lurkers out there, please witness Larry's unwillingness to verify facts or acknowledge any wrong doing by anyone on his side, no matter how obvious or gross.

And people wonder why creationism is considered an insult by some. It's because to creationists any behavior is acceptable (no matter how harmful or repugnant) as long as you support "the right" beliefs.

Stephen Elliot: Have you noticed that we have a problem with 'teaching creationism' in government funded schools? I pointed out to Larry the example of Emmanuel College in Gateshead - where although they are required to teach the evolution in national curriculum, there has been an outcry because of the suspicion that evangelicals there may be showing less enthusiasm for this than is expected of them. Exception proves the rule as far as I'm concerned. What is your experience - have you noticed any problem or even controversy about this??

What do you prefer Larry - 'fundy' or 'Holocaust revisionist' (after all you did describe yourself as such?)

With his "novel" ideas regarding meteoroids, I think he should be striving to overthrow Brian Marsden of the Minor Planet Center!

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 03:11 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliot: Have you noticed that we have a problem with 'teaching creationism' in government funded schools? I pointed out to Larry the example of Emmanuel College in Gateshead - where although they are required to teach the evolution in national curriculum, there has been an outcry because of the suspicion that evangelicals there may be showing less enthusiasm for this than is expected of them. Exception proves the rule as far as I'm concerned. What is your experience - have you noticed any problem or even controversy about this??...

Oh! BTW, off to the pub now. Back in about 1 hour.

What do you prefer Larry - 'fundy' or 'Holocaust revisionist' (after all you did describe yourself as such?)

what about "cosmology revisionist"?

i found his thoughts about the source of meteor showers to be quite, uh, entertaining.

Mind you, we do live in what is technically a theocracy. Our head of state is also the head of our official state sponsored church. Not that you would actually notice from day-to-day experience.

Comment #67913 posted by PvM on January 5, 2006 11:53 AM Larry wrote: *****Because that was a privileged attorney-client communication. The Dover opinion treated it as unprivileged. If you have proof or evidence that this exception to the privilege was legal or considered ethical, please show it to me.***** Larry has already been informed that the privilege has to be invoked. In this case the defense gladly shared the information. Not just with the court but also with teachers...

if anything the british "theocracy" was in fact formed to PROTECT the islanders from european fundies!

Comment #67984 posted by jim on January 5, 2006 03:01 PM We pointed out that Buckingham violated both secular and his own religious laws while Mirecki merely displayed bad taste and violated no laws, after which you promptly changed the subject.

Was it? Do the AAUP principles of academic freedom include penalties for violations?

There *are* legislated penalties for perjurers! Furthermore what punishments does the Bible provide for those that violate the Biblical Commandments?

...and as usual, you are trying to grossly oversimplify things

Comment #67987 posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 03:11 PM Stephen Elliot: Have you noticed that we have a problem with 'teaching creationism' in government funded schools?

If you had the legal experience that I have had, you would have some appreciation for the great complexity of the law.

— Lawyer Larry

The message was just so damaging that some proof is needed to show that the defendants/defense waived or forfeited the privilege.

— Lawyer Larry

Here in the USA, ID-bashers keep insisting that ID is just a religious concept

Hey, we're just quoting ID SUPPORTERS.

Doesn't take much research to find THAT out. Say, the transcripts of the Dover trial....

So where was the part during the trial when a defense attorney sprang to his feet and angrily shouted, "ob-JEC-tion --- the witness is being questioned about a privileged attorney-client communication," and the judge answering, "objection overruled --- the questioning may proceed" ? LOL

— Larry Fafarman

Here in the USA, ID-bashers keep insisting that ID is just a religious concept so that they can use the church-state separation principle to attack it.

Larry I am shocked that you are not complaining that the Dover trial was rigged because the star witness for the plaintiffs (Ken Miller) is an intelligent, engaging and qualified scientist while the defense star witness (Michael "it could be a time traveler or space alien" Behe) is a dull, defensive, ignorant quack. I mean how fair is that?

And....have you watched the Ken Miller video yet? No? Well golly there are two threads dedicated to it with links and like everything so you can watch it on your shared computer. Totally cool!

That Miller talk is all the rage amongst those who value science, integrity and the law. With that in mind obviously the intelligent design creationism camp has no use for it but as their leading spokeperson here I think you should check it out. Give us a review? Who knows, maybe you'll learn something. On second thought, probably not but at least it might give you more things to whine about?

Praise the time travelling space alien intelligent designer!

PS, Larry if you really want to understand how hollow intelligent design creationism really is you have GOT to read the trial transcripts. They are available online in either html or pdf format.

How cool is that?

Until you read the trial transcripts, at least the defense expert witness testimony you have nothing to say that is worth listening to. You're like someone why is trying to convince another person why their football team lost and you did not even watch the game.

How dumb is that?

So, go and read Behe and Fuller's expert testimony on the scientific validity of intelligent design creationism and then come back prepared to discuss.

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 5, 2006 03:49 PM (e) (s) Mind you, we do live in what is technically a theocracy. Our head of state is also the head of our official state sponsored church. Not that you would actually notice from day-to-day experience. it always strikes me as odd that when americans point out that the UK is technically a theocracy, that folks from the UK don't always point out how that came to be, and why it is SO different, both for the reasons why it was formed, and what it is like today, than a xian theocracy driven by religious fundies in the US would look like. bottom line, and i leave you islanders to the rest, is that the British theocracy was formed for PURELY SECULAR REASONS. sounds like a contradiction in terms, but not when you look at the history involved. if anything the British "theocracy" was in fact formed to PROTECT the islanders from European fundies! (well, at least to protect the Monarchy from power-hungry religious fundies, anyway).

All British schools must teach evolution as part of the science curriculum. But the Department for Education and Skills allows the teaching of creationism alongside it in RE classes. Ian Gibson, chair of the Commons science and technology committee, said creationism must not be allowed to gain a foothold. 'In schools in the US where they teach creationism, they create real problems in the development of our young people. There is no place for it in this country. 'You can discuss it, but education has to be based on scientific facts.'

Praise the time travelling space alien intelligent designer!

Are any of the defendants complaining the information was privileged? Or is the only person claiming privilege Larry, who hasn't read the transcripts and also doesn't know the law? Because if it's the latter, there's little reason to discuss it.

Larry - the 'British School' stuff has been waiting for you here and has been for ages -please lets not drag it in over here - lets keep this for you 'legal' (snigger) opinions... :D

Why is everyone still showering Larry with love?

He strikes me as the kind of person who would have happily gone after the IDists, if it was them who won in Dover.

"Ray Lewis is the type of guy, if he were in a fight with a bear I wouldn't help him, I'd pour honey on him because he likes to fight. That's the type of guy Ray Lewis is."
-- Shannon Sharpe

Guys that's Larry Fafarman.

Did you catch Michael Behe on Hannity and Colmes? When asked if the intelligent designer is really god he remarked it could be a space alien or time traveler. The only problem with that IDiotic theory is we have no evidence whatsoever of a time traveler, time travel or space aliens.

So how can a quack who calls himself a scientist be taken seriously when he attributes complexity to time travellers? What a nut job.

Like flies to horse sh!t what compolete dorks this intelligent design creationism attracts. I mean if that doesn't convince you we're dealing with super zilla dorks nothing will.

I'm wagering that once the books sales dry up Dembksi and Behe will be peddling healing crystals and cancer curing magnets.

Larry - the 'British School' stuff has been waiting for you here and has been for ages -please lets not drag it into this thread - lets keep this for your 'legal' (snigger) opinions... :D

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 5, 2006 05:36 PM (e) (s) Why is everyone still showering Larry with love?

Whoops - messed up the link on that post - this should work Larry

Larry - the 'British School' stuff has been waiting for you here

Comment #68013 posted by jim on January 5, 2006 04:44 PM Do the AAUP principles of academic freedom include penalties for violations?

BTW sir T-J. I do not really understand what an "xian" is

lazy shorthand for christian.

like xmas.

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 5, 2006 05:48 PM (e) (s) BTW sir T-J. I do not really understand what an "xian" is lazy shorthand for christian. like xmas.

Those are my last words about the issue of Mirecki vs. Buckingham.

Comment #68042 posted by Dean Morrison on January 5, 2006 05:46 PM Larry - the 'British School' stuff has been waiting for you here

like xmas.

.. wrong thread Larry - the answer to your last post is over at the other place... (sigh)

and I gave you that link remember????

it's a pretty common usage, but here's a bit of etymology:

http://www.langmaker.com/db/eng_xian.htm

heh, I've always used the term "islanders" as i would those who live in hawaii. it brings up romantic visions of beaches and trees swaying in the tropical breeze...

or in the case of the UK, er, visions of white cliffs and trees soaking in the rain :)

Hell, I'm a marine biologist living in the desert these days, so visions of island beaches appeal to me, no matter the circumstances.

Nice site - didn't find 'wingnut' there - and I guess Larry thinks we're all 'moonbats'?

.. two nations seperated by a common language Steve.... ;D

.. well I can see the sea from my doorstep - and the White Cliffs (Beachy Head) in the distance - and I'm off to cut down some trees in the rain tommorrow Sir Toejam so I guess you're right. :D

Comment #68052 posted by Mr Christopher on January 5, 2006 05:56 PM ****Those are my last words about the issue of Mirecki vs. Buckingham.**** And if you had read the transcripts you'd know that Buckingham was a hostile witness for the plaintiff. You'd also have noted he lied while under oath.

****Those are my last words about the issue of Mirecki vs. Buckingham.****

Mirecki vs. Buckingham
And, what's on everbody's mind: do we have odds on that fight?

Comment #68089 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 5, 2006 07:48 PM ****Those are my last words about the issue of Mirecki vs. Buckingham.**** now why am i not surprised larry lied yet again?

what's the bottom line, there, liar?

Talk about not being able to take a hint! Sheesh!

Larry,

I agree with you that I don't recall you ever stating that he didn't lie under oath.

I think the point is he "lied under oath" = perjured himself. Purjury is a crime. The punishment for purjury varies but could include fines and jail time.

Meanwhile Mirecki did nothing worse than exercise poor judgement. Poor judgement is not a crime and has no (legal) penalties associated with it.

Your tone has been Buckingham should *not* be punished, while Mirecki got what he deserved.

This is one of your many positions that we find untenable.

Lenny, you have made no worthwhile contribution to the discussion here.

I am tired of doing your research for you.

Lying's OK by Larry. he just proved it himself.

He strikes me as the kind of person who would have happily gone after the IDists, if it was them who won in Dover.

I "lied" because I mistakenly thought that some people could take a hint that this relatively minor subject had already been beaten into the ground.

No, you LIED because you're too insecure to walk away without trying to get the "last word." And that applies whether you were right or wrong (though given that you think a liar under oath should not be punished, it's probably that you're on the wrong side of the ethical issue).

Me, I *want* him to stay, and to keep posting as often as he can. He does two useful things, in my view; (1) he gives everyone a target so we don't waste our time fighting with each other, and ... well ... uh ... and ... he ... well ...

OK, Larry does one useful thing, in my view.

Aw, c'mon....anybody who leaves himself so open for cheap shots and smart ass remarks while being so inept at delivering them is ALWAYS useful for something.

Larry have you checked out the clevery named www.uncommondescent.com yet? Dude, they are just like you over there. They do not waste their time actually reading transcripts or waste brain cells reading silly things like the entire Jones ruling, they simply cling to mistaken headlines, belive what John West says over at the Diso parlor and quote scripture to one another while making fun of legitimate science.

How cool is that?

Theologian and intelligent design creationism poster boy William Demsbki no longer has much time for the Intelligent Design creationism weblog (he's busy doing "science") so he got a few of his followers to take it over. I bet you could be one of the admins over there. Seriously.

How cool is that?

Anyhow, check out the site, quote some scripture, say the exact same things there that you say here and you'll be a hero (there). Seriously.

How cool is that?

Also, Theologian William Dembski is working on a new website called www.overwhelmingevidence.com which will be his antidote to the Dover trial. Get it? He is going to scientifically prove Judge Jones was wrong. Judge Jones has game but Brother Dembski's got overwhelming evidence. I suspect Judge Jones will be retiring from the bench once Theologian William Dembski makes his evidence public.

I bet Theologian William Dembski could use someone with your special insight to help him pull it off? Seriously. Larry the internet investigateive research partner helps Theologian William Dembski uncover the lies and deception shown at the Dover trial. I can see it now.

You think just like the IDC camp thinks, you make the same arguements, you reject the same evidence, why waste your time here when you could be doing something that might change the world over there? Seriously.

Now tell me, how cool is that?

Gentle readers, I pray the time traveling space alien Michael behe suggested created the universe will forgive me for my awful typing. I promise to use the spell check from now on.

In the time traveling space aliens name,

Mr C.

Comment #68113 Posted by gwangung on January 5, 2006 08:49 PM ****I "lied" because I mistakenly thought that some people could take a hint that this relatively minor subject had already been beaten into the ground.**** No, you LIED because you're too insecure to walk away without trying to get the "last word."

yeah, it's hard to correct typos when you're laughing your ass off at some dumbass who shall remain nameless...

no problem.

I think you should run with that space alien religion idea... no wait, damn, didn't L Ron already do that?

sometime I must ask a true IDiot how they manage to distinguish themselves from scientologists.

I think that Mirecki and Buckingham are both crackpots. What more is there to say ?

Larry:

how do IDers distinguish themselves from scientologists?

Sir Toejam asked, Larry: how do IDers distinguish themselves from scientologists?

Comment #68034 posted by steve s on January 5, 2006 05:33 PM Are any of the defendants complaining the information was privileged? Or is the only person claiming privilege Larry, who hasn't read the transcripts and also doesn't know the law? Because if it's the latter, there's little reason to discuss it.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 5, 2006 07:45 PM (e) (s) ... Maybe if some people were not so busy reading the case's transcripts, they could spend some time trying to really understand the case --- these people cannot see the forest for the trees. The opinions in a law library are not accompanied by the trial transcripts. I have read almost none of the transcripts of the Dover case, yet I am doing an excellent job of debating about the judge's opinion. ...

"When clients have used reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality but have inadvertently disclosed protected communications in the discovery process...

— LaLaLarry

Anybody remember the 'Talking Heads?'

And the David Byrne song 'Psycho Killer?':

I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax
I can't sleep cause my bed's on fire
Don't touch me I'm a real live wire

You start a conversation you can't seem to finish it
You're talkin' a lot but you're not sayin' anything
When I have nothing to say my lips are sealed
Say something once why say it again

Psycho Killer
Que'est-ce que c'est?
Fa-Fa-Far Fa-Fa Fa-Fa Far-man
You'd better run-run-run run-run-run awaaaaaay...

Maybe this is why 'Larry' (snigger) thinks he's 'Scary'?

Tell me? Is this guy doing my head in or do I need to up the medication????

Larry Stars in a Movie (pardon the bad movie quoting)

Larry: You want Answers?
PT: I think we're entitled to answers
Larry: You want Answers?
PT: We want the truth
Larry: You can't handle the truth

Larry: PT we live in a world that has too much materialsm and it must change. Who's gonna do it, you? You PT, I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly imagine. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the Dover trail won't save souls. You don't want the truth because dep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want to teach Intelligent Design, you need to teach Intelligent Design. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a group of people who refuse to engage in logical fallacies and dishonest behavior. I'd suggest that PT just say thank you for my brilliant commentary and go away. Otherwise, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of Pandas and People and start teaching. I don't give a *&&% what you think you're entitled to.

Comment #68347 posted by Don Baccus on January 6, 2006 02:02 PM LaLaLarry wrote: ****"When clients have used reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality but have inadvertently disclosed protected communications in the discovery process.....**** The problem being, Larry, that clients made NO effort to preserve the confidentiality of the communication. None whatsoever. That's why it was read into evidence, and that's why the defense made no attempt to keep it out. You've been told this dozens of times. Why do you go to such efforts to publicize your intellectual dishonesty?

Larry,
The whole trial was covered here on a day to day basis.
Wesley had a whole sticky thread that had loads of relevant information. Lots of reports (one of the local papers was very thorough, York daily record IIRC). Plenty of people here took a very close interest in what was going on.

If you think that the communication was used wrongly and that the Dover school board or their lawyers objected to its use, surely it is up to you to find the evidence. It would be very difficult to show you that they never argued against its use, but you would only need to find one objection to prove your point. Now why do you think it is somebody Else's responsibility to go through that whole case and show you every day that the defence did not object. Especially when after all that work you are only going to ignore it.

Good time traveling space alien (aka "lord"), is larry still going over the same nonsense he was whining about yesterday (and the day before)?

Larry, your side lost. Get over it. Move on. Find a life. Get a girlfriend. Your side put up their best experts and lost. Badly. Really badly. I mean that ship went down in only seconds.

So, If you want to do something about it (other than whine endlessly) get your local school board to introduce intelligent design creationism into the science class. You should have no problem convincing them IDC is not religious so do something useful.

Who knows, that might spawn another lawsuit that your side will no doubt win this time. Well they should win if they appoint you as their legal strategist.

Quit trying to change the minds of people who are far more informed on the subjects than you, instead of whining endlessly, do something useful.

Go get IDC in your local public science class. That should be a slam dunk for someone such as yourself.

Tell me --- how do you know that they made no effort to preserve --- or reclaim --- the privilege of the message ?

Have you read the transcripts yet?

Did you read every word of the trial transcripts ?

— LaLaLarry

Yeah, me too. And the ruling too.

However, I haven't gone through all of the depositions yet. Doing that in my spare time.

if it defies common sense

Comment #68406 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 6, 2006 05:48 PM Larry, If you think that the communication was used wrongly and that the Dover school board or their lawyers objected to its use, surely it is up to you to find the evidence.

So according to Larry the trial transcript and opinion consists of so many pages of reading that not only could he not possibly be expected to read it, but anyone who claims to have read it is either a)lying or b) cannot be trusted to actually process so much information and be able to subsequently say what is or is not contained in it. There's so much information, the details are unknowable. If there's comething he wants to believe is in the transcript, nobody can say with certainty that it is not there.

And once again, he cannot get through a single vacuous post without congratulating himself for how persuasive and intelligent he is. Narcissist.

Mr. Fafarman said:

"Anyway, here are these people who spent days reading all the transcripts of the case. And here's me --- I read almost none of the transcripts, and I did not even read the whole opinion ( I skimmed large parts of it ), and yet here I am intelligently discussing the case !"

I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but may I ask why you seem to take such pride in your ignorance of the trial record? I often see this displayed in the comments of people when discussing this issue, and the sense I get is that the commenter is attempting to show that while they may not have any education or familiarity with the material being discussed they are still "smarter" than those who either a) have taken pains to read/educate themselves or b) hold degrees in the topics being discussed.

I assume it's meant to both belittle one side as well as hold up the ongoing anti-intellectualism of many Americans as a value (e.g., "I may not be educated but that doesn't mean I don't know what's right, and you're all wrong.")

Sadly, while you may be discussing the case, I would have to disagree as to the intelligence of your content.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 7, 2006 12:02 PM (e) (s) ... Anyway, here are these people who spent days reading all the transcripts of the case. And here's me --- I read almost none of the transcripts, and I did not even read the whole opinion ( I skimmed large parts of it ), and yet here I am intelligently discussing the case ! Scary Larry

Comment #68232 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 6, 2006 04:08 AM (e) (s) Comment #68034 posted by steve s on January 5, 2006 05:33 PM Are any of the defendants complaining the information was privileged? Or is the only person claiming privilege Larry, who hasn't read the transcripts and also doesn't know the law? Because if it's the latter, there's little reason to discuss it.

After all, Larry has already admitted in a previous post that he doesn't know what he's talking about and should be ignored completely. Now, I haven't read all of his hundreds of pages of drivel, but I have skimmed a lot of his posts. And since I cannot believe that anyone could have actually read every one of Larry's postings, I think I can confidently assert that his admission of incompetence must be contained somewhere in there, unless anyone can prove otherwise, which I have already stipulated is impossible. Maybe someone should call the Thomas More Law Center, they would probably know.

Don't you all think I'm doing a really great job of arguing my point? Clearly I am far more persuasive than a lot of other people in here who claim to have actually taken the time to understand the issues and know what they are talking about before they barf a 10-paragraph post.

Maybe if some people were not so busy reading the case's transcripts, they could spend some time trying to really understand the case --- these people cannot see the forest for the trees. The opinions in a law library are not accompanied by the trial transcripts. I have read almost none of the transcripts of the Dover case, yet I am doing an excellent job of debating about the judge's opinion.

Maybe if some people were not so busy reading the case's transcripts, they could spend some time trying to really understand the case

Comment #68590 posted by ben on January 7, 2006 12:21 PM So according to Larry the trial transcript and opinion consists of so many pages of reading that not only could he not possibly be expected to read it, but anyone who claims to have read it is either a)lying or b) cannot be trusted to actually process so much information and be able to subsequently say what is or is not contained in it

should the judge have explained to you that the moon landings weren't faked, too? Where did you even get this stupid idea that privilege applies here? Really, I want to know how you arrived at this completely wrong idea. How did you make this decision? What is your 'reasoning'?

I hate to have to keep repeating myself.

Larry might just as well argue that the decision was invalid because in the middle of the trial, Judge Jones stood up, said "I never actually attended law school and am totally unqualified to be a judge, I hereby recuse myself." Because, you know, that might have happened. It might be in the transcript. Who knows? If anybody says it didn't happen, I'm skeptical because maybe it happened and nobody remembers. The real facts are unknowable, so any lamebrain argument he makes might be true.

Read the transcript before you make arguments about what "might" be in it, or STFU.

by larry's 'logic', ben, if you told him the judge didn't say that, he would be skeptical, since such a statement might have been made and you just did not recall it. ;-)

I swear, when i saw Larry's "See how intelligent I is without even readin no transcript?" bit I became suspicious that he was a spoof character. Only because someone earlier mentioned they'd seen him for some years, did I reject that idea.

Seriously, Larry, what did you base this on? How did you make this decision that somehow privilege applied? What is your 'reasoning'?

Comment #68591 Posted by Liz Tracey on January 7, 2006 12:24 PM Mr. Fafarman said: *****"Anyway, here are these people who spent days reading all the transcripts of the case. And here's me --- I read almost none of the transcripts, and I did not even read the whole opinion ( I skimmed large parts of it ), and yet here I am intelligently discussing the case !"***** I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but may I ask why you seem to take such pride in your ignorance of the trial record?

Comment #68640 posted by steve s on January 7, 2006 09:25 PM Seriously, Larry, what did you base this on? How did you make this decision that somehow privilege applied? What is your 'reasoning'?

For example, just for my own amusement, I wanted to see how William Buckingham was declared to be a "hostile witness,"...

My guess is that Larry asked the nice lady at the library for the trial transcipts; and she told them she couldn't get them right now, and "besides the library's closing in ten minutes!"???...

Why don't you ask her out for a date Larry? .. you know? .. get a real interest in life????

There is a rebuttable presumption that an attorney-client communication is privileged.

Larry,

I think that most people here would agree with you that it's the ruling that counts not the transcripts.

The problem here is that you keep saying the ruling was wrong and the Judge doesn't know what he's talking about.

We are referring you to the transcripts because you refuse to believe things like Buckingham and Bonsell lied under oath OR that Behe stated that ID is scientifically on par with Astrology OR that the defendants never claimed the attorney-client confidentiality.

Because you refuse to believe the ruling, it becomes necessary for you to read the transcripts. You see if you read the transcripts, find support for your guesses and present them here, then we might stop insulting you and might start taking you seriously.

Trust me though when I say "you'll not find support for your idle wonderings in the transcripts. Your wonderings are completely divorced from the reality recorded in the transcripts. ID presented it's brightest minds and best materials. It was found totally devoid of anything resembling usefulness to the reality in which we live.

Comment #68640 posted by steve s on January 7, 2006 09:25 PM Seriously, Larry, what did you base this on? How did you make this decision that somehow privilege applied? What is your 'reasoning'?

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. Dr. Nilsen, this is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 70, and do you recognize this as the advice from counsel that you distributed at that late August meeting? A. Yes. Q. And if you go through the text of it -- and just take your time to read it -- but the word "Pandas" doesn't appear anywhere in the text, does it? A. No, it does not. Q. And let me represent to you that this is the only legal advice document that's been produced to plaintiffs in this litigation. This is a memo from Steven Russell, the school district solicitor. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And let's look at what is reported here, if we could highlight the first paragraph. What Mr. Russell reports to you, Dr. Nilsen, is that I talked to Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center. There is some talk about why it took awhile to get back to him. And then if you go down after the parentheses, Mr. Russell reports that they refer to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Is that right? A. That's what it says there, yes. Q. That's what Mr. Russell reported to you about his conversation with Mr. Thompson? MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. Mischaracterizes the thrust of the e-mail. THE COURT: Well, it speaks for itself. I'll sustain the objection to the extent that I can read it and it speaks for itself. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. And then going on in the document, it indicates that Thomas More has indicated they would represent the district pro bono, for free? A. Yes. Q. But it also points out that they would not pay any attorneys' fees to plaintiffs if the plaintiffs were to prevail in this lawsuit. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And he explains how that works? A. Yes. Q. And then in the last paragraph, he expresses some concerns, doesn't he? A. Yes.

Q. And then in the last paragraph, he expresses some concerns, doesn't he? A. Yes. Q. And if we could highlight where it begins, I say this because. I realize it's a little hard to read. He says, It could be difficult to win -- it could be difficult to win a case. I say this because one of the common themes in some of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, especially dealing with silent meditation, is that even though something is voluntary, it still causes a problem because the practice, whatever it may be, was initiated for religious reasons. And he describes another case, and then he says, My concern for Dover is that in the last several years, there's been a lot of discussion, newsprint, et cetera, 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. That's what Mr. Russell told you giving his legal advice in this e-mail he sent to you? A. Yes. Q. And you knew exactly what he meant, didn't you? A. Yes.

It's also direct evidence that the attorney-client communication was released to the public at a board meeting and then was in fact provided to the plaintiff's by the defendent's lawyers.

You can't very well claim it as a privileged communication when you gave it to everyone that asked for it.

Isn't it amazing what you can find in the transcripts? Hey I have an original idea, maybe Larry should read them too!

Larry don't need no book-learnin, Jim. He's doing all smart-like without it. He thinks.

And it's obvious that the defendants knew they had to claim privilege if they wanted it applied to any info, because they did in at least one instance. That's mentioned in the transcripts that Larry didn't read, and also the opinion, which he didn't read.

You can't very well claim it as a privileged communication when you gave it to everyone that asked for it.

Sure you can. 'Course only an idiot would do that.

And as we can see....

Well perhaps not an idiot but someone who is convinced beyond reason they already know the answer and any evidence that appears to make claims to the contrary MUST be incorrect.
The task is to disregard any evidence, with pure delight in already knowing the AnSwEr, that does not support the AnSwEr.
All the evidence must, no has to be, just plain wrong.

The Sacred Text reader who only sees words devoid of imagination as though they were a Dover court transcript -a history of actual events as though they were yesterday.

For them the AnSwEr is in a text (not poetic meaning) ,more.... and rapture is in a word (not poetic meaning)and a text (not poetic meaning)is never wrong and the more wrong the world makes a word (not poetic meaning)the more they believe they are right because a word (not poetic meaning)tells them they will be told they are wrong and they must still believe because a word (not poetic meaning)is never wrong
.
The word cannot be wrong and the real world is just a magic illusion supported by evil doers who want to destroy a word.

Words have special powers over the real world because people will believe them before they will believe it hurts when they stubbed their toe.

But the magician who is so in love with his own tricks that his mind creates a magic curtain that hides the real world is in danger....if a dog pulls back the curtain.
The fools logic is simple, "the mind is faster than reality"

Try telling that to a bunch of 5 year olds when they see the rabbit up your sleeve.

Comment #68665 posted by Alexey Merz on January 8, 2006 12:56 AM Q. And let me represent to you that this is the only legal advice document that's been produced to plaintiffs in this litigation. This is a memo from Steven Russell, the school district solicitor. Correct? (from trial transcripts)

MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. Mischaracterizes the thrust of the e-mail.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. Larry is always whining about how the board has to pay the Plaintiffs' legal expenses. It's not like they weren't warned

Bwa ha ha ha.

Larry, you crack me up!

Everyone here that's read the transcripts has told you repeatedly that this information IS IN THERE and that all of your positions will be crushed if you actually read them.

*sigh*

OK, I get it Larry. The more likely the transcripts contain arguments against your position, the more less likely you'll read them. Your modus operandi becomes crystal clear now.

Does anyone doubt Larry's Trollishness.

make that "... less likely ..."

Comment #68666 posted by jim on January 8, 2006 01:07 AM It's also direct evidence that the attorney-client communication was released to the public at a board meeting and then was in fact provided to the plaintiff's by the defendent's lawyers.

You can't very well claim it as a privileged communication when you gave it to everyone that asked for it.

Isn't it amazing what you can find in the transcripts? Hey I have an original idea, maybe Larry should read them too!

Anyway, you have just shown me another very good reason not to read the trial transcripts. Of all the people here who claimed that they read the transcripts, only you could show me a place in the transcripts where the message was discussed ( I presume that you read all or most of the transcripts). And my question has still not been satisfactorily answered ---- there is no explanation as to why the defense gave the message to the plaintiffs.

well well well Larry the lounge lawyer
who to do eh ?
Here's a hint
What did Jesus mean when he said "Don't throw pearls to swine"
Well it would seem you are on the wrong blog
The swine over at Aig would be far more interested in your "pearls"

Comment #68661 posted by Alexey Merz on January 8, 2006 12:02 AM Larry typed: ****For example, just for my own amusement, I wanted to see how William Buckingham was declared to be a "hostile witness,"...***** Buckingham was hostile because he was called to the stand by the plaintiffs, and as a member of the school board that was being sued, he was associated with the defendants. His testimony had nothing to do with it.

I think that our court procedures are badly in need of reform.

News flash!

Larry doesn't know / understand the definitions of legal terms. They confuse him. When he reads the legal definitions of some (and he thinks he understands them), he disagrees with those definitions.

Larry also doesn't understand why Buckingham was asked the same question (but worded differently) over and over during the trial.

Hint, look to see if Buckingham actually answers the questions being asked of him.

Asking leading questions rudely implies that the witness [i.e. Buckingham] is not forthrightly telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

— Larry Fafarman

Reminds me of one of the best lines from Faulty Towers
"
Can't we get you on Mastermind , Larry? Specialised subject: the bleedin' obvious"
Well he is from 'Missouri' or should that be Barcelona.

I think that our court procedures are badly in need of reform.

Comment #68722 posted by Alexey Merz on January 8, 2006 11:05 AM Larry Fafarman trolled: *****And my question has still not been satisfactorily answered ---- there is no explanation as to why the defense gave the message to the plaintiffs.***** Why would the judge need to "explain" an issue that NO ONE* contested? *No one that matters. The sole known exception is Larry Fafarman (but not DI, not TMLC, not FTE, not the defendants' counsel Russell, not the defendants themselves, not the plaintiffs, and not the Judge).

There is something very fishy about a court opinion using an attorney-client message to condemn the client who received it. Some explanation in the opinion is needed to show to the world that the opinion's treatment of the message as unprivileged was not illegal or unethical.

Something stinks in Missouri

The only thing that you are showing the world is that you and your ilk will stoop lower than a snakes whizzer to try and hide the truth

It was only later that I saw a definition that said that a witness called to the stand by the opposing side is automatically considered "hostile." Apparently all the term means is that the witness can be asked "leading questions" during direct examination. Big deal ---- Buckingham could be asked "leading questions" by the plaintiffs' attorneys during cross examination, too. [Emphasis added.]

Comment #68738 posted by qetzal on January 8, 2006 12:49 PM Larry Fafarman wrote: *****Asking leading questions rudely implies that the witness [i.e. Buckingham] is not forthrightly telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.**** Implying that Buckinham wasn't being honest? I'm shocked, sir. Shocked!

Comment #68722 posted by Alexey Merz on January 8, 2006 11:05 AM Larry Fafarman trolled: *****And my question has still not been satisfactorily answered ---- there is no explanation as to why the defense gave the message to the plaintiffs.***** Why would the judge need to "explain" an issue that NO ONE* contested? *No one that matters. The sole known exception is Larry Fafarman (but not DI, not TMLC, not FTE, not the defendants' counsel Russell, not the defendants themselves, not the plaintiffs, and not the Judge).

There is something very fishy about a court opinion using an attorney-client message to condemn the client who received it. Some explanation in the opinion is needed to show to the world that the opinion's treatment of the message as unprivileged was not illegal or unethical. [Emphasis added.]

Your lying to us Larry
Buckinham lied and you will not admit your side and YOU for that matter are lying.

Big deal ---- Buckingham could be asked "leading questions" by the plaintiffs' attorneys during cross examination, too.

— LarryTheLoser

Larry apparently finds the sheer volume of the trial transcripts from KvD to be so large that he can make a positive argument that it is impossible to know with complete certainty that the transcript does not contain record of an instance where the defense tried to keep the supposedly privileged communication out of the trial but was improperly rebuffed by the judge. He has not read the trial transcript, because why bother? It contains so much information that the only valid attitude toward the question of whether or not a given event might be contained in the transcript is agnosticism.

According to Larry, any argument one might build based on any event which conceivably might have occurred during the trial is therefore a valid one. Pigs can fly--because anyone who claims to have read the entire KvD transcript and states that no pigs flew during the trial either 1) is lying or 2) has attempted to digest so much information that their recollection can not be relied upon to be accurate. It doesn't matter to Larry that if pigs had flown during the trial, it would have changed the course of subsequent events to the point that that event could not possibly been forgotten by anyone associated with the case. Pigs might have flown, and maybe just nobody remembers it. To Larry, this means pigs did fly, and all arguments to the contrary are ruled out a priori.

Don't you think my arguments are exceptionally well-thought-out, well-researched, and convincing? I certainly do.

Don't you think my arguments are exceptionally well-thought-out, well-researched, and convincing? I certainly do.

NO ONE here has ever shown that NO ONE ever contested the treatment of the message as unprivileged.

Q. Now, you also testified that at the late August meeting you gave Jennifer Miller a memo from the city solicitor -- the school district solicitor relating to the issue of Pandas? A. I gave it to everybody at that meeting. Q. And that was the members of the board curriculum committee? A. And the science teachers, yes. Q. And I think you testified that it dealt with the constitutionality of Pandas? A. Yes. MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. Dr. Nilsen, this is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 70, and do you recognize this as the advice from counsel that you distributed at that late August meeting? A. Yes. Q. And if you go through the text of it -- and just take your time to read it -- but the word "Pandas" doesn't appear anywhere in the text, does it? A. No, it does not. Q. And let me represent to you that this is the only legal advice document that's been produced to plaintiffs in this litigation. This is a memo from Steven Russell, the school district solicitor. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And let's look at what is reported here, if we could highlight the first paragraph. What Mr. Russell reports to you, Dr. Nilsen, is that I talked to Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center. There is some talk about why it took awhile to get back to him. And then if you go down after the parentheses, Mr. Russell reports that they refer to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Is that right? A. That's what it says there, yes. Q. That's what Mr. Russell reported to you about his conversation with Mr. Thompson? MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. Mischaracterizes the thrust of the e-mail. THE COURT: Well, it speaks for itself. I'll sustain the objection to the extent that I can read it and it speaks for itself. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. And then going on in the document, it indicates that Thomas More has indicated they would represent the district pro bono, for free? A. Yes. Q. But it also points out that they would not pay any attorneys' fees to plaintiffs if the plaintiffs were to prevail in this lawsuit. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And he explains how that works? A. Yes. Q. And then in the last paragraph, he expresses some concerns, doesn't he? A. Yes. Q. And if we could highlight where it begins, I say this because. I realize it's a little hard to read. He says, It could be difficult to win -- it could be difficult to win a case. I say this because one of the common themes in some of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, especially dealing with silent meditation, is that even though something is voluntary, it still causes a problem because the practice, whatever it may be, was initiated for religious reasons. And he describes another case, and then he says, My concern for Dover is that in the last several years, there's been a lot of discussion, newsprint, et cetera, 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. That's what Mr. Russell told you giving his legal advice in this e-mail he sent to you? A. Yes. Q. And you knew exactly what he meant, didn't you? A. Yes.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 14, AM Session

Q Mr. Rothschild has questioned you at some length about Defendant's -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 70. Would you look at that, please? A Could you tell me what it is? Q Certainly. It's that E-mail. A I have it. Q Rich, would you tell us what was your purpose in sharing that document with the teachers? A To address their concerns about the legality of the Of Pandas and People book. Q You say address, were you trying to allay? A Excuse me? Q When you say address, were you trying to allay? A Yes. Q Mr. Rothschild asked you if the document had a Pandas in it, and you responded it did not. Does the E-mail reference text? A Yes. It references it in two places. In fact, this is an answer to questions that I had conveyed to him. So I think it was pretty much assumed when he was answering my questions what he was referring to. Q Do you have an understanding concerning what text is being referenced? A Yes. Of Pandas and People. Q Mr. Rothschild has pointed out that in that E-mail Mr. Russell points to some difficulties. Did you have a sense for the nature of Mr. Russell's concerns? A Yes. Q What were they? A Media. Q Mr. Rothschild has pointed out that Mr. Russell pointed to some difficulties. Did you have an understanding concerning whether Mr. Russell had said it was unlawful to use these texts? A Nowhere did he say it was unlawful.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 14, PM Session, Part 1

MR. ROTHSCHILD: On the list for cross, Your Honor, we are moving in P-1 -- P-26. We will move in P-44, 53, 54, which are articles, and I think they're reserved for your later ruling. THE COURT: Right. MR. ROTHSCHILD: We're moving in P-70, P-109, P-120, P-752, P-753 and P-758, and P-81. We are not moving in at this time P-757, which was on Liz's list. And I withdrew P-785, so we're not moving that in. THE COURT: And there's no objection to the exhibits as named then? MR. GILLEN: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And I don't think under the -- under Dr. Nilsen's defendants exhibits there were no articles referenced that I can see. So we'll admit then by agreement of counsel, and check me on this so you make sure that I have it, D-1 -- this is as to Dr. Nilsen, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6, D-8, D-14, D-15, D-22, D-23, D-26, D-28, D-30, D-45, D-48, D-51, D-65, D-67, D-63, D-70, D-71, D-81, D-83. D-84 is in controversy, is that correct? MR. GILLEN: It's not being moved, Your Honor. THE COURT: It's not moved -- not being moved then at all? All right, so we're not going to argue that. D-101, D-102, D-103, D-105, D-106, D-127, D-133, D-134, D-135, D-137, D-138, D-139, D-142, D-153, D-172 Bates 359, 360 and 341 only. MR. GILLEN: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is that correct? D-193, D-283 and D-288. Those are defendants exhibits and they are admitted. On cross, plaintiffs exhibits P-26, P-70. We re reserving argument and we will not admit at this time P-44, P-53, P-54. As I noted, P-70 is in. P-109, P-120, P-752, P-753 and P-758 and P-81, all are admitted without objection. Does that cover all of Dr. Nilsen's exhibits? MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes, Your Honor.

— Dover Court Reporter,Day 17, PM Session, Part 1

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.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 18, PM Session, Part 2

Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, you did get a legal opinion about Pandas. Correct? A. Yes. MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. What we've marked as P70, Mr. Baksa, that is an e-mail you received from the school district solicitor, Stephen Russell, or that Dr. Nilsen received? A. Right, Dr. Nilsen received it. Q. And at the curriculum committee meeting at the end of August, this document was circulated to a number of people, including teachers and curriculum committee members. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And this is something you had seen? A. Yes. Q. Now, one of the things that is -- that Mr. Russell says here is that the Thomas More Law Center refers to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Right? MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor, again, just to any characterization of the document. That's Mr. Russell's description of our position, not our own. THE COURT: What's the objection? MR. GILLEN: I just want to make it clear for the record that this is Mr. Russell's description of our position, not anything we told him. Objection, hearsay, is, I guess, it. THE COURT: On your first objection, you're making an argument instead of an objection, and that's not appropriate. You know that. MR. GILLEN: That's correct. THE COURT: You can save that. So that's overruled. Now what's your -- so you default to what? MR. GILLEN: I default to this, that statement by Mr. Russell is hearsay in that he's purporting to characterize whatever he heard from whomever he spoke with at our organization. That's hearsay, and I object to it. MR. ROTHSCHILD: And I want to be -- first of all, we're introducing it for what the board members, teachers, and administrators heard, received from Mr. Russell. I agree that there's hearsay, and I want to be just careful here because Mr. Gillen is going a little bit beyond hearsay and I would suggest testifying here that this is not what they said. And I don't want to make him a witness, and I think there needs to be a remedy of that being stricken, because we don't know that, either. MR. GILLEN: Well, that's what I'm saying. This is his -- basically it's hearsay. I don't know who he spoke to, but he is purporting to repeat something that he heard. I have no knowledge of that, and I don't want that hearsay admitted. THE COURT: Well, you're saying you didn't say it, and now you're saying you didn't have knowledge of it. And what Mr. Rothschild's articulated fear is, is that you're opening the door and potentially waiving a privilege that exists. I don't think you got to that point, but we want to be careful. Now, on the hearsay objection, it appears to me that Mr. Rothschild is introducing this not for the truth but for the impact on the viewer, in this case, Mr. Baksa. I don't take it as fact. MR. GILLEN: Okay. THE COURT: And I don't see that it's being introduced for that purpose. So on the second basis, I'll overrule the objection, and you may proceed. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. So in this e-mail, Mr. Russell reports that the Thomas More Law Center, Mr. Thompson, refers to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Right? That's what he wrote? A. Yes. Q. The first paragraph? A. Yes. Q. And that's something you were aware of around the time of this e-mail. Correct? A. Yes. Q. August 26th, 2004? A. Yes. Q. And then there is discussion of a textbook here, and you understand that to be Pandas. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And what Mr. Russell reports from Thomas More is that there's been discussions about possible litigation, nothing has come about, this suggests to me that no one is adopting the textbook. And then he says, Because if they were, one can safely assume there would have been a legal challenge by someone somewhere. Correct? A. Yeah. Can you show -- Q. This is all in the first paragraph. A. Okay. Q. If you need to take a minute, I don't mean to rush you through the document. I'm just trying to rush us through the trial. THE COURT: Why rush now? MR. ROTHSCHILD: You know, I talked about pressure, there's a little from home. THE WITNESS: Okay. I agree. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. And certainly Mr. Russell, from his own standpoint, is nowhere suggesting that using Pandas in a public school classroom would be legal or constitutional. Correct? A. You're asking me whether he thinks it would be legal? Q. I'm just asking you to look at what he said here, and nowhere there is he conveying to the readers of this e-mail that using Pandas is legal or constitutional. Correct? A. I don't see where he's clearly saying that it's illegal. Q. I agree with you, he's not saying it's illegal. Right? A. Right. Q. But he's also not saying it's legal or constitutional. Correct? A. I don't think you'd ever get a lawyer to go out on a limb like that, and I think that's why Mr. Russell clearly explains, you know, what legal challenges there might be to the book and for us to consider the use of the book and how the book might be challenged. He's not giving it a -- you know, a totally green light, but he's cautiously advising the board to consider these matters in consideration of use of the book. Q. There's certainly nothing in here that the board or the district could rely upon and take comfort that using the book is constitutional. Correct? A. Well, this was provided to the board for them to be able to make a decision about the use of the book, and their interpretation and comfort level with the language that Mr. Russell provided, I'm not aware of that. Q. Okay. But from your own standpoint, you don't see anything in this document that someone choosing to add the book to the curriculum could rely upon and take comfort that what they're doing is legal. Correct? A. Well, again, I don't think it clearly says it's illegal. It says to consider these matters if you were to use the book, you know, that he hasn't found any litigation with the book or its use. Q. There's nothing positive in here, is there, Mr. Baksa? There's nothing that a reader could say, we're going to be okay if we use this book? I agree with you it's not saying it's illegal, but there's nothing positive saying, you know, you'll be fine or we think you'll be fine or anything anywhere close to that. Correct? A. I would characterize this as Mr. Russell advising caution in using the book. Q. And, in fact, if you go down to the bottom of the document, he's expressing concerns over a lawsuit that the Dover School District might face. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And the reason he's concerned is, as he says in the last sentence of the last large paragraph is, that the last several years there has been a lot of discussion, news print, et cetera, for putting religion back in the schools. Right? A. Yes. Q. And you knew what he was talking about, didn't you? A. Yes.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 19, PM Session, Part 2

Matt could you pull up P70. The district solicitor, Stephen Russell, sent this e-mail to Richard Nilsen advising Dr. Nilsen and eventually the board members who received this e-mail that, quote, Thomas More refers to the creationism issue as intelligent design. You can take that down, Matt. Thank you.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 21, PM Session, Part 2

Thank you, Kevin. That was far above and beyond the call of duty.

and it's not going to work.

No, I don't think it is. As Larry has pointed out already, in the Fafarcentric Larryverse facts are without effect.

Q. Now, let's talk for just a minute about not the substance but the circumstances of your conversations with Mr. Cooper of The Discovery Institute. After he called you, he introduced himself on the phone, didn't he? A. Yes, he did. Q. And the first thing you said to him was that you wanted legal advice, isn't that true? A. I don't know if that was the first thing I said, because I didn't know who or what he was. Q. Well, if you look again at the March 31st deposition transcript, on page 35? A. I'm there. THE COURT: Mr. Harvey, within about five minutes if we could take a break? MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor, I'll have a logical stopping point. THE COURT: That's what I wanted. That's fine, thank you. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Let's start on page 34, line 4: " QUESTION: What did you talk about with Mr. Cooper? ANSWER: He explained to me he was an attorney, and I know when I found out he was an attorney I wanted to get legal advice as far as he could provide as far as intelligent design was concerned, and we talked about intelligent design and we talked about the gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution. QUESTION: Did he offer legal advice when he called that first time? ANSWER: Yes, he offered to represent us. QUESTION: Was that the first thing he said? ANSWER: That was not the first thing he said, no. The first thing he said obviously was, 'Hello, my name is Seth Cooper, and I'm an attorney with The Discovery Institute. This is what we're all about.'" ( LAUGHTER FROM SPECTATOR GALLERY.) A. When you started reading I hadn't gotten to the page yet. I'm sorry, I'm lost where, I'm not where you are. Q. Please go to page 34. A. I'm there. I wasn't there when you started reading because -- Q. I apologize. It's disconcerting to hear laughter and not knowing what everyone is laughing about. Page 34, line 4. A. Okay. Q. Didn't I ask, didn't Mr. Rothschild ask you the following questions and you give the following answers: " QUESTION: What did you talk about with Mr. Cooper? ANSWER: He explained that he was an attorney, and I know when I found out he was an attorney, I wanted to get legal advice as far as he could provide as far as intelligent design was concerned, and we talked about intelligent design and we talked about the gaps in Darwin's theories of evolution. QUESTION: Did he offer legal advice when he called that first time? ANSWER: Yes, he offered to represent us. QUESTION: Was that the first thing he said? ANSWER: That was not the first thing he said, no. The first thing he said obviously was you was, 'Hello, may name is Seth Cooper, and I'm an attorney with The Discovery Institute. This is what we are all about.' Don't ask me, I don't remember anymore. I said, 'Great, I could stand to talk to an attorney right now.' I said, 'Here's what's going on,' I see, 'Legally how do you see us?' And he told me at that time that..." And your counsel interjected so that you wouldn't disclose potentially privileged material, and then the next question was. " QUESTION: Was the first thing after the pleasantries, the first thing you said in response to his introduction was, 'I want legal advice'? ANSWER: To that effect, yes." Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And that was the testimony you gave then on March 31st? A. Yes. Q. And everything you talked about with Mr. Cooper had to do with the legality of intelligent design and the legalities of Darwin's theory and the legalities of teaching the gaps in Darwin's theory, isn't that correct, Mr. Buckingham? A. Would you say that again? Q. Sure. Everything you talked about with Mr. Cooper of The Discovery Institute had to do with the legalities of intelligent design and the legalities of Darwin's theory and the legalities of teaching gaps in Darwin's theory, isn't that true, Mr. Buckingham? A. That was part of it, but he also gave me some background of what intelligent design was. Q. Well, he didn't give you any advice other than legal advice, did he? A. Not that I recall. Q. And you didn't ask him for any kind of advice other than legal advice, isn't that true? A. We got into intelligent design and what it was. How long was that? We didn't talk that long. Q. The question was you didn't ask him for any other advice other than legal advice, isn't that correct? MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. I simply think the question is unclear in that there's a distinction being posited between the legal advice and the discussion of intelligent design, and it appears to me that they were discussed together. If Mr. Harvey can make that clear, then I think the witness can answer the question. MR. HARVEY: This was the basis for Mr. Gillen's claim of privilege when we sought to inquire of this witness at his deposition about his communications with The Discovery Institute. They claimed that they were seeking legal advice and only legal advice, and they received legal advice and only legal advice, and on that basis they asserted the privilege, and I'm just establishing here that that indeed is the fact. THE COURT: Well, is the privilege being asserted? MR. GILLEN: Yes, that's my purpose here is to ensure that the question is clear so that Mr. Buckingham doesn't -- as they state, it is my understanding that the deposition testimony substantiates that this discussion did take place, there was discussion of intelligent design and the law, but they were inextricably interwoven, and that's -- THE COURT: Well, I don't think the question was unclear, Mr. Gillen. It wasn't unclear to me. Do you want to read it back, Wes, please? (The record was read back by the reporter.) THE COURT: You can answer the question, sir. The objection is overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. In other words, you didn't seek any other type of advice other than legal advice. That's a true statement, correct, what I just said? A. That's true, but also woven there was discussion on intelligent design. Q. Well, he didn't give you any kind of advice other than legal advice, did he? Or are you telling us now that he did give you some other advice other than legal advice? A. I think it was part and parcel legal advice, but intelligent design was part of it. Q. That's what we discussed before, you discussed the legalities of intelligent design, correct? A. Along with what it was. Q. And he didn't give you any kind of advice about that other than legal advice, isn't that correct? A. Well, what contemplates legal advice? I don't understand that. It's -- Q. Well, at your deposition you told us that he didn't give you any kind of advice other than legal advice. Isn't that true, Mr. Buckingham? A. If you include intelligent design in there, yes, that's true. Q. Well, just I guess we should be clear here, let's go to page 35 of your March 31st transcript. A. I'm there. Q. Line 5. Are you there? A. Yes, sir. Q. "Did you ask for any advice other than legal advice?" That was the question. " ANSWER: Everything we talked had to do with legalities of intelligent design and Darwin's theory and the gaps. That was about it. QUESTION: It was only about the legalities of Darwin's theory? ANSWER: That's not what I said. I said the legality of Darwin's theory, gaps, teaching the gaps, and intelligent design being put into the curriculum." That was the testimony you gave on that day, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. And you talked with Mr. Cooper of The Discovery Institute several more times after that? A. We might have had two more, they were real quick discussions. There wasn't much to them. Q. And at least some of those calls were between the June meetings and the October 18th meeting? A. I don't remember when they were. Q. Well, all of the calls that you had with Mr. Cooper concerned legal advice, isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. And he never gave you any kind of educational advice, did he? A. Woven in amongst the legal advice was a discussion of what intelligent design was. Again, what is legal advice? Q. If you'd please go to page 38 of your March 31st transcript? A. I'm there. Q. Beginning on page 38, line 4: " QUESTION: In those subsequent phone calls, were they like the first phone call, always for legal advice? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: You were always asking for legal advice? ANSWER: It was my understanding that once we had a legal advice umbrella so to speak, our calls were under that umbrella. QUESTION: Did you understand the actual advice he was giving to be legal advice? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: He didn't give you restaurant recommendations? ANSWER: No. QUESTION: And even into the discussion of the curriculum issue you always understood that to be legal advice? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: Not educational advice? ANSWER: No." That was your testimony, wasn't it? A. Yes. MY HARVEY: And I just have one or more two questions, Your Honor, before we go to break. THE COURT: Go ahead. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. And you recall that your attorneys at that deposition would not permit us to discover the substance of your communications with The Discovery Institute on the grounds of attorney client privilege between Mr. Cooper of The Discovery Institute and you as a member of the Dover area school district board of directors and head of its curriculum committee, do you remember that? A. Yes.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 16, AM Session, Part 2

Q. Now, I'd like to talk to you about the Thomas More Law Center for just a couple minutes. Unlike the Discovery Institute, which contacted you, you contacted the Thomas More Law Center. Correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. And do you recall when that call was made? A. No, I don't. Q. Well, let's see if we can place the time of that. Thomas More Law Center were the people who first told you about the textbook Of Pandas and People. True? A. Yes. Q. And you knew about the textbook Of Pandas and People in late July of 2005. Isn't that correct? A. Yeah, that would be true. That's this year. Q. I just misspoke, I could hear from the whisperings of counsel behind me. I said late July of -- I meant to say late July of 2004. A. Yes. Q. So since you knew about the textbook Of Pandas and People in late July of 2004, that means that you must have spoken to the Thomas More Law Center before then. Isn't that correct? A. I'm not sure when I spoke to them. Q. Well, you told us earlier that you learned about the textbook Pandas from the Thomas More Law Center. A. Yes. Q. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And you clearly knew about the textbook Pandas in late July of 2004. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And so you must have spoken to the Thomas More Law Center before then. Right? A. Okay. Q. And the person you spoke to at the Thomas More Law Center was Richard Thompson? A. Yes. Q. And all of your calls were with Mr. Thompson? A. Yes. Q. And your purpose in calling Thomas More was to seek legal advice? A. Yes. Q. And you had no other purpose. Correct? A. That's true. Q. And, in fact, you did receive legal advice from the Thomas More Law Center? A. Yes. Q. And you did not receive any other advice, correct, nothing other than legal advice? A. I didn't hear what you said. Q. You received no advice from the Thomas More Law Center other than legal advice. Isn't that true? A. Except for them letting me know that the book -- MR. GILLEN: Excuse me, Your Honor, objection. May I just -- for the witness's benefit, may I make clear that he shouldn't disclose any legal communications in his testimony so he doesn't waive any privilege. And forgive me, Steve, for interrupting you. I just want to make sure that he observes the line. MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, they have asserted the privilege, and we're not challenging the privilege. THE COURT: Well, as the privilege related to the communications with counsel for the Discovery Institute, as I understood it, there was a claim that it was so inextricably intertwined that you couldn't get into any of the nonlegal advice. Now, what's your intention here? MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, I intend to establish that the only advice that they got was legal advice and that they wouldn't let us discover any of their communications except for the fact that he got -- he learned of Pandas. THE COURT: So you're offering it for the same purpose? MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor. MR. GILLEN: And I withdraw the objection then. I didn't mean to slight Steve. I just wanted to make that clear. THE COURT: No, I understand that. And I think in terms of any spontaneous answer that you think gets to or gets into the privilege, you can renew that, or I'll stop the witness at that point. So you can proceed. MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Just to be clear, Mr. Buckingham, as we've already established, as we've already established, you learned about the book Pandas from Thomas More Law Center. Right? A. Yes. Q. And other than that, the only other advice that you got from the Thomas More Law Center was legal advice. Correct? A. That's true. Q. And you told the board that you had been in contact with the Thomas More Law Center and that it would represent the board if the board were sued. Isn't that true? A. I don't know that I used those words. I told them that the Thomas More Law Center agreed to assist us free of charge in the event we needed their assistance in this matter. Q. And somewhere early in the process in your conversations with Thomas More Law Center, they told you that they would represent the board if it got sued. Isn't that true? A. Again, they told me they would give us legal help if it became necessary free of charge. I don't know if "got sued" was used. Q. Okay. And you accepted the offer from the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of the board. Isn't that true? A. I gave -- yes, yes. Q. Now, that occurred -- your acceptance of the offer of assistance from the Thomas More Law Center, that occurred very early on in your conversations with the Thomas More Law Center? A. Yes, it did. Q. And then later, in December of 2004, the Thomas More Law Center was formally engaged to be the counsel for the board in this litigation. Correct? A. What time frame did you give us? Q. I said December, 2004. A. December of 2004 I wasn't there. Q. Right, but you know that the board formally engaged the Thomas More Law Center to assist in this litigation in December, 2004. Even though you weren't at that meeting, you knew that. Right? A. I knew it was formally engaged. I didn't know exactly when because I wasn't at any of the meetings in December. Q. And between the time that you first talked to Thomas More Law Center and the time the Thomas More Law Center was formally engaged, you talked to them approximately four to five times? A. Are you saying 45 or four to five? Q. I meant four to five times. A. I'm not sure how many times I talked to them. Q. Well, why don't you -- let me ask you a separate question. Between the first time that you talked to Thomas More Law Center and October 18th, how many times did you talk to Thomas More Law Center? A. Don't know. Q. It was at least several times. Correct? A. I don't know. Q. Well, you said at your deposition that you talked to them two to four times prior to October 18th. Do you recall that? A. No, I don't. Q. Well, take a look at Page 120 of your January 3rd deposition. A. I'm there. Q. And if you look at Page 120, Line 19, Question: How many times prior to October 18th did you talk to anyone from the Thomas More Law Center? And then there was an objection. And the answer: Maybe two, three, three times, maybe four. Do you see that? A. Again, I wasn't sure there either. That's why I answered it that way. Q. But it was two or more times. Correct? A. I'm not sure. Q. And all the calls and all the communications that you had with Thomas More Law Center were about -- were all about seeking legal advice. Correct? A. That's true. Q. And you didn't get any other kind of advice? A. No, sir. Q. And, in fact, your attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center prevented the plaintiffs in this case from discovering the substance of the communications that you and the board had with Thomas More Law Center by asserting the attorney-client privilege. Do you recall that? A. Yes.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 16, PM Session, Part 1

A I had said they should be fired, and everyone misunderstood. Jeff Brown was saying, if "they," meaning the teachers, are sued, then "they" should be able to use our lawyers. So then I had said well, if "they" are sued, meaning the teachers, then "they" should be fired, meaning the solicitors, because they had told us, the solicitors had told us what we were doing was okay. Q Let's not get too much into that because I don t want to get bogged down in claims that might be privileged. But was your statement misunderstood?

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 17, PM Session, Part 1

Q. Now, if we could go to Exhibit 20, which are additional notes from this meeting. The middle of the page you have a note that Bill would like both taught, he wants intelligent design taught. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And you also have right above that as a to-do item, Opinion on intelligent design. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And what you mean by that is a legal opinion. Right? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And you eventually did receive an e-mail with a legal opinion from the school solicitor. Correct? A. Well, the e-mail that we've already presented here deals with Of Pandas. I did send the solicitor the curriculum language that included intelligent design, and I don't think I got -- I remember talking to him about it. Q. We have to be careful here. MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Eric. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: You don't want to get into what you were told by counsel, and that's not what Mr. Rothschild's question was. And it's perfectly all right for you not to get into an area that's privileged. And I'll listen for an objection, but with that clarification, why don't you rephrase or get another question on the floor. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. We'll talk about the e-mail memo later, but let me just move on.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 19, PM Session, Part 2

Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, you did get a legal opinion about Pandas. Correct? A. Yes. MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. What we've marked as P70, Mr. Baksa, that is an e-mail you received from the school district solicitor, Stephen Russell, or that Dr. Nilsen received? A. Right, Dr. Nilsen received it. Q. And at the curriculum committee meeting at the end of August, this document was circulated to a number of people, including teachers and curriculum committee members. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And this is something you had seen? A. Yes. Q. Now, one of the things that is -- that Mr. Russell says here is that the Thomas More Law Center refers to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Right? MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor, again, just to any characterization of the document. That's Mr. Russell's description of our position, not our own. THE COURT: What's the objection? MR. GILLEN: I just want to make it clear for the record that this is Mr. Russell's description of our position, not anything we told him. Objection, hearsay, is, I guess, it. THE COURT: On your first objection, you're making an argument instead of an objection, and that's not appropriate. You know that. MR. GILLEN: That's correct. THE COURT: You can save that. So that's overruled. Now what's your -- so you default to what? MR. GILLEN: I default to this, that statement by Mr. Russell is hearsay in that he's purporting to characterize whatever he heard from whomever he spoke with at our organization. That's hearsay, and I object to it. MR. ROTHSCHILD: And I want to be -- first of all, we're introducing it for what the board members, teachers, and administrators heard, received from Mr. Russell. I agree that there's hearsay, and I want to be just careful here because Mr. Gillen is going a little bit beyond hearsay and I would suggest testifying here that this is not what they said. And I don't want to make him a witness, and I think there needs to be a remedy of that being stricken, because we don't know that, either. MR. GILLEN: Well, that's what I'm saying. This is his -- basically it's hearsay. I don't know who he spoke to, but he is purporting to repeat something that he heard. I have no knowledge of that, and I don't want that hearsay admitted. THE COURT: Well, you're saying you didn't say it, and now you're saying you didn't have knowledge of it. And what Mr. Rothschild's articulated fear is, is that you're opening the door and potentially waiving a privilege that exists. I don't think you got to that point, but we want to be careful. Now, on the hearsay objection, it appears to me that Mr. Rothschild is introducing this not for the truth but for the impact on the viewer, in this case, Mr. Baksa. I don't take it as fact. MR. GILLEN: Okay. THE COURT: And I don't see that it's being introduced for that purpose. So on the second basis, I'll overrule the objection, and you may proceed. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. So in this e-mail, Mr. Russell reports that the Thomas More Law Center, Mr. Thompson, refers to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Right? That's what he wrote? A. Yes. Q. The first paragraph? A. Yes. Q. And that's something you were aware of around the time of this e-mail. Correct? A. Yes. Q. August 26th, 2004? A. Yes. Q. And then there is discussion of a textbook here, and you understand that to be Pandas. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And what Mr. Russell reports from Thomas More is that there's been discussions about possible litigation, nothing has come about, this suggests to me that no one is adopting the textbook. And then he says, Because if they were, one can safely assume there would have been a legal challenge by someone somewhere. Correct? A. Yeah. Can you show -- Q. This is all in the first paragraph. A. Okay. Q. If you need to take a minute, I don't mean to rush you through the document. I'm just trying to rush us through the trial. THE COURT: Why rush now? MR. ROTHSCHILD: You know, I talked about pressure, there's a little from home. THE WITNESS: Okay. I agree. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q. And certainly Mr. Russell, from his own standpoint, is nowhere suggesting that using Pandas in a public school classroom would be legal or constitutional. Correct? A. You're asking me whether he thinks it would be legal? Q. I'm just asking you to look at what he said here, and nowhere there is he conveying to the readers of this e-mail that using Pandas is legal or constitutional. Correct? A. I don't see where he's clearly saying that it's illegal. Q. I agree with you, he's not saying it's illegal. Right? A. Right. Q. But he's also not saying it's legal or constitutional. Correct? A. I don't think you'd ever get a lawyer to go out on a limb like that, and I think that's why Mr. Russell clearly explains, you know, what legal challenges there might be to the book and for us to consider the use of the book and how the book might be challenged. He's not giving it a -- you know, a totally green light, but he's cautiously advising the board to consider these matters in consideration of use of the book. Q. There's certainly nothing in here that the board or the district could rely upon and take comfort that using the book is constitutional. Correct? A. Well, this was provided to the board for them to be able to make a decision about the use of the book, and their interpretation and comfort level with the language that Mr. Russell provided, I'm not aware of that. Q. Okay. But from your own standpoint, you don't see anything in this document that someone choosing to add the book to the curriculum could rely upon and take comfort that what they're doing is legal. Correct? A. Well, again, I don't think it clearly says it's illegal. It says to consider these matters if you were to use the book, you know, that he hasn't found any litigation with the book or its use. Q. There's nothing positive in here, is there, Mr. Baksa? There's nothing that a reader could say, we're going to be okay if we use this book? I agree with you it's not saying it's illegal, but there's nothing positive saying, you know, you'll be fine or we think you'll be fine or anything anywhere close to that. Correct? A. I would characterize this as Mr. Russell advising caution in using the book. Q. And, in fact, if you go down to the bottom of the document, he's expressing concerns over a lawsuit that the Dover School District might face. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And the reason he's concerned is, as he says in the last sentence of the last large paragraph is, that the last several years there has been a lot of discussion, news print, et cetera, for putting religion back in the schools. Right? A. Yes. Q. And you knew what he was talking about, didn't you? A. Yes.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 19, PM Session, Part 2

Q Mr. Baksa, did you meet with counsel last night to discuss the testimony you had given in prior days or to discuss the testimony you would give today? A Yes. Q For how long did you meet? A We met over dinner. Q And did you discuss the testimony you had rendered over the prior days? MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. I don't -- he can say whether we meet, he can't ask how long -- THE COURT: That's a yes or no question. You may answer the question. The objection is overruled to the extent that the witness can answer yes or no. The objection, so you understand, Mr. Baksa, went to what was the substance of your discussion. But you may answer yes or no whether you discussed your testimony with Mr. Gillen. THE WITNESS: From yesterday? MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q And did you discuss the questions he would ask you today on -- MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. He's not allowed to inquire into what we talked about. And what's more, it's my client, so whatever -- whatever I do to advise him is legal advice. MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, again, it is a yes/no question. And furthermore, it is my view that it is what is improper to meet with Mr. Baksa while he was on cross, just as it was improper to meet with Mr. Bonsell after his cross was concluded. THE COURT: Well, you've made that point. I understand that point, and that's for me to do with what I need to do with. But setting that on the side burner for the moment, the issue of whether they discussed his questions today may traipse over into the privilege. MR. ROTHSCHILD: I think a yes/no answer to that question does not, Your Honor. That would be my position. THE COURT: No, I'm going to sustain the objection, but I note your point.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 20, AM Session, Part 1

Stick a fork in it, folks, this thread is done.

NO ONE here has ever shown that NO ONE ever contested the treatment of the message as unprivileged. There is something very fishy about a court opinion using an attorney-client message to condemn the client who received it. Some explanation in the opinion is needed to show to the world that the opinion's treatment of the message as unprivileged was not illegal or unethical.

Upon examining the quotes above, several points about this whole issue are apparent.

First, the defense asserted privilege on communications between the Board members and two organizations, the DI and the TMLC on the basis of legal advice. Also, they asserted privilege on communications between the solicitor, with the sole exception of the memo in question. The only legal advice, in fact, that they did not assert privilege was the memo.

Second, the plaintiffs in general attempted to be cautious when entering areas that the privilege could be asserted, several times warning witnesses not to accidentally waive the privilege. When witnesses did approach violating the privilege, defense was quick and zealous to object.

Third, the memo was admitted as evidence as Plaintiff Exhibit 70 (P70) with no objections from the defense at any point. The only objections raised while the memo was being discussed was that a portion involving contact between the solicitor and the TMLC was considered hearsay (and therefore could not be construed to support an assertion about the TMLC's view on the relationship between creationism and ID). The defense had ample time to object to the memo being admitted as evidence, as it was presented as an exhibit several times prior to the motion to admit.

Fourth, both the plaintiffs and the defense made reference to the memo as supporting evidence in their Statement of the Facts reports issued after the trial. See Section M of the plaintiffs report and paragraph 325 under the heading "August 27, 2004 Meeting of BCC Regarding of Pandas" (part 3 of the report). Again, defense did not in any way attempt to assert privilege.

Fifth, both during trial and post trial, the position of the defense was that the memo addressed liability, specifically that the board interpreted the memo to say that the district would not be liable.

Sixth, the email was distributed freely to persons known to be hostile to the nascent policy as evidence in support of the proposed policy. These persons were not board members, nor were they able to vote on the policy in question. This distribution was administeres prior to the discovery phase of the trial, in fact before a complaint was issued, and as such is not covered by "accidental disclosure".

NEWS BREAK
I believe I have just discovered how the plaintiffs obtained the memo. Back in a few as I document it.

Not yet! I just discovered how the plaintiffs got the memo! Back in a few as I document it.

Q. You remember Bert providing information to the effect that she thought indicated the teaching of intelligent design was illegal? A. She had papers with her. I don't know if they were her thoughts, but there were papers that she had gotten from the Internet, correct. Q. And she communicated that information to the board? A. Correct. Q. She also expressed concern again for untenured teachers? A. Yes. Q. There was a back and forth between Mrs. Spahr and the board members about that issue, correct? A. I think so, yes. Q. And the nature of it was essentially this, the board was saying, you're telling us it's illegal, and we're hearing that we can present this legally, correct? A. Yes. Q. At that time, you got the sense that Alan Bonsell was viewing intelligent design and creationism as two different things, correct? A. I would say so, yes. Q. And in connection with these meetings, Dr. Nilsen distributed an opinion from the district solicitor, Stock and Leader? A. Yes. Q. To the effect that intelligent design could be presented legally, correct? A. Re-reading that, I'm not -- it was a lot of legal jargon, so I'm not exactly sure what that memo said, but, yeah, it was handed out, and I was very confused to what it said even to this day. Q. Sure. I wouldn't hold you to any legal conclusion. But you remember the opinion being passed out to the persons present at the meeting, correct? A. Yes, I do remember that opinion being passed out, yes. Q. With reference to Mr. Bonsell's belief that intelligent design could be presented legally in a biology classroom, you had the impression that Bill Buckingham shared that view, correct? A. Yes. Q. Casey Brown, on the other hand, seemed concerned that there was a gray area there concerning whether intelligent design might be considered creationism, correct? A. Yes.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 7, PM Session, Part 1

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Gillen. Redirect. Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: During cross examination, Mr. Gillen mentioned a document, an opinion letter from the solicitor. I wonder, before I begin my questioning, whether I could see a copy of that document. MR. GILLEN: If I can find it. Can we take a minute? THE COURT: Sure. Do you need it for redirect? MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor -- MR. GILLEN: It's hard to know until he sees it. While Mr. Schmidt proceeds, I'll look for it, Judge. THE COURT: Why don't you start. We're putting inordinate pressure on Mr. Gillen to find something. MR. SCHMIDT: I don't mean to do that. THE COURT: And it's much harder when everyone in the courtroom is focusing on your efforts. So we'll take the spotlight off Mr. Gillen, and we'll go to Mr. Schmidt, and we'll start redirect, and we'll see if he can locate it. MR. SCHMIDT: All right.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 7, PM Session, Part 1

Q. You were asked by Mr. Gillen about Bert Spahr's concerns with the teaching of intelligent design and it's legality? A. Right. Q. And I think he asked you whether she was concerned about several untenured teachers? A. Yes. Q. Were you concerned about the legality of teaching intelligent design? A. Yes. Q. Were you the subject of your own concern, if you will, even though you are a tenured teacher? A. Absolutely. Q. Did you have any concern for the students who were going to be in your biology class? A. Yes. As I said this morning, I know a comment has been made that we're only mentioning it, but I'm a teacher, and everything I do in my classroom is teaching. If I don't make my students listen to the morning announcements, and I let them talk over the morning announcements, I'm not saying a word, but I'm conveying to them, I'm teaching them that it's not important to listen to the morning announcements. So even by us reading it, I was concerned, again because there's, to me, I was uncomfortable mentioning it because I know that creationism can't be taught. So I was wondering, you know, this is a gray area. Of course, this is the first time it's being tested. So me on the front line, me saying it, I was concerned of what that meant for me legally. Q. Can you think of any other situation in your experience at Dover Area High School where you were required to read a statement to students about what they were going to be taught? A. No. Q. Can you think of any other situation at the Dover Area High School where you were instructed to tell students that you would mention something, but you weren't permitted to expand on what you mentioned or answer any questions about it? A. No. Q. Did that bother you as a teacher? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Again, I'm the teacher in the classroom. If students have questions, I feel like they can come to me to get answers. And, again, it put me in a situation where things that I had done in the past, I was unsure if I was to continue to do those. I was unsure of what I could and could not say in my classroom. Q. Is that why you were troubled by the note at the bottom of the curriculum that said, origins of life will not be taught? A. Yes. Q. Because you had been able to respond to students before, even if that was not a formal part of your teaching? A. I think that I asked the question at one of our meetings about, I have my students do current events in science, and someone brought in a current event on a new fossil discovery of man. And I didn't know if I was allowed to discuss that because, to me, that hit on origins of life. Q. When you asked for guidance from either the board or administration on that question, were you given a response? A. I was given a current events policy from Mr. Baksa. MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, back to the document. I don't know whether the opinion's been found. MR. GILLEN: Yes. Under the reduced pressure produced by your sage directive, Your Honor, I found it. It was part of the Miller deposition exhibits, Exhibit 5, and is an e-mail from Steve Russell to Richard Nilsen, dated August 26th, 2004, which I gladly turn over to Mr. Schmidt. THE COURT: Take a look at it and see if that raises any additional redirect.

— Dover Court Reporter, Day 7, PM Session, Part 1

For clarification, it was Jen Miller, not Ken Miller (no relation).

Hand that drowning lying pr*ck Larry a lead weight he asked for it

Comment #68848 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 8, 2006 09:18 PM Not yet! I just discovered how the plaintiffs got the memo! Back in a few as I document it. Comment #68854 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on January 8, 2006 09:34 PM Not as conclusive as I had hoped. It is Exhibit 5 of the Miller deposition, which I don't have access to, nor do I whether the plaintiff or the defense entered it as an exhibit in the deposition. It brings up an interesting point though. The defense was the first to mention it in trial, even though it was indirect (the reason I missed it earlier), and they knew about it prior to trial.

Comment #68827 posted by bill Farrell on January 8, 2006 08:06 PM Stick a fork in it, folks, this thread is done.

Anyway, I think

maybe I will email the defense attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center telling them that we are having this big controversy over the question of the message's privilege and asking them if they can help us.

Comment #68745 posted by Alexey Merz on January 8, 2006 01:32 PM Larry typed: *****It was only later that I saw a definition that said that a witness called to the stand by the opposing side is automatically considered "hostile." Apparently all the term means is that the witness can be asked "leading questions" during direct examination. Big deal ---- Buckingham could be asked "leading questions" by the plaintiffs' attorneys during cross examination, too. [Emphasis added.]***** The plaintiffs had no opportunity to cross examine Buckingham, because the TMLC was not stupid enough to call Buckingham as a witness for the defense. Does Fafarman's bull5hit never end?

So after hours of searching the trial transcripts, you have not been able to come up with conclusive answers to my questions.

Ya can lead a horse to water....

Are you sure?

How do you do know that Buckingham was never called to the stand by the defense?

Did you thoroughly check that out?

And how was I supposed to know that?

Are you sure?

How do you do know that Buckingham was never called to the stand by the defense?

Did you thoroughly check that out?

And how was I supposed to know that?

I feel that Buckingham has been unjustly defamed by calling him a "hostile witness."

Furthermore, the term "hostile witness" is just meaningless legal jargon.

Are you sure?

How do you do know that Buckingham was never called to the stand by the defense?

Did you thoroughly check that out?

And how was I supposed to know that?

By the above definition, the mere fact that the plaintiffs' attorneys called Buckingham to the stand did not make him a hostile witness by legal definition.

Comment #68870 posted by k.e. on January 8, 2006 10:48 PM Hand that drowning lying pr*ck Larry a lead weight he asked for it

LOL Who is "drowning"? And who is lying? After hours of searching, you guys could not come up with any proof or evidence to support your claim that the defendants/defense never tried to assert privilege for the attorney-client message.

Work's going to be insane this week and then I'll be on the road for a few days, so I'm done with this thread. I'm kind of hoping that by the time I return it will have flamed out. Have fun, see you all at the 'Thumb.

Comment #68890 posted by Alexey Merz on January 9, 2006 01:51 AM *****By the above definition, the mere fact that the plaintiffs' attorneys called Buckingham to the stand did not make him a hostile witness by legal definition.***** The definition you want is the one from the Federal Rules of Evidence, not a legal dictionary. You posted the URL for an online version of the FRE, and even quoted from related text. This indicates that you are quote mining.

I learned, for example, is that William Buckingham, one of the school board's leading advocates of ID, did not know beans about ID.

Right again, Larry. Attorneys shout "ob-JEC-tion", and they also mine quotes, from the old quote mine, down by the old swimmin' hole...

Why should anyone here "show" you what quote mining means? You wouldn't believe what they tell you. By the way, a true ID advocate might not recognise the term if they've never been on the internets before, but they would be well versed in what it is that quote mining is.

A ten day troll -- wow.

I love how Columbo here is trying to figure out how the defendants could have done something so dumb as release the so-called priveleged message: hmm yes, they couldn't have just done something so stupid for no reason, there's got to be more to it!

Maybe there is... The school board did one dumb thing after another, starting with trying to add ID to the science curriculum. They went against their attorney's advice and opened themselves up to having to pay court costs, they lied under oath. They thought they could either just scam their way into the science standards, or somehow circumvent the separation of church and state. They probably thought that none of that stuff would matter because there'd probably be a conservative judge on the bench and he'd just squeak 'em through. That's it! The defendants did nothing but dumb things! There's just no accounting for dumb. There's no explaining dumb besides dumb. Can Larry not see the forest for the trees?

Can Larry not see the forest for the trees?

Comment #68906 posted by Ubernatural on January 9, 2006 04:01 AM Why should anyone here "show" you what quote mining means? You wouldn't believe what they tell you. By the way, a true ID advocate might not recognise the term if they've never been on the internets before, but they would be well versed in what it is that quote mining is.

Comment #68889 posted by Alexey Merz on January 9, 2006 01:35 AM Many of us on this and other threads have gently and not so gently suggested that you might want to take the trouble to become informed before you spewed more bull5hit*. Unfortunately, you have declined every opportunity to avoid making a fool of yourself. ( * "Bull5hit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about." -Harry Frankfurt)

Don't you people ever tire of making unreasonable attacks on me, after I repeatedly show that your attacks are uncalled-for?

Comment #68913 Posted by Ubernatural on January 9, 2006 04:33 AM I love how Columbo here is trying to figure out how the defendants could have done something so dumb as release the so-called priveleged message: hmm yes, they couldn't have just done something so stupid for no reason, there's got to be more to it! Maybe there is... The school board did one dumb thing after another, starting with trying to add ID to the science curriculum.

Comment #68923 posted by Eugene Lai on January 9, 2006 05:58 AM ****Don't you people ever tire of making unreasonable attacks on me, after I repeatedly show that your attacks are uncalled-for?**** Be glad. You'd be banned on most other blogs by now. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Yes, the defendants and the defense made a lot of mistakes in addition to failing to protect the message's privilege ---

If I am banned, I will just come back under a pseudonym.

What better way to start off the workweek than with some humor: "If the defendants and the defense had not made these [seven] mistakes, they still might have lost, but the loss probably would not have been as bad."

LOL. I love ID.

Comment #68969 Posted by steve s on January 9, 2006 08:53 AM What better way to start off the workweek than with some humor: "If the defendants and the defense had not made these [seven] mistakes, they still might have lost, but the loss probably would not have been as bad."

Well, considering the obvious bias of the judge, I would say that that is a true statement.

I think Judge Jones was biased too! I think he was favorably biase towards ID.

That ID is such a poor excuse for ... well ... just about everything (religion, science, philosphy, etc.) is the reason it lost.

Larry,
You are completely unreasonable. You claimed that using the e-mail breached confidentiality, so it is your job to show how this is the case.

It is a lot more difficult to show somebody never ever did something than they did.

Supposing I claimed that apples can grow on orange trees. To prove my case I would only need to provide evidence of 1 orange tree giving fruit to an apple. To disprove it would require proof that every orange tree that ever existed never gave fruit to apples.

You are arguing that apples can grow on orange trees and expecting someone else to do your job (providing the evidence) for you.

Comment #69106 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 01:34 PM Larry, You are completely unreasonable. You claimed that using the e-mail breached confidentiality, so it is your job to show how this is the case.

You people never miss an opportunity to flame me.