Red State Rabble

The the plaintiff's brief in support of proposed findings of fact suggests that Board members’ untruthful testimony constitutes strong evidence of improper purpose, and that it calls into question the defendent's entire case:

Although Board members testified in their depositions and at trial that they never sought to put creationism into the curriculum, that they never advocated in favor of creationism, that they never made religious statements in favor of the curriculum change, and that they did not know the source for the donated copies of the creationist text Pandas, that testimony is not credible. It is belied by superintendent Nilsen’s and assistant-superintendent Baksa’s trial testimony. It is belied by superintendent Nilsen’s and plaintiff Barrie Callahan’s notes from Board retreats. It is belied by the Trudy Peterman memorandum. It is belied by the curriculum charts tracing the policy’s development over time. It is belied by the testimony from Dover science teachers Jen Miller and Bertha Spahr. It is belied by the testimony from plaintiffs Christy Rehm, Brian Rehm, Barrie Callahan, and Fred Callahan, all of whom attended board meetings in June 2004. It is belied by Joseph Maldonado’s and Heidi Berhard-Bubb’s testimony and newspaper reportage relating to the board meetings and postmeeting press interviews with Board members. It is belied by the Fox news videotape of William Buckingham on the way out of a Board meeting. And it is belied by the check that Buckingham, Alan Bonsell, and Donald Bonsell used in their shell game to hide the funds used to purchase Pandas.

One of the oldest, clearest, and most important rules in Anglo-American law is that, when parties testify under oath, they are duty-bound to tell the truth; and if they break trust with the court, their dishonesty casts a pall on their entire case...