I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Dover defense attorney objected to questioning

In the comment thread of my post titled "Did Dover Defendants Lie?", I asserted that the questions about the sources of the books or the money for the books should have been ruled out of order. A commenter responded, "Good point about how Harvey's question should have been ruled out of order, Larry . . . .but the defense would have had to OBJECT!" Well, I investigated further and discovered that the defense did object! Here is the relevant portion of the testimony (William Buckingham is being questioned):
.
Q. You didn't raise money for Pandas and People anyplace other than your church, did you?

MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, objection. To the extent that Mr. Harvey is trying to create an inference that by asking at church, there's some sort of religious plot, I believe the question begins to burden Mr. Buckingham's ability to associate for the purpose of his free exercise. I mean, where he asked -- you know, if he asked the church, if that's where his friends and community is, that's his business. It's improper to try and draw some inference to that.

THE COURT: Well, that's argument. That's not an evidentiary objection, is it?

MR. GILLEN: Well, I think it's an evidentiary objection to the extent that he's seeking to elicit this information to support the inference proposed by his question.

THE COURT: I'm still hearing argument. I'm not hearing an objection --

MR. GILLEN: Well, and I don't wish to argue.

THE COURT: -- based on the rules of evidence. I understand your point, and it might be argument, it might be valid argument. Under the circumstances, I think the question is fair. He asked him did he raise money at any other place than his church.

MR. GILLEN: Yes. And my purpose is in suggesting that the thrust of the question to create that inference is improper because he's trying to make it look as if there was some sort of religious mission when he asked his friends.

THE COURT: Well, that goes to the weight that I'll give it. It's a bench trial. I mean, I still don't hear something that's grounded in the rules of evidence.

MR. GILLEN: Well, I guess I'm saying he does have a First Amendment privilege to free exercise, and I think that Mr. Harvey is -- the thrust of his question right now is to burden his ability to associate and ask his co-religionists to support something he thinks is worthwhile.

THE COURT: Unless I missed something, though, the First Amendment privilege that he has that you're citing to doesn't act as a bar to answering that question. Do you think it does?

MR. GILLEN: Well, I think it does border right on the limit because it is creating this inference that would be a burden on his free exercise right. If people weren't free to do what he's done, to ask, or if it could be used against them later, it would be a burden on their ability to go in front of any congregation and ask support for any number of things.

THE COURT: I don't see it, but let's hear from Mr. Harvey.

MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, I don't in any way mean to infringe upon this man's religious freedom in any way, but if he's going to take the stand and claim that he had no religious purpose in the actions of the school board and then they took up a donation at a church, I'm entitled to explore that to show that he, indeed, had religious purposes.

THE COURT: I think it's a fair question in the context of this case and in the line of questions that Mr. Harvey has already asked, so I overrule the objection. Do you remember the question, sir?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. You can answer the question.

I certainly disagree with Harvey's statement, "if he's going to take the stand and claim that he had no religious purpose in the actions of the school board and then they took up a donation at a church, I'm entitled to explore that to show that he, indeed, had religious purposes." Taking up a donation at a church is not evidence that Buckingham lied when he claimed that he had no religious purpose in the actions of the school board -- money is raised at churches for all sorts of things, both religious and non-religious. Judge Jones said, "I still don't hear something that's grounded in the rules of evidence," but the Federal Rules of Evidence gives judges broad discretion in excluding evidence:

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation

(a) Control by court.

The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

Anyway, Buckingham's evasiveness in answering questions at his deposition was in response to questions of doubtful propriety. IMO, accusations that Buckingham lied during his depositions have made a mountain out of a molehill. I was surprised and dismayed when the PBS NOVA program "Judgment Day" reported that "Jones recommended to the US Attorney that he investigate bringing perjury charges against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath." Judge Jones lied when he claimed through a spokesperson that he has a policy of not commenting publicly about the Dover trial, and he falsely pretended to be impartial and then said in a commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. Physician, heal thyself.

Anyway, I really liked the way Buckingham made a monkey out of that lousy shyster Harvey. Their courtroom exchange in my article "Did Dover Defendants Lie?" reminds me of Bud Abbott's and Lou Costello's comedy routine "Who's on first?".
.

Labels:

20 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> IMO, accusations that Buckingham lied during his depositions have made a mountain out of a molehill. <

Well as usual, you didn't understand it. Buckingham lied about an important point.

> I was surprised and dismayed when the PBS NOVA program "Judgment Day" reported that "Jones recommended to the US Attorney that he investigate bringing perjury charges against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath." <

Why be surprised that Jones wanted the criminals to be prosecuted?

> Judge Jones lied when he claimed through a spokesperson that he has a policy of not commenting publicly about the Dover trial <

Did he actually say this or are you misinterpreting as usual? You lie and misrepresent so often that everything you say must be suspect.

> and he falsely pretended to be impartial and then said in a commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. <

As has been explained, but went over your head, there is no inconsistency there.

> Anyway I really liked the way Buckingham made a monkey out of that lousy shyster Harvey. <

I looked more like Harvey made a monkey out of Buckingham.

Monday, November 19, 2007 4:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And just which of the federal rules of evidence you listed does Harvey's line of questioning violate? Since motive was heavily considered in this case, just what part of rule 611 was being violated? Since Buckingham was obviously being evasive about the source of the panda textbook purchase funds, it was within guidelines to press on with the questioning so that the source of the money was revealed. Waste of time can't be argued and I don't see how revealing the source would cause Buckingham any UNDUE embarrassment from already perjuring himself earlier.

I suppose you can make a case for rule 403 through some creative arguments, but then the majority of the defense arguments and evidence of ID being a valid scientific and non-religious theory has to be thrown out as well since it is by nature misleading. The cataloging
of the panda book under creationist science by the Discovery Institute itself and the subpoenaed copies of the earlier textbook revisions where every instance of creationism was sloppily replaced by ID makes this contradiction glaringly apparent.

Are you sure you were watching the same program Larry? Based on your recent posts, it's as if you were commenting on an entirely different show...

Monday, November 19, 2007 5:49:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,
>>>>>> And just which of the federal rules of evidence you listed does Harvey's line of questioning violate? <<<<<<

FRE Rules 403 and 611(a) do not necessarily concern any specific "violations" of the rules -- these two rules mainly give the judge broad discretion in excluding evidence.

>>>>> Since motive was heavily considered in this case, just what part of rule 611 was being violated? <<<<<

My point was that getting the donations at a church does not show anything about motive because donations for lots of things, both religious and non-religious, are obtained at churches.

>>>>>> Waste of time can't be argued and I don't see how revealing the source would cause Buckingham any UNDUE embarrassment from already perjuring himself earlier. <<<<<<

IMO it was a waste of time because other sources provided sufficient evidence of Buckingham's religious motivations.

Whether or not he had perjured himself earlier had nothing to do with the admissibility of any of the questions and testimony in the courtroom.

Rule 611(a) covers harassment as well as embarrassment. He was unnecessarily harassed and embarrassed in connection with collecting the money at a church. Such harassment and embarrassment has the effect of discouraging people from collecting or donating money at a church.

>>>>>> the majority of the defense arguments and evidence of ID being a valid scientific and non-religious theory has to be thrown out as well since it is by nature misleading. <<<<<<

That has nothing to do with the admissibility of the questions and testimony about the source of the donations for the books.

Anyway, IMO the source of the donations was not a big issue in the case and the charges of perjury have been part of an effort to vilify and demonize the defendants.

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> Why be surprised that Jones wanted the criminals to be prosecuted? <<<<<<

The criminal is Judge Jones.

>>>>> Did he actually say this or are you misinterpreting as usual? <<<<<<

He did. And he is still talking publicly about the case.

Monday, November 19, 2007 9:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> The criminal is Judge Jones. <

This statement just makes you look like an asshole.

>>>>> Did he actually say this or are you misinterpreting as usual? <<<<<<

> He did. And he is still talking publicly about the case. <

Your link only goes to one of your own articles. We can still wonder what, if anything, was said.

Monday, November 19, 2007 11:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Polonius said...

One might surmise that Larry doesn't actually read the material he posts. He just finds it with a word search. It more often than not argues against his position.

I think we are being taken in here guys. It looks like Larry is actually a Darwinist playing devil's advocate.

The only thing arguing against this is that there actually is a real Larry Fafarman with a horrendously poor legal record, as someone using this sort of logic would be expected to have.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:04:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> The only thing arguing against this is that there actually is a real Larry Fafarman with a horrendously poor legal record <<<<<<

Everyone knows that making ad hominem attacks only shows the bankruptcy of your own position. And if you think that losing a case means that your arguments are not valid, then you are very naive about how the courts operate. My argument that California lost its federal court tax-suit immunity by "leaving the sphere that is entirely its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the "smog impact fee" entirely on California's special status under federal auto emissions laws was vindicated when a top former state auto emissions agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA. Are you trying to tell me that a stupid jackass of a federal judge, TJ "Mad" Hatter, who BTW had a bad reputation for issuing judgments without opinions (and in my case didn't hold an oral hearing either), knows more about auto emissions laws than a former head of a state auto emissions control agency?

>>>>> Your link only goes to one of your own articles. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, that article links to external articles.

>>>>> The criminal is Judge Jones. <

This statement just makes you look like an asshole. <<<<<<<

Well -- he is.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that making ad hominem attacks only shows the bankruptcy of your own position.

That goes a long way to accounting for Larry's longstanding use of "fathead," "dunghill," and "cretin."

...This statement just makes you look like an asshole...

Well -- he is.


'Nuff said.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

bdpagoes> Everyone knows that making ad hominem attacks only shows the bankruptcy of your own position. <

Pointing out how hopeless your legal record is does not constitute an ad hominem attack.

> And if you think that losing a case means that your arguments are not valid, then you are very naive about how the courts operate. <

I know. They were all plotting against you.

> that a stupid jackass of a federal judge, TJ "Mad" Hatter, who BTW had a bad reputation for issuing judgments without opinions <

His reputation seemed only to be bad with the losers. By the way calling him "Mad" is an ad hominem attack which, as you pointed out, only shows the bankruptcy of your own position.

> (and in my case didn't hold an oral hearing either) <

As none was required. As I pointed out, if a body appears with a large hole directly through the chest and the head is missing, the coronor rarely checks for a pulse.

> knows more about auto emissions laws than a former head of a state auto emissions control agency? <

I would assume that he understands what is required more than any government hack. He certainly understands better than you, but then again, who doesn't?

>>>>> Your link only goes to one of your own articles. <<<<<<

> You stupid fathead, that article links to external articles.<

He was supposed to chase around Robin Hood's barn to find it? A reference to a reference is dumb at best.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:17:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>Everyone knows that making ad hominem attacks only shows the bankruptcy of your own position.

That goes a long way to accounting for Larry's longstanding use of "fathead," "dunghill," and "cretin."
<<<<<<

At least I throw some good arguments in with my insults, dunghill.

>>>>>> Pointing out how hopeless your legal record is does not constitute an ad hominem attack. <<<<<<

No -- it only shows that I had a bunch of lousy pieces of crap for judges.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the wilderness said...

> At least I throw some good arguments in with my insults, dunghill. <

Where is this? All we have seen is your lack of them on this blog.

You rarely even give bad arguments. You just restate your position without support. In the rare occasions that you do give an argument, it is illogical and normally based on a misunderstanding of what you present.

>>>>>> Pointing out how hopeless your legal record is does not constitute an ad hominem attack. <<<<<<

> No -- it only shows that I had a bunch of lousy pieces of crap for judges. <

At least we are making progress. You admit you were wrong about it being an ad hominem attack. Now if you could only realize that the reason you lost was that you had a lousy piece of crap representing you, namely yourself.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:20:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> You admit you were wrong about it being an ad hominem attack. <<<<<<

I'll put it this way, dunghill -- it was an ad hominem attack but all it means is that the judges in my lawsuits were lousy crooks.

What counts is the arguments here, not my court record, and you mostly do not present arguments but just say that I am wrong or stupid or ignorant or that I don't understand this or that this went over my head or that I lost a lawsuit on an unrelated issue, those sorts of things. You are trying to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with your worthless crap. You ridicule my no-censorship policy while taking advantage of it. You are just jealous because you don't have what it takes to run your own blog. It is just the same bunch of trolls -- ViU, ViW, Anonymous, Hector, Bill Carter, and Sherry D. -- who leave most of the comments here.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

rpzncfx> I'll put it this way, dunghill -- it was an ad hominem attack <

Make up your mind. It was, it wasn't, it was.

> but all it means is that the judges in my lawsuits were lousy crooks. <

No evidence of that. Only evidence that you blew your cases.

> What counts is the arguments here <

Based on your arguments here, or your non-arguments, you are a total failure.

> not my court record <

Where you were a total failure.

> and you mostly do not present arguments <

I present arguments and you don't answer them but merely restate your position as if that were an argument in itself.

> but just say that I am wrong or stupid or ignorant or that I don't understand this or that this went over my head <

Which is the truth.

> or that I lost a lawsuit on an unrelated issue <

You didn't just lose one lawsuit. You had every case you ever filed laughed out of court at the first opportunity. I know. The judges were all crooked and in cahoots with the little green men that you say publish the Los Angeles Times.

> You are trying to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with your worthless crap. <

The only worthless crap on this blog comes from you and your sock puppets.

> You ridicule my no-censorship policy <

Which doesn't exist.

> It is just the same bunch of trolls -- ViU, ViW, Anonymous, Hector, Bill Carter, and Sherry D. -- who leave most of the comments here. <

ViW hasn't appeared since you banned him/her a few months ago. Anonymous is obviously several people, most of whom seem quite brilliant. I haven't seen a post by Bill Carter or Sherry D. in weeks.

Why did you ban ViW?

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sherry D. last posted on Nov. 13 and Bill C. on Nov. 14.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:45:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU said,
>>>>>> Anonymous is obviously several people, <<<<<<

So you admit to sockpuppetry? The only way you would know that would be by posting under the name "Anonymous" yourself.

You've been caught, dunghill.

Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author. <

More likely it has been arbitrarily censored by Larry.

>>>>>> Anonymous is obviously several people, <<<<<<

> So you admit to sockpuppetry? The only way you would know that would be by posting under the name "Anonymous" yourself. <

Even you can't be that dumb, Larry. Almost anyone except yourself can see that posts under "Anonymous" have different writing styles and support different positions. I would suspect that you sometimes post as "Anonymous" to agree with yourself. Under your logic, you have been caught, dunghill.

Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:24:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Almost anyone except yourself can see that posts under "Anonymous" have different writing styles and support different positions. <<<<<<

Contrary to the claims of you and that other dunghill Kevin Vicklund, there is no such thing as "writing style." It cannot be said with any degree of certainty or probability that two different writings have two different authors, unless one of the writings has repeated misspellings (or one has British spellings while the other has American spellings, but that is not a matter of "style") or grammatical errors that are not present in the other article.

And of course they support different positions -- because they are commenting on different issues. But they are all Darwinists -- no one using the name "Anonymous" has supported my position.

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

zh> Contrary to the claims of you and that other dunghill Kevin Vicklund, there is no such thing as "writing style." <

It is something that can be recognized by us sane people. I am sorry that you can't.

> It cannot be said with any degree of certainty or probability that two different writings have two different authors <

Of course it can.

> unless one of the writings has repeated misspellings (or one has British spellings while the other has American spellings, but that is not a matter of "style") or grammatical errors that are not present in the other article. <

That would be the least valid observation. Someone could intentionally change spelling to look like more than one person. In contrast, you can post under any name you want but are unable to hide your obvious insanity.

> no one using the name "Anonymous" has supported my position. <

For some time no one using any name at all, except your sock puppets, has supported your position and they can be easily detected because of your writing style (which you bray doesn't exist).

Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Annonimus said...

>>>>> Contrary to the claims of you and that other dunghill Kevin Vicklund, there is no such thing as "writing style." <

It is something that can be recognized by us sane people. <<<<<<

Anudder unsuported assurshun, dunghil.

>>>>>> Someone could intentionally change spelling to look like more than one person <<<<<

Yoo r ownly prooving Larry's point.

Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:35:00 AM  
Anonymous ergonomicus said...

The sockpuppeteer strikes again!

Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home