RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P010

← Previous page

Next page →

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Direct of Bryan Rehm

Section 1 MR. HARVEY: The Plaintiffs call our next witness, Plaintiff Bryan Rehm. THE COURT: All right. Whereupon, BRYAN REHM having been duly sworn, testified as follows: COURTROOM DEPUTY: Spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Bryan Rehm. B-R-Y-A-N. R-E-H-M. MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness with a binder of exhibits? THE COURT: You may. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mr. Rehm, please tell us where you live? A. (Address in Dover PA supplied, redacted by RationalWiki) Q. How long have you lived in Dover? A. I moved in, I believe it was, in August of 2001. Q. Are you married? A. Yes. Q. And do you have any children? A. Four. Q. Please tell us the ages and names of your children? A. Child 1 is 14. Child 2 is 8. Child 3 is 7. And Child 4 is 15 months as of last Thursday. (Note: the names of all minors have been redacted by RationalWiki) Q. Are any of these children -- do any of these children attend school in the Dover Area School District? A. Two of them are in the Dover Area School District. A third one is charged under the Dover Area School District but is handicapped and is in a special class for that. Q. Tell us what grades they're in, please? A. First, third, and ninth. Q. The child that's in 9th grade is at Dover Area -- Dover High School? A. Yes. Q. And is that child taking biology class right now? A. She currently has biology class, yes. Q. Are you married? A. Yes. Q. What's your wife's name? A. My wife's name is Christy. Q. What does she do? A. She is an English teacher. Q. What is your job? A. I am a physics teacher. Q. Where do you teach physics? A. In a school outside of York County. Q. What's the name of it? A. Is that necessary at this point? Q. It's not necessary. A. Okay. Q. Can you please tell us your education? Where did you graduate from high school? A. I graduated from high school in 1994 from Central Dauphin East High. It's a suburb of Harrisburg. Q. Did you attend college? A. Yes, I did. Q. Where did you go to college? A. I did my undergraduate work at Lebanon Valley College in Anville, Pennsylvania. I've taken graduate work in a number of different places, including what used to be Western Maryland College. It's now McDaniel. Penn State York and Penn State Main Campus.	Section 1 notes
Section 2 Q. And were you ever a teacher at Dover High School? A. Yes, I taught there for two school years. Q. What two school years were though? A. I believe it was the 2002-2003 school year and the 2003-2004 school year. Q. And what did you teach? A. I taught science. My main responsibility I was hired for was physics. And in addition to physics, they put a physical science court course in my schedule and a course at the time that was titled science technology in society, which is an environmental and ecology course. Q. When you were at Dover High School, who was your supervisor? A. My supervisor as far as department goes was Bertha Spahr. She sort of maintained the department. But I would directly be supervised by the building principal, who was Trudy Peterman at the time. Q. I want you to think back now to the 2002-2003 school year and tell me whether you remember any conversations with Bertha Spahr about a board concern about the biology curriculum? A. Yes, there was many occasions on which we had such conversations. There was more than myself and Bertha Spahr present. It was common practice that we had a lunch period together, and she was my mentor, so to speak, so I would eat lunch in her room along with Rob Eshbach on most days and sometimes another teacher who has since left the district. We'd talk about things going on in the classroom, things going on in the district, etc., and quite frequently concerns of board members and the biology curriculum would come up. In addition, Mr. Baksa would frequently stop by because he would relay the information to us.	Section 2 notes
Section 3 Q. Tell us what you can recall about those -- can you recall any specific conversation? A. As far as date and time, not exactly. The context of them, it always centered around biology. And initially, I just didn't think much about it. I was eating lunch, and I was there for guidance, if I was messing anything up. But generally, I'm trying to get done and thinking about the next class coming up. Those things that came up were biology, biology, biology, and when pinned down for, what about biology, well, the evolution unit needs to be balanced. Q. Did Mr. Baksa in those conversations tell you about a board concern about the biology curriculum? A. Yes, he did. Q. What did he say? A. The concern was that biology, the evolution unit needed to be balanced. And at some point in time, unfortunately I can't say if it was Mr. Baksa that told me or Bertha Spahr, it was the 50/50 with creationism concern. Q. Did they mention any particular board members having that concern? A. At that point in time, initially I did not know who the Board member was, just that it was the school board members, and it was actually pluralized at that point in time. It did not indicate a single member but several members. Q. Did there come a time when you were told that there was any particular board members? A. Much later on, it came out to that. At that point in time, I was told it was Alan Bonsell.	Section 3 notes
Section 4 Q. Now do you remember having a meeting with Mr. Bonsell to discuss his concerns about the biology curriculum? A. Yes, I do. Q. Can you tell us approximately when was that meeting? A. It was in the morning. As far as much closer than that, I don't recall. My planning period is in the morning, and it was during my planning period. A lot of science department, with except for maybe one teacher, had common planning time together, and that's when they scheduled the meeting for. It was, I'm guessing, in the spring of '03. Q. Okay. You say you're guessing. Do you have any reasonable approximation of when this was? A. Unfortunately, no. Q. This was certainly while you were a teacher at Dover Area? A. Yes, yes, otherwise I wouldn't have been invited to the meeting. I would have had no business there. Q. Tell us who you can recall at the meeting? A. For certain, it was myself, obviously. Bertha Spahr was there. Jennifer Miller, Rob Linker, Robert Eshbach, Trudy Peterman, Alan Bonsell from the school board. Mike Baksa was there to introduce us. And there others, I think, were there, but I'm not certain, so I will not mention them at this time. Q. Just to get a little clarity on time. What was your -- when did you leave your job at Dover High School? A. I left Dover High School, I believe my resume shows official, June 21st, 2004.	Section 4 notes
Section 5 Q. And we're going to take in just a couple minutes of a board meeting on June the 7th, 2004. Do you recall that board meeting? A. Yes. Q. Was this meeting that you're discussing now with Mr. Bonsell and the others, was this prior to June the 7th? A. Yes, definitely. Q. Was it months prior to that? A. At least. Q. How was the meeting arranged? A. The meeting was arranged by Mr. Baksa. He had been relaying information to the science teachers, primarily Bertha Spahr's the department chair, during these lunch conversations where he'd stop in. And we repeatedly explained to him, we're not going to do this. We're not going to balance evolution with creationism. It's an inappropriate request. It's inappropriate. There's no educational purpose for it. It's not a good decision. And we would lay out as many reasons as we could and send them back with Mr. Baksa to relay to the school board members or Alan Bonsell. And, you know, the next day or two days later, Baksa is back in lunch again with the same questions and the same concerns. And we explained this to you already. So after numerous times, I mean weeks of this, he said, well, how about if we just get you together with him? And then somehow through Mr. Baksa and Dr. Peterman, the meeting was arranged. Q. Who was Dr. Peterman? A. Dr. Peterman was the high school principal. And the meeting ended up being held in her office, which was in the old principal's office before the construction project.	Section 5 notes
Section 6 Q. Can you remember what Mr. Bonsell said at that meeting? A. The general context of it started with, that he was concerned about biology because he felt that we weren't fulfilling the district's mission statement, and that the district's mission statement was along the lines of that, the parents and teachers and faculty and administration work together to nurture the kids and to whatever beneficial things for the community, and they're supposed to be working together. And he felt that because of evolution, that we weren't doing that, that kids were going to come into the evolution lesson, and they're going to go home and sit down at the dinner table with their parents, and they're going to talk about what they learned in class that day, and the parents are going to have to tell it the kids, well, your teachers are lying to you. And when pressed for why that was, he explained to us, well, that is because he doesn't believe in evolution, because that's against his religious views, which were consistent with what I would label young earth creationism. Q. Did he mention anything in that conversation about the age of the earth? A. He mentioned something that the earth is closer to 6000 years old. Q. During that conversation, do you recall him using the word creationism? A. I remember the term creationism and Alan Bonsell's name being stuck together. And unfortunately, I can't specifically place it at that meeting or if I heard it previously from Mike Baksa at the lunch conversations.	Section 6 notes
Section 7 Q. Now what did the teachers -- do you recall what the teachers said in response to Mr. Bonsell? A. The teachers had gone in unified because we knew that they wanted to change the biology curriculum. They had asked that the science teachers do it, to put creationism ideas into it. And we had basically reached a uniform decision that it's inappropriate and we're going to stick together. But at the same time, we're teachers and we need to be professional and we need to be civil going into this conversation. So our objective was to gather as much data as possible, because we're science teachers and that's the way we try to do things, and see where that would lead us to. The concerns that were expressed from Alan Bonsell were dealing primarily with the ideas of macro evolution, and he expressed concerning about monkeys to man. And once we got that and figured out what his concerns were, we took the approach of, let's educate Mr. Bonsell as to what the biology evolution unit actually covers, which we don't teach monkey to man. It's not an essential part of what we need to do to get the students ready for the state standards test. So we took that information. We acknowledged his concern. We understood why he was concerned because nobody wants to have to go home and hear that their children are learning contradictory things. And we certainly don't want parents telling the kids the teachers are lying. That's not our job. That not our objective. And that's not our intent by any stretch of the imagination. From there, we proceeded to explain to him how we would basically teach the general evolution unit, what's taught, what are the purposes of it, what's the content of it, explaining that we're focusing on the micro evolution processes. Yes, addressing it with natural selection. But these are the things that the kids are going to need. That's going to be covered on the test for the state exams. That's what they're going to need if they choose to go to college and want to major in anything dealing with medicine or any of the future technology and careers that ideally we're preparing our students to be qualified for.	Section 7 notes
Section 8 Q. You used two terms, macro evolution and micro evolution? A. Uh-huh. Q. And I don't want to get a science course, but I do want to get just your, tell us if you would, what you meant by those terms, macro evolution and micro evolution? A. Macro evolution is generally applied where you're seeing large changes in the types of organisms. For example, in the analogy of monkey to man, or more correctly, the pre-ancestors of both monkeys and man, to those separate species would be considered macro evolution. There is very large changes in the physiology and the, possibly, the body structures, things of that nature. Whereas micro evolution is what we typically look at as the change over time. You're looking at small changes. For example, diseases become resistant to bacteria but still being the same basic disease. The reason why we have different variations of tuberculosis and why we have different variations of the AIDS virus and those types of things. Also dealing with pesticides and resistance to pesticides. That would be the micro evolution where you still have a grasshopper, but now because of the influence, in this case human influence with the pesticide, the pesticide will no longer kill the grasshopper. You now have to change pesticides to find another way of eradicating it. Q. Was there any resolution from this meeting between the teachers and Mr. Bonsell? A. As I left the meeting, I recalled no resolution. It was getting on this and taking the majority of the planning period. And the teacher's schedule, you're concerned about your planning period. It's very important to you. It's the only time you really have where you can focus on getting things done that you can't do when students are in the room; grading papers, updating grades, making phone calls to parents, things of that nature, writing your lesson plans to submit. And I don't recall any resolution whatsoever. I was in a rush to get back and get my work done.	Section 8 notes
Section 9 Q. Do you recall, after this meeting with Bonsell, being asked to watch a video about evolution? A. Yes. Q. Who asked you to watch that video? A. As far as I can remember, the request came through Michael Baksa stating that the school board wanted us to watch it. Q. Did they say what the name of the video was? A. Initially, I did not know the name of the video. I did not know the name of the video until we sat down and watched it. Q. What was the name of the video? A. The name of the video was Icons of Evolution. Q. And who watched it with you? A. The majority of the science department. Myself, Rob Eshbach, Jen Miller. I believe Bertha Spahr was there. Leslie Praul. Rob Linker. And I don't know if if anybody else was or not.	Section 9 notes
Section 10 Q. Let's go back for just a second. When you had the meeting with Mr. Bonsell, did he have any position on the Board or did you have an understanding at the time that he had a position on the Board? A. My understanding at the time was that he was part of the curriculum committee. In fact, I believe I was told he was the curriculum committee chair, which is why we were having the meeting with him dealing with curriculum issues. Q. Now let's go to where we just were. Following this occasion on which you were asked to watch a videotape, were you asked to meet with anybody with regard to that videotape? A. I don't understand your question. Q. Did anyone ask you, after you watched the videotape, to have a meeting with any board member? A. There was a request, not of me specifically, but of the science department, that we should be meeting with school board members. The video, as I recall, was watched late in the school year. And we sat down as a department and watched, and we were discussing amongst ourselves, and Mike Baksa came back in at that point in time. He was basically, well, what did you think? Once again, well, how about if you communicate that directly to the board members? And there was some type of meeting set up. Q. And do you know, did he say who that meeting would be with? A. The meeting, as I understand, ended up being with Bill Buckingham, but I don't know if he said at that point in time to meet with Bill Buckingham or if he just simply said a school board member. Q. Did you attend that meeting? A. I could not attend that meeting. Q. Why not? A. My wife was pregnant at the time, and I was getting out of school as quickly as possible to get home. She was eight months pregnant or so. The baby was due the 10th of June. It ended up coming out on the 23rd. This was late in the school year, and I was more concerned about my family than I was the Icons of Evolution video. Q. Now this occasion on which you watched the video, was this prior to the June 7th, 2004, board meeting? A. I'm suspecting that it was. June 7th was getting very late in the school year. But I cannot place those dates specifically sequentially.	Section 10 notes
Section 11 Q. Did you attend a board meeting on June the 7th of 2004? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you attend any other board meetings in June of 2004? A. I attended the second June meeting as well which, I think, was on the 14th. Q. Why did you attend those meetings? A. The June 7th meeting was at the urging of Dr. Peterman. Periodically, when there's something going on with the school board that the teachers would be concerned of, she'd let us know. She'd walk into the lunchroom and find us or let us know by some other means. In this particular case, she explained to us that there is a concern over textbooks that hadn't been ordered, that should have been ordered, and it would be a good idea if the faculty showed support and solidarity and as many as possible could attend the meeting for that reason. Q. Do you remember why you attended the June 14th meeting? A. The June 14th meeting, I attended for probably a similar reason, but also as a follow-up to the June 7th meeting. Since there weren't all the answers given on June 7th meeting, June 14th was a follow-up meeting. It made sense to follow-up and see how it finished out. Q. Can you separate those two meetings in your mind so that -- let me finish my question here -- so that you can remember what happened at one meeting versus happened at the other one? A. Not very well, not without any type of refreshing. Q. Just tell us, if you can, without respect to which meeting it was, tell us what you can remember that happened at either of those meetings? A. I walked in. I was a little bit late to one of them. And I sat near the back. At that point in time, they ran the Board meetings. They still had the tables set up from the lunches, because they hold the Board meetings in the 5th and 6th grade elementary building. And I sat at a table. If I'm at the front of the Board room, it would be to the Board's left near the back. I sat down with other science teachers and was sort of asking, all right, what did I miss so far? The first thing I can remember concretely where I started to pay attention to the front of the room was when Barrie Callahan was asking during public comment about the biology textbooks, why weren't they ordered, and what's going on here. Q. Do you remember specifically what she said? A. At this point in time, it's not coming back to me. Q. Do you remember what was said to her in response? A. I can't specifically say it's the 7th meeting, but when asked that question, the response from Bill Buckingham was, laced with Darwinism. In fact, actually now I can pin that down. I apologize for the sidebar here. That had to be at the June 7th meeting. Between June 7th and June 14th was graduation that year. And the senior speech made mention of that comment, so it had already filtered down to the student population at that point in time or else it wouldn't have been there. Q. Do you remember anything else about an exchange between Barrie Callahan and the Board? A. At this point in time, nothing is coming to me.	Section 11 notes
Section 12 Q. Do you remember a student by the name of -- a young man by the name of Max Pell? A. Yes. Q. Who's Max Pell? A. Max Pell was a student I actually had the previous year in my physics class and had graduated and gone on to school. And I actually had a brief conversation with him at some point that night. How are you doing, Max? Good to see you. How's school going? Those types of things. It's always nice to see your former students. Q. Do you remember whether that was the June 7th or 14th meeting? A. Without a refresher, I don't recall. Q. Do you remember what -- do you remember Max speaking to the Board? A. Yeah. At some point, I am suspecting it was after Barrie's question about the textbooks and then the relaying statement of laced with Darwinism, he got relatively concerned and stood up, and showing Max's mannerisms and nervousness, he stood up and was questioning them about why? Why are you considering this? How can you say that? Q. Tell us what you can remember about the exchange between Max Pell and the Board? A. Aside from the concerns of, why are you doing this, this is inappropriate, and I think you're taking a risk here, Mr. Buckingham had responded. I couldn't say specifically what. Off the top of my head, I don't recall. But that's the first where I really saw the school board meetings sort of going downhill and degrading into not very positive discussions.	Section 12 notes
Section 13 Q. Do you remember anyone saying at either meeting something about balancing evolution with creationism? A. I remember that comment, and I can't say which meeting, but that comment had come up after the laced with Darwinism. I can also remember conversations, and I don't know once again if it was the June meetings or the next meetings in October, when Alan Bonsell was talking about, well, if you teach both sides, it doesn't matter. There's no problem. You just can't favor one. Q. Did he say what he meant by both sides? A. Creationism, and the only other theory was evolution. Q. Do you remember anyone at either of these meetings saying something about 2000 years ago? A. Bill Buckingham, and I don't remember which meeting, but, yeah, I heard it. It's one of those things that I couldn't believe. It's not something you should be saying running a public school. Q. What did he say? A. 2000 years ago, somebody died on a cross. Can't somebody stand up and take a stand for him? That's paraphrasing. I don't know if that's his exact words, but it's close enough, and it's what he meant. Q. Do you remember anyone at either meeting saying something about this country being founded on Christianity? A. I remember hearing that also from Bill Buckingham, but I couldn't tell you which meeting. And I couldn't tell you if that -- was that said in October? Aside from hearing it, I can't place it, which one. And I know that I definitely heard it from Bill Buckingham.	Section 13 notes
Section 14 Q. Do you remember a woman named Charlotte Buckingham speaking at one of these meetings? A. Yes. Q. Tell us, what was your understanding at the time of who Charlotte Buckingham was? A. Initially, I didn't know until she stood up. And at the board meeting, when you are going to speak in public comment, you have to state your name and where you live, much as we do at the introductory here. And that's when I heard her for the first time. Q. Did you have an understanding who she was? A. At that point in time, yeah, I realized she was Bill Buckingham's wife. And I'm not positive, but I think she may have even said that or there was an exchange between, you know, other board members, nice to see you, Mrs. Buckingham, and things of that nature. Q. Do you remember what she said at that meeting? A. She had a prepared statement. She was flipping pages. I don't know how many, but it was more than one. And it was basically how Darwinism is a problem. We need to look to the Bible. And she quoted many, many, many Old Testament scriptures about why we need to be referencing God in the classroom. Q. Now I'd like -- do you remember anything else that was said at either of those meetings, either by board members or members of the public? A. Bertha Spahr had stood up requesting, once again, the considerations for the textbooks. Once again, I'm having trouble if this was the June meeting or the October meeting. She stood up more than once at different meetings. I later stood up at different meetings as well. And as far as pinning down dates, unfortunately, I can't. It all sort of blends together.	Section 14 notes
Section 15 Q. Do you remember speaking at either of these meetings yourself, speaking in public to the Board at either of these meetings? A. At a meeting, yes. I've spoken at at least four meetings, and they would have started in June probably. I don't believe I waited until the October meeting to begin speaking. Q. Do you remember what you said? A. I was concerned about the comments, in particular dealing with laced with Darwinism and the references to needing to balance out evolution. There was a communication, as I was hearing it, from the school board that the two ideas, you know, were in conflict and you had to resolve them and that it was a scientific debate. I'm a science teacher. I've taken many courses in it. And there should be no debate as far as scientific evidence goes. Science looks at the science. Your religion is your religion. It's perfectly fine. Q. Mr. Rehm, I just want you to tell me if you can remember what you said? A. Those are what I was saying. Those are the ideas I was communicating to the board. Q. Excuse me. Please go ahead. A. Just, you know, there does not need to be a conflict and you're taking a risk by doing this. Q. Now can you remember anything else that was said either by board members or members of the public at this meeting or anyone else at this meeting or at either of these meetings in June of 2004? A. Off the top of my head, nothing is coming to me. Dr. Peterman stood up and spoke on behalf of the book request, I believe, as well. There was discussions of the family consumer science book. And I believe Mrs. Harkins was questioning, why are we getting this book because it's so similar to the one we already have? And then there's the explanation, well, there's not enough of the same edition. And then there's similar discussions about chemistry books and biology books.	Section 15 notes
Section 16 Q. Now I'd like you -- I'd like you to look at what has been marked as P-46. A. Okay. Q. Have you had a chance to look at that exhibit? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what it is. A. It's a newspaper article, I believe, from the York Daily Record, dated June 9th, written by Joseph Maldonado. Q. Have you read it before today? A. Yes, I was shown this article a few days ago. And also, I would have read this article, but not from here, in the actual newspaper when it was originally published. Q. Do you recall reading it at the time? A. Yes. We were paying attention to what the school board was doing and making sure we were checking the papers every day because, unfortunately, it was turning into a zoo, and we were concerned about the reflection of that in the media. Q. Now did you just read this just now? A. Yes. Q. Does it help you remember anything else that happened at the -- at either of these board meetings? A. It gives clarity to the things I was remembering as far as positioning on the date of the 7th and the 14th. Some of the things in here that were said that I had forgotten, specific quotes. That's what I remember reading. And there was no discrepancy between what I read then and what I heard the night or two nights before. Q. Sitting here right now, after having looked at that, can you remember anything else that was said? A. Am I allowed to look at it again? Q. You can look at it again? THE COURT: Sure.	Section 16 notes
Section 17 BY MR. HARVEY: Q. You just can't read it in. THE COURT: Yeah, just don't read or excerpt it directly. You can use it to refresh your recollection. THE WITNESS: What I had already stated about Alan Bonsell commenting on, there's only two theories, creationism and evolution. Bill Buckingham additionally saying, dealing with the "laced with Darwinism" comments. We need a book that gives balance to the education. These are all the quotes I heard that night that I read the next day and had no question about, that's what was that said, that's what we heard. The brain washing comment directed at Max Pell. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Tell me what you remember about the brain washing? A. I remember hearing it. THE COURT: Hold on, sir. MR. GILLEN: Again, maybe I can, at the break, we can get a little more clarification. I understand if he wants to refresh his recollection, but it seems that he's adding and he's reading the quotes as if he's testifying to the truth of the quotes. That's not proper. THE COURT: Yeah, the distinction may seem a little artificial, but what you have to do is read the article and then respond to it rather than use it as sort of a punch list as you go through. I think you've answered the question at this point. But to the extent there are other questions, when you have to refresh your recollection by looking at the article, just respond directly to him, and don't refer to what you're reading in the article, if you would. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: There is a reason for that. THE WITNESS: Please fix me if I step out of line. THE COURT: I will.	Section 17 notes
Section 18 BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Do you remember anything at that meeting being said about brain washing? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you remember about that? A. Bill Buckingham said to Max Pell, did you ever hear of brainwashing, something to that effect. When you are told something enough times, it becomes fact. And he mentioned that dealing with, it's what's not in the paper, he was talking about liberal colleges and people going to these levels of higher institution where they are being brainwashed, such as Penn State. Q. Now I want you to think about, do you remember anyone at either of these meetings saying something about liberals in black robes? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you remember? A. Sticks in my mind, once again, that's something Bill Buckingham said, but I can't be certain. One of these meetings, I did have the pleasure of sitting in front of Alan Bonsell's father who talks during the meeting, and basically said the same thing, these liberals in black robes are taking away freedoms, and we need to stand up and take them back. Q. Did -- do you recall anyone saying anything about the separation of church and state? A. One of these meetings, it was mentioned once again that it was a myth, and I heard that on more than one occasion at the school board meetings. Q. Was there any reference to tracing your roots to monkeys at either of these meetings? A. I remember hearing it and, unfortunately, I can't tell you once again which meeting it was. Q. Well, do you remember what you heard? A. Yeah, you're not going to tell me that I came from apes, and if you insist on it, which side of your family came from apes?	Section 18 notes
Section 19 Q. Do you remember Mr. Buckingham saying something about having talked through a think tank? A. At one of the meetings, yes. He was questioned, well, who is this think tank, and he wouldn't give any information. And at some meeting again, once again I don't know if it was June or October, he mentioned about how the textbook that was requested by the teachers received an F from a think tank, and then would give no further information on it whatsoever. Q. Do you remember anything else that happened at either of those meetings? A. I don't know once again if this is June or if this is October, but it was brought up about, you're walking into dangerous ground, violation of separation of church and state, which somebody, either Alan or may have even been Noel or Bill at this point, was reminding us, well, separation of church and state is a myth, and said that even if the district was sued, he's been in contact with a group that will defend the district for free. Also, when asked, he would not say who that was. Q. Following these June meetings, did you attend any other meetings of the board that summer? A. I did not attend anymore meetings during the summer. Q. Why not? A. Had other things to do. Q. And did you attend a board meeting on or about October the 18th of 2004? A. Yes, I did. Q. Why did you attend that meeting? A. I had been talking to people in the community. Getting around to school year starting up. So that is when a lot of thing started to happen again. And I would run into some members of community when we were out eating dinner, so forth. How are things going? What's going on? How are things at the school? And I heard rumblings of, well, the school board is doing this creationism thing again, and you need to pay attention to it.	Section 19 notes
Section 20 Q. Do you remember running into Mr. -- excuse me, Dr. Nilsen shortly before that meeting? A. That's what I was getting to, yes. I believe it was a Thursday night. I'm not positive. But my daughter at Weiglestown Elementary School in the district, where they were having a book fair. And my wife and I took her and our other children to the book fair to get some books. And the PTO that night was also sponsoring some type of parents' information thing in the gymnasium, so they had -- which is their all-purpose room, they call it -- a series of tables lining the parameter and there's different vendors there. There's the bank, the food bank, and things of this to help parents do a better job with limited resources. And Dr. Nilsen happened to pop his head in the door when I was there. And I took the opportunity that, hey, I'm going to go over and talk to him. And I walked over to Dr. Nilsen and said, what's going on? I hear there's going to be some big thing going on at the Board meeting. He said, I don't know what you're talking about. I said, well, it's dealing with, once again, the science curriculum. He said, oh, nothing will ever happen. There will never be a vote. You don't need to worry about it. I've been in the district long enough to know that, you don't assume things won't happen that you don't want to have happen. Q. Who's Dr. Nilsen? A. Dr. Nilsen is the district superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen. Q. And that conversation you had with Mr. Nilsen, where was that in relation in time to the October 18th? A. That was prior to the October 18th meeting. And his response there -- within four or five days. His response there is why I made it a point to attend the October 18th meeting.	Section 20 notes
Section 21 Q. Tell us what you recall of the October 18th meeting? A. The October 18th meeting, once again, there's a public comment period. It was getting rather heated from which I can recall. It went on very long. Public comment period lasted for a very long period of time. At this point in time, my wife had the baby, so he was about three months old, and we didn't have a baby-sitter for the baby. So the oldest child, we let watch the other two, the reasonable age ones. We took the infant with us and went to the meeting and were sitting there. So the meeting had gone very long because of this public comment period, very heated discussions over what the proposed curriculum changes were and why it was necessary and still about textbooks and things of that nature. I remember discussions about the curriculum. There was proposals. I remember Baksa standing up and reading proposals. I remember the comments that the teachers had helped write the proposals. I can remember heated discussion amongst the Board members about the proposals. In particular, Alan and Bill were favoring changing it to include statements of intelligent design. I believe there's even one proposal, and I don't remember if I saw this in text previously or if I saw it that night, putting creationism in it. Then the proposal just, you know, evidence against evolution -- or evidence contradicting evolution. Noel Weinrich, who had been previously to this meeting endorsing everything that Bill was proposing, discussing the textbook, and how we had to find balance, had changed his position and thought that it was not a wise move to put intelligent design or creationism in the curriculum change, and had words from Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell about him reversing his position. Q. Do you recall what was said, just generally? A. In general, it was basically, how can you do this? How can you reverse your stance on this? This is why we're doing this. You were with this all along. I can't believe you would do this. What are you thinking? That was the general sentiment that was expressed. Q. Did you stay for the whole board meeting? A. We did not. My wife and I, we were both in attendance, and as I said, it went very long. They called a recess. It sticks in my mind, it was around 9, 9:30. It may have been later than that. We had run out of formula for the baby. It was way past his bedtime. And we just couldn't stay any longer, so we had to leave. Q. During the time that you were at the board meeting, did you hear the Board members discussing the reasons why they were proposing a curriculum change? A. Once again, I don't know if it was at that meeting or it was a previous meeting, but the only reason that was given at that point in time was, we needed balance in the curriculum between, once again, evolution and either intelligent design or creationism. Q. Now as you left the meeting, did you speak to anyone? A. When they call the recess and I saw it was going to take a while, I took advantage of the opportunity, because I knew I was going to leave and not get a chance to speak at the later public comment section. They had been generally having two public comment sessions, one at the very beginning and one at the very end. And the school board, when the meeting is over, if I'm facing the school board table now, they would exit the cafeteria to the right-hand side and go down the hallway to where the North Salem faculty room happens to be, and that's typically whether they would adjourn to. And I guess that's where they have their executive sessions. I decided to follow them out into the hall. This is my chance. I'm going to get to talk to them. And I intended to. So that's had an I did.	Section 21 notes
Section 22 Q. Which board members did you speak to? A. I made a point, as I was leaving, to speak to Alan Bonsell. Sheila Harkins spoke to me. And I just lost my -- Angie Yingling was speaking to somebody else. I sort of walked alongside her to listen to the conversation and then I chimed into it. Q. Tell us what you can remember about your conversation or your exchange of communications with Mr. Bonsell? A. Mr. Bonsell was the last conversation I had. And I basically confronted him and said, why are you doing this? Why are you pushing this? We had that meeting, you know. We explained to you why it's inappropriate. You communicated to us that it's based upon your religious views. And that's not an issue of science. We don't address religious views in science. Basically, he just kept saying to me, well, it's gaps and problems, gaps and problems. I said, what gaps and problems? He said, they're so big, I can drive a truck through them. And he couldn't give me any real examples of what that was. Q. And did you also have an exchange of communications with Angie Yingling? A. Yes. She was having a conversation, I don't recall with who. It was another female. And her conversation was, I don't understand why these people are so upset and why there's so much opposition to this curriculum change. What's it about? And I don't see how it's really religious. I said, well, excuse me, I do understand why. And let me explain it to you. And I enlightened her to what Discovery Institute was and what intelligent design was, what it said, what the history of creation science was, and the emergence of intelligent design after creation science was struck down by the Edwards versus Aguillarad case. Upon my finishing my conversation with her, she said, oh, that is a problem.	Section22 notes
Section 23 Q. Now following that board meeting on October the 18th of 2004, did you attend the next board meeting? A. Beginning of November, that would have been, yes. Q. It was -- it was the November 1st meeting? A. Probably. THE COURT: This might be -- if you have a number of questions in this area, we could break at this point. I'm assuming you do. MR. HARVEY: I do have a few more questions. THE COURT: All right. What we're going to do is, counsel, take five minutes, and I'll see you in chambers on a matter that Mr. Gillen raised. We'll do that in about five minutes. This could be a somewhat extended break. We'll take at least a 20-minute break. It may ripen into 30 minutes, depending on what we do. We'll break now. Our last session will be rather an abbreviated one. We'll go to 4:30 approximately, give or take, today. I'll see you in chambers in about five minutes much. We'll be this recess. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at 3:10 p.m. and proceedings reconvened at 3:20 p.m. in chambers.)	Section 23 notes

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Discussion of subpoenaed journalists

Section 24 THE COURT: We're in chambers. We're on the record. And it's been indicated to me by Mr. White that the reporters, Mr. Maldonado and Mrs. Bernhard-Bubb, were called for depositions, was it yesterday or -- today -- I'm sorry -- today at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Mr. White advises the Court that the reporters refused to answer any questions, and that they invoked their, what they claim is a, First Amendment reporters privilege -- do I have that correct -- not to testify. He's presented me with a transcript. I have no reason to doubt that that's what took place. Now we have had some testimony already this afternoon and some discourse about the subject articles. The Court has allowed the articles to be referred to, to refresh recollection. However, we have not admitted them. Let me ask Plaintiffs' counsel, is it still your intention to attempt to call the reporters in your case-in-chief? MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Under the circumstances then, you clearly have a right to depose them. And my -- I don't think I have any choice at this point but to summon the reporters. I'm not going to hold them in contempt without giving them an opportunity to come in. So my intention, subject to, and I'll hear you on this, any of you, would be to issue an order and have them appear, but if any of you think that's inappropriate under the circumstances, or you have a better idea, I'll hear you on that. MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, if I could add another piece to the puzzle, which is the trial testimony. We have subpoenaed the reporters for 1:00 tomorrow. I apologize for not being here earlier this afternoon for the testimony, but I was meeting with Mr. Benn. I actually attended the deposition and can confirm certainly what Mr. White says. THE COURT: That would solve the problem of having to summon them. I would assume they would appear and then exercise the same privilege. MR. WALCZAK: My understanding is that, they will appear, but it is unclear as to whether or not they will testify. And after speaking to Mr. White, it would be our proposal that we all meet in chambers maybe -- I'm sorry, with Mr. Benn at maybe 1:15. If we break at 12:15, and go back at 1:45, maybe meet at 1:15 to discuss where we are in terms of witnesses testimony and trial. And I guess folded into that has to be the situation with the depositions as well. MR. WHITE: Excuse me, Your Honor. I had asked both reporters whether they were going to invoke the privilege tomorrow, and they said they wouldn't give me an answer. THE COURT: I don't know that there's anything particularly magical about them invoking the privilege in this court. If they, for example, would appear with Mr. Benn, and Mr. Benn simply says, they're here and they're not going to testify. I'm not going to stand on ceremony. So to put them on the stand and waste everybody's time by having them invoke the privilege, I don't think that that's helpful. Now the question I have to grapple with, and I don't know the answer to this at this point, is whether I bring them in chambers, as I think Mr. Walczak suggested, and correct me if I'm wrong, and that I cite them for contempt in chambers and we move on and I determine what sanctions, if any, I'm going to assess against them, they take their appeal, and so it is, or whether I have a dialogue with them in open court. I will tell you that my inclination is to have a dialogue with them in open court at this point, and I don't know what I'm going to do in terms of sanctions at this point. MR. GILLEN: If I may, Your Honor. I mean, you know our position, which is simply that, you know, we're entitled to every man's evidence. And for them to show up tomorrow and attempt to get on the stand -- THE COURT: They're not going to. I'm not going to have them testify as fact witnesses. I'll tell you that now. They will not testify as fact witnesses for the Plaintiffs unless you have the opportunity to depose them. So that is not going to happen. I'll tell you that right now. So, you know, I don't assume that Mr. Benn is playing that game. But if he is, then that's not going to work. I don't know why he would under the circumstances. I'm assuming privilege asserted as to one is privilege asserted as to both until someone tells me differently. Maybe I'm wrong. But I can't. I won't. Because, as I said during the last conference that we had, which was off the record, and I'll state it on the record, in order to get the residual exception under 807, I think implicitly there has to be an opportunity. And I understand that you disagree on the scope of what they would be deposed on, but at a minimum, you have to be given the opportunity, since they're called as fact witnesses, and if you are going to attempt to assert 807 to have some questioning, and you haven't had that opportunity. So they're not going to testify unless the Defendants have had the opportunity to, the full opportunity within the limits of my orders to question them. I am confounded by this. I will tell you that, in the abstract, I understand the argument, but I think this is the wrong place to line draw by them. I think it's very in fortunate. It's going to impede this trial. I got a reading from Mr. Benn, although it was not explicit, that if I tailor this order to certain concerns that he had, they would testify. I, in no way, understood his motion last week, which asked for alternative relief and asked for the same relief that I thought I granted in the prior order, which I have to tell you, was utterly confusing to me as it related to your subpoena. Maybe somebody can explain that, but I can't. MR. WALCZAK: I think, after meeting with Mr. Benn for an hour, I have a slightly different understanding of what they are asking for. But I certainly don't want to represent his, Mr. Benn's, views to the Court. And I would rather him state that tomorrow. I think that our primary concern is that we are able to get this to the Circuit and have them decide this on an expedited basis. An expedited, I would think, is a couple of weeks. Since it's a bench trial, I assume, if we get a decision in two or three weeks, and if even if the Plaintiffs are done with their case-in-chief, assuming there's no directed verdict, that we would be able to call them out of turn. THE COURT: I understand that. And I have that same concern, too. I also have a concern, you know, for the integrity of this court and this proceeding. And I, as I said last week, I was not inclined to do business as according to what I characterized at that time is the Marcus of Queensbury [Marquess of Queensberry? - editor] rules where we have contempt by consent and life goes on. Now I don't know what I'm going to do. But I'm, you know, deeply concerned, and not particularly happy that we have this line drawn in a place where I don't think it should be drawn. Reasonable people will differ. I'll hear Mr. Benn out, as I have to, but I don't know what else we can do. So we'll conference in chambers on at least the issue of what Mr. Benn intends to do. We can get that on the record. I don't know what I'm going to do in terms of the dialogue with the reporters themselves. But your understanding then is that they will be available in the building? It's not necessary for me to separately order their appearance, if I understand you correctly? MR. WALCZAK: That is my understanding, and I'd be happy to take responsibility for contacting Mr. Benn for two reasons. One, to verify that's true. And second, to confirm that we'll meet here at 1:15. THE COURT: Well, I don't know if it will be 1:15. We'll take it as we can. Let's just say, after lunch, because, you know, if they're a little inconvenienced, they're a little inconvenienced. We all have to be here, and I'm not going to disrupt anybody's case. It just depends on how things go. So I would be reluctant to say, 1:15 sharp, but let's just say, after lunch they should be available. I would say, any time from 1:15 on. I'll try to take it as soon as I can. Does anybody else want to weigh in on this conundrum? MR. WALCZAK: I think it's just because we don't have enough interesting constitutional issues in this case already. MR. ROTHSCHILD: I wasn't going to give a humorous aside. The only thing I was going to bring up, which was at issue when we were admitting exhibits into evidence, is that, obviously, the flip side of this, one side of this, and the reason we're trying to call these reporters, is to get these articles in for the truth of the matter asserted. We still have, obviously, our flip side argument, which is that, this is what a reasonable observer would know about the controversy. THE COURT: Well, I understand that argument, and, you know, I think we can take that up, but, you know, to chew that fat, so to speak, when we've not run through the mechanism that you're attempting, which is to have the reporters verify the article, and I understand their arguments on both sides, I would just as soon not go there. Now one result we could get, if they take it up, is the Third Circuit could agree with Mr. Benn and they could say that there is a privilege here, and that's the argument you're left with. And you could assert that argument at that time. But I don't know why we have to do that. MR. ROTHSCHILD: I guess the only thing I would say, I don't look at it as the argument we're left with. I think it's actually an independent evidentiary purpose. It may be the more important one actually from our perspective at this point in the case, that we get the evidence that the reasonable observer in the community would have been aware of. THE COURT: I understand that, but I think, as a progression, if you want to abandon your attempts to bring the reporters in, and I know you don't, then we'll have to focus in on that argument. I'd just as soon not and rather allow you the opportunity to do that. I recognize that you don't think it's a second best argument, but it's an ancillary argument, if you will. I think, let's take the first method first, so to speak, and then we'll deflect it, if we have to. You'll agree that, if the Third Circuit agrees with my assessment, which is that there is no reporters privilege, and if, in fact, they're deposed, and if, in fact, you take them, and if, in fact, I allow the articles in on that basis, three if's, but if I do, you won't have to assert that argument, the ancillary argument. MR. WALCZAK: Although, on the other hand, I think it's not, from our perspective, it's not a question of whether the articles come in. The question is, for what purpose they come in. And our argument would be that they definitely come in as historical record. The question is whether they come in for the truth of the matter asserted. THE COURT: I understand that. But if they came in for the truth of the matter asserted, which is what you're attempting to do through the reporters' testimony, then they're obviously going to come in for effect. MR. WALCZAK: Right. They're better. THE COURT: That pulls them in. Right. But it doesn't happen the other way around. If they come in -- if I allowed them in for effect on your argument, then they wouldn't come in for the truth of matter asserted. MR. WALCZAK: Well, they could come in for both. THE COURT: Well, I'm not so sure. I think what you're left with, without the reporters' testimony, my view, is that they could come in for a collar boy on the argument that's asserted for effect. But I would tell you that, I'm disinclined to let them in standing alone without verification from the reporters for the truth of the matter asserted. I'm not inclined to do that. MR. WALCZAK: Right, but I think they come in for, this is what the community was reading, not that what happened and this is happened. THE COURT: On the effect prong. MR. WALCZAK: Right. That's a non-hearsay purpose. THE COURT: I understand that, but not the truth of the matter asserted in the article, which is probative of, for example, Mr. Buckingham making certain statements, if all you assert is the ancillary argument. That's my point. MR. WALCZAK: That's right. MR. MUISE: That's assuming the effect they're making is the proper one, which we obviously disagree with. THE COURT: I understand that, and you reserve the right to argue on that point. That's why we've taken the exit ramp off into that argument that I didn't want to, so we'll save that, and I'll let you assert whatever arguement you want to on that. That's precisely why I don't want to do that unless we see what happens here. All right. (Whereupon, the discussion held in chambers concluded at 3:35 p.m. and proceedings reconvened in the courtroom at 3:45 p.m.)

Section 24 notes

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Direct (continued) of Bryan Rehm

Section 25 THE COURT: All right. We'll continue with the direct examination of this witness. DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mr. Rehm, earlier you said that Mr. Buckingham had made a comment to the effect of, 2000 years ago, a man died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him? Or words to that effect, correct? A. Correct. Q. You said that was said at one of the June board meetings? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember, I can't remember if I asked you, do you remember which board meeting that was said at? A. I cannot place which meeting. Q. Was that said in the context of a discussion about the biology textbook? A. Yes, it was specifically about Darwinism, centered around the textbook, and how evolution didn't agree with it and, therefore, had to be balanced so that those that don't agree with evolution can have something else that they can hold onto. Q. Now let's go back to the November 1st board meeting, which is where we were just when we took that short break. A. Okay. Q. Did you attend a board meeting on November the 1st? A. I'm pretty sure that I did. Q. Why did you attend that board meeting? A. It was a follow-up to the 18th board meeting. I read the newspaper articles following the 18th meeting and saw more of the reports of what had continued on after my wife and myself had left, centering around the expectations of the Board and Heather Geesey's comment that they should be fired, and it was in the context, if they asked for legal representation, if they're -- if the suit is filed against them for somehow addressing intelligent design in the classroom.	Section 25 notes
Section 26 Q. Let's go back to the October 18th meeting for just a second. Do you remember board member Heather Geesey saying something to the effect about somebody being fired? A. I was not there at the time that it was supposedly said, which is why I showed up at the November meeting, having read that in the paper, having requesting to hear the audio tapes. Q. Did you request to hear the audio tapes? A. Yes, did I. Q. Did you do that before the Board meeting? A. The November 1st board meeting? Q. Yes. A. I did it at the board meeting. Q. What did you say? A. I stood up and explained why I did not get to hear the comments, that I was concerned by the comments I was reading in the newspaper, and since the Board members had been denying that they said those comments, that I wanted to hear them for myself. When I had the infant with me and I had to take it home because it was way past its bedtime. It needed more diapers. It needed bottle fed. I had to leave. That was the more responsible thing to do. Therefore, since I missed the opportunity to hear what was being said for myself, the audio tape is there, I should be able to hear it. Q. And you're referring now to the audio tape of the October 18th meeting? A. Correct, correct, where it should have been recorded what those comments actually were to determine if they were said as reported or were not said. Q. When you say, the comments, you're referring now to the Heather Geesey comments? A. All of the comments in general, but specifically the Heather Geesey comments because that's what I read in the paper that I wasn't able to hear on my own.	Section 26 notes
Section 27 Q. What were you told by the Board on November 1st or any member of the Board on November 1st in response to your request that you should be permitted to hear these tapes? A. My request was framed around information I had been given previously, such as that the Board would have the tapes available, and generally you could either get a copy of them or you could go to the administration building and listen to them. And I asked, why can't we get a copy, you know, because we already asked that question previously and had been asked through phone conversations and so forth. I know I stopped in the administration building, I can't tell you if it was before or after the November 1st meeting, and specifically asked and actually spoke to Mike Baksa about it. And he told me at that point in time, he was waiting for the Board to make a decision. It was then related back to me at the board meeting that that was not the practice and that it had been, in fact, checked on, and we would not be allowed to listen to the audio tapes. And this was coming from Mr. Bonsell. And he stated that they had consulted with the district solicitor and he related to the public there that they could not release the audio tapes because they were told it would open up the Board members to possible litigation. And then he followed it up with -- I'm actually not going to say that because I don't remember if he said that or if that's what I'm thinking to myself as he's saying it. Q. Did he say anything about hiding anything? A. That's the part that I'm not sure of. It sticks in my mind he did say that, that we're not trying to hide anything, this is what the lawyers have told us to do. But at the same time -- unfortunately, I can't specify he said that versus that's my thinking as he's saying, we're not going to release them. Q. Now -- A. I'm sorry. I take that back. He did say that. And the reason I know is because I'm thinking to myself, that's a contradiction. How can you be telling me that you're not hiding anything, yet the lawyers told you you can't release them or you'll be open to litigation? To me, that was a direct conflict. So, yes, now thinking through that, that's what I remember hearing.	Section 27 notes
Section 28 Q. Following this, did you seek appointment to the board of directors for the Dover Area School District? A. Yes, I did. Q. And approximately when was that? A. It was in the middle of November, the 15th, 18th, somewhere in that time frame. Noel Weinrich had been resigning. I just lost the other -- Jane Cleaver was resigning. My understanding was, Noel was moving to Lancaster, Jane was moving to Florida, or something of that nature. Then the Browns had resigned in protest over the biology curriculum change. Therefore, there were four vacancies on the school board that needed to be filled. The vacancies are filled by appointment by the remaining school board members. Q. Did you have to do something to become, to seek appointment? A. You had to contact the administration offices,, Dr. Nilsen, I believe, was the main contact on that. You had to submit a letter of intent with your qualifications. I did that. And then about two days before it was, you got a phone call that I was scheduled to be interviewed at the public meeting that they were holding to do interviews. And subsequently, it was followed by a letter in the mail the day or two days before the actual interviews is when I received that letter telling me where it was, when it was, and that I had to have a prepared statement when I arrived. Q. Now did other people seek appointment? A. Yes, it was a full house. There was in excess of 10 applicants. Q. So you and the other 10 applicants had to appear before the Board? A. Yes, we all had to be interviewed.	Section 28 notes
Section 29 Q. What was the process of appearing before the Board? A. The school board was still set up in the general board meeting setting where they had tables at the front for the board members, and then they had the audience on basically the opposite side of that. But they had it pulled into more of a compact U shape, where Bill Buckingham was here. I don't remember who was right beside Bill Buckingham. Alan Bonsell and Sheila Harkins were somewhere in the middle. Dr. Nilsen was mediating it. And then to the left side, I don't remember who was on my immediate left, and Angie Yingling was still on the left-hand side of that format. Then there a smaller table set up where I was a little bit away from -- where all the candidates were away from the Board members when it was your turn to be interviewed. And you sat there and they conducted the interview. They asked one question at a time, and they alternated which person would ask the questions to you. Q. Did the candidates go up one at a time to be asked questions? A. The candidates were pre-scheduled according to a particular order, and they were called one at a time to be interviewed, yes. Q. Were you present when the other candidates were interviewed? A. Yes. Q. And at this point, had you spoken out against the Board policy curriculum change that is the subject of this lawsuit? A. Yes. At some point in time, I spoke out against the Board's decisions way back before the October decision -- I know I was speaking in June -- I don't remember which meeting -- about the idea then of changing and the textbook selection, that the idea of doing this because you have a problem with evolution is totally ridiculous. We're talking about science. We're not talking about anything else here. You have to look at the scientific arguments in science class. I had also spoken out -- the November 1st meeting was about the tapes. I don't know if I said anything else then or not. But it was common knowledge at that point in time that I was opposed to the school board's policy change.	Section 29 notes
Section 30 Q. Had any of the other candidates who appeared at that meeting to be interviewed by the Board for possible appointment, had any of them spoken out against the Board and its policy, the change to the biology curriculum? A. I don't recall if any had spoken out prior to the meeting. I know that a number of them were asked or offered an opinion when they were being interviewed. One of the candidates, Eric Riddle, who eventually was appointed, actually had spoken out in favor of the school board and, of course, was appointed. Q. Were you interviewed at that meeting? A. Yes, I was. Q. And were you asked any questions that other members, that other candidates were not asked? A. Yes, I was. Q. And tell us what you were asked? A. Bill Buckingham had his next turn for question, and I don't remember the exact wording, but he asked me if I had either ever been accused of child abuse or child molestation. And I don't recall if he said abuse or molestation. But that was his question. Q. Now if you would just, please, take a look at what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 127. And my only question for you on that document is, did you receive it in the mail? A. Yes, I did. Q. And when was that? A. I'm guessing by the date on it, February. It was after the curriculum change had already gone through. They were, I'm guessing, February 2, that they had already enacted the first reading of the statement. And it really caught me off guard because they passed it on the previous board meeting. Rather, it wasn't on the agenda. They just brought it up and very quickly did it and shuffled it out of the way. Nobody got to see it. Nobody got to read it that was in the audience prior to them already passing it and approving it. At that point in time, the document was not even complete. The copy that they had that was circulating had cut off at least three lines of the last paragraph above where it says, quotables, on the backside.	Section 30 notes
Section 31 Q. Mr. Rehm, I'd like to turn to my final area of questions to ask you, and so I'll ask you, do you believe that the board's actions have caused harm to you? A. Absolutely. Q. And can you please tell us how the Board's actions have harmed you? A. There is a lot of different ways. I'll simply start with professionally. When I went to Dover, I thought that was going to be my teaching home. I enjoyed working with the faculty. I enjoyed the students I had. It was my home district. It's where I lived. I was looking forward to that. Within those two years I was in the district, I saw a totally different side. And I saw a district in which teachers were not respected for their educational expertise. Their educational background was not respected. Science teachers were not respected. And it was all, as far as the science teachers not being respected, was out of religious ideas. I sat in a meeting when Alan Bonsell told me he didn't agree with evolution because of his religious background. He may not have been aware of it, because I was teaching evolution as well, because natural selection was part of the curriculum for the environmental course that I had to teach. So, therefore, even though he was addressing the curriculum change in biology, he was addressing the curriculum change in something that I also had to teach. How long is it until he changes my environmental and tells me what I have to do? In addition to that, if his religious beliefs of young earth creationism that he expressed are in disagreement with evolution, what happens when we get to the big bang theory and I'm teaching in physics that the earth is billions of years old? And I saw my head on the chopping block and my curriculum as being the next to be altered when they realized what was there. Personally, I live in the neighborhood, you know. I live within the school district where I taught. You used to be able to go out to any restaurant, sit down, not worry about who was next to you. You could walk down the street and say, hi, to everybody and get a nice pleasant return.	Section 31 notes
Section 32 Now people stare. They know you're a Plaintiff or they know in this particular case that I'm a candidate opposing the school board, and you can't sit there and not worry about who's looking at you or what's going to happen, you know. You'll go out and regularly be called inappropriate things centering around the concept of atheist. They don't know me. They don't know that I'm the co-director of the children's choir at church or that I run the music halfway at the second service, or that, you know, my wife and I run Vacation Bible School. Yet they have no problem going around calling me an atheist because my particular religious viewpoint doesn't agree with that of the school board, which is a public entity not a religious one. Religiously, the young earth creationism and that influencing science is not what my religious views entail. There is a separation there. You know, my religion accepts that science can explain things in the world as we perceive them, but that science is not going to touch theology. It can't explain the divine creator. In intelligent design, every aspect I've ever heard of it, is religious creationism. You know, if the designer is not -- an intelligent designer is not a God, even if you don't want to refer to it as Judea Christian God, what is it? Aliens? Then you're still not addressing the origins of life that you speak of. Where did the aliens come from? So there has to be a supernatural component to. And that, to me, is religious. That's not my religion, and that's not something that should be shared in the science classroom. Scientifically, there is no merit right now to the concept of intelligent design. Philosophically or religiously, is it a possibility? Sure. But it's out of the realm of science. And my career as a science educator is educating students what science is. And we also educate them what the limits of science happen to be. And through the things the Board has done, through their policy, through the mailing of their newsletter here, they're setting up the students that would be walking into my classroom to have conflict right away. They have statements in here dealing with -- am I allowed to read from this?	Section 32 notes
Section 33 THE COURT: We're in the midst of a narrative answer, and I think the narrative answer might be getting a little extended. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. We just need you to tell us. The question was, how does that cause you harm, and you started to complain how this causes harm. If you could complete your answer? A. Professionally covered. Personally, you know, going out, we have issues with people, where they're not very pleased to see us around and are not hesitating to let you know that. And it's not very polite. It goes beyond atheist to adding other words onto it that I don't care to repeat. So there is a lot of issues and a lot of different ways in which it hurts me, not to mention now my daughter is in the biology course, and there are students in the class that want to know, well, what if you do come from monkeys? What's going on with this? Well, you know that evolution doesn't make sense. Why are your parents doing this? So it has filtered down to the kids, and it's affecting my children directly. And that's a problem. And if the school board didn't pass the policy, it never would have occurred. Prior to their policy change, I never once had a student in class criticize another student for believing evolution, even when we were teaching it. It didn't happen. MR. HARVEY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.	Section 33 notes

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Cross of Bryan Rehm

Section 34 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Cross examination will be by Mr. Gillen. All right. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gillen. A. Hello, Pat. Q. As you indicated, Pat Gillen. I took your deposition. I'm going to ask you a few questions today. A. Okay. Q. Mr. Rehm, you've testified that you recall meeting with Alan Bonsell in the science faculty, correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you've testified previously that you believe Alan Bonsell may have mentioned intelligent design at that meeting? A. It is possible. I previously testified and my deposition stated that I couldn't pin down which word he was using by the time we reached that meeting, but there had been a long dialogue prior to getting to that meeting. So creationism was associated with Alan Bonsell, and I couldn't tell you if it was that meeting or prior to that meeting, and likewise with intelligent design, if it had shown up at that meeting or prior it that meeting. Q. Understood. You testified previously that you recalled Alan Bonsell talking to you about holes in the geologic record? A. Yes, that is correct. I forgot that earlier, but, yes. Q. And you mentioned that, at this meeting, teachers expressed to Alan Bonsell that they taught micro evolution, correct? A. That was one of the main thrusts of the conversation we had with him, that the macro evolution monkey demand was not covered. And we illustrated what commonly is covered, which were mostly examples of micro evolution. Q. And to make sure I understand you, that's changed within species, is that correct? A. A variation of a species, so we would still recognize it typically as the same type of organism, but with a slightly different property. We're looking at the bacteria that was not previously resistant to an antibiotic and now is resistant. Q. Am I correct that sometimes that process you described is referred to as subspeciation? A. I'm not positive -- yeah, that's not a term that I am highly familiar, but that sounds right, that's been used in that context.	Section 34 notes
Section 35 Q. And I believe you've testified that Alan Bonsell expressed his belief that there were holes in evolutionary theory big enough you could drive a truck through, is that correct? A. I did state that, yes, and he stated that to me. Q. And you previously testified that you remember Bert Spahr talking about the way the term theory is used among scientists? A. I don't know if I testified to that, but that is a correct statement, that she has. Q. Let me do this. Excuse me a second. MR. GILLEN: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: You bet. MR. GILLEN: Thank you. BY SKWRAO: (RW Ed: As written in the actual transcript, possibly a transcription error) Q. Mr. Rehm, if you would, I just ask you to, rather than tax your memory unfairly, if you look at page 51, line 6? A. I don't mean to be confused here, but -- okay. Now I see the page numbers. Q. Okay. A. Line 6. Okay. Q. And before I ask you the question, I'd ask you to look at page 50, beginning at line 17, down through page 51? A. Did you say, page 50, line? Q. Page 50, line 17, through page 51, line 11, please. Have you had a chance to review that, Mr. Rehm? A. Line 4. Okay. Q. And on page 51, I was asking you about some of the statements that Bert Spahr made to Alan Bonsell at that meeting, and she testified she was explaining or trying to explain that, in science theory, a certain meaning? A. Yes. Q. And you testified that she said it's a plausible explanation supported by evidence and can be modified pending new evidence? A. Yes. Those, I would believe, are my words there, not the exact words she used, but the idea is correct. Q. Good enough. And do you stand by those words today? A. Yeah. It could definitely use some refining. I believe Dr. Miller gave a much better definition than mine, but he's the expert witness.	Section 35 notes
Section 36 Q. Precisely. I think you testified you don't recall anything coming from this 2003 meeting with Mr. Bonsell, is that correct, no resolution? A. I don't recall any resolution coming of that meeting, correct. Q. You've also testified that Mr. Buckingham provided some materials to the teachers for their review, is that correct? A. That was evidently what happened at the meeting that I could not attend shortly after watching the Icons of Evolution video. Q. Okay. But you do recall reviewing that Icons of Evolution video? A. Yes. But like I said, it was brought to us by Mike Baksa. I did not have any communications at that point by Mr. Buckingham. Q. But you understood that Mr. Buckingham had given it to Mr. Baksa? A. I understood at that point in time, a school board member had given it to Mr. Baksa. And I did not necessarily know at that point it was Mr. Buckingham. I cannot say if I did or did not know at that time it was Mr. Buckingham. Q. Okay. As you stand here today, do you know whether it was Mr. Buckingham who provided those videos to Mr. Baksa to be provided to the science faculty? A. It has been indicated to me that it was Mr. Buckingham. But from my own recollection, as far as remembering that point in time, I cannot say from my memory that it was in fact him. That's just what I've been informed of since then.	Section 36 notes
Section 37 Q. Fair enough. Did you view that video, Icons of Evolution? A. Yes, I did. Q. And I believe that you concluded that it pointed to flaws in evolutionary theory, but you thought the criticisms were outdated, is that correct? A. The flaws, as I saw them, it was pointing to were actually in methods of instruction of evolution theory. And from examples that I had seen, I hadn't seen those examples used in education instruction of evolution at any time that I done it, not when I learned it in 7th grade in the mid 80's to when I was teaching evolution in 2000. Q. Sure. But just to be clear, the video did reflect specific criticisms of evolutionary theory as taught which you disagreed with? A. The video indicated that it was criticisms of evolution education, and I believe it dated as far back as 1950. And I thought that those were outdated examples. We have much better evidence and much more easily understandable evidence to use to teach our children and students about evolution than what was presented in that video. It's not any evidence that I would ever choose to use as a hard core outstanding evidence of evolution.	Section 37 notes
Section 38 Q. Now you've also testified that Mr. Buckingham indicated there was a think tank that gave the Miller and Levine book an F? A. Correct. Q. Did you ask Mr. Buckingham for the name of that think tank? A. Somebody asked him. I don't recall if I was the one that asked him or not, but that meeting where he mentioned it, the question was asked, what is this think tank? Who is it? He had no response at that point in time. Q. And I believe previously you testified that this think tank came up around June of 2004? A. That sounds familiar, because I believe it was at the June board meetings where he made the announcement that the book was given an F. That's when the idea of it would have come up, yes.	Section 38 notes
Section 39 Q. Now you testified previously that you believe that Alan Bonsell thinks that teaching intelligent design is not teaching creationism, is that correct? A. Those are the words I heard him say, yes. Q. Apart from the statements that you referenced by Alan Bonsell about teaching intelligent design, do you remember other board members discussing that topic in the June through August 2004 period? A. I wasn't there in any of the August times, so in the June time, there was conversation about the Darwinism comments made about the textbook and the selection of Pandas, and people are looking for a text to balance out the ideas. And intelligent design, I don't recall if it was specifically being used at that particular time or not. While I know there was conversations occurring, that were heated, I don't remember the specifics of, was intelligent design the words that were used. Q. Okay. You also said it's your position that the Board shouldn't dictate curriculum? A. My opinion on that was that they're paying teachers. MR. HARVEY: I'm going to object, Your Honor. Mr. Gillen keeps referring to things he said. And I believe he's going to -- it's unclear whether he's talking about his testimony here now or his deposition testimony. THE COURT: Right. Do you want to clarify the question? MR. GILLEN: I certainly will.	Section 39 notes
Section 40 BY MR. GILLEN: Q. You've testified in your deposition to your position that the Board shouldn't dictate curriculum, is that correct? A. If that's what's in there, I suspect so. But clarification, it's not that they don't have any say in curriculum, but they need to really base the curriculum approval upon the experts in the area. And I don't believe that nine board members that don't have degrees in science are really qualified to dictate what should be in the science curriculum or not. They are the reviewers. They are the overseers. And they're supposed to check that the, in fact, experts in the area or the people they've hired that are knowledgeable in the area have done their work appropriately. But as far as having the credentials to state that they know that that is science or is not science is not where I believe the Board should be. They're supposed to be the process checkers, making sure that things are done effectively, but not actually dictating what that is. They have the final approval is what their role is. Q. And they have to accept what the science faculty says? A. If they don't accept specifically what the science department states, then they should be looking for an outside source, that is an expert in the area that would have the science credentials to make that statement. And a good place in York County is that we have a lot of university and colleges that have a presence with very large science staffs that were not consulted or listened to.	Section 40 notes
Section 41 Q. But you do know that Mr. Buckingham referenced the think tank? A. What kind of think tank? He stated, a think tank. Is this a scientific think tank? Q. I'm just asking you, Mr. Rehm, whether you know Mr. Buckingham referenced a think tank? A. He stated that he did. Q. I think you've testified here today that Superintendent Richard Nilsen did not believe or said that he did not believe the curriculum change would come up to a vote in October, is that correct? A. That's what he told me. Q. But you recall attending the October 18th, 2004, board meeting? A. Absolutely. Q. And you recall Alan Bonsell speaking about intelligent design? A. If that's what I said in my deposition or testimony, yes. Right now, unfortunately, all the meetings are blending together again, as they often do. Q. That's understandable. If you would, if you check your deposition at page 118, line 21. A. Okay. Q. And if you would take a look at the deposition transcript beginning with line 13 to give you a little context. MR. HARVEY: I'm just going to ask that the witness be given the chance to read back a few pages to make it clear what meeting he's talking about. MR. GILLEN: By all means. THE COURT: You may go forward and back so that you get the statement in context before you respond to any questions that Mr. Gillen may have for you. After you've done that, just signify to Mr. Gillen that you're ready. THE WITNESS: How far back does this particular go? BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Well, as far back as it takes for you to get comfortable. I can represent to you, this is testimony relating to the October 18th, 2004 meeting. MR. HARVEY: I think if you begin looking at page 115, you can see. THE WITNESS: I saw a mention of October and the decision. THE COURT: Was there a question on the floor? Do you have a question? MR. GILLEN: I do have a question. THE COURT: Did you state one, because I don't recollect. MR. GILLEN: Oh, you know what, Judge, I think you may be right. Let me just put it this way. THE COURT: Why don't you put a question on the floor, and then if you need to read more to answer the question, let's do it that way, because you don't know how far to read because you don't know what the question is. BY MR. GILLEN:	Section 41 notes
Section 42 Q. Well, I believe I asked you if you recalled Alan Bonsell discussing intelligent design theory at the October 18th, 2004, meeting? A. According to my deposition, I do. Q. Okay. And if you would, Mr. Rehm, just for the record, read in your answer beginning on line 21 of page 118? A. Following the question here, how did you understand those comments -- COURT REPORTER: Could you slow down, please? THE WITNESS: Slow down? Sorry. How did you understand those comments, Brian, when he was talking about a balanced view? Answer, Intelligent design at that point in time, that was the terminology used. We still had the lingering echoes of creationism from June. I don't know that I knew going in what wording would be in place. Do I need to continue there? BY MR. GILLEN: Q. I don't think so. My point is, you've recognized in your prior testimony that Alan Bonsell recognized the distinction between intelligent design theory and creationism, correct? A. In Alan Bonsell's mind, he started communicating it that way, yes. I don't know where he got that. I mean, obviously, I don't perceive it that way. Q. That is obvious. And I'll ask you a question about that. But first let me just talk a little more about the October 18th meeting. You testified in your deposition that you recall Bill Buckingham losing his temper and becoming impolite? A. Yes. Q. You recall Sheila Harkins saying members of the public were out of order? A. Which meeting? Q. October 18th, 2004? A. Possibly. She was not yet president, and I remember her standing up and saying, out of order, which was not her job. It was the board president's job. That's left a mark in my mind.	Section 42 notes
Section 43 Q. Okay. If you would just turn to page 128? A. 120 -- Q. 8, line 3. A. Line 3? Q. Read up a little higher into 127. A. Where am I to begin? Q. You can begin, I think, to give you the context you'll need, on about line 11? A. Question, prior to line 11. I see that from your answer. Who is left? Sheila Harkins, which I'm not sure now where we're going with this. Q. Let me ask you, as you sit here today, do you remember Sheila Harkins telling members of the public that they were out of order? A. At the October meeting, if that's when it was, yes. Q. Okay. And do you remember that October 18th, 2004, meeting being one with a lot of controversy involved? A. I remember it that way, yes. Q. There were exchanges between the Board and the public? A. As I recall, yes. Q. Do you recall that, at that meeting, Alan Bonsell said that the solicitor had looked at the proposed curriculum change? A. I remember Alan Bonsell saying that at some point, and I followed up, or somebody followed up, with the question, what did they exactly say? And he would not tell us what their wording actually was. So, as a member of the public, at a later point in time, I remember saying, why isn't the solicitor here? We want to hear it for ourselves because we're the ones footing the bill for this. That opportunity never presented itself until much, much, much later. They brought the solicitor in after the new year for a totally separate issue. Q. But he did say, the solicitor had looked at it? A. Yes, he did. Q. Now I think -- A. Can I take that back? I don't know if he said, the solicitor looked at it, as much as the solicitor made a statement about it, gave the board an answer about it. I don't know if that means he looked at it, if he read it, if he heard it. But there was some communication with the solicitor about the statements.	Section 43 notes
Section 44 Q. Fair enough. Now you testified that during the recess at this October 18th, 2004 meeting, you spoke with Angie Yingling, correct? A. Correct. Q. And she said, more or less, I don't understand what the big deal is, is that correct? A. She did not understand why there was so many people in the public comment section speaking out about concerns about separation of church and state and why intelligent design would be an issue with separation of church and state. Q. And she told you that, in her opinion, intelligent design theory was not creationism, correct? A. I don't recall if I stated that or if she stated that. She was explaining at that point in time she didn't understand why it was a problem. Q. Okay. To help refresh your recollection, I think if you look at your deposition testimony on page 132, line 7? A. Line 7, okay. This is similar to what I testified to today. Q. If you look there at line 1, and again I want you to look far enough to get comfortable here. 131 should give you the context you need. Look it over. A. Okay. Q. Okay. What I'm asking you is, you have testified in your deposition that Angie Yingling told you, I don't see what the big deal is, this is intelligent design, this is not creationism? A. Right. Q. Correct? A. Okay. Those were my words here summarizing the idea she was communicating, but I don't know if those were her exact words. Those were the ideas she was communicating to the person she was speaking to whom I was eavesdropping on. Q. That is what you took from that exchange? A. That is exactly what I took from that change. Q. If you look at 132, you'll see a reference there to Discovery Institute? A. Correct. Q. And you had a discussion with Ms. Yingling about Discovery Institute? A. According to what I was recalling at the time of my deposition, yes. Q. And, Mr. Rehm, as I understand your testimony in your deposition, looking on those pages, if you'd like, essentially you told Angie Yingling that you disagreed with Discovery Institute's position, is that correct? A. Is that what I have worded in here? If that's what I have worded in here, then I'm going to stand by it. I have no reason to disagree with it. I don't know if I knew a hundred percent what Discovery Institute's position is aside from they want to teach the controversy.	Section 44 notes
Section 45 Q. Well, do you agree that intelligent design is science? A. No. Q. Do you have an understanding concerning whether Discovery Institute takes a position on that issue? A. I don't know what their exact words are, but I'm guessing from the way they promote intelligent design that they believe it is science. And I am guessing from, what is it, the Center for Science and Culture, that that would be their stance on it. Q. Despite the conversation you had with Angie Yingling, she did vote for the curriculum change, correct? A. Yes, she did. Q. You've also testified in your deposition that, based on discussions you had with Bert Spahr, Jen Miller, and Rob Eshbach, that you believe the teachers had agreed to allow Of Pandas in the classrooms as a reference text as a concession to the Board, is that correct? A. Correct. We'll scratch -- we'll do a little bit and then let's drop it. Q. Now you've testified today that Noel Weinrich was initially in favor of the curriculum change that was discussed in the period between June and October of 2004, correct? A. I don't assume that he was in favor of the curriculum change. At the end, he versed his opinion. But when the discussion was about the textbooks and balance, he had originally been speaking in favor of presenting balance. Q. Despite that though, Noel voted against the curriculum change, correct? A. Correct. And his stated reason at the time was he was concerned about possible litigation for the district. Q. I just want to make sure I understand your testimony today. Your oldest daughter is in what grade? A. Ninth. Q. Has she taken biology? A. She is taking it right now with Mr. Linker. Q. Did she stay in class for the reading of the statement? A. It hasn't occurred yet. It will occur sometime in January. Q. Do you know whether she intends to? A. I do not know her intentions, but that will be her choice. I mean, I obviously speak to her regularly about biology and science in general. But she does get to make her own choices in that regard. Q. And apart from the oldest daughter, what's the age of your next child down? A. 1998. This is 2005. No, 1997. Eight.	Section 45 notes
Section 46 Q. That's faster than I can reckon. That's very good. Let me ask you this. It's plain, you regard intelligent design theory as unscientific, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you regard it as religion, is that correct? A. I regard it as modern day creationism. Q. And that's based on your opinion and your education, correct? A. My science education that it must be testable, must form hypothesis, testable predictions, none of which intelligent design does. And also then taking that beyond that, an intelligent agent, an intelligent designer. Once again, as Dr. Miller said, those are the words that, as a department, we tried to communicate to Alan Bonsell and to the school board at the meetings. We are saying that all before we even knew what Dr. Miller was going to say. So those very closely reflect my understanding and my views.	Section 46 notes
Section 47 Q. You have a B.S. in science, correct? A. Correct, physics. Q. And you're a science educator? A. Correct. Q. You've also testified that in some of the classes you've taught dealing with evolution, you used a videotape that did discuss creationism, is that correct? A. Yes, it did. MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Gillen. Mr. Harvey, do you have any brief redirect or do you want to -- MR. HARVEY: Very brief, Your Honor. THE COURT: Then we can get it in today. Let's do that. MR. HARVEY: Hopefully, just two questions. THE COURT: All right.	Section 47 notes
Section 48 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mr. Rehm, you testified about a conversation that you had with Angie Yingling on October 18th during the recess on your way out of the building. Do you recall that? A. Correct. Q. Mr. Gillen just asked you some questions about that? A. Correct. Q. Did you say anything in that conversation about a wedge strategy? A. It is possible that I had, but I cannot confirm that. I did become aware of the wedge strategy. I know I knew the wedge strategy prior to November and December, but I don't know exactly when I became aware of the wedge strategy. Q. And did Ms. Yingling later take, to your knowledge, a public stance about her vote? A. Absolutely. She requested at a later meeting to have the policy rescinded. She tried to get, once again, a vote and it did not receive a second. So the vote never occurred. At that point in time, she offered a resignation speech. MR. HARVEY: No further questions. THE COURT: Last round to Mr. Gillen. Did you have any? MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. He didn't leave you much scope to maneuver in, in any event. All right. We have, for this witness -- you may step down, sir. Thank you. WITNESS STEPS DOWN	Section 48 notes

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Exhibit discussion

Section 49 THE COURT: We have P-46, which again is the newspaper article, and inasmuch as I previously recalled, if you want to formally move it in, you can, and I -- MR. HARVEY: I do want to formally move it in. THE COURT: You're going to object, Mr. Gillen, I assume, so consistent with the Court's prior rulings, we will not admit it at this time without prejudice to revisit that at a later point in time. Now have I missed any exhibits as they relate to any of the witnesses? I think we've picked them up in a timely fashion. Mr. Walczak. MR. WALCZAK: With Dr. Miller, we had moved the admission of Plaintiff's Exhibit 434 as being Dr. Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. It was called to my attention that, in fact, 434 is just excerpts of that book and the actual book is at Plaintiff's Exhibit 647. So we would move -- THE COURT: 434 is subsumed within 647? MR. WALCZAK: Yes, 647 is the actual book. THE COURT: So 647 would pick up the excerpts. Do you want to move them in? I see no reason to have both. But do you want to just pick up the book? MR. WALCZAK: We can either substitute or just add 647. THE COURT: Let's just add it for the record. We'll add 647, unless there's no objection. MR. MUISE: There's no objection. THE COURT: You didn't object before, so I assume you will not now. We'll admit that as well and the excerpts. Any other exhibits we missed? MR. HARVEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: We'll be in recess until tomorrow morning. We will reconvene the trial at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning. We'll start at that point with the Plaintiffs' next witness. All right. Thank you. Have a good evening. (Whereupon, the proceeding adjourned for the day at 4:30 p.m.)

Section 49 notes

← Previous page

Next page →