Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 8: Part IV Afternoon session

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

1:15PM We’re back. Mr. Hak Sing William Tam is up.

Colloquy between Mr. Tam’s counsel, Mr. Thompson (a different Mr. Thompson and Tam withdrawing.)
chrome://foxytunes-public/content/signatures/signature-button.png
Boies: Tam cannot join a case, litigate it and then decide to get out.

Judge: Ordinarily under these circumstances, a defendant would withdraw and accept a judgment. I cannot understand what a reasonable judgment would be

Thompson: Intervention was voluntary. He did not have to intervene. Withdrawal is purely voluntary. Plaintiff has said if he did not like intrusive nature of discovery, he could withdraw. I could not find compelling or controlling legal authority (remember when Al Gore used that phrase?) that prevents him from withdrawing.

Judge: There has to be some consequence for putting defense to trouble and expense of litigating against someone. Typically, there would be a judgment that could recompense the opponents for their expense. He’s going to testify one way or another.

Thompson: He’s going to testify. He’s here and has been here.

Judge: Yes, he’s been very good about attending. A party’s deposition can be used by the adverse party at any time. I don’t know what prejudice there will be if he withdraws. Maybe the plaintiffs will agree he can withdraws or maybe not. So we’ll let him testify.

[UPDATE] 1:35

B: You were original proponent of 8. You worked with Shubert et al.

T: Yes and maybe some clerks who asked me to go to a press conference.

B: You supervised the language of Prop. 8?

T: Not sure what “supervise” means.

B: Look at declaration in which Tam says he supervised the appropriate language for Prop. 8.

T: I don’t quite remember what that particular document is.

B: Which document?

T: If it is about fourteen words of Prop. 8, I would go along with it.

B: This declaration that you have, did you prepare this declaration?

T: No.

B: Protect Marriage.com prepared this declaration for you and you signed it?

T: Yes.

B: Between January 2008 and November of 2008, did you devote substantial amount of your work time and organized rallies?

T: Yes.

B: Did you work with the people from Protect Marriage.com on the rallies?

T: No. Those rallies were mainly Asian Americans and those were the people that I knew. I only invited PM.com’s Ron Prentice to be present and one of the speakers.

B: Mr. Prentice CEO of ProtectMarriage.com? Do you consider that working with ProtectMarriage.com?

T: I would say so.

B: I would, too.

B: Did you personally participate in debates?

T: Yes.

B: Debate here in SF on Channel 26?

T: Not on Channel 26. They came and made a report on it that night.

B: This debate that was covered by Channel 26 was a debate in which you were campaigning for passage of 8 and you were told by people at PM.com to participate in that debate?

T: Yes.

B: Campaign for Prop. 8 began in 2007?

T: At 2007, if the preparation of the collection of the signatures is considered as a campaign, yes.

B: In October 2007, you were waiting for instructions from PM.com as to when you should start collecting signatures and eventually they told you when?

T: Yes.

[UPDATE] 1:48

Thompson objects to leading the witness.

Judge: He’s an adverse witness. He’s on the other side. Objection overruled.

B: You did take instructions from PM.com to send letters to pastors?

T: Yes.

Thompson: These documents are attorney client privilege. I’d like to reserve standing objection that T’s personal political views are protected under first amendment even though we lost in appeals court.

Judge: Very well, you may register standing objection so you do not have to get up for each question.

B: Points to exhibit 2685. (Asks for permission to approach to help T find the right page which he does.)

B: Is plaintiff’s exhibit 2685 a partial listing of the coalition of PM.com?

T: I believe so.

[Prop. 8 objects, but she’s standing in the back so I can’t hear what she is saying.]

Judge: Do you wish to lay any more foundation for this Mr. Boies?

B: I think I already asked him, but I’ll ask again. Is this partial listing of coalition of groups working with ProtectMarriage.com to pass Prop. 8?

T: I believe so, but it’s their website?

B: If necessary, I can take you through these one at a time. Focus on Family part of coalition supporting Prop. 8?

T: I believe so. I really don’t know why they put these names this list. You have to ask them.

B: I asked you if the Family Research Council was one of the organizations that supported Prop. 8? Yes. No. I don’t know. Family research council was an organization that was listed with your organization as working together to support Prop. 8.

T: Could be.

B: Read this list to yourself. Tell me if you know if any were part of coalition to pass Prop. 8?

T: I don’t know.

B: (Surprised) You don’t know any of them?

T: Focus on Family, Family Rearch Council, Ca Family Council, Values Advocacy Council, and Traditional Family Coalition—those are ones I recognize.

B: What is your relationship to the Traditional Family Coalition?

T: I am the Executive Director of the Traditional Family Coalition.

[UPDATE] 1:56
[Tam is very, very difficult. His lawyers are trying very hard to prevent him from testifying at all by constantly interrupting. The judge keeps overruling them.]

B: What is the Chinese Coalition referred to here (in doc that says Chinese community is strong and Bill Tam is one of the signers of Prop. 8).

T: I know some of the Chinese churches (evangelical) because of my position with Traditional Family Coalition.

B: You were already working with PM.com in July 2007 on what would become Prop. 8.

T: I think so, but my memory is fuzzy.

B: Does this document refresh your memory that as of July 2, 2007 you were working with Protect Marriage .com

T: I think so. We had discussions that a proposition could be put on ballot, but we’d need to gather.

B: This is email you sent on October 26, 2007 to whom?

T: Addressed “Dear Friend of TFC”

B: You say here, I am still waiting for http://protectmarriage.com as to when we can begin gathering signatures.”

[Boies is showing that Tam was integral to the campaign from the very beginning.]

B: You solicited contributions for ProtectMarriage.com?

T: Yes.

B: Email you sent on Feb 14, 2008.

T: Yes.

B: This is a uhm email that refers to an interview or debate you had on channel 26?

T: Yes.

B: You are talking about the opportunity you have to publicize “our protect marriage amendment” on television?

T: Yes.

B: This was debate that was broadcast over channel 26.

T: It was an interview, not a debate.

B: Is this separate than the debate you participated in on 26?

T: Separate events.

B: Both had interview and debate on 26 and you used both to support Prop. 8?

T: Yes.

[UPDATE] 2:00

B: You talk about many Christian forces including your organization, California Council, Concerned Women of America, the Values Council and Protect Marriage dot com. And others you don’t list. They all were part of this?

T: Yes.

B: Exhibit 2640. Email chain that includes both you and Mr. Pugno. Correct?

T: What I see here is my name on it and Pugno’s name on it. I don’t know if it’s a chain or not.

B: Well, sir, if you begin…

Thompson: I object under attorney client privilege.

Judge: Attorney Client Privilege?

B: There was no claim of privilege at the time.

Prop. 8 is not asserting atty client privileged and we produced document.

Judge: Very well. Over ruled.

B: What were you trying to tell Mr. Pugno?

T: He was asking if there is anything I should not say or disclose if there are questions from the Chinese press.

[UPDATE] 2:11

B: Emails between you and Lynn Fishel. Who is Lynn Fishel?

T: From California Family Conference (I think).

B: She addressed this to you as leadership of the Protect Marriage dot com? You were part of the leadership?

T: She did that to be nice. I don’t think I’m part of core group.

B: What do you mean by core group?

T: I don’t know but I heard you talking about core group while sitting in the courtroom and I know I’m not part of it.

B: So that’ something you picked up in the course of this trial?

T: Yes.

B: You sent an email on April 26, 2008. You remember that you said Fishel was just being nice to you when she called you part of the PM.com leadership?

T: yes.

Thompson objects that is attorney client priv.

Judge: Email sent by the witness?

Thompson: Yes.

Judge: Objection overruled.

B: You say in this email that Tam is playing major role to limit marriage to one man and one woman. You say that you worked closely with PM.com to collect 1.2 million signatures.

T: Yes. I played a major role. I spent a lot of time setting up petitions and collecting them. Worked with PM.com to get petitions off to Chinese churches. True statement, working closely with them (PM.com).

T: This document contain a lot of sensitive numbers that I would not like to disclose to public.

Thompson: I object. Attorneys eyes-only. Salary numbers. Budget numbers. Information about Dr. Tam’s family. Falls strictly into attorneys’ eyes-only.

T: This letter is my letter to pastors and leaders. Most of the things I’m talking is my personal information and they will be offended if this is in the public eye.

B: We’ll be happy to redact everything after those two sentences. I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Tam’s counsel, but in the spirit of cooperation, we’ll agree to redact.

Judge: Very well. That should take care of the problem.

B: You are responding to an email that Lynn Fishel sent you. You ask her, “who is Brian Brown and why is he speaking for us?”

[Brian Brown is from NOM and the Gathering Storm. Here it is, just in case anyone thought NOM was not directly involved.]

T: Those people in PM.com.

B: That included you and TFC?

T: Yes.

[UPDATE] 2:18

B: Shows document in which Tam says that we cannot lose 8 because it is god’s definition of marriage.

T: yes.

T: Other reasons it is very important that next generation understands the meaning of marriage. That our children not grow up fantasizing about should I grow up to marry John or Jane when I grow up. This is very important for the stability of Asian families.

B: You want the next generations to be educated about the historical meaning of marrying?

T: Yes

B: To prevent gays and lesbians from marrying?

T: I did not think of it that way.

B: You support civil unions, equal rights in house for gays?

T: Yes.

B: Adoption?

T: I have not come to a conclusion on that.

B: You consider yourself hostile to gays and lesbians.

T: No, I don’t.

B: let me ask you about website Onemanonewoman.net

T: You are familiar with that?

Thompson: Object.

Judge: Lay foundation?

B: Dr. Tam, may I have your attention? What is your connection to this website?

T: Part of group called America Return to God Prayer Movement.

B: Your relationship to that group?

T: I’m secretary of that group.

B: Who else is in that group?

T: Various Chinese pastors.

B: If you saw something on the website that you did not approve of, you’d tell them?

T: Yes, but they might not listen.

B: What did you want to put on or take off that they did not do?

T: I objected to mention of bestiality on website?

B: And they left it on the website?

T: I don’t know.

B: Why did you object to this reference to bestiality?

T: Because it is not related to homosexuality.

[UPDATE] 2:26

[Prop. 8 objects to questions about this website because it does not have anything to do with Prop. 8.]

B: Your honor, this was already admitted in the testimony of Ms. Zia. This website says that homosexuality leads to pedophilia. Do you believe that?

T: Yes, I do.

B: Reads: Homosexuals 12 times more likely to molest children. Appropriate for your organization to tell people that?

T: Which organization?

B: The organization of which you are secretary that puts out this website!

T: Yes. From what we see here, those are not the statements of the organization. Those are just links to other websites. My position is that if there is something like this that people want to read about, organization has the right to link it.

B: You are not just linking. Your website says that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children.

T: It’s in that website. It’s not from the organization.

B: Mr. Tam, this is print out from your website!

T: From the organization. But I’m only secretary. There are presidents and vice presidents.

B: Do you believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children?

T: Yes, I do.

B: Based on what?

T: From academic papers.

B: Which academic papers?

T: Some could be news and some could be journalists.

B: I’m not asking you what it could be. Was it a book? An article? Who wrote it?

T: I don’t remember. I don’t know.

[Boies is really, really good. You could hear a pin drop up here and based on the judge’s facial expressions, in the courtroom. Boies is establishing the nexus with ProtectMarriage.com that they use this stuff as the reason for Prop. 8, which fits in with the stigma and all the great stuff we learned last week. By the way, I’m really nauseated. Truly.]

[NOTE]: You guys are filling up the comments over here, so I moved to a new thread where Tam continues being grilled by David Boies.

Tags: , ,

202 Comments

  • 1. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:29 am

    Here we go….

  • 2. Carl  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:30 am

    I. Can't. Wait.

  • 3. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Someone clarify, are they saying that Tam cannot go up as a witness and then later try to withdrawl?

  • 4. sarah  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:30 am

    oh snap!

  • 5. Abbie J  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Can anybody explain that first part? I don't exactly understand it.

  • 6. Rachel  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:32 am

    ProtectMawwiage on twitter just said this:
    " American Hero Dr. Tam called to stand, fights for God-given right to tuck tail between legs & run away.."

    HAHA! The phrase "dont write checks your ass cant cash" comes to mind!

  • 7. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:33 am

    LMAO!!! Nice!

  • 8. Alice  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:33 am

    I'm not sure what it all adds up to either, but the American Foundation for Equal Rights are tweeting that Mr Tam has been called to the stand and is testifying.

  • 9. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:34 am

    So basically, Tam can go on the stand, and if he finds something offensive, he can ask to withdraw?

  • 10. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:34 am

    I dunno – anbody – this sounds to me like what is happening, but I could be wrong….

  • 11. Shannon  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Oh my god, I'm so dense… I read that as "ProtectMarriage on twitter". I was like, "what is going on?!" I'm still a bit confused as to the legal lingo in this first part – someone help :)

  • 12. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

    That's not what I got.

  • 13. Peter  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Yeah, can someone explain what that first part is? Between some legalese and the shorthand (they're doing a great job!) I don't get it. Not enough context for me to figure it out, I guess.

  • 14. SFMary  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

    I can't wait for the "Leave William Tam Alone!!!!!!!" videos on YouTube.

  • 15. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

    I think they are trying to say he can't and must stay on stage if he agrees to testify.

  • 16. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:36 am

    :') I meant stand. Oh me.

  • 17. Shane Z.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:37 am

    F5 F5 F5!

  • 18. Scottie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Agree with the people asking for explanation here. What's going on? I'm not that familiar with legal speech.

  • 19. Elizabeth  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:37 am

    that's what I'm understanding.. that can't be right though, can it?

  • 20. Chris  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I think it's more about Tam staying in the case as it goes forward. He's there and on the stand now — he can't get out of that. He could refuse to answer under 5th ammendment considerations if he feels criminally incrimenated.

  • 21. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Tam: "um, can I get in on that plausible deniabilty thing?"

  • 22. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:39 am

    *gets the popcorn ready*

  • 23. Carl  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:39 am

    I cringe every time he uses the world Asian American. I know no Asian American who would associate with him. Well.. maybe their parents.

  • 24. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:40 am

    I expect to hear a lot of, "I plead the fifth."

  • 25. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:40 am

    I believe this is what is happening. Tam was an original defendant-intervenor. As such, he was deposed by Mr. Boies (where he was asked questions under oath, and he gave answers). Then before the trial started, Tam requested to withdraw. The hearing on his Motion to Withdraw is Feb 16. But there is a federal rule of civil procedure that allows deposition testimony to come in at any time. So, since there is already deposition testimony, Tam's testimony is going to come in–either in person or by deposition. Either way, the testimony comes in, so Judge Vaughn has said that since he's here, he may as well testify.

  • 26. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:40 am

    I wish I were there to see him squirm.

  • 27. Shannon  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:40 am

    HILARIOUS.

  • 28. cytyger  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:40 am

    IANAL, but from what I understand, Tam was originally a DI on the lawsuit. Tam has filed to be removed as a DI so Tam's lawyer has asked about that status. The Judge is saying that he will make a decision on that status after testimony, but his status as DI or not does not affect that he will have to give testimony.

  • 29. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:41 am

    This is not a criminal trial, so you can't invoke the fifth. You have to answer the questions.

  • 30. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:41 am

    B: Did you work with the people from Protect Marriage.com on the rallies?

    T: No. Those rallies were mainly Asian Americans and those were the people that I knew. I only invited PM.com’s Ron Prentice to be present and one of the speakers.

    B: Mr. Prentice CEO of ProtectMarriage.com? Do you consider that working with ProtectMarriage.com?

    T: I would say so.

    B: I would, too.

    Already starting on a good note!

  • 31. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Judge: Yes, he’s been very good about attending.

    Hmmmnnn. This doesn't sound like someone who's "afraid" to appear in court.

  • 32. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Ah, that clears it up nicely. Thank you.

  • 33. Brian  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:42 am

    My take is this: Tam was one of the DI's initially, but now he doesn't want to be a DI. Our side is opposed to his stepping down as a DI. He will testify as either a witness or as a DI.

    Walker will hear the testimony, see if we still oppose his stepping down as a DI, and then Walker will decide if the testimony is admitted as a witness being called, or as testimony from a DI.

    That's my take, at least.

  • 34. Dave  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:42 am

    I don't know if 5th Amendment would come into play here, though, unless somehow Boies is going to pull out something from the Law & Order scriptbook and string Tam into confessing to a crime.

    Not a lawyer here, but I'm under the impression that there's no criminal activity at play in this case.

  • 35. Dave  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Thanks for the clarification, Don.

  • 36. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Thank you for the clarity. I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure.

  • 37. Pearl  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Looks like Tam is having "nolo remembre" LOL!

  • 38. Jan  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Agreed!

  • 39. Steve J  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:46 am

    I think Tam is about to look real foolish

  • 40. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:46 am

    F5… F5… F5… F5…

  • 41. Laurie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Tam intervened as party in case. He now doesnt want to be a party and has asked to withdraw despite having participated to date in the litigation. The judge asked if there should be consequences for withdrawing such as Attys fees. An entirely separate issue is whether he tasifies as a witness which he obviously is doing.

  • 42. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Yes, I agree, he cannot withdraw from the trial, since he a "DI" in the case.

  • 43. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:48 am

    I am with you, but on a mac, refresh…refresh…refresh

  • 44. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:48 am

    I can't click F5 fast enough 8|

  • 45. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:49 am

    So, if he withdraws he could be slapped a fine? But no matter, he has to testify?

    Cool!

  • 46. homogenius  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:50 am

    I'm not a lawyer. But I believe Tam originally "joined" this case as part of the group of "defendant-intervenors". If I understand correctly, the Plaintiffs sued to overturn Prop H8 and the State, through the AG Jerry Brown, declined to defend it. The court allowed this group including protectmarriage.org and others to "intervene" as the defendants of record.

    Pre-trial discovery and depositions began and Tam and at least one other got cold feet. They realized that their activities (including heretofore untranslated speeches and writings in Chinese in Tam's case) would become public knowledge.

    If Tam had been the only defendant, his action would have been a capitulation. The court could not only have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but could assess attorney fees and court costs against him,.

    The point is, withdrawing after you have signed on as a defendant-intervenor is not a small thing–it has consequences. And you can't pray your way out of it or go on the TeeVee crying and wailing "I'm a sinnnnnerrrrrr!".

    I'm sure there are attorneys who can clarify this further and define the parameters more accurately.

  • 47. Aaron  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:51 am

    If I'm understanding this correctly, William Tam asked the court's permission to defend the case, since the State of California decided they wouldn't.

    When a plaintiff sues a defendant, the plaintiff can't back out without reimbursing the defense for the costs incurred because of the lawsuit. This kind of reverses the roles, but still makes sense. Since California wasn't going to defend the suit, the plaintiff wouldn't have had much cost. But since Tam stepped in and said he would defend the suit, the court wants the plaintiff to get *something* for the costs they've incurred. Tam testifying "pays" that cost.

    If Tam were the only one who stepped in to defend and he wanted to leave, the case would be ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Since there are others defending, they can't simply rule for the plaintiff…

  • 48. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Suddenly Tam has amnesia…"I don't know"

  • 49. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:52 am

    He did before.

  • 50. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:53 am

    "Judge: Very well, you may register standing objection so you do not have to get up for each question."

    I lol'd

  • 51. Shannon  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:53 am

    He doesn't know ANY groups that created Prop 8, but he's the head of one of them! HILARITY.

  • 52. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:54 am

    That was a great explanation. I get lost in legal-speak.

  • 53. Scott  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Tam wanted to withdraw from being named as a defendant in the case because he learned that the Plaintiff's attorneys Boise and Olsen were planning to use his deposed testimony in their discrimination argument. Essentially the judge said that he cannot withdraw as a defendant unless there is a judgment rendered that Tam accepts that decision and further that because he has retained legal counsel who have incurred time and expense, that he cannot withdraw in absence of a judgment.

    Tam was subpoenaed by Olsen and Boise for our (pro same sex marriage) side and suddenly had a "I said some bad things about the gays" moment and didn't want to play anymore.

    Judge said no way.

  • 54. jerek  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Is it just me, or is this guy still doing everything he can not to answer the questions asked?

  • 55. Elizabeth  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:55 am

    for serious, "I don't remember 2007?"
    I can think of very few catagories of people with cause to not remember an entire year, and that generally involves illness, addiction or brain problems. And I don't think that he'd be heading a campaign with any of those issues!

  • 56. David  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:55 am

    This guy is being obtuse – to the point of perjuring himself.

    I predict the judge will get really, really frustrated with him in t-minus one hour.

  • 57. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:57 am

    I give it less time. I'm already annoyed with the guy.

  • 58. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Nice summary DonG.

    Marc – he can't plead the fifth. This isn't a criminal trial.

    Now how about this exchange:
    B: You supervised the language of Prop. 8?

    T: Not sure what “supervise” means. (HUH?!?!?! You're a Doctor and you're "not sure what 'supervise' means?")

    B: Look at declaration in which Tam says he supervised the appropriate language for Prop. 8. (!!!)

    T: I don’t quite remember what that particular document is. (Right. I love the convenience of selective memory…)

    B: Which document?

    T: If it is about fourteen words of Prop. 8, I would go along with it. (So he only authored 14 words of the whole Proposition? Doubtful.)

    B: This declaration that you have, did you prepare this declaration?

    T: No. (SQUIRMING ON A TECHNICALITY!)

    B: Protect Marriage.com prepared this declaration for you and you signed it?

    T: Yes. (TECHNICALITY FAILED. TRUTH REVEALED!)

    This guy is going to drag his heels, kick, scream and cry like a baby through the entire examination. Pussy.

  • 59. Steve  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:57 am

    I downloaded an automatic refresher plugin for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11

    Quite worth it since I'm at work and it'll refresh automatically while Firefox is focused on some other tab (even if my mind isn't focused…).

  • 60. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:58 am

    TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS ARE NOW ONLINE AT AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR EQUAL RIGHTS WEB SITE.
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hea

    Bookmark it.

  • 61. Pat  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:59 am

    'Not sure what “supervise” means.'
    A tough one, huhhh!

  • 62. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Thanks, homgenius, for the explanation – that clear it up for me!

  • 63. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:00 am

    he's so embarassing, it's almost not funny anymore. Almost.

  • 64. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Fifth Amendment doesn't apply, because this is not a criminal case.

  • 65. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Sammy Davis Jr. wasn't half the tap dancer Tam's trying to be!! LOL

  • 66. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:02 am

    He's going to drag his feet because he's a hostile witness. That will be taken into account by the judge.

  • 67. Elizabeth  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:02 am

    a-greed. I'm Facebook chatting with my partner about what a jerk this guy is. He's obviously lying, but just pushing it far enough so they can't cry perjury against him. But God, what a freaking jerk.

  • 68. Tom  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Ooh…I wanna be here when Walker starts throwing out "contempt of court" warnings…I'll get the popcorn!

  • 69. abbe  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:03 am

    T: What I see here is my name on it and Pugno’s name on it. I don’t know if it’s a chain or not.

    B: Well, sir, if you begin…

    Thompson: I object under attorney client privilege.

    Judge: Attorney Client Privilege?

    I want to hear this. Does Walker sound incredulous? Confused? I'm afraid I'm putting my own spin on his comments and my interpretation tends to go the way of "WTF."

  • 70. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:06 am

    I KNOW!!!! I loved that! ROFL

  • 71. Greg  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Today's testimony with Tam is some of the most amazing stuff I have ever read – totally stunning. It's pretty shocking that they almost got away with hiding this stuff.

  • 72. Elizabeth  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:06 am

    reasons for htis case to be on youtube: watching it on the daily show w/ jon stewart. Would be the best moment of zen.

  • 73. Colt  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:07 am

    *cracks up laughing at work, customers give odd looks* Protect Mawwiage! Reminds me of the Impressive Clergyman in The Princess Bride … Mawwiage is wot bwings us togevvah today …

  • 74. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:07 am

    This is almost better than a live video feed. Almost.

  • 75. Liz  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Really appreciate the increase frequency of updates, guys. I'd rather have small chunks more often than big ones once an hour, especially for this testimony. :)

  • 76. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Poor Rick Jacobs – his fingers must be bleeding. I hope he has a fire extinguisher on hand… I think his laptop might actually explode before this line of questioning is over!

    Thanks again, Rick! :)

  • 77. Urbain  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Thanks, Steve!

  • 78. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Great observation. I agree.

  • 79. Sean  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:08 am

    The proposition adds only 14 words to the CA constitution:

    "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

    The purpose of this line of questioning is, I suppose, to implicate Tam in being part of the proposition's creation, so that even if he is allowed to withdraw as a DI, he can't distance himself or his (false and insulting) statements from the official Prop 8 campaigning (which is what they would dearly like for him to do).

  • 80. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Seriously! We are very gracious! :)

  • 81. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Now it become patent the reasons the PropH8 side did not Tam to testify – it is incredibly revealing and also shows from my perspective 'cohersion on the part of the plaintif – PropH8 to do any thing possible to pass the proposition at the ballot box.

  • 82. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:10 am

    B: Does this document refresh your memory that as of July 2, 2007 you were working with Protect Marriage .com

    Let's see if Tam starts using "I don't recall"

  • 83. Lies  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:11 am

    And the I SUPPORT WILLIAM TAN!!!!1 groups on Facebook.

  • 84. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:11 am

    yes, thank you, Rick!

  • 85. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:11 am

    I, too, appreciate the increased update frequency. One (minor) annoyance with this tracker, though: the threads are not consistently linked. There might be a link at the end of Part 1 to go to Part 2, but then at Part 2 there's no link to go to Part 3. Could these links be reliably added to make it easier for those of us who usually have to catch up on the whole day after work? Thanks — keep up the terrific work!

  • 86. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Yeah, I'm expecting a Tam-version of "I didn't inhale" any minute now.

  • 87. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Ooh SNAP! Firefox FTW!!!

    Thanks Steve! My F5 key thanks you too!

  • 88. Lies  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:14 am

    I think Tam just DID look real foolish.

  • 89. Daniel L  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:14 am

    He seems to be a really difficult witness. I can't wait to see how the protectmarriage side spins this.

    Wish I could see him in person. I love the exchange

    "I dont know…"
    "You don't know any of them?"
    "lists out names of organization"

    isn't that dangerously close to perjury?

  • 90. Dieter M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:15 am

    HORRIFYING news people..I think we can safely bet how supremes are going to rule in the r-71 signature release, and gay marriage:
    AP – Bitterly divided, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that big business can spend its millions to directly support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, a decision that sharply reverses a century-long trend to limit the political influence of corporations and labor unions. It remakes the political landscape just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way.

  • 91. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Got it, THANK YOU!
    It's pretty hard to spend all day and commenting, but fun!
    We appreciate all the help from everyone for getting this out to us.

  • 92. Alice  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Yeah, seconded. Thanks for the great work!

  • 93. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:18 am

    They do a "summary" where they basically copy/paste all the bits together in one post.

  • 94. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:18 am

    T: She did that to be nice. I don’t think I’m part of core group.
    B: What do you mean by core group?
    T: I don’t know but I heard you talking about core group while sitting in the courtroom and I know I’m not part of it.

    Hahahaha!!!!!!

  • 95. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:19 am

    LOL!

  • 96. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:20 am

    And we're only a short time in!

  • 97. Slade  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Doesn't this basically screw him over with any kind of privacy protections in the hearings? lol

  • 98. straightfromsacramen  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Would someone please post the firedoglink? My google search isn't bringing it up and I would like to read the idiocy in its full effect.

  • 99. Jagger  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:23 am

    I crack up every time the judge overrules.

  • 100. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Firedoglake link is under the BlogRoll on the right-hand side of this web page. Scroll up and look on the right…

  • 101. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Well the Churches sure have been spending-

  • 102. Tom  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:23 am

    B: What did you want to put on or take off that they did not do?

    T: I objected to mention of bestiality on website?

    B: And they left it on the website?

    T: I don’t know.

    B: Why did you object to this reference to bestiality?

    T: Because it is not related to homosexuality

    Hmm, interesting. And yet he is on the record as saying teh gays would want to marry their kids next, as if THAT has something to do with homosexuality. 5 points for style, Doctor Tam, but minus a million for brains!

  • 103. Andrew  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:23 am

    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/25526

  • 104. Andrea  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Q: Can you please state your name for the record.
    A: My memory isn't so good, I don't recall that information.

    Q: I see…. (pause) Mr. Tam?
    A: (perks up) Yes?

  • 105. Charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:24 am

    ⌘R ⌘R ⌘R ⌘R ! 😉

  • 106. Michael Herman  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:24 am

    B: Why did you object to this reference to bestiality?

    T: Because it is not related to homosexuality.

    So much for the "gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs!" argument. WIN.

  • 107. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:24 am

    oh man quite a set up about beastiality. I can't WAIT to see what he has to say next! This would make a great commercial break point.

  • 108. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:25 am

    B: Why did you object to this reference to bestiality?

    T: Because it is not related to homosexuality.

    Oh. Oh that's AWESOME! Tam just shot a HUGE hole in one of the biggest (and most ridiculous) fundie arguments against Marriage Equality! And it's RECORDED!!!

  • 109. sugarbritches  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Ick, Ick, Ick. This makes me want to go wash my hands just from hitting the refresh button.

  • 110. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:27 am

    B: Why did you object to this reference to bestiality?
    T: Because it is not related to homosexuality.

    Well, there's ONE person from the Prop 8 Proponents side who didn't agree with that slur. It was one of the most common charges I heard from proponents during the run-up to the voting.

  • 111. christina  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:27 am

    lmao.

  • 112. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:28 am

    I know. I almost died laughing at that one. "I don't know what it is, but I know I'm not part of it." What an incredible ass this man is. I'm flabbergasted!

  • 113. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Terrific, My Dogs are now safe.

  • 114. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Wow, I love the parts where TAM is asking Boise questions.

    By doing so, he's opening up a direct line of "Oh Snap!" from Boise against himself and Prop8's whole case.

  • 115. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:30 am

    T: It’s in that website. It’s not from the organization.
    B: Mr. Tam, this is print out from your website!

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

  • 116. John  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Actually Ray, I'm almost certain Tam said he believed bestiality and homosexuality go hand in hand. So, yeah, he's hopefully gonna get called on it and claim it was a tortured metaphor or something.

  • 117. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:30 am

    I'm sick too, Rick, but I want to read more! Keep it up for us all. We want to see him go down!

  • 118. Lain  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:30 am

    THIS IS AMAZING. Boies is kicking ass.

  • 119. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:31 am

    B: Which academic papers?

    T: Some could be news and some could be journalists.

    OMG He literally does not know what and academic paper is!!!

  • 120. Ted  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Tam is getting fucking HAMMERED.

    This makes me all kinds of happy in my pants. Cockroach *really* don't like being under bright lights.

  • 121. rp  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:32 am

    If you want a condensed version of what is going on, read it at: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14238

    (this is day 8).

    But this site is really good in tandem for it gives what is going on and explains some of the implications and updates a few times an hour or so.

  • 122. Jane  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:32 am

    OMG, this is awesome.

  • 123. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:32 am

    andrea, you are a riot!

  • 124. Kevin  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:32 am

    B: Based on what?
    T: From academic papers.
    B: Which academic papers?
    T: Some could be news and some could be journalists.
    B: I’m not asking you what it could be. Was it a book? An article? Who wrote it?
    T: I don’t remember. I don’t know.

    Love it, It's like asking a child questions that they don't have an answer to.

  • 125. Badcowboy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:33 am

    When is someone going to set up actors and read the transcript from this trial and put it on youtube? A dramatic reading would be invaluable – and easier to follow.

  • 126. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:33 am

    OMG, a dream come true. He has on his website false information and says he doesn't know where he got the info that gays are 12 times more likely to moles children.
    Blaming President and VP, he's just the sec'y!!! Oh poor persecuted Tam.

  • 127. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:33 am

    B: I’m not asking you what it could be. Was it a book? An article? Who wrote it?
    T: I don’t remember. I don’t know

    And Tam no only said that, he said he got it from research and when asked for the research he said "News". When was the News EVER research?

  • 128. Jasun mark  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Wow. So that's what it looks like to see a guy get his ass handed to him.

  • 129. Alice  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:33 am

    It really is nauseating. I'm so grateful for Boies not letting up.

  • 130. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:34 am

    http://www.marriagetrial.com

  • 131. Eric  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Bud: I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. Who is on first!
    Lou: I'm asking you, who is on first?
    Bud: That's the man's name
    Lou: That's whose name?
    Bud: Yes

  • 132. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:34 am

    I just thought of a drinking game. A drink every time Tam says I don't know.

  • 133. Ehow  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:34 am

    "B: Do you believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children?

    T: Yes, I do.

    B: Based on what?

    T: From academic papers.

    B: Which academic papers?

    T: Some could be news and some could be journalists.

    B: I’m not asking you what it could be. Was it a book? An article? Who wrote it?

    T: I don’t remember. I don’t know."

    Bam, though it makes me ill he can get away with spreading misinformation like that.

    First time poster, thanks for all of the hard work here so far!

  • 134. Erin  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:34 am

    "Mr. Tam, this is the print out from your own website!"

    This is going to make a great movie some day… too bad Gregory Peck can't play Boies or Olson…

  • 135. familyguy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 am

    I am absolutely RIVETED as I am reading Boies questioning of Tam. Talk about drama … This makes me even more pissed at the SCOTUS majority for denying the world the opportunity to see in live TV what scumbags the pro-8er's are. The blogging team is awesome. We owe you a million thanks.

  • 136. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 am

    I can't wait to see the spin Pug-no tries to put on this one later.

  • 137. Eddie  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Nice.

  • 138. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 am

    B: Do you believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children?
    T: Yes, I do.
    B: Based on what?
    T: From academic papers.
    B: Which academic papers?
    T: Some could be news and some could be journalists.

    "News" and "Journalists" are "academic papers"!!!!!!

    This guy is an IDIOT!!!!

  • 139. Warren  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Getting this stuff in open court and the record will be very valuable when/if we go back to the ballot on this. We will need to run a hard campaign against these people. they honed in on the schools message because by Schubert's own admission they had to make it about something other than disliking gays. The evidence and facts clearly show that it is was about that and that would likely be enough to move enough soft Yes voters to the right side of history and decency, IMO.

  • 140. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 am

    firedoglake.com/prop8trial
    Use this hub to see all of their posts as they switch to different blogs from time to time.

  • 141. Suzy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:35 am

    LMAO

  • 142. abbe  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:36 am

    The academic papers in my MIND. Come ON. How about being honest.

    "Yes, I believe that. Why? Uh, I heard someone else say it and since I'm prejudiced against gays, I decided it sounded about right."

  • 143. PM, in the UK  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Stay strong, Rick!

    He's not hostile to gays, he just considers them child molestors?!

    Of course working so closely to so many holy-men, there mightn't be an inherent contradiction there…

  • 144. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:36 am

    B: Do you believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children?

    T: Yes, I do.

    B: Based on what?

    T: From academic papers.

    B: Which academic papers?

    T: Some could be news and some could be journalists.

    Just sent this part of everyone I know, most are academics. This is BASIC ignorance! To not know the simple difference between academic papers and news/journalism??? No wonder he says the things he does!

  • 145. Sam  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:36 am

    How anyone could actually sit in court, UNDER OATH, and say that they believe gays are 12 times more likely to molest children is just way, way, way beyond me. If he continues in this vein I'm going to be sick.

  • 146. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:36 am

    From marriage maybe but not the likes of these pig-f45kers!

  • 147. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Oh man Peck would be awesome.

  • 148. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:36 am

    I hope Rachel Maddow is reading this!

  • 149. Badcowboy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:37 am

    I am inebriated just thinking about it.

  • 150. Bryan Del Rizzo  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Wow… this trial is amazing. And sad. And sickening. I certainly hope this goes to the Supreme Court. I want to find out once and for all what rights are afforded to me. If this is allowed to stand, then honestly, I seriously will have to ask myself why I would bother to live here.

    This is stirring up all of the same emotions I had during the election where I had to come home and see my neighbors with their Yes on 8 signs. This is truly sickening stuff.

  • 151. ashleyfmiller  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Now, I gotta tell you, I don't understand how he can genuinely believe that being gay makes you a pedophile but he's not sure if it's OK or not for gays to adopt. If he really believes the first, he can't think it's OK for gays to adopt, so either he's lying about thinking homosexuals are pedophiles or he's lying about thinking homosexuals maybe should be able to adopt because he doesn't want to seem bigoted.

    … what?

  • 152. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:37 am

    I'd be hammered within the first 10 questions!

  • 153. Peter in Texas  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:37 am

    I'm sitting in my office at the church where I work frantically hitting F5 and totally sickened by what Tam is saying. I wish this was being televised so people could hear and see this crap first hand.

    I choose to work with people who believe this crap on a daily basis….and then go home and talk to my Partner about it.

    I choose to work in the environment I do, maybe it's time I choose to work somewhere else, but if everyone who feels like me leaves then the prejudice will continue.

    Pray for gay people of faith like me…there are many of us, and it can be lonely sometime.

  • 154. Robert A.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:37 am

    The sad part is that he probably is telling the truth; he actually believes that.

  • 155. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:38 am

    This is mind boggling. Does this man have children? And if so, how did he ever figure out how to reproduce?

  • 156. Badcowboy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:38 am

    Ask and ye shall receive! – thank you – this will be great.

  • 157. Sam  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:38 am

    The Prop 8 people will probably spin this comment into gays supporting necromancy. 😛

  • 158. Andrea  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:38 am

    He really screwed the pooch on that one. *rim shot*

    These jokes write themselves.

  • 159. Shannon  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:38 am

    No need to use "pussy". I would like to think that Tam is nowhere near as amazing as my nether regions.

  • 160. Elizabeth  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:39 am

    It'd take me less than 10 drinks to get hammered…

  • 161. Marc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:39 am

    You wouldn't make it inside of an hour before collapsing.

  • 162. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:39 am

    I'm still struck dumb by the whole academic papers/news thing. My partner covers this in her English Comp class with 18 year olds!

  • 163. Jay  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

    I'm feeling quite nauseated as well, but I have to say, this was brilliant:

    Thompson: These documents are attorney client privilege. I’d like to reserve standing objection that T’s personal political views are protected under first amendment even though we lost in appeals court.

    Judge: Very well, you may register standing objection so you do not have to get up for each question.

    I love this judge. So, so much.

  • 164. James  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Unfortunately (for them) it doesn't seem like a very difficult thing to do.

  • 165. Jesse  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Thank you so much for the rapid-fire updates. This is the stuff of legend, and it's criminal that it can't be broadcast, even after the fact.

  • 166. Ray Harwick  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

    The Plantiffs witness from UC Davis is going CRUCIFY Tam's knowledge of gays as child molesters. Tam is probably citing Paul Cameron, the "researcher" whose work gets published only because he PAYS for it to be published on a vanity press, and who has been expelled from the APA, Nebraska's Psych Assn., the New England Psych Assn. and (I think) Canada's Psych Association.

  • 167. M.E. Graves  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

    I just imagine a comedy sketch where people like this are at the Pearly Gates and Jesus comes up to them and asks:
    "What the f*ck? I never told you to do this! I told you to go care for the sick, the poor, and the needy, not set up a money laundering scheme by convincing people that gays are out to destroy society? What the f*ck Bible are you people reading? The Gospel of St. Bastard^? Go to Hell, f*ckers."

    ^thanks, Mr. Izzard

  • 168. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

    B: But it didn’t have anything to do with Prop 8. You knew Prop 8 and Prop K were unrelated, right?
    T: Yes
    B: But you wrote that they were connected?
    T: Yes

    ^^^^ is it me or did he just confess to intentionally misleading people in this email?

  • 169. P-dee-tee  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:41 am

    B: Do you believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children?

    T: Yes, I do.

    B: Based on what?

    T: From academic papers.

    What is more disheartening is there are a lot of people who see that and complete believe it. There are a lot of Dr. Tams of the World.

  • 170. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Bravo.

  • 171. rpx  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:42 am

    It is as my son told me when he came out, "Mom it is all about changing the world one person at a time" So here is our first "one" that does not feel that homosexuality leads to beastiality. Only 7 million zillion to go.

  • 172. SpoonmanTX  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I really should have read this after I got home… I'm not usually that emotional of a person, but I'm about to break down and sob at my desk at work… but it's quickly starting to turn to anger. (That won't be good for the drive home…)

  • 173. Charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Totally! I feel like in high school.

    Teacher: So Tommy, where did you read that?
    Thomas: Somewhere…
    Teacher: Where?
    Thomas: In, like… a book. Yes, yes a book.
    Teacher: What book?
    Thomas: Something about… Like…
    Teacher: …………….
    Thomas: *cries* MY FATHER DID IT FOR ME! ITS NOT MY FAULT!!!

  • 174. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:43 am

    He writes actual academic papers, too! Can't wait.

  • 175. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Oh I hear ya FG!

  • 176. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:44 am

    protectmawwiage wrote:

    "Dr. Tam story now being made into blockbuster film by Mel Gibson (ask him for a good jew joke LOL!)"

  • 177. Elizabeth  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:45 am

    I'm also in a ministry in texas!!! Christian Radio, dear God.
    My poor partner gets the earful pretty much everyday after work as well. I'm very religious myself, down to choosing a Christian university where I got my BA in Religion, and starting seminary next year.
    But yeah… I'm so used to slurs at work (I'm not out here, I'd be fired on the spot). Yay for finding someone else!

  • 178. Ozymandias  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Peter, I salute your courage in sticking it out in such a potentially hostile environment! We're here for ya man!!

  • 179. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Yeah, THAT'S the ticket!
    (And my wife says that the only person more ludicrous than this joker is if Sarah Palin got on the stand….)

  • 180. Nathan  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Oh my.Sickening. He considers himself to have no hostility towards gays and lesbians but in the same breath considers homosexuality will lead to pedophilia?!?
    Hmmm, does Mr. Tam have hostility towards pedophiles? I would think so…if A=B and B=C…

  • 181. Peter in Texas  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:47 am

    wow Elizabeth…great to meet you.

    I'm not out at work, though some of my friends and the Senior Pastor know.

    When I told him I was moving in with my partner I was 'removed' from leading a Children's Choir for 'my own protection'. That was humiliating!!!

  • 182. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Now, that's a Jesus I can believe in (and actually kinda do….)

  • 183. Peter in Texas  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Thanks Ozmandias (great screen name by the way!)

  • 184. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Perfect analogy…

    He didn't want to say it came from God or the Bible.

  • 185. Ronnie  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:49 am

    I am with Rick, this linking gay people to pedophiles(spelling) is nauseating. How about those priests who never confessed to being gay ….. I'm just saying!

    On nj.com people were saying this in the comments and it made me sick. And everday there is an article about a heterosexual man attacking a young girl… And at this point I call them on it… You would surprised at how mad they get at me even though I say how wrong the situation is.

    There has been at least 20 cases of heterosexual pedophillia here in NJ brought to light since the bill to legalize SSM was rejected some 3 weeks ago….

    This whole pedi thing is getting tired, disgusting, and a little the pot calling the kettle black…..yeah?

  • 186. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Just think of the production quality!!!
    Camera angles, lighting, hair, costumes!!!

  • 187. niall blehein  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:56 am

    This is RIVETTING stuff. You guys are doing a fantastic job and I hope that someone somewhere is compensating you guys for this. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that we are all REALLY REALLY grateful.

  • 188. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Peter, that is so sad about the choir. Hang in there.

  • 189. elw  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Protect Mawwiage is hilarious, going to follow them now, thanks!

  • 190. Kyle  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:28 am

    this is great hahahahaah

  • 191. Mike  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:28 am

    I'm with SpoonmanTX. I feel like I'm about to start crying right at my desk.

    Yes, there are plenty of other people in the country who have the same views that Tam does. It's frightening.

    Wondering how can I move on and not resort to wanting to call this guy every name in the book?? In what way can I be the "bigger man" here?

    I guess a run on the treadmill will help…

    Mr. Tam, my type has been and always will be OLDER with lots of facial and body hair! Thanks!

  • 192. Elliot in NY  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Haha, I love how the judge is shooting down all these attourney-client privelidge objections.

    "SIT DOWN, MR McCOY!"

  • 193. Terri  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:44 am

    I was thinking more along the lines of flat out lying. And according to the firedoglake tracker he actually objected himself to one of the documents produced. The judge has to be getting more than a tad po'd at the lack of respect this witness (hostile or not) is having for the court.

  • 194. Terri  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Okay.. I nearly spit out my tea when I read that. …news or journalists….

    hehehe

  • 195. Brian D  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:11 am

    This made me roar with laughter…oh lawd, you made my day!

  • 196. jc  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    yeah, but's really all about your delivery, andrea! 😉

  • 197. Anna  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    my god, he would be.

    since he can't play in it, i'll just imagine atticus finch is in the courtroom grilling tam.

  • 198. Anna  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    if we supported necromancy, we could bring back peck and then he could play in the film….

  • 199. Anna  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    a-men! that's my rockstar jesus. he wears glitter.

  • 200. Other Asian  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    As an Asian American person, I also cringed each time he brought that up. But I also cringed at your comment about "their parents." I'm sure you're just joking and meant no harm by it, but let's try not to make such generalizations, otherwise we'd be doing what the proponents of Prop 8 are doing (obviously not to the same extent though). My first generation parents are very supportive of me being a lesbian, and so are all their Asian friends.

  • 201. A  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Thanks Shanon! Well said.

  • 202. read home  |  October 11, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    Independent movie providers are showing that the key studios will no longer will be the sole judges of what the general public choose. Should you add to that distribution on the web, media, sites, from chat to whole films. It’s a really brand-new environment. Some of it great, some not.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!