Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Tag: William Tam

Liveblogging Day 8: Part V Tam continues

By Rick Jacobs

[Okay, I’m sweating. And sick. This is the crux of it all. Please read this. Please.]

David Boies (B): You say here that if we lose Prop. 8 “they” will lose no time to push the gay agenda?

William Tam (T): Yes. They will.

B: You say here that the City of SF is under the rule of homosexuals. Do you believe that?

T: Yes.

B: Who?

T: Tom Ammiano was supervisor.

B: Was the mayor homosexual?

T: I don’t think so. (more…)

402 Comments January 21, 2010

Liveblogging Day 8: Part IV Afternoon session

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.)
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. (more…)

202 Comments January 21, 2010

Day 8 Preview: More Circular Logic And William Tam!

by Brian Leubitz

Yesterday, we saw the direct of Prof. Gary Segura go fairly smoothly. Dr. Segura testified about the relative political power of gays and lesbians as a class of citizens, and their level of political vulnerability. And then we hit cross-examination. As your friendly live-blogger, I thought my fingers were going to start bleeding at any moment. David Thompson, the attorney for the defendant-intervenors, rapid-fired questions, and Dr. Segura rapid fired them back.

Basically, Thompson went through every possible event, election, legislation, or judicial decision that could possibly be construed as a victory for the LGBT community and asked Dr. Segura whether he felt that represented political power for the community. Dr. Segura pointed out, time after time, that you have to view each victory in context, each election in context. For example, Annise Parker, the newly elected Mayor of Houston, is an out lesbian. However, she does not get benefits for her partner, and says that she will not take the lead on them. Furthermore, Parker lives in a state with no protections for LGBT employees, and little, if any, protections whatsoever for the community.

In Dr. Segura’s words, Parker lives not only in Houston, but also in Harris County, also in Texas, and also in the United States of America. And this pattern of going back over each fact looks set to continue for the fist 90 minutes or so of today’s testimony.

The real fun gets started after Dr. Segura steps down, as the now infamous William Tam takes the stand. Tam was originally one of the Defendant-Intervenors, until he decided he didn’t like people paying attention to the stench of crazy emanating from his person. That’s Dr. Tam to the right, and since he seems to not love the media attention as much as he did about 18 months ago, we had to rustle up a picture from back then.

Take this following series of greatest hits from Mr. Tam:

Question: “And it is your understanding that part of the gay agenda is legalizing underage sex?”
Answer: “Right.” (Page 43 of deposition)

“They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.” (Pro-Prop. 8 email by Tam, page 78 of deposition)

“We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.” (Pro-Prop. 8 media interview by Tam, page 77 of deposition)

Dr. Tam’s testimony should be a thriller of the depths of the right-wing.  They’ve been trying to hide this guy, and this sect of their campaign. But, they can’t hide him forever, and the country should be in for a bit of an awakening.

Finally, if health and time permit, Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, will testify today. He will testify about the nature of sexual orientation, how mainstream mental health professionals and behavioral scientists regard homosexuality, benefits conferred by marriage, stereotypes relating to lesbians and gay men, stigma and prejudice directed at lesbians and gay men, the harm to lesbians and gay men and their families as a consequence of being denied the right to marry, and how the institution of domestic partnerships differs from that of marriage and is linked with antigay stigma.

Stay tuned right here for all the action…

44 Comments January 21, 2010

American Foundation for Equal Rights rounds up the first week of the Prop 8 trial

By Eden James

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization that assembled the legal team challenging Prop 8 in court, has released a summary of the first week of the trial.

If you’ve only been able to catch bits and pieces of the proceedings, this should help you get caught up relatively quickly before the trial begins again on Tuesday morning.

Check it out:


Ten witnesses, including Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo and five eminent experts, clearly and convincingly demonstrated critical points in the federal trial on the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 during its opening week:

• Marriage is vitally important in American society;

• By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 causes grievous harm to the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered;

• Proposition 8 perpetrates irreparable, immeasurable and discriminatory harm for no good reason.


The court also viewed video footage from the deposition of William Tam. Tam is one of the five Official Proponents of Prop. 8, and as such was personally responsible for putting it on the ballot and for intervening in this case to take over the defense of the initiative.

The video footage of his deposition included statements from Tam such as this one, from a pro-Prop. 8 email he wrote: “They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.” (more…)

33 Comments January 17, 2010

Liveblogging Day 5: Daily Summary

By Julia Rosen

Wow! Can you believe it’s only been week one of the trial?

The plaintiffs have not made it through all of their witnesses yet, so we have quite a ways to go. It’s a long weekend remember, so we won’t be back liveblogging the proceedings until Tuesday.

As is tradition, below is the daily summary of the liveblogging in chronological order. Remember that the categories over on the right column are a useful way to navigate through the site, for example to find all of the liveblog postings, or the daily summaries. (more…)

66 Comments January 15, 2010

Liveblogging Day 5: Part V

By Rick Jacobs

Finally on redirect of Dr. Michael Lamb.

G: Do you need a break?

L: See the end in sight. My eye is on the door.

G: Let’s get in a time machine and go back from before that cross all the way back to when you first said that kids are better off with a father, back before I was born.


Judge: (Laughing) He’s your witness!

G: Has fatherless family term ever included lesbian mothers?

L: Some, because we want to see what happens without men, but in main it’s children being raised by hetero women without hetero father/man. (more…)

103 Comments January 15, 2010

Next page Previous page