Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Tag: Ron Prentice

Liveblogging Day 10: Part II

By Rick Jacobs

Chis Desseaux (CD): Shows email from Prentice saying that what homos do in privacy of

Never in CA history qualified without paid signature gathering. This is where Bishop Cordiloeon and the S Catholic Community offered tremendous help. The bishop sought the help of NOM and Maggie G, herself a Catholic and ED Brian Brown. They helped with writing and to get in front of hundreds of donors. And got Knights of Columbus. Raised over $900,000…

CD: Email from Gallagher to Brian Brown and also to Schubert with CC to Mr. Prentice.

This sentence appears to be written by Brown to Gallagher, shared with Schubert and Prentice. You see at bottom of email Hollywood Stars, ACLU Pour Money into Anti-Marriage Efforts in CA.”

“We’re going to need to get approval from SF on this. Text of the agreement requires anything specific to California to get approval.”

Moss (M): Hearsay.

CD: Should be state of mind. But also if Mr. Brown thinks he has to run messages by Mr. Schubert, very important.

M: No way to place into context. (more…)

144 Comments January 25, 2010

Liveblogging Day 7: Daily Summary

By Julia Rosen

It’s that time of the day, where we compile the massive liveblogging into one thread for those who have broken F5 keys, or kids that demand their attention, or professors, or bosses and couldn’t stay obsessively refreshing all day long.

Today, Rick Jacobs and Brian Leubitz took turns again posting. Tomorrow, Rick will be there throughout the day. We are getting close to the end of the plaintiff’s witnesses. They might be able to wrap up tomorrow, but it could bleed into Friday. (more…)

17 Comments January 20, 2010

Liveblogging Day 7: Part I the day begins

By Rick Jacobs

[Now we get into the issue of choice. This is key stuff. See what the judge says below. Today will be fascinating.]

[Don’t forget there is a guide to the key names/players over here if you need some help figuring all of these names out at the top]

0840: We begin.

Judge: We have cleared the calendar and can continue the trial tomorrow. Mr. Thompson got the message but did not inform other counsel and the clerk did not call Mr. Boutrous. Mr. Thompson apologized. We will be in court tomorrow.

Two rulings on discovery:

Magistrate’s order is not clearly erroneous which is standard, so discovery order remains. Second order is before Magistrate Judge Spiro to add four people to core group in the discovery process. If he’s unavailable to hear that matter by noon, I’ll rule. Clerk will try to reach him and see what his availability is and at least one lawyer. (more…)

207 Comments January 20, 2010

Short guide to the names and players

By Julia Rosen

Rick has been posting a fast and furious update to the proceedings, but there is not a lot of time to explain the cast of characters. So, for those who aren’t complete legal nerds and have not been following the case in detail for months, here is a brief breakdown of the major players.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: the formal name of this case. Perry is one of the plaintiffs. Officially as Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the defendant, but he and the Attorney General, Jerry Brown have refused to defend Prop 8. Instead, the Yes on 8 campaign are the main defendants. The trial is being heard in the federal District Court. More background here.

Judge Vaughn Walker: is Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is the presiding judge for the trial. He was nominated to the bench by Ronald Regan and has been the chief judge since 2004. More here.

Ted Olson: former solicitor general, who has argued in front of the Supreme Court on a number of occasions, most famously on the winning side of Bush v Gore. He is one of the preeminent conservative lawyers in the country. He will be arguing for the plaintiffs, supporting marriage equality. WikiPedia entry.

David Boies: was on the opposing side of Olson for Bush v. Gore. Much like Olson, though on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, Boies is an extremely well-respected lawyer with lots of experience arguing in front of the Supreme Court. He and Olson are long time friends.

American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER): The non-profit organization founded by Chad Griffin and Bruce Cohen which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. Their website can be found here. formerly the “Yes on 8” campaign, the organization has evolved into an advocacy group and are acting as the primary defendants.

Ron Prentice: former Yes on 8 chairman who now serves at the Executive Director for, which is leading the defense.

Paul Katami, Jeffrey Zarillo, Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir: the four plaintiffs, two committed couples who are not permitted to wed under current California law. All of them testified on the first day of the trial.

Andy Pugno: chief legal counsel and current candidate for the Assembly.

19 Comments January 11, 2010

Live Updates from the Court III: Prop. 8 Ads in Court

By Rick Jacobs

After a big back and forth, the Ron Prentice ad that says that if California loses on Prop. 8, family will be destroyed, we’ll go off the rails. It has a nice looking black guy talking about the bible and about not being afraid. Stand up for Jesus Christ. He stood up for you in a public forum; now you stand up for him. (I had not seen this. It’s a longish video that shows the forces of God fighting the judges. It has the scary music.)

Boies: How did you feel, especially seeing that last line?

Objection by the other side because it’s not been produced by Protect Marriage dot com. So now they are upset that our side is showing what the other side really wanted to do. They only want to show these ads when no one can talk about them publicly.

[UPDATE] 12:15 When you saw that ad, stand up for righteousness, vote Yes on 8, how did it make you feel?

It made me feel bad. That image of an oncoming freight train that will kill you that makes me feel that I am part of a community that will kill people? I want to marry Jeff. I’m not going to start a movement that will harm people or children. How can they categorize me as the devil? Those lines between right and wrong are talking about things that are bad in nature, that harm people in a society. I just want to get married. I love someone. I want to get married. It demeans you. People are putting effort into demeaning you.

(Again, this stuff literally makes me feel ill.)

[UPDATE] 12:21 So now there is a back and forth about whether to use NOM’s “Gathering Storm.” The other side thinks it’s not relevant because it was produced after the campaign. Boies says it’s worse than what happened in the campaign, because there’s no campaign on going.

The judge asked if it is tied to those in the room. Boies said that it is because NOM funded 8 and is sufficiently related to the campaign broadly defined. Even if it were done by someone with no connection to the campaign, the court needs to see this to determine whether this is a class of people subject to continuing discrimination.

Other side:

1. Not produced by Protect Marriage.

2. After campaign.

3. Not about Prop. 8.

Any harm that could have flowed from this particular video could not have come from Prop. 8.

Judge said no. Not connected to the parties that sued. There’s another way to show that homosexuals are discriminated against.

[UPDATE] 12:31 Okay, so the judge said they can’t show Gathering Storm. It was that pseudo scary ad that we all did responses to. OOOOH, the gays are gonna get you!

Boies now wants to admit the ballot guide for Prop. 8. (For a minute I though the other side was going to object to this even though it’s a public document!).

Now we’re looking at the sentence that says voting Yes on Prop. 8 restores the definition of marriage that’s was approved by over 61% of the voters. Voting YES overturns the decision of four activist judges. Voting YES protects our children.

Plaintiff: Jeff and I are informed voters. We do the reading. We discuss it all. This punch line again of protecting children is absolutely clear. From what are you protecting children? From harm. But what is the harm? That language is indicative of some kind of perpetration against a child. Separates me from the norm. Makes me part of a community that is perpetrating a threat. That’s why we are here (in court).

(Again, at age 51, I can still feel these barbs that have made my life so odd.)

We hear a lot about the fact that you get the same rights; what’s the big deal? The big deal is that it’s a separate category, maybe a fourth class citizen now that we recognize marriages from other states. We still have discrimination. Puts a Twinkie at the end of a treadmill. Here’s a bite. Then another bite. You want that whole Twinkie (I don’t love this analogy).

None of our friends has ever said, “hey this is my domestic partner.” It’s not even the rights as much as it is the full access to the laws of the state. If you are separate, it fortifies prejudice. It’s rooted in something fundamentally wrong. All I want is to be married. That affects only my husband and family and concentric circles. If it it bolsters us publicly, good. So long as we are outside due to laws, it’s us and them. My state is supposed to protect me; it’s not supposed to discriminate against me.

Everyone is now taking lunch and will resume thereafter, at 1:30PM.

[UPDATE] 12:47 It’s hard to think while this goes on. I’ve never before been on trial, but today every gay or lesgbian person in the country is on trial. The testimony brings up all of that “stuff” that I keep pretending I’ve left behind. I grew up near Knoxville knowing I was gay, but never wanting to be. I dated girls, just like Jeff did. I hid from myself. I became an Orthodox Jew in LA and almost got married because I did not want to be gay. When Boies asked Jeff if he’d be in a more loving, stable relationship if he married a woman, it was not a throw-away. That’s what the NOM folks want you to believe. They want you to believe that if Jeff or me or so many others of us who were born homosexual would just marry a woman, the world would be a better place.

But nothing is further from the truth. How many marriages have broken up because one partner or other was not in love and finally had to leave to be true to his or her nature? How many times in history has a person committed suicide, drunk himself to death or even abused a spouse because he or she was in a marriage that was not real? Society is weakened by these false constructs.

One last point: the defendants had better spend time in the five states in which same sex marriage is now legal. Mr. Cooper, the defandant’s lawyer, said we need more time to see if same-sex marriage will do harm. That means he must support it in those states. His position is regressive and without sense, but if he really believes what he said, get he to New Hampshire and Iowa to preserve same sex marriage!

NOTE: I’ve moved over to a 4th thread for the afternoon session. Follow the updates here and keep the great comments coming!

65 Comments January 11, 2010