Perry V Schwartzenager

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

Prop8 Challenge Day 11

Dateline: January 27, 2010

This is being blogged live from the court room. The spelling mistakes are the fault of the reporter, who cannot type fast enough

to keep up with the exchanges. Kudos to Teddy (the reporter) he has done a masterfull job of keeping the blogs going for all 11

days so far.

Let's begin with the kind of obfuscation and obstructionist tacticts (or possible complete and utter stupidity of this final

witness). This is part of the trascript record for the last part for today and shows how bad the witness is.

Q= David Boies

A= David Blankenhorn, A D-I expert witness

Walker = Judge Walker

Q: Do any of the scholars you’ve relied on say that legalizing same sex marriage with cause a decline of heterosexual marriages?

A: I cannot answer if only yes or no.

Walker: Do you know?

A YEs I do know, can you ask me again?

Q Have any of the scholars you’re relied on asserted said that they believe that permitting same sex marriage will result in a

reduction of heterosexual marriages?

A: … controibute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage, although not sure they have made the direct assertion.

Q: Mr Blankenhorn –

A: See thast wasn’t so long.

WALKER: I’m going to take that as an I Don’t Know, would that be fair?

A: I do know the answer, I gave my answer

WALKER: The record is very clear what you said.

Q: You have said some scholars claim a deinstitutiojalization of marriage, which might then lead to reduced heterosexual marriage

rates, right?

A: Yes sir

Q: The linkage, though, was that something the scholars said, or you?

A: What scholars?

Q: What scholars have said the deinstitutionalization of marriage will lead to lowr marriage rates

A: WOuld you like me to name one?

Q: I would like you name ALL OF THEM you know of

A: Well it will take me a moment to compose my list

Q: Let’s be sure you understand I want to know scholars who — first — claim permitting same sex marriage would

deinstitutionalization of marriage and second that that deinstitutionalisation woul dlead to less het marriages

This is only part of the exchange that went on between Boies, Blankenhorn and Judge Walker. The transcript shows the Judges

frustration with a comment by the reporter [Walker throws up hands]. The witness continues with his spectacular

implosion as well as making a fool of himself and the D-I's. Even if the D-I's choose to question him on redirect, there is simply

no way they can undo the damage done to their case by this witness. I hope that the members of the defence team and their

"experts" have both tranquilizers and sleeping pills because they are going to need them, not only tonight but in the two or

three weeks between the end of testimony here and final arguments.

Their lackluster defence, or lack of defence, seems to have cost the Yes On 8 forces any chance of winning the case. The

plaintiffs have been coherent, cohesive, well prepared, their experts knowledgeable and unassailable. The direct examination of

the plaintiff's witnesses was skillfully handled by the plaintiffs team, and was in stark contrast to the amaturish cross provided

by the D-I's team. This is in stark contrast to the poor direct examination of their "Expert" witnesses that the D-I's have done

and the skillfull dissection of the same witnesses by Boies under cross.

There is still about 1/2 day left of this trial but for all intents and purposes it is all but over. There is no way, short of a

miracle, that the defence can possibly salvage anything from here. Their case began its melt down on the first

cross examination of the first of the plaintiffs witness, they then tried to keep information out of the trial because it was

prejudicial to their case. The information was subsequently admitted because some of the witnesses both for the

plaintiffs and the D-I's refered to it there by opening the door to its admission.

My feeling is that the plaintiffs have won this hands down, stand by for an attempt at appeal to the CA 9th Circuit Court of

Appeal by the No On 8's then lets see if the US Supreme Court grants it Certiorari(cert) and decides to hear it. If they do and

we can win there, then all bets are off as to what effect it will eventually have on the Federal, State and Local laws in this

country. Keep in mind that a Supreme Court challenge will delay the final verdict for about two years. Dont be surprised if the

High Court imposes a moratorium on the imposition of its verdict in order to give all levels of government a chance to review all

legistlation and bring it up to speed. This is what happened in Canada, specifically British Columbia, when a same sex marriage

challenge was brought. The court found for the plaintifs but gave the government two years to update all legislation. When LGBT

rights were enshrined in the Canadian Constitution (with transgender rights under the part about sex discrimination for some

reason) the Feds gave all levels a period of time to bring things up to speed.

If it goes to the US Supreme Court and we win; I see in somewhere between four to seven years monumental changes to the freedom

and acceptance of LGBT people. Does this mean an end to all discrinination; sadly no discrimination will always

exist and there will always be priests and pastors who will rail against us from the pulpit. It is my hope that resonable people

will see that we, in 90% of ways, are no different than they are. Our sole difference is in who we love and are attracted to.

Untill that day I am tempted to echo the words of Dr. King, quoting Moses "I have seen the promised land...." or is our defiance

better summed up by Sir Winston Churchill when he said "we shall fight in the fields and in the streets...we shall never

surrender".

JMP 1/27/10

[Guest Eth]

Awesome!

[Guest ChloëC]

Joanna,

I've been requested for Jury Duty about 7 or 8 times, actually called 4 times, and selected for trials 5 times. (one trial only lasted until we were seated, then the defendent accepted the plea bargain, he was just being a jerk).

Several things I learned, one was that jurors when overwhelmed with testimony (like more than two or three witness's worth) start (like Human Resources with job applications) trying to get rid of testimony they find worthless. And a lot of worthlessness comes from maybe just one statement where the witness says something that the jury finds totally implausible or just plain wrong, or stupid. Out goes the entire testimony. And it can come from either the plantiff or defense side with any witness.

So, if the rest of the trial for the defense was anything like that gibberish given by that 'expert' witness, it's all over. (I think that's what happened in the OJ Simpson trial, the defense was able to get a lot of testimony removed from the jury's actual deliberations by finding single faults in what was said by prosecution witnesses).

Of course, courts can be funny things at times. I hope it goes right.

Chloë

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

Joanna,

I've been requested for Jury Duty about 7 or 8 times, actually called 4 times, and selected for trials 5 times. (one trial only lasted until we were seated, then the defendent accepted the plea bargain, he was just being a jerk).

Several things I learned, one was that jurors when overwhelmed with testimony (like more than two or three witness's worth) start (like Human Resources with job applications) trying to get rid of testimony they find worthless. And a lot of worthlessness comes from maybe just one statement where the witness says something that the jury finds totally implausible or just plain wrong, or stupid. Out goes the entire testimony. And it can come from either the plantiff or defense side with any witness.

So, if the rest of the trial for the defense was anything like that gibberish given by that 'expert' witness, it's all over. (I think that's what happened in the OJ Simpson trial, the defense was able to get a lot of testimony removed from the jury's actual deliberations by finding single faults in what was said by prosecution witnesses).

Of course, courts can be funny things at times. I hope it goes right.

Chloë

This is a bench trial, there is no jury involved.

[Guest ChloëC]

ohhhhhhh! uh, that's an entirely different animal. Judges I've seen tend not to be terribly swayed by stupidity, just whether laws were violated or if procedure was met. Hope the judge is on your/our side.

Chloë

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

I have followed this trial since day one and the judge wants what is right and fair, with the slipshod defence the D-I's have mounted he doesnt have a lot to go on in support of Prop 8. Given the David Boies is so skillful in his cross of the witnesses and his destruction of them so nearly complete, I think we have this one.

[Guest Ryles_D]

I've seen some concern that ti's too soon for this- I'm really hoping it isn't. *crosses fingers* here's hoping it goes well.

[Guest Camicochan]

(with transgender rights under the part about sex discrimination for some reason)

I think that's exactly where they need to be.

In New York City law, they added "perceived" to the existing law: "protection against discrimination based on real or perceived sex, race, religion...", and then added a definition of sex to include "gender or gender identity."

[Guest SusanKG]

Well, we know why the anti-freedom fighters and staunch democracy denyers did not want any camera coverage of this case. It's much worse when your idiot witnesses are being so on camera for all to see, as you try desperately to destroy other Americans' civil rights.

SusanKG

[Guest Ryles_D]

On "sex discrimination"- I believe the first state to allow same sex marriage (mass?) allowed it by someone arguing that a man was allowed to marry a woman, so it's sexual discrimination to say that a woman can't as well.

I think that's awesome in its own way.