View Full Version : Legal Prop 8 Trial: Day Two, Tuesday

01-13-2010, 08:49 PM
Transcript from someone attending trial tried to clean up spelling errors...good read...For those that didn't know Prop 8 is being Challenged by David Boies and Theodore Olson in Federal Court as a violation of Equal Protection and Due Process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment

We resume the trial this afternoon with the plaintiffs’ case. Another expert witness, a professor named George Chauncey, is scheduled to testify for the plaintiffs.

(Judge) Walker: We’ll soon be ready for our next witness. In the meantime, with regard to the broadcasting proposal, ALL the responses have been stored in the jury room for counsel inspection. Except for the group responses which I won’t display because of their numerocity.

Boies says that the SF City Attorney, Assistant Attorney Teresa Stewart, will conduct the examination of Dr George Chauncey.

(Being sworn, giving and spelling name)

BA, MA, MF, and PhD

One year professorships at Rutgers and NYU, and fourteen years at UChicgo, three years ago moved to Yale, teaches AmStudies

Two Books: Gay New York; Why Marry; and contributor to collections.

Also working on a book on post-war gay cultuire and politics

More than a dozen articles and many conferences and papers at AmStudies Association, American Historical Assoc.

Awards: Gay New York, best dissertation in American History, and best history dissertation. Best book in history, LA Times book prize.

S: Tell us about your sources?

C: Rely on court records, police records, records of gay organizations and social service agencies, diaries and personal journals, films, ads, interviews with over 180 elderly gay men.

S: Political records?

C: Congressional offices, debates, transcripts.

S: Types of courses you teach?

C: American history since 1919, urban history, social history since WW2, lesbian & gay history.

S: Your honor, offer as an expert in social cultural and political history of lesbian/gay in America.

No objection, so ordered.

S: Please summarize your expert opinions you will offer today.

C: Widespread discrimination throughout american history, criminalization, restrictions on employment, public accommodation, and association, stereotypeing and demonization to reinforce existing pattern of hostility and prejudice.

Criminalization of homosexuality, sodomy laws, early laws were focused on SOME people who had sex with others of the same sex. These laws came to represent the criminalize homosexual sex. SCOTUS Georgia law against sodomy criminalied all sodomy bbut only enforced it against gays.

S: Other ways besides laws?

C: In the 19th century end, stepped up policing against commnuity as it became more public. Disorderly conduct statutes used against homosexuals, and actually called disorderly (degenerate) by police and then in the law. Soliticing a man for unnatural acts becamse a kind of disorderly. Used against all gatherings in NYC until 1966, 50,000 arrests until then: bars, private parties, parks. Of 100 men I interviewed for one book, half of them had been arrested, almost all for disorderly.

These laws were further defined to specific gay people and all their activity. The effect was to register society’s disapproval of their behavior, using sodomy loaws only against gays. You couldn’t let openly gay soldiers serve alongside other soldiers because they were viewed at the time as predatory sodomists.

S: Did it affect some people’s willingness to go out in public?

C: People had to be much more bold, when there were crackdowns in major cities and small towns. People had to be much more careful. The initial arrest opened up other worries: lawyers have told me that police would call their famillies to confirm their identity, call their landlord to confirm their home, call their employer to confirm their job and this happened a lot of the time.

S: Tell us about discrimination

C: In public accommodations, in 1933 with the repeal of prohibition, states issued regulations prohibited anyone with a liquor license to serve liquor to lesbians or gay men, or allow them the "congregate on the premises". This was difficult because l&G had to hide their identities, so places they could be more open were important. This criminalization meant that people had to be careful in a regular establishment, so places developed to serve this niche market, charging much higher prices that paid bribes to the police and/or were operated by organized crime. Being homosexual in public enmeshed people in a web of criminality.

S: How did this work inpractice?

C: Bartenders could 86 people if they thought a person was gay. The L&G bars barowners put a sign over the bar itself, ‘if you are gay stay away’ or ‘it is illegal to serve homosexuals’ — that way the bar could say it was being vigilant.

S: How did the authorities enforce these laws?

C: It's the beauty of liquor licensing: the bar owner always risks losing his license if he doesn’t enforce the law. ALso local patrolmen would step in to see what was up. Also undercover cops would go in to ensure all regs were followed.

S: Did other authorities get involved?

C: Yes, bars near military baes were under surveillance by military/police, to be sure soldiers and sailors couldn’t be going in there.

S: How did authorities know bars were serving gay people?

C: Take note of an act of one man picking up another man. That was a sure sign homos were there. Plainclothes policemen entrapped people, when an invite was issued, the handcuffs came out. Bargoer arrested and proceedings against owner, bartender as well.

C: When bars tried to challenge people, authorities would use stereotypical behavior as evidence of homosexuality: women in pants, women dancing together, men whose clothing was too colorful, had too long hair, touched each other in effimate ways, two men overheard talking about the opera — something no non-homowould ever do in the 1950s.

C: It’s kind of striking thing, the policing of homosexuals has been used to enforce gender norms, people who acted in cross-gender ways would get kicked out before the bar got in trouble.

S: did bars fight or resist?

C: Most just closed quietly. Many tried, went to court: they said they didn’t know, they had the signs up, how could they tell. then, periodically, there were actual challenges: in both NY and CA, there were rulings by the state’s highest court that such discrimination was illegal. then, peace and quiet in the early fifties, but the police cracked down in SF. Then the CA leg prohibited establishments that were "resorts for sex perverts." 1959 Mayors race, the incumbent was charged with making SF a mecca for gay men. After re-election, he cracked down, getting the police to arrest 40-50 men every week for two years.

S: How long did this go on?

C: Even when courts said unconstitutional, police continued. Stonewall is a great example, the NY courts had ruled agasint raids. Last summer, in Ft Worth TX, a gay bar was raided by the liquor authorities and the police. Just last summer! Drastcially reduced, of course, but here we see it still goes on.

C: THis was one more way homosexuals were told they were despised and needed to keep secret who they were. THe public at large associated gay life with criminality: campaigns talked about the police corruption caused by gay bars! Part of a ‘violent criminal underworld.’

S: Tell us about employment?

C: In the military, first of all, during the second world war, facing mobilization of many people, instituted screening procedures to keep homos out. Not surprisingly, not many were ferreted out: most were deeply concerned about their country having been attacked after Pearl Harbor so wanted to serve. People in small towns didn’t want their families and neighbors to know; in big cities, the need for personnel was great anyway.
when manpower needs are not so pressing after ww2, the law was ramped up.

S: What about after the war?

C: IF you were a man not serving, people had questions about your not having served. If you served and discharged, you were denied GI Bill beenfits, an incredibly important social engineering to give access to college, jobs, new homes. GI Bill had profound consequences and it meant homos either not in military or discharged, were not eligbile.

S: What about those found out? Did it affect their ability to participate as Americans in our society?

C: Yes, when people wanted to hire, they wanted to see your discharge papers. If they saw you’d been a homosexual, you didn’t get the job. It was a way of conveying to the whole country that these people were excluded from this incredibly inclusive experience: think of WW2 movies where’s there one of everything, but not gays.

S: Can you tell what DADT did?

C; Clinton had promised to repeal prohibition, but such a firestorm afterwards that he retreated from his promise, DADT was a compromise that said if gays didn’t tell they were gay the military wouldn’t ask. It wasn’t really implemented that way, something like 9500 people were discharged in the first decade of DADT.

S: What were the effects on the country?

C: The country lost the services of patriotic Americans who wanted to serve in the country’s defense, Arabic translaters especailly we have learned. Large groups, financial cost, recruit/train to replace them.

S: Plaintiffs exhibit 872, GAO report to Congress about the costs of DADT.

C: Over the first ten years it cost the Defense Dept 94 million in 1994 dollars to discharge and about 85 million to replace them.

S: Was there other employment discrimination?

C: Employment of homosexuals on civilian employment of the government; McCarthy and his list of communists and sex perverts. Several Congressional committees: one issued a report about employing ’sex perverts in government.’ In two years, 1,700 people were kept from employment in the late 40s. Procedures were thought too law or uneven, one of Ike’s first EOs create a civilian homo ban as well as military, as well as fed contractors required to ferret out their homos and fire them.

S: How did the MCCarthy Senate treatment compare with their treatment of communisits?

C: Concerned about communists, but historian found State Dept alone dismissed more suspected homos than suspected communinists.

S: Exhibit PX 2337 "Sex perverts in Government" Let’s turn to Ike’s EO: would homos be discharged or not hired. When did that policy end?

C: 1975, Prsindet Carter rescinded it except for security clearance jobs. [Carter wasn't Prez until 1977] Then Clinton said agencies could not discriminate.

S: Was this limited to the federal govt?

C: State govts took it up in a variety of ways, to institutionalize L&G prohibitions. CA fired more than a dozen after interviewing 300 over several years. NYC welfare departments fired several workers discovered to be gay.

S: Did mandated discrimination affect job seeking in the private sector?

C: Ike’ rule affected all fed contractors, but more broadly gay people faced a broad range of discrimination by all employers. Individual companies and job sectors differed, but everyone knew they had to be very careful.

S: Were people thus funneled into certain jobs?

C: Some tried to ‘pass’ but many simply took on jobs in niches in the private sector: lowpaying working class jobs, waiter, hairdresser, florist.

S: How did that affect their lives?

C: Pushed gay life out to the margins, underground. Ther was lots of gay life, private parties, people had a gay social life, but they had to hide their lives. Most people did not want to take risks, it had its own codes so people could talk without being detected.

G: Best example is simply the word GAY that was appropriated so people could say, Oh I found a GAY place or Oh I had a GAY time last night, to one another without being detected if overheard. People had to hide or risk humiliation and disgrace.

C: How did gays operate in the public arena?

G: Laws passes at state and local level outlawing discriminatign; still, 20 states don’t prohibit discrimination in public employment, another 28 dont’ prohibit discrimination in private employment.

C: Can you talk about censorship?

G: In the early 30s, in the movies, the League of Decency rallied to protest immorality in the film industry. They pressured Hollywood to issue a code, so as to forestall federal regulation. The "Code" as it was called, imposed certain rules about touchy issues: crime, adultery. Some were prohibited: homosexuality, interracial relationships. For a generation, Holywood films (dominant medium for the 20th century) until it fell away in the sixties, these things simple did not appear.

C: How was it enforced?

G: Studios had to submit their films for approval, negotiation.

C: Did the Hayes Code affect TV?

G: Not formally, but their was even more concern since it was actually going into people’s homes. Very few gay characters. There was some, it increased in the 1980s. As recently as 1989, 20 years ago, "30 Something" had a scene with two men in bed, various religious organizations boycotted, sponsors withdrew. By the mid 90s, portrayals increased. In 1996 Ellen came out as a character and a PERSON, and was on the cover of TIME. It seems UNPOSSIBLE to young people nowadays, I’m sure.

C: How did this censorship affect actual people?

G: Well, young gay people thought they were alone, they never saw themselves portrayed. Older were reminded they were excluded and despised. Some directors and writers used code so sophisticated people might guess what was up. They never really saw themselves.

S: Tell us about demonization and stigma.

G: A range of groups have served to develop stereotypical images of gay people: church with its campaign against SIN. Doctors began to pay attention to questions of ’sex perversion’ in the late nineteenth centruty, assumed this to be a pathology. These poeple were thought to be sick, with gender non-conformity at its center. Homo was one sign of a more general sense of really being unwell. This, even in the 20th century, women who wanted to smoke, vote, or work were thought to be hurting their reproductive capacity and therefore likely ‘inverts.’

G: Child’s inability to identify with the 'right’ parent, homos were immature therefore. Most dangerous stereotypes were between the 30s and 50s, a series of police and press campaigns IDd homos as child molestors, hyper-men unconstrained by women who threatened the nation’s children. Usually sparked by some awful attack, usually by a man on a girl, but these attacks got twisted against gays.

C: How did gays go from being pathetic to being scary?

G: Cultural process drove it, press campaigns against assualts on children, homos emerged as quintessential sex deviants. National magazines chimed in, governments started commissions to investigate the offense of sex psychopathy, committed for observation for indeterminate sentence to a prison/ mental institution. Hard to overstate the extent the fear inculcated in America of homosexuals as monsters.

C: Was their any foundation to this charge?

G: No, most of the actual stories are about men attacking girls.

C: Look at PX 851, please, at an article you wrote. You were mentioning the press statements about perpetuating this idea.

G: Article from Coronet, 1950: "New Moral Menace to Our Youth. Once a man assumes the role of homosexual, they descend to other forms of depravity such as sex sadism, drug abuse, and even murder and affect their innocent partners." This shows how homos were depicted as evidence of complete moral decay, go on to infect other people.

C: Same exhibit, page 107

G: Statement by AG of CA: The sex pervert is too frequently regarded as a queer individual who never hurts others. But we overlook that the sex pervert if always seeking out innocent victims." Many magazines repeateed this quote, newspapers picked up, you saw it throughout the culture.

C: Addressed to adults?

G: Yes, to adults who were being told their children were threatened and needed protection from homos. It bred fear of homos, went into schools in CA, seeking to tell boys to be wary: BOYS BE AWARE, homos were sick and out to infect them.

[see where this is going, with the emphasis on PROTECTING THE CHILDREN?]

S: Please find another example from your work of this.

C: Government report: "Immaturity, instability, subject to blackmail, dangerous to young people, corrosive influence by enticing normal people to engage in perverse practices. Government managers have a responsiblity to ensure young people are protected from this corrosive influence. Government service must not coincide with young people being subject to this." It is the imprimatur of senior government officials for the attitude that gay people are deviants or perverts. Federal and state policies reinforced.

S: When people discovered to be perverts, did they end up in jail?

G: well they could. This is one element of a wide range of things, the laws against assmebling in public, in response to the national press campaigns. Tremendous escalation after WW2 and into the early 50s. Police needed to show they were dealing with these problems.

G; By having to avoid going out in public, people were really affected. One man I interviewed worked at the NY Public Library, was arrested and in jail for two days, his employers discovered, marched him down the hall and publicly fired him in front of his peers and collect his belongings and escorted out of the building. This same story happened many times.

S: What is the most enduring legacy of this demonization?

G: There are two. One is that the growing police/military crckdowns led to the start of teh early homophile movement in the 40s and 50s: small private groups. It was the origin of the gay rights movement. On the other hand, I see a creation and reinforcement of a series of demonic representations of homos even today: child molestors, people children need protection from: teachers, married couples, child care workers all suffer for this stigma.

G: People were harassed and stigmatized, they were attacked. More recently, the FBI now collects gay crime stats, about 1500 against G&L people nationally. CA school system showed that 200,000 students in CA jr and high schools are harassed for perception of being gay.

G: Most famous examples; Mathew Shepard in Laramie by a couple of guys who drove him out to the country, left him to die tied to a post. Couple years ago, Lawrence King shot and killed in his schools computer lab by a boy who later said that Larry had said he was attracted to him. More than the official policiing of gay life, there is the editing they do. People aren’t afraid of the police when they walk down the street holding hands, they are afraid of being bashed.

S: Plaintiffs exhibit (873)

G: These are Hate Crime stats from the FBI, dated 1998.

S: Also look at PX 874, A Safe PLace to LEARN: Making Schools Safer.
Is there where you got your 200,000 figure?

G: Yes, and 873 is where i got my figure of 1,500.

OBJECETION: Can we work this out, it wasn’t disclosed.

Walker: How much more time with this witness?

S: 45 minutes?

Walker: Move it along please, shorter questions.

01-13-2010, 08:52 PM
What's this all about DC?

01-13-2010, 08:52 PM
G: Iíll try to keep my answers shorter too your honor.

G: Let me step back and describe what happened in the 1970s. More G&L people came out as part of entire liberation movement: AAs, Chicano, womens movement. That set a stage for confrontation, as efforts for anti-discrimination laws. There was a a response: Save Our Children, Anita Bryant, Miami Dade. This was an effective campaign, its very name SAVE OUR CHILDREN drew on earlier evil stereotypes from the 40s and 50s and 60s revolving our protecting our children form evil gays. About 3/4s of these movements overturned anti-disc laws in local communities.

S: Do you know this SAVE OUR CHILDREN campaign?

(Thompson: Discussion of whether the document at hand was disclosed, and whether it was disclosed on time or at all. MANY FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY, or I wouldnít bring it up at all. I will make this objection REPEATEDLY)

S: Because the Defendant-Intervenors refuse to let us examine their messaging or introduce their campaign materials, we need our expert witnesses to comment and compare this campaign to historical campaigns frmo the past.

Walker: Overruled

S: Dr Chauncey, would you tell the court generally about the themes of the SAVE OUR CHILDREN campaign that Anita Bryant led?

G: When they began, their polling showed support for the ordinance that forbade discrimination. They elected to focus on the CONSEQUENCES of the ordinance, one of them about children. They said allowing gay people to be open in jobs were they were exposed to children, as role models, and children could be easily swayed to homosexuality. They drew on stereotypes that homos were child molestors. Releasing homosexual predators onto children, in their presence, would be BAD. They were willing to tolerate homos, but didnít want them open.

S: Was their literature about gays forcing themselves on normal people?

G: That was a central part of the SAVE OUR CHILDREN campaign.

C: read the language ascribed to Anita Bryant.

G: Some of the stories I could tell you of child recruitment and child molestation by homosexuals would turn your stomach. Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they must recruit. Who will they recruit? A 35 year old father? A mother of two? No, they will recruit a fresh young person, a boy entering manhood or an innocent young woman."

(Discussions of the authenticity of the document, since itís a copy)

S: Please read from the Miami Herald ad:

G: Thereís no human right to corrupt our children. The other side of the homo coin is molestation and corruption, etc

C: Read other Bryant Language:

G: Homo is a conduct, a choice, a way of life, if you choose it you must accept the consequences. Itís a sin.

C: Read other Bryant language:

G: Tonight the laws of God and the cultural vlaues of man have been affirned. Dade County voters said enough enough enough, they voted with us"

S: Was there an effect outside Dade County of the SAVE OUR CHILDREN campaign?

C: Yes, only two were unsuccessful, Briggs here in CA was one of them. St Paul repealed, many other cities repealed anti-disc laws and implemented other restrictions on homos.

S: Are you familiar with Prop 8

C: I am ó it was a proposed vote to amend the CA constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman in response to SCOCAís ruling that marriage was a civil right. It passed and now gay marriage is illegal again in CA. This is part of a cycle of anti-gay rights campaigns, using the same language. I have reviewed the Prop 8 materals.

S: Did you see the official voter guide for Prop 8?

C: Yes

S: Please read from it, PX 1: Turn to seventh paragraph, beginning "It protects our children."

G: It protects our children from being taught in public schools that same sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Prop 8 protects marriage as an essential instrument of society. We should not accept a court decision teaching kids that same sex marriage is okay.

Next paragraph: Prop 8 does not take away any rights, but while gays have a right to their private lives, they do not have a right to redefine traditional marriage.

S: How does this fit into the stereotypes youíve described today?

C: Fits into the stereotype that gays are inferior, focuses on children needing protection, warning about what our kids our taught, forcing things on us against our will. Evokes the fear of aggressiveness of gays as predators, they have a right to be on their own, just donít make us take note or recognize them.

S: How do you interpret the voter guideís use of PROTECT OUR CHILDREN?

C: Openly gay people appear to threaten children.

S: Have you reviewed any TV ads for Prop 8?

C: yes

S: Do you believe some ads reflect stereotypes?

C: They do, but they are more polite. The place of gay people has changed, the things you can say about them in polite society have changed. But still their was an emphasis on HARM. But most striking was the image of the little girl telling her mom that a prince can marry a prince and a princess can marry a princess. Here we see that simple exposure to gay relationships will turn people gay.

Stewart wants to show lots of ads now.

Defense doesnít anticpate any objection, but they reserveÖ.

Gavinís Whether You Like it or Not, Gay marriage is now mandatoryÖ

Prince marrying a princeÖ. think it canít happen?

The Wirthlins from MassachusettsÖ. itís ALREADY happened!

Lesbian wedding field trip to City HallÖ.

Black minister, SF judges, same rights as domestic partners, have you thought about what samesex marriage really means (TO ME, says the little girl)Ö

S: What are the key messages of discrimination youíve talked about today seen here?

C: Children, forced, fear of gay relationships and gay people, striking focus on PROTECTING CHILDREN from gay marriage, which is a sign of full equality of gay people and our recognition of them. And the fear of making children gay if they are exposed to it, and that that is undesireable.

S: Two print ads, then wrap up. 1763 Ė

T: OBJECTION, not disclosed,

S: YES it was not, because the defendant didnít produce timely.

T: YES WE DID, it was in the first production. Expert didnít get deposed about this document.

Walker: when did this document come to your attention?

(Discussion of whether it was in the supplemental production. We are seeing this for the FIRST TIME, knowing that Chauncey would talk about it.)

Walker: But your client produced this document!

T: Yes and we are proud of it, but this expert wasnít deposed on it, and we couldnít question him on it.

S: Simple document, simple question.

Walker: This is the Defendant-Intervenor document, since the document is coming in anyway, itís not unfair for this witness to discuss it, wrt to 1763.

S: Also 1776?

T: We have an issue of authenticity, canít tell if its original, could have been digitally altered.

Walker: Subject to authentication, admitted, objection OVERRULED.

S: Can you read the language of this sign into the record?

G: Yes, it says YES ON 8 PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN, YOU HAVE THE POWER, with a picture of a loving couple mother and father on either side of their beloved child protected from harm. Implies the inferiority of a same sex couple compared to.

S: Read this flyer, 1763.


WALKER: How do you know they are heterosexcual?

G: Well they are MIXED SEX families. And what are we protecting these children and families from? From the equality of gay relationships?

S: Have you written about the parallels about race discrimination and religious discrimination against same-sex couples?

G: big question, late in the day after two+ hoursÖ. Well, many supporters of Prop 8 have deeply held religious beliefs. But the parallels are different. In fact during the civil rights era, very many sincerelyt Christian Southerners believed that segregation was GODís way and GODís will. Falwell preached in 1958 against Brown v Board.

People hold their truths very deeply and reach their beliefs by their own lights. Religious arguments were mobilized against civil rights for AAs and interracial marriage, and we see similar arguments with Anita Bryant and in Prop 8.

S: Major sources relied on, please, for your testimony today. Your honor, I would like to move these sources into the record.

WALKER: Have you disclosed to Thompson?

C: No

Thompson: We will look at them and decide.

Cross examination by Thompson, only ten minutes

THOMPSON: You have donated to Lamda Legal and Alliance Defenders?
G: YEs
T: And you support same-sex couples right to marry?
G: I do
T: Interview? Do you remember this article, TAB 4?
G: Yes
T: It says "George Chauncey is beyond question an advocate." IS that true.
G: That is the journalistís characterization. I like the next line better, "He is a historianís historian." I do support the right of same sex couples to marry, but as an historian I try to keep it separate.
T: definitions, please: homosexual people are those with the primary erotic and emotional sexual attraction to those of the same sex.
G: Not sure about that.
T: Letís look at your depo. *reads*
G: Please wait until I find it.
T: *reads*

Discussion of noun, adjective, actions, identity)

T: HAven;t these characterizations changed over time?
G: YEs
T: The prewar world was different form our own (heís reading teh doctorís work back to him)
G: Referring to men in working class communities there, how identities emerged earlier in middle class culture.
T: The ascendancy of the word gayÖ.

Again sorry, THompson is reading so fast from George Chauncey;s work, and getting just yes or no answers. I really canít do this any justice, expecially at the end of a long day.

G: I am generalizing for purposes of the introduction to my book.

Taking final break now, Boutrous has motions and housekeeping regarding motions under seal. We are just receiving documents now that defendantís counsel claimed they are attorney work product, and we havenít been able to disclose.

Cooper says they will study on this issue and present half-baked response in the morning.

Walker: Iím sure it will be fully baked.

Walker: Why donít we take up these matter here rather than waiting for a magistrate to decide whether they belong under internal seal?

Boutrous: These are not private documents, these went way beyond the court, they cannot possible fall under seal, although I canít discuss that in open court.

Walker: May I see those documents, then.

cooper: Absolutely, these docuemnts came to us yesterday, we are trying to assess them, I agree with Boutrous that sending this bak to Magistrate Judge Spero might delay things. BUt if we try to deal with them hear, and some are objectionable and should be protected under the seal even if ultimatelty available to the court under seal.

Walker: Do you have the document numbers?

Boutrous: WE provided your staff with the sealed versions.

Walker: I will look at them tonight and decide when and how to handle them.

Cooper: Another matter we want to place on the record an objection to the intriduction and admissability of documents of this ilk. These requests are now being produced on a rolling basis, but the ninth circuit decision says are qualified for a first amendment protection as well as irrelevant. we donít have to interrupt every time as long as we have an ongoing objection.


Boutrous: Would your honor accept amicus deadline of seven days after trial?

Cooper: Our friends filed theirs already, so I support a deadine of yesterday.

WALKER: Okay, then, seven days after trial amicus are due.

Okay then TOMORROW AT 8:30!!


01-13-2010, 08:55 PM
Since when do we give faggots a fair trial in the country? Send 'em all to Mexico and build a border wall.

01-13-2010, 08:56 PM
What's this all about DC?


01-27-2010, 11:17 PM