|
Homosexual Lawyers Try to Hide What
Happened at Fistgate
Case
Involving ‘Whistleblower’ Parents Is Heading for Trial
March 30, 2001
The homosexual teacher who is suing the parents who taped
Fistgate last year is trying to conceal what occurred at that scandal.
Her lawyers say they are planning to ask the judge for a
Protective Order to stop the parents from questioning the teacher,
Julie Netherland, about what she and others taught the students.
The tape recording of her workshop, which was made by the parents,
showed that she and others taught about “fisting,” oral sex and
other sexual acts.
The attorney for the parents, Chester Darling, replied in
a letter that he was in receipt of their “astonishing letter” in
which they “threaten” to seek a Protective Order.
Darling said he could understand their desire to hide the
facts.
“In my opinion, your client was involved in the commission
of a crime, the dissemination of harmful material to minor children,”
he wrote.
Darling has made it clear that he intends to argue before
the court that his clients had a duty under the law to report this
crime to the authorities.
He cited a U.S. Supreme Court case which states that the
failure to report criminal behavior “remains a badge of irresponsible
citizenship.”
Darling also made a pointed reference to the fact
that the lawyers for the plaintiff are receiving a portion of their salaries
and other money from the Commonwealth and other public sources. This occurs
because they are employees of GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders)
which is a “poverty lawyer” organization which receives money from the
Supreme Judicial Court and others.
Atty. Darling wrote, “Don’t you appreciate that if [the
court rules in my favor and] I recover attorneys’ fees for responding
to your … assertions, that the citizens of Massachusetts are going
to pay the bill and your salary?”
In his original letter to Atty. Darling, the lawyer
from GLAD, Bennett Klein, wrote that, “It is my position that questions
relating to the content or subject matter of the workshop, the educational
or pedagogical methods underlying the workshop, or the reasons that the
workshop was structured and conducted as it was, are not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
|