LMSD Wants New Witnesses to Testify That McGinley's a Great Guy
- Access to all of our posts and comments
- Your own profile including an avatar, buddy lists, and other social networking features
- The ability to send private messages to other users on this site
- The ability to chat and interact with other citizens and voters in and around Lower Merion.
(Don't live in Lower Merion? That's okay. We won't hold it aginst you.)
 |
Responses have now been filed to the recent flurry of pre-trial motions. As frequent readers may remember, LMSD identified four new witnesses in their pretrial memorandum. Because they were not identified during the discovery period (which went from June - December 2009), Students Doe filed an objection to these new witnesses. Today, LMSD filed their response to that motion: LMSD Response Doe Motion Witnesses From this we learn: 1. Somehow the District forgot to tell their attorneys about these four witnesses. Yah. |
- xf14ae's blog
- Login or register to post comments
A pretty obvious attempt by LMSD to shift the argument from "What You Did" to "Who You Are", as so eloquently put by Ill Doctrine:
To LMSD's line of argument, it's not about what Dr. McGinley wrote, said, did, how he acted, and what the outcome was. It's about who he is, and these people know for a fact that he is not a racist in his soul.
Except no, it really is about what you did. As the video says - I don't care about who you are deep down inside, I care about what you did.
Besides, Dr. McGinley is not a named defendant. The only named defendant here is Lower Merion School District. Last I checked, more than one person worked there, and more than one person's words and actions contributed to the creation of this plan.
This is lame. Character and reputation evidence is inadmissible unless Students Doe have introduced it against a defendant, and I am not aware of that.
LMSD is wasting more tax dollars here - yet again. This is about the facts of what happened in this instance, not what happened in the past.
Because someone can be of an upstanding reputation and still do wrong, past reputation is virtually always not allowed. It’s probative value in reference to the present facts is overly prejudicial.
What LMSD is saying here is: “look, we know reputation evidence is inadmissible, but we have no problem billing L.M. taxpayers for this bogus motion so we can tell the judge that there are witnesses out there who are willing to testify to McGinley’s fantastic reputation on issues like this, so the court should just consider McGinley to have an amazing reputation on issues like this because we filed a frivolous motion that implies as much”.
=================
~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
LMSD voters-
Why did it take the SB so long(over a year) to find a Superintendent when Savedoff wanted to leave the LMSD?
The SB needed time to find a someone who would not argue with them over their, inequitable,vengeful,redistricting plan. A plan we have seen in the e mails that are now evidence in the Doe case, a plan that was in play long before McG arrives at LMSD.
Where in any business, has a new leader been brought in without their own trusted team and advisers and agreed to implementing a massive restructuring without time to review, change, or seek advise about such plan? Never.
What was he thinking?! Why did he agree to these terms?
Weak mayor, strong council govt that's what SB wanted. They knew he'd roll over, that's why he was chosen.
It is about what you did and what you said, ALL of you.
These witnesses are wasting, our time and money.
Didn't McGinley and his last school district have "issues"? LOL maybe McGinley should invite them in?
GLURPP!
Front paged.
(From now on, all front pagings will be accompanied by 1960's Batman-style sounds.)
How to Tell if Your Cat is Plotting to KILL YOU