LMSD Wants New Witnesses to Testify That McGinley's a Great Guy

Welcome Lower Merion residents!

We're glad you stopped by. Go ahead and register for a free account to get the benefits of being a member, including:
  • 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.
Creating an account is easy. Register now!

(Don't live in Lower Merion? That's okay. We won't hold it aginst you.)
Tags:
xf14ae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 2008-11-20 :49
Posts:

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.
2. These witnesses had no involvement with, knowledge of or relationship to the matter being litigated.
3. What these witnesses can testify to is that Dr. McGinley is a great guy, a Hero among black people, really, who would never ever ever intentionally discriminate against black people. Ever.

Yah.

4.5
Average: 4.5 (8 votes)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
dmuth's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 2005-09-13 :35
Posts:

GLURPP!

Front paged.

(From now on, all front pagings will be accompanied by 1960's Batman-style sounds.)

5
Average: 5 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
xf14ae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 2008-11-20 :49
Posts:

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.

5
Average: 5 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

"I hope it will be said we taught them to stand tall & proud, even in the face of history & the future was made new & whole for us all, one child at a time." - Brian Andreas

politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

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”.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (10 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

diamonddave's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 12 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-08-25 :35
Posts:

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.

5
Average: 5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
carla's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 2008-01-03 :36
Posts:

Didn't McGinley and his last school district have "issues"? LOL maybe McGinley should invite them in?

5
Average: 5 (2 votes)
Your rating: None

"Well behaved women rarely make history" - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.