Paul's Letter to the Observer

[Guest Guest]

Excuse me, but Paul is not pathetic. From everything I have read, he is an intelligent and thoughtful man who has defended his son with a rare combination of grace and intelligence, qualities that also shine through in his son. The time and energy Paul has devoted to this is no less than I would expect, considering his son's involvement. The quality and tone of his remarks, while not perfect, are far better than most people could muster. Matthew was attacked, and false statements were made. Paul wrote to correct them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is what a father should do.

Unnamed Kearny resident, I do not know you, so I cannot say whether you are pathetic. But I do know that your behavior here is pathetic. You make vicious remarks that have no basis in fact (hiding behind your anonymity to do it), and if Paul responds you essentially tell him that he is supposed to take your abuse and shut up. He doesn't have to do that.

I'll tell you what else is pathetic. The people defending this teacher (I'll call him P) appear to have no sense of what Christian values are. If Matthew hadn't recorded his classes, P and his minions would have called him a liar.  They can't do that, because the recordings prove that Matthew spoke the truth, but are they going to admit that P was wrong? Finally, a few of them are starting to see that, and to admit it, but most of them continue to try to defend P --- by attacking Matthew and his dad.  A real Christian would know that one person cannot be defended by attacking another.  Matthew and Paul have nothing to do with how P behaves in his classroom. That is P's responsibility, no matter what any student may say or ask him. Accusing a 16-year-old student of setting up a teacher (by forcing him to say "you belong in hell"?) is pathetic.  But what are P's starry-eyed followers focusing on? Whether Matthew once wore a dress to school to make a point. Whether Matthew is patriotic. (Obviously he is.) Whether Matthew should have let the teacher off easy instead of outing his behavior.  The public's rightful concern is not about Matthew. P is the one who has is being paid a salary by the public and is being paid to teach, not preach. The attempt to shift the focus is pathetic. 

I've had evangelical Christians approach me, asking me whether I think there will ever be peace in the world. This is not true of all evangelicals, many of whom are fine and peaceful people. But as to some of the evangelicals who are defending P, the world will never be at peace as long as people act they way they are acting. They don't care about what is true, they only care about what they believe. And they will stop at nothing to insulate themselves in the cocoon of ignorance they've spun. In itself, that is up to them, but when these people draw others into that cocoon, by making false accusations for example, it becomes other people's business. Paul is exactly right. You evangelicals do not have a right to make up your own facts.  No one does. What is pathetic is doing things like that in the name of God. 

To leave no doubt about how one person sees it, Matthew has comported himself in a way that Paul has every reason to be proud of. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Mrs. LaClair for that excellent clarification. We are not going to find peace if your hubby keeps refusing to just let this one go. The teacher has not done it since it was found out about and with regards to Mr. LaClairs other demands, they are just bogus. So, it does start with Paul. So do not kid yourself. So peace starts with him, so we can all go about living our lives in PEACE again.

[Guest Guest]

Well said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ohh please. Was that post of yours really necessary? As if she needed your approval.

[Guest Guest]

You could call it a skirt, but you it doesn't look like anything most of the girls wear. You couldn't fairly call it a dress.

Good grief, talk about having nothing to do. Someone please tell me what this has to do with anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has to do with character or lack thereof. So please we are suppose to be tossing palms down at his feet as he walks. I don't think so. It goes along with the other bonehead things he tried to do in that school. Like trying to get the security guard fired for making him take down stickers on his locker. Just calling a spade a spade. Thats what it is.

[WilliamK]

Oh, sorry, yes it is. In fact, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that was intended as sarcasm.

[Guest Paul]

It has to do with character or lack thereof. So please we are suppose to be tossing palms down at his feet as he walks. I don't think so.  It goes along with the other bonehead things he tried to do in that school.  Like trying to get the security guard fired for making him take down stickers on his locker.  Just calling a spade a spade. Thats what it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you're making things up, and you're obsessed with one kid who doesn't play by your rules. I'm defending my son from false accusations and meaningless attacks. What's your excuse?

[Guest Paul]

Sorry, but you are wrong about me.  I am more on the Leclair's side than Mr. P's.  Just think that Paul needs to be consistent.  Dress...Skirt...doesn't matter.  In this conversation they are referring to the same situation.  By denying that Matt wore a "dress" they are making it seem like they are reversing themselves on something they previously admitted to.  That is where they lose a little credibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After all these months, you think there may be one seeming contradiction in what we've said because it isn't clear what a reasonable person might call a long, black gothic-looking outfit that no one would mistake for a girl's dress, or skirt for that matter. I said it was a skirt in a previous post. I also remember Matthew talking about wearing it to school to make a point about the policy regarding when the students could begin wearing shorts. Since I leave early in the morning, before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, I didn't see him in it that day. I know some people who think they need permission to f--t in their own bathroom are outraged --- outraged! --- that a kid would have the guts to do that, but the way I see it that's their problem. So in the end there's an ambiguity about what is or isn't a skirt. So what?

In the bigger picture, this is silliness. The teacher is on a recorder. Could you please explain to me what our credibility has to do with any of this.

[Strife767]

Ohh please. Was that post of yours really necessary?

No less necessary than a post dedicated to asking me if a post was necessary.

[Strife767]

It has to do with character or lack thereof.

Protesting a stupid part of the dress code is a lack of character? Guess everyone who doesn't live by the words "sit down and shut up" has no character in your eyes.

So please we are suppose to be tossing palms down at his feet as he walks. I don't think so.  It goes along with the other bonehead things he tried to do in that school.  Like trying to get the security guard fired for making him take down stickers on his locker.

Matthew never tried to get the security guard fired, liar.

Just calling a spade a spade.

More like calling a spade an artichoke.

[Guest TruthandJustice]

It has to do with character or lack thereof. So please we are suppose to be tossing palms down at his feet as he walks. I don't think so.  It goes along with the other bonehead things he tried to do in that school.  Like trying to get the security guard fired for making him take down stickers on his locker.  Just calling a spade a spade. Thats what it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All those mentally ill bribe takers who are involved in ***** ******* fraud and embezzlement scheme are going to be indicited in the Federal system. Remember those stockholders understand now they were snookered by a greedy little liar who has gotten everything he has through corrupt deceptive means. These threads trying to make this kid look like a sissy are nothing new in this Town. The Towns other victim has already passed a drug test and a lie detector test from a major news network.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest Guest]

After all these months, you think there may be one seeming contradiction in what we've said because it isn't clear what a reasonable person might call a long, black gothic-looking outfit that no one would mistake for a girl's dress, or skirt for that matter. I said it was a skirt in a previous post. I also remember Matthew talking about wearing it to school to make a point about the policy regarding when the students could begin wearing shorts. Since I leave early in the morning, before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, I didn't see him in it that day. I know some people who think they need permission to f--t in their own bathroom are outraged --- outraged! --- that a kid would have the guts to do that, but the way I see it that's their problem. So in the end there's an ambiguity about what is or isn't a skirt. So what?

In the bigger picture, this is silliness. The teacher is on a recorder. Could you please explain to me what our credibility has to do with any of this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More inconsistency in this issue. Paul you claim he wore a long gothic-style skirt that reached to the ankles in an attempt to protest the dress-code regarding shorts.

In your original post on this subject you state:

As I recall it, the school would not allow students to wear shorts until after a certain date. Meanwhile, the girls were wearing skirts, which exposed every bit as much leg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How does the long gothic-style skirt make the point about the amount of leg being exposed? It doesn't. If he wore a short skirt or dress, admit it. If he didn't, don't try to tie the gothic skirt to some sort of protest, because it doesn't make sense.

Just like you are asking Dave P. to correct his mistakes (or at least having the school correct his mistakes), please correct your own.

[Guest Guest]

Obviously, this is not Debra's post. KOTW, you have an obligation here. I suggest you attend to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is pretty funny. Now Paul has taken the trademark of "Paul" and if someone says his its Pauls wife it Must mean him. He thinks he the only Paul on this planet and in his mind he is. Pretty pathetic.

[Guest Guest]

After all these months, you think there may be one seeming contradiction in what we've said because it isn't clear what a reasonable person might call a long, black gothic-looking outfit that no one would mistake for a girl's dress, or skirt for that matter. I said it was a skirt in a previous post. I also remember Matthew talking about wearing it to school to make a point about the policy regarding when the students could begin wearing shorts. Since I leave early in the morning, before he gets up, and come home hours after he does, I didn't see him in it that day. I know some people who think they need permission to f--t in their own bathroom are outraged --- outraged! --- that a kid would have the guts to do that, but the way I see it that's their problem. So in the end there's an ambiguity about what is or isn't a skirt. So what?

In the bigger picture, this is silliness. The teacher is on a recorder. Could you please explain to me what our credibility has to do with any of this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know, how about you tell us? Because you were the one who started this skirt conversation again the day you sent that letter to the Observer. Have you noticed that you try so hard to make sure people think you are always right? The funny part is that you talk too much and you end up making a fool out of yourself...silly things like "I have been away from KOTW" or "Matthew wore a skirt once to school..." "Matthew did not wear a dress or a skirt to school" "My daughter did not have Mr. Paszkiewicz," "Debra did not say this.." Just be quite!

"Even a fool is thought to wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue"

[Guest Lazarus]

Establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. Oh sorry, thats  not a law.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so ****ing terribly sorry. I had no idea that all this time I was under the false impression that the United States Constitution was the founding document of our current government, and thus, the highest law of the land. The highest law that the Supreme Court refers to in its decisions, the law that continually gets pushed in our presidents face, the law that protects our rights.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're so ****ing right.

[Guest Supporter]

It has to do with character or lack thereof. So please we are suppose to be tossing palms down at his feet as he walks. I don't think so.  It goes along with the other bonehead things he tried to do in that school.  Like trying to get the security guard fired for making him take down stickers on his locker.  Just calling a spade a spade. Thats what it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But what about the boneheaded things you're trying to do?...like convince us that he attempted to get a security guard fired for making him take down stickers on his locker. Making that statement just made you a legally qualified bonehead.

[Guest Guest]

I don't know, how about you tell us? Because you were the one who started this skirt conversation again the day you sent that letter to the Observer. Have you noticed that you try so hard to make sure people think you are always right? The funny part is that you talk too much and you end up making a fool out of yourself...silly things like "I have been away from KOTW" or "Matthew wore a skirt once to school..." "Matthew did not wear a dress or a skirt to school" "My daughter did not have Mr. Paszkiewicz," "Debra did not say this.." Just be quite!

"Even a fool is thought to wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been following this board. Paul did not start any of these topics. He merely responded to them. Apparently you don't think it's OK for him to correct false remarks. Apparently you want to make those accusations not only without being held accountable for them, but also without anyone stating the facts.

[Guest Guest]

I don't know, how about you tell us? Because you were the one who started this skirt conversation again the day you sent that letter to the Observer. Have you noticed that you try so hard to make sure people think you are always right? The funny part is that you talk too much and you end up making a fool out of yourself...silly things like "I have been away from KOTW" or "Matthew wore a skirt once to school..." "Matthew did not wear a dress or a skirt to school" "My daughter did not have Mr. Paszkiewicz," "Debra did not say this.." Just be quite!

"Even a fool is thought to wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Idiot, he wrote to the Observer in response to a letter claiming that Matthew wore a skirt to school. He didn't bring up the subject. He was responding to it.

[Guest Guest]

I've been following this board. Paul did not start any of these topics. He merely responded to them. Apparently you don't think it's OK for him to correct false remarks. Apparently you want to make those accusations not only without being held accountable for them, but also without anyone stating the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please just look the topic starter to see who started most of these. He certainly did start many of these!

If there are false statements then it is perfectly understandable to take an approach to correct them. But it’s not that way here. Paul is the aggressor. Paul is the initiator. Apparently you need to pay closer attention to this message board.

They are trying to run a credible message board here so you need to also be credible as well. As far as what has been said here for example Paul has admitted to many of these. i.e. "the skirt affair." It is he who is now backtracking.

[Guest Guest]

I've been following this board. Paul did not start any of these topics. He merely responded to them. Apparently you don't think it's OK for him to correct false remarks. Apparently you want to make those accusations not only without being held accountable for them, but also without anyone stating the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please just look the topic starter to see who started most of these. He certainly did start many of these!

If there are false statements then it is perfectly understandable to take an approach to correct them. But it’s not that way here. Paul is the aggressor. Paul is the initiator. Apparently you need to pay closer attention to this message board.

They are trying to run a credible message board here so you need to also be credible as well. As far as what has been said here for example Paul has admitted to many of these. i.e. "the skirt affair." It is he who is now backtracking.

[Strife767]

This is pretty funny. Now Paul has taken the trademark of "Paul" and if someone says his its Pauls wife it Must mean him.

Okay, seriously, you're an idiot. If you think they meant anything else, you are beyond naive. Just who do you think you're kidding?

[Strife767]

I've been following this board. Paul did not start any of these topics. He merely responded to them. Apparently you don't think it's OK for him to correct false remarks. Apparently you want to make those accusations not only without being held accountable for them, but also without anyone stating the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, pretty much. It's really sad to see such desperate measures taken to defend something so obviously screwed up.

[Guest Paul's Wife]

Obviously, this is not Debra's post. KOTW, you have an obligation here. I suggest you attend to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that mean I get "whacked" ?? LOL

KOTW Note: Please note that this post is a Guest post.

[Guest Guest]

Oh, sorry, yes it is. In fact, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land.

Are we really back to that tired old dodge? "Sure he violated the Constitution, but since when is THAT a big deal? It's not like he broke the law or anything."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that people need to realize that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits preaching in the classroom. The founders, in their wisdom, drafted a document that was capable of interpretation, and was flexible enough to change with the times (which is why it is frequently called a "living document"). Accordingly, they included the Establishment Clause as a specific prohibition on the government funding or otherwise declaring a national religion (a pet peeve of Madison and Jefferson) - leaving the depth of its permissions and proscriptions open to future interpretation.

So how is is that Mr. P violated the Constitution by preaching in class if there's no specific proscription against preaching? Because the judiciary has a long-standing right to interpret the Constitution, and those opinions of the judiciary (who are appointed, not elected) become law.

Accordingly, when the Supreme Court addressed the issue for the first time in 1947, the Court - in a 5-4 vote on the issue of reimbursing parents for bussing to parochial schools - otherwise unanimously stated that the Establishment Clause did more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion. A number of decisions have followed - with the facts of the cases causing substantial fluctuations in the outcomes - some expanding restrictions, and others stating that the Establishment Clause did not require a "callous indifference to religion". The particulars of this Constitutional conflict have not played out fully - and much of the detail is still open to interpretation.

Nevertheless, the bulk of the established precedent prohibits preaching in a classroom. Still, a substantial shift in the judiciary, and a particular set of facts laid at the feet of judges keeps the full extent of the Establishment Clause in constant doubt. For those of you who would rather not have your state, local and federal politicians telling you what your children must believe - I would suggest that a little bit of vigiliance - even with respect to an otherwise popular member of the local faculty and community - may be in order. As you may see with the looming threats to abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade, what we accept as a fundamental freedom today, can be legislated (or interpreted) away from us tomorrow.

[Guest SeeYaInCourt]

No, you're making things up, and you're obsessed with one kid who doesn't play by your rules. I'm defending my son from false accusations and meaningless attacks. What's your excuse?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You will be defending him for a long time to come because there is no justice in this town only mentally ill frauds who hinder their own prosecution to keep their bunko schemes going and their spotless criminal records clean.

[Guest Paul]

Please just look the topic starter to see who started most of these.  He certainly did start many of these!

If there are false statements then it is perfectly understandable to take an approach to correct them. But it’s not that way here. Paul is the aggressor. Paul is the initiator. Apparently you need to pay closer attention to this message board.

They are trying to run a credible message board here so you need to also be credible as well. As far as what has been said here for example Paul has admitted to many of these. i.e. "the skirt affair."  It is he who is now backtracking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've posted topics directly quoting Paszkiewicz's own words from a recording. That is vastly different than posting baseless and false accusations.

I have also posted to start discussions on topical issues. Why isn't that appropriate?

Whether my son wore a skirt, dress or something else to school is no one's business but ours, and we're not backtracking. You would like to think that, because you're so desperate for a chink in our comments that you'll grasp at any straw, but there's no contradiction. Honestly, by focusing on non-issues like this, which are completely irrelevant to the real concern about proselytizing in the public schools, uninvited to other people's kids, you only betray your biases.

[Guest Guest]

Whether my son wore a skirt, dress or something else to school is no one's business but ours, and we're not backtracking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

It certainly seems like some sort of backtracking has occurred. If this is not such a big deal in the grander scheme, why did Matt bring it up again at the BOE meeting and you follow that up with the letter to The Observer?

As I stated before, I lean much more to your side of this whole issue, but this flip-flop or "playing of semantics" regarding the dress/skirt seems to bring into question your credibility.

Here is my last post on this. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=50118

Would you please respond directly? No response from Strife767 is requested, required or desired. Only interested in Paul's complete explanation to the situation.