Contact Information

[Guest Lesa]

Let's not expect Matt to protect our freedoms on his own. Let's write to the following people, and anyone else you can think of who can make sure David Paszkiewicz and the KHS administration are held accountable for their actions.

NJ Senator Robert Menendez

One Gateway Center, #1100

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Phone: (973)-645-3030

Fax: (973)-645-0502

NJ Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

One Gateway Center

Twenty-Third Floor

Newark, NJ 07102

Phone: (973)-639-8700

Toll Free: 1-888-398-1642

Fax: (973) 639-8723

NJ Governor, John Corzine

Office of the Governor

North Jersey Office

973-648-2640

email form

Kearny Mayor Alberto G. Santos

402 Kearny Ave

Kearny, NJ 07032

(201) 955-7979

Principal Alfred Somma asomma@kearnyschools.com

Superintendent Robert P. Mooney rmooney@kearnyschools.com

Board of Education (9 emails listed on that page)

Also, a quick thank you to KOTW for being responsible journalists and doing your part to get the important news out there.

[Guest Guest]

Let's not expect Matt to protect our freedoms on his own. Let's write to the following people, and anyone else you can think of who can make sure David Paszkiewicz and the KHS administration are held accountable for their actions.

NJ Senator Robert Menendez

One Gateway Center, #1100

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Phone: (973)-645-3030

Fax: (973)-645-0502

NJ Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

One Gateway Center

Twenty-Third Floor

Newark, NJ 07102

Phone: (973)-639-8700

Toll Free: 1-888-398-1642

Fax: (973) 639-8723

NJ Governor, John Corzine

Office of the Governor

North Jersey Office

973-648-2640

email form

Kearny Mayor Alberto G. Santos

402 Kearny Ave

Kearny, NJ 07032

(201) 955-7979

Principal Alfred Somma asomma@kearnyschools.com

Superintendent Robert P. Mooney rmooney@kearnyschools.com

Board of Education (9 emails listed on that page)

Also, a quick thank you to KOTW for being responsible journalists and doing your part to get the important news out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For those who support Paszkiewicz please send your letters and e-mails to the same places!

[Guest Lesa]

For those who support Paszkiewicz please send your letters and e-mails to the same places!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good idea, Guest! Feel free to send those bigoted and dishonest letters and comments in support for Paszkewicz to those same addresses. It'll demonstrate just how negative Paszkiewicz's influence has been on the community, and help them decide much more easily what should be done.

You know, it looks pretty bad on his church if he's still preaching there as well. Perhaps they should be added to the list?

[Guest Using Your Son.....Shame shame]

Using your son to distribute your own thoughts. The father should be ashamed! I wonder how many of these emails he wrote himself and signed with a different name?

[Guest A. V. Blom]

For those who support Paszkiewicz please send your letters and e-mails to the same places!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes...the four people -excepting those from Kearny- that do so really ought to get to know each other a bit better.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Using your son to distribute your own thoughts.  The father should be ashamed!  I wonder how many of these emails he wrote himself and signed with a different name?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most likely none, given that he had his own name to use...one far more likely to gain any attention at all.

A pity the school decided not to react.

[Guest Guest]

Its a pity this yound lad is being used as a avenue for the fathers agenda. Did Mr.P having anything to do with the kid when he didnt want to acknowledge the flag/pledge????HMMMMMMM......The person greatest at fault is the father of the boy. I would be convinced otherwise if the father sat back and let his son fight the fight indeed that is not the case.

[Calybos]

Its a pity this yound lad is being used as a avenue for the fathers agenda.  Did Mr.P having anything to do with the kid when he didnt want to acknowledge the flag/pledge????HMMMMMMM......The person greatest at fault is the father of the boy.  I would be convinced otherwise if the father sat back and let his son fight the fight indeed that is not the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, if your child is standing up for his beliefs and his rights... your duty as a parent is to sit by and do nothing? Verrrry interesting theory of parenting you've got going there.

By the way, you seem to have forgotten that the teacher is the one in the wrong here, not the student OR his father.

[Strife767]

Using your son to distribute your own thoughts.

Talk about seeing the splinter but not the board...sorry, but religion has the market cornered on indoctrinating impressionable children into their beliefs. Firstly, don't you dare complain about it even if that is the case, because religious folks do it in far, FAR greater numbers, hypocrite. Secondly, this is an assumption. How do you know that they aren't Matthew's own views? In the absence of indoctrination, it makes perfect sense for anyone to grow up atheist. People aren't born with religious beliefs, you know.

The father should be ashamed!  I wonder how many of these emails he wrote himself and signed with a different name?

I wonder how many irresponsible, unfounded accusations you can spew into one post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Good idea, Guest! Feel free to send those bigoted and dishonest letters and comments in support for Paszkewicz to those same addresses. It'll demonstrate just how negative Paszkiewicz's influence has been on the community, and help them decide much more easily what should be done.

You know, it looks pretty bad on his church if he's still preaching there as well. Perhaps they should be added to the list?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Back up Lesa - why are any letters in support of the teacher necessarily biggoted and dishonest? You take liberties with peoples' opinions that are as inappropriate and close-minded as the conduct of which you are accusing the teacher.

[Guest Paul]

Back up Lesa - why are any letters in support of the teacher necessarily biggoted and dishonest?  You take liberties with peoples' opinions that are as inappropriate and close-minded as the conduct of which you are accusing the teacher.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to agree with Lesa. Many of the remarks made in support of Paszkiewicz are highly bigoted and extremely dishonest. Making up things out of thin air is a form of dishonesty. So is making an argument that makes absolutely no sense. There is no mistaking the bigotry in the defense of this teacher, who wouldn't be defended if he was preaching Islam. The basis for that statement is the refusal of his defenders to answer the question on that subject, which has been posed many times.

[Strife767]

Back up Lesa - why are any letters in support of the teacher necessarily biggoted and dishonest?

Because to defend the teacher's actions necessarily means to defend bigotry and dishonesty, as his actions included both. Open your eyes.

You take liberties with peoples' opinions that are as inappropriate and close-minded as the conduct of which you are accusing the teacher.

Pffff, lol. It's so funny to see people talking about it as if it's some unfounded accusation, some story some kid made up to hurt a teacher's credibility. Would you wake up already? The evidence is airtight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

I have to agree with Lesa. Many of the remarks made in support of Paszkiewicz are highly bigoted and extremely dishonest. Making up things out of thin air is a form of dishonesty. So is making an argument that makes absolutely no sense. There is no mistaking the bigotry in the defense of this teacher, who wouldn't be defended if he was preaching Islam. The basis for that statement is the refusal of his defenders to answer the question on that subject, which has been posed many times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You missed the point Paul. Re-read Lesa's post. Lesa jumped to the conclusion that letters WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN AND/OR SENT TO THE BOARD in support of the teacher are necessarily bigoted and extremely dishonest. While there may not be much - or anything - to support, to assume that it is a foregone conclusion that someone who would otherwise support the teacher is bigoted or dishonest is the same close-mindedness that your posts have argued against. And if you're going to argue against close-mindedness in one case, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that it's okay in another instance because it aligns with your cause?

[Strife767]

You missed the point Paul.  Re-read Lesa's post.  Lesa jumped to the conclusion that letters WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN AND/OR SENT TO THE BOARD in support of the teacher are necessarily bigoted and extremely dishonest.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=39731

[Guest Guest]

Because to defend the teacher's actions necessarily means to defend bigotry and dishonesty, as his actions included both. Open your eyes.

Pffff, lol. It's so funny to see people talking about it as if it's some unfounded accusation, some story some kid made up to hurt a teacher's credibility. Would you wake up already? The evidence is airtight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife, the consistency and degree to which you continually portray yourself to be a jackass is stunning. Does someone need to support the teachers' actions in order to support the teacher? I think not. Even those who disagree with what the teacher has done in this instance have a right to send notes of support to the Board stating that they support the teacher's continued employment even though they do not support the teachers' actions in the present matter.

And by the way, nice try at trying to side-step the close-mindedness issue. I didn't read the post to say that the teacher hadn't done anything wrong. You are doing your colleagues a disservice with your posts. Why not sit back and take a rest while some of the other, more accomplished, Atheists handle the heavy lifting.

[Guest Guest]

I have to agree with Lesa. Many of the remarks made in support of Paszkiewicz are highly bigoted and extremely dishonest. Making up things out of thin air is a form of dishonesty. So is making an argument that makes absolutely no sense. There is no mistaking the bigotry in the defense of this teacher, who wouldn't be defended if he was preaching Islam. The basis for that statement is the refusal of his defenders to answer the question on that subject, which has been posed many times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would be surprised if you didn't agree with Lesa, Paul! What is honesty to you, Mr? Secretelly recording a class? Or not attend a meeting with your son before making a big deal out of this situation? Or not even contating a teacher to talk about it? Who are you to talk honesty! You have none. I have to agree with one of users, you are probably starting most of the topics here, with different names, so it will look like Matthew has support. Get real, Paul, most of the people from KEARNY don't agree with you! They never will, even if you try hard!

I came to a conclusion that Paul LaClair has nothing better to do than to talk about this. You are famous, so is your son, you got what you wanted, now leave Kearny alone!

[Strife767]

Strife, the consistency and degree to which you continually portray yourself to be a jackass is stunning.

Naturally, now I can't wait to read the rest of this post.

Does someone need to support the teachers' actions in order to support the teacher?  I think not.

Uh...okay, how exactly would you define "support the teacher" then, if it doesn't mean supporting what he did?

Even those who disagree with what the teacher has done in this instance have a right to send notes of support to the Board stating that they support the teacher's continued employment even though they do not support the teachers' actions in the present matter.

And those are people who are making a statement that they think it's okay for a teacher to keep his job despite his proselytizing and lying about it. They are saying that they don't think that is grounds for dismissal. Just how much better do you feel about that? Not outright support, but trivialization of activities that set a terrible example for the students he has power over? Yes, that's so much better.

And by the way, nice try at trying to side-step the close-mindedness issue.  I didn't read the post to say that the teacher hadn't done anything wrong.

Guess not--in this post, your stance seems to be "he did stuff wrong, but it's no big deal." Big difference.

You are doing your colleagues a disservice with your posts.

Colleagues? I'm not in some sort of _affiliation_ with anyone else here.

Why not sit back and take a rest while some of the other, more accomplished, Atheists handle the heavy lifting.

Wow. I never thought an unregistered member could be so condescending (then again, maybe the added anonymity is exactly _why_ s/he feels fine acting the way s/he does). Just the fact that you capitalize "atheist" says more about just how much you understand than anything else. I have nothing more to say about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Naturally, now I can't wait to read the rest of this post.

Uh...okay, how exactly would you define "support the teacher" then, if it doesn't mean supporting what he did?

And those are people who are making a statement that they think it's okay for a teacher to keep his job despite his proselytizing and lying about it. They are saying that they don't think that is grounds for dismissal. Just how much better do you feel about that? Not outright support, but trivialization of activities that set a terrible example for the students he has power over? Yes, that's so much better.

Guess not--in this post, your stance seems to be "he did stuff wrong, but it's no big deal." Big difference.

Colleagues? I'm not in some sort of _affiliation_ with anyone else here.

Wow. I never thought an unregistered member could be so condescending (then again, maybe the added anonymity is exactly _why_ s/he feels fine acting the way s/he does). Just the fact that you capitalize "atheist" says more about just how much you understand than anything else. I have nothing more to say about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OOF - what did you do to pee in this person's cornflakes, Strife.

Still, he/she/it/whatever makes a valid point that you didn't address. Playing devil's advocate, if it suddenly turns out that Matt LaClair lied about (a) the Principal denying a meeting with his father, ( the teacher denying making the statements to the Principal, © the teacher trying to bully him or intimidate him ... which ultimately (and, in such a case, inexplicably) led to the suspension of Matt, would a letter of support on behalf of Matthew necessarily condone Matt's hypothetical lying?

[Strife767]

OOF - what did you do to pee in this person's cornflakes, Strife.

Told the truth.

Still, he/she/it/whatever makes a valid point that you didn't address.  Playing devil's advocate, if it suddenly turns out that Matt LaClair lied about (a) the Principal denying a meeting with his father, ( the teacher denying making the statements to the Principal, © the teacher trying to bully him or intimidate him ... which ultimately (and, in such a case, inexplicably) led to the suspension of Matt, would a letter of support on behalf of Matthew necessarily condone Matt's hypothetical lying?

Well, no, because now there are two issues. Here's a clear example:

If a criminal (let's say he broke into someone's house, and was out of jail by now) stops a thief, you can support him and be proud of what he did without necessarily condoning the criminal's prior transgressions. Same if that first criminal broke into a house after stopping the thief.

Right now, there is one issue. To support the teacher here is to support his actions within the issue. That's the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Told the truth.

Well, no, because now there are two issues. Here's a clear example:

If a criminal (let's say he broke into someone's house, and was out of jail by now) stops a thief, you can support him and be proud of what he did without necessarily condoning the criminal's prior transgressions. Same if that first criminal broke into a house after stopping the thief.

Right now, there is one issue. To support the teacher here is to support his actions within the issue. That's the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ew. What a muddled example. And an absolutely wrong conclusion.

I (and I believe most other supporters of Matthew) don't care if someone wants to send a letter of support to the school board saying that they think Mr. P is a nice guy, or has been a good teacher, or shouldn't be fired ... provided that they acknowledge that what Mr. P did was wrong and that he ought to correct the issue and apologize for his transgressions.

Maybe you really should leave the arguments to those of us who both support Matthew AND are able to make a coherent argument.

[Strife767]

I (and I believe most other supporters of Matthew) don't care if someone wants to send a letter of support to the school board saying that they think Mr. P is a nice guy, or has been a good teacher, or shouldn't be fired ... provided that they acknowledge that what Mr. P did was wrong and that he ought to correct the issue and apologize for his transgressions.

Well, duh. That doesn't conflict at all with what I said.

Maybe you really should leave the arguments to those of us who both support Matthew AND are able to make a coherent argument.

Listen--this is what I'm saying. You can say you think the teacher is a good guy, etc. etc. But if one writes a letter that says "I don't think he did anything wrong," then that person _is_ supporting his unconstitutional actions, okay? That's all I'm saying.

Just because you didn't get it at first doesn't make it incoherent. Frankly, as a person, I also don't see much to support, since there is an absence of any statement from him even so much as _acknowledging_ that what he did was wrong, or any promise it wouldn't happen again, lack of remorse, etc. But if someone likes him or thinks he's a great guy, that's fine. But anyone who will say he didn't do anything wrong _is_ supporting his transgressions, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Frankly, as a person, I also don't see much to support, since there is an absence of any statement from him even so much as _acknowledging_ that what he did was wrong, or any promise it wouldn't happen again, lack of remorse, etc. But if someone likes him or thinks he's a great guy, that's fine. But anyone who will say he didn't do anything wrong _is_ supporting his transgressions, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you considered that his absence of any statement or apology is a condition imposed upon him by the school's administration and its attorneys as part of the "corrective action"? If that is the case, would you still condemn him for not making any statements? I would think, in that instance, that your beef would be with the administration and not the teacher, no?

[Strife767]

Have you considered that his absence of any statement or apology is a condition imposed upon him by the school's administration and its attorneys as part of the "corrective action"?

Frankly, no, I never considered that being told to not apologize would be "corrective" in any way at all. Do you think not allowing him to apologize would make any sense at all to that end? Why in the world would anyone advise him not to apologize if he wanted to? Doesn't make any sense to me.

If that is the case, would you still condemn him for not making any statements?  I would think, in that instance, that your beef would be with the administration and not the teacher, no?

Sure, hypothetically. But practically, I maintain that makes absolutely no sense. Wouldn't an apology be the perfect first step toward actually "correcting" something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

Frankly, no, I never considered that being told to not apologize would be "corrective" in any way at all. Do you think not allowing him to apologize would make any sense at all to that end? Why in the world would anyone advise him not to apologize if he wanted to? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Sure, hypothetically. But practically, I maintain that makes absolutely no sense. Wouldn't an apology be the perfect first step toward actually "correcting" something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah yes, but you're applying logic to a bureaucratic authority involved in a dispute that may result in litigation. As Paul can well tell you, an apology can be used as an admission of fault in certain instances. A gag order is the likely result.

[Guest Paul]

Ah yes, but you're applying logic to a bureaucratic authority involved in a dispute that may result in litigation.  As Paul can well tell you, an apology can be used as an admission of fault in certain instances.  A gag order is the likely result.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An apology can also be used as part of a resolution. With competent negotiators who are willing to sit and talk, instead of trying to sweep things under the rug that obviously aren't going under the rug, that is what happens.

However, I don't presume that Mr. Paszkiewicz is personally willing to apologize, or that he isn't.