The recordings are now online

[Strife767]

After listening to the recording it’s obvious. If a lawyer went into that meeting and asked question like they were on trial, they would know the LeClair’s motives.

Your alleged motives are wholly assumed, and without evidence.

By sending Mat in with questions requiring yes and no answers and coached by his father, Mr. P was in a no win situation.

And whose fault is that? Yes, he was screwed whether or not he admitted to his words, but only because they were his words. No one twisted his arm to tell his class "you can't disagree with [God] on salvation" or that if you reject Christianity "you're going where you belong."

If he apologized and admits, they sue.

More assumption. The fact is that Matthew's simple requests were completely denied, and the Board tried to cover the issue up. It didn't work, and now Paul is basically telling them "either you do the right thing, or we will have no choice but to have a judge force you to."

If he doesn’t, they sue. Well played by the lawyer and his puppet.

I'd bet Matthew all by himself could kick your ass in a debate anyday. Anyone who calls him a "puppet" is just too shaken by the fact that a 16-year-old exposed Kearny's preaching teacher all by himself. Sorry to bruise your collective ego, but that's what happened. Deal with it.

There are a few things that don’t make sense. Mat said he felt “unsafe” in the class and had to record. He said he felt safe in the meeting, then why record.

Maybe he foresaw Paszkiewicz's denial of his denial, as well as the actions of people like those on this forum who called Paul and Matthew liars for telling the truth about what happened at that meeting?

Mr. P asked anyone if they felt uncomfortable with the discussion, everyone including Mat said no,

Doesn't matter.

so how was he unsafe? If he felt unsafe then why did he keep asking questions about religion? And why does he have to protect the other students? What does he mean by “unsafe”?

Perhaps in the future it's better to ask the question at the beginning, before you make all kinds of assumptions about what he meant.

After the letter Mr. P respected Mat’s request and stopped mentioning religion in class and treated him like any other student.

He also denied any wrongdoing, and refused to correct any of his blatantly false statements about the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. What Paszkiewicz did wrong was not a personal wrong to Matthew, but plain and simple unconstitutional teaching methods in a public school classroom. Matthew, sadly, just happened to be the single, solitary student with the guts to call him on it.

Paul said he wasn’t allowed in the meeting,

True.

yet Mat was asked by Mr. P why his parents did not speak with him.

As Matthew clearly showed, he was quite capable of handling the situation himself.

[Strife767]

This issue could have been settled in one meeting with everyone, but

but Paszkiewicz lied about his actions, insisted he did nothing wrong, and took no action nor made any statement against the large number of students and other members of the community who treated Matthew like he was the one who had done something wrong.

then there would be no TV coverage

There would be no TV coverage if Paszkiewicz had admitted to his wrongdoing and had at the very least shown a genuine attempt to make things right, nor would there be any TV coverage if the Board didn't try to sweep the entire issue under the rug in hopes we would all forget about it. This issue reached the media because there was insufficient corrective action on the parts of Paszkiewicz and the Board in over a month. The LaClairs had no other choice--their voices needed to be heard, and something had to be done. Since Paszkiewicz and the Board were unwilling to act, the LaClairs were forced to 'raise their voices,' as it were.

and scholarships.

The scholarships started coming in before Matthew even started attending high school. He's shown himself to be an exemplary student and young adult, and all you can do is whine when some organization or another decides to reward him for that. Cry me a river.

I think Mat is the liar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too bad all the evidence points the other way, huh?

[Bryan]

No, Bryan, what you call for is a microscopic examination of eyebrow hair follicles when the issue is a fractured leg. Most of your demands are not germane, and your methods are niggling at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More mockery; no example in support of the accusation.

The lawyer who works without evidence ... perhaps he's learned to play to the audience.

How about an example of a "demand," BTW?

Or is that a "demand" in itself?

[Guest Paul]

After listening to the recording it’s obvious. If a lawyer went into that meeting and asked question like they were on trial, they would know the LeClair’s motives. By sending Mat in with questions requiring yes and no answers and coached by his father, Mr. P was in a no win situation. If he apologized and admits, they sue. If he doesn’t, they sue. Well played by the lawyer and his puppet. There are a few things that don’t make sense. Mat said he felt “unsafe” in the class and had to record. He said he felt safe in the meeting, then why record. Mr. P asked anyone if they felt uncomfortable with the discussion, everyone including Mat said no, so how was he unsafe? If he felt unsafe then why did he keep asking questions about religion? And why does he have to protect the other students? What does he mean by “unsafe”?

After the letter Mr. P respected Mat’s request and stopped mentioning religion in class and treated him like any other student. Paul said he wasn’t allowed in the meeting, yet Mat was asked by Mr. P why his parents did not speak with him. This issue could have been settled in one meeting with everyone, but then there would be no TV coverage and scholarships. I think Mat is the liar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By "unsafe" he meant that he knew he was obligated to report the teacher, but he also knew that without proof he would not be believed. It was a situation of conscience putting someone in a difficult position.

As to what would have happened had Mr. Paszkieweicz admitted his fault, you are simply wrong. You have no basis for that charge, and it is false.

[Guest Paul]

How was he being abused?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He has been taunted by students at KHS daily since this happened, received several anonymous threats placed in his locker, and one death threat. I think that qualifies as abuse.

[Guest Paul]

And you just accepted that.  Once again, after all of the posts that you've made here that obviously show you're more than willing to get involved, I find it hard to believe you did not attend the meeting because of Somma.  I think it suited your purposes not to attend that meeting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, it did serve our purposes. Our purpose was to bring out the truth and see just how far Mr. Paszkiewicz would go if he thought he could get away with it, which is exactly what he thought would happen. He thought he could get away with it, and so he dug himself in deeper instead of owning up to what he did. I think the school district should want to know that, too, don't you? I knew Matthew could handle himself, especially with a recorder in his pocket. Is there something wrong with recording the truth? Why aren't you all over the person who made revealing the recording necessary by not telling the truth and bullying the student --- then claiming in the paper that he didn't do it? Why are you placing all the responsibility on someone who did absolutely nothing wrong? Since when is making an airtight record of the truth wrong?

However, the fact that I knew Matthew could handle himself doesn't mean that the refusal to allow us in the meeting was acceptable. It wasn't. It was wrong.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, having listened to the recording of the meeting with Somma, I just want to say that Matt's one heck of a kid.  Througout the meeting, he was composed, polite, and persistent.  I know people twice his age who practice law for a living who aren't nearly as together in the heat of the moment as Matt is.  You and your wife are to be commended for how he's turned out so far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. I'm gratified that he now expresses an interest in following in his old man's footsteps and becoming a lawyer --- or maybe just in becoming a lawyer. He certainly knows how to conduct an examination and not be deterred from getting answers. (Watch 'em whine.)

[Guest Paul]

And gym teacher in grade school. 

That being said - seeing how long Somma knew (and taught) Dave and knowing the (albeit often misguided) propensity of co-workers to back each other up - do you think it was unreasonable that Somma was initially inclined to support Dave?  It may have been the wrong decision, but I can't say that I completely fault him for it - many of us would have made the same mistake.

How has Somma responded to you since your production of the recordings?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. His initial support of his former student is entirely understandable --- to a point, of course.

Matthew and I just had a very pleasant meeting with Mr. Somma in his office yesterday. I have no problem saying that he is a gentleman, even though I disagree with some of his decisions.

[Calybos]

And you just accepted that.  Once again, after all of the posts that you've made here that obviously show you're more than willing to get involved, I find it hard to believe you did not attend the meeting because of Somma.  I think it suited your purposes not to attend that meeting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe this is known as "giving them enough rope." Go along with all their requests and still beat them at their own game. It's the best way to demonstrate good faith on your own part and remain above criticism. Keeps the focus nicely on their own dodging and cowardice, doesn't it?

[Guest Guest]

Most reasonable people who were paying attention know why: his parents weren't allowed to be present at the meeting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You really are an idiot. We all know that Paul has said he wasn't allowed to be present in the meeting. It's very difficult to believe that Somma would try to pull this off. I've never had a situation where one of my children was going into a meeting with anyone where I wasn't either requested to be present or allowed to be present. I also find it very strange that as a person who is not afraid to speak up, and as an experienced lawyer, Paul would allow this to happen.

I think that Paul knew he would get more out of Mr. P with just Matthew present.

[Guest Santa Claus]

Paul, having listened to the recording of the meeting with Somma, I just want to say that Matt's one heck of a kid.  Througout the meeting, he was composed, polite, and persistent.  I know people twice his age who practice law for a living who aren't nearly as together in the heat of the moment as Matt is.  You and your wife are to be commended for how he's turned out so far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if you don't believe this one, you're getting a bag of coal next Christmas. (Atheists ignore this post).

[Strife767]

You really are an idiot.

Wow. You assert that "reasonable people are wondering why the hell Matthew's parents were not in that meeting," then I give you the obvious answer which has been known for quite some time, then you call me an idiot. Good one.

We all know that Paul has said he wasn't allowed to be present in the meeting. It's very difficult to believe that Somma would try to pull this off.

Go ask Somma, then--see if he denies it. He hasn't to date--don't you think Somma would have pointed it out if Paul wasn't being truthful about that?

You fools just keep hopping onto your next baseless allegation, looking more moronic every time a new piece of evidence shows up that destroys your accusations. First it was all the whining that Paul was lying about Paszkiewicz's denial in the meeting of much of what he said in class, and now that the recording of that meeting came out, you're whining about how Paul is lying about not being allowed at the meeting.

Let me ask you something that I've asked several times before...maybe you will be the first with the guts to honestly answer: what does it take for you to consider someone credible?

I've never had a situation where one of my children was going into a meeting with anyone where I wasn't either requested to be present or allowed to be present.

"It never happened to me, therefore it couldn't have happened to him." Horrible logic, try again.

I also find it very strange that as a person who is not afraid to speak up, and as an experienced lawyer, Paul would allow this to happen.

Firstly, both Paul and Matthew showed that Matthew had the situation under control. Secondly, in the moment, I don't think Paul could really have done much about a decision like that. Only he would be able to say for certain, though.

I think that Paul knew he would get more out of Mr. P with just Matthew present.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irrelevant. Nothing was forced out of Paszkiewicz's mouth.

[Strife767]

(Atheists ignore this post)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, Santa Claus isn't a god. At least, _I_ never heard of anyone worshipping him.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

After the letter Mr. P respected Mat’s request and stopped mentioning religion in class and treated him like any other student.  I think Mat is the liar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong!

Right at the end of the recorded meeting, you will hear Dave P. ask Matthew whether the class recordings had been made, before or after, he had been reprimanded by the school authorities and instructed not to preach. You will then hear matthew answer that he had made the recordings after Dave P. had already been reprimanded for preaching.

In other words, it appears that David P. ignored his reprimand and apparently decided instead that it was his privilege to preach to his students in spite of the fact that he had been instructed not to do it. I guess that after 15 years of preaching to his classes, old habits die hard.

To those who suggest that David should be given a second chance, I think this recording clearly demonstrates that he had already used it up even before this meeting took place.

[Guest Paul]

I believe this is known as "giving them enough rope." Go along with all their requests and still beat them at their own game. It's the best way to demonstrate good faith on your own part and remain above criticism. Keeps the focus nicely on their own dodging and cowardice, doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Duck Theason"

[Guest Paul]

I think that Paul knew he would get more out of Mr. P with just Matthew present.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, but that's because he's Matthew, and I know what he can do. They didn't. At least one of them thought he could get Matthew to back down. As a result, he dug himself in deeper. I knew it, they didn't. At least one of them tried to take advantage, but it backfired. The problem with that from their perspective is obvious: there was an attempt to take advantage of a student. That's wrong. What's the problem from our perspective?

[Guest Guest]

You're right, but that's because he's Matthew, and I know what he can do. They didn't. At least one of them thought he could get Matthew to back down. As a result, he dug himself in deeper. I knew it, they didn't. At least one of them tried to take advantage, but it backfired. The problem with that from their perspective is obvious: there was an attempt to take advantage of a student. That's wrong. What's the problem from our perspective?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So then take it to the jury Paul and stop all of the spin here at KOTW. Prove it in court. Just the facts.

[Guest Guest]

The question had to do with Mr. Somma's role in the meeting, if I recall correctly. He may not have been entirely objective. No great sin in itself, just a bit of useful background.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean a bit of spin.

[Guest Guest]

Wow. You assert that "reasonable people are wondering why the hell Matthew's parents were not in that meeting," then I give you the obvious answer which has been known for quite some time, then you call me an idiot. Good one.

Go ask Somma, then--see if he denies it. He hasn't to date--don't you think Somma would have pointed it out if Paul wasn't being truthful about that?

You fools just keep hopping onto your next baseless allegation, looking more moronic every time a new piece of evidence shows up that destroys your accusations. First it was all the whining that Paul was lying about Paszkiewicz's denial in the meeting of much of what he said in class, and now that the recording of that meeting came out, you're whining about how Paul is lying about not being allowed at the meeting.

Let me ask you something that I've asked several times before...maybe you will be the first with the guts to honestly answer: what does it take for you to consider someone credible?

"It never happened to me, therefore it couldn't have happened to him." Horrible logic, try again.

Firstly, both Paul and Matthew showed that Matthew had the situation under control. Secondly, in the moment, I don't think Paul could really have done much about a decision like that. Only he would be able to say for certain, though.

Irrelevant. Nothing was forced out of Paszkiewicz's mouth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah Strifey, to be so young and naive and to have a civil service job to boot. You've really arrived.

I'll repeat; no parent using common sense would send a minor child into that meeting alone. Do you really expect me to believe that Paul just simply accepted this decision from Somma? That is unless there was a reason for it. And that's why Paul has kept his mouth shut on this and a number of other interesting issues. Do you really think that a court won't allow the context of this situation to be looked at? What do you think, Matt will walk into court say Mr. P was preaching and that's it, Mr. P is guilty.

I say prove it Paul, in court, to a jury, just the facts.

I'll point you to Paul's post a few posts after this. Very curious.

[Strife767]

Ah Strifey, to be so young and naive

lol, okay, whatever you say...I'm naive, that's right...

and to have a civil service job to boot.  You've really arrived.

Pathetic is the one who judges another by the work they do. What's the matter, fresh out of real arguments? Nothing but ad hominem left in the ol' dome? As if I didn't know the answer.

I'll repeat; no parent using common sense would send a minor child into that meeting alone.

Why not? Matthew went in with the ability to document everything that went on in the meeting, and with the mental faculties to handle the situation all on his own. Unless you're implying that Paszkiewicz/Somma are like RAPISTS or something, there was no 'danger' or anything in Matthew attending that meeting by himself.

Do you really expect me to believe that Paul just simply accepted this decision from Somma? That is unless there was a reason for it.  And that's why Paul has kept his mouth shut on this and a number of other interesting issues.

Except he hasn't. You just haven't been paying attention on this forum.

Do you really think that a court won't allow the context of this situation to be looked at? What do you think, Matt will walk into court say Mr. P was preaching and that's it, Mr. P is guilty.

Well, put the showing of the recordings in between those two things, and that'll pretty much seal it, I think.

I say prove it Paul, in court, to a jury, just the facts.

As Paul said, he'd much rather the issue be resolved without going to court, but man...it is pretty funny to read this 'challenge.' You must really think Paszkiewicz has a prayer (irony intended) of winning if this goes to court. Unbelievable, yet hilarious. You've got a lot to learn.

[Guest Paul]

Wrong!

Right at the end of the recorded meeting, you will hear Dave P. ask Matthew whether the class recordings had been made, before or after, he had been reprimanded by the school authorities and instructed not to preach. You will then hear matthew answer that he had made the recordings after Dave P. had already been reprimanded for preaching.

In other words, it appears that David P. ignored his reprimand and apparently decided instead that it was his privilege to preach to his students in spite of the fact that he had been instructed not to do it. I guess that after 15 years of preaching to his classes, old habits die hard.

To those who suggest that David should be given a second chance, I think this recording clearly demonstrates that he had already used it up even before this meeting took place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, actually, Dave, most of the substantive recordings were made before Mr. Paszkiewicz was admonished. The recordings made after the admonition contain Mr. P's whining about it, but do not contain additional religious comments, with the possible exception of one, which I acknowledge is a close call. So in the interests of fairness, I have to correct your statements.

[Guest Paul]

So then take it to the jury Paul and stop all of the spin here at KOTW.  Prove it in court.  Just the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am stating the facts. You just don't like them, and do you want me to stop. No one's forcing you to invite me to continue this discussion.

[Guest Guest]

You're right, but that's because he's Matthew, and I know what he can do. They didn't. At least one of them thought he could get Matthew to back down. As a result, he dug himself in deeper. I knew it, they didn't. At least one of them tried to take advantage, but it backfired. The problem with that from their perspective is obvious: there was an attempt to take advantage of a student. That's wrong. What's the problem from our perspective?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The cynics among us would state that the problem is that you could have been wrong, and that you're gambling with the emotional growth of a 16-year old who is not fully formed as a person?

[Guest Guest]

No, actually, Dave, most of the substantive recordings were made before Mr. Paszkiewicz was admonished. The recordings made after the admonition contain Mr. P's whining about it, but do not contain additional religious comments, with the possible exception of one, which I acknowledge is a close call. So in the interests of fairness, I have to correct your statements.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So then the conduct was corrected?

What are you looking for from here - just a correction of the facts that were raised?

[Guest Paul]

So then the conduct was corrected?

What are you looking for from here - just a correction of the facts that were raised?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The right wing is hard at work trying to use the public schools to tear down church-state separation. Merely stopping the behavior when someone just happens to get caught red-handed is not enough. The improper remarks must be corrected, else the radical right pays no price for its misdeeds, and the students walk away with misinformation.