Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
BOIES: What is the Chinese coalition that is being referred to here, if you know?
TAM: Chinese Evangelical Christians. BOIES: And what was your relationship to the
Chinese Evangelical Christians coalition?
TAM: Well, I, because of my position at Traditional Family
Coalition, I know some Chinese churches. BOIES: And would I be correct to infer from
this that as of July 2007, you were already working with ProtectMarriage.com
in connection with what became Proposition 8?
TAM: Yes, I think so. But my memory is not very good. I -I
--I don't exactly remember what was really done in '07,
really. BOIES: Does this document refresh your recollection
that as of July 2, 2007, you were working with ProtectMarriage.com
in connection with what became Proposition 8?
TAM: Yeah. I think the --I was approached and I was informed
that some marriage amendment could be put onto the ballot. But
then we need signature gathering. So that's what this is.
BOIES: Let me - Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2620. THE COURT: Hearing no objection, 2620 is admitted.
BOIES: Dr. Tam, let me ask you to look next at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2476.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: This is --do you have it?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: This is an e-mail that you sent on
October 26 -October 22nd, 2007, correct?
TAM: Uh-huh, '07, yeah. BOIES: And you sent it to whom, sir?
TAM: Its address here is called "Dear friend of TFC." And
these are the members of TFC, which is Traditional Family
Coalition." BOIES: Okay. In the first paragraph you say:
"I'm still waiting for HYPERLINK http://protectmarriage.com for instructions
of when we would start the signature collection for California's marriage
amendment initiative." Do you see that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And was that a true statement as of
October 22, 2007? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2476.
THE COURT: Very well. 2476 is admitted. BOIES: As part of your work with ProtectMarriage.com,
you solicited contributions to ProtectMarriage.com,
correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: Let me ask you to turn to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2612.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: This is an e-mail that you sent on
February 14th, 2008, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And this is a --an e-mail that refers
to the interview or debate that you had that was broadcast on
Channel 26, correct? THE COURT: Did you say 2612?
BOIES: I'm sorry, the exhibit number? THE COURT: Yes.
BOIES: 2472. THE COURT: I'm sorry, 2472.
BOIES: I apologize if I misspoke, Your Honor, Your Honor, I did say 2612, but I --it's 2472.
THE COURT: All right. 2472 it is. Are you with that exhibit, Mr. Tam?
TAM: Yes, I'm there. BOIES: And this is an e-mail you sent on February
14th, 2008, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And you're talking about the opportunity that you have to
publicize what you refer to as, quote, our Protect Marriage
Amendment - TAM: Yes.
BOIES: --closed quote, on television, correct? TAM: Uh-huh.
BOIES: Is that correct, sir? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And this was a debate that you participated in that was
going to be broadcast and was broadcast over Channel 26, correct?
TAM: It's an interview. It's not a debate. BOIES: Is this separate from the debate that
you referred to earlier? You said you participated in a debate
that was broadcast over Channel 26. Do you recall that?
TAM: Yeah. It's separate. BOIES: Separate, okay.
TAM: Two separate events. BOIES: Okay. So you both had a debate and
a separate interview, both of which were broadcast on Channel 26,
and both of which you were using to promote Proposition 8, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Now, let me focus on the debate. And
I asked you this question, but I'm not sure that we got an
answer. That debate that you participated in that
was broadcast over Channel 26 - TAM: Yes.
BOIES: --that was a debate that you participated in because you
were told to participate by ProtectMarriage.com, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Now let me go to Plaintiffs' Exhibit
2612. Is this an e-mail that you sent on January
10, 2008? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And in that you talk about the fact that many Christian
groups are joining forces to launch Proposition 8, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And those forces included your organization
of TFC, and included ProtectMarriage.com, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And California Family Council, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And Concerned Women of America, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And the Values Advocacy Council, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And then others that you do not list,
correct? TAM: Right.
BOIES: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2612.
THE COURT: 2612 is admitted. BOIES: Let me ask you to turn next to Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2640. TAM: Okay.
BOIES: And this is an e-mail chain that includes both you and
Mr. Pugno, correct? TAM: What I see here is my name on it, and
Pugno's name on it. I don't know whether it's a chain or not.
BOIES: Well, sir, if you --if you begin -MR. TERRY THOMPSON: Your Honor, I'd object on
attorney-client privilege. I think, at that point, Mr. Pugno
was serving as Mr. Tam's attorney. THE COURT: Attorney-client privilege?
BOIES: It was produced to us in discovery, Your
Honor. There was no claim of privilege at the time, that I'm aware of.
BOIES: Your Honor - BOIES: I'm also not sure, just looking -
THE COURT: Beg your pardon? BOIES: I also believe, just looking at the
substance of the document - THE COURT: It does not appear to be relating
legal advice. BOIES: And I just wanted to clarify, we had
produced the documents. We had gathered them and produced
them. And we were not asserting attorney-client, defendant-intervenors, Protect Marriage was
not. THE COURT: Very well. 2640 is admitted.
BOIES: And this includes both e-mails from Mr. Pugno to you, and
e-mails from you to Mr. Pugno, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And what was the purpose of the e-mails that you sent to
Mr. Pugno? What were you trying to tell him? TAM: I was asking anything I shouldn't say
or disclose in case of question from Chinese press.
BOIES: Let me ask you to look next at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2651.
And while you're doing that ... BOIES: Your Honor, I think I may not have
offered Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2472. And I would offer that at this time.
THE COURT: Very well. 2472 is admitted. BOIES: Do you have Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2651,
Dr. Tam? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And this includes both e-mails from Lynne Fishel to you,
and e-mails from you to Lynne Fishel, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: Who is Lynne Fishel? TAM: Someone who works for California Family
Council. BOIES: And this e-mail that went to you is
directed to the ProtectMarriage.com leadership, correct?
TAM: That's what it says here. BOIES: And that's what it said when you received
it in March of 2008, correct, sir?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And you were part of the ProtectMarriage.com
leadership, correct, sir?
TAM: I think she's just being nice to call me one of the
ProtectMarriage.com leadership. I don't believe I am.
BOIES: Well, at the time, you didn't tell her that you didn't
think you were part of the leadership, did you, sir?
TAM: I didn't think that was --you know, when somebody say
something nice to you, should you say that, "Hey, don't say it;
I'm not as good"? You know, that's common sense.
In fact, at that time, I don't really care what -what
they call me. But, frankly, I don't believe I am
ProtectMarriage.com, within their core group. I'm not.
BOIES: You're not in their core group? TAM: No.
BOIES: What do you mean by "core group"? TAM: I don't know. You have been talking about.
I was sitting there. I listen to all your different comments
about core group. And I know I'm not.
BOIES: So the term "core group" is something you sort of picked
up in this litigation, correct? TAM: Right, right.
BOIES: Yes. TAM: Right.
BOIES: Yes. Let me ask you to look at 2609. And while you're
doing that ... I would offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2651.
THE COURT: Very well. 2651 is admitted. THE COURT: And this is 2649, is it?
BOIES: 2609. THE COURT: 2609. I'm sorry.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: Now, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2609 is an
e-mail that you sent April 15th, 2008, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And do you remember telling me just
a moment ago that you thought that Lynne Fishel was just being nice
to you when she described you as part of the ProtectMarriage.com
leadership? TAM: Uh-huh.
BOIES: Remember telling me that? TAM: Yes.
TERRY THOMPSON: Objection, Your Honor. This is
another document that's on the highly confidential, attorneys'
eyes only. This is to pastors and church leaders. It's a
private --private e-mail. So I would object to any --any
open court discussion of this document. And this is not --not from --not from the
ProtectMarriage.com. It's an internal memo from Bill to his group.
THE COURT: This is a memorandum or e-mail sent by the witness, correct?
TERRY THOMPSON: Sent by the witness, yes. THE COURT: Objection overruled.
BOIES: Now, Dr. Tam, let me direct your attention to the second paragraph.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: Do you see where you write: "This year,
TFC" --and that's you, sir, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: --"is playing a major role to put 1-man-1-woman marriage
into California's constitution"? Do you see that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Was that a true statement in April
of 2008? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And you then go on to say that you served as one of the
proponents of this initiative and worked closely with
ProtectMarriage.com to collect 1,050,000 signatures. Do you see that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And was that a true statement, also?
TAM: Yes, in the sense that now this is April of 2008. At that
stage, it was during the signature petition phase.
So, yeah, I was playing a major role. I spent a lot
of time sending out petitions and collecting them, and worked
closely with all the mechanics, with Protect Marriage, to, you
know, get the petitions off to the Chinese churches.
So those are true statements, yeah, working closely
with them. But that's at April. BOIES: When you say "working closely with
them," you mean you were working closely with ProtectMarriage.com,
correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2609.
THE COURT: Very well. TAM: Now, this document --I'm sorry. This
document contain a lot of sensitive numbers that I would not
like to disclose to the public. TERRY THOMPSON: I'd object also, Your Honor.
This is one that we did designate attorneys' eyes only. And
some of the major reasons is they're very, very sensitive
numbers in here. And this is not something that should be
available for public to see. Has salary numbers, budget
numbers, information about Dr. Tam's family. So it falls --I
think it falls strictly under the attorneys' eyes only
protection. TAM: This document is my letter to the
pastors and church leaders. Most of the things are talking
about my personal information, and I would be very offended if
this is put into public eye. BOIES: Your Honor, we'll be prepared to redact
the balance of the paragraph after the two sentences that I
read. The two sentences that I read are really the key points
for us. I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Tam and his
counsel, but in the spirit of trying to be cooperative,
we'll redact those.
THE COURT: Very well. That should take care of the
problem. 2609 as redacted will be admitted.
BOIES: Let me ask you to look next at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2650.
TAM: All right. BOIES: Now, at the bottom of the first page
there is an e-mail from you to Lynne Fishel, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And you're responding to an earlier
e-mail that she had sent you, correct?
TAM: Uhm, yeah. BOIES: And one of the things you are asking
her is: "Who is Brian Brown?" And "Why is he
speaking for us?" Do you see that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And who is the "us" there?
TAM: Those people who are --who are within the --I would say
the ProtectMarriage.com. BOIES: And that included you and TFC, correct,
sir? TAM: Yes, to a certain extent, yes.
BOIES: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2650.
THE COURT: 2650 is admitted. BOIES: Let me ask you to look next, Dr. Tam,
at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2538.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: This is an e-mail that you wrote on
May 15, 2008, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And it talks about at one point how you stood with the
lawyers from ProtectMarriage.com and other people when the
California Supreme Court had come down with its opinion saying
that same-sex marriage is legal for California, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And the last sentence of this says:
"We can't lose the next battle." And the "next battle" was the battle for
Proposition 8, correct, sir? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: You say: "We can't lose the battle for Proposition
8, or God's definition of marriage will be
permanently erased in CaliforniTAM:" Do you see that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Was that your motivation for participating
with ProtectMarriage.com in promoting Proposition
8? TAM: Yeah, one of the reasons.
BOIES: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2538.
THE COURT: Very well. 2538 is admitted. BOIES: What were the other reasons, Dr. Tam?
TAM: Uhm, the other reason is I think it's very important for
the next generation to understand the historical meaning of
marriage. It is very important that our children won't grow up
to fantasize or think about, Should I marry Jane or John when I
grow up? BOIES: And, you know, just as your children
are benefited from you and your wife being married, the children
of gays and lesbians would be benefited if their parents
were married, correct? TAM: No.
BOIES: No? If you --you don't think children want their parents
to be married? TAM: I don't know what you are trying to get
at. BOIES: What I'm trying to get at, and I will
be really clear, is that children of gays and lesbians want their
parents to be married, just like children of heterosexual
couples want their parents to be married, because the word "marriage"
means something, correct?
You may think they shouldn't have it - TAM: Yes.
BOIES: --okay? You may think they shouldn't have
it for all sorts of reasons, but you recognize that that's
important to those children, correct? TAM: Yes. Okay.
BOIES: Let me turn to another subject. Let me ask you to look at
Exhibit 2633. BOIES: And can you identify what this is,
sir? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: What is it? TAM: That's an email that I received from
Andy Pugno about the Statement of Unity.
BOIES: And the second page of the exhibit, the page that bears
the document production stamp TAM_PM_6668, is a Statement of
Unity; correct, sir? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And this was a Statement of Unity with respect to the
Proposition 8 campaign, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And it is headed ProtectMarriage.com, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES:
And at the bottom you say: "I, and the organization I represent, join
in the foregoing statement of unity."
Correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And you signed it, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: On behalf of yourself and on behalf of the Traditional
Family Coalition, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And this Statement of Unity that you say you agree to in
the second line says: "Victory depends on the mutual commitment
of each coalition partner to work in the service
of a unified campaign." Do you see that?
TAM: Which paragraph? BOIES: The very first paragraph, the second
line -TAM: Oh, okay. Yeah, I see that.
BOIES: And you agreed to that, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: You agreed to work in the service of a unified campaign
with ProtectMarriage.com, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And going to the second paragraph, you agreed that:
"Multiple campaign committees, independent strategies for public messaging, and personal
use of the marriage amendment to raise funds or increase membership are counterproductive
and increase the likelihood of defeat." Correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And you agreed that you would not have
independent strategies for public messaging, correct,
sir? TAM: Yes. But later on I forgot about this
document and I made some independent statements, I believe, not
aligned with ProtectMarriage.com and not following the
directions of this document.
BOIES: Well, sir, you consider yourself an honest person, don't you?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And you wouldn't sign something you
didn't believe, would you?
TAM: Right. Yeah. I wouldn't sign it if I don't believe.
BOIES: And when you sign something and make a commitment, you
take that commitment seriously, don't you, sir?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Now, one of the things that you committed
here, number two, do you see this --the heading "Message
Discipline"? TAM: Uh-huh.
BOIES: You agreed that:
"Public communications by coalition partners in support of the marriage amendment must
be approved by the campaign manager for
strategic message discipline." Do you see that, sir?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And you agreed to that, didn't you,
sir? TAM: Yes. At that time, yes, but later on
I --I admit that I violated this, this message principle.
BOIES: Well, let's explore that. This was signed in July of
2008, correct? TAM: Oh, okay. Yeah.
BOIES: Right? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: So up to that point you had message discipline, correct?
TAM: I think so. BOIES: And you didn't start violating this
pledge the next day, did you?
TAM: I don't know when. BOIES: You don't know when?
TAM: Right. BOIES: When do you think you started violating
this pledge? TAM: Frankly, I don't remember. I don't know.
BOIES: What did you say that violated this pledge?
TAM: I think in, like, what I told the Mercury, San Jose
Mercury News about homosexuality leads to all kinds of
diseases. I think I said that. By saying that I might
violated the principle. BOIES: Now, that was published in the Mercury
News, right? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: That wasn't something that was hidden. That was right out
there in the public, right? TAM: Right.
BOIES: Did anybody from ProtectMarriage.com come and tell you you
shouldn't have said that? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: Who said that? Who told you that? TAM: I forgot his name, but one person called
me and said that you shouldn't have said that.
BOIES: Is that in writing anywhere, any record of that?
TAM: No. BOIES: Do you remember the name -TAM:
That was Mr. White. I think Mr. White. Yeah, something
like that, Mr. White. BOIES: Something like Mr. White?
TAM: Yeah. BOIES: But you didn't get in it writing or
anything? TAM: I don't remember.
BOIES: When they had you sign the pledge, they had you do it in
writing, right? TAM: Uh-huh.
BOIES: Right? BOIES: You have to answer audibly, so the
court reporter can take it down.
TAM: Yes. BOIES: But here, this supposed statement that
Mr. White or somebody told you, was never written down,
was never in an email, you never made a note of it, they never
recorded it in any way; is that your testimony?
TAM: Uh-huh. Yes. BOIES: Now, this interview in the San Jose
Mercury News was October 15, 2008.
Did you violate this pledge any other time? TAM: Yeah, I think --yeah.
BOIES: When Mr. White came to you and said, "Mr. Tam, you are
violating your pledge." Did you say, "Oh, I'm sorry. I won't
do that any more"? TAM: Let's see. That was in October.
BOIES: Yeah. TAM: That happened in October. Yeah, after
October I think I haven't --I haven't said anything to violate
this. I try to keep my mouth shut.
BOIES: So the only time that you say you violated this pledge was
the San Jose Mercury News? TAM: No, there is another time.
BOIES: What was that other time? TAM: I think that time was when I spoke to
a Chinese newspaper reporter.
BOIES: And what did you tell that Chinese newspaper reporter?
TAM: I mentioned something about what you had probed me before
about the sibling marriage. And that happened in September,
sometime in September. BOIES: Did anybody from ProtectMarriage.com
tell you --come to you after that and say you shouldn't be talking
about what's happening in other countries?
TAM: No, because there was a Chinese newspaper reporter and I
don't think they read that. BOIES: Let me go back to one of the exhibit
we looked at before, exhibit 2199.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: You know, this is, you know, where
your 1man1woman.net website said that homosexuality is linked
to *** and homosexuals are 12 times more likely to ***
children. Do you remember that?
BOIES: I believe on your direct testimony you referred to
ProtectMarriage.com drafting this declaration. Is there -
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Is there a specific person within ProtectMarriage.com
that you were thinking of when you said that?
TAM: Mr. Andy Pugno. BOIES: And Mr. Pugno was your attorney at
the time? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: Mr. Tam, you also testified that ProtectMarriage.com --in
relation to this debate that you attended, that
ProtectMarriage.com instructed you to --to go to --I'm sorry,
excuse me, told you to participate in that debate?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: What does that mean to you? Did you
feel you could say no to them?
TAM: Yeah, I could have said no to them. BOIES: And focusing, then, on the campaign
phase after Prop 8 was actually on the ballot, Mr. Boies had you
look at a Statement of Unity. Let me find that here. It's going
to be this their binder, not mine. I think it's 2633.
TAM: Yes. BOIES: If you look at the second --it's the
paragraph that's numbered number two, which says, "Message
Discipline." TAM: Yes.
BOIES: "Public communications by coalition partners
in support of the marriage amendment must be
approved by the campaign manager for strategic message discipline."
Did that, in fact, occur with you or any of your
organizations that you were involved with? TAM: Could you repeat the question? A discipline
-BOIES: Did you get any of the --did you get any of
the messaging that you did personally approved by the campaign
manager for ProtectMarriage.com before you sent it out?
TAM: No. BOIES: Did you get any of the messaging that
you sent out or that your organization, the Traditional Family
Coalition, sent out approved by the campaign manager, Schubert
Flint - TAM: No.
BOIES: --from ProtectMarriage.com? TAM: No.
BOIES: How about the 1man1woman.net organization? Did any of
that information get approved or submitted to the campaign
manager before it was sent out? TAM: No.
BOIES: The third paragraph where it says --that is entitled "The
Face of Coalition," and the second sentence says:
"All media requests are to be forwarded to the campaign for assignment to the
appropriate spokesperson, which may or may not be the coalition partner originally
contacted by the press." Every time that you were contacted by the
press, did you refer it to ProtectMarriage.com?
TAM: No. BOIES: We will take a break, if not.
TAM: Yeah, I would appreciate that. Thank you.
THE COURT: Take five minutes. THE COURT: Very well, Mr. Boies. You may redirect.
BOIES: Thank you, your Honor. Dr. Tam, you said you worked more closely
with the ProtectMarriage.com people during what you
call the petition phase, as opposed to what you call the campaign
phase; do you recall that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES:: When did the campaign phase, as you
describe it, start? TAM: I say the --in the fall.
BOIES: In the fall of 2008? TAM: Yeah.
BOIES: Well, let me ask you to look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2472.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: This is an email that you wrote February
14th, 2008, is that correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And in it you talk about your opportunity
to publicize what you refer to as, "Our Protect Marriage
Amendment on television"? TAM: Uh-huh. Yes.
BOIES: Did you view this as part of the campaign phase?
TAM: Probably not. Because if it is in the campaign phase, it
would have --you know, everybody know about it. I don't have
to publicize it. BOIES: Well, let me refer to the debate that
you had with --that was broadcast by Channel 26. I mean, that
was a debate that certainly people --everybody knew about, right?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Because ProtectMarriage.com had told
you to do it, right? Remember?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: So they knew about that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Was that part of the campaign phase?
TAM: Yes. That was, I think, in October. BOIES: Let me ask you to look at Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2633 that we dealt with before.
TAM: 2633? BOIES: 2633.
TAM: Okay. BOIES: It's the Statement of Unity.
And, your Honor, I think I did not offer it earlier, but I will offer it at this time?
BOIES: Yes. THE COURT: Very well. If it is not previously
been admitted, it shall be.
BOIES: Now, this is July 21, 2008, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And was this part of the campaign phase? TAM: I say, yeah, that's the --the starting
point. BOIES: This is the starting point of the campaign
phase, is that what you are saying?
TAM: Could be. Yeah, could be. BOIES: Let me ask you to look at Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2631. TAM: All right.
BOIES: This is in early August of 2008, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And this shows you attending the weekly grassroots
conference, correct? TAM: Uh-huh. Yes.
BOIES: And this was certainly part of the campaign phase,
correct? TAM: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you say 2631? BOIES: 2631, yes.
Of which I would offer, your Honor. THE COURT: Hearing no objection 2631 is admitted.
BOIES: And you told counsel on cross-examination that you only
met with people from Schubert Flint a few times; do you
remember that? TAM: Met them? No, I did not meet them.
BOIES: You said "very rare contact with Schubert Flint, one or
two times." Do you remember telling that to your counsel?
TAM: Yeah. BOIES: Now, Schubert Flint were running these
weekly conference calls, right?
TAM: I did not know who runs it really. BOIES: Well, Exhibit 2631 came from Schubert
Flint, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And you knew that Schubert Flint was running the
ProtectMarriage.com campaign, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And these calls went on every week, correct, sir?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And you participated in them every
week, correct, sir? TAM: Not every week. I think I --I have done
six or seven, something like that.
BOIES: And each one of those six or seven were ones that Schubert
Flint was on, correct? TAM: Frankly, I --I don't know who was on.
They all sound alike. I'm very bad in recognizing names and relate
to the --to their voice, especially so many people
are talking. And then --and English is not my mother tongue.
BOIES: Well, sir, let's get a couple things straight.
First, when you receive notices of these calls, it
came from Schubert Flint, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And when you received minutes of the calls, it came from
Schubert Flint, correct? TAM: I know it's from --from their company.
BOIES: For example, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2630. TAM: All right.
BOIES: Your Honor, did I offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2631?
THE COURT: You did. And it's in. BOIES: Thank you.
BOIES: And Exhibit 2630 is minutes of that conference call that
Schubert Flint then sent you, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And if you look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2599?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: This is, again, minutes of a grassroots
meeting, a weekly grassroots meeting that you are getting from
Schubert Flint, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And this is during the campaign phase,
correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And you recall that this is one that talks about you and
talks about a website being up of 1man1woman.com. I think it
means.net. TAM: Yes.
BOIES: I sometimes make that mistake myself. Do you see that?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2599. THE COURT: Very well. 2599 is in.
BOIES: And if you would look at Exhibit 2504? This is
October 29, 2008, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And this is during the campaign phase, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: These are communications between you
and ProtectMarriage.com, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2504. THE COURT: Very well. There have been some
redactions here. Is that material? BOIES: Your Honor, the redactions might be
material to permit the Court to evaluate the extent of the
contact, and I would ask the Court in camera to look at the
names. BOIES: Your Honor, as well, I only have a
redacted version, and I think we would need to see it to
evaluate whether it's, in fact, somebody with ProtectMarriage.com.
We need to see the name to be able to evaluate whether it is even somebody with ProtectMarriage.com.
THE COURT: Well, can you submit an unredacted copy?
BOIES: I believe it's been submitted to them. I
didn't do these redactions. BOIES: We will work with counsel and we will
be sure that the Court gets an unredacted copy.
THE COURT: Very well. Then 2504 will be admitted. BOIES: And would you look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit
2185, Dr. Tam? TAM: Okay.
BOIES: This is a TFC news bulletin, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And this follows the passage of Proposition 8, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And if you'd look at the page that
is marked DEFINT_PM_5077 at the bottom?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: It says that:
"The Traditional Family Coalition during 2008 was allied with ProtectMarriage.com."
Do you see that? TAM: Could you point to where I can see? Where
it is -BOIES: Do you see the box on the right-hand side?
It says, "Traditional Family Coalition 2008 Historical
Events." TAM: Yes, I see that. Yeah.
BOIES: Do you see the first one is, "Allied with
ProtectMarriage.com"? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: I would offer Exhibit 2185. THE COURT: Very well. 2185 is admitted.
BOIES: And if I did not --I think I may not have offered it. I would offer Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2630. THE COURT: All right. If not previously admitted,
2630 is in. BOIES: And with respect --would you look at
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2187?
BOIES: With respect to your assertion that you were not closely
working with ProtectMarriage.com during the campaign phase,
October of 2008 was clearly during the campaign phase, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And this is a flier that was sponsored
by Traditional Family Coalition, your organization, and co-sponsored
by ProtectMarriage.com, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And this was the one that you asked
Mr. Prentice to speak at, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: And during the --during the campaign
phase, ProtectMarriage.com reimbursed you for your
expenses of television, radio and print advertisements,
correct? TAM: They reimbursed not me. They reimbursed
people, the organization who placed some ads for Protect
Marriage. BOIES: I'm sorry. Say that one more time?
Who did they reimburse? TAM: They reimbursed the people who run some
ads, TV ads or newspaper ads.
BOIES: Was this Traditional Family Coalition that they were reimbursing?
TAM: No. These are the people --there were some Chinese
Christians who offered to put some advertisement for Prop 8,
but then they don't know how to do it. So, yeah.
BOIES: Let me ask you to look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2627.
BOIES: This is an email that you got from Mr. Pugno of
ProtectMarriage.com, correct? TAM: Right.
BOIES: And this is dated October 27, 2008, correct?
TAM: Yes. BOIES: I would offer Exhibit 2627, Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2627. THE COURT: Very well. 2627 is admitted.
BOIES: And this is addressed to multiple people, but one of them
is Traditional Family Coalition, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And it says at the top, "Bill and Peter." And you are the
"Bill," correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And it says: "Your organizations are spending
approximately $50,000 to place TV, radio and print advertising with Asian mediTAM:"
Do you see that? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And "your organizations" refer to Peter's organization and
your organization, correct? TAM: It looks like he was referring to that,
but my organization did not do any of the TV or whatever
ad. It's Peter's. But then I introduced Peter to Andy, so that
they can work those things out because I don't want
to get involved with those.
BOIES: Well, sir, this doesn't say --this isn't just addressed
to Peter and it doesn't just say "your organization." It's
addressed to both of you and it says "your organizations,"
plural, correct? TAM: Yeah, that's what it is here.
BOIES: And you are saying that was just wrong? TAM: Right.
BOIES: Is there anything in writing where you correct that? Did
you send them back an email that says, No, my organization is
not spending any of this money? TAM: Once again, I -
BOIES: I'm just asking you whether you did it or not, sir.
TAM: No, I did not. Whether this is an "s" after
"organization" to me, as a Chinese, I never knew that I have to
face a lawyer asking me this kind of questions, so I never
bothered to specify, Hey, you are saying this "s" is wrong, you know.
BOIES: When you get emails, you often reply to them, correct?
TAM: Not really. BOIES: In fact, we have seen some of yours.
TAM: Yeah, sometimes I reply. To some of the things, I don't reply.
BOIES: Sir, all I'm doing is I'm just asking --see, you're
saying today that this is wrong, and I'm just trying to figure
out whether there is anything that's written down
contemporaneously that supports that or not; whether there is
anything that could support your testimony? That's all I'm
asking. TAM: No. I --I did not reply to it and correcting
how many organizations are doing that or, you know,
that I'm not involved in this.
BOIES: Incidentally, you worked closely with Peter, did you not,
in organizing things in support of ProtectMarriage.com? TAM: No, not really, because only I work with
him in organizing the rally. But in terms of --he runs a lot
of the show. BOIES: A lot of what show?
TAM: Well, like, a rally, the --the putting out the pamphlet,
the flier. I did not do those kind of things. BOIES: You worked with him in doing those
kind of things, didn't you? I mean, for example, you and he were
both the contacts for the press invitation for the rally, correct?
TAM: That's true. BOIES: And your organization was the sponsor
of the rally, correct? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: I have got just two more questions. The first is: Is it your testimony that you
were not involved in the formulation of campaign strategy
and messaging for ProtectMarriage.com; is that your testimony?
TAM: That's correct. BOIES: And I think you testified earlier that
based on the knowledge of what a core group means that
you have picked up, you didn't think you were part of the core
group, is that correct? TAM: No.
BOIES: Am I correct, that you are not part of the core group,
according to your current testimony? TAM: Right. I'm not the core group.
BOIES: Okay. During the break, did you talk to anybody about
your testimony? TAM: I talk to my lawyer.
BOIES: You talked to your lawyer. BOIES: What did you say to your lawyer?
TAM: I said I felt like a naughty boy being put in front of a
classroom and being mocked at. BOIES: And what did your lawyer say to you?
TAM: He laughed. MR. THOMPSON: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. BOIES: One last question, Dr. Tam.
You have indicated earlier that you felt you were a
minority; do you remember that? TAM: Yes.
BOIES: And you are aware that there were periods, unfortunate
periods in our history, when Asian Americans were limited in
who they could marry; do you know that? TAM: Uh-huh. Yes.
BOIES: And I take it if those laws were present today, you would
feel very aggrieved by those laws, would you not, if you
couldn't marry the person you loved? MOSS: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope
of my direct. TAM: Yes.
BOIES: Okay. Thank you. He has answered. THE COURT: Objection overruled.
Very well. Mr. Tam, thank you for your testimony, sir. You may step down.