Boston Globe highlights lies from the man charged with Crimes against Humanity and should result in Judge dismissing motion by Scott Lively for summary judgement
By Cathy Kristofferson, February 28, 2013.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a non-profit umbrella organization for LGBT advocacy groups in Uganda, against Abiding Truth Ministries President Scott Lively. Filed in the United States District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts, the suit alleges that Lively’s involvement in anti-gay efforts in Uganda, including his active participation in the conspiracy to strip away fundamental rights from LGBT persons, constitutes persecution. This is the first known Alien Tort Statute (ATS) case seeking accountability for persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. A recent hearing was held where arguments were presented by both sides in a summary judgment motion brought by Lively for the dismissal of the case, the decision for which is still pending. Now it seems Scott Lively could be poised to perjure himself at trial. And so it would be nice if someone could inform the Judge that Scott Lively has now publicly admitted to the lies his attorney fed the Court, on his behalf, in those arguments.
A recent Google alert for Scott Lively turned out to be a winner. Not the usual umpteenth cross posting of some newly rediscovered old blog piece, but a four page spread in a Boston Globe magazine for the man who ‘would be Governor of Massachusetts,’ entitled ’The Crusader’. What a nice surprise – a neatly delivered article that could spell ‘perjury’ for the radically Evangelical anti-gay Pastor.
Starting to read the article I was immediately amused at the clarification provided regarding supporters at the court house back in January. I had laughed when I read Lively’s own account on his blog back then “I think we matched them in numbers, and maybe even surpassed them”. It was a stark contrast to the dozen or so folks with hastily drawn Sharpie signs hiding up near the security guards lest they catch anything that I had witnessed and photographed. But that was minor league for the lies about to be exposed.
Even more humorous at the time was the Matt Barber reporting of how we were ‘mocking and berating … trying to intimidate’ poor Pastor Lively. Not sure where he got his eye witness account. Perhaps Scott Lively mistook the ‘Raging Grannies,’ who were cheerfully singing their advocacy songs for pagans, or worse, ‘heathens.’ Still amused!
The Globe reporter correctly recalls:
“On the morning of January 7, nearly 200 people lined up outside the Federal Courthouse in Springfield, eager to watch the controversial anti-gay evangelical pastor, Scott Lively, squirm in front of a judge. … Off to the side, about 20 of Lively’s supporters huddled together!”
Now there, we have some truth. So in the Globe it’s 20 of 200, but in Lively’s own blogging, he claims his supporters outnumbered his opponents. Which is it, Scott? And yes, that’s rhetorical. I was there.
The Globe reports that in typical fashion, when in Uganda, Lively told the usual boorish vile anti-gay lies like: “You can’t stop [them] from molesting children,” he said, “or stop them from having sex with animals.” But ever the braggart, a Chaucerian moment, where pride came before the fall, Lively also recounts to the Boston Globe reporter his 2009 Uganda visit, which contradicts what his attorney told the Court:
“The evening of his arrival, he says, he met with more than 50 members of Parliament. He also claims to have spoken privately for 30 minutes with the country’s minister of ethics and integrity.”
This statement, undoubtedly accurate, seems to stand in stark contrast to the statements I heard sitting in that Springfield courtroom, which now I must assume were nothing but lies. There were at least 3 repeats, by our would be Governor and Pastor’s lawyer, of the ‘never even met them’ refrain from:
Here are excerpts from the official court transcript from the case :
MR. MIHET: — “and it has brought this lawsuit against Mr. Lively predicated entirely on a purposeful confusion between what Mr. Lively has said and between what a handful of other people, whom Mr. Lively has never even met, have done years after the speech that he allegedly engaged in.”
“What they allege is that they don’t need to allege specific intent because all you need is intent to carry out the objective then you can be liable for what these people do who don’t even know and that you’ve never even met. That’s what they’ve alleged.”
“…how much less specific intent could Mr. Lively have when he was not even there? He was half a world away when he has never even met these alleged perpetrators, Judge.”
So in court it’s a chorus of the ‘has never even met’ refrain but in the press ‘his reach during his trip was extraordinary. The evening of his arrival, he says, he met with more than 50 members of Parliament. He also claims to have spoken privately for 30 minutes with the country’s minister of ethics and integrity.’
Which is it Scott? This isn’t rhetorical. Is this leading to a trial filled with perjury? Surely this critical contradiction should be brought to the Court’s decision and if anything, the Judge should toss out the Motion for summary judgment as it is clear now that the Court was fed a load of lies.
Why is it that he’s free to boast about his truths to the newspaper, while feigning innocence in court? What is particularly egregious is that this may go to the root of the judges decision to dismiss the case in its entirety. And it doesn’t seem it’s only me drawing this conclusion from what Lively told the reporter, here is Frank Mugisha’s tweet, who is the Executive Director of Sexual Minorities Uganda the group bringing the lawsuit: