[Vision2020] Mock Trial - Logos Performance

Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:13:42 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C4230D.00C8C080
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Ben, Drew, Don, et al,

A call to the police comes in at 2:00am.  Ronny Krauts is found dead at the
bottom of a steep flight of unlit concrete stairs in a college off-campus
drinking area.  A witness says that he saw a young woman dressed in jeans and a
BSU sweatshirt run from the scene just after hearing a yell and seeing poor
Ronny tumble to his death.  Ten minutes later a police cruiser sees, then
apprehends Penny Stone, clad in jeans and a BSU sweatshirt.  Penny is quite
drunk and somewhat incoherent.

The police interrogate Stone.  For a long time she denies any knowledge of the
matter.  She is not given her Miranda warning.  She asks for an attorney, but is
refused.  The grueling interrogation lasts for 10 hours.  During the entire 10
hours, Stone, who is menstruating and still highly intoxicated, is not allowed
to use the bathroom, have a drink of water, or to tend to herself in anyway
despite numerous requests.

Finally, in excruciating pain and distress and no longer able to hold off
tending to her needs, Stone confesses, answering simply "Yes" to a police
suggestion that she followed and pushed Krauts down the stairs because he
threatened to expose cheating by her on a course exam.  Stone is charged with
first degree murder.  After her confession, Stone is allowed to tend to her
needs and to call an attorney.  After talking to her attorney, Stone makes no
further statements to the police except to repudiate her confession.  Stone is
held without bail until her trial.

During a pretrial evidence suppression hearing Stone's attorney argues
successfully using current U.S. Supreme Court case law that all verbal
statements and other evidence gathered during the interrogation and all evidence
that was gathered using in any way the statements of Stone made during the
interrogation be suppressed.  Therefore, any reference to these matters during
the entire trial is clearly and unmistakably not allowable under the Rules of
Evidence.

During the trial, the prosecutor asks a witness who is a law enforcement officer
and who was present during the interrogation, "Didn't the defendant Stone
confess to this brutal murder during an interrogation at which you were present"
?

Stone's attorney immediately objects, asks for an assignment of prejudicial
misconduct, a finding of and a penalty for contempt of court, and a mistrial.
The judge, naturally, grants all the defendant's attorney's requests.

Was the conduct of the prosecutor in this case ethical?  Honest?  Intended to
insure a fair adjudication?  Obviously not!

Not only did the prosecutor ask a leading question on direct examination (not
allowed unless the witness has been declared hostile by the judge), but far
worse, asks an extremely prejudicial question explicitly not allowed by a clear
ruling on the Rules of Evidence.  The obvious result of the prosecutor's
behavior, had the judge allowed the trial to continue, would have been the
denial of a fair trial to Stone.

A naпve person might say, "No harm done.  Stone will get a new trial."

Except that Stone now must pay for the time expended during the aborted trial by
her attorney, i.e. choosing a jury, sitting through part of the prosecution's
presentations, etc.  It is not unusual for a skilled trial attorney specializing
in capital cases to get $500 per hour at trial - a steep price for Stone to have
to pay for the prosecutor's egregious misconduct.

A naпve person might also say: "The prosecutor did the right thing.  Stone
confessed, therefore she was guilty.  The prosecutor was right to try to sneak
the evidence in through the back door."

Review the facts above and the conditions under which the confession was
coerced.  The truth and validity of any confession extracted under those
conditions is very doubtful.  U.S. Supreme Court case law has clearly and
strongly ruled such.

Any person on trial for any crime, especially a capital crime, deserves a fair
trail.  The Rules of Evidence are a very important part of the apparatus
designed to insure fair trails.  Any violation of these rules denies a defendant
a fair trail.  Any knowing violation of these is not only deceitful, cheating,
and dishonest but an indefensible attempt to pervert the fundamental reasons for
having a justice system.

Let's examine the Logos controversy in the above light.  (Sentences in quotes
are from the news article.)

Logos students (to their credit) were very familiar with the Rules of Evidence:

"Displaying a firm grasp of Idaho Rules of Evidence.  Both teams cited code
sections several times."

The Logos team, therefore, knowingly and repeatedly violated the Rules of
Evidence:

"Asking a witness a question knowing the judge will rule it stricken, but
getting it before the jury at least once.  The Logos team did that a few times."

The behavior of the Logos team in the mock trial was no less unethical,
dishonest, and prejudicial in principle than the conduct of the prosecutor in
the example given above.  Such conduct perverts the ends of justice by
subverting a fair trial.  It is conduct to be condemned, not lauded, ignored, or
excused.

"Ah, Fox", you smugly say, "You are very naпve.  Real attorneys do this all the
time.  It is almost standard practice".

Yes, many attorneys do stoop to this kind of dishonest, unethical behavior.
Excusing, ignoring, and/or even cheering cheating and dishonesty because every
one else does it is not a justification of such depraved behavior, but merely an
ignorant rationalization.  Fact:  such behavior is not only against the Rules of
Evidence but also against the Canons of Ethics of the bar.

I spent several years in Boundary County, Idaho observing the justice system.  I
saw many proceedings, knew and talked with many principals, including two judges
with whom I was (and still am) friends.  I was disgusted at the cheating and
dishonesty that occurred during the adjudication process.  I know the court
clerks who attended many more of these of these proceedings than I did felt even
more strongly about it than I.

I believe the general public holds many attorneys in very low esteem in part
because of the transparent dishonesty exhibited by their breaking and bending
the court rules.  I know that judges in their private opinions and conversations
hold an even lower view of certain attorneys who resort to such tactics.  In
fact, resorting to such tactics tells an experienced judge that the attorney
thinks his case is weak and most likely believes in his heart of hearts that his
client should justifiably lose his case.

Drew, I would hope that if it is your aspiration to become an attorney (if so, I
hope you are successful) that you pledge to honestly play by all the rules at
all times because the rules are there to provide all a fair trail because you
believe a fair trail is a most important part of the justice system.  A skilled,
honest, lawyer can generally achieve his goals without resulting to cheating and
dishonesty.

I mean no disrespect for the Mock Trail competition.  All teams who participate
in the finals have obviously worked hard and have learned and achieved a great
deal.

That said, I do not condone the cheating and dishonesty implicit in knowingly
and repeatedly violating the Rules of Evidence in any trial, real or mock.  Such
knowing violations are a very real deterrent to and a clear renunciation of the
principle of the entitlement of a fair trial, a fundamental right of all in my
opinion.

When a school such as Logos, masquerading as Christian, by knowingly using
dishonest, deceitful tactics thinks that they have done something wonderful in
winning a competition, I am greatly saddened and fearful.

If I read the teachings of Jesus correctly, cheating and dishonesty is
forbidden.

I am also saddened and fearful when an apparently honest person such as Drew
does not yet see the dishonesty in denying a fair adjudication by repeated,
willful, knowledgeable violations of the rules.  I only hope that upon
consideration Drew will see the matter differently and will come to see denying
a fair adjudication by willful violations of the rules as dishonesty and
cheating and something not only to be avoided but censured.

Let me repeat:

For Palouse area residents, the real subtext of the news article at issue is
"Send your children to Logos.  We'll teach them how to prevail by cheating and
dishonesty if necessary."

Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
deco@moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <NoMoreWalking4Me@aol.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:01 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Mock Trial - Logos Performance

| Some 'constructive' comments posted about the Mock Trial case:
|
| "Send your children to Logos.  We'll
| teach them how to prevail by cheating and dishonesty."
|
| "In a few weeks the fecal stench of the
| dishonorable, unprincipled way it was won will be just small, unpleasant,
| nagging itch (if that) which in further time will be repressed entirely.  The
| final paean will be "We won!  We won!  We're the greatest!" not the more
| accurate "We cheated!  We won!  We're the sneakiest!".
|
|
| "I might have congratulated these perhaps well-intentioned but misled young
folks
| for their effort and for winning had they in the process refused to follow
their
| instructors' obviously unscrupulous, dishonorable, though not unexpected
| tutelage."
|
| "Is Logos' dishonest conduct excused by the
| Doctrine of Covenantal Lying or is there another justification?"
|
| "Perhaps Logos is an ideal place for lawyers to start.
| The text for their logic and rhetoric studies is The
| Art of Deception.  How fitting for future lawyers and religious crackpots!"
|
|
| If these comments are not insulting the Logos performance during the
championship round that took place against my team that day, I'm not quite sure
what is.  If the persons who posted these comments did indeed want to talk about
other incidents that occured concerning the Logos school, they could have done
so.  I would ask you keep Mock Trial out of your postings.  These comments not
only degrade the Logos school, but they are personally insulting the students
performances that day.  At this point, I find your comments unacceptable, and
yes, prejudiced.  I will say again:  I was there that day, and the students
acted with integrity, and did no dishonest actions.  They treated my team with
respect, the judges with respect, and did no 'sneaky', 'cheating', or 'Art of
Deception' type acts.
|
| Drew Simon - Bishop Kelly Mock Trial Black Team Captain
|
| _____________________________________________________
|  List services made available by First Step Internet,
|  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
|                http://www.fsr.net
|           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
| ЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇ
|
|

------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C4230D.00C8C080
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Ben, Drew, Don, et al,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
A call =
to the police=20
comes in at <?xml:namespace prefix =3D st1 ns =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:time Hour=3D"2"=20
Minute=3D"0">2:00am</st1:time>.&nbsp; =
Ronny=20
Krauts is found dead at the bottom of a steep flight of unlit concrete =
stairs in=20
a college off-campus drinking area.&nbsp;=20
A witness says that he saw a young woman dressed in jeans and a =
BSU=20
sweatshirt run from the scene just after hearing a yell and seeing poor =
Ronny=20
tumble to his death.&nbsp; Ten =
minutes=20
later a police cruiser sees, then apprehends Penny Stone, clad in jeans =
and a=20
BSU sweatshirt.&nbsp; Penny is =
quite=20
drunk and somewhat incoherent.
<?xml:namespace =
prefix =3D o ns =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
The =
police=20
interrogate Stone.&nbsp; For a =
long time=20
she denies any knowledge of the matter.&nbsp;=20
She is not given her Miranda warning.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; She asks for an attorney, but =
is=20
refused.&nbsp; The grueling =
interrogation=20
lasts for 10 hours.&nbsp; =
During the=20
entire 10 hours, Stone, who is menstruating and still highly =
intoxicated, is not=20
allowed to use the bathroom, have a drink of water, or to tend to =
herself in=20
anyway despite numerous requests.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Finally, in=20
excruciating pain and distress and no longer able to hold off tending to =
her=20
needs, Stone confesses, answering simply =93Yes=94 to a police =
suggestion that she=20
followed and pushed Krauts down the stairs because he threatened to =
expose=20
cheating by her on a course exam.&nbsp;=20
Stone is charged with first degree murder.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; After her confession, Stone is =
allowed=20
to tend to her needs and to call an attorney.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; After talking to her attorney, =
Stone=20
makes no further statements to the police except to repudiate her=20
confession.&nbsp; Stone is held =
without=20
bail until her trial.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
During =
a pretrial=20
evidence suppression hearing Stone=92s attorney argues successfully =
using current=20
U.S. Supreme Court case law that all verbal statements and other =
evidence=20
gathered during the interrogation and all evidence that was gathered =
using in=20
any way the statements of Stone made during the interrogation be=20
suppressed.&nbsp; Therefore, =
any=20
reference to these matters during the entire trial is clearly and =
unmistakably=20
not allowable under the Rules of Evidence.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
During =
the trial,=20
the prosecutor asks a witness who is a law enforcement officer and who =
was=20
present during the interrogation, =93Didn=92t the defendant =
Stone confess to=20
this brutal murder during an interrogation at which you were=20
present=94?
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Stone=92s attorney=20
immediately objects, asks for an assignment of prejudicial misconduct, a =
finding=20
of and a penalty for contempt of court, and a mistrial.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; The judge, naturally, grants =
all the=20
defendant=92s attorney=92s requests.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Was =
the conduct of=20
the prosecutor in this case ethical?&nbsp;=20
Honest?&nbsp; Intended =
to insure a=20
fair adjudication?&nbsp; =
Obviously=20
not!
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Not =
only did the=20
prosecutor ask a leading question on direct examination (not allowed =
unless the=20
witness has been declared hostile by the judge), but far worse, asks an=20
extremely prejudicial question explicitly not allowed by a clear ruling =
on the=20
Rules of Evidence.&nbsp; The =
obvious=20
result of the prosecutor=92s behavior, had the judge allowed the trial =
to=20
continue, would have been the denial of a fair trial to =
Stone.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
A =
na=EFve person might=20
say, =93No harm done.&nbsp; =
Stone will get=20
a new trial.=94
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Except =
that Stone=20
now must pay for the time expended during the aborted trial by her =
attorney,=20
i.e. choosing a jury, sitting through part of the prosecution=92s =
presentations,=20
etc.&nbsp; It is not unusual =
for a=20
skilled trial attorney specializing in capital cases to get $500 per =
hour at=20
trial =96 a steep price for Stone to have to pay for the prosecutor=92s =
egregious=20
misconduct.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
A =
na=EFve person might=20
also say: =93The prosecutor did the right thing.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; Stone confessed, therefore she =
was=20
guilty.&nbsp; The prosecutor =
was right to=20
try to sneak the evidence in through the back door.=94
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Review =
the facts=20
above and the conditions under which the confession was coerced.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; The truth and validity of any =
confession=20
extracted under those conditions is very doubtful.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; U.S. Supreme Court case law =
has clearly=20
and strongly ruled such.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Any =
person on trial=20
for any crime, especially a capital crime, deserves a fair trail.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; The Rules of Evidence are a =
very=20
important part of the apparatus designed to insure fair trails.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; Any violation of these rules =
denies a=20
defendant a fair trail.&nbsp; =
Any=20
knowing violation of these is not only deceitful, cheating, and =
dishonest but an=20
indefensible attempt to pervert the fundamental reasons for having a =
justice=20
system.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Let=92s examine the=20
Logos controversy in the above light.&nbsp;=20
(Sentences in quotes are from the news article.)
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Logos =
students (to=20
their credit) were very familiar with the Rules of Evidence:
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
"Displaying a firm=20
grasp of Idaho Rules of Evidence. <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;Both teams cited code sections =
several=20
times."
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
The =
Logos team,=20
therefore, knowingly and repeatedly violated the Rules of =
Evidence:
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
"Asking a witness a=20
question knowing the judge will rule it stricken, but getting it before =
the jury=20
at least once. &nbsp;The Logos =
team did=20
that a few times."
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
The =
behavior of the=20
Logos team in the mock trial was no less unethical, dishonest, and =
prejudicial=20
in principle than the conduct of the prosecutor in the example given =
above.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; Such conduct perverts the ends =
of=20
justice by subverting a fair trial.&nbsp;=20
It is conduct to be condemned, not lauded, ignored, or=20
excused.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
=93Ah, =
Fox=94, you=20
smugly say, =93You are very na=EFve.&nbsp;=20
Real attorneys do this all the time.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; It is almost standard=20
practice=94.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
Yes, =
many attorneys=20
do stoop to this kind of dishonest, unethical behavior.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; Excusing, ignoring, and/or =
even cheering=20
cheating and dishonesty because every one else does it is not a =
justification of=20
such depraved behavior, but merely an ignorant rationalization.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; Fact:<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; such behavior is not only =
against the=20
Rules of Evidence but also against the Canons of Ethics of the =
bar.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
I =
spent several=20
years in Boundary County, Idaho observing the justice system.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; I saw many proceedings, knew =
and talked=20
with many principals, including two judges with whom I was (and still =
am)=20
friends.&nbsp; I was disgusted =
at the=20
cheating and dishonesty that occurred during the adjudication =
process.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; I know the court clerks who =
attended=20
many more of these of these proceedings than I did felt even more =
strongly about=20
it than I.
<o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</o:p>
I =
believe the=20
general public holds many attorneys in very low esteem in part because =
of the=20
transparent dishonesty exhibited by their breaking and bending the court =

rules.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>I know that judges =
in their=20
private opinions and conversations hold an even lower view of certain =
attorneys=20
who resort to such tactics.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; =
</SPAN>In=20
fact, resorting to such tactics tells an experienced judge that the =
attorney=20
thinks his case is weak and most likely believes in his heart of hearts =
that his=20
client should justifiably lose his case.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>Drew, =
I would hope=20
that if it is your aspiration to become an attorney (if so, I hope you =
are=20
successful) that you pledge to honestly play by all the rules at all =
times=20
because the rules are there to provide all a fair trail because you =
believe a=20
fair trail is a most important part of the justice system.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>A skilled, honest, lawyer can =
generally=20
achieve his goals without resulting to cheating and =
dishonesty.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>I mean =
no disrespect=20
for the Mock Trail competition.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; =
</SPAN>All=20
teams who participate in the finals have obviously worked hard and have =
learned=20
and achieved a great deal.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>That =
said, I do not=20
condone the cheating and dishonesty implicit in knowingly and repeatedly =

violating the Rules of Evidence in any trial, real or mock.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Such knowing violations are a =
very real=20
deterrent to and a clear renunciation of the principle of the =
entitlement of a=20
fair trial, a fundamental right of all in my opinion.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>When a =
school such=20
as Logos, masquerading as Christian, by knowingly using dishonest, =
deceitful=20
tactics thinks that they have done something wonderful in winning a =
competition,=20
I am greatly saddened and fearful.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>If I =
read the=20
teachings of Jesus correctly, cheating and dishonesty is =
forbidden.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>I am =
also saddened=20
and fearful when an apparently honest person such as Drew does not yet =
see the=20
dishonesty in denying a fair adjudication by repeated, willful, =
knowledgeable=20
violations of the rules.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; =
</SPAN>I only=20
hope that upon consideration Drew will see the matter differently and =
will come=20
to see denying a fair adjudication by willful violations of the rules as =

dishonesty and cheating and something not only to be avoided but=20
censured.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>Let me =

repeat:</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D4>For =
Palouse area=20
residents, the real subtext of the news article at issue is =
<STRONG>"Send your=20
children to Logos.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>We'll =
teach them=20
how to prevail by cheating and dishonesty if=20
necessary."<o:p></o:p></STRONG></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P><o:p><FONT size=3D4>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Art Deco&nbsp; (Wayne =
Fox)<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in =
0pt"><BR>&nbsp;</P></FONT></o:p></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>From: &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:NoMoreWalking4Me@aol.com"><FONT=20
size=3D4>NoMoreWalking4Me@aol.com</FONT></A><FONT =
size=3D4>&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>To: &lt;</FONT><A =
href=3D"mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT=20
size=3D4>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT =
size=3D4>&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:01 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Subject: [Vision2020] Mock Trial - Logos=20
Performance</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=3D4>| Some =
'constructive' comments=20
posted about the Mock Trial case:<BR>| <BR>| "Send your children to =
Logos.&nbsp;=20
We'll<BR>| teach them how to prevail by cheating and dishonesty."<BR>| =
<BR>| "In=20
a few weeks the fecal stench of the<BR>| dishonorable, unprincipled way =
it was=20
won will be just small, unpleasant,<BR>| nagging itch (if that) which in =
further=20
time will be repressed entirely.&nbsp; The<BR>| final paean will be "We=20
won!&nbsp; We won!&nbsp; We're the greatest!" not the more<BR>| accurate =
"We=20
cheated!&nbsp; We won!&nbsp; We're the sneakiest!".<BR>| <BR>| <BR>| "I =
might=20
have congratulated these perhaps well-intentioned but misled young =
folks<BR>|=20
for their effort and for winning had they in the process refused to =
follow=20
their<BR>| instructors' obviously unscrupulous, dishonorable, though not =

unexpected<BR>| tutelage."<BR>| <BR>| "Is Logos' dishonest conduct =
excused by=20
the<BR>| Doctrine of Covenantal Lying or is there another =
justification?"<BR>|=20
<BR>| "Perhaps Logos is an ideal place for lawyers to start.<BR>| The =
text for=20
their logic and rhetoric studies is The<BR>| Art of Deception.&nbsp; How =
fitting=20
for future lawyers and religious crackpots!"<BR>| <BR>| <BR>| If these =
comments=20
are not insulting the Logos performance during the championship round =
that took=20
place against my team that day, I'm not quite sure what is.&nbsp; If the =
persons=20
who posted these comments did indeed want to talk about other incidents =
that=20
occured concerning the Logos school, they could have done so.&nbsp; I =
would ask=20
you keep Mock Trial out of your postings.&nbsp; These comments not only =
degrade=20
the Logos school, but they are personally insulting the students =
performances=20
that day.&nbsp; At this point, I find your comments unacceptable, and =
yes,=20
prejudiced.&nbsp; I will say again:&nbsp; I was there that day, and the =
students=20
acted with integrity, and did no dishonest actions.&nbsp; They treated =
my team=20
with respect, the judges with respect, and did no 'sneaky', 'cheating', =
or 'Art=20
of Deception' type acts.<BR>| <BR>| Drew Simon - Bishop Kelly Mock Trial =
Black=20
Team Captain<BR>| <BR>|=20
_____________________________________________________<BR>| &nbsp;List =
services=20
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>| &nbsp;serving the =
communities of=20
the Palouse since 1994.&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR>|=20
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;=20
</FONT><A href=3D"http://www.fsr.net"><FONT=20
size=3D4>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D4>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
<BR>| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT=20
size=3D4>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=3D4>|=20
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF<BR>| <BR>|=20
</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C4230D.00C8C080--