Comments on: Paul Cameron Testifies As “Expert Witness”

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:48:28 +0000

He was disqualified for misrepresenting and lieing, no? Up to what i know if you lie under oath it IS punishible. SO the only reason he was not criminially charged was because he did not lie… and thus he didnt really misrepresent, so… why exactly(if he was) did they disqualify him?

To echo John, from what I can remember, Cameron is pretty good at not actually lying under oath, but still misleading the court. If you think of how he misuses others’ work, somehow coming to the exact opposite conclusions of the original researchers, but using the same data, it stands to reason he did something similar.

By: John

John — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:16:42 +0000

Joel wrote: “He was disqualified for misrepresenting and lieing, no? Up to what i know if you lie under oath it IS punishible. SO the only reason he was not criminially charged was because he did not lie… and thus he didnt really misrepresent, so… why exactly(if he was) did they disqualify him?”

There are many reasons that people who commit a crime might not be charged. Cameron’s lies in general are convoluted and involve the deliberate manipulation of data in order to come to predetermined conclusions. He knows exactly what he is doing, and it is deliberate. Although to a judge this might be pretty clear, presenting a case like this to a jury might be rather difficult, and not worth the effort. A reasonable remedy in that sort of situation would be to ban him from testifying in the future. Should he want to appeal that, he would face the very uphill challenge of explaining his behavior to another judge or panel of judges.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:08:43 +0000

“Joel, IIRC, the court did not feel they could charge Cameron with criminal fraud, but I believe he was disqualified from ever testifying as an expert ”
Ok… i dont knwo the way of the law but.. this comes at me as kind of a contradiction.

He was disqualified for misrepresenting and lieing, no? Up to what i know if you lie under oath it IS punishible. SO the only reason he was not criminially charged was because he did not lie… and thus he didnt really misrepresent, so… why exactly(if he was) did they disqualify him?

By: Brady

Brady — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:37:45 +0000

I get that the courts are going to allow people to testify, even if their past is shady, but why would anyone ever ask him to testify? They’re just asking to get torched on cross. Could the lawyers that hired Cameron really not know about his past problems? That’s the only explanation I can come up with.

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:24:06 +0000

Joel, IIRC, the court did not feel they could charge Cameron with criminal fraud, but I believe he was disqualified from ever testifying as an expert in that district again. If that is indeed the case, it would be powerful evidence against any testimony in this case. Let us hope the opposing counsel has some knowledge of this.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:47:24 +0000

“We were able to obtain a copy of Paul Cameron’s March newsletter from one of our favorite readers. And it looks like he’s still capable of quite a bit of dangerous mischief:

I was invited as an expert witness to present evidence as to why one state’s use of homosexuals as foster parents should be halted. Since a continuance was issued at the court hearing, I’ll keep you informed of further developments.
”

Ohh a newsletter, ill be sure to sign up for it.
Anyways, why would a court even listen to such an ‘expert’ if “In 1985 he was censured by Judge Jerry Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas, who wrote:

Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court … There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron”

Was is also related to gay misrepresentation? And if so… does the court not learn? Also… isnt fraud punishble by law. Did he get prison time or an ‘outrageous’ fine?