Discussion Forum

So, why is this controversy of such great public importance?

Well, the answer to that is that the issue goes to the very heart of our system of government and the integrity of the justice system.  In the decision of  JOHNESE v. JANI-KING, INC. (N.D.Tex. 3-3-2008), Judge Sidney Fitzwater of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas discussed the issue of witness tampering this way:

"[T]ampering with the administration of justice . . . involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the  institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). Accordingly, although "outright dismissal of a lawsuit . . . is a particularly severe sanction, [it] is within the court's discretion." Id. at 45; see also, e.g., Pope v. Fed. Express Corp., 974 F.2d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal  where plaintiff had introduced falsified document in support of claim). It is especially appropriate "where a party manufactures evidence which purports to corroborate its substantive claims." Vargas v. Peltz, 901 F. Supp. 1572, 1581 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (dismissing suit where plaintiff in sexual harassment lawsuit fabricated evidence) (citing Pope, 974 F.2d at 984; Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) (dismissing case where plaintiff had attached fabricated document to complaint); Nichols v. Klein Tools, Inc., 949 F.2d 1047, 1048 (8th Cir. 1991) (dismissing action where plaintiff lied about whether he was using defendant's product at time of alleged

It is difficult to contemplate a clearer or more abhorrent example of a litigant's attempt to abuse and subvert the integrity of the judicial process than an  effort to suborn perjury from a material witness.  Coercing or seeking to obtain or manufacture false testimony strikes at the heart of the judicial system. Lying cannot be condoned in any formal proceeding. . . . Our legal system is dependent on the   willingness of the litigants to allow an honest and true airing of the real facts.
Lee v. Sass, 2006 WL 799176, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Young v. Office of the U.S. Senate Sergeant At Arms, 217 F.R.D. 61, 71 (D.D.C. 2003)). “

As you can see, we have made no statements of fact here.  We have simply raised the issue and presented evidence that relates to the issue.  Draw your own implications and conclusions.  Are you disturbed by what you see here?  Do these pages reveal serious problems that must be fixed to protect our legal rights?  Well then, please contact Austin and encourage your legislators to help.
Website Builder