Posted on 11/29/2005 10:42:55 AM PST by dukeman
NEW YORK (AP) -- A gay man charged with helping his lover loot a wealthy school district has asked a judge to rule that state law protecting spouses from having to testify against each other also applies to same-sex partners.
Stephen Signorelli, fighting charges that he stole at least $219,000 from the Roslyn, N.Y., school district, is seeking to bar testimony by his longtime companion, Frank Tassone, the district's former superintendent.
Auditors say that in all, $11.2 million was taken from the Long Island district. It is considered among the largest thefts from a U.S. school system.
Tassone pleaded guilty this year to stealing $1 million between 1996 and 2002. As part of his plea bargain, he agreed to testify against other defendants in the case, which meant he might have to take the stand in Signorelli's trial.
In a motion filed before a judge in Nassau County, Signorelli sought to bar such an appearance, saying he and Tassone deserved the same protection as a heterosexual couple.
"Mr. Tassone and I have been loving partners for 33 years," Signorelli said in an affidavit, adding that the two had participated in "a solemn religious ceremony" conducted while they were on a Caribbean cruise, "to memorialize our relationship and love for one another."
The two also registered as domestic partners in New York City, where they live, in 2002.
"It's our position that the statute should be read gender-neutral," Signorelli's attorney, Kenneth Weinstein, told Newsday. "If a heterosexual couple can assert marital privilege, then a homosexual couple should be able to do the same."
Signorelli is charged with helping in the theft of at least $219,000 by submitting phony and padded invoices for the printing of school handbooks.
Weinstein and an attorney for Tassone did not immediately return phone messages left at their offices Friday.
Prosecutors have yet to respond to the motion and Judge Alan Honorof has not indicated how he might rule.
In other words, "Don't make me testify--I'm guilty!"
Why should deviants?
This was on Law and Order last night. Howie Carr predicted that Mobsters would marry each other to prevent them from having to testify. Especially in the case of Whitey Bulger.
This is disgusting...on every level.
"Sodomal immunity"?
Just another thread in the liberal's tangled web.
I'm waiting for some schmuck to protest "well, I spent the night at her place a coupla times over the last few months -- don't that count?"
Somehow, SOLEMN RELIGIOUS CEREMONY and CARIBBEAN CRUISE are not two phrases that I can picture ocurring at the same time..
I think what is noteworthy here is that a homosexual was the superintendant of a large school system for six or seven years.
He was in a position to force the gay agenda on his school system, besides robbing it.
How many school districts across the country are run by homosexuals?
This is further evidence that a amendment is necessary. This issue in this case may be motivated by opportunism - but don't for a moment think that Lambda Legal Defense is not watching and scheming - trying to accomplish death of traditional marriage by a thousand cuts.
Again, I am not agreeing with this man's argument, just wondering why the law is there in the first place, when (at least in this case) pleading the 5th would do the same. Does that make sense?
The spousal protection laws make it illegal to COMPEL testimony against the other spouse. It has always been legal to allow such testimony, as I understand it.
Giving the POS ex-superintendent a chance to reduce his penalty by turning state's evidence isn't compelling testimony - it is eliciting it. Should still be fine, under the law, even though the idiot in this article isn't really covered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.