Why Mass. Conservatives Must Never Trust Boston 's Federal Judges
Highly Partisan on Political Issues, Who's Really in Charge of Picking Judges?
By Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
February 24, 2004

   When I filed suit in Boston 's federal court against the New York Times last year, I received a lesson from Judge Patti Saris and Chief Judge Bill Young that shook me to my boots.

   I still haven't received a transcript of our only hearing on August 21, 2003 , even though Judge Saris was required to send one within one month and has a fulltime stenographer. It's obvious I never will receive a transcript. Judge Saris does not want anyone to know what happened there. Her stenographer, Marie Cloonan, was polite and nice on the hearing day and promised a transcript at the end of the second week. She personally gets paid for every transcript she sells. Someone changed her mind.

   I learned the hard way that any conservative lawyer who appears before the U.S. District Court in Boston must bring his own stenographer.

   Worse, I sent a request to Chief Judge Bill Young for help. He always appeared to be a nice person when I knew him casually as the attorney for Governor Frank Sargent back in the 1970s. But he ignored my letter. When we called his office, we were finally told that he would not respond to my letter nor would he help to obtain a transcript.

   Saris Agreed Libel Was Present

   Saris agreed, on the one and only time the lawyers for the plaintiff and defendant met in her courtroom, that the New York Times newspaper had committed libel with its headline that went to 1.5 million subscribers across the country. But a few hours later, she wrote a decision that quickly dismissed our suit.

   She obviously thought her illegal conduct would quickly die, but she wasn't too smart. She hadn't thought it through. She had to have wondered who this lawyer was who was suing the New York Times. It's not credible that she hadn't wondered, particularly when my name was prominently on the cover page of my brief, the same as every brief she ever sees. Is she going to say that she never even bothered to look at the briefs before she arrived, then digested everything in a few minutes and made an intelligent decision immediately ?

   Did she really think this was like all the other lawsuits before her and what transpired there would simply fade away with no one knowing what happened? After all, I am a newspaperman, well-known to most Boston lawyers.

   Her quick decision did not surprise me too much. I had expected as much from someone who had worked for Teddy Kennedy and had been nominated by him to the court.

   But I had never seen anything like her nasty attitude during my 43 years as a lawyer. She is Maria Lopez all over again. She either did not read my brief or she was being nasty on purpose when she inquired whether I was a lawyer.

   Assuming that her courtroom was wired for sound, I had sat a little to one side of the room, but she refused to talk into her microphone. When I requested that she do so, she did for a few seconds but then went right back to ignoring it. The experienced attorneys for the Globe were more streetwise and were sitting right in front of her. When I attempted to move closer, she harshly instructed me to sit down, as though I were carrying a bomb.

   It was partly my fault. I knew the terrible reputation the court has among conservative lawyers. I've written about it, but I didn't believe it would be this bad. I thought they would be a little subtle.

   When Chester Darling won his famous South Boston parade case in the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 9-0, he had lost before 16 judges and others in the courts and agencies of the state, with only one judge voting for him.

   Instead of being lauded afterwards for his spectacular win at the Supreme Court, Darling was isolated and shunned by the judges and leaders of the bar in this state.

   For some strange reason, he kept getting ultra-liberal Nancy Gertner appointed to his cases in the U.S. court even though the judges are supposed to be drawn by random. (Her husband is lead counsel for the local ACLU.)

   Gertner and Saris are the Bobbsey-twins of Boston 's federal court, both highly political and in their early fifties. Gertner went to Yale Law School and Saris to Harvard. Whether they were female "tokens" at those schools or were admitted on their abilities will never be known, even by them. But there is no evidence that they were able to excel while there.

   Gertner became famous in the 1970s by complaining bitterly to Lawyers Weekly that they should not refer to her as a "lady."

   Atty. Darling was successful in having her removed from one case. She was so distraught and "full of herself" that she foolishly appealed, an unheard of thing, but even the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston said that Gertner gave "an appearance of partiality" and should have removed herself from the case involving segregation in the Boston public schools. She certainly did want to be the one to make the decision in Darling's case.

   It seems strange that one of the Bobbsey-twins was appointed to my case. It couldn't have been Gertner because I had already reported in MassNews about her and Chester Darling.

How Does One Explain Bill Young's Failure to Control His Court?

   The behavior of Patti Saris is predictable and understandable. But Bill Young is more puzzling and troubling.

   A copy of the polite email I sent to him at 4 a.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 1, is at the end of this article. When I received no response by Monday, I asked my wife, Sally, to call because she is so sweet that she could not possibly offend anyone. This is an exact copy of the record she kept at my request.

Mid-afternoon, Monday, Oct. 6 . Called and left message on secretary's answering machine.

Tuesday, Oct. 7. Called at 9 a.m. and asked female voice if she was Sharon Atkins. Answer was no. Sharon on vacation. I repeated message from previous day, i.e. had Judge received Ed's email sent last week and gave short explanation of what Ed wanted to know. She said Judge was on the bench and would not return to office until 1:00 . Said she would ask.

Wednesday, Oct. 8. Called at 9 a.m. Restated facts and she told me, yes, Judge did receive Ed's email. I asked will he be responding to it? She said, "No." I asked if there was anything more she could add or tell me and she said, "No." I said, "Thank you very much," and we hung up.

* * * * *

October 1, 2003
Chief Judge William G. Young
U.S. District Court
One Courthouse Way
Boston , MA

VIA EMAIL

Dear Judge Young:

I am having difficulty obtaining a transcript of an oral argument I had before Judge Saris with Marie Cloonan as the Reporter. After the argument on Thursday, August 21, I requested a transcript and Ms. Cloonan replied very nicely that she was going on vacation the next week but she would have it ready early the following week.

This is a political case about the Protection of Marriage Amendment and libel by the New York Times. I am sympathetic with the judge's obvious disagreement with me over the issue but I need the transcript because I wish to talk accurately about what occurred at the argument.

When I did not receive a transcript, I was informed by friends that your order says the Reporter has 30 days in which to prepare a transcript. About two weeks or so ago, I politely informed Ms. Cloonan that I would like to pay extra for an expedited transcript, and she replied that she does not do expedited transcripts and I would "take my turn in the pile."

For some reason, Ms. Cloonan has totally changed in her demeanor since the argument.

For the sake of accuracy, would it be possible to get the transcript now?

Thank you for reading this letter. I am BBO #392160 and founder and former owner of Lawyers Weekly.

Sincerely,

J. Edward Pawlick