|
|---|
 |
Indisputable, Undeniable Facts By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick The New York Times Company interfered in the democratic process of the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the debate about homosexual marriage. That is indisputable. Their intervention is a fact that no one can deny. When that becomes common knowledge, it will make the Jayson Blair scandal, which brought the old grey lady to her knees last summer, pale in comparison to this interference in the process of the government of the Commonwealth. Do you remember the citizen referendum that went to the Legislature in 2002? It would have prevented the Supreme Judicial Court from proclaiming gay marriage or civil unions. All that was necessary in 2002 to send it to the people for their vote in the fall of 2004 was the approval of 25% of the Legislature. That fact is not denied by anyone. Fraud Was Implied by NY Times Co. Near the end of the signature-gathering period, the New York Times Company did the following, which is undeniable by them because it is in the archives of their newspapers . ? Repeated Unsubstantiated Accusations. The Times Company repeated unsubstantiated accusations by a tiny number of people (less than eleven) that the large numbers of the 76,607 certified signatures on the referendum (almost 20,000 more than needed) had been obtained by fraud with signers being tricked into believing they were signing a referendum to ban the slaughter of horses. These accusations of fraud began with a letter to the editor in the Globe on Nov. 15, 2001 and was followed with prominent stories in the Globe on November 21, 2001 and repeated on January 9, 2002, March 26 and April 25. The Sunday edition of the Times newspaper published a large story, with banner headline and picture on April 7 under the headline, “Drive to Ban Gay Marriage Is Accused of Duping Signers.” That story was timed to go to over 1.5 million readers three days before a legislative hearing. Their motive in timing the story can be debated, but the fact of its timing is indisputable as is the fact that the article was merely a rewrite of the previous Globe stories. ? Stories Had Tremendous Effect. Those six stories had a tremendous effect upon the citizens, according to stories in the Globe archives. The March 26 story said that a lawsuit was being filed by the horse people against the Commonwealth that day to force it to put the horse referendum on the ballot even though the necessary signatures had not been obtained. Their reason was the “fraud” by agents of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage. The suit was summarily dismissed by a judge in the Superior Court a month later on April 24, but the Globe has never reported that fact. Instead, even after the suit had been dismissed, it reported on April 25, the following about a legislative committee which voted against the Amendment: “The ballot question has attracted considerable controversy recently: “Workers trying to gather the 57,100 signatures required to get it on the ballot have been accused of misleading some voters, telling them they were signing a petition to protect horses from slaughter instead . “Members of the Save Our Horses campaign have sued the state because their signatures had been [Note that this part of the story is stated not as an accusation, but as a fact.] diverted to the marriage question, keeping their own initiative off the ballot. “At the end of its written decision, the committee said members were concerned about the manner in which the signatures had been gathered , and that the process ‘calls into question the fairness and legitimacy of the process itself .'” [Emphasis added.] Please note that it was accepted by everyone on the Committee, as a result of the Globe and Times stories, that the gathering of signatures had been unfair and signers had been tricked. That is still the belief of most citizens of the state. Stated that Senate President Could Ignore Constitution The horse story finally disappeared in April 2002 because I started to make public complaints that the New York Times Company was committing libel. Those stories were subsequently replaced by false stories that the President of the state Senate, Thomas Birmingham, had the power to ignore the referendum. Not only did this give the erroneous impression that Birmingham could legally do that, it also made the MCM supporters look dishonest because they were telling the truth, that the Legislature was required to vote on the Amendment. This new tactic by the Globe began on May 2, 2002 and continued on June 20 and July 16. May 2, 2002 This was the first day that the Globe said that Birmingham had the power to kill the measure all by himself. It appeared the day after the Legislature first considered the measure. The Globe wrote: “Because the Senate president presides over the full House and Senate when the bodies sit together as a constitutional convention, Birmingham will have full control over the agenda. Some gay leaders want Birmingham to use that power to ensure that the Amendment never reaches the voters, where they fear it could pass. ... As Senate president, Birmingham could choose to not schedule a proposed Amendment for a vote, which would scuttle the measure .” If that were true, Birmingham could also “choose” to take a gun and shoot Sally Pawlick and any legislator who voted for the Amendment. While it would also be an effective method of “scuttling the measure,” both would be breaking the law. June 20 The Globe continued its new tactics with the following: “ But the process can be strictly controlled by the Senate President ... If the vote isn't taken by the end of the current session on July 31, the Amendment will be dead .” This was reported on the day after the Constitutional Convention where MCM had 200 spectators in the gallery who erupted in disbelief when Birmingham adjourned to July 17. July 18 After the Convention, the Globe wrote in the lead paragraph on page one that a “ procedural maneuver ” had defeated the Amendment. But it was a violation of the state Constitution, according to a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court a few months later. The legislators were required by law to vote on the measure, which they did not do. The measure could not get approval by 25% of the legislators if they weren't allowed to vote. You do not need to be a Supreme Court judge to understand that. (Although letters to the editor are difficult to trace, they published only those opposed to the Amendment, appearing in 2002 on March 27, May 4, June 25, July 19, July 20 and July 25.) SJC Ruled that Constitution Was Violated When the SJC finally ruled on Dec. 20, 2002, that the Legislature had violated the Constitution, the Boston Globe didn't report that fact to its readers. Instead, it put a huge spin on the story. (The SJC ruling came in an advisory opinion to Gov. Swift.) The Globe didn't even mention the Legislature until the third paragraph where it said, “Responding to a question posed by Swift, the court ruled that a procedural maneuver used by Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham to block the question from reaching the state ballot was not the final action on the matter.” What the court had actually told the Governor was: “The vote taken on July 17, 2002, was a single vote to adjourn the joint session. No determination can be made, therefore, as to whether any proposed constitutional amendment received the number of votes … required by art. 48 of the Constitution if the amendment is to be ‘referred to the next [legislature].' Accordingly the vote of July 17, 2002 was not ‘final action' on ‘a proposed constitutional amendment. …”' In other words, the Legislature had not followed the Constitution. In ordinary words, it had violated the Constitution. But the Globe didn't report that. Its story concentrated on the Governor's duties under the opinion. Her first question to the judges had been whether she had the “power and duty” to call the Legislature back for a vote in this case. She obviously did, said the court, because the Legislature had not followed the Constitution. The SJC refused to answer the next question the Governor had asked, which was whether she could say it would be “futile” for her to call them back. The judges told her that previous cases showed that that was a matter of fact for her to decide if she had “made a genuine effort to secure action by joint session and has become reasonably convinced that it will be impossible to secure” action by the Legislature. In other words, the judges were not going to decide the facts anymore than they would tell a jury whether the red car or the blue car had the green light. Remember that the Governor had made no effort at all to call the Legislature back despite intense pressure to do so. Therefore, it would be impossible for her to say she had made a “genuine effort” to do so. What an Impartial Globe Story Would Have Said An impartial story would have said the following: “The Legislature failed to follow the state Constitution on July 17 when it adjourned without taking a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled. “The court instructed the Governor she is required to call them back for a vote before Dec. 31 unless she decides it would be ‘futile,' based upon ‘genuine efforts' by her to obtain a vote.” What the Globe Actually Published “SJC declines to weigh in on gay marriage ballot debate. “In a ruling released yesterday, the state Supreme Judicial Court declined to say whether Acting Governor Jane Swift must recall legislators to a special session to consider a ballot question that would ban gay marriage. “The ruling by the state's highest court left state officials uncertain about what steps they should take next on the measure. “Responding to a question posed by Swift, the court ruled that a procedural maneuver [emphasis added] used by Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham to block the question from reaching the state ballot last summer was not the final action on the matter. But the court did not specifically address the question of whether Swift now has a duty to call legislators back to vote on the matter. “That ambiguity left Swift and Birmingham pointing fingers at each other last night, with a spokesman for each suggesting the ball is now in the other's court. If neither takes action to reconvene legislators, the ballot question will die Dec. 31. As of late yesterday, neither Swift nor Birmingham appeared eager to act on the controversial measure.” Everyone can see in the final Globe story that The New York Times Company had been successful in its efforts to use 1) false stories about “fraud” and 2) false stories of “procedural maneuvers,” in order to subvert the democratic, constitutional process in the Commonwealth. More Undeniable Facts There are many more undeniable facts -- 1993 The New York Times Company purchased the Globe for $1.1 billion and promised the owners of the Globe, the Taylor family who had owned the paper since 1873, that they would remain in charge. -- July 1999 A Senior Vice President from New York was sent by Pinch Sulzberger (who had been chairman of The Times Company since 1997) to arrive without notice in Boston to fire the Taylors and their staff. That fact is also undeniable and was reported by the Globe at the time. -- August 1999 Margaret Marshall is appointed Chief Justice of the SJC. Everyone may argue whether those last three facts are related and whether an inference can be drawn from them. That is the duty of any jury. But no one can argue that they did occur. . Many non-lawyers often believe there is something “wrong” with circumstantial evidence. But when a policeman sees a man standing over a dead body with a gun in his hand, he will arrest him and the man will probably go to jail, maybe for life. Such circumstantial evidence is to be considered carefully, like any other evidence. ‘Libel by New York Times' The Times will never take this book seriously nor debate the issues raised by it. They will seek to destroy it until so many people learn the truth so that it overwhelms The Times. |
|
|
Archives | Letters | Bookshop |
