|
|
Why John Greaney Must Resign
By Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
We've written before about the "Removal"
of Margaret Marshall, but that does not mean the other judges who voted
with her should be allowed to stay on the Supreme Judicial Court.
When the SJC held Oral Argument about the homosexual
marriage case in March of last year, the most experienced person by far
was John M. Greaney, who had been a judge since 1975, on four different
courts and finally was appointed to the SJC in 1989. 
Greaney knew that allowing only two lawyers to talk
to the judges about this case -- for only 37 minutes and 11 seconds--
was a travesty. This meant that the attorneys, Mary Bonauto for the plaintiffs
and Judith Yogman for the people, had only a little over 15 minutes apiece,
to discuss the most significant case in the history of the SJC.
When Mary Bonauto spoke, Greaney was very supportive.
She was told by him she would win the case and they discussed the possibility
of a new "anti-homosexual" Amendment which might take effect
in 2006.
Greaney told her: "Contrary to the argument of
the Attorney Generals from the other states, the Vermont situation didn't
set off a firestorm throughout the rest of the country." Bonauto
replied: "That is correct, Your Honor, it has not." Greaney
replied: "So presumably, if you win, and I'm certain you would, this
would not either."
After assuring Bonauto that she would win, Greaney then
joined with Margaret Marshall in preventing Attorney Yogman, an Assistant
Attorney General, from presenting her case. Yogman was only eight seconds
into her argument when Marshall first badgered her and then continued
for 56% of her allotted time. John Greaney took 26% of her time, leaving
only 18% for the other five judges, not to mention Attorney Yogman. At
the end of the farce, Greaney sat and watched as Marshall shut Yogman
down as she politely requested an additional 30 seconds to finish her
point.
No person would treat anyone in such a discourteous
and mean manner, much less a judge who was talking to another member of
the Bar. This type of conduct by anyone at any time is reprehensible and
indicates that that person does not have the necessary qualities to be
a judge.
 (It
should be noted that only a few days before that day, Greaney sat as a
Single Justice and dismissed my lawsuit, which would have sent the Protection
of Marriage Amendment back to the legislators who had violated the state
Constitution in 2002 by refusing to vote. If Greaney had done so, it would
have stopped him and Marshall from imposing homosexual marriage as they
planned. He discussed this with Bonauto, saying: "the one [the Protection
of Marriage Amendment] that was making its way through the legislature
last year is now more or less defunct?" He knew it was defunct. He
was the one who made it so.)
Clique of Greaney and Friends
Judge Marshall indicated in her 2003 opinion about homosexual
"marriage" that the people of this state had embraced homosexual
marriage in the 1990s, when the legend of the "gay gene" was
paramount. We couldn't change our minds now, she said.
Guess how Marshall determined that the people had accepted homosexual
"marriage."
She was talking about what was written in the 1990s by her own Supreme
Judicial Court led by John Greaney.
The first case was about a lesbian who was allowed to
adopt her partner's child even though there was nothing in the law of
adoption to allow this to happen. John Greaney wrote the opinion, noting
that both women were medical doctors on the faculty of Harvard Medical
School and that the child would inherit a large sum of money from the
non-parent if the adoption were allowed. Even though the child was less
than two-years-old, "over a dozen witnesses, including mental health
professionals, teachers, colleagues, neighbors, blood relatives and a
priest and a nun" testified that the infant was well adjusted. A
Harvard psychiatrist testified that the research on the subject was that
"children raised by lesbian parents developed normally."
As for the law (which did not allow for such an adoption),
John Greaney opined, "While the Legislature may not have envisioned
adoption by same-sex partners," we're going to allow it anyhow. But
three judges said, "Not so fast." Although they also believed
that this adoption could be beneficial to the child, they objected to
doing by "judicial fiat" something that "our elected representatives
and the general public have as yet, failed to endorse." In other
words, John Greaney was already breaking the laws and imposing his own
views.
The case did not gather much attention in 1993. But nevertheless, Marshall
held in 2003 that the people of the state are bound by this decision of
1993. They should have noticed what the Court was doing.
There were only two "friend of the court"
briefs filed, both of them in favor, one coming from the young lawyer,
Mary L. Bonauto for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).
The case was known as "Adoption of Tammy."
Lesbian Demands Visitation
In a 1999 case where two lesbians were fighting over
a child, three of the four judges who would decide the famous case in
2003 were already on the Court. They were Greaney, Marshall and Ireland.
The fourth, Judith Cowin, was still on the Superior Court and about to
jump over her husband, who was still in practice and would be appointed
to the state Appeals Court in 2001. Margaret Marshall was giving her famous
speech to the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association and the new Publisher of
the Globe was about to be sent from New York by Pinch Sulzberger to ensure
the elevation of Margaret Marshall to be Chief Justice and to impose gay
marriage. None of the three dissenters in the 2003 case were yet appointed
to the SJC.
The two lesbians were fighting about allowing the non-mother
to demand visitation rights to the child of her former partner (who had
had the child by artificial insemination).
There was a very strong and able conservative on the Court, Judge Charles
Fried, who shortly thereafter returned to Harvard Law School and is now
mentioned as a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Fried wrote the following about the Greaney clique.
He was joined by Judge Lynch.
"The probate judge's order in this case was wholly
without warrant in statute, precedent, or any known legal principle, and
yet the majority of the court has upheld it. As such, the opinion the
court delivers today is a remarkable example of judicial lawmaking. …
"And how else can the court find enough to outweigh
what the court admits is a long-standing constitutional right --- the
'fundamental liberty interest' of parents in raising their children without
interference by the State?" The name of the case was E.N.O. v. L.M.M.
It was decided on June 29, 1999.
John Greaney Was a Mentor and Leader of Margaret Marshall
Clearly, John Greaney was not a callow young man who
was duped by Margaret Marshall. No jury could find Marshall guilty of
this Indictment without also including him.
The charges to be proven were disclosed by Rep. Goguen on June 1.
** Encouraging a lesbian attorney to file for gay
marriage by assuring her she would win.
John Greaney was doing this in public during the Oral Argument.
** Encouraging Chief Justice of Superior Court to
join in seeking the gay marriage case.
Greaney has been a judge for almost thirty years.
He knows what is going on and has never been bashful in expressing himself.
He obviously knew all about Judge Suzanne DelVecchio. She was never quiet
or shy.
** Violating state Constitution which forbids judges
from assuming power to regulate marriage.
Greaney gave lessons to Marshall in that regard.
** Allowing public discussion of the case for only
15 minutes.
Greaney made that disgrace even worse by not letting her talk without
interruption even during that short period.
No Punishment at All
John Greaney is at the retirement age of most persons.
He reached his 65th birthday on April 8. If he resigns now, he can receive
a generous retirement. If he persists in battling the Removal process
for whatever reason, there is a chance he could lose his retirement.
The honorable thing for him at this point is to take his retirement and
leave. If he makes a big case out of this, it will only further damage
the Court and him. It is his choice.
|
