Predictions for 2004
President Robert Travaglini will be rejected by the voters in 2004
when his position on gay marriage and civil unions becomes clear.
He will not bother to run for re-election and will return to the
political dustbin as Sen. Tom Birmingham and Shannon O'Brien did
in 2002. So far, he has not learned from their mistakes.
of the other 137 legislators who voted to violate the state's Constitution
on July 17, 2002, will choose not to run for reelection, as Cheryl
Jacques has already done. If they do choose to run again, they will
stand an excellent chance of being defeated, not by an organization
but by angry voters.
Sulzberger will be fired as Chairman by the New York Times before
Justice Margaret Marshall will resign before May 2004, which is
the month she has ordered that everyone must report back to her.
She has proven she is no longer fit to be a judge in her adopted
* * * * * * *
Justice Marshall and Chairman Sulzberger Will Resign
... The gay marriage
lawsuit was a drama -- a farce scripted by Chairman Pinch Sulzberger
with Chief Justice Marshall as the star. The lesbian lawyer, Mary
Bonauto, was scripted as a great litigator. But the truth is that
any lawyer could have won because the outcome was absolutely certain
before the case was filed on April 11, 2001.
... It's true that a lot of "circumstantial
evidence" will be mixed with other evidence when the citizens
judge Marshall and Sulzberger, but that type of evidence has sent
many people to jail. Although those two conspirators will not be
going to jail, the total evidence is overwhelming that they collaborated
to break the ethical and legal rules of our society. Margaret Marshall
was an eager participant, not a judge, in the gay marriage lawsuit,
and Pinch Sulzberger was the leading protagonist.
... Circumstantial evidence is used
all the time in our nation. When a policeman spots a man with a
revolver standing over a dead body, the policeman will arrest the
man he sees -- even if no one saw the shooting. That is "circumstantial
evidence." Like all the other evidence, it must be weighed
...One of the most important ethical
rules for any judge is that he will never talk with any other person
about any case that is before him. When the citizen "jurors"
become aware of the facts in this case, most of them will not accept
Marshall's story that she's lived with her husband, Anthony Lewis,
premiere columnist for the Times, for over twenty years without
indicating to him how she feels about gay marriage and this case.
Nor will they believe that her husband, Anthony Lewis, never mentioned
any of this to his boss at the Times, Pinch Sulzberger. We know
that Sulzberger and Lewis do talk because Lewis specifically said
so in a story in the Boston Globe. Obviously, many people participated
in this lawsuit to some degree. If they did not do so, they will
deny as much as they can, during the defense of Margaret Marshall
and Pinch Sulzberger.
... The repeated libels and lies by
Pinch and his New York Times and Boston Globe which were used to
produce the drama, are facts carefully documented in J. Edward Pawlick's
new book, "Libel by New York Times."
The evidence is overwhelming that Marshall and
Pinch have been plotting this for years:
Sulzberger has been infatuated with homosexuality
all of his adult life. No one disagrees with
that fact. It is totally documented in Pawlick's book.
abruptly took complete control of the Boston Globe,
without notice, on July 12, 1999, when he dispatched
Senior Vice President Richard H. Gilman from New York to Boston
to oust the Taylor family from control of the newspaper they had
run since 1873. Gilman became Publisher that day. The Globe announced
that Pinch had personally made the decision to remove the Taylors.
was so important that caused Pinch to take complete
and total control of the Globe so abruptly? What would happen next?
month later on August 27, Margaret
Marshall was appointed as Chief Justice of the SJC in order to replace
Justice Wilkins, who was retiring. The appointment was from Governor
Cellucci, who had obviously been in touch with Marshall in July
to see if she would take the job. After the appointment became public,
the Globe, now under the control of Publisher Gilman, immediately
jumped to her support, to ensure she was confirmed.
Marshall did have problems with the citizens on many issues.
Sulzberger was correct in being concerned. He
was particularly worried about her enthusiastic support of abortion
for pregnant teenagers. Gilman made sure that the Globe made her
appointment an important crusade without ever revealing their conflict
of interest, in that her husband was an employee of the Times. The
appointment of Marshall would give Sulzberger easy access to political
power in the state and to implementing gay marriage.
Law was foolish enough to publicly enter the fray by
criticizing Marshall for "anti-Catholicism" in light of
her service on the board of an abortion provider for teenagers.
He later publicly changed his position after a telephone conversation
with her and became satisfied she did not harbor anti-Catholic feelings.
Even so, the Globe jumped on his statement and made the most of
it by worrying about the "mixture of church and state."
On the day before the vote on Marshall by the Governor's Council,
the Globe wrote an editorial, which began, "Religious bigotry
is an ugly thing, and charges of religious bias should not be made
lightly." Ergo, the only citizens against Margaret Marshall
were "bigoted" Catholics and other religious "nuts."
Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice on October 14, 1999,
the first woman to hold that post. That was
the day when the scheme to impose gay marriage on Massachusetts
and the rest of the nation, began to "get legs," with
the New York Times leading the way.
Suzanne DelVecchio of the state's trial court, the Superior Court,
was sworn in as Chief Justice of that court on November 1, 1999,
after being appointed by Barbara A. Dortch-Okara,
Chief Justice of the state's Trial Court, herself a new appointee
and the first woman to hold the position. Both judges were accountable
to Marshall for their actions as judges.
May 5, 2000, DelVecchio attended a meeting of a political advocacy
group, the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association and invited
them to begin a lawsuit in her court. By
doing so, DelVecchio violated the most basic rules of ethics for
all judges. She urged that homosexuals demand their legal "rights,"
such as Vermont had just achieved.
...She told several hundred lawyers
and judges: "They're all shepherds up there. They quarry some
granite. A stone is what they export. Their product is ice cream
and stone. And Vermont recognizes same-sex couples. And here we
are in Massachusetts. Would you please? It's embarrassing. Could
we get with the program a little bit? The only way gays and lesbians
in this state are going to achieve what has been achieved in Vermont
is to stay who you are [i.e. be proud if your homosexuality], apply
for the [important] jobs and demand to be seated at the table."
Noting that it would be an uphill struggle, DelVecchio said: "Nothing
is easy. Do you think getting my hair this color is easy?"
...She was speaking as Chief Justice
of the court in which the gay marriage lawsuit would be filed the
following year on April 11, 2001.
lesbian lawyer in the gay marriage case, Mary Bonauto, was at that
same dinner. She was applauded
by the several hundred lawyers and judges when she gave an award
to the two Vermont lawyers who had helped her win civil unions in
that state earlier in the year. Bonauto would file her gay marriage
case in DelVecchio's Superior Court a year later.
is the lawyer who went to DelVecchio's court in June 2000 to obtain
the unconstitutional gag order against the whistle-blowing parents
who were revealing what occurred at Fistgate.
Bonauto has received unwavering support from Judge Allen van Gestel
of the Superior Court in that suit, including the gag order which
was so outrageous that the entire country laughed uproariously.
When Fox news sent lawyers to point out the errors of our Massachusetts
court and its obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution, the embarrassed
judge lifted his Order against everyone except the two parents who
were insignificant in the eyes of Suzanne's court. Those two whistleblowers
remain in the clutches of DelVecchio's judge until this day. All
the pieces seem to be fitting together as we see what happens when
this personal friend of the mighty, Mary Bonauto, takes a case to
the Massachusetts courts. It has nothing to do with the law. It
has everything to do with friendship.
the person in charge of the state's judges, Marshall should have
severely reprimanded DelVecchio for
appearing at a political gathering, particularly one which was constantly
appearing in various cases in the trial courts of the state. As
if that were not enough, encouraging them to file lawsuits in her
court was totally beyond the pale.
did not censure DelVecchio inasmuch as she was doing the same thing.
For instance, according to the Mass. Lesbian
and Gay Bar Association, Marshall appeared before them in 1999.
"Then-Associate Justice Marshall described new constitutional
freedoms for homosexuals in South Africa [her native country] and
exhorted those in attendance" to do likewise in this country.
Marshall and DelVecchio were loudly applauding Bonauto at the Women's
Bar Association in 2000 when it honored her at its Annual Gala.
The Women's Bar Association is a highly partisan,
political organization which lobbies extensively in the courts and
the legislature. This was a political event, which is forbidden
to judges. The featured speaker was a political star, Dee Dee Myers,
former press secretary for Bill Clinton. She received a rousing
burst of applause when she predicted that Gore would win by a large
margin. But Myers' loudest applause came when she announced that
Hillary would win New York. She noted that she and Marshall are
both married to the New York Times because they both have husbands
who are employed there. Judges Marshall and DelVecchio should not
have been at this political, partisan event which honored Attorney
Bonauto. It showed very poor judgment. Such a decision by a judge
is often difficult, but this appearance was not a difficult decision
for any judge with ethical standards. Who will be able to believe
that Marshall and DelVecchio were impartial in the gay marriage
...Women lawyers and judges are very
powerful in Massachusetts. They are under the impression that they
represent all the women in the state, although they often complain
that non-lawyer women do not appreciate what they are doing for
them. The truth is that the women lawyers and judges are usually
extreme feminists and represent only that group. Most of the women
lawyers who marry and have children go happily to the task of raising
those children. For those who remain, like Marshall and DelVecchio
and are childless, it is impossible for them to have an understanding
of the feelings of the majority of women who do have children. Many
even believe, like the Boston Globe, that mothers are detrimental
because of their intense love for their own children; and all children
should, therefore, be raised by the state.
...This became poignantly apparent
in Marshall when she stridently revealed at oral argument what her
marriage meant to her, which occurred at age 37, to a man who was
57, twenty-years older than she. She kept saying, over and over,
that the purpose of marriage has always been economic. She denied
that the purpose for which marriage was established thousands of
years ago was to help and protect children. This sad revelation
of Marshall's psyche, as revealed in her courtroom, is told at page
275 of "Libel by New York Times."
is in charge of distributing state and federal money to help "the
poor." When she hands
out our money, Justice Marshall puts her imprimatur on every organization
which receives dollars from her. Every judge and lawyer in the state
is aware of who receives this money. One of those "poor"
organizations is Mary Bonauto's GLAD, which brought the lawsuits
in Vermont and Massachusetts and which sued Brian Camenker and Scott
Whiteman, the parent whistleblowers at Fistgate.
...If you were a citizen juror, would
you believe that Marshall and Sulzberger were the playwrights and
producers of this huge drama in our state courts?
...If you believe they were, don't
keep it quiet, or you will actually be voting to absolve Marshall.
Travaglini will not run for re-election in 2004. He will join Sen.
Tom Birmingham and Shannon O'Brien in the political graveyard.
Robert Travaglini watched in 2002 when his troubled predecessor,
Tom Birmingham, indicated he would probably lose the primary race
for Governor because of his unlawful actions against the Protection
of Marriage Amendment, which was pushed upon him by the Globe. Travaglini
also watched as Shannon O'Brien lost the general election against
Mitt Romney because she also listened to the foolish blandishments
of Pinch's underlings at the Boston Globe and she waffled on gay
... The Globe headline after the election
was: "Party base deserted O'Brien." It continued: "Union
members, many of whom are socially conservative, lunch-bucket Democrats,
may have been put off by O'Brien's stance on gay marriage which
she said she supported late in the campaign
" It reported
that the Director of the UMass poll said, "Union households
have not been voting Democratic on social issues for something like
... Travaglini was one of the 137 who
voted to violate the Constitution on July 17, 2002 and has remained
a part of the Pinch/Marshall team in 2003/2004. He is now trying
to rush civil unions through the Senate this year before the citizens
understand what is happening.
of the 137 legislators who voted to violate the state's Constitution
on July 17, 2002, will choose not to run for reelection or they
will be defeated.
was no organized effort in 2002 to defeat those state Senators and
Representatives who voted against the Constitution on July 17 of
that year, the reality is beginning to be seen now that the actions
of Pinch and Margaret are becoming plainly visible to all. This
will be felt by many incumbent politicians at the polls in 2004.
Senator Cheryl Jacques has already chosen not to run for re-election
in 2004. She has resigned her seat in order to head the homosexual
Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C. We sent a mailing throughout
her entire district in 2002, outlining her part in the July 17,
... Although the politicians will not
admit it, they are very nervous up on Beacon Hill. They know that
60% of the electorate is against gay marriage and civil unions,
but the pols are hoping they can sneak this by before the voters
become aware of what is happening. They don't understand that even
though Tom Birmingham "won," that didn't do him, or the
Democratic Party, any good when he and Shannon O'Brien had to finally
appear before the voters in the fall of 2002.