Massachusetts Predictions for 2004
by J. Edward Pawlick
January 5, 2004

Senate 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.

Many 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.

Pinch Sulzberger will be fired as Chairman by the New York Times before May 2004.

Chief 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 country.

                            *         *         *         *        *         *        *     
...Chief 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 very carefully.

...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:

Pinch 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.
Pinch 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.
What was so important that caused Pinch to take complete and total control of the Globe so abruptly? What would happen next?
A 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.
Justice 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.
Cardinal 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."
Margaret 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.
Judge 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.
On 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.
The 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.
Bonauto 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.
As 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.
Marshall 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.
Both 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 lawsuit?
...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."
Marshall 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.

*********************************************************************
...Robert Travaglini will not run for re-election in 2004. He will join Sen. Tom Birmingham and Shannon O'Brien in the political graveyard.
...Senate President 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 marriage.

... 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 20 years."

... 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.

*********************************************************************
...Many 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.
...Although there 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, 2002 vote.

... 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.