Editorials

Editorials

Stealing from Clients Epitomizes Immorality in our Courts

The money that the Supreme Judicial Court is stealing from the clients of lawyers in Massachusetts epitomizes the lack of morality of our highest court.

It was two years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that this flawed program, known as IOLTA, violates the basic tenets of our “common law” dating back over a thousand years. But this didn’t have any effect upon the SJC at all. Now, the most liberal U.S. Court of Appeals in the country, the Ninth Circuit in California, has laid to rest the spin that the SJC put on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

But the SJC is very pragmatic. It figures that if it can get even three or four more years at $7 million per year, that is a lot of money – and power – they don’t want to lose.

It’s very important to the judges because they can use this stolen money to fund those lawyers whom they like, who will, in turn, use the money for radical, political purposes that the judges hold dear. They will accomplish this by:

• Selecting only a few of the poor persons who come to them for help.

• Representing those few poor people, not as individuals. They attempt to make social change by suing anyone or any business they do not like with baseless class-action lawsuits that list hundreds or thousands of persons as plaintiffs in a lawsuit even though no client complained to them. The lawyers search to find plaintiffs for their favorite causes.

• Lobbying the legislature and governor for any cause that the SJC holds to be important, even though the court itself is forbidden from doing so.

Not Wrong Unless You Are Caught
The mindset of these judges illustrates the new worldview, “It’s not wrong unless you get caught.”

The first thing that used to be taught to every student in every law school was that a society which only follows its laws is a society which has failed. Every successful society, including our own, has always lived by much higher, unwritten rules. The laws are only a very low standard which is at the lowest level of morality. The reason that we give our seats to the elderly on a bus is not because of any law. We do not help those in crisis because of a law. It is a much higher ethical standard that requires us to do those things.

We’ve seen our President of the past eight years defending his moral lapses by saying, “I didn’t break any law.” But this has never been the moral standard we have required for our leaders, much less for our President.

The judges on our highest court have obviously caught this virulent Presidential virus. Even if they hire the best lawyers in the country who are able to obfuscate and nit-pick this matter as lawyers are able to do, everyone will know that it is not right or just.

Judges are forbidden from giving even the appearance of impropriety, and no one could deny that they give that appearance every day that they continue this flawed system.

The judges will undoubtedly use another new virus of the past eight years, “Everyone does it.” But as most of us learned before we could walk, that excuse should not defend against any wrongdoing.

Is there not one of those seven judges who sees the terrible flaw in this failed program?

Secular Humanism Is Not the Problem

Many people are disturbed that “secular” humanism is the worldview for much of our Commonwealth today. But they’re wrong.

It’s not secular humanism that has become the official religion of Massachusetts (and much of the country). It is religious humanism that dominates the official ideology of most of our elected officials and school administrators. The humanists do not deny that they are a religion. They have had endless debate within their organization as to whether they are a religion and they now have two organizations as a result. You can visit their website at www.1humanist.net

It may be difficult to comprehend how a group which says there is no god can be a religion, but the Unitarian Church which is headquartered in our state is the strongest example of this belief.

In addition, many people who believe they are Christians have also accepted the beliefs of religious humanism. We have explained this before (see our Archives on the website).

Just one example is the big brick Congregational Church on the square in Wellesley, where the minister denied in 1999 that an original opera that was to be presented in his church would attempt to “change” the Bible. When the opera was presented, the libretto said, “The story [of creation] is changed...” God had been reduced to the humanist concept of a “partner” with humans. It would appear as though the minister realized he was leading his congregation into humanism or else he would not have issued the falsehood about the opera.

Many people who are taking their children to Christian churches today do not realize that they are being taught religious humanism.

Another example was the recent event held in Lexington by and in the Unitarian Church which sought to normalize the practice of homosexuality. The town school system became an official sponsor of the religious event, enthusiastically joined in the affair, discussed it in classes and recommended it to the children of the town. According to liberal scholars, this would be an obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution if done by any other church.

When the town was sued by four residents, it obviously didn’t want to argue the merits of the case. It replied that the matter was moot because the event was over. They asked for it to be thrown out on a technicality.

Who do you believe the judge was? There are 18 judges on the federal court in Boston that are supposed to be picked by random. One of the most liberal is the feminist Nancy Gertner and it seems as though every case that involves a conservative issue is assigned to her.

• Gertner is married to the lead counsel for the ACLU in Massachusetts.

• She said she was “heartsick” at having to approve the seizure by the U.S. Customs Service of pedophilia books. She told the Boston Globe on May 3, 1999 that she looked at one of the pornographic books and “didn’t think it was obscene” even though it portrayed boys with erect penises. She told the Globe, “It was pictures of children, art photos. But when I looked at the statute [that Congress had passed], it said that pictures of children with erect penises are obscene. I was heartsick, but the statute was clear. So I signed the papers and the books were seized….Seizing books! Oy!”

• The Globe reported that during Gertner’s 25 years as a lawyer, she was “known for her radical causes, red clothing and loudly voiced opinions, in the media and the courtroom.” But it said that she has been subdued during her five years on the bench. “But,” the paper warned, “recent cases indicate that reports of Gertner’s transformation may be greatly exaggerated.” We agree with the Globe that she has not been transformed and she is seeking cases in which conservative issues are to be judged.

• Gertner is also deciding whether or not the town of Lexington can ban the crèche on the Battlefield Green during Christmas.

Do we need to tell you what this judge decided? Can you guess? Gertner agreed that the case is moot because the event is over. She did not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to show that the schools are constantly working with the Unitarian Church to promote this and other of their agendas.

Whether or not we know it, the religions of Christianity and Judaism have been replaced in Massachusetts. We’re all religious humanists now.

Marriage Is Not for Adults; It’s for Children

Many people have the idea today that marriage was created for adults who want to have a “partner.”

That, of course, was not why the institution was created thousands of years ago. We have marriage so that the fathers will share the responsibilities of caring for their children.

If we continue to move toward the socialist systems of Sweden and Cuba, with the state taking care of children, then we should eliminate marriage entirely. But until then, we must realize that that institution is here to protect the children.

It was not created so that we can all have a lifetime partner If we continue to think in those terms, we will create serious damage to that venerable institution – and to the children who depend upon it.

‘Human Rights’ Are Magic Words in Newton

Whenever a favorite cause comes under criticism in Newton – no matter how rational or intelligent the criticism may be – the mayor, David Cohen, screams “human rights!”

Anyone who dares to dissent will be crushed “until their voices are heard no more,” says the Mayor.

But not to worry. It’s all for a good cause – advancing “human rights.” Who can argue with that?

The rest of us, who aren’t part of the clique in Newton, must also learn to use those magic words because once “human rights” are uttered over any topic, that issue becomes magic in the minds of the “tolerants.” Any topic that has been so blessed by Cohen is removed from all discussion.

These magic words give the “tolerants” who believe so strongly in “diversity” the right to crush anyone who does not agree with their “tolerance” and “diversity.”

We must begin to use those words against the many injustices that are being perpetrated by Cohen and his crazy friends. Maybe we could even start our own “Human Rights Commission” for the real violations of human rights that we see every day in Newton and the rest of Massachusetts.