­Originally Published in 2004
Indisputable, Undeniable Facts Prove that New York Times Interfered in Our Democratic Government
            The New York Times interfered in the democratic process of the state of Massachusetts during the debate in 2001 and 2002 about the Protection of Marriage Amendment which was sponsored by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage. That is an indisputable fact no one can deny.
       Signatures of 20,000 more voters than necessary had already been gathered in 2001, and the opposition had given up all hope of challenging any of the signatures. All that was necessary in 2002 was the approval of 25% of the Legislature. That would have sent the measure for a vote of the citizens in the fall of 2004.  Those facts are not denied by anyone. However, the Times' goal was to destroy the Amendment at all cost since it would have prevented the Supreme Judicial Court from ruling for either gay marriage or civil unions.

NY Times Co. Implied Fraud by Supporters of Amendment
            Near the end of the signature-gathering period in 2001, the New York Times Company (owner of the New York Times newspaper and the Boston Globe) 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 many 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 of the Globe on Nov. 15, 2001. This was followed by a prominent story in the Globe on November 21, 2001 and repeated on January 9, 2002, March 26, 2002 and April 25. The Sunday edition of the Times newspaper published a large story, with banner headline and picture on April 7, 2002, under the headline, “Drive to Ban Gay Marriage Is Accused of Duping Signers.” That was sent by the Times to its 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 previous Globe stories.
            Stories Had Tremendous Effect  Those articles had a tremendous effect upon the citizens, according to stories in the Globe archives. That was their intention. Their March 26 story said a lawsuit would be filed by the horse people that day against the state to force it to put the horse referendum on the ballot even though the necessary signatures had not been obtained. Their rationale for this was the “fraud” by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage during the signature-gathering process. 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, the Globe wrote on April 25, the following about the MCM Amendment.
            "The ballot question has attracted considerable controversy recently, when 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 the Globe reported this as a true fact.] diverted to the marriage question, keeping their own initiative off the ballot."
            The Globe articles had a significant effect upon the members of the legislative committee which was conducting the hearing. At the end of its written decision, the legislative committee said its 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 as the gospel truth by everyone on the Legislative 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.

Legislature Told to Ignore Constitution
            The allegations of fraud disappeared in April 2002 because Atty. Pawlick started to make public complaints that the New York Times Company was committing libel. After MCM sued the Times for libel, those stories were quickly replaced by inaccurate and 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: i. e. the Legislature was required to vote on the Amendment.
            May 2, 2002  For the first time, the Globe said that Birmingham had the power to kill the measure all by himself. This 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 plus any legislator who voted for the Amendment. While it would also be an effective method of “scuttling the measure,” it would also 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 a Constitutional Convention where MCM had 200 spectators in the gallery. They erupted in disbelief when Birmingham adjourned to July 17.     
            July 16  The day before the July 17th Convention, the Globe published in a front-page story that Senate President Birmingham, could “delay a vote indefinitely,” even though it was clear he could not do so unless he violated the law.  
            July 18  After the Convention, the Globe wrote in its lead paragraph on page one that a “procedural maneuver” had defeated the Amendment. But it was not a “procedural maneuver,” it was a violation of the state Constitution, according to the 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. It was impossible for the measure to get approval by 25% of the legislators if the legislators weren’t allowed to vote. You do not need to be a Supreme Court judge to understand that. (Although it is difficult to locate all “Letters to the Editor,” it appears that the Globe published only those opposed to the Amendment, on March 27, 2002, May 4, June 25, July 19, July 20 and July 25.)

SJC Says Constitution Was Violated
           The SJC said on Dec. 20, 2002, that the Legislature had violated the Constitution. But the Boston Globe didn’t report that to its readers. Instead, it put a huge spin on the story. (The ruling by the SJC came in its advisory opinion to Gov. Swift.)
            The Globe didn’t mention the Legislature until the third paragraph of its article 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 actually said to 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 … [that are] required by the Constitution if the amendment is to be ‘referred to the next [legislature].’"
            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 Governor Swift’s duties under the opinion. Her first question had been whether she had the “power and duty” to call the Legislature back for a vote. She obviously did, said the court, because the Legislature had not followed the Constitution.
            The SJC refused to answer the next question from Gov. Swift which was whether she could decide it would be “futile” 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.

      "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 was successful in its efforts to use false stories about “fraud” and about false stories about “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 Taylor family, who had owned the paper since 1873, that they would remain in charge.
            -- July 1999  A Senior Vice President from New York, sent by Pinch Sulzberger (who had been Chairman of The Times Company since 1997), arrived 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 appointed Chief Justice of the SJC.
            People may argue whether the 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 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.