TRIAL DATE SET FOR MARCHETTI IN MAY’s LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM, THE CO-OP, and TWO OTHERS
BY DAN VALENTI
PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY
(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE THE WEEKEND EDITION NOV. 14-6, 2025) — Peter Marchetti has a date. No, it won’t be on The Dating Game, and Bob Eubanks won’t be anywhere in sight. Marchetti’s due in court on May 18, 2026. That’s his “dum-de dum-dum” trial by jury.
To be clear, this is Peter Marchetti, civilian, not Mayor Glumpy of the corner office in Bitchfield. The private citizen has to answer the charges of Victoria May, former VP of marketing for Pittsfield Co-Op Bank, who–forgetting the legalese and paraphrasing the vernacular–is calling Marchetti a depraved, disreputable creep.
THE PLANET reports that Judge Mark G. Mastroianni has issued the May date (name of the month, name of the plaintiff) for a jury trial beginning at 9 a.m. May 18 in Hampden County District Court. The judge also ordered the discovery phase of the trial to conclude on Dec. 15, with preliminary motions due Feb. 23, 2026.
———- ooo ———-
May’s lawsuit, filed in October 2023, says during a meeting on Oct. 22, 2022,“Marchetti flew off the handle, irrationally upset that the plaintiff received the role [of E-business manager] over him. He began yelling, red-faced and sweating, pointing in plaintiff’s face, calling her a bitch and other derogatory names, told her to shut up and told her she did not know how to do things.”
“Bitch.” Thus the city of “Bitchfield” was born.
The suit claims Marchetti’s “attack” lasted 30 to 40 minutes, witnessed by Anderson, who “did nothing to intervene except to tell Defendant Marchetti to ‘get hold of yourself.'”
May’s filing also mentions being subject to Marchetti’s general demeaning of her and his “constant barrage of abuse” … “constant roadblocks” … and “harassing behavior.”
Hmmmm … Yelling. Red-faced. Sweating. Face pointing. Obscenities. Could this also be the behavior of a corrupt and/or incompetent mayor in so far over his head that his noggin needs an oxygen mask? We wonder, not that THE PLANET would never say that described our Right Honorable Good Friend the mayor.
At the time of the suit’s filing, Marchetti told NewChannel 13 in an email that he had “no comment except to say that I dispute most of the charges.”
“Most,” he said.
THE PLANET suspects that word will be underlined, asterisked, and highlighted in neon during the trial. We would also guess that when his team of Perry Masons saw that word, they upchucked. The legal term would be pro vomitus se puketorium.
———- ooo ———–
In addition to targeting Marchetti, May’s complaint includes the Co-op itself plus two other top bank executives, Harry “Chip” Moore and Jay Anderson. The suit cites a toxic, “sexually inappropriate” workplace hostile to women. For instance, May alleges that Moore “regularly watched pornography in his office with the door closed on a work computer. Once an employee walked in on him and saw this.” It also says that Marchetti called another woman “bitch.”
Would you do your banking with these guys? From left, Jay Anderson, Peter Marchetti, and Chris Moore.
May states that “Marchetti was allowed to denigrate, harass, and demean” her and tried to get her fired, even though he wasn’t her supervisor. All of this she will have to prove in court.
The lawsuit specifies in detail other allegations as well, which we won’t bother with here. THE PLANET for now simply wonders about the wonderful publicity the trial will bring to the city and the corner office. How will it affect the mayor’s behavior and his ability to govern? Or maybe Marchetti sacrifices mucho deniro with an out-of-court settlement so that the matter never gets inside the courtroom.
Suffice it to say that between now and May 18 of next year, if anyone observes Marchetti “yelling, red-faced, sweating, face pointing, and swearing,” they can either assume he’s having a religious experience or a flashback.
In any case, do not bother with Narcan. Rather, take a deep breath and tell the shrieking fellow, “Get hold of yourself.”
Have a great weekend, everybody.
———————————————————————-
“Jury by peers? I’d rather have a jury by pears. You see, I like fruit” — Sir Donald Turpentine, Knight of the Bath.
“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”
LOVE TO ALL.
Copyright (c) 2025 By Dan Valenti, PLANET VALENTI and EUROPOLIS MANAGEMENT. All rights reserved. The views and opinions expressed in the comment section or in the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not necessarily endorsed by the operators of this website. PLANET VALENTI assumes no responsibility for such views and opinions, and it reserves the right to remove or edit any comment, including but not limited to those that violate the website’s Rules of Conduct and its editorial policies. Those who leave comments own all the responsibilities that are or can be attached to those comments, be they rhetorical, semantic, or legal. Such commentators remain solely responsible for what they post and shall be and remain solely accountable for their words. PLANET VALENTI shall not be held responsible for the consequences that may result from any posted comment or outside opinion or commentary as provided in, but not limited to, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and this website’s terms of service. We serve as a marketplace of ideas, without prejudice and available to all. All users of this site — including readers, commentators, contributors, or anyone else — hereby agree to these conditions by virtue of this notice and their use of/participation in this site. When PLANET VALENTI ends with the words “The Usual Disclaimer,” that phrase shall be understood to refer to the full text of this disclaimer.
May I ask why you keep referring to her as Teresa and not Victoria?
Go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May
Thank you, Jon!
You can call her May, or you can call her Theresa, but yuh doesn’t have to call her Victoria.Pittsfield Bitchfield Wahconah field. It’s only a name.
Shall we call you Drunk?
Nice.
Hit.
I have no doubt Victoria will be victorious — her attorney has been carving up banker boy types for years, and she’s about to serve them on a silver platter at their own banquet.
And speaking of legal feasts… Dan, have you checked in on the Munns lately? They’re gearing up for their lawsuit, and from what I’m hearing, it’s shaping up to be a case that even judges gossip about.
And can we please talk about the Epstein emails?
I want every single person tangled up in that mess dragged into the light and investigated — thoroughly, publicly, and without exception. I don’t care what party they swear allegiance to, what office they held, or what legacy they think they’re entitled to. Clinton, Biden, Obama, Trump, Bush, Kennedy — I don’t care WHO…. line them all up.
If their fingerprints are on anything connected to that operation, they deserve the same accountability, the same scrutiny, and the same justice. No sacred cows. No political “passes.”
Let the chips — and the indictments — fall where they may.
VALE
The Munns’ case should be interesting, to say the least. To dump an IT guy who. appears to have been eminently capable, and to do it under questionable circumstances? And I agree on the Epstein case: not exceptions to exposure.
Do you support the recently released edited and out of context emails, the Democrats doctored up, with the sole goal to smear POTUS Trump? Yes or no?
Even USAtoday called the Leftists out on yet more recent BS “news”. And this is before they wiped the manure off their barn boots from last weeks leaks/smears.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/13/jeffrey-epstein-emails-trump-thanksgiving/87251228007/
One Democrat Senator from AZ, went as far to claim Epstein had Thanksgiving dinner 2017 at Mar Lago. POTUS Trump had banned Epstein from setting foot there many years before, when he learned of the nefarious ways and perversions of that abuser.
The Democratic hits just keep on coming. No one being punished for the fake Russian Dossier, J-6 and of course Epstein Island propaganda. Someone needs to grow some Balls and go after these slanderous Moonbats. People should be accountable for lying to the public, it has a ill effect on Jonny Mele and TSC and many more unstable individuals.
Russian hoax, J6 Kangaroos?
Treason is a Capitol offense, with no statue of limitations.
Skip the hearings, go right to the military tribunals.
Oh please. I was painfully clear: I don’t give a single enchanted acorn who is guilty — if they’re predators, haul them out in a neat little chain gang and let justice do the rest.
You, however, only seem to develop “moral outrage” if the accused comes in a political flavor you don’t dislike. Ew.
Honestly, I think you’re just sulking because your man Trump turned out to be the first LGBTQ+ President — blowing Clinton’s saxophone like it was a bipartisan unity ceremony. Suddenly his strange fixation on the size of Arnold Palmer’s manhood makes so much more sense.
You know Trump blew Clnton
Some more on Democrat fairy tales designed to smear Trump concerning Epstein.
https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/11/14/democrats-start-deleting-epstein-posts-thanksgiving-n2421680
How about they stand for the crimes we have evidence that they committed on their own? Clinton raped several women. Biden sexually violated and then verbally humiliated an intern. Along with he stole the affection of a neighbor’s wife and used his political power to coerce the victim to yield his estate to him and Jill.
Then we can move on to the other democrats and their Epstein enabled crimes.
On October 7, 2016, one month before the United States presidential election that year, The Washington Post published a video and article about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and television host Billy Bush having a lewd conversation about women in September 2005. Trump and Bush were on a bus on their way to film an episode of Access Hollywood, a show owned by NBCUniversal. In the video, Trump described his attempt to seduce a married woman and indicated he might start kissing a woman that he and Bush were about to meet. He added, “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”[1] Many commentators and lawyers described such an action as sexual assault.[2] Others argued that the remarks were an assertion that sexual consent is easier to obtain for the famous and wealthy
Not a crime to utter vulgarity in a vulgar context.
No. Just an insight into one’s character.
You can measure a man’s character? That’s the last thing that I would be willing to bet on
It is a crime to just grab someone by the genitals. Full stop.
And if Biden had said it, you’d still be clutching your chest and dialing 911.
Just admit it: no matter what your precious Trump says or does, you’ll defend it, applaud it, and spin it into scripture rather than choke down a single bite of crow.
What’s next — are you auditioning to be a pedophile apologist now?
Is your new theory that Clinton raped Trump?
It must be exhausting discovering that your idol’s favorite pastime is cosplaying as Donica Lewinsky.
Trump didn’t grab anyone by the genitals who didn’t want their genitals manhandled. Rich men and women play hard together, that’s well documented in the news. Poor folk like you and me can’t afford those romps. Maybe we’re just jealous? Thinking how little I want a huge yacht and it’s attendant responsibilities, forget about affairs, maybe it’s you alone.
But, also documented and ignored by 50% of the voting public is that Biden did grab and violate his aide, Tara Reade, in a parking lot. She filed charges and was ousted from public view. And, by your response, clearly her exile is still enforced.
Clinton said a lot of outrageous things. Don’t care. But he did use his protective detail to get women to sleep with him.
Not Lewinsky. Flowers. Who’se caling whom an apologist?
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-sexual-assault-allegations-against-bill-clinton-2017-11?op=1#kathleen-willey-2
Correction: Flowers was a different Democrats’ problem.
Oh, sweetheart.
If selective memory were a sport, you’d have medals in every weight class.
Let’s start with your “nobody was grabbed who didn’t want to be grabbed” theory.
That’s not a legal argument — that’s a defense you’d hear outside a dive bar at 1 a.m. right before the cuffs come out. Consent isn’t retroactive, it’s not implied, and it’s definitely not granted just because someone has a yacht. “Rich people romp differently” is not a subsection of federal statute. I checked.
And invoking jealousy as your rationale? Please. The only thing I’m jealous of is how confidently you stroll into a debate armed with nothing but vibes and Fox Nation talking points.
Now, Tara Reade — you mention her like you discovered a secret file. Her accusations were widely reported, investigated, scrutinized, and litigated in the public sphere for months. Pretending she was “ousted from public view” is adorable, but no — the public just eventually realized she kept changing countries, timelines, and claims faster than a burner phone can be replaced.
Clinton? Sure. Deeply flawed. Historically documented. Literally impeached. Congratulations — you’ve identified the low bar of the 1990s.
But here’s the kicker: calling out one man’s misconduct doesn’t magically sterilize another’s.
This is not moral math. You don’t get to cancel out a sexual assault allegation with another sexual assault allegation like you’re balancing a checkbook.
And before you accuse anyone of being an “apologist,” maybe take a breath and consider that holding all powerful men accountable — regardless of yacht size, bank balance, or political jersey — is the opposite of apologism. It’s consistency. Something your comment currently lacks in every measurable metric.
But do go on. I haven’t had entertainment this delusional since the last City Council meeting.
No sense in that one. Too emotional.
Awww. So cute! This is exactly what men say when they realize they can’t win a battle of wits with a woman—and the panic starts to show.
You bow out and label us “too emotional” only because you don’t have the cognitive bandwidth to read, process, or respond to my argument. Never mind trying to match it.
Excellent VV. I like your style. You have a way of immediately putting Groucho types on their heels, back peddling and confused by the clarity they are not used to getting on the Fox media outlet.
Duh Whatttt????
Back to first post beginning, “it is a crime …. FULL STOP”
Why didn’t you stop?
Oh, I’m well aware of how paragraphs work.
I’m just not obligated to pretend yours were coherent.
If you’re struggling to read, process, and comprehend a response, do feel free to step aside and let the adults handle the discussion. Watching someone combine absolute confidence with absolute confusion is… honestly adorable.
But from the outside?
You look either drunk, misinformed, or wildly over your head.
And so, why didn’t you stop?
Is English your second language? If so, I’m happy to extend some grace. I’d hate to assume you’re just another local hillbilly with seven teeth worshipping men who own seven yachts.
But please—do enlighten us. Tell us you can’t comprehend basic grammar without actually saying it.
Once again, you’re defending your party instead of the people. Am I seriously the only one here who thinks crimes are crimes regardless of who commits them?
I say round up all the sexual predators and make them pay. I don’t give a flying legal brief what political tribe they claim.
But here you are, fixated on Democrats only. Why is that?
Why not all of them?
Why the selective outrage?
Are you a predator sympathizer, or is this just your partisan blind spot showing again? You should be ashamed.
Democrats/Leftists = Americans/America LAST.
They want free free free for CRIMINAL ALIENS. That is the only reason for their hissy fit shutting off benefits to Citizens. They envision >20+ Million new Left Winged Voters they illegally imported the last 4 years
Some poor Americans won’t have heat until January because of these “inclusive” Liberals.
Lots of cold and hungry Americans are feeling that “inclusiveness” now.
You are so entertaining. Bless your heart — you took my question about sexual predators and sprinted straight into an immigration fever dream. Stunning pivot. Truly Olympic-level deflection.
But let’s bring you back to the topic you abandoned:
Are you outraged at all sexual predators, or only the ones your party doesn’t like?
It’s a yes-or-no question.
Your rant about “criminal aliens” and imaginary voter-importation rings tells me the answer is “no,” but you didn’t want to say it out loud.
Now, since you dragged out the conspiracy chalkboard, let’s tidy up:
Americans/America LAST
Cute slogan. Zero substance. Very chant-y. No relevance to the question.
20+ million “illegally imported voters”
Not how immigration works, not how voting works, not how numbers work.
But go off.
“Liberals are making people freeze to death”
Fascinating claim. Zero evidence, but plenty of dramatic flair.
Sounds like you stitched together a Facebook meme with a Fox chyron.
Here’s the problem:
You can’t answer a direct moral question about predators, so you’re trying to hide behind a pile of unrelated talking points like a raccoon behind a trash can.
Val’s advice?
If you don’t want to admit you only care when their predator is accused and not when yours is accused, just say so. It’s less embarrassing than this stream-of-consciousness panic typing.
But since you brought it up:
Maybe once you’ve calmed down, stepped out of the political fanfiction, and rejoined reality, you’ll realize that outrage shouldn’t depend on party affiliation.
Until then, please — keep the conspiracy theories in one tab and the adult conversation in another.
Sure. Let’s start by going after those victims that were shut down and destroyed . Their accusations have been buried. Some of them are even still alive.
Excellent — we agree on something:
Victims who were silenced, buried, or destroyed deserve justice.
Wonderful. Now let’s apply that standard consistently, not selectively.
Because when you say “Let’s start with the victims who were shut down,” what you really mean is only the victims whose accusations target people you already dislike.
That’s not justice — that’s political cosplay.
If you truly care about those silenced survivors, then you should have zero hesitation holding every predator accountable:
The ones with a D after their name
The ones with an R after their name
The ones with a Super PAC
The ones with a megachurch
The ones with a private jet
The ones with a “family values” bumper sticker
Even the ones you’ve been defending for several comments now
But here’s the part you keep dancing around:
You only bring up victims when you think they’ll score political points for your side.
And that is exactly how victims get erased in the first place — weaponized when convenient, discarded when not.
So yes, Val is absolutely on board with digging into cases where victims were suppressed, intimidated, or pushed out of public view.
Just understand:
If we open that door, it swings both ways. And some of the people you idolize are standing directly behind it.
Still want to proceed?
Did I imply i didn’t? I said let’s start.
Yes, you absolutely implied that you didn’t. Anyone reading this thread can see it. You don’t argue with people you agree with, and you certainly don’t try to belittle them.
Nice attempt at saving face, though.
Do yourself a favor and take a seat — you’re embarrassing yourself.
And then the special interests deemed him best fit to be mayor of Pittsfield. In many places this might have been a dis qualifier. Other dubious qualifications seemed to have been overlooked for school personnel. And these are out in the open only because of the trouble they caused. Who knows how many other star citizens are employed by the city due to nepotism and low-bar syndrome?
The point is to keep all the admins on deck. The embezzlers can’t afford to take a holiday ir sick day.
Pittsfield has mastered the fine art of mistaking special-interest approval for actual qualifications. In any city with even a faint ethical pulse, half of these “leaders” would’ve been disqualified before they located the signature page on their nomination forms.
But in Pittsfield? All you need is a pulse, a patron, and a cousin on payroll.
And you’re exactly right — the only reason we even know about the “dubious qualifications” in the schools is because their incompetence eventually blew up in public. That’s not transparency; that’s exposure by disaster.
And if we’re cataloging Pittsfield’s Nepotism Hall of Fame, let’s begin with the Mayor’s premier boot-licker and recruitment concierge, Van Bramer, whose friends, relatives, neighbors, and loose acquaintances magically drift into city jobs with the consistency of sunrise.
If I were a betting man, I would lay a wager down that this case never sees the light of a courtroom.
It will be settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and a nice cash settlement behind it.
The Pittsfield Co-Op and the Bitchfield GOBSIG’s don’t want their bank and/or Mayor Lumpy being a newsworthy story that media outlets outside of the Eagle, will cover in great detail. It’s scandalous; therefore, it fits the “if it bleeds, it leads,” type of news story covered:
*An “openly gay” mayor, who obviously hates women.
*The openly gay mayor repeatedly refers to women as a “bitch.”
*Another bank executive who can’t work a bank shift without his pants around his ankles, viewing porn on the company’s dime.
It almost sounds like a Lifetime for Women type of movie.
Butter up that popcorn, just make sure that Pittsfield Co-Op Bank Manager Chris Moore isn’t the person who “handled” your popcorn first……
Except VM stated she wants jury trial. YES, that is be a strategy to force a settlement to avoid embarrassing PR. Also to cut out stupid pretrial negotiations.
Just got water bill. No popcorn grease. But looks like I got greased.
That’s exactly what those banker boys are banking on. They’re counting on her taking the quick settlement so the truth never sees daylight.
What matters now is what Victoria values more — the payout or the reckoning.
And if she holds firm and pushes this to a jury, she’s got a real shot at both.
I agree with you VV. The fact that a federal judge didn’t toss this case in the preliminary stages, says a lot about the merits of her case.
I’m wishing Victoria the best and hopes she stays strong.
Hasn’t the Truth now been fully told and published in a very long and clear affidavit?
It’s a choice between settlement or what? Is this a tort or the States cas
No — the affidavit isn’t the only evidence. It’s just the sworn outline of what happened. Behind it are documents, emails, messages, witnesses, records, and everything that comes out in discovery.
Think of the affidavit as the table of contents.
The actual evidence?
That’s the whole book — and it’s a lot thicker.
A most informative point. I like the analogy of the filing as a TOC. I have used “index” in that regard, of the type at the end of books. In the original filing with the court, the purpose is to establish the charges. The judge in this case extended the discovery phase at the plaintiff’s request, to the December date listed in my column. As you say, that is when the hard evidence to back up the allegations is gathered. This is the material that will be introduced during the trial–what will be presented to the jury for adjudication.
November 14, 2025
Hello blogger Dan Valenti,
Peter Marchetti is a controversial man and politician alike. Pittsfield politics has a long list of controversial people and politicians.
There are the late BOYS Club Camp Counselor Carmen C. Massimiano Jr., the “Stay away from Maine” Angelo Stracuzzi, and others.
You, Dan Valenti, wrote to me that you know that I was hurt by Pittsfield politics. I have explained for many years now what happened to me, as well as my dad, Bob, who was a Berkshire County Commissioner from 1997 – mid-2000. You allowed me to post some of my story on your awesome blog: Planet Valenti, which I am thankful.
I agree with you about Mayor Peter Marchetti being abusive, controversial, and allegedly wrong in Victoria May’s federal civil lawsuit, and beyond that, too. He will most likely have to resign his elected office in 2026. We all should tell Victoria May that we are all sorry for her loss.
Best wishes,
Jon Melle
JON
Thanks for the message. One comment: It’s not THE PLANET that made these accusations about Marchetti. We merely reported what the lawsuit says. We make no judgment until the matter is adjudicated. Remember, Innocent until proven guilty.
Actually, I disagree. Guilty only when evidence is proven and the complaint follows logic and high probability.
Lots of innocent men have been wrecked by malevolent guilty pleas and verdicts. There are no princes and kings on the jury box and ruling their courtrooms. Just people.
GROUCHO
“Guilt” and “innocence’ as far as the courtroom is concerned often has little to to do with the moral understanding of those two words. Those two words are legal concepts.
Applauding you, Dan! That was beautifully stated! They’re not reflections of virtue or character — they’re legal constructs, nothing more
Which is exactly consistent with my argument. We call it a corollary.
Really, you’re better than this. I fear Ricardos leaf blowers damaged more than just your hearing.
Counselor’s note: before you respond next time, please put down your beer.
For clarity, my prior comment was directed to Dan, as is explicitly indicated in the thread. Your inability to follow a linear conversation is not evidence of my tone—it’s evidence of your comprehension lapse.
Given that, I’ll ask you to refrain from attempting to belittle me while you are demonstrably struggling with basic prerequisites of discourse: identifying the intended recipient, adhering to English syntax, and maintaining even minimal grammatical structure.
And as for this sudden attempt to engage in an intelligence contest—
Darling, you’re attempting litigation without discovery, precedent, or even the proper filings.
You simply do not possess the requisite materials to play this game.
ME: “When we turn to EtOH for rhetoric – we lose the day, my good friend. (Ask MadT for the chemistry)”
I like this one. Instead of talking face to face and pretending to be respectful, us wearing silly disguises allows you to speak honestly with me. A window into your thoughts unfiltered, as it were, and not much different than those arrogant muffs who would shriek at me for three minutes while I waited for the EHS Gashlycrumb Tinies’ slot.
I think you missed a hit, though. A good rejoinder would have been, ‘presumption of innocence outside the 5th Amendment requires you to consider both the complaint and the defense.’
Your approach lack persuasion. Isn’t persuasion the objective in arguments?
Ah, I see—we’re dressing up a very simple sentiment in Victorian prose to make it feel more profound. Cute.
Let me translate your own message for you:
“You didn’t persuade me, and I prefer arguments that follow a structure I already agree with.”
That’s fine. Truly. But let’s not pretend you’ve uncovered some philosophical failure on my part. Persuasion requires two components: a coherent argument and a listener willing to engage in good faith. You’ve offered me neither.
As for your suggested “better rejoinder,” thank you, but I don’t need remedial notes on the presumption of innocence. I teach that principle to people who don’t conceal their discomfort behind metaphor and alcohol metaphors.
If you want a more persuasive argument from me, you need to show up as someone capable of being persuaded.
Otherwise, you’re not asking for logic.
You’re asking for validation. And that’s not my profession. Now take your ball and go home.
In a civil trial, the legal standard is preponderance of evidence, which is pretty much 51 percent or higher, whereas in a criminal trial, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is like in the 90 some percentile. Additionally, in a criminal trial all jurors have to agree to find you guilty, whereas it’s only 2/3 rds in a civil trial.
Good info … thanks, JOE.
Great point, Joe! This being a federal case.
Correct — federal civil cases can proceed with a non-unanimous verdict, typically a 2/3 or 3/4 supermajority, depending on the jurisdiction and the parties’ stipulations. That flexibility exists at the federal level.
However, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, civil procedure is far less forgiving.
Here, a civil verdict must be unanimous unless both parties explicitly agree in writing to accept a non-unanimous decision. Which is why so often settlements are made prior to trial.
So yes — federal = supermajority permitted.
Massachusetts civil = full unanimity required.
Two systems, two standards, one more reason to know which courtroom you’re actually standing in. Mass can never do things like everyone else.
Not exactly. 5/6 this must agree.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleII/Chapter234A/Section68B
Giggle.
Let me cut through the confusion.
You used Google.
I used 40 years of legal practice in the Commonwealth — and a few judges who still owe me favors.
In Massachusetts civil litigation, the rule is stunningly simple for anyone who’s actually stepped foot in a courtroom:
A civil jury verdict must be unanimous — unless both parties agree ahead of time to accept something less than unanimity.
That’s it. No smoke, no mirrors, no dramatic legal alchemy.
Yes, Massachusetts permits what’s called a stipulated majority verdict — typically five-sixths of the jury.
But here’s the part Google scholars never notice:
This option exists only if both sides expressly agree to it before deliberations begin.
If the parties don’t agree?
The rule becomes granite:
All jurors must concur, or the verdict collapses.
This is precisely why civil cases tend to settle just before trial — because a single obstinate juror can turn two years of litigation into a mistrial before lunch.
So let me put it in terms even your search history can digest:
That’s the law — without the hand-waving, footnotes, or panicked Googling.
Thanks J. Doesn’t conflict with my argument, probably affirms it
Guilt or innocence in legal terms is dependent on good judgements, and a good measure of luck.
One thing that is not in doubt: Pittsfield politics decided the average residential home increased in value by over $20,000 in one year, resulting in a 4.1 percent increase in property taxes in fiscal year 2026.
Darn, I thought the case was gonna be heard in December 2025. ☹️
I was thinking what a great Christmas present for the Mayor of Pittsfield.
December is when the discovery phase will end. I think it was May’s attorney who asked for an extension while they prepare the case.
Dan.Will you be in court?
It should have been settled the old fashioned way. Wife comes home upset. Tells her husband what happened, husband goes and confronts offenders. He proceeds to punch them in the nose, telling them to apologize. Case solved!!
That wouldn’t have saved her career or fixed the pay disparities. It is a complaint of serial abuse either. Harassment and discrimination.
*not a complaint about sexual assault.
Harassment in general, sexual harassment against the president’s. And discrimination.
Or you can just sue what seems to be an guilty accusation then get sue yourself.
My taxes went up already. Cant be more next year?
Only if the Town leaders and the interests agree to put a cap on embezzlement and graft.
Bubbakuff
Gimpey Gimme
Bozo Ricardough
Cadillacono
Bitchfield
Puff Daddy
Slurpy
Amused-So
Sleepy Con
Cost YU Plenty
Trump – Clinton from the same cloth. Wait for it.
Whitewater too? Where are the missing/disappeared people. Can’t compare anyone from anywhere with some from Arkansas. Different cloth.
“The Twilight Zone: Pittsfield politics on so-called Economic Development”
By Jon Melle, November 15, 2025
This past week, Pittsfield politics decided that the average residential home increased in value by over $20,000 in one year, resulting in a 4.1 percent increase in property taxes.
In ten days, on Tuesday night, November 25th, 2025, the lame duck City Council will vote to spend $1 million from the GE Fund for BIC, Myrias.
What is wrong with this picture?
Fixed-income Senior Citizens and other low-to-moderate-income homeowners in Pittsfield are being told that their homes are worth thousands of dollars more per month over the past year, which increases their property tax liabilities by 4.1 percent, which is above the rate of inflation, while City Hall is going to give away $1 million later in the same month.
What is the most valuable asset in a city?
Answer: The People who live, work, pay taxes, shop at local businesses, eat at local restaurants, retire, volunteer, vote, etc.
In 2025, Mayor Peter Marchetti proposed punitive laws that were always voted down against the underclass residents of Pittsfield, such as panhandlers and homeless residents. The controversial encampment ban will be voted on in February 2026, barring more delays.
In 2025, the mayor increased city spending by the always predictable 5 percent per fiscal year for a close to $230 million municipal operating budget, which is over $62 million more than Westfield, which is a similarly sized small city in Western Massachusetts.
Blogger Dan Valenti and others who write and speak out on Pittsfield politics say that Pittsfield has the highest local taxes and fees in Massachusetts when adjusted for local residents’ constrained incomes.
The local people are being used as the Mayor’s ATM instead of being treated as valuable assets in Pittsfield. The mayor is spending a record amount of taxpayer dollars in Pittsfield that is NOT favorable to the interests of the common people.
Gave a panhandler a handout at a mart this morning. He was carrying a chain saw.
Yes. And the city clowncilors will tell you it has increased for them also. And that is the problem. Do something about it. Dumas
John Krol , is in some dark corner licking his wounds planning his revenge. Either that or trying to balance his finances . Anybody heard from that possum?