Page 26 THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, ApRil 18, 2025 BEACON | FROM PAGE 25 the ban itself because Rep. Ken Gordon (D-Bedford) offered a further amendment that would delay the ban from taking place until the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education studies the transgender students in school sports issue. The House approved the delay and essentially killed Gaskey’s bill. The vote was conducted on a voice vote without a roll call. Rep. Gordon said that the issue is not a simple one but rather a complex one, involving issues of federal and state law, and also is the subject of multiple bills that are being considered by the Committee on Education, including one proposed by Gaskey himself. He argued that the study and a public hearing on the ban should be complete before the House votes on it. In his first speech on the floor of the House, Gaskey called Gordon’s maneuver “a way to bury this and make sure that nobody ever gets this on the record.” “We don’t need a study on how this is going to affect people,” he said. “We already know this is going to affect people. We already know how many students are going to be affected — every student is going to be affected. Every student athlete will play on the team they were born to play on. That’s what this bill is.” He said his proposed ban would bring Massachusetts in line with the federal government because President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February prohibiting transgender women and girls from competing in female sports. CONTRIBUTE VIA A MASSACHUSETTS TAX RETURN TO COUNTRIES COPING WITH GLOBAL WARMING (S 1922) – The Revenue Committee held a hearing on a measure that would give Massachusetts residents the option, on their Massachusetts in~ LEGAL NOTICE ~ THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPERIOR COURT Hillsborough Superior Court Northern District 300 Chestnut Street Manchester NH 03101 CITATION FOR PUBLICATION Superior Court Rule 4(d) Case Name: Optiline Enterprises LLC v Interiano Drywall Corporation Case Number: 216-2024-CV-00945 The above entitled action is now pending in this Court. The original pleading is on file and may be examined by interested parties. The Court has issued an Order for Service by Publication on defendant(s) Interiano Drywall Corporation. The Court ORDERS: Optiline Enterprises LLC shall give notice to Interiano Drywall Corporation of this action by publishing a verified copy of this Citation for Publication once a week for three successive weeks in the The Advocate Newspapers, a newspaper of general circulation. The last publication shall be on or before May 24, 2025 Also, ON OR BEFORE 30 days after the last publication June 14, 2025 Interiano Drywall Corporation shall electronically file an Appearance and Answer or other responsive pleading with this Court. A copy of the Appearance and Answer or other responsive pleading must be sent electronically to the party/parties listed below. Optiline Enterprises LLC shall electronically file the Return of Publication this Court. Failure to do so may result in this action being dismissed without further notice. If you do not comply with these requirements, you will be considered in default and the Court may issue orders that affect you without your input. Send copies to: Suzanne Amy Spencer, ESQ Allison Kathleen Regan, ESQ Interiano Drywall Corporation Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm St Ste 1400 Manchester NH 03101-2031 Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm St Ste 1400 Manchester NH 03101-2031 55 Glendale Street Everett MA 02149 BY ORDER OF THE COURT W. Michael Scanlon Clerk of Court April 09, 2025 (126954) April 18, 25, May 02, 2025 Telephone: 1-855-212-1234 TTY/TDD Relay: (800) 735-2964 http://www.courts.state.nh.us come tax form, to contribute to a special United Nations Fund -- the Least Developed Countries Fund -- to help developing countries cope with the effects of global warming. Supporters say the state income tax form currently features six “tax check-off” options that give residents the option, when filing their state income tax return, to contribute all or part of their tax refund to various causes. Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), the sponsor of the bill, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to explain why he filed the bill. “Sen. Barrett’s idea is incredibly silly and just shows how out of touch some lawmakers become when they get elected,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “As ratepayers see their utility and energy bills increase by 30 to 50 percent to fund climate mandates passed by the Legislature, the senator wants to send more money to the climate causes.” PUBLIC HEARINGS ON TAX HIKES AND NEW TAXES (S 2057) - Another bill heard by the Judiciary Committee would require the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means to hold at the least three public hearings in Boston, Worcester and Springfield on any legislation referred to them that would increase or expand any existing taxes or fees or establish any new taxes or fees. Each hearing would require at least fourteen days’ notice to ensure that the public has sufficient time to prepare. “I am sponsoring this bill because transparency of where taxpayer dollars are going between the Legislature and the public are of the utmost importance currently,” said sponsor Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth). “The sense of trust and understanding between lawmakers and taxpayers sought by this legislation is only possible through thoughtful action to include everyone in the legislative process.” JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING – The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on several bills including these three: EMINENT DOMAIN (H 67) – This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit private property from being taken by the government for private commercial enterprise, economic development or any other private use without the consent of the owner. “The right to own property is a basic principle of the commonwealth and it is one that I feel should be protected,” said sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “I filed this proposed amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s actions in Kelo v. New London, where a majority of the BEACON | SEE PAGE 27
27 Publizr Home