Dan Kennedy and Harvey Silverglate get the probation trial right.
I agree the liberties taken re: job hirings were atrocious, outrageous, unethical, and probably cause for termination. Judge Mulligan too. However they were not federal crimes and especially not racketeering.
A first year law school or decent undergrad course on constitutional law, evidence, and criminal law seems to be the deciding factor on who gets the big picture and who doesn’t.
What’s especially troubling is the government’s unique theory of law can be applied to the private sector also. Nothing in this indictment making it unique to government jobs.
One problem is the lazy and insecure members of out local media who just want to hang with the cool kids. To stay relevant they take the anti-intellectual approach. It’s easy and sells. Like porn. Only pornographers don’t fool us into believing they’re something else.
You would think these “journalists” would seek out legal eagles like Harvey Silverglate and Nancy Gertner for informed commentary and insight. Instead the David Bernsteins and Paul McMorrows just keep loading mutual love on each other.
Pathetic!
Anyway, this verdict has me very down. Very sad. Like, if I were starring in a Lifetime movie I would be curled up in bed for days only sitting up to eat quarts of Haagen Dazs and globs of cookie dough.
Go ahead and make snarky comments like they’re all crooks and blah blah. I won’t see them. I won’t respond. I’ll be curled up.
–
SomervilleTom says
Maybe you’ll feel better after a nice comfortable nighty-night.
tedf says
Or the indictment would have been dismissed, or Judge Young would have entered a judgment of acquittal. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying you’re not obviously right, as you seem to think.
JimC says
Thanks to the modern miracle of temp work in my 20s (and a bit of my 30s), I’ve worked at a lot of different private sector places, publicly traded and otherwise. And I’ve never worked anywhere where an executive couldn’t snap his fingers and get someone a job.
I mean, they weren’t making them regional Vice Presidents or anything, but nepotism is the order of the day. So if this ruling really can be applied to the private sector, someone could make some serious hay out of it.
judy-meredith says
Yes the behavior of the folks rigging the hiring process in probation was outrageous and grounds for firing.
No “yeah-buts” about it.
The exposure of their actions in court on federal RICO charges, has deepened the public’s mis- trust in our government, made our probation department a laughingstock among the very community of ex or not ex offenders they are supposed to monitor. Probation plays an important job in our criminal justice system and it’s role should be respected.
And, sad to say, nobody believes the Legislative Leaders protestations of ignorance of how Probation managed to accommodation of their perfectly legal patronage requests. After all, they knowingly voted for Tom Finneran’s plan to take the hiring process away from the judges and give it to his good friends running probation. They understood the implications of the change.
And again, sad to say, very few electeds or us civilians still understand our government ‘s powers to prosecute under the RICO the business-as-usual- patronage- is- not-a- crime activities that have been going on forever. Public officials will continue to hire friends they can trust in highly sensitive positions and send letters of recommendation of constituents and relatives and neighbors to state agencies and state colleges and detox centers and maybe get them special consideration, and that’s ok.
And yes, sad to say, the media covering this should take a break from RTing each others tweets and rapid response articles and listen to Harvey Silverglate’s and Nancy Getner’s take on this trial.
JimC says
If his take is correct, it answers two questions:
1. Why DeLeo et al were not indicted.
2. Why this won’t be broadly applied in the private sector.
I agree with you and Ernie that there were no capital crimes here, but it does sound like patronage was becoming the rule not the exception at Probation, and that might be normal but it’s still wrong.
I would expect the sentences to reflect the extenuating circumstances (that is, be relatively short).
judy-meredith says
Any extenuating circumstances. Stupidity? Terminal case of Buteverybodydoesit? Arrogance? Thoughtless disregard of established standard hiring procedures? Contempt of established standard hiring procedures?
JimC says
In other words, a tacit understanding that patronage is the norm. Therefore the defendants should be judged somewhat less harshly.
I’m not aware of anyone being prosecuted for not being a whistleblower. Usually people who tolerate corrupt systems and go along to get along are not punished for it.
Unless of course this is just the beginning, and more indictments will follow.
farnkoff says
“Not being a whistleblower”. I assume they would have been fired for challenging O’Brien.
JimC says
Everything you said.
farnkoff says
And a stated “system” for hiring, but where “who you know” determines, in the end, whether or not you get the job, then the hiring process could be deemed fraudulent. Does Bernstein address the private sector specifically?
JimC says
But the private sector has its own ways. MOST positions are not posted, for one thing.