The Probation convictions are not as clear cut as people think. So says a federal appeals court.
…on Friday night, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said in a brief ruling that“the court is persuaded of a sufficient probability that the appeals present a ‘substantial question’ of law,”..
Keepin fingers crossed.
Please share widely!
johnk says
it’s not that didn’t do it exactly in the manner that they were convicted of, rather they are arguing that the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should of had no expectation that they would hire legitimately.
Holy crap, what an embarrassment these people are,
Christopher says
I often argued that if someone has hiring authority without check or procedures you can’t charge him on the basis of whom he hired. I was told pretty clearly that there were in fact laws and policies that had to be followed. Part of being a free country is that you can only be charged with violating laws actually on the books at the time the act was committed, rather than just making it up as you go along.
johnk says
that might be a hint. But as they noted he was not a flight risk, he is free pending appeal. That’s doesn’t really tell you anything other than a convicted felon is free pending appeal. That happens a lot.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
appeal raises “substantial question’ of law”.
That means a lot more than you want it to mean Johnk.
It may mean they did not break any laws.
You understand that it mau mean that, don’t you?
johnk says
it’s what the law offices of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe pulled out of their ass. Nice job though, worth every cent.
David says
For the appeals court to have issued the order they did, they must have been persuaded that there is a serious question as to the criminality of what went on here. And, as you’ll recall, the trial judge issued repeated admonitions regarding what was criminal and what wasn’t. Obviously he ultimately went along with convicting O’Brien et al, but it’s never been a straightforward case.
Christopher says
…from what you quoted that at least the argument is that he was convicted of violating a non-existent law. If that’s the case then simply being a convicted felon not only is not a hint, it is wrong that he is.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
is overturned.
SomervilleTom says
I am reminded of the claimed inability to prosecute Bernard Law in connection with the massive child abuse scandal. It was clear that he personally arranged for hundreds of priests to avoid prosecution, and enabled those priests to abuse thousands of victims, over a period of decades. Any person with an ounce of morality and an ounce of sensibility can only conclude that Mr. Law intentionally committed evil and wrong acts against society for decades.
The reaction of Massachusetts authorities? “Can’t prosecute”. “Didn’t break any laws”. Etc, etc, etc.
The criminal co-conspirators in the Probation Department scandal similarly arranged for hundreds of incompetent and unqualified individuals to be hired over an extended period. They did untold and unmeasured damage to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
If the result is that these men walk, then it demonstrates that our system of justice is fundamentally corrupt and broken. There is no question that what they did was wrong (except in the eyes of their equally corrupt defenders).
The only question seems to be whether our justice system can actually put and keep these criminals in jail.
paulsimmons says
This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.
The issue is not whether the appellants “did wrong”, but whether what they did was illegal. If their actions were not illegal, then by definition they weren’t criminals.
SomervilleTom says
Please see my answer to Christopher, below.
What they did WAS illegal, that’s why they were convicted. If they prevail in their appeal, then we will need to revisit the laws.
If these three men walk, a travesty of justice has occurred.
Christopher says
…and I was one making some of the arguments you allude to, but ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are unconstitutional for a reason. If you find yourself thinking, “There ought to be a law!” contact your state rep. or senator. MA has one of the broadest rights of petition in the country.
SomervilleTom says
There are laws, laws that were explicitly reviewed with the jury by the judge. None of this involves ex post facto or any bills of attainder. The three defendants were convicted under those laws. They are convicted criminals, as of now (pending appeal).
These three men also have the best defense attorneys money can be. Those defense attorneys have been and will continue to find some argument, no matter how contorted, for reversing the convictions.
The intent of the laws in question is real and readily understood. Any reasonable person familiar with the facts of the case cannot help but conclude, as did the jury, that the three defendants broke these laws (and did so flagrantly and egregiously).
If this appeal is successful, I therefore think the only reasonable conclusion is, as I wrote above, that those laws were insufficient to prevent the crimes they were obviously intended to prevent. If it goes down that way (and I hope it does not), then in my view it demonstrates (as I wrote above) that our justice system is broken and needs to be fixed.
If the defendants prevail in their appeal, it means that the laws under which they were convicted are broken and need to be fixed. It does NOT mean that the flagrantly corrupt behavior of the defendants (that nobody now disputes) is acceptable.
paulsimmons says
…and corruption in this context – or any other legally enforceable context must have a legal definition, broadly understood by bench and bar (and hopefully the lay public). In the absence of such a definition your position is worse than the (presumed) offense, and much more corrupt.
SomervilleTom says
The defendants were prosecuted and convicted. You now allege that by observing that, I’m more corrupt than these criminals? Please.
The crimes under which they were convicted most certainly do have a legal definition, and the judge went over that definition repeatedly with the jury. The jury then voted to convict.
Now, not surprisingly, the legal guns hired by these convicted felons have made an argument that they hope will prevail. A federal judge has ruled that the defendants may remain free until the appeal is heard. The first is the right of every convicted criminal. The second is good news for the defense team. Still, the three defendants are today convicted criminals.
We will all see what the Court of Appeals ultimately decides. I have expressed my view of what the implications are if the convictions are reversed.
Your assertion that my posture is “worse than the (presumed) offense, and much more corrupt” is, frankly, way over the top. I didn’t hire anybody. I didn’t benefit from hiring anybody. I haven’t filled a vital public agency with incompetent hacks.
I reject your characterization of my position.
paulsimmons says
…”wrong” does not always equate to “illegal”, and the Court of Appeals might sustain the conviction.
However:
Your presumption of guilt – irrespective of what the Court of Appeals decides – goes beyond puerility. The moralistic premises upon which you base that presumption shows that the Rule of Law is beyond your frame of reference as a concept. Your concern about the “implications” of a reversal demonstrates all the civic mindedness of a lynch mob.
My comment stands.
SomervilleTom says
Einstein famously said “Things should be as simple as possible, and not more so”.
I am not presuming “guilt”, in the sense that you use the word.
Nobody from the defense has challenged the facts of the case — all agree that the defendants actually did the deeds for which they were prosecuted and convicted. I suggest that the defendants also broke the spirit of the laws under which they were charged.
It seems to me that the public has done its best to formulate laws that make the behavior of the three defendants criminal. The basis of the appeal is a narrow and torturous reading of those laws.
If these convictions are reversed, then it seems to me we can go in two directions:
1. We can agree with them and their political defenders (like Mr. DeLeo) who say “This was all just politics. Patronage is part of government. No harm was done, and no crime was committed”.
2. We can take the path I suggest and say “This scandal exemplifies why we have the laws we have. Those laws proved inadequate to punish the behavior they were designed to make illegal. Citizens deserve to know that vital public employees are hired based on competence, qualifications, and performance rather than connections, nepotism, and political self-interest. A great harm was done, and we must ensure that we correct our laws so that behavior like this can be successfully prosecuted with convictions that withstand these kinds of challenges.”
Of course the defendants will and should be freed if they prevail in their appeal. In my view, that alone separates me from your speculative lynch mob.
I suppose we must agree to disagree. My rejection of your characterization also stands.
I’m curious, though — do you also suggest that Bernard Law did nothing wrong because our government found no effective way to prosecute him?
paulsimmons says
Prosecutorial misconduct also includes declining to prosecute a case solely for political reasons.
I believe that a case could be made that, at the very least Cardinal Law committed Misprision of a Felony I would not be surprised if his transfers of abusive priests into unknowing parishes would fit the legal definition of criminal conspiracy.
I’ll defer to the criminal attorneys out there as to whether I’m correct on this.
However, had Law been tried and acquitted, or convicted with a reversal on appeal, my argument would apply to him.
Christopher says
…but was responding to your comparison to Cardinal Law. I just thought it sounded like you were saying they did a bad thing, so let’s try to come up with a crime we can charge them with even if the law isn’t really on the books.
dasox1 says
on this, and expect it’s widely shared. I don’t think it’s that simple, however. Judge Young had serious misgivings about the prosecution’s theory of the case, and the Appeals Court may as well. There is such a thing as an action that is wrong (morally, legally) which is not a federal crime; although, with the federalization of criminal laws, there certainly aren’t as many things that are legally wrong that are not federal crimes as there used to be. This may end up in front of the whole US Court of Appeals, not just a three judge panel.
TheBestDefense says
but the right of free petition that many people cite is kinda bogus. Yes, every citizen has the right to file a petition with the clerk of the House of Representatives or Senate, but it sits there until a legislator sponsors it. Nothing happens until then. A citizen cannot require his/her legislator to file legislation.
Peter Porcupine says
If filed according to the legislative schedule, and not late filed, it will get a hearing. It may die THERE in the committee, but you get a hearing. Occasionally, such a bill is advanced if the committee likes the idea.
Christopher says
…legislators have been known to file legislation on behalf of constituents even if they don’t personally agree. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s required, but I was definitely under the impression that the expectation in this state is that if you submit a piece of legislation it would get filed.
TheBestDefense says
true
TheBestDefense says
sorry but there is no bill until a legislator sponsors it.
TheBestDefense says
Steve James. He is one of the great men, truly a wonder, who make government work and he will set you straight.
TheBestDefense says
on the Secy of State’s website which states:
“Although it is not mandatory that a Representative or Senator sponsor a citizen’s bill, the rules of the House and Senate provide that a petition must be endorsed for presentation by a member before it can be considered by the General Court. Obtaining the support of individual legislators, then, is most advisable.”
If you read the details you will see that there is a difference between a citizen petition asking for legislation and the actual legislation. No petition gets a hearing without at least one legislator sponsoring it. Never. Never. Never.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/trs/trslaw/lawidx3.htm
Or you could try the Mass Bar Association. Alas, the legislature’s own web site is nowhere near as user friendly, twice even winning the national award for worst in the country by the association of private for profits legislative service providers.
TheBestDefense says
the former Rep from the Attelboros once filed legislation to make abortion a felony akin to murder (I don’t recall all of the details). He did it on the request of a constituent. In short order he backed away from the matter, teaching many legislators in the process that you do not have to follow every stupid idea just because you have an idiot constituent at your front door.