Attorney General and declared candidate for governor Thomas Reilly can’t be too thrilled about having his name appear in a lawsuit surrounding the shenanigans of Worcester District Attorney John Conte’s State Police unit.
But there it is. Read the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint here.
In a related development showing that the powers that be might be running a tad scared, the AG’s office requested, and the parties have agreed, that the temporary restraining order Mary Jean won against the State Police barring them from trying to intimidated her into taking an arrest video down from her site, has been extended to April 7, 2006.
Please share widely!
gets sued numerous times every month by cities, towns , businesses and disoriented citizens .As the constituted lawyer of the Commonwealth, Tom Reilly as the Attorney General is the natural defendant in any complaint filed against the state.
Technically of course you are correct.
<
p>
But where John Conte (now a lame duck) is concerned it would be yet another sign of Reilly’s tin ear when it comes to political matters to ignore the connection being made here.
<
p>
The point of naming the AG’s office (and I am not privy to these legal strategy decisions) it seems to me is to bring attention to the fact that Tom Reilly as the titular and actual head of that office has both the statutory and political power to influence the course of Mary Jean’s run-in with the State Police.
<
p>
So far there is no evidence that he has tried to intervene in a case where the awesome power of the state was being mobilized to intimidate a mother or two who happens to own a PC and knows how to use it.
<
p>
Reilly’s first mantra in his campaign for governor was that he was electable. That went by the boards with his infamous call to Conte. Now his mantra is that he’s on the side of the little guy (and, I would presume, gal).
<
p>
So he’s got a choice to make: 1) Side with Conte and his approach to law enforcement where power is wielded on the basis of back channel phone calls and dirty tricks. or 2) seize the opportunity to stand up and say that the treatment Mary Jean got was wrong and that attempts by the State Police to squelch Freedom of Speech won’t fly under his watch.
<
p>
My guess is he’ll keep quiet and hope the whole thing goes away. But you and I know that would be the wrong decision both morally and politically.
that morally keeping quiet is wrong, but politically, it is his only realy choice. Lets say he even knew about the letter from the state police before it happened. He can stick up for law enforemenet and PO the “little guy”, or he can stick up for the average citizen an PO law enforcement. Either way it is a PR nightmare.
<
p>
Politically speaking which would you choose.
<
p>
BTW I am in no way defending him and Im not a supporter in any way shape or form
A coupla things:
<
p>
It wouldn’t surprise me if Reilly didn’t know about the letter going out and that he got blindsided because he wasn’t paying attention. Whether he knew about it or not, the political situation it creates for him is the same.
<
p>
I disagree that the resolution of this has to be “a PR nightmare” as you suppose. Here’s why:
<
p>
You paint this as Reilly having to choose between the “little guy” constituency and the “law enforcement” constituency, thereby putting him in the position of alienating one or the other. I take issue with the assumption that men and women in law enforcement will naturally jump to a knee jerk defense of the actions of the troopers assigned to DA John Conte’s office. In fact, I believe that there are far more people in law enforcement who are deeply offended by bad police work than people who will defend a fellow cop right or wrong. Cops by and large are good people who care about the Constitution and the rights it affords us all.
<
p>
Yes, there is a small minority of cops who abuse their power, and whose cages get rattled when they are called out on doing a warrantless search of a man’s home after they’ve already put him in handcuffs. (Let’s also not forget that the charge was based on words he posted to a Web site.) That small minority of the law enforcement community is not who the attorney general and would-be governor should be pandering to.
<
p>
A campaign for the highest office in the commonwealth should be based on more than empty phrases like âI am running to give ordinary people throughout this state a voice in government again…”. If the man wants to be governor he needs to show that he can face difficult situations and then make good decisions. It’s called leadership.
<
p>
Seen in this light, rallying to Mary Jean’s defense could be a PR win-win for Reilly. He could distance himself from Conte (which he should have done a long time ago) while at the same time proving that he really is willing to go to bat for the little guy. Believe it or not, the little guy includes thousands of hard working, honest and honorable people who have chosen law enforcement as a career. And many of them vote.
<
p>
It looks like this case will make it into court. Now is Rielly’s opportunity to get out in front of this issue, instead of getting dragged along by it.
are you referring to. You are taking a huge leap with your assertion that you “take issue with the assumption that men and women in law enforcement will naturally jump to a knee jerk defense” that is purely conjecture your your part. What I am referring to is his defense of the letter.
<
p>
I am in no position to debate the merits of the search, whether or not there was probable cause, lack of consent, there may even be a legal argument whether or not a limited search can be done while making an arrest. I am merely commenting on the letter from the state police and whether or not Reilly will defend that action not those of the arresting officers.
(I think) and it seems like we agree more than we disagree. I agree that strictly speaking the subject of how the search was conducted is separate from Mary Jean’s right to post the video to her Web site. Politically, though, they are related.
<
p>
I was responding simply to your statement that the whole situation represents an inevitable “PR nightmare” for Reilly. Reasonable people could certainly disagree on this, but the point I was making is simply that framing his options as POing “the little guy” or alternatively POing law enforcement sets up a false dichotomy.
<
p>
I think Reilly should stand up for Mary Jean’s right to post the arrest video to her Web site. The question of whether or not the police acted properly in their search of Pechonis’s home will be left up to deliberations in other official (the courts) and unofficial (court of public opinion) venues.
<
p>
In short, I didn’t mean to imply that Reilly needs to take a stand on how the arresting officers behaved (though there is no reason why he shouldn’t) but that I do think he needs to take a stand on how Mary Jean was treated.
<
p>
Politically, of course, some people will tie the two issues together. His endorsing Jean’s right to post the video will be interpreted by some as being critical of the video’s content. That, it seems to me, is the PR dilemma Reilly faces. My point is that it shouldn’t be a dilemma at all and that by standing up for Freedom of Speech as a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution Reilly could not only score moral points but by leading the way score political points as well.
<
p>
The truth is that in politics you never get away without POing somebody. Choosing who to PO and who to align oneself with is what being a good politician is all about. It is these moments that define a candidate.
<
p>
Does that make sense?
agree much more than we disagree. yes it does make sense….. to me maybe not to the candidates but it does to me. The kicker here is now that I believ Reilly will use the “I cannont comment on this case” line to avoid it completely hench the be quiet and hope it goes away. I am not sure how slowly the wheels of justice turn in federal court but it wouldn;t suprise me if this wasn’t resolved before the primary.
agree much more than we disagree. yes it does make sense….. to me maybe not to the candidates but it does to me. The kicker here is now that I believ Reilly will use the “I cannont comment on this case” line to avoid it completely hence the, be quiet and hope it goes away. I am not sure how slowly the wheels of justice turn in federal court but it wouldn’t suprise me if this wasn’t resolved before the primary.
Conte lost an appeal in the SJC today. See the AP story here or read the decision here.
<
p>
The issue has to do with whether district attorneys and sherrifs can ask for and receive permission from a judge to move prisoners into the state system without consulting the commissioner of correction.
<
p>
This is how the SJC framed the isse:
<
p>
<
p>
What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Not a lot except that losing a case in the SJC is not pleasant. And Conte seems to be having a lot of unpleasant experiences lately.
<
p>
I don’t think it would be reading too much into this string of humiliation to suppose that his imperious ways are finally catching up to him. The conduct of his State Police unit is just one of many ways in which this is manifested.