The charge against Pechonis was posting comments on one of his Web sites construed as being threatening to a police officer and a judge. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t condone those kinds of comments, and I wouldn’t make them myself. But I am very uncomfortable by the idea of law enforcement agents with an ax to grind getting to decide when a threat posted to an Internet site rises to the level of an arrestable offence.
It took me a while to get to this point of view. And I thank Mary Jean for having the guts to post Mr. Pechonis’s videotape, in effect daring the State Police to try to stop her. They took the bate and now the discussion is out in the open.
It seems that Mr. Pechonis’s relationship with the local police had some history. That included him filing a complaint against a Marlborough police officer for improperly threatening his son. Mr. Pechonis was making headway with that complaint through legitimate channels. Then all of a sudden the State Police show up at his door and take him away.
To top it off, the tape captures what any reasonable person would see as a highly invasive sweep of Pechonis’s home WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT. I can understand the police wanting to make sure that a person being placed under arrest couldn’t reach out and grab a weapon. But to go up the stairs and all around the ground floor AFTER MR. PECHONIS WAS ALREADY IN HANDCUFFS seems just plain wrong.
The deeper we get into this, the more it seems like the reason the State Police tried to go after Ms. Jean for posting the tape had less to do with their concern about her having violated a wiretapping law crafted to curtail organized crime and more to do with their wanting to cover up the fact that THEY THEMSELVES BROKE THE LAW in how they handled Mr. Pechonis’s arrest.
The fact that Ms. Jean’s Web site is essentially political in nature and is highly critical of the powerful district TO WHOM THAT STATE POLICE UNIT REPORTS makes the threatening letter Ms. Jean received all the more troubling.
Unwittingly, by going after Ms. Jean the police only proved the point about an out of control prosecutor that her Web site is trying to make.
The larger point is that bloggers and Web site operators everywhere should be alarmed at seeing one of their own – even though his postings may be at the fringes of civil discourse – being led away in handcuffs for something he posted. Allowing that to go unchallenged is to go down a slippery slope the ultimate consequences of which I shudder to contemplate.
Great article, Did you know that the state police issued me a cease and desist order. It prevents me from linking to the conte2006 site…..check it out.
<
p>
Dear Mr. Pechonis:
<
p>
It has come to the attention of the Department of State Police that an unlawful audio/video tape was made of members of the Massachusetts State Police while in the performance of their duties and without their authorization during your September 29, 2005 arrest at your home. This tape is currently posted on the internet site wlI’w.cullfe2006.com. The internet site http://www.bonuskill.com also informs visitors that they may view this secret audio/video tape at Wvw.conte2006.com. Be advised that this secret, unauthorized audio/video recording is a violation ofM.G.L. c. 272, § 99 and subject to prosecution as a felony.
<
p>
Unless you cease and desist, within 48 hours of receipt of this letter, from posting this unlawful tape on the internet or any other publicly accessible site, the Department will refer this matter to the District Attorney’s office for further investigation and possible prosecution.
<
p> Ann M. McCarthy Deputy Legal Counsel
I’m from Texas, but I went ahead and google’d MGL (literally, that acronym) and I then drilled down and found something intersted. Here is my post on digg.com (http://digg.com/poli…) :
<
p>
Did I ok this up right? JURY deliberations? WTF? (this is from the letter the dude got for posting the link and their logic for being able to prosecute him)
<
p>
M.G.L. c. 272, § 99
<
p>
http://www.mass.gov/…
<
p>
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
<
p>
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
<
p>
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
<
p>
Chapter 272: Section 99A. Jury deliberations; overhearing by use of devices
<
p>
Section 99A. Whoever secretly overhears, or attempts secretly to overhear or to have any other person overhear the deliberations of a jury by use of a device commonly known as a dictograph or dictaphone, or however otherwise described, or by any similar device or arrangement with intent to procure any information relative to the conduct of such jury or any of its members, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
Wrong statute.
So now police powers go to the attaching of a link to the web site? What is next ?
<
p>
This is such a serious violation of the first amendment.
<
p>
DA Conte should be run out of Worcester.
The police may have screwed up at the site by going into the rest of the house. However, what the public doesn’t know is that Paul Pechonis is a loser. The threats he has made against public officials deserves a SWAT team showing up at his house. How about we address the mistakes the police made and stop giving Mr. Pechonis attention.
Dear ill informed retard.
<
p>
My case was dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence. The D.A. could not prove that what was written on the internet was a threat, let alone that it was written by me.
<
p>
The only reason I was arrested was because I was voicing dissent against the abuse of police power. I would suggest that next time you do your home work before you go flinging intelligent terms such as “loser”
<
p>
You do not know the whole story and you do not know me.
You sound like a cop, or some other type of extremist.
Who else would like to see a SWAT team attack someone for exercising their First Amendment rights.
<
p>
I will be getting attention for a long time so, get use to it.
<
p>
Paul…………..www.Bonuskill.com