I became an activist when a Catholic Priest was reassigned to my son’s school and issues of sexual abuse arose. For trying to have the Priest exposed I was reported to DSS by the President of the St. Leo School board, Dr John McLaughlin. Dr McLaughlin called me first and told me to stop or he knew how to handle trouble makers like me. He filed 51A child abuse report to DSS which contained false statements. After a year of terrifying abuse to my children and I, including an attempt to have my parental rights terminated by DSS, all charges were suddenly reversed within twenty-four hours of issuing a subpoena to Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly.
I began the Worcestervoice.com web site in 2002 so the truth could be exposed, and so those who were subjected to clergy abuse within the Worcester Diocese would have a safe haven to seek resources.
Presently the Worcester Voice has provided resources for 153 individuals who allege clergy sexual abuse. Currently the Voice is supporting ten male individuals who allege abuse by Rev John J. Szantyr. His criminal case involving four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen has now been in the Worcester District Court system for almost four years, currently on the 32nd continuance. Serious issues arise as the incompetence claim of Rev. Szantyr, none more notable than John Szantrys renewal of his CT lic on March 15, 2007, some six months after he was ruled incompetent.
After trying to have the Worcester Diocese and those priests who were accused held accountable by then Worcester DA John Conte, I began the Conte2006.com web site on the advice of a FBI agent, who stated your vote is the only way to have John Conte removed.
Conte2006.com site was released Nov 6, 2004. A request was issued to please seek retirement instead of reelection. The site published today was re-launched January 2006 when John Conte continued his campaign aspirations. Exposed for the first time was the amount of funds employee?s of DA Conte contributed to his campaign.
Former DA John Conte attacked the conte2006.com website on three different occasions. The first was, by filing a Whois directory violation. The second was by sending a letter from his State Police unit reporting the Conte2006.com site was in volition of the exemption O law, which states names and address of public official cannot be released. The Conte2006.com web site was immediately removed from the internet. When it was proved to the provider that the addresses were taken from postings of John Conte?s campaign filings, and were not protected by this law, the site was immediately returned to the internet. The third attack was the ceases and deist letter stating felony charges would be issued, that letter has now turned into the video case which the Federal Appeals court just upheld.
Since the onset of Federal Court case my employment was terminated, and I have been unable to attain employment which I believe is a direct result of my involvement in this case. Sources informed me early on that the State would starve me out before conceding.
Since the attack on my family by the Departmentt of Social Services, in which not one word was accurate, I became an advocate for families who are attacked by DSS. DSS is a terrorizing agency, they do not provided services, they instead demand tasks be completed and destroy families. One of the best kept secrets s in Massachusetts is that the State actually profits from keeping children in foster care. Another disturbing fact is that child abuse in foster care accounts for two thirds of all abuse to children in Massachusetts.
It is my intention in the upcoming months is to attempt to make substantial changes to the DSS system which operates in Massachusetts today.
I am hopeful those who follow BluemassGroup, once informed will help to contribute towards seeking out meaningful legislative change. Our children are our greatest resource, and should not be used as a means for profit.
Radley Balko’s “Straight Talk” column (read the whole thing here had this to say, illustrating his point that video taping police at work should the ENcouraged, not criminalized.
And here’s the best part. If you go the original post on Fox News, what do they link the name Tom Reilly to? Yes, Blue Mass Group! Does getting linked to at Fox say anything about arrivedness? Probably not, but why not savor the moment anyway?
The law used to threaten MaryJean has been misused before. In one case, a man was prosecuted for recording his own arrest by a police officer. Whose privacy was being protected? This law needs be be revised so it protects legitimate privacy interests without becoming a shield to protect official misconduct.
You raise an interesting point DaveS. Put in the context of Mary Jean’s story above and which I referenced in a comment I added to a previous post, the question becomes, why does the same law keep getting abused? Revising it, as you suggest, seems like a good remedy. Now that Mary Jean has won her case in court, seeing to it that there is some sanction against the commonwealth for putting her through the needless hell they put her through should be another. Some kind of compensation aimed at making Mary Jean whole would make sense both on the level of common sense and on the level of justice.
or rewrite the statute to make it clear that it cannot be used against private citizens by officials who have no legitimate expectation of privacy in the performance of their official duties.
The general court further finds that the uncontrolled development and unrestricted use of modern electronic surveillance devices pose grave dangers to the privacy of all citizens of the commonwealth
<
p>
If the police or other government officials are claiming that the recording and subsequent display of their actions under color of law somehow invades their privacy rights, they are sadly mistaken. When they are operating under color of law, their operations are public. Privacy rights adhere to people who are operating in private, not in public.
but it seems that the law you reference is pretty explicit talking about “interception” as secretly hearing or recording oral or wire communication.
<
p>
Holding a video camera on the street when the cops are swarming doesn’t seem like it should fall under the purview of this law.
It’s fascinating to see how threatened Conte was by Mary Jean’s site that he tried three different ways to take it down. Another case study in the power of the netroots.