Without mentioning my name of course Judge Young told the probation trial jury today what a genius I am .
Commonwealth Magazine has a good synopsis.
Right off the bat Judge Young obviously reviewed my many probation/Wyshak rants before making a few things clear to the jury.
U.S. District Court Judge William Young, as he said he would, instructed the jurors that political patronage is not a crime and failure to follow hiring procedures laid out by the state Trial Court, while bad practice for maintaining employment, is not a prosecutable offense either.
“That [the hiring manual] has force,” Young told jurors as he instructed them about the laws regarding the offenses of mail fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy that are the focus of the indictment. “If you disobey that, if you don’t follow that, people can be disciplined, people can be fired. But it’s not a crime, it’s administrative practices.” (emphasis added)
But really folks, is that what this trial is about? Or is it Fred Wyshak marching as many legislators to the witness stand and laying a perjury trap for them. This can be done to anyone. Doesn’t matter that they did nothing wrong.
O’Brien et al. have a good chance of being found not guilty. In federal court that’s 50/50. Regardless, after these two trials Fred dog will be going over transcripts looking for mistakes in memory regarding collateral issues and convene another grand jury.
These trials should expose Wyshak as the deranged, vulgar, and immoral man he is. If not, God save us all from this demon. IMHO
—
Some Mintz Levin lobbyist just screwed himself by asking Mike Costello to file an “innocuous” amendment to the budget that turned out to be something different than what Mike was told.
I’m sure you heard about it. Bob Kraft didn’t want some guy’s oyster bed business outside his back window on the cape so he dialed up his highly paid bobos at Mints Levin and told them stories about Tom Brady and Art Rooney with an, “Oh by the way, can you help with this oyster farm problem I have? Thanks. Just send me the bill.”
“How high, Mr Kraft?”
It was one of Kraft’s neighbors named Clough.
So then the Mintz lobbyist, I’m sorry, The ML Strategist lobbyist, used his relationship with Costello to have an amendment filed. Nothing wrong with that. But rather than being straightforward with Costello he mislead him. Costello had no reason not to trust him. But had he been told the truth he would not have filed it unless it had the okay of the local rep.
(Don’t tell me Costello should have read the amendment, it doesn’t work that way.)
—
Sorry Juliette, I really wanted to want you. I ignored some red flags because of it. I know I know. But those eyes. Well I can’t fool myself any longer. I must make a clean break.
Am I happy with the one I have decided to commit to? Is it love at first sight? Of course not Julie. Of course not. It was you who fanned that first spark of lust as I hoped against hope it would turn into a full conflagration leading to commitments of love, cherish, and obedience to your gubernatorial proposal.
But alas, it cannot be. What would my mother say? A girl like you. Homeland Security and all. Okay, okay, maybe you weren’t like those you hung with. But you are judged by the company you keep and, well, you talked some talk that would never have come from the lips of a nice girl.
And please don’t get mad, but that drone guy you are constantly with ain’t helping matters either. I’m having trouble explaining him to my friends.
Now I’m not judging here. You know that’s not what I do. But, well, okay, I’m gonna come right out and say it. I don’t like you hanging around with him. There, I said it. Okay. And I’m glad I did.
Could it have worked between us? Perhaps, but frankly, I just don’t see a future together. And at my age I have to start looking out for me? I can’t wait around.
Selfish you say? I know. Please understand, if you were the only girl besides Martha I would be thrilled to call you mine.
But you are not the only girl. Steve Grossman is out there as well and he’s much more the marrying type than you.
Not perfect by any means I know. But, well, it’s not all about sex and good times. There’s bills to pay and 401Ks to fund. Juliette, have we ever discussed children? Have we?
I need girl who can cook like dear ole mom. A girl who has a chance to beat Martha. A girl like Steve.
I’m sorry. If only we met at a different time in a different place.
Oops…. I knew you meant to add that.
But now that both that general point and the hiring handbook point are clearly off the table as crimes, what, exactly, is it that warrants a federal racketeering indictment? I confess to not being sure.
and I think he makes a good point.
It’s disgusting what O’Brien had done over the past decades. While everyone is squeamish on lengthy sentences, it seems at least to me that corruption, rigged hiring, trade-offs for larger budgets *cough* salaries *cough* and power without oversight needs to be have a spotlight placed on it.
Without knowing anything, it sounds like probation became a patronage haven, widely known among legislators, and somebody decided it had to stop.
But, there are many spotlights. If there’s no crime here, the courts are the wrong venue.
the probation department was so over the top, and in many case it’s those who bring thing s to absurd (or criminal) levels that are charged. We’ll see how that goes.
How? Can someone please explain that?
39 year employee, manager who was asked to take the role of acting commissioner of the probation department, removed from the hiring process when she didn’t advanced the per-determined candidates, she was told who to advance prior to meeting candidates. She didn’t want to participate in the rigged hiring scheme which was completed overseen by O’Brien and removed to only do audit work.
Dots still need to be connected to link as criminal activity, but my question to you is if this what you define as patronage?
via MassLive
That’s a pretty novel definition of “mail fraud.”
Mail fraud statutes have been used aggressively and interpreted broadly to cover all sorts of activity that wouldn’t otherwise be subject to federal law. It’s bold but not that out of line with cases I’ve seen. Whether such “dual-sovereignty double jeopardy,” as Justice Black called it, should be tolerated is a different story.
“IF” and that’s the main question here, “IF” the activity is proven to be criminal, then applying mail fraud is a very common. That’s NOT by any means a novel definition, it is basically THE definition.
Does that make any sense? How can there be a criminal “cover up” of something that is not a crime?
Also, to echo jim, it strikes me as a tad far-fetched to argue that “mail fraud” consists of sending a rejection letter that didn’t comply with the (not legally binding) hiring handbook through the mail.
falsifying applicant scores, creating a rigged hiring system, signing off for money and influence. You neatly place this in a box calling it patronage. It appears that it’s more than that and that’s the case.
..
then Coakley is not you candidate. I’ll give you that.
I’m still in the hunt myself (not for you, for a candidate for governor!), I’m wondering what about Don? Have you considered him carefully before committing yourself to another, namely Steve? And, by the way, your truly touching message to Juliette brought a tear to my eye.
I have not looked at fraulein Don other than the times she’s giving me uninvited lap dances. Should I reconsider? Hmmm, I don’t think he’s the girl for me. Not that I my girl has to sit with the most popular kids at lunch but she should know a few more people. How can I tell my friends he’s the woman for me when they’ve never heard of her.
Now things could change. Like in the movies. She could go from zero to hero in less than two hours and suddenly I may have impure thoughts about Mistress Don.
helpful.
The Berwick campaign is picking up more and more momentum every day. I would encourage you and Dave to check out his “To Isaiah” speech in particular. If that doesn’t make you fall in love with him, I don’t know what will.
http://www.aahs.org/medstaff/wp-content/uploads/IsaiahJAMA2012.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmEbO58chac
I do like Don’s statement about the right to health care, in his moving tribute to Isaiah. I’m left with a few questions, such as does he recognize the limits of medical expertise in these cases and the need to respect the judgment of the patient and the family? As a medical professional, what is his take on the Pelletier case, for instance, and the role of Children’s Hospital and the DCF?
While advising graduating medical students about “being ashamed of the miseries they did not cause,” does he warn them against causing further misery as a result of their overconfidence in their own infallibility?
What is his position on the increasing privatization of health care? Does government still have a role to play? In an even broader context, in arguing the imperative of protecting “those in the shadows” (particularly the poor), what about the cold shoulder society has turned to the middle class?
I like that Don is the guy who, while the others are whispering sweet nothings to Ernie, is talking about single payer. He is a guy to watch. I do want to learn more.
I will try to answer your questions, simply as someone who volunteers for the campaign.
Don definitely recognizes the limits of medical expertise and the importance of always putting the patient and his/her family first. According to this great editorial from The Harvard Crimson, Don had a sign on his desk during his time in Washington that simply read, “How will it help the patient?” So although I am not aware of an official statement from the campaign on the Pelletier case, I am sure that Don finds it absolutely horrifying and would likely support returning Justina to her parents.
Along those same lines, I am sure that Don would like medical students and clinicians alike to be aware of the dangers of actually harming the patient through excessive treatment.
Don believes that hospitals and clinicians should remain private, but wants to do away with private health insurance. He supports single-payer for MA. He supports a strong government role in healthcare, especially in making sure that everyone in our state is insured. Furthermore, he is the only Democratic candidate running for Governor who is talking about ending homelessness and child poverty. I would encourage you, and anyone else who is interested, to read where Don stands on all the major issues facing MA. I think you will like what you find 🙂
n/t