All posts by mtc9393

PC MA SJC HAHAHA

Woman cryingYes, the politically correct Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has given us another one of those decisions that we have to laugh at because if we didn’t we’d cry thinking that we have entrusted those judges with the power to make the law in this state.

What’s great about the MA SJC is that the judges rarely dissent. They all seem to walk in lockstep bizarre as that seems. Did you ever wonder why? I can only suggest they are cut out of the same cloth. It is a pity that we have no high court judges who view the world from other than those similarly tinted rose-colored glasses.

The latest case making our children less safe is John Doe v. City of Lynn where all seven judges agreed. Now here is what made me laugh to avoid crying. The judge who wrote the opinion, Justice Geraldine S. Hines, stated:Except for the incarceration of persons under the criminal law and the civil commitment of mentally ill or dangerous persons, the days are long since past when whole communities of persons, such Native Americans and Japanese-Americans may be lawfully banished from our midst.”

U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 5 of 10: Making Whitey Bulger’s Day

2015 08 21_3000The commonality between the Whitey Bulger case and the Tim Flaherty case is the presence of Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Fred Wyshak chief of the PCU in the Boston U.S. attorney office. He’s also the prosecutor who was behind the John Connolly case, As far as I can tell he has done nothing but prosecute cases over the last 37 years; he has been a prosecutor in the Boston U.S. Attorney’s office since 1989.

You may recall that Whitey Bulger told the judge who handled his trial that he did not believe he received a fair trial. His trial and appellate attorney Hank Brennan argued that he was deprived of his right to testify because his defense was considered an improbability. No one yelled louder about Whitey’s defense being implausible than Wyshak.

Whitey as best I can make out was planning to offer as a defense that he had immunity from prosecution because of a deal he made with a federal prosecutor. As best I can surmise this federal prosecutor met with Whitey and told him in exchange for something he asked him to do for him he would give Whitey immunity, or, in other words he would make Whitey into a federal agent who cannot be charged with any criminal acts committed by him while acting as an agent.

U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 4 of 10: The Phony Civil Rights Case

2015 08 21_3000The Department of Justice has a guide  about prosecuting hate crimes under 18 U.S. C. sec. 249. It notes it has “three significant subsections.” The first “Subsection (a)(1) criminalizes violent acts (and attempts to commit violent acts undertaken with a dangerous weapon) when those acts occur because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.”; the next: “Subsection (a)(2) criminalizes acts of violence (and attempts to commit violent acts undertaken with a dangerous weapon) when motivated by the actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person”; and the final one relates to the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the U.S. (my emphasis)

The final paragraph reads: “The statute criminalizes only violent acts resulting in bodily injury or attempts to inflict bodily injury, through the use of fire, firearms, explosive and incendiary devices, or other dangerous weapons. The statute does not criminalize threats of violence. Threats to inflict physical injury may be prosecutable under other hate crimes statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 3631 or 18 U.S.C. § 245.”    (my emphasis)

U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 3 of 10: The Wyshak Affidavit Problem

2015 08 21_3000It got curiouser and curiouser sitting in the federal courtroom last Wednesday listening to the request by Tim Flaherty’s counsel, Martin Weinberg, for more discovery. As Weinberg made his argument the magistrate, Donald L. Cabell, questioned him closely about his assertions. Each point made by the magistrate was answered convincingly by Weinberg even to the point when the magistrate raised a point that he suggested rebutted Weinberg’s argument. Weinberg without hesitating pointed out that what the magistrate just suggested completely supported what he had been saying.

If Weinberg presented his position in a clear, concise, calm and compelling manner for twenty-five minutes, the prosecutor, a middle age man in a dark suit with a big dark mustache, spoke for less than five minutes. At the one point during this time Magistrate Cabell raised a question. The prosecutor said to him in reply as if shutting down any further discussion that Mr. Wyshak had filed an affidavit relative to that issue.

United States v. Flaherty. Part 2 of 10: In A Nut Shell

2015 08 21_3000Behind the scenes: It appears that after Attorney Flaherty called the victim in an attempt to settle the suit the victim went to the police. I assume he alleged that Flaherty was trying to bribe him from going forward with the case. He ended up on December 22, 2014, dealing with the state police who were assigned to the unit of state police in the district attorney’s office in Middlesex County. It is common for each district attorney’s office to have a state police unit assigned to it. In my day they were called CPAC units. They were mainly used to investigate homicides, do organize crime and some drug cases, and appropriate other tasks in conjunction with the state prosecutors with whom they work on a daily basis.

After the incident occurred as noted the old man was placed under arrest. He was charged with assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (the victim alleged when he had his wrist he pulled away thus using the car in the assault), impersonating a police officer (the victim said he told him he was a Cambridge cop), assault and battery with intent to intimidate (Massachusetts hate crime statute) and several motor vehicle offenses.

United States v. Flaherty – Part 1 of 10: In A Nut Shell

2015 08 21_3000The best way to understand this case is to identify the players and the incidents which caused Timothy Flaherty to be sitting in the federal district court last Wednesday as a defendant listening to motions being argued. I set it out from the beginning to the present time.

The defendant: Tim Flaherty is around 50 years old, has been practicing law for twenty-five years in the hardest part of the law which is the trial of criminal cases. He started as an assistant district attorney where he worked for several years and then became a defense lawyer. He has a reputation as a clean, well-liked, hard-working, highly effective defense attorney who is not afraid of taking on the most difficult criminal cases. There is no pubic record of discipline against him and it goes without saying he has no criminal record. He is facing one count in federal district court in Boston of interfering with a witness. That charge exposes him to a potential penalty of 20 years in prison.This is the same type of penalty Mafia gangsters face when charged with racketeering.  If convicted he will lose his license to practice law. It is the federal prosecutors intent that his lose what has been his livelihood. Surely, you think, this is a grave matter.

U.S. V. Timothy Flaherty – Will Be Covered Next Week

2015 08 21_3000Motions in Timmy Flaherty’s case were heard in federal court last Wednesday. When I opened the door of the courtroom to enter about two dozen eyes turned my way, quickly assessed me  and recognized I was no threat. They turned back to their business.

A defendant was being arraigned. He was a big dude with powerful looking shoulders and arms. Those eyes belonged to about a dozen marshals in casual clothes who surrounded him.

When the arrangement finished the defendant was asked by one of the marshals to stand. He didn’t move. You could feel the tension in the room. Asked again, he stayed put. I started to assess my options if the defendant kept refusing.  I had no desire to get into the brouhaha. The marshals closed in and the defendant finally rose and was handcuffed. I didn’t understand why the handcuffs were taken off him if he was such a threat. All in a days work for those guys but they certainly earned their pay then.

Then the Flaherty case was called. It was quite interesting  and informative. I have made some observations about it. I will finish them up over the weekend even though I am supposed to be on vacation. I will publish them beginning Monday so most of next week may revolve around the Tim Flaherty prosecution up to this point.

Thinking of Oil and Gas: The Iranian Deal

IMG_4439The Iranian deal throws Russia right back onto the world stage. For years all it could boast of was its huge supply of oil and gas which it fed to the industrial powers of Western Europe developing their dependency on it. Things went well for a while as Russia used the money to improve the well-being of its people; to make close friends of Putin into the super-super-rich; and to improve its military which had been down in the dumps.

The United States did not depend on Russian petroleum supplies. We had our own source that included Saudi Arabia which pretty much controlled the price of world oil. The price of oil and gas rose steadily over the years as did the dependency on it. More and more nations including China continually raised their demands.

The price rose to the level that it became financially feasible for a new push for oil in the United States. The cost of pulling oil out of the earth was higher here than in other parts of the world but the gain to be made with the price so high was substantial. Drilling went on full blast.