Days Slip By As We Wait For Answers

DSC_0169Day 1 – A request that we do our best to avoid posting videos in the comment section. You can refer to the location of one on the net describing in your opinion how it relates to the matters under discussion but the naked posting takes away from the discussion aspects of the comments.

Day 5 – According to the Bureau of Prison (BOP) website Whitey is still in transit. How is it that it takes so long to go from Pymouth, MA to some other U.S. location. Maybe I was wrong when I said Whitey would be subject to the deisel therapy. Perhaps because of the cut back in federal fundings (called by the strange name: sequestration?) the BOP has decided there is a more money saving way of transporting prisoners, have them walk. It’s especially good therapy for guys over 80. Right now Whitey should be somewhere near Milford. If you see a guy in an orange jump suit limping along surrounded by 37 plain clothes Marshalls carrying AK-47s let us know. Do you think it will take as long to transport him out to ADX as it has taken the FBI to tell us how and why it killed Ibragim Todashev?

Day 187 – the number of days the FBI takes to investigate or cover-up the killing of Todashev who was shot down by one of its agents. We neither know the name of the agent nor of any of the others involved in this killing. The extent of the FBI’s powers is that it can prevent two states from discussing the incident and stop the release of the coroner’s report. I find it amazing that those in positions of power don’t care that a person can be killed by law enforcement officers and they can cover-up the crime. Surely keeping what happened for six months is equivalent to a cover-up.

Day 224 – since the Boston Marathon Terrorist Attack – the FBI will not disclose, not even to Congress, whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev was an informant for it. MSFreeh points out that  McVeigh’s buddy Terry Nichols says McVeigh was an FBI informant which I doubt since he never used it in his defense. Since we will never get the truth from the FBI, we will have to wait until Joker goes to trial to find this out. One thing I’ll never understand is why the FBI publicly released the photographs of the Tsarnaevs when they had agents in its office who knew them.

Day  828     – (I use August 17, 2011 as the date. The Boston Globe reported on that date that Congressman Stephen Lynch demanded a briefing from the FBI on why they used Mark Rossetti as an informant) This all comes about because MassachusettsState Police recorded more than 40 conversations between Rossetti and his FBI handler in the spring of 2010, through a wiretap on Rossetti’s FBI-issued phone, according to the court documents.”  The FBI agent told Rossetti “my job is to keep you anonymous and keep you safe.’’  or as the article noted “His handler promises that [Rossetti’s] safety is his biggest concern and that he will deal with the fallout from the upcoming state wiretap [this wiretap] as it progresses.’’

This is a complicated investigation because it has taken so long. The FBI is investigating what happened within the FBI.




60 thoughts on “Days Slip By As We Wait For Answers

  1. No one has any explanation as to why the FBI treated Whitey with kid gloves at his arrest instead of busting into the apartment and blowing him away? I mean there are many cases of law enforcement doing just that when looking for a fugitive

    1. Jerome:

      The FBI’s arrest of Whitey was brilliant. It was the text book way to handle an arrest of a person believed armed and dangerous; use a ruse. It can be credited to their training and skill that they bought it about. Had they gone in guns blazing without first trying the deceptive manner, then perhaps the agents would be criticized. But the way they did reflects well on the FBI.

  2. William and Matt- Could a big part of the problem be the whole Top Echelon Informant program. I mean it seems to become a “He say He say” between Whitey, Flemmi, Connolly, Morris, O’Sullivan etc. Who decides what crimes these criminals can and can not do? The other thing I find curious is that once the FBI no longer needs you (you being an informant) then surely you will be arrested on sort of charge. I have no idea but I would imagine Steve Flemmi and Whitey Bulger may have felt betrayed and manipulated by law enforcement as crazy as that sounds. Once they no longer served a purpose then law enforcement came after them, no?

    1. Jerome:

      You hit the nail on the head. Much of the problem is because of that dastardly conceived program that is unique to law enforcement where FBI agents give high level criminals a pass in return for information on other criminals. The deal with a top echelon informant is that the FBI agent who is his handler has to be notified of anything anyone learns about his TEI. His job is, as Rossetti’s agent told him, “to keep him safe.” If you went up to a criminal and told him your job was to keep him safe you’d be thrown in the slammer with him. The “he say he say” issue you talk about comes down to the understanding that the FBI will protect a TEI and the word “protect” is very broadly interpreted.

      You are right that both Stevie and Whitey felt betrayed. After Stevie was arrested he asked to speak to one of the agents he knew to see if he could get out. For years while awaiting his trial he continued to deal with John Connolly believing Connolly could help him out. Flemmi and Whitey were not brought down by the FBI but by the DOJ and the state police and DEA. The FBI kept its deal with them even after it stopped using them. It only went against them once Stevie came out and testified he and Whitey were informants. A long term practice of the FBI when its informants were arrested by state agencies is to tell them they must keep it quiet that they were informants. If they do, the FBI will work behind the scene to help them out; if not, the FBI will work againt them.

      You are seeing the intrigue that others have missed.

      1. As crude and unfathomable as this might sound given all the evil that Flemmi and Whitey did to others I understand better their sense of betrayal. With that said do you think the FBI could have gotten Flemmi and Whitey out of the jams they got into with the DOJ, state police, and DEA and if so, how? What would Flemmi and Whitey motive be to become informants if another part of law enforcement can arrest and prosecute them? I was always curious would flee if he had TEI status.

        Is it possible that Flemmi and Whitey got indicted, finally, by other law enforcement agencies because Morris no longer wanted to be in bed with those two? No one fought to keep them indicted anymore? That would make sense as you explained how Morris used the two writers to air out that Whitey was an informant.It was Morris who played everyone against each other and portrayed himself almost in a victim like manner?


          Inflated self-esteem is typically present, ranging from uncritical self-confidence to marked grandiosity, and may reach delusional proportions. Individuals may give advice on matters about which they have no special knowledge (e.g., how to run the United Nations). Despite lack of any particular experience or talent, the individual may embark on writing a novel or composing a symphony or seek publicity for some impractical invention. Grandiose delusions are common (e.g., having a special relationship to God or to some public figure from the political, religious, or entertainment world).

          Almost invariably, there is a decreased need for sleep. The person usually awakens several hours earlier than usual, feeling full of energy. When the sleep disturbance is severe, the person may go for days without sleep and yet not feel tired.

          Manic speech is typically pressured, loud, rapid, and difficult to interrupt. Individuals may talk nonstop, sometimes for hours on end, and without regard for others’ wishes to communicate. Speech is sometimes characterized by joking, punning, and amusing irrelevancies. The individual may become theatrical, with dramatic mannerisms and singing. Sounds rather than meaningful conceptual relationships may govern word choice (i.e., clanging). If the person’s mood is more irritable than expansive, speech may be marked by complaints, hostile comments, or angry tirades.

          1. Interesting, since I know an old friend who is bi-polar and I’ve only seen her with the below behaviours.

            ” uncritical self-confidence to marked grandiosity, and may reach delusional proportions. Individuals may give advice on matters about which they have no special knowledge (e.g., how to run the United Nations). Despite lack of any particular experience or talent, the individual may embark on writing a novel or composing a symphony or seek publicity for some impractical invention. Grandiose delusions are common (e.g., having a special relationship to God or to some public figure from the political, religious, or entertainment world”

            On the other hand, I have a family relative who is not mentally ill but exhibits the below behaviors when he want’s to aggravate and annoy the rest of us .

            “Manic speech is typically pressured, loud, rapid, and difficult to interrupt. Individuals may talk nonstop, sometimes for hours on end, and without regard for others’ wishes to communicate. Speech is sometimes characterized by joking, punning, and amusing irrelevancies. The individual may become theatrical, with dramatic mannerisms and singing. Sounds rather than meaningful conceptual relationships may govern word choice (i.e., clanging). If the person’s mood is more irritable than expansive, speech may be marked by complaints, hostile comments, or angry tirades”

            Drugs can also cause those behaviours in those who choose to use them. LOL

  3. Matt and Jerome, (1) only the government “censors”; private individuals discriminate in their speech; as SCOTUS said in the St. Pat’s Parade case, private individuals decide what to include or exclude in their expressions; parade organizers decide what contingents will march and what messages will be displayed; the Government can’t alter private citizens speech/artistic expressions, nor private parade organizers’ messages. Editors decide what appears on the Ed and Op-Ed pages. Editors don’t censor. Matt’s not a censor; he’s more like an editor.
    (2) The fact that some of my relatives and friends are criminal defense attorney casts no aspersion on their character; news flash to Jerome: lawyers defend and represent criminals; honorable men like Bill Bulger represent criminals, in civil and criminal cases. (3) No book correctly portrays Southie-Savie; we who grew up in those neighborhoods and hung out there during the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and have family and lifelong friends there, know the many lies Carr, Lehr, O’Neil tell: for example, Matt has pointed out that Lehr, O’Neil wrote that a civil judge “found” that Connolly had leaked information which led to someone’s death, yet they failed to write that a federal jury acquitted Connolly six times of any leaks, thereby acquitting him six times of any involvement in anyone’s death; the Boston federal jury also acquitted him of two acts of accepting bribes, but convicted him of one act of bribery: transmitting a case of wine with $1000 from Whitey to Morris, the only crime he was convicted of during his 23 years as an FBI agent. Did Black Mass make that clear? Of course not! The other more “minor” crimes, obstruction of justice, Connolly was convicted of occurred between four and nine years after he’d left the FBI. Did you learn any of those facts reading Carr, Lehr, or O’Neil? I understand that the Boston book writers also fail to write that Connolly was not represented in the Civil Trial, and both plaintiffs (victims) and defendants (FBI/DOJ) tried to paint him as a “rogue” cop, even though the Civil Judge found him not “rogue” but acting within the scope of his employment. I don’t read liars. I caution anyone reading Carr, O’Neil, Lehr etc. (4) Carr, Lehr and O’Neil for ten years plus have tried to paint Connolly in the blackest light possible. Never once have I heard them raise the issue of Connolly being tried twice for the same crime in Boston (not guilty) and Miami (guilty), a grotesque violation of due process jurisprudence by the FEDs: do doubt the Feds orchestrated the second trial in Miami and Fed prosecutor Fred Wyshak actually tried it in Miami. What a farce! What a travesty! 5. My cousin, a retired Boston cop, thought the book “Rat Bastard” was fairly accurate.

    1. In support of Mr. William Connolly, I offer links to the case in question which includes real audio from oral arguments from Mr. Connolly’s associate, Chester Darling:

      Here is the full opinion, from Justice Souter:

      Here is that holding, which speaks true to the question of censorship, which you articulate so well here and with such authority; thank you.

      We granted certiorari to determine whether the requirement to admit a parade contingent expressing a message not of the private organizers’ own choosing violates the First Amendment. 513 U. S. ___ (1995). We hold that it does and reverse.

      Furthermore, the Court in HURLEY held that private individuals have no First Amendment rights against other private individuals. As Matt expressly explained, and as Mr. William Connolly further explains with this added support, where there is no state action, there is no censorship and no deprivation of free speech.

      Matt is no longer Deputy District Attorney of Norfolk County, and Bill is no longer employed by the Department of Public Health; therefore, there is no state action here.

      While I am sure that some here may protest, the flaring fact is that they are right, and arguments to the contrary are simply wrong.

      Good night,

      While the guarantees of free speech and equal protection guard only against encroachment by the government and “erec[t] no shield against merely private conduct,” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948); see Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976), respondents originally argued that the Council’s conduct was not purely private, but had the character of state action.

    2. William- Thanks for the excellent explanation. It is hard to find the truth in this whole Whitey saga.

  4. Matt- When I say sympathize with Whitey what I meant was I felt sorry for him once he was in prison and what he went through in prison. I am not sure the writers wrote the book with that intention. Now I do NOT sympathize with Whitey once he gets out of jail and gets back into a life of crime and all the horrible things he did as a gangster

    What is your thought on the fact that Billy Bulger (when working as a lawyer) represented some of Whitey’s friends who were criminals? That doesnt cast some doubt at all on Billy Bulger?

    The more you learn about Whitey capture the more laughable it is to believe he could be in Santa Monica for 14 years and no one spot him. The FBI really believes people are that gullible and stupid? As crazy as it sounds, the way Whitey was captured by drawing him out of his apartment instead of busting through the door guns drawn as in so many cases, I am starting to believe they knew where he was for years and brought him in now for a nice show.

  5. Matt- I see now that the word censorship is often used inappropriately. For example, I would say that the guy who wanted to paint on a painting in a museum is being censored in the sense that he is not being allowed to express himself on that painting. But the fact that it is not his painting eliminates his from being censored. Now if he owned the painting and wanted to deface it in public and the police stopped him would that mean he was being censored?

    In the example with the judge and evidence I see that the correct word is not censorship but simply suppression. Arent some verdicts overturned due to a question of evidence being suppressed or not made available to both sides (prosecution and defense)?

    Regarding the books on the Irish “Gang Wars”. The only one I found is HITMAN by Howie Carr. The reason I am asking you for other titles is because you mentioned that Howie Carr often makes up stories, lies, ad libs (something to that effect). Howie Carr wrote THE RIFLEMAN but that book is simply transcipts of Steve Flemmi informant reports. That book was disappointing. I am currently reading WHITEY (O’Neil and Lehr). One bad side effect of this book IMHO is that I have sympathized with Whitey because of his experience in prison. The book really humanizes him and the love Billy Bulger had/has for Whitey.

    In the 60 Minutes link that I posted you can see the eyes of Whitey in a pic when captured and he looks like one old, sad, grumpy miserable dude. He has that dementia (not all there) look too. Looks nothing like the tough and powerful and in control gangter that he was at teh height of his reign

    Do you think Whitey would have shot it out with the cops if they knowcked on his door. Something that makes no sense to me is how come the DEA, FBI, ATF etc werent surrounding his apartment with massive automatic weapons drawn like you see in the show Cops? How come the FBI didnt kill Whitey like they did Osama bin Laden?

  6. When BOP zeks are flown between administrative regions, they land in Oklahoma City, and, wait in the Fed run high-rise prison at the airport, until they are assigned to a particular prison. Zeks can sit in Oklahoma for weeks, sometimes, months, before they are transferred. Oklahoma is a way-station, rather like Purgatory was reputed to be. Its a Spartan facility with a de-humanizing regime. The cell lights are kept on at all times, making sleep difficult. Zeks use tooth-paste to stick magazine pages on the shield that protects the cell lights. That’s the only way to somewhat dim the cell. Hacks come around periodically, and, tear the pages off the lights. They’ll put Bulger in the OK SHU. When he moves again, he’ll probably go to an FMC for medical evaluation before he gets shipped to his terminal destination. Perhaps, Florence? Maybe, but, maybe not. He’s at the mercy of inscrutable BOP/GULAG bureaucrats now.
    In any event, all hope is not yet lost. Bulger’s attorneys have said he will appeal his conviction. Perhaps, this final gambit will bring to light the information that Bulger believes was unfairly suppressed at his trial. He’s got one last arrow to pull from his quiver. It will be very entertaining, if he hits his mark.

  7. as always I try to turn everyone into smart criminal justice consumers.
    By buddy in Quincy Ed just sent this to me…
    Let me start by raising more questions than I am able to answer.
    see link to open these parcels of information

    NSA Spying

    NSA Primary Sources
    Search Terms
    Filter by Media Outlet
    sort ascending
    Datesort ascending Document Media Outlet
    11/23/2013 SIGINT Strategy 2012 NY Times
    Donate to EFF
    Stay in Touch
    NSA Spying

    [NSA Spying]

    EFF is leading the fight against the NSA’s illegal mass surveillance program. Learn more about what the program is, how it works, and what you can do.
    Follow EFF

    Our friends at @ACLU_NorCal filed a shareholder proposal with AT&T & Verizon demanding data sharing transparency
    Nov 25 @ 3:52pm

    60 professors, including many of the foremost patent law experts, tell Congress that reform is needed now:
    Nov 25 @ 11:40am

    How NSA mass surveillance is hurting the US economy:

    1. Dear Matt et al.,

      Look at all the other sites MSFREEH has posted the same articles on, as noted below. These are all websites which allow for comments and in many cases duplicate articles from site to site. These postings border on spam and are, I argue, advertising for MSFREEH’s anti-FBI agenda. While surely this blog is a critique of the FBI, it is not propaganda given the breadth and scope of discussions. MSFREEH offers a one sentence comment like, “Oh, why don’t you remind me not to talk about JFK, eh?” and then pastes the full text of one of these articles yet again.

      Take a look at the definition of “blog spam,” which is a new phenomenon but explained well in this Wikipedia entry:

      “It is done by posting (usually automatically) random comments, copying material from elsewhere that is not original, or promoting commercial services to blogs, wikis, guestbooks, or other publicly accessible online discussion boards. Any web application that accepts and displays hyperlinks submitted by visitors may be a target.”

      Because MSFREEH copies material from elsewhere that is not original and does so across the Internet on many blogs and comment areas, I argue that MSFREEH is a spammer. Please see a few doze of the many websites that MSFREEH posts full-text articles on, in the exact same way as he/she/it does here, as pasted below. There are HUNDREDS of sites that MSFREEH has posted on the past few years, going back to 2010.

      Our blog is simply one target among many.



        1. Dear Matt,

          An added piece of the puzzle which should make a lot more sense now is when MSFREEH recently posted a link to a Latter Day Saints website where he/she/it had posted an article. After that, one commentator here (I believe Jean) asked if MSFREEH associated with that religious movement. I recall the question being, “Are you LDS?” The reply from MSFREEH was, in sum and in substance, “No, they kicked me off that site” or something to that effect.

          The reasons for that, and why MSFREEH was posting on a LDS website should, I believe, make much more sense to all interested parties now.

          Happy Thanksgiving,

          1. Dear Matt,

            My intent was to point out that the proven spammer MSFREEH was posting indiscriminately throughout the blogosphere, which explains his/her/its presence on a LDS website from the onset, as well as the reasons why he/she/it was banned — due to spamming. However, you propose an alternate theory of the case which may very well be true.

            Thank you for that.


      1. Matt et al.,
        I’ve read what was posted in the above links immediately following the bombing of the Marathon.
        Jay has done us a good turn by collecting these.
        This is someone who has used the suffering and confusion of those at the Marathon to elevate his own copying and pasting with disrespectful comments.

        I want no part in this.
        Boston has been used enough; that’s what we’re blogging about.

        And by the way, blogging – writing – is behavior.
        Thoughtful, ongoing written conversation is deliberate behavior.
        It’s powerful because it challenges and shapes the stories that are fed to us.

        A careful conversation concerning Boston’s recent history is an excellent project.

        I would urge attention to those who stop the flow of responsible conversation.

        1. Dear Firefly,

          It’s not too often that I’ve said this, but I couldn’t have said that better myself. It is so very encouraging to know that my diligence and an occasional watchful eye are not expended in vain, and that my own words have found ears and spurred many new words. Thus are the very seeds of responsible conversation. Thank you very much for that; it is a precious gift.


        2. Firefly:

          I agree with you – writing is one form of action. Those in doubt just have to look up Thomas Paine. His “Common Sense” was so influential that John Adams said, “Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”[

  8. Matt, I second Jay’s recommendations. 2. Msfreeh’s refrenced video on Jesse Trentadue was very worthwhile—shows much obstruction of justice by the DOJ, and raises many questions about DOJ/FBI coverups. Trentadue is a lawyer and former football player at USC. Seems like a very smart guy with a lot of integrity.

    1. Copy that Connolly II . You left out the part about no more posts about JFK, eh?

      Dear friends,

      After its world premiere at the Texas Theatre in Dallas last Sunday and a successful UK cinema release yesterday, my new documentary KILLING OSWALD is now available to stream worldwide at

      The film features interviews with authors John Newman, Dick Russell, David Kaiser and Joan Mellen; Cuban exile leader Antonio Veciana and Watergate burglar Eugenio Martinez; alongside rare archive film and audio of Oswald and his alleged CIA handlers George De Mohrenschildt and David Atlee Phillips.

      None of the TV specials aired here or in the US over the last few weeks have explored Oswald’s life before Dallas in any depth, so I hope the film provides a counter-argument to the mythology still swirling around Oswald in the mainstream media. It was heartening to see the film outscore Parkland in many reviews here yesterday.

      Please help spread the word about the film within and beyond the research community. The DVD is also available on Amazon via the links on the website.

      All the best,

      Killing Oswald
      A film by Shane O’Sullivan
      UK• 2013 • 102 MINS

      Using archive footage, interviews and dramatic reconstruction, Killing Oswald explores the mystery of how and why John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald were assassinated in 1963. We trace Oswald’s bizarre transformation from US Marine radar operator in Japan, monitoring U2 spy planes over Russia; to 20-year-old Marxist defector, decamping to Moscow threatening to share military secrets with the KGB; to pro-Castro activist in New Orleans and self-proclaimed patsy in Dallas. We chart his secret life in the months and years leading up to Dealey Plaza, and the troubling intelligence connections that led to the “assassin” being assassinated.

      “Killing Oswald sifts through the [secret files] made public after Oliver Stone’s JFK and raises compelling new questions about the whole affair” – The Guardian

      “This excellent documentary from Shane O’Sullivan benefits from the richness of the archive material it has unearthed and from some intriguing testimony by well-informed ‘experts'” – The Independent (4 stars)

      “A mesmerising and intricate tale…unique in that it focuses solely on the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, and his movements prior to the shooting” – Cine Vue (4 stars)

      1. It looks to me like someone posted a full article’s text again. In the comments section, comments should be our own; not a reposting of other posts. If anyone Googles the name MSFREEH, you will all see that MSFREEH is a serial poster on many other comment blogs and continually just copies and pastes texts of articles criticizing the FBI.

        I would take that to mean that rather than contributing meaningfully to many discussions here, that this modus operandi is furthering MSFREEH’s own agenda. I do not believe that is the purpose of the comments section of this blog, which, I believe, is to discuss the topics at hand.

        I believe that MSFREEH’s reposting of whole articles is not so much to contribute to these discussion as it is to ensure that the articles he/she/it posts come up in Google search results.

        Go ahead and Google MSFREEH, and you will see for yourselves. MSFREEH has been doing this for years apparently; apparently MSFREEH has some deep-seated grudge against the FBI and posting articles criticizing the FBI repeatedly all over cyberspace is a means to that end.

        Yet what have you really achieved in all your years of doing this, MSFREEH? People ask you not to do something; by ignoring those requests repeatedly, you disrespect those people. It makes it harder to follow discussions, scrolling through your articles, many of which have such an attenuated connection to the topic at hand, that they, at times, may be deemed irrelevant.

        I find your blatant mocking of polite requests to be offensive.


        1. Jay,
          I support your efforts.
          It’s weird to have a blog taken over by people who do not respect Matt.
          Sorry to even feel the need to get into this, but I have to give my perspective.
          Otherwise, it’s as if I go along.

          1. Thanks, Firefly. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Enough is enough.

  9. Matt: I just had my therapist cut my medications by 35% with him saying
    your blog is the best therapeutic milieu for my disorder . As you can see he has already starting referring his clients to your blog.LOL

    Sorry you never called attorney Jesse Trentadue in Salt Lake City as I
    suggested in an earlier post. During the discovery process Trentadue obtained FBI documents during the civil trial he won against the FBI.
    The documents show Timothy McVeigh was an informant before the Oklahoma City bombing. Jesse would be more than happy to fax you copies.

    FBI Supervisor has been identified as McVeigh’s FBI handler.

    But hey you already knew this, eh?

    Where do us wordsmiths go from here?

    I know our 13 conferences looking at crimes committed by FBI agents
    had an impact on how FBI agents do business.
    I am calling you out Matt to move beyond your blog and help us create the 1st National Conference Investigating the Boston Marathon bombing.
    Blogging is not truth, behaviour is truth.

    1. ms:

      True blogging isn’t action but sometimes other considerations in life prevent one from pursuing time consuming projects. I’ve recently had to make such a decision turning down an interesting case with probably a nice financial return because I have to be guarded in my time. So I must regetfully turn down your invitations to be more active in these areas but my reticence should not deter you and others from ploughing ahead.

      If that impacts you medicine quantity I suggest you return to your therapist and ask him to re-up your pills. I’ve read a lot about Trentadue and admire his persistence in pursuing the tragic death of his brother. I’m not ready to go after the FBI like he has done but I still retain my doubt McVeigh was an FBI informant since he did not use that in some way in his defense and went to his demise keeping it a secret.

      I’ve mentioned before I admire your wealth of knowledge and the material you have forwarded to this blog which I have found stimulating as you know because I have cited you in my posts. Time, ms, makes cowards of us all in the eyes of others who want us to pursue more than we are capable of doing. So must it be with me.

      1. to be continued…….

        The FBI will take over the investigation into the sexual misconduct by Secret Service and theft by ATF agent
        according to unidentified sources in the whisper stream. FBI agent Ryan Seese has been selected to head up the investigative task force. Matt Connolly should be getting a tweet at any moment about Lee Harvey the chechen investigation from the DOJ preceded by the phrase “don’t embarrass the bureau”..

        Indictment: Seattle ATF supervisor lied, stole from agency
        Thursday, November 21, 2013

        see link for full story

        A former supervisor in the Seattle office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was indicted Thursday following allegations he embezzled from the bureau and faked records to hide the thefts.

        James Contreras, formerly a special agent with the ATF, is alleged to have pilfered from an expense account meant to allow agents to buy guns and other products while working undercover, and to pay informants.

        Contreras, a 51-year-old Maple Valley resident, was supervising the Seattle ATF office when the thefts are alleged to have occurred. Prosecutors claim the thefts began in March 2010 and continued through April 2012.

        According to prosecutors, Contreras took money from the account on 30 occasions. He is alleged to have forged signatures of agents who were supposedly requesting and receiving money from the fund, and to have falsified forms tying the expenses to specific investigations.

        On Thursday, a federal grand jury in Seattle indicted Contreras on one embezzlement count and 30 counts of making false statements.

        Accused in 30 separate thefts, Contreras is alleged to have stolen $19,700 in ATF money. Court records show most of the money was disguised as “subsistence payments” to ATF informants.

        see link for tax dime spent

        Secret Service Investigation into Sexual Misconduct Is Bungled by Federal Officials

        Investigations into the U.S. Secret Service have been bungled by senators and plagued with nepotism allegations against an inspector general, according to congressional and government sources, the Washington Times reports.

        Despite allegations of sexual misconduct against a Secret Service agent, Sen. Claire McCaskill has demanded an end to the investigation, and Deputy Inspector General Charles K. Edwards is accused of abusing agency resources and hiring his wife.

        FBI Agent Accused Of Masturbating In Public
        May 25, 2007
        FBI Agent Accused Of Masturbating In Public

        Posted by, Marissa Pasquet KOLD News 13 News Editor

        FBI Special Agent Ryan Seese, 34, is facing sex offense charges after a cleaning woman said she found him masturbating in a women’s lavatory on campus, according to a University of Arizona police spokesman.

        1. MS:

          The NSA is beyond this blog.

          The FBI has over 15,000 agents – you’d expect some would go astray at times. The few that do show that the great majority are law abiding citizens.

      2. Matt- I actually disagree with your request not to post video clips. I posted a few clips of Whitey Bulger to SHOW that the Media was hyping up Whitey Bulger. If you ask me there should be freedom to post long comments. video clips etc. Everything short of profanity. I mean one of your criticisms of the FBI is that they manipulate and censor information being released to the public. Then you turn around and want to censor and micro-manage peoples comments on this blog?

        What is amazing is your inability to see that what your criticize others of doing (Carr, FBI) you do yourself. And yes just like they justify it to themselves so do you. No Matt you dont do it to the level that Carr and the FBI do it (not even close) but you still criticize them of behaviors you do. Personally I thought Jay posting 19 video clips in the Howie Carr is Iago thread was over the top and obnoxious but I wouldnt want to take away his right just because I dont like it.

        1. Jerome- If you want too add to the discussion so be it. But if your going to continuously just complain about what Matt does on his own blog and how he criticizes the FBI or Howie Carr, Do it elsewhere. Posting outdated videos is not going to tell us anything we do not know already.

          1. Doubting Thomas- Tit for tat? I am adding to the discussion as I see fit. Can you stop with telling me what I should and should not do. If you dont like the video clips dont watch them. Just like I scroll down when I have no interest in reading a specific persons comments. SO now that I have answered you is that tit or is that tat?

        2. Jerome:
          You disagree with me and believe others should post what they want. That’s fine. I’m sure others do also but I have to decide how I want my site to look.
          You equate my acting in the capacity of controlling comments that go against my rules with the FBI’s secrecy or my getting back at Howie Carr with his broad brush smearing of immigrant groups and down-and-outers. That’s fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
          I can’t help how you think or believe, I can however decide what standard I want the comments to my post to follow. You may have noticed that most sites will not post a comment until it has cleared the moderator. Is that censorship? Had you been to a court trial, you may notice a judge controls the evidence that a jury hears, is that censorship? When you go to a movie and want to give a speech and stand up and start talking and the theater owner ejects you is that censorship?
          When I was in Paris recently a man carrying a brush and some paints was being escorted out of the Louvre. I asked him “what’s up?” He complained to me that he was being censored. He had come to the museum earlier that day with his painting gear because he wanted to add some touches which he said would brighten up one of Leonardo’s paintings (I think it was the Mona Lisa but he was yelling so loud it wasn’t clear) but as soon as he opened his paint box and moved toward the painting the museum guards seized him and ejected him. The way you write I have had to agree with him that he was being censored. But sometimes it is necessary to keep order and censor people.

          1. Matt

            1. The inability to post a comment without clearance with the moderator is CENSORSHIP

            2.A judge controlling what evidence a jury hears is NOT CENSORSHIP. There are laws specifically the judge has to follow. Of course there are convictions over turned because evidence was “suppressed”. In that case there was censorship and a big darn penalty for that “suppression”?censorship

            3.When a movie theater owner throws out someone giving a speech during that is CENSORSHIP. But again, due to laws, its not considered censorship because people pay to see a movie, not hear a speech. And back to our current favorite element: FIRE. A person , by law, can not yell FIRE if there is no fire in a movie theater. Is that censorship:Yes. Is it against the law: Yes

            4. Sure the painter was being “censored” because its not HIS painting to paint all over

            So we agree then. Asking people not to post video clips nor long posts. Personally I find it annoying having to scroll all the way down past specific comments because there are walls and walls of text. Would I stop either one.

            What we disagree on is this. The FBI can “censor” what information they release to the public and JUSTIFY IT. I believe one of your main criticisms is that the FBI “censors” information to the public or am I mistaken?

            Just my 2 cents

            1. Jerome:

              The reason our country did so well in the beginning was the people who founded it and those who came after it had a similar educational background and the words they used were understood in the manner in which they were spoken. One of the problems with more recent discussions is the failure of people to understand words spoken by others because of the diverse educational backgrounds. I’ve written that there is as many different interpretations of the word informant as there are pigeons on Boston Common; the same applies to the word terrorist. You’ve now introduced another word without fully understanding its meaning, censorship (for some reason you capitalize it).
              The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a censor as: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
              a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
              b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful.

              1. I don’t really fit the definition since it seems to apply to acts by officials. You imply censorship is somehow that should not be. That is absurd, we all censor things in our daily live when we decide who we will associate with or what we want to listen to or what restaurants we will eat at or movies we will watch.
              2. A judge is a censor. Whether she does it on a whim or according to rules she is deciding what a jury will hear. Your exception makes no sense.
              3. How can censorship not be considered censorship? You see how garbled your understanding of the word is. Law doesn’t make the act of censorship into something other than censorship.
              4. Again your understanding of censorship seems odd; the painter wasn’t censored he was stopped from defacing a painting; I suppose you’d suggest that stopping cars going over the speed limit is censorship.
              I don’t agree with you since I can’t because I have no common idea of the term censorship. As for the FBI, I think you have missed the thrust of my arguments but if you go back and read some of my earlier posts you’ll understand that my disagreement with it is much broader than what it releases to the public.

        3. Dear Jerome,

          You posted videos out of context. I posted videos to educate you about the many other political figures in the world who made jokes about otherwise serious topics.

          Clearly, you missed the point. Then you pointed videos from Richard Prior. I suspect you lack any formal education. Matt is an attorney, as is William Connolly. Other commentators on here hold advanced degrees or have extensive experience working in their field. In other words, they have knowledge to share. You share absolutely nothing except emotive intensity. Your points do not add up; in your logic 2+1=4.

          The substance of your comments indicates your own chosen limitations. Unfortunately, that is something which no doctor can cure you of; you can only heal thyself. Your resistance and childish heckling suggests symptoms of stunted intellectual growth on your part.

          Going forward, I have come to a conclusion and urge others to follow these words of advice as well. Jerome, clearly you suffer from some acute mania of some sort; you come here to heckle and to destroy; your comments lack any insight and instead indicate a desire to create dramatics. Rather than choosing to engage meaningfully, you incite and divide.

          Accordingly, you are unworthy of engagement.


          “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.” –Ayn Rand

  10. Dear Matt,

    I agree that come people have really gotten carried away with postings videos on your blog. I also support the restoration of moderated comments to allow for preliminary review for appropriateness and relevance. While free speech is important, your blog is also a publication and as the editor and administrator of this blog, I urge you to exercise editorial discretion when necessary and proper to avoid diminishing the thrust of your blog. This will also mitigate against turning off other blog readers who may be disappointed at long pages of articles posted in full text, for example. I know for a fact that some with whom I’ve spoken have expressed concerns about that phenomenon in particular.

    I urge that you, at the least, impose a rule that no more full article should be posted and that instead only a relevant excerpt offered in support of a point along with a weblink to the full article. If you restore moderation, then postings not in conformity with these editorial rules should not be approved. I stress that, while surely you do not wish to censor, it is akin to a courtroom where you are the judge; you are in charge of moderating, in effect; we have spoken at length about the inappropriateness of certain witness statements at recent and past sentencing proceedings.

    I believe that the suggested remedy there was for the judge to prescreen and offer greater oversight of the happenings there. Similarly, I believe that implementing these measures may facilitate greater order here, in addition to fortifying the credibility and potency of what is said here.

    Please note that I’m only trying to offer some objective suggestions for your review, because I care.


    1. Jay:

      I use my position of moderator to insure people who are not public figures are not identified in my blog in a negative way; to avoid having people tell their life stories after being asked not to; to keep court documents from being posted after I asked that not be done and to avoid any negative stereotyping of people. Other than that I hope people will write succinctly (which I should do more of) and stick to the point which most have done. I have already asked that full articles not be posted and have been ignored in my request so I’m giving enough rope for the persons doing so to hang themselves.

      I like you analogizing my position to that of a judge; I guess I’m like one of those judges who when confronted with an objection says “I’ll let it in de bene” which is pretty much passing the buck. I guess I should be more diligent in my role/

      I appreciate your suggestions and take them to heart since I have valued your contributions to the blog. I’ll try to pick up my game as my coach use to ask me.


      1. Dear Matt,

        In support of my prior point, the number of your blog subscribers has been dropping since MSFREEH’s spam postings and other incendiary postings. I wager that this decline in readership is attributed in whole or in part to the nature of these postings which has an eroding effect on the quality of these discussions. Your blog seeks to rise about THE BOSTON GLOBE or THE BOSTON HERALD, yet while the reporting there may be skewed, here the integrity of your reporting has been rapidly becoming overshadowed by accusatory and inappropriate postings both in substance and in form.

        I am pleased that you have restored comment moderation and hope that this measure shall deter current readers from unsubscribing and may even turn back that tide. Those who disrespect your polite requests either do not care about you or wish to sabotage your blog, or both. I emphasize the important of staying the course in you reasserting oversight of this space. It is your space, and I applaud you for reminding everyone of that.


        1. Jay:

          I don’t agree the subscribers are dropping because of msfreeh’s postings; I’d suggest a lot of people figure the trial is over and there is little left to discuss.

          I do agree after your diligent research the msfreeh seems to be a spammer who copies articles and then sends them off with a couple of lines in the beginning. I have let them stand for a while but I have asked him to just refer to them by giving the address of the article. I agree that no one want to labor through much of what he has been sending but I let it go totally unaware he was just spending him time going from one blog to another posting the same thing.

          I do criticize the FBI but I differ substantially from msfreeh in his foolish attempts to equate the actions of a few to whole body. I will exercise my editing function more carefully from now on so that the comments are germane to the topic at hand an limited in length.

          Thanks for the research and keeping me in line.

    2. Jay -Its interesting that you agree that some people have posted too many video clips. You posted 19 video clips out of 80 comments in the Howie Carr is Iago thread. Are you on medication or dealing with mental challenges?

      Matt- You say sometimes its best to “fight fire with fire” in relation to verbally attacking Howie Carr. Let me ask you a question. If your house was on fire and you called the fire department and they came and tried to put out the fire with MORE FIRE do you know what would happen? Your house would burn down faster. Thats why Matt the fire department uses water to put out the flames A more effective way of dealing with Howie Carr is teaching people WHY he is ignorant, not name calling him nor attacking him for being fat etc. Why would a man as intelligent and professional as yourself stoop to Howie Carr’s level?

      With your logic, Whitey Bulger murdered 11 people so we have the right to pull out a gun and blast away at Whitey? Isnt that fighting fire with fire too? You know, doing to Whitey what he has done to others?

      If I post more video clips because I am “fighting fire with fire” wouldnt I be OK in doing that?

      1. Your doing a real bang up job with the petty tit for tat. You are offended about Howie Carr. We get your point. We just do not agree. The analogy of fighting a house fire with fire is pretty out there my man. Are you TED Cruz?

      2. Jerome:
        Fire with fire is intended not to embrace the one meaning of the word fire which relates to a flame, although you do know that one way to fight forest fires is with fire, but the other meaning that encompasses the idea shooting out, as in being fired upon by an enemy or an opponent. It means you don’t stand silent when someone is doing something you find unpleasant. There is a legal maxim that silence is consent; if you remain silent when someone calls you a crook and don’t fire back with a denial or other response you are deemed such.
        Another old saw is you can’t prove a negative. I’ve never said Howie was ignorant, in fact, I think he is quite smart and clever. I believe he is a force for negativity and discord and likes to pick on the little people or smears those who work in the public sector as I did. Having worked there I know there are some slackers, as in the private sector, but most there are dedicated to doing the job to the best of their ability. Take judges for instance, are they hacks?
        I don’t stoop to Howie’s level by leveling at him a direct retort to what he like to toss at others. My point is Howie should look at the beam in his own eye as Christ taught in Matthew 7:3, or would you have suggested to Him that he should not have criticized those people.
        As far as Whitey, he didn’t shoot 11 people, some of his victims he strangled. So yes, I’d agree that you should have the right to strangle Whitey. I wouldn’t advocate shooting him since you may not have a permit to carry a gun.

        1. Matt- Thank you for the clear and concise explanation. You are right some forest fires are fought with fires. Hahahahahaha. Great point. My point about Howie Carr wasnt your criticizing him. I did not agree with the manner (the way) you criticized him. I thought it was hypocritical and thats my opinion but that doesnt take away my overall enjoyment of your blog, views, or arguments. I did not mean for you , or anyone else, to sit by silently when Howie Carr spews hate or bigotry. We agree to disagree on the best way to handle Howie Carr. Personally I felt conflict because on one hand because I know Howie Carr says a lot of nasty things. On the other hand I thoroughly enjoyed his book HITMAN. I still have not found another book that discusses all the murders of the “Irish gang” wars.

          1. Jerome:

            Howie Carr to me represents greed over truth; his offerings are enjoyable to some who are not hurt by them but to others they are dreadful.

            The “Irish Gang War” involved 13 murders; Martorano and Flemmi and Salemme were involved in some of them so read any books relating to them such as Howie’s book that reproduces Flemmi’s statement when he was making a deal. Don’t read any books on Whitey if you want information on it since he was not involved in it. During the time of that gang war there were well over 50 people murdered which many suggest were part of the gang war; they weren’t. 37 and more murders had nothing to do with that war. Salemme made a statement about his involvement in the war which contradicts what Martorano and Flemmi have stated. The net has some people who have written about it. The big problem with trying to find out things about it is its age – 50 years ago – and that to quote Kevin Weeks: “gangsters lie” – that’s what they are suppose to do. And just because they make a deal with the government doesn’t mean they’ve stopped.

          2. Dear Jerome,

            You seem to take criticisms of Howie Carr rather personally. I wonder why.


      3. Dear Jerome,

        I wish your ignorance could be cured.

        Sadly, you appear to be so willfully and your pointed tone indicates that you come here in bad faith with the intent of harassing others.

        I know that you may believe it to be wholly rational to defend a man who complains of how much his hand hurts because of those pesky “rivets on jeans” after giving someone a good spanking.

        Unfortunately, I believe that further evinces symptoms that you are quite ignorant. I hope that some of the discussions here may educate you.

        Truthfully yours,

        adjective \ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\

        : lacking knowledge or information

        : resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge
        Full Definition of IGNORANT
        a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
        b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
        : unaware, uninformed
        — ig·no·rant·ly adverb
        — ig·no·rant·ness noun
        See ignorant defined for English-language learners »
        See ignorant defined for kids »
        Examples of IGNORANT

        He is an ignorant old racist.
        She was ignorant about the dangers of the drug.
        It was an ignorant mistake.
        … the World Series of the wild-card era is the pull of a slot-machine lever, a game of chance ignorant of form. Regularly populated now with second-place clubs or flavor-of-the-month teams more than dominant regular-season franchises … —Tom Verducci, Sports Illustrated, 30 Oct. 2006

  11. I just read a quote that you may relate to…”the three most over rated things in this world are home cooking, home loving, and the FBI.” I too am waiting for some answers in my situation. My Catch 22 has become more complicated, if this were possible. It appears that I finally made an appointment with the US Embassy here to begin the process of getting a US Passport so I can then apply for my long over due social security benefits. However, NH just reminded me in a recent letter that the AG would not approve my reevaluation of its forensic report that diagnosed me not competent. The letter further stated that Belknap County Attorney had sole jurisdiction. My appointment with US Embassy here is first week in December. NH asserted its Full Faith & Credit Clause…my question to the US Embassy was whether they intended to honor NH position? If they do then I would be deemed not competent to sign the application contract to begin process according to general interpretation of NH position…had the FBI settled the issue ten years ago as they had jurisdiction to do, I would not be in this hopeless situation…haven’t calculated how many days and counting that is…

    1. Jean:

      I suggest a state determination of competency has no weight with the U.S. Government. If there are any questions as to your competency you may refer them to this site to see your postings or to me.

      As to the NH AG’s obstinacy, I suggest first of all that decision would be up to a court; and secondly, many persons are initially found incompetent (not to suggest that the finding in your case was proper) and later determined to be competent. So I wouldn’t worry and have a happy and warm Thanksgiving south of the border.

      1. Matt,

        I am waiting for a reply from ACS Panama with respect to whether it has jurisdictional authority to process my global requests. The State of New Hampshire has just asserted its rights under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, with respect to my competency, or lack thereof. The NH AG has denied my re evaluation request. I can understand why that is. To re evaluate NH would have to produce into evidence the October 13, 2009 Report, which on its face is a fraud.

        But, the larger issue is that on August 21, 2009 I received an email from US DOJ OIG stating that its Office has referred my global complaints to USDOJ Criminal Division, US Department of State OIG, and US Social Security Administration OIG. This was 60 days prior to NH diagnosis of me with ‘nonrecoverable acute delusional disorder with somatic tendencies’, and therefore not competent to testify in court, or to sign any US legal contracts, which may encompass a US Passport application.

        If this process is to go forward, I need to be speaking with a person at US Department of State that has the authority to begin to sort it all out. I am not certain that the ACS Panama has that authority. If they do then I am on my way to resolution. If I do not get an affirmative reply from US Embassay Panama, by December 3, 2013, then I have offered to reschedule until such time I can speak with someone who has that global authority.

        Another source of information that appears to be in the mix is my June 22, 2009 letter to FBI Agent Angela Byers that now has been posted on in the High Birches section. In that letter I posed the question of whether John Iuele was an alias for Whitey Bulger. And, I laid out my problems with Boston FBI and destroyed documents, and linked John Iuele to Gene Phillips and my testimony in the OC case USA v Rennert.

        And, then 60 days after the referrals I was declared not competent by NH to testify further. Coincidence?

        1. Dear Jean,

          Thanks so much for sharing these updates about your battle to stay afloat in this sea of obstacles which encompasses you at every turn. Are you suggesting here that the FBI may have worked with the State of New Hampshire to render you incredible, because you may have solved a new aspect of the James Bulger case? What role did Mr. John Iuele have in relation to stealing your property — do you believe that James Bulger may have been trying to obtain your family’s valuable water spring as well? I will also consult your website for answers, but as this is a complex web of facts, sometimes it is most clear to ask these questions and hear the truth from you.

          I hope this gets sorted out; if the competency is not reversed in the immediate future, do you have anyone, such as family, who still reside in The Granite State, and who may be able to take the role of your legal guardian? Wouldn’t that bestow upon them the authority to receive social security funds on your behalf? While not the best outcome, perhaps it could serve as an interim measure, while you work towards a long term solution.

          Stay strong, Jean; you’ve been through so very much; surely at the very least is that you can restore your eligibility for these social security benefits. Are these social security disability benefits or retirement benefits which you’re seeking, Jean?

          Your continued sacrifices are a testament to the unbreakable promise of human endurance. Your innate strength surely inspires so many others.

          Yours truly,

          1. Jay,

            Again thank you for your ongoing interest in my family’s situation. I have attached the link to the letter that I referred to in my prior comment. /highbirches/20090622_Letter_to_FBI_Byers.doc

            There is not short way to relate our situation, but what I can say is that I was referred to both John Iuele (1989) and Gene Phillips (1990) by my then lawyer Norman Stahl. In both cases Mr. Iuele and Mr. Phillips were represented to me as financial business men that could assist me with a problem that had developed with the property where the springs were located. (I had no idea at that time that the property had hidden springs. It was not until September 1993 that I recognized the existence of the springs.)

            Mr. Iuele was represented to be a financier that could assist me. His company was Hamilton Funding and located in Hampton NH. His partner’s was name Steven Saccasocia. He was doing business with Drexel Burnham, and Executive Life. He allegedly produced a letter from one of the above related sources, but the deal was I had to pay $6000 for up front services. My mother and I paid for those services upon the advice of my lawyers, Devine Millimet Stahl and Branch. The linked letter explains what happened with Mr. Iuele. I filed complaints with NH AG and USA in Boston, MA against Mr. Iuele. At that time I had never heard of Whitey Bulger. It was not until 1995 when Mr. Bulger’s face was all over the front pages of the Boston’s newspapers did I make the connection. And, then filed more letters with the Boston FBI, which I have already reported went missing.

            Mr. Phillip’s contact was more substantial. Once Mr. Bulger disappeared, but not before warning me that although he decided not to harm me, others would, Mr. Phillip’s company First Equity Insurance, a client of Norman Stahl, offered to purchase the property. Again this was before I was aware of the springs. But, now we have information which leads us to believe that Norman Stahl was aware of the springs since they were also corporate counsel for the engineering firm that had committed fraud in the survey and engineering that put me in the spot I was in.

            Since I was ignorant of all this at the time, I agree to sell. But, then the President of First Equity went missing (there are some reports that he was found dead, two shots in the head) and a whole lot of other problems were put into motion. High Birches section – Installment #2 No Witness = No Case covers that part of the saga. Ultimately, this is the time that the Boston FBI turned me in as a suspect in the OC case USA V Rennert, which in fact links both Mr. Iuele and Mr. Phillips with Michael Milken and the Executive Life fraud of Mr. Alan Teal that caused the Pennsylvania Insurance industry to collapse, and trigger the OC investigation. Whew!

            Moving forward, I filed a January, 2009 case study complaint with SEC OIG that is also included in Installment #2. Then, I filed the June 2009 Byer’s letter with the US DOJ OIG whom I had been in contact with. In August, 2009 he made the referrals. That email can be located in Installment #9 Bank Fraud – No Witness = No Case. And, as I reported by October 13, 2009 the Laconia District Court Ordered the criminal trespassing case against me dismissed due to the fact that it ruled I was not competent to assist my attorney in an ‘affirmative defense’. In the Introduction No Witness = No Case, I explain that it was my Public Defender that filed for the competency motion with my consent. Then subsequently two other judges in Laconia District Court ruled that I was not competent due to the October 13, 2009 Report. There were no hearings, and no opportunity for any cross examination. The final order in January, 2011 confirmed that I was not restorable to competency. The diagnosis of acute delusional disorder with somatic tendencies that stated I was a danger to myself and other was left to stand. And, recently when I filed for a re evaluation, I was told by NH AG that it would not happen, and if it were to happen it would be the decision of the Belknap County Attorney who would decide. As of this writing I have had no response from the Belknap County Attorney. When I requested that NHSC appoint a guardian, it refused my request. Considering NH law of ‘stand and defend’ and considering the death threat from someone who has proven himself to be a killer, my family decided that I was no longer safe in the US. And, that is what the situation is today. (The recent communications with NH AG are posted on under Announcements)

Comments are closed.