Dred Drysack’s Big Decision. Making a Deal To Get Others.

The federal prosecutor Dred Drysack had returned indictments against a group of fellows who had been involved in violent criminal activities for many years. He charged them all in such a way that he could say they were together in a criminal enterprise. The law provided that all folk involved in any such enterprise had little rights when it came to defending themselves.

What I mean by that is that Dred indicted Albie, Beto, Gammy, Delvoy and Eppy suggesting they were part of a criminal combination. All were known to have murdered people. That meant he could introduce evidence against Eppy by using a conversation between Albie and Beto talking about Eppy. It was a clear violation of the hearsay rule of evidence developed in England before the founding of our country and adhered to by most courts. But the federal government in an attempt to make it easier to put in evidence against people and convict them pretty much did away with it when an enterprise was alleged.

The Hearsay Rule is simple, protects society, and makes common sense. It is that a statement (an admission) made by a person outside of court cannot be used in evidence if the person who heard it (or recorded it) does not testify. The reason is if one testifies to an admission of another learned through a third party there is no opportunity to cross-examination the person who heard the admission. An example would be: Jack is called as a witness against Jill. Jack plans to testify he heard Hillary say Jill admitted robbing the bank. Who is Jill’s admission about robbing the bank coming from? Not Jack because he did not hear it.

It is from Hillary. Where’s Hillary? She’s not in court. There is no way to inquire how she came about that knowledge. There is no way to show where she was at the time, or the circumstances of her hearing it, or if she even knew Jill. It is totally unreliable because there is no way to contest it.

Under Dred’s indictment though, he can introduce evidence against Eppy through Albie and Beto. Albie can testify Beto told him Eppy robbed the bank. Eppy cannot prove otherwise by questioning Albie because Albie simply has to say Beto told him that. The hearsay rule is thrown out the window. Not only that people can testify to statements that may damage people not even charged.

Dred Drysack was convinced that even though he had no evidence against Zeppo the mayor of a local city that Zeppo was involved with the others in the conspiracy. Why that was so was Dred was friendly with guys in the media who did not like Zeppo because he gave them the cold shoulder. They were always telling him these guys could not operate without Zeppo’s help. It also seemed Zeppo was disliked by some of the law school professorial types because he had assistants in his office that they thought were hired through nepotism. Dred wanted to give the media guys and law professors a shout out by zipping Zeppo reputation if he could.

Dred had a good case against these guys. The evidence he had came from electronic surveillance, documents, contraband and weapons obtained through searches, and some witnesses who were bookies and intimidated by the defendants. The federal statutes against money laundering were used against them. These provided for forfeitures. Dred was able to pressure these bookies by threatening long terms in prison, forfeiture of their family home, and putting their family out on the street. These statutes providing forfeitures for minor acts clearly violated the Eighth Amendment but compliant judges closed their eyes to this.

Dred had a solid case that he could easily prove without additional evidence. As the case stood he could get each of these guys twenty years in prison without dealing with any of them. What he couldn’t get though was a cop who was supposedly tipping off two of these guys about investigations and protecting them and the shout out. Should he deal to get them? What kind of deals should he offer to get the testimony of those guys involved in murders who he already got hooked to do that?

8 thoughts on “Dred Drysack’s Big Decision. Making a Deal To Get Others.

  1. The Federal Court in Boston is an embarrassment to our country. No better example exists than the Probation case. They were charged with not hiring the most qualified candidates for Probation jobs. Every first year law student would know that wasn’t a crime. Not even close to a crime. Yet the judge and prosecutor proceeded. A juror should have asked the judge a question. How did you get your job? Were you the most qualified? Was the prosecutor the most qualified? What a farce that Court is. A dystopian nightmare. 2. Two people in a suburb of Boston are starting a new business. It is called Absolution Anonymous. For a not so small sum one will be able to obtain a certificate for a plenary indulgence to relieve one of the guilt and shame of White Privilege. If the Church can sell indulgences why not private parties? 3. Where do the liberals who run the major cities in America go now? They can’t protect the health of their citizens. Most covid 19 deaths are occurring there. They can’t protect private property. The rioters and looters go unpunished. They run 2nd rate school systems. They are total failures. A vaccine has to be produced. Not just for covid but also for liberalism. God bless America.

  2. “Where’s Hillary? She’s not in court.”

    She’s in Chappaqua some of the time. God willing, she’ll be in court in due time.

  3. George Bernard Shaw said, “Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.” It applies to the Boston Federal Courthouse where prosecutorial prosecutors conspired against the good people of Boston and they did so under the supposedly watchful eye of federal judges in cahoots with clerks inside the courthouse and media-types, print and radio, inside and outside the courthouse who were leaked, slipped information, who remained silent in collusion with the federal prosecutors abusing their power.

    I believe Fred Wyshak fooled some judges, like a good judge Mark Wolfe, but other judges turned a blind to or de facto sanctioned Wyshak’s and his cohorts skulldudgery. For example, Judge Young, asked Fred Wyshak why he was recommending probation for someone who had deliberately laundered four million dollars of her brother’s offshore illicit earnings, and Wyshak said, “Because she is the Congressman’s wife”, as reported in the local papers. Judge Young, not blinking, gave her 30 days in jail. For the bookie’s wife, the nurse with an impeccable record, who Wyshak recommended 8 years in prison, Judge Young sentence her to one year. One year for depositing a husband’s earnings from bookmaking; 30 days for depositing four million dollars of a brother offshore gambling profits. Justice in the Den of Iniquity.

  4. Remember when FBI Director James Comey abused power and assumed the role of the Attorney General acquitting Hillary Clinton. Remember when James Comey changed the words “gross negligence”, a statutory crime, to “extremely careless” and said that was not a crime. The Statute said “gross negligence” in handling confidential/official State Department records was a crime. Comey said, Yes, but what Hillary did was handle those confidential documents in an “extremely careless” way. So, he corruptly acquitted her.

    They administer just unequally and unfairly both to acquit their favorites (Remember Wyshak recommended only “Probation” for the Congressman’s wife who laundered four million off-shore dollars of her gambling brother) but Wyshak recommended eight years in prison (8 years) for the Bookie’s wife, a nurse with a clean record, who deposited less than one million over many years (as I understand it) of her husbands’ gross receipts. THAT IS EQUAL JUSTICE according to Fred Wyshak and James Comey.

    By the way, while Wyshak and his cohorts were running roughshod over the innocent, good citizens of Boston, both James Comey and Mr. Muellar (of Russian-collusion-hoax fame) were in charge respectively of the FBI and Justice Department, or at least had supervisory control of Wyshak and his cohorts. I think it was either Comey, Muellar or Wyshak and his cohorts themselves, who invented the phony Rogue FBI agent charge.

    The only rogue FBI agent was John Morris, and Wyshak and his cohorts manipulated John Morris, who admitted being corrupt taking dough and leaking names so people would be killed, , , ,they manipulated Morris with a plea deal to singing the songs they wanted to hear.

    These opinions of mine are based on twenty-plus years of research.

  5. Power-abusing Persecutorial Federal Prosecutor Fred Wyshak, a veritable Jihadi Javert, (along with his corrupt cohorts in the corrupt federal prosecutors offices in Boston and along with others (judges, clerks) in the corrupt courtrooms of the Federal Courthouse in Boston) is the most corrupt power abusing prosecutor I’ve read about in American history.

    His tactics and antics, his obscene deals with perjuring serial killers, gangsters who a Boston Jury believed not one word of, and gangsters who under oath repeatedly changed their stories to suit Wyshak’s overly zealous, vindictive prosecutorial schemes . . .his tactics and antics (staging five deputized State Cops behind him daily for six weeks in a Miami trial, for the ostensible purpose of impressing, intimidating a Miami judge and Miami jury) wreak out to heaven for redress.

    There was no justice in Boston with Wyshak and his colluding cohorts at the helm.

    1. Remember, be careful when you write, FBI agents protect informants. FBI agents did not protect Top Echelon Informants from prosecution for MURDER or VIOLENCE. Even John Morris testified every TEI was told repeatedly “No murders, no violence.” TEI’s were allowed to commit more minor crimes (gambling, bookmaking). The FBI used the TEIs to take down the New England Mafia.

      Joe Pistone “Donny Brasco of movie fame” repeatedly said that John Connolly was the one man most responsible for taking down the entire New England Mafia. John Connolly retired in 1990, highly decorated, and before anyone knew who was killing who . . .in other words even in 1995 when Wyshak’s cohorts brought their first indictments against Flemmi, Whitey et alia, there were no murder counts.

      Ironically, PBS ran a story “Fred Wyshak, the man most responsible for taking down the Mafia” when in Fact Wyshak was the man who coddled Mafia killers and other killers, accessories and attempted murderer Morris, and cut obscene deals with them, and used these patently perjurious killers as witnesses against innocent men.

      The corruption runs deep, affecting courthouses, the press and radio, especially the Howie Carr Show; Howie Carr just last week said John Connolly was “a hit man for the Mafia” What a vicious liar, a sadistic man who delights in the sufferings of others: Howie Carr.

      1. William:

        John Connolly was able to take down the Mafia because he protected the worse killers in the history of Boston to let them go on murdering people. Flemmi was protected by the FBI from the early 1960 into 1990 – Flemmis estimated he killed 40 to 50 people.

        Morris tipped off Whitey and Connolly that the State Police were putting a bug in Lancaster Street. That is protecting them. Morris testified Connolly tipped off Bulger that Halloran was planning to give evidence against him and Halloran got murdered; Morris testified he told Connolly to tell Flemmi they were doing a wiretap on Baharian so that he would not be on the phone with him.

        Wake up. What the FBI agents were told and what they did were two different things. Don’t you recall the State Police intercept where the FBI agent told his top echelon informant his job was to protect him. I suggest you are the only one left in the world who believes the FBI did not protect its informants. Even John Connolly said he was told to take care of those guys who were murderers. He was even protecting them when they were locked up in Plymouth for racketeering and he was no longer in the FBI by working with Keven Weeks in providing them information and a tape so that they could try to beat the charges against them.

Comments are closed.