How The Federals Create Crimes And Make Them Stick: Warning to All Public Employees in Massachusetts: Ask For A Lawyer (2 of 2)

DuckI left you with the question yesterday about Lawrence Plumer’s unwarranted acts: if it was not a crime, why then did he plead guilty? “

 The easy answer is this.

Plumer is told he will only be charged with lying to an FBI agent if he pleads guilty and goes on probation for a year. (The foolishness and futility of putting a 46-year-old guy who was a probation officer for 15 years on probation does not seem to occur to anyone. Talk about a brain dead system.)

He is also told that if he doesn’t plead then they may charge him with some other matters. But mostly, he is told that if he does not plead they will recommend he go to prison. This is a pretty drastic result for his prurient behavior.

Along with that, he’s told by his lawyer that for him to fight the charge it will be expensive. Going to trial will be very costly and the odds are against him because the charge is so simple. .

What makes the whole proceeding give off a sordid smell is the way a plea is extorted. Plumer probably did not commit any crime judging by the law. Also by the meaningless sentence the prosecutor will recommend also shows his crime is of no serious nature. But for him to fight the charges which he would do by showing there was no legitimate federal investigation the consequences are too great: he’d go broke and could end up in prison.

For Plumer to prevail at trial he would have to show that the federals were not investigating anything  relating to a deprivation of civil rights. But here where things get sticky. The federals routinely open files and say they are doing civil rights investigations just to give their investigation an aura of legitimacy and give the FBI grounds to investigate even when there is no real evidence of such violations. Having set up a pretend rationale, then they go out and hope someone errs in dealing with them like not telling the truth.

If the federals were on the level, which they are not, and if they were legitimately investigating a civil rights violation they would have either found Plumer violated the women’s rights or that he did not. If he did charge him, if he did not let him alone. Throwing in charges unrelated to what they were  supposed to be investigating seems shoddy and low class. But that is what we have come to see from the Boston U.S. attorney’s office.

Here is the problem now faced by Massachusetts workers in the public sector. The reason the public sector is so affected is that as government employees they act under the color of law.  It is a matter that should be thought about and considered in detail by the lawyers and unions that represent these people. The federals have developed a method to intrude upon actions by state officials. They do this by suggesting their investigation of involves a deprivation of civil rights. They then send FBI agents out to see if they can catch a person in a lie.

Where once the state enforced its own laws and the federal government did the same, the lack of work for federal prosecutors and cops is requiring them to spread their nets ever more widely. They have to drum up crimes where none existed.

It is of extreme importance that the lawyers and union business agents communicate with an instruct their employees of the dangers of talking to FBI agents in today’s environment. They should be cautioned that the best course is to reach out and seek assistance before dealing with the FBI. It is no longer looking to investigate crimes but rather it seek to institute them.

It is time to protect our state workers. They should not be like shooting gallery ducks. They should know their rights and not fall victim to the tricks of the federals who are looking to make crimes to justify their existence..

4 thoughts on “How The Federals Create Crimes And Make Them Stick: Warning to All Public Employees in Massachusetts: Ask For A Lawyer (2 of 2)

  1. Ortiz claims Plumer lied to the FBI “regarding an ongoing public corruption investigation.” Obviously, the feds can’t keep their stories straight. They must had hopes of pressuring Plumer into cooperating with them. Why else leak the story to Channel 5? I think Plumer deserved to be fired (or allowed to resign), but that’s it. He’s not a criminal.

    1. Dan:

      That’s the right conclusion. He should have been handled on the state side. There is no federal crime involved unless one is manufactured. Whether he should have been fired or not should have been a state decision and not one on the federal side. He might have been an extremely effective and valuable probation officer (which is probably not the case given his actions) and he made a real big error in judgment a couple of times.

  2. This does not mean that they are trying to cross sell.

    They can satisfy their need for nicotine while avoiding the multiple contaminants found in tobacco cigarettes.
    Make sure that the average approval rate of the processor is good before applying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *