I was reading an article about a probation officer named Plumer who had entered a plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with lying to an F.B.I. guy. I have more about that coming up. As I will tell in those two articles on him I could not figure out why the federals were investigating him. What he did was strictly a local law enforcement matter but here he was being charged federally.
I have written before that there are plainly too many federal prosecutors in Boston with too little to do. There are also too many F.B.I. agents in our fair city who are doing little more than twiddling their tongues. (And the great irony is with so little to keep them busy the government is building them the largest FBI office in the United States outside of Washington, D.C. in Chelsea by the Sea.)
The problem with too many workers is not because there isn’t an overabundance of federal criminal laws. The federal criminal statutes are jammed packed with laws waiting for someone to trip over. The problem is that people are not committing crimes that come under the federal jurisdiction.
What is normally done when you have a surplus of people necessary to do a job? Usually a normal rational employer might think of cutting back the workforce during that period of abundance. Unfortunately we are dealing with the biggest employer in America so situations in far off corners of its empire are never addressed or remedied. They can be easily hid from those who make the decisions in our Nation’s Capital even in the unlikely event they were looking for waste.
Obviously the Boston U.S. attorney is aware of the situation of having too many employees and too little work. She is obviously interested in trying to gin up more work for her staff. Since her job among other things is to prosecute violation of the U.S. criminal code there are only two ways she can do that. First she and her staff can pray that there is an upsurge in federal criminal activity in our area; or, they can create crimes. Their prayers were not answered so they have resorted to creating crime.
The FBI over the years has been very good at this. Its ongoing Top Echelon informant program mirrors what they used to do in COINTELPRO and their other operations. The FBI has people, usually criminals, who are working alongside them instigate others to commit crimes. In contract law these people would be considered agents. The FBI also sends in undercover agents to do the same thing. Unfotunately, the Boston U.S. attorney cannot do that; and, the FBI has not been very successful in our area doing it.
It all comes down to what my mother used to say to me: “The Devil makes work for idle hands.”
The idle prosecutors in the public corruption unit who handle “civil rights prosecutions” are the ones who have come up with this big flimflam to increase their workload. Here’s how it works.
They look for matters allegedly involving “civil rights” violations no matter how minor. One area that it looks closely at is the public employment area because any action by a public employee, as in the case of probation officer Plumer, can be said to be done under the color of law. It also looks for disputes or incidents which it can say happed “because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person, or . . . because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.
Now it really does not matter whether a person’s actions in fact were motivated by another person’s difference. For instance it’s after closing time at The Wee People bar and an Irish bouncer Pat is in a rush to leave to meet his girl so he wants to close up the bar. Patsy, an Italian gay and Sid, a Jewish straight who are regulars at the bar are involved in a conversation and nursing their beers. They have a couple of filled ones in front of them that they ordered at last call. They object to being rushed and words are exchanged. The Pat grabs each one and physically ejects him from the bar. That would be enough for public corruption unit “to investigate” whether Pat did it because of their religion, national origin or sexual orientation.
It does not matter that it had nothing to do with it. Pat and these guys have been friends for years and every once in a while Pat gets irritable and bounces them. But the differences are such as to justify an investigation.