The Federal Flimflam Operation: Is The Boston U. S. Attorney’s Office Committing Criminal Acts? (2 of 2)

When Pat threw out Patsy and Sid there was no federal crime involved. But because they were of differences in sexual orientation, religion and national origin between Pat and the guys he tossed out that gave the Boston prosecutors the ability to investigate him to determine if there was a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Like with the probation officer Plumer when it was alleged that he committed the act there was no federal crime. But because he was employed by the state, he was acting under the “color of law” so the corruption unite could open an investigation of him.

You can see in this wide array of interaction among people the federal prosecutors can open one investigation after the other to determine if there was a violation of a person’s civil rights. There does not have to be as long as there is the potential for one.

Now here’s the flimflam.

The corruption unit prosecutors don’t care one way or the other about the civil rights violation. They don’t intend to prosecute anything involving that. They know in most incidents they would have no chance of gaining a conviction. What they really care about is the existence of an investigation. Once they start their investigation they can legitimately send the FBI police officers out to start questioning people.

Their main concern is to find someone doing something in relation to the FBI agent so that they can use that as a springboard for a criminal action.

Suppose someone heard Patsy complain about being tossed out of the bar the next day. The person calls the federal prosecutors and tells them Patsy is gay and was tossed out of a bar. An investigation is opened.

The FBI guys go out to talk with Patsy. He tells them Pat pushed Sid and him out of the bar that night but it was no big deal. He tells them Pat does it on occasion when they won’t leave and he is anxious to leave.

The FBI cops go down to The Wee People Bar to talk with Pat. Pat, who has his hands in lots of things, when he sees them flash their badges, feels a little bit of nausea come over him. His first instinct is to run but he’s read enough lately to see that the FBI cops like to shoot people. His second thought is that he’ll deny everything.

“Pat we understand that you assaulted two guys, Patsy and Sid, the other night and threw them out of the bar. Is that true?”

Pat feels trapped. He has no idea he did anything wrong. He has no idea there is a federal investigation going on. He worries that he’ll lose his job and the owner will have his license yanked. He answers: “I didn’t lay my hands on them.”

Bingo – a federal crime has been created where none existed before. He lied to a federal police officer conducting a federal investigation.

Or better yet, Patsy comes into the bar and tells Pat the FBI called and wants to talk to him about being thrown out the other night. Pat says, “blow them off. Don’t call them back.”

Bingo – a federal crime has been created which warrants a larger sentence than lying. It is interfering with an FBI investigation.

That is how the big federal flimflam is occurring. They set up an investigation of a crime they have no intention of prosecuting but use it as a means to cause people to be inveigled into committing federal crimes.

You’ll read more about it when I discuss the Plumer case. You’ve already read about it in the case of United States v. Timothy Flaherty where a state cop was investigating what he thought was a witness being bribed but the corruption unit opened a civil rights investigation and then set it up so the defendant committed a federal crime.

The big question is this: if you aid and abet the commission of crimes you aren’t you a criminal yourself?





4 thoughts on “The Federal Flimflam Operation: Is The Boston U. S. Attorney’s Office Committing Criminal Acts? (2 of 2)

  1. It is indeed a sad day when a Federal agency is looking to justify its budget by creating crime. In the Florida where I lived for twenty four years are a multitude of private prisons which have to be filled.It is my understanding part of the public policy unspoken is the fact that so many people are employed in criminal justice since 9/11.The machine grows bigger and must be fed.

  2. Afterthought: Could it be that one of the two female probationers in this case is an FBI informant? That would certainly explain a lot about what happened next …..

  3. Matt: I see the hapless Plumer and his wife were tortured by Channel 5. For reasons unknown, the TV station was unable to obtain video of the probation officer entering or leaving the courtroom for his guilty plea. So they resurrected the video, evidently taken surreptitiously, that ran with their story in August. The blurring has been removed. The suspect, clad in cargo shorts and a T-shirt, can be seen getting out of his car and then (apparently) heading into his house. That’s it, folks. That’s all they’ve got on tape. The humiliated Mrs. Plumer had Channel 5 chase after her on what must have been the worst day of her life. Having said all this, I’m not making Plumer out to be a good guy. But you have to wonder, what made this a federal case???

Comments are closed.