The information that follows about the activity in court today is courtesy of the tweets by Bob McGovern at the Herald. @BobMcGovernJr to whom I owe my thanks.
After calling the case one of massive corruption last Thursday Judge Young appeared to have reconsidered what was involved in the matter. Thankfully he did because up until the sentencing time I was expecting O’Brien to go away for five years. He got 18 months while the prosecutor asked for 70 months, almost 6 years. O’Brien’s co-defendant Taveres got 3 months and Burke got probation while the prosecutors wanted 46 months for them.
Young, although refusing to stay the sentences pending appeal which probably means the two defendants sentenced to prison will serve their time prior to the hearing of their appeals which doesn’t make much sense, looked into his heart and in a stinging rebuke to the prosecutors took into account the true nature of the matter that he was dealing with was system-wide patronage.
He recognized that O’Brien did not create the system of patronage and that it has existed for time immemorial in Massachusetts and elsewhere in America. He also must have recognized that those who were the beneficiaries of the patronage, the judges and politicians who had their friends hired were not before the court. It is clear he knew that O’Brien put no money in his pocket and took that into account.
Young came back at Prosecutor Wyshak who said O’Brien should get a greater sentence because he showed no remorse. He said: “I’m not going to punish him if he doesn’t beg for forgiveness” and “no one is going to be punished for exercising his Constitutional right” in going to trial.
After sentencing Young said that the defendants were fundamentally decent persons without moral compasses. and that “O’Brien did not invent patronage hiring in the Probation Department”
Young himself is admitting the case is about patronage yet he has said patronage is not a crime. Then he repeated himself “Patronage corrupts.”
Isn’t it strange that on the one hand we’re told the case did not involve patronage but everyone seems to recognize that is the case. What more do you need to know than to hear the judge telling us what the case was all about.
Judge Young after handing the prosecutors a stunning set back commended them for bringing the case. I guess he had to throw them some type of bone to gnaw on but his sentence told more than his words about what he thought of the prosecution.
Kudos to Judge Young for getting to the core of the matter. It took courage and compassion. Yes, it was about patronage. The defendants have already suffered greatly losing their jobs and pensions after twenty to thirty years working for the Commonwealth. That should have been the extent of the matter.
But the prosecutors took off on a vindictive crusade. It sought sentences that were extremely harsh in part because the people went to trial. Two months were wasted on this matter. Reading Young’s words about O’Brien being a leader and that massive corruption was involved I feared the worst. Whatever it was that happened to Young that he put the case into the proper perspective can only be welcome.
There really was no crime here. It will always be a case of patronage. It will always be a case where people were punished for doing what has been done in our country since its earliest days because of self-righteous prosecutors who probably got their jobs through patronage themselves..
William, As the witty Dennis Miller observed on his radio show the other day. … ” Folks, these people just don’t deserve our consternation, they live for it so just don’t give it to them.” 🙂 Peace, Brother William +
The Jury delivered the Verdict. We may not agree with it, but let’s pick it up from there. Were they star struclk by the Federal Judge and the Federal Prosecutors ? Sinnis and Bailey are tough, extremely capable defense attorneys and did by all accounts a good strong job. What did the Wyshak jury see that the Coakley did not? To what extent did Judge Young’s avuncular charm with the jury and his leading them on a Socratic, heuristic, question and answer legal adventurism influence the verdict? Defense cited this practice as harmful to their clients and said it turned the jury into ” Mini-G Men and Women. ” Appeal’s Court cynicism notwithstanding , this claim will form the gravamen of the appeal, and I think Judge Young perceives a vulnerability here. So, forgo an unbecoming petulance unsuited to your breadth of intellect and understanding thst we deal with life’s exigencies as they arise. Stick to the unpleasant facts in an imperfect world. Houston, We have Ab Initio 🙂 ,here at Cape Coakley !!! The Probation Scandal rocket ship left the pad two years ago. You are damn right that Jack O’Brien, the realities being what they had become, was relieved to splash down with only 18 months in Judge Young’s ” Sea, ” with or without a compass !!!
John, the probation people were framed. I heard one juror on television. He said the reason they voted to convict was there was no doubt in his mind that the Probation Department did not hire “the most qualified person”. That standard exists in no Law (statute or regulation) and was invented by prosecutor Wyshak. The foolish jury that it a crime to hire a recovering alcoholic, recovering drug addict, young person right out of law school or college, or housewife recently returned to the work force after a six year absence raising young children, for examples. A merit based system will sometimes hire a promising young person. Wyshak said that was a crime. 1.A. In probation, the best hire, in fact, may be a person who has been in the real world, a recovering heroin addict, for example, who may empathize and help correct current addicts or others struggling with the criminal justice system. 2. You give too much credence to “good” lawyers. Good lawyers sometimes feel their efforts are constrained the size of the pocketbook of their client; also good lawyers as in Connolly’s case can be steamrolled by corrupt judges and corrupt prosecutors. 2. Judge Young agreed with Wyshak at the outset of the trial to exclude evidence that that the Probation Department hired only 40% of people recommended by the Legislature. the case was fixed ab initio. Remember the Carswell Motel case, federal and state prosecutors wanted to seize it because 20 rooms had been used for drug dealing. However, when “good lawyers” pointed out that 20 rooms rented were out of 20,000 rooms rented over ten years (rough figures for a 120 room or 200 room Motel) then the grasping Feds and Staties let go of their prey. Now, consider if the jury heard the facts that of 2,000 hires while O’Brien was probation only 20 could be considered decidedly “less qualified” on paper, and of those 20, ten were promising young people, AND there was no state law that required you to hire “the best qualified” only that in a merit based system you hired “a qualified” person and the only Statutory-Regulatory Requirement was that you have a college degree to get a Probation Department job, then of course an honest judge, not mired in the system on his high horse, and an honest prosecutor, not constantly manipulating “facts and law” to suit his own biases and do the Globe’s bidding, would never have brought the case against the probation department in the first place. 5. Finally, remember, all prosecutors and judges have their biases; many wont even admit they do; that’s why, for example, Justice David Souter of SCOTUS (retired) had to be brought in to Massachusetts Federal Court system to throw a judge off the Bulger case, a judge with blatant biases who insisted he need not recuse himself because he in his own mind thought he could be “fair.” Many judges and prosecutors are not “fair.” They have axes to grind; they are beholden to the Globe or the cocktail party circuit or the golf club or they want to please their friends or punish perceived personal enemies or political enemies or those who simply think and act differently from them. 6. Bottom line, the Probation Department Officials were framed, and the Federal Prosecutorial Team of prosecutors and judges too cozy with each other, blackened the reputations of scores of innocent Legislators and others by labeling them “unindicted co-conspirators.” The bad guys in my book our working in the judicial system and prosecutors’ offices. Over zealousness and unfair trials are not a hallmark of a just society. Forewarned is forearmed. Be on guard against tyranny, whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. Re-read C.P. Taylor’s play “Good”. P.S. I enjoy your literary style. The last young woman I fell in love with was an English major. My hero is the Irish-Mexican actor Anthony Quinn (“Zorba the Greek”) who had his eleventh child with is 37 year old wife when he was 81. (four marriages–a truly good man for all seasons, Anthony Quinn. Also, my good friend from Dorchester, Frank . . ., was an English major at B.C. and became a lawyer (I don’t hold that against him too much), and he had a way with words, verbal and written, and was self-effacing with a good sense of humor. I’ll end on those high notes.
Lest anyone put trust in the federal appeals courts in Boston, harken to the fact that many of us hold them as much in contempt as we do the federal prosecutor’s office and lower court judges on many cases. What could Young do? Well, he told us and told the jury “patronage is not a crime” then at sentencing he lambastes the Massachusetts judges for not stopping “patronage”. Yes, Young jumps on Wyshak’s bandwagon and excoriates not just the Probation Department but the Massachusetts judges (Read the Boston Globe of Friday and Thursday.) Young vilifies people for doing what he was a beneficiary of. Lets check Young’s and Wyshak’s careers and see how many monied or politically connected people (politicians, judges, lawyers, academics) recommended them for college, law school, legal positions, judge’s jobs or federal posts. Are the people blind? The judiciary is out of control and Young is a part of those judges who give breaks to the elite (Congressman’s wifes) and treats the rest of us like dirt, like peons; like most judges he thinks he’s a benevolent philosopher king. What could he have done. Thrown the case out ab initio. 2. Sure, O’Brien is relieved he didn’t get ten years in prison, but he’s bankrupt and lost his pension and faces 18 months for committing not crime; Young also ratified the blackening of the reputations of those state legislators the intellectually corrupt Wyshak called unindicted co-conspirators. 3. I agree with NC
Bill is right. No credit due to anyone at the Moakley Courthouse. All should be denounced. The Globe editorial demanding a harsh sentence was a faint. It was done knowing Young would give less and to deceive some into thinking he did something positive. It was to avoid an appeal. It was to provide cover for Ortiz’s, Young’s and Wyshak’s criminality. When Young and Wyshak gave Tierney’s wife probation they were currying favor with their paymaster, Congress. When probation followed State House recommendations they were currying favor also. If its a crime for Probation it was a crime for the judge and prosecutor. The equal protection clause demands a future prosecution of all federal employees who engaged in patronage.
★ Cross purposes
Fair points all. In this particular case however he was certainly at crossing purposes with Fred Wyshak who was quite perturbed at the light sentences. Coakley did the “Coakley” and did not get a conviction, so it lands in front of Young courtesy of Carmen and her Crew. What’s a Federal Judge to do? … The case was a Juggernaut by then. He showed a restraint and understanding in sentencing, and I guess people really do vibe with people who remind them of themselves, as Billy Burke really was given a pass. Young’s nautical metaphor in describing the defendants was an eloquent and incisive appraisal of them and the essential nature of the case , and so yes, he is to be commended. The case is and was a STINKER from day one. It will be reversed on appeal. The relief on Jack O’Brien’s face as he and his loyal sidekick, his wife Laurie, left the Moakley yesterday, was unmistakable. He has been put through hell, undeservedly . I think Judge Young knows this. This is the case we are talking about !!!
Young is not to be commended. The crime here is a judiciary and prosecutorial team criminalizing civil behavior. O’Brien committed no crime. Remember, many state legislators have been stigmatized by the Feds as “unindicted co conspirators in the rackets” merely because they recommended people for jobs. The Feds invent crimes. Every one who recommends another for a job is a patron of that job seeker. For millennia we’ve lauded Patrons of the Arts. Patrons are nothing more than supporters and every job resume has three patrons usually: three letters of recommendation, or three persons who recommend another for a job. Legislators have free speech rights to recommend whomever they want. Citizens have free speech, free association, and free rights of petition, to ask Legislators for help in securing jobs. Agency heads have every right to consider letters of recommendation from anyone, especially from elected officials, and certainly cannot discriminate against elected officials. There was no crime here, except the continuing criminal enterprise that is the federal judiciary/prosecutorial team in Boston. Read my new book out next week CHARACTER ASSASSINS II. Remember, too, that Wyshak and Judge Young worked together to give Congressman’s Tierney’s wife one month in jail for orchestrating a scheme laundering 8 million dollars; and for the poor bookie’s wife tangentially related to her husband’s small scale bookie operation, probably one tenth the size of Tierney’s wife’s, Fred the Fed threatened the bookie’s wife with years in prison, then our corrupt federal judiciary sentenced her to a full year in prison. A year for the bookie’s wife tangentially related to her husband’s racket, one month for the Congressman’s wife at the center of an 8 million dollar laundering scheme, and 18 months for a probation head who committed no crime. So, it goes on and on with the show trials, the persecution of John Connolly, Kenny Conley, the Schwartz kid, the Carswell Motel debacle, and scores of other abuses by our imperious, imperial federal department of “justice.” 2. The State Judiciary tried to criminalize the behavior of the South Boston Allied War Veterans in the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade case, and the parade organizers were threatened with “contempt of court” for cancelling their 1994 Parade, and GLIB and GLAD and CLUM (the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts) were seeking hundreds of thousands in fines and attorneys’ fees, so much so that the Veterans were trying to shelter their homes from civil actions. The State was trying to bankrupt and imprison people who dared speak. The probation case is another travesty where the State (The Feds) persecute and prosecute civil behavior. Please don’t credit the federal judiciary in Boston with anything but flagrant violations of constitutional rights and freedoms, with crushing citizens freedoms, with bankrupting citizens, with destroying lives through undue process (think of Kenny Conley, Councilman Turner and the Schwartz case ( a young man threatened with 50 years in prison for copyright infringement, and hounded to suicide.) I have the utmost contempt for federal prosecutors and the federal courts in Boston on a number of issues. Remember, our corrupt Federal Court was still considering the St. Pat’s Parade Case, whether the Veterans had free speech rights, whether they should be held in contempt for daring to exercise their freedoms to speak or not speak, to march or not to march, and the Federal Appeals court still couldn’t decide what rights the Veterans had, until the US Supreme Court slammed the door shut on their deliberations. 4. I don’t respect the gang of constitutional usurpers who currently run the DOJ in Boston. I’ve had it with them. Imperious blowhards, buffoons, bigots blinded by their own self-importance. Stuffed shirts, full of themselves. They’ve turned all of us into criminals. They think they’re better than we the people. “Loss of moral compass?” Look in the mirror Judge Young and Fred the Fed Wyshak!
Agreed !!!