I have to admit it takes me a long time to figure some things out. I have had a hard time understanding why O’Brien is being tried in federal court. He is charged with racketeering, the statute that usually relates to gangster activities. I thought what he did was to engage in political patronage. The other day when I went back to the prosecutor’s opening statement I began to understand that this was a case of fraud.
Here’s the absolute worst case scenario against O’Brien. He ran a system known only to himself and two others in which he disguised that only people with political or judicial connections were hired into various positions and promotions were given based on those connections. He did this for the purpose of increasing his budget so that he would have more power and could hire more people.
No matter how you twist and turn that is the essence of the case the prosecutor has been making week after week: jobs were given to those who were connected to people with influence.
Judge William Young, who is presiding over the O’Brien trial, said as the trial began: “I’m going to emphasize in my pretrial instructions that political patronage is not a crime. The crimes, or the crimes here that are alleged, are fraud crimes.”
When I went back to the opening statement of prosecutor Wyshak I saw that he said that O’Brien “handed out jobs like lollipops” to friends and families of powerful people, especially lawmakers, in exchange for more money, power, and autonomy for the agency.”
Now that sounds like patronage when O’Brien gave jobs to friends of powerful people such as lawmakers (Wyshak omits mentioning judges) in exchange for having them treat his agency nicely.
Then Wyshak went on to clarify why what looked like patronage wasn’t patronage. He said that “patronage is not a crime . . . the trial is not about patronage because, he said, the probation department is prevented by law from partaking in patronage”.
Apparently there is a law out there that says something to the effect: “Although patronage is legal the probation department cannot partake in patronage.” I can’t seem to locate that law but then I haven’t done due diligence in looking for it. Even so, I greatly doubt there is such a law. I say that for a simple reason. The legislature would have had to enact such a law. Since the legislature is the prime beneficiary of patronage from the probation department it would be cutting off its nose to spite its face if it did.
So what’s going on here? The facts of the case revolve around political patronage. O’Brien may have taken it to an extreme but it doesn’t change what it is. In order to prosecute O’Brien, the federal prosecutor pretends some law changes patronage into something other than what it is. Whatever it is changed into makes it criminal. That is the real fraud in the case. The judge was correct in pointing that out.
the fraud is against those who qualified and would have gotten the job but forthe patronage maneuvering.
once again, the problem is empty chairs at the defendant’s table.
if I was a Republican Attorney General candidate I would make some ways, get some publicity, and perhaps to justice, by pledging to indict all the judges, politicians, and whoever were the co-conspirators.
If Connolly’s letter to Judge Wolf can be twisted into a crime why can’t the Globe’s writing? It seems they are either both Constitutionally protected free speech activities or both crimes. The judge in the probation case should order a directed verdict. Every federal and state judge engages in patronage when they hire law clerks. The state judges selection of probation officers ( when they were the hiring authority) were comparable to the Probation Commissioner’s. The President, Congress, The Governor and the Mayor engage in the same practice. None of them are committing crimes.2. The great irony of this trial is that the same prosecutor who was involved in the bag job for the Congressman’s wife is trying this matter. When the judge inquired of him as to why he was making a lenient proposal of probation for a woman who laundered $8 million for organized crime he responded that ” She is the wife of a Congressman”. The prosecutor engaged in the same favorable treatment for his office’s funding agent as the Probation officers did for it’s. Why isn’t he in the dock?
Excellent post, NC!
You hit the nail on the head.
There should be a charge of conspiracy against the Boston Globe and the US Attorney’s office. But who would prosecute?
Jim:
It is amazing if you trace the results of the Globe’s spotlight reports you find the federals seem to be part of the team. The worst thing is the federal prosecutors put so many charges into an indictment that even a jury who believes a defendant didn’t do it might be compelled to give the prosecutor a couple of guilties. And, as you know, all he needs is those to claim complete vindication.