Massachusetts

[Guinevere]

There is no video or audio link that comes up on either my home (Mac) or work (PC) computers. I'll have to try it again, when I get home tonight. For the moment, I need to spend my time being a productive member of society (or at least, billing the hell out of some poor schlub ).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ok - there isn't a "link" as such. It just automatically played when the radio station page is opened. Only the link I gave is needed. Good luck - listening and billing

[BoSoxGal]

Specious and completely untrue. I know Martha fairly well and I know lots of lawyers who work for her, and are proud of they work they have done with her. But hey, you should be proud you've bought into the republican propaganda and mysogny about a dedicated public servant.

I call bullshit, Guin. Yay for you, you know Martha. I've learned what I've learned from the public record, NOT Republican propaganda. She's committed prosecutorial misconduct, no question.

I can't stand when liberals turn a blind eye to such things ONLY when it suits their political purposes. As for me, you're a bad prosecutor when you're a bad prosecutor, whether you have a D or R or nothing after your name.

Here's the map I was looking at last night when I lamented Massachusetts's redness - it was the Governor's race I was looking at:

http://www.wbur.org/2014/11/04/live-mas ... on-results

I'm happy that the sick leave passed, and I generally still consider my home state - the one my family helped to found beginning in 1620 - to be a lot more liberal, and thus a lot more humane, than most states in the country. Still, it's sad to me to see - especially on Cape - how much the eastern part of the state has become a bastion for rich folks who don't care so much about poor folks.

[Guinevere]

That I know Martha is relevant only because I know first hand her ethics, her drive, and her dedication to public service. I also know and am friends with AAGs and others who have worked for her and with her. Yes, she caught some flack over the Amirault case (some of it political, some of it relating to the time before she was Middlesex DA), but one of my colleagues worked with her around the time that Martha inherited that case has nothing but the utmost liking and respect for her and how she conducted herself. The Amirault conviction was upheld by the SJC, and Republican Gov Jane Swift declined to take action to set Gerald free -- something she would have been sure to do if she could have made political hay out of it. If there was "no question" Martha had committed prosecutorial misconduct, it would have been dealt with, and it hasn't. That is simply your opinion, and certainly not a fact.

Massachusetts is still a very blue state, but like much of America, the divide between urban and less urban is growing here too. The South Shore has been getting redder and redder. It (generally) went for Scott Brown in both 2010 and 2012, and was one of the two red regions in Massachusetts in 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections. Kennedy and Kerry carried it in their last elections, but I'm also fairly sure it went for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

The red map doesn't tell the full story, of course. It was a close race up to the end, and a lot of folks who polled for Baker ended up voting for Martha on election day. Lots of towns were close (in mine the margin was a few hundred votes), some were 2:1 for either candidate.

[BoSoxGal]

I'm sure there are plenty of AAGs who unequivocally support Coakley; as I've said on the board several times in no uncertain terms, it's the politics and situational ethics of many prosecutors that has turned my stomach and forced me to the realization that I just don't want to be associated with the brethren anymore.

I'm very familiar with the Amirault case, as well as others in which Martha's ethics were questionable. I have classmates who worked in Martha's office, and I stand by my assertions.

It's a clear reality (don't agree with me, remember that Andrew D made the same point) that 99% of prosecutorial misconduct nationwide goes unaddressed by the system, so I strenuously disagree with your assertion that it if had happened it would have been addressed.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

It's been a few years since I personally lived in Massachusetts, but the majority of my family has lived there continuously for just shy of 400 years now, and it will always be my home. I follow politics and news there religiously, and I'll always feel perfectly free to weigh in with my opinion on all things Bay Colony; she's in my blood and my family's blood was shed in abundance to make her what she is today. I love her unconditionally, no matter who she elects to govern.

Just glad it wasn't Coakley.


eta: For anyone unfamiliar with Coakley who might want to know more about why I dislike her intensely, this article is a good start (and definitely NOT Republican propaganda). I encourage readers to go on to read more about the three cases cited in the article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilve ... ernorship/

[Jarlaxle]

Not to forget: she was handed a gift-wrapped case against corrupt politician Tom DeLeo, including 90+ pages of information. It was open and shut...and she declined to prosecute.

Fortunately, the Feds did, and DeLeo is currently in prison.

[Guinevere]

Hahahahaha, you two are hysterical. An article by the losing defense attorney in the cases he writes about is unbiased and doesn't have an axe to grind? Where is LJ's sour grapes graphic, because that's what that article is all about. Not to mention his (and your own) negative views about prosecutors generally. It's an opinion piece, it certainly isn't the "public record" you cited above.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, no one has said otherwise. Similarly, you're perfectly entitled to comment about Massachusetts whenever you like. I've never said otherwise and was simply providing you facts on the ground about what's been happening here.


Jarl - "Tom DeLeo" doesn't exist. Bob DeLeo is the current Speaker of the House and not under investigation or scrutiny for bad acts that I've ever heard about. If you're referring to Sal DiMasi, and Greg Sullivan's suggestions that Martha looked the other way you're plain wrong and you should check actual facts, not propaganda. A grand jury was already underway when Sullivan had that meeting with her where he claims - and no one can confirm - she declined to prosecute. The Feds ultimately took the case (as they are wont to do) and the state cooperated fully.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There is no video or audio link that comes up on either my home (Mac) or work (PC) computers. I'll have to try it again, when I get home tonight. For the moment, I need to spend my time being a productive member of society (or at least, billing the hell out of some poor schlub ).

[Guinevere]

There is no video or audio link that comes up on either my home (Mac) or work (PC) computers. I'll have to try it again, when I get home tonight. For the moment, I need to spend my time being a productive member of society (or at least, billing the hell out of some poor schlub ).

Ok, tried it on my phone and there is an arrow to start a video (for a Camry ad) then it goes to audio only - but it's no longer the same piece. It's post - election wrap up.

FWIW nothing plays on my Mac and I don't get the same arrow indicating "click here."

[Guinevere]

Ok I went back to the specifc link you posted Meade. It plays on my phone. I listened. I heard the comment. Still racist.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ok I went back to the specifc link you posted Meade. It plays on my phone. I listened. I heard the comment. Still racist.

[BoSoxGal]

Guin, if you have specific defenses for Martha's behavior in those three cases and others, I'd hear them. But 'ha ha ha, that article was written by a 'losing' defense attorney' isn't anything but sour grapes from you.

MANY articles - and books, and documentaries - that have highlighted the egregious behavior of prosecutors nationwide in exoneration cases have been written/produced/starred in by 'losing' defense attorneys - that proves exactly nothing. Nada.

The whole "I know Martha, I like Martha, some of my friends/colleagues have worked with Martha" is purely anecdotal, too.

You've been very quick to criticize prosecutors and cops on the boards - 'testiliars', I believe you called the cops - and to weigh in negatively on the issues that Martha is rightly tainted with, when it was not your candidate in question.

I get where you are coming from; it's the same thing I've struggled with, knowing prosecutors personally, as my friends, who seem like good people who wouldn't do the kinds of things the exoneration movement has proven time and time again that career prosecutors do far too regularly.

But really, your personal knowledge of Martha doesn't in any way balance the terrible positions she has taken in many cases over the years, and most importantly, her willingness to stand on those cases years later when the convictions have been totally discredited - Woodward being a shining example. Thank God for Judge Zobel's wisdom in that case! Far from still pointing to that case as an example of being 'tough on crime', a truly ethical prosecutor should have led the charge to fully exonerate Louise Woodward, who bears the stain of a manslaughter conviction for the rest of her life regarding a death that quite clearly wasn't even a crime, just a tragedy.

Beyond that, Martha's clearly a shit campaigner who took an entitled position re: the Kennedy Senate seat, and this campaign for Governor. A woman candidate shouldn't get the D party's support just for being a woman, when it's clear she's got baggage and can't actually run a decent race. Leaving her supporters without a word on election night??? I don't discount her for wanting to wait for final results to concede, but that was just really poor form - totally graceless. If I'd been her campaign supporter, I never would have been again after that move.

Good riddance to Martha; if she really wants to serve the people of Massachusetts, maybe she should volunteer to head up a conviction review unit at the AG's office.

But personally, I'd want a good defense attorney on that unit to balance her not-so-ethical perspective - because I'm betting she'll run again for something in the future, even though she pledged not to.

[Lord Jim]

Ok I went back to the specifc link you posted Meade. It plays on my phone. I listened. I heard the comment. Still racist.

Okay then, just to be clear, you're saying that in your opinion, Michelle Obama's comments were racist, and you condemn her for her racist remarks.

[BoSoxGal]

or at least, billing the hell out of some poor schlub

Perhaps now I understand better your staunch support for Martha's 'ethics'.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ok I went back to the specifc link you posted Meade. It plays on my phone. I listened. I heard the comment. Still racist.

Okay then, just to be clear, you're saying that in your opinion, Michelle Obama's comments were racist, and you condemn her for her racist remarks.

Well to be fair, she was kinda drawn into it by the radio talkshow host. But on the other hand, she joined right in.

[Guinevere]

or at least, billing the hell out of some poor schlub

Perhaps now I understand better your staunch support for Martha's 'ethics'.

Oh screw you, it was a joke. Thus the face. Don't you ever question my ethics.

And no, you don't "get" anything about me (except my help and assistance, every time you've asked for it). My experience with cops "testilying" is not a condemnation of all cops, but it is a serious concern based on my own experience and observation. Sure you can criticize that as "anecdotal" if you like, but its also first hand knowledge (I've examined and cross-examined them, based on facts and discussions from bargaining sessions I led) and has evidentiary value.

My opinion, your opinion. They aren't going to match, and I'm totally OK with that.

[Guinevere]

Okay then, just to be clear, you're saying that in your opinion, Michelle Obama's comments were racist, and you condemn her for her racist remarks.[/quote]

Well to be fair, she was kinda drawn into it by the radio talkshow host. But on the other hand, she joined right in.[/quote]

I ALREADY SAID IT THREE TIMES. It think it was stupid, is played on racist stereoptypes, and it was a bad choice. It was every bit as bad AND racist to then pick it up and poke fun at it, using even more racist stereotypes (watermelon, really?). AND I CONDEMN YOU TOO.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Sue U]

Oh that is teh awesome.

[BoSoxGal]

or at least, billing the hell out of some poor schlub

Perhaps now I understand better your staunch support for Martha's 'ethics'.

Oh screw you, it was a joke. Thus the face. Don't you ever question my ethics.

And no, you don't "get" anything about me (except my help and assistance, every time you've asked for it). My experience with cops "testilying" is not a condemnation of all cops, but it is a serious concern based on my own experience and observation. Sure you can criticize that as "anecdotal" if you like, but its also first hand knowledge (I've examined and cross-examined them, based on facts and discussions from bargaining sessions I led) and has evidentiary value.

My opinion, your opinion. They aren't going to match, and I'm totally OK with that.

Yes, someone's definitely pissy as hell at her candidate's loss.

Geez Guin, your hostility toward me is ever apparent in every single disagreement we have here, despite your continued protestations to the contrary.

Yes, you gave me a referral for an attorney in Massachusetts for a cousin there who needed a guardianship for her grandmother - the one and only time I've asked you for anything, you 'helped' me by taking two minutes to type me a PM with a couple of names. (Though I couldn't help wondering what was in the PM that you deleted before I could read it - I can guess, based on past behavior.)

Or do you also consider it 'help' when a person asks a bunch of her acquaintances & friends about recommendations for a digital camera purchase or a furnace purchase, and they respond?

Puhleeze, give it a rest with the attempts to make yourself look the bigger person. (How about this: I'll concede, you are, very much, the bigger person.)

As to me questioning your ethics - you've had no problem whatsoever weighing in with claims and questions about MY ethics here and at the CSB for years now, regardless of how spurious and unsupported your claims were at the time, and the fact that they remain outstanding, with no apology offered for them - despite no evidence whatsoever in existence to support them. Please, show me all the times I've falsely accused you of questionable professional ethics, racism, academic elitism, etc. I'll be holding my breath . . . NOT.

I'm sorry I didn't get your 'joke' in a thread in which you were being nothing but pissy and strident and serious as a heart attack. (FWIW, my friends in private firms never joke about 'billing the heck out of some poor schlub' - it's pretty poor form, even on this board. Thanks for reinforcing negative stereotypes about lawyers.)

Again, 'joke' or not, I now understand your affiliation with Martha even better.

I'll do us both a favor - since I don't see a lot of value in most of your posts and far too much bitchiness, hostility and unsupported discrediting of fellow posters - I'll put your on ignore and you are very welcome to refrain from weighing in on any of my threads/posts. If you do, try as hard as you can to not turn every disagreement with me into a personal attack because YOU know better and YOU are smarter and YOU are a better lawyer and YOU blah blah blah blah blah . . .