-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Our Next Governor?
- Thread starter jacobtowne
- Start date
Thoughout this whole discussion, I'm amazed at how inexpensive MA politicians are. Back home where I grew up (Cook Co, IL), we'd have to pay thousands for that kind of support. Not a measly $300.
Guess this is the eastern liberal version of power to the people: Make all your state politicians accessable to the commoners, where accessable = affordable.
This differs from the "Chicago liberal" practice of "$ talks, and more $$ talks louder".
Guess this is the eastern liberal version of power to the people: Make all your state politicians accessable to the commoners, where accessable = affordable.
This differs from the "Chicago liberal" practice of "$ talks, and more $$ talks louder".
Posted earlier at mAss Backwards:
Via Channel 4 in Boston:
Surely, the person who supplied this young man with this deadly weapon is now traumatized beyond imagination as a result of his behavior. Why, the guilt and anguish this individual and his family are going through today, over what could have happened here, must be overwhelming.
Fortunately, our Attorney General here in Massachusetts, Tom Reilly, is a truly compassionate soul and will see to it that the Suffolk County DA's office and the Boston Police Department Detectives Unit investigating this matter drop it forthwith, to spare the family of this individual any additional suffering.
I mean it's not like any children died there yesterday. Surely, we can overlook this little indiscretion on the part of the person who gave this kid the gun.
Now, the gun manufacturer on the other hand...
Via Channel 4 in Boston:
Surely, the person who supplied this young man with this deadly weapon is now traumatized beyond imagination as a result of his behavior. Why, the guilt and anguish this individual and his family are going through today, over what could have happened here, must be overwhelming.
Fortunately, our Attorney General here in Massachusetts, Tom Reilly, is a truly compassionate soul and will see to it that the Suffolk County DA's office and the Boston Police Department Detectives Unit investigating this matter drop it forthwith, to spare the family of this individual any additional suffering.
I mean it's not like any children died there yesterday. Surely, we can overlook this little indiscretion on the part of the person who gave this kid the gun.
Now, the gun manufacturer on the other hand...
A couple questions I'd like answered is, why did Reilly make the call to Conte in the first place? DA Conte has been in his position for almost 30 years and Reilly has to call and remind him of the law? Were any other calls made by AG Reilly to DA Conte just prior to Conte informing the Chief that he would not prosecute?RKG said:
Why didn't Reilly have anything to say about the prosecution of this case? The top Law Enforcement Officer in the Commonwealth has nothing to say about a double fatality MVA that involved minors who may have been intoxicated? He should have been outraged. Especially after the fiasco with getting Mellenies Law passed.
As for your "Social Contex"....
MGL Chp138s34:
Quoted out of context for brevity:
For the purpose of this section the word ""furnish'' shall mean to knowingly or intentionally supply, give, or provide to or allow a person under 21 years of age except for the children and grandchildren of the person being charged to possess alcoholic beverages on premises or property owned or controlled by the person charged.
Police reports show that the 20 year old host knew that they were drinking and left the residence intoxicated. Even a rookie cop can see the elements fit.
derek said:
With all due respect, RKG... The AG called the DA - this man (Conte) is not an idiot with regards to what the law states. The ME's report could not be released to the media - that's the law, which I'm 150% sure the DA knows about. The ONLY way the ME's report would come out is if criminal charges were filed, someone was arrested and it went to court. Conte's office has dealt with deaths before - this isn't like it was his first time dealing with the ME's report and the media. Face it hun - your bud stepped in dog doo and now he's trying to scrap it off. The stink, however, remains.
Garys
NES Member
Lynne said:
Although arguably Reilly didn't break the law and didn't exercise undue influence, his actions certainly give the appearance of impropriety. As Lynne so aptly notes, it's the stink.
The story that Reilly merely called Conte to remind him not to release the autopsy report to the media or the public doesn't pass the smell or the laugh test.
The other issue that no one seems to want to mention is that there was another person in the car that survived the accident. She also deserves her day in court in regards to how the driver got the alcohol. If an adult did in fact provide it then he or she should face both the criminal and civil consequences.
Am I the only one here who sees parallels with Chapaquiddick?
Gary
Derek: Reilly didn't withhold the medical examiner's report from anyone, and Conte didn't withhold it from the local PD. That's what everyone seems to be missing. The only people denied access to the report -- by Conte, not Reilly, and properly so -- was the Globe.
As for the rest of the responses, I'll just cinch up the vest, but with one observation: While I have no specific information about this case, I am aware of situations in which medical examiners reports have been released by DA's offices to the media. You may assume that Conte knows 150% more law than Reilly does, but (a) others might not share that assumption and (b), more important, the cases of improper release of such reports that I have am familiar with all involved ADAs who weren't adequately supervised.
As for the rest of the responses, I'll just cinch up the vest, but with one observation: While I have no specific information about this case, I am aware of situations in which medical examiners reports have been released by DA's offices to the media. You may assume that Conte knows 150% more law than Reilly does, but (a) others might not share that assumption and (b), more important, the cases of improper release of such reports that I have am familiar with all involved ADAs who weren't adequately supervised.
RKG said:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=120098&format=text
Reilly said he wasn't stopping anything. I would believe Chief Leahy before I would believe Reilly. Just my opinion.
JonJ: Take a look at Ulwick v. Christopher, 411 Mass. 401 (1991), where, albeit in a slightly different context, the Court held that "allow" means "a situation where a social host makes the host's liquor available to an intoxicated guest so the guest can continue to serve himself," to the exclusion of a situation where the invitee has brought his own booze. Thus:
"Policy considerations support the imposition of a duty only in cases where the host can control and therefore regulate the supply of liquor. A host who furnishes liquor at a social gathering can deter a guest from becoming intoxicated. Because the alcohol being consumed belongs to the host, the host is like a bartender at a commercial establishment who can "shut off" a patron who is showing signs of excessive drinking. Society may fairly expect that in such circumstances, a host will deny additional liquor to an intoxicated guest.
"The ability effectively to control a guest's excessive drinking is not present when the liquor belongs to the guest. Therefore, to impose a supervisory duty on social hosts to police the conduct of guests who drink their own liquor presents a number of practical difficulties. Hosts in these circumstances might be left with little alternative than to resort to physical force in order to discourage further drinking or to try to eject the guest, a solution that in many cases will aggravate the situation and put the drunk driver where he should not be -- behind the wheel of a car. For such reasons, liability thus far has been found only in cases where drinks are made available by a host."
411 Mass. at 406.
"Policy considerations support the imposition of a duty only in cases where the host can control and therefore regulate the supply of liquor. A host who furnishes liquor at a social gathering can deter a guest from becoming intoxicated. Because the alcohol being consumed belongs to the host, the host is like a bartender at a commercial establishment who can "shut off" a patron who is showing signs of excessive drinking. Society may fairly expect that in such circumstances, a host will deny additional liquor to an intoxicated guest.
"The ability effectively to control a guest's excessive drinking is not present when the liquor belongs to the guest. Therefore, to impose a supervisory duty on social hosts to police the conduct of guests who drink their own liquor presents a number of practical difficulties. Hosts in these circumstances might be left with little alternative than to resort to physical force in order to discourage further drinking or to try to eject the guest, a solution that in many cases will aggravate the situation and put the drunk driver where he should not be -- behind the wheel of a car. For such reasons, liability thus far has been found only in cases where drinks are made available by a host."
411 Mass. at 406.
RKG,
Here's the crux of the problem (assuming that this is a true statement):
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=119909&format=text
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=118041&format=text
I recall seeing a direct quote attributed to have been made by Chief Leahy regarding Conte withholding the autopsy reports from his PD. Again, if this is true, this is definitely impeding an investigation in a manner which may well be a crime in and of itself.
Here's the crux of the problem (assuming that this is a true statement):
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=119909&format=text
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=118041&format=text
I recall seeing a direct quote attributed to have been made by Chief Leahy regarding Conte withholding the autopsy reports from his PD. Again, if this is true, this is definitely impeding an investigation in a manner which may well be a crime in and of itself.
RKG, Ulwick v. DeChristopher is an interesting case. That said, it was the result of a civil suit. Are there any SJC decisions on a criminal case with similar circumstances? The 2 courts are not always interchangeable in their decisions, are they?RKG said:
I think that once the police had information that there was drinking at the residence, they should have proceeded with filing the complaint application. The toxicology report would have just bolstered their case.
The police never expected the DA's office to show any interest in a case that they would never prosecute in the first place. The police department handles the prosecution of misdemeanors and the DA's office handles the felonys.
Chief Leahy learned again, hindsight is always 20-20.
Did AG Reilly call Plymouth County DA Tim Cruz on this one? I think not, and the autopsy report is mentioned by police.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma.../charges_sought_against_man_who_rescued_pair/
Edited to add link.
JonJ: So far as I can tell, the "furnish" implication of 138/34 has not been adjudicated as such in a criminal appeal. However, Ulwick is a pretty fair bellweather as to how that question will be decided when the issue arises, since the Court had previously defined civil social host liability in the same terms as 138/34. The Ulwick rationale for the distinction made would apply equally to a criminal context, perhaps more so in that criminal statutes have to be read more narrowly than civil counterparts.
Lynne: Mea culpa (did the paraphase from memory), but the point remains the same. Conte is an interesting fellow, whom many regard to be quixotic.
All: I also saw in this morning's paper that Leahy is directly contradicting Conte about the availability to the PD of the tox screens. Someone ain't telling it square on that point.
Conte also made the point in this morning's story that, since 138/34 is a misdemeanor, the local PD could apply for a ciminal complaint on their own, without the concurrence of the DA. I thought this a bit disingenuous, for, while it is true as far as it goes, the DA has the ultimate and unreviewable power of nol pros.
I continue to believe:
Reilly did nothing wrong;
Conte (in this case) is entirely correct; and
Leahy is off on a toot, for reasons that aren't clear.
Lynne: Mea culpa (did the paraphase from memory), but the point remains the same. Conte is an interesting fellow, whom many regard to be quixotic.
All: I also saw in this morning's paper that Leahy is directly contradicting Conte about the availability to the PD of the tox screens. Someone ain't telling it square on that point.
Conte also made the point in this morning's story that, since 138/34 is a misdemeanor, the local PD could apply for a ciminal complaint on their own, without the concurrence of the DA. I thought this a bit disingenuous, for, while it is true as far as it goes, the DA has the ultimate and unreviewable power of nol pros.
I continue to believe:
Reilly did nothing wrong;
Conte (in this case) is entirely correct; and
Leahy is off on a toot, for reasons that aren't clear.
The complaint app should be filed, a show cause hearing held and let the chips fall where they may. That's what should have happened before the meddling.
And since Conte is hanging his hat on the civil decision he should have butted out and then let it go all the way if need be for an SJC decision on the criminal aspect of the law.
And since Conte is hanging his hat on the civil decision he should have butted out and then let it go all the way if need be for an SJC decision on the criminal aspect of the law.
RKG said:
Chivalry and being unselfish are wonderful traits indeed, RKG. However, quixotic is not what I've heard about him from people who've fallen under his jurisdiction (and they were the victims, not the criminals).
As far as Reilly doing no wrong, well, he did. He wanted the matter dropped (for whatever reason). All he's succeeded in doing is bring copious amounts of attention to the fact that the girls were drunk, and that the older girl had a fake ID, which is what I assume he wanted to avoid. Bzzzzzt. He should have left it alone.
If his actual purpose was to keep some information from being smeared all over the media, then his actions demonstrate a complete disconnect from reality. There's absolutely no more certain way of generating media coverage of something than for an elected official, particularly one who's being talked about for higher office, to do something that would be perceived by anyone as an attempt to cover it up. Just ask Dick Nixon. (Oh, wait a second, I guess you can't, but take my word for it anyway.)
Ken
Ken
The worst part is when he screws up or you disagree with him, he turns it around on everyone else. It's his pompous attitude that he knows best and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
He did the same with the in state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants flap. Anyone who disagreed was heartless and mean spirited. This guy is out of touch.
BTW: Did anyone hear from MADD or SADD on this? Seems to be too hot for them to handle!
How about Deval Patrick? (insert cricket sounds here)
He did the same with the in state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants flap. Anyone who disagreed was heartless and mean spirited. This guy is out of touch.
BTW: Did anyone hear from MADD or SADD on this? Seems to be too hot for them to handle!
How about Deval Patrick? (insert cricket sounds here)
JonJ said:
So you are saying that he's a liberal Democrat.
JT
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Things are heating up for Tom:
Reilly faces more questions about involvement in crash probe
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...e_questions_about_involvement_in_crash_probe/
Attorney General Tom Reilly said Tuesday he spoke to a campaign fundraiser about a car crash that killed the daughters of a contributor. But Reilly said he called the district attorney overseeing the case on his own, and angrily denied trying to impede an investigation into whether anyone illegally provided liquor to the girls.
Reilly faces more questions about involvement in crash probe
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...e_questions_about_involvement_in_crash_probe/
Attorney General Tom Reilly said Tuesday he spoke to a campaign fundraiser about a car crash that killed the daughters of a contributor. But Reilly said he called the district attorney overseeing the case on his own, and angrily denied trying to impede an investigation into whether anyone illegally provided liquor to the girls.
derek said:
Supposedly they found a fake ID on her.
The family spokesperson (a Mr. Davis, if I recall the name correctly), raised $10,000 for our dear AG. Now...being the simple person that I am, it would seem to me that someone who donated $300 *might* get some help, but if someone who held a fun raiser that netted $10K, well then, I'd sure take HIS call.
The stink doth grow....
It's just too bad they let the story break so soon, so far away from election time. For maximum effect, they should've sat on it like the NY Times did for a year with the Bush surveillance stuff. I hope this doen't lose momentum by then.
I don't have first hand knowledge of the facts, but I'm told that it is now accepted that both of these claims are factually incorrect. The police did get the tox screens, and there is no doubt that at least the driver was well under the influence.
As I said before, the real beef here is that the Chief is upset that the DA doesn't share his view of the law. One of them is right and one is wrong, but it all has nothing to do with Reilly.
