July 23, 2007 Massachusetts Attorney General does not appeal US Appeal court ruling in Jean v Massachusetts State police video case.Newly elected Attorney General Martha Coakley, has declined to appeal the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit decision issued June 22, 2007, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Certified and issued as mandate under Federal Law on July 13, 2007, the decision to grant Mary T. Jean request for preliminary injunction is so affirmed. Despite the Massachusetts State Police’s attempt to turn the Commonwealth into a Massachusetts Police State, the First Circuit has preserved the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts. “We conclude that the government interests in preserving privacy and deterring illegal interceptions are less compelling in this case than in Bartnicki, and Jean’s circumstances are otherwise materially indistinguishable from those of the defendants in Bartnicki, whose publication of an illegally intercepted tape was protected by the First Amendment,” wrote First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. This case represents the utmost violation of every person’s constitutional rights. The case was spurred by Worcester District Attorney John Conte who believed he was above the law. His association with the State Police and long time political ally than Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly allowed John Conte the ability to use his political clout for his own avenues. July 9, 2007 You can both videotape and publicize police abuse - Jean v. Mass. State Police. The Legal Satyricon, Occasionally Irreverent Thoughts on the Law by Prof. Marc J. RandazzaMary Jean, who the 1st Circuit described as “a local political activist in Worcester, Massachusetts” publishes a a website critical of Worcester County District Attorney John Conte (www.conte2006.com). Coincidentally (insert sarcastic sneer here), she wound up the focus of an investigation for the illegal publication of a videotape of police misconduct. Fortunately, she lives in a free state......... Interestingly enough, the District Court specified that the police could continue to investigate whether the tape had been obtained illegally, and if so, if Jean had any liability for its production. In other words, they did not issue a ruling that contradicted Commonwealth v. Hyde. Now that’s too bad, because the Mass. Supreme Court needs to have its hand slapped for that one, but such is life. Now the Mass. State Police and their counsel went insane and appealed. As a cop and as a lawyer, you put up your hand and vow to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” It is beyond comprehension how anyone who has done so can attempt to suppress the publication of lawfully obtained information of public importance. It’s called an unlawful prior restraint. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). Despite the Massachusetts State Police’s attempt to turn the Commonwealth into the Massachusetts Police State, the First Circuit preserved this cornerstone of the Republic - for today. They held that Jean has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that the First Amendment protects the posting of a recording under such circumstances. Consequently, we uphold the preliminary injunction............ And here is the video. The audio is a little unclear, but you can hear them tell him that he is under arrest for “statements made on the internet.” How that justifies a complete warrantless search of his entire home is beyond me — and apparently beyond the police, which is likely why they don’t want you to see this video. By the way, if they’d like to stop me from publishing the video too, I will keep my ass nice and clean so that when they kiss it, it is not an entirely unpleasant experience for them. June 28, 2007 Internet video post is upheld on appeal By Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
A federal judge’s ruling that a Leominster
woman could continue to post a video of a state police arrest on her
Web site has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit in a case that attracted the attention of the American Civil
Liberties Union. June 25, 2007 First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling returned in Video case, request for preliminary injunction so affirmed. An important decision of First Amendment and Internet law was issued on June 22, 2007. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is as follows: Jean v. Massachusetts State Police .The court ruled that the First Amendment prevents law enforcement officials from interfering with an individual's Internet posting of an audio and video recording of an arrest and warrantless search of a private residence, even though the individual had reason to know the recording was made illegally. The Court stated in the ruling: "We conclude that the government interests in preserving privacy and deterring illegal interceptions are less compelling in this case than in Bartnicki, and Jean’s circumstances are otherwise materially indistinguishable from those of the defendants in Bartnicki, whose publication of an illegally intercepted tape was protected by the First Amendment. Jean's publication of the recording on her website is thus entitled to the same First Amendment protection." The State of Massachusetts will have thirty days to file an appeal. If the State does not appeal the ruling the next step will be to return to US Federal Court and have Justice Dennis Saylor issue the permanent injunction. November 8, 2006 Oral Arguments presented before the Federal Appeals Court on video case.
On Monday, November 6th at the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse, the First Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on the ruling by Judge Dennis Saylor IV, who had granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Massachusetts State police and then Commander Thomas Robbins. On February 14, 2006, Mary T. Jean was issued a cease and desist letter which stated in part if she failed to remove the video, she could face the possibility of prosecution for a felony for the posting of the arrest video on her website Conte2006.com. On the seventh floor in the panel chambers a three Judge panel consisting of Michael Boudin, Chief Justice, Boston, Levin H. Campbell, Senior Judge, Boston, and Kermitt Lipez, Judge, Portland Maine presided over the case. Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Ronald F. Kehoe argued for the Massachusetts State Police. Attorney Eric Bradford Hermanson of the law firm Choate, Hall and Stewart argued for Ms Jean. September 27, 2006 United States Court of Appeals schedules video case to be argued November 6, 2006 at 9:30am in Boston. DA Conte previously sought actions against site. A back door attack on the Constitution conducted by Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte will be exposed in the Unite States Court of Appeals in Boston on November 6, 2006. Attorney Eric Bradford Hermanson will present the argument contained in the brief of Plaintiff before the court Aging and unprepared for the reality of the internet, District Attorney Conte has never been able to explain away the contents of the Conte2006.com web site. This site was not based on derogatory positions but rather documented particulars in cases were questionable actions were substantiated, which was perhaps the most politically damaging factor. Upon public release of conte2006.com, November 6, 2004, DA Conte began the use his elected office as a vehicle to have the site taken down. The conte2006.com site was launched originally anonymously in protest to the lack of accessibility to DA Conte’s office. First, a July 15, 2005 complaint was filed with registrar of the Conte2006.com site for a nonfunctioning email address. This was quickly rectified. September 23, 2006 Lawyers laud ruling on arrest videoPolice ordered Leominster woman to remove footage from Web site 
Lawyers for a Leominster woman accused of illegally posting a video of a state
police arrest of a Northboro man on her Web site say a federal court judge in
Worcester correctly ruled that public interest trumped law enforcement privacy
concerns. “Ms. Jean’s attempt to expose this police behavior — and her related allegations of supervisory negligence against Mr. Conte, a prominent local official whom she maintains a Web site dedicated to criticizing — go to the very heart of the First Amendment. They deeply implicate the Supreme Court’s profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” September 13, 2007 In the Brief of Plaintiff response to the United State Court of Appeals filed September 11th in regards to appeal of the preliminary injunction issued in US federal court in the video arrest case. Attorney General Thomas Reilly’s office was illustrated as making several disingenuous presentations to the court. The response points out Ms Jean did not act “illegally”, by obtaining the video tape. Ms. Jean’s conduct was not “aiding and abetting” nor could she be considered an “accessory after the fact’. In response the facts are noted Ms Jean did not act” illegally” in obtaining the videotape at issue: she did nothing more than accept the video when it was offered to her by Mr. Pechonis. There is no allegation that she participated in Mr. Pechonis making of the video: in fact prior to receiving the offered video she had never met Mr. Pechonis. The only “illegal “ conduct that Appellants allege, on the part of Ms. Jean, was the decision to publish Mr. Pechonis’s video on her website, after concluding that it showed constitutional misbehavior by a State Police unit assigned to Mr. Conte, and therefore pertained to her criticism of Mr. Conte’s performance as an elected official. Mrs. Jean publication of the video was pure speech, at the core of the interests that the First Amendment is intended to protect. August 17, 2006 Reilly says judge erred in tape caseLeominster woman’s tape illegal, says AG
August 12, 2006 Web video case appealed by Attorney Thomas Reilly’s Office. Case may be ready for argument at the coming December 2006 session.After filing for an extension on July, 10, 2006 which was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit until August 9, 2006, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly’s Office has filed an appeal of the Preliminary Injunction issued by US District Court Judge Dennis Saylor IV on April 7, 2006. In issuing his decision Judge Saylor stated that he believes the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case. He also said that an objective and reasonable person would find the Cease and Desist letter issued by the State Police that kicked off this legal battle to have a chilling effect on the exercise of rights guaranteed under First Amendment of the United States constitution. He also found that the posting of a video showing police conducting an illegal search of a man’s home was in the public interest. The state police obviously have an interest in keeping their communications free from intercept, but this interest is outweighed in this instance by the public’s interest in free speech. July 7, 2007 Scott Zoback, Worcester magazine • PHOENIX MUZZLES COPS: Mary Jean of conte2006.com is becoming something of an Internet folk hero. It’s a unique turn for someone who started by speaking out against clergy abuse and Worcester DA John Conte. The Phoenix just recognized Jean — or should we say lambasted the Massachusetts State Police — for the ongoing court battle over Jean’s posting of a video showing State Police troopers arresting Paul Pechonic of Northboro. The State Police received one of The Phoenix’s un-coveted awards, the ninth-annual Muzzle for those who “undermined freedom of speech and civil liberties.” April 26, 2006 Transcript from US District court video case released. In a fifteen page statement Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV explained his decision on his issuing of the preliminary injection to allow posting of the video recording of the Massachusetts State police arresting Paul Pechonis at his Northboro home on Sept. 29 and apparently conducting a search for several minutes afterward. Judge Saylor further disagreed with the presentation of Assistant Attorney General Ronald F. Kehoe, that the cease and desist letter was more than a friendly reminder. Judge Saylor stated "an objectively reasonable person receiving that letter would find his or hers first amendment right to have been chilled:" A May5th hearing date is scheduled for scheduling conference in US District Court, Worcester. March 1, 2006 Video case delayedTape shows police arrest The case of a Leominster woman facing a felony charge for posting a video of a state police arrest on her Web site has been postponed until March 31, and a temporary restraining order preventing state police from taking action against her has been extended to April 7. Written transcript of tape in October article NewsCenter 5 story Web site Conte 2006.com receives 48 hours cease and desist letter for video of State Police on internet. February 26, 2006 The February 28 court date regarding the temporary restraining order has been extended to April 7, 2006. Media coverage of the temporary restraining order issued by US District Court Judge Fredrick Saylor IV against the Massachusetts State Police lead to a variety of interactions during the past week. With the news coverage coming from all platforms-television, print and web type publications,- interest skyrocketed in the Massachusetts State Police arrest of Paul Pechonis of Northborough that was captured on a baby cam video. By the end of February 22, some ten thousand (10,000) visitors had come to the conte2006 web site. February 22, 2006 Cops wish to be out of site Lawyer challenges legality of law in Web video case A lawyer representing a Leominster woman threatened with a felony charge for posting a video of a state police arrest on her Web site is seeking a federal court ruling that the state law in question is unconstitutional.Arguing that publication of the video served the public interest, Houston lawyer Daniel J. Shea said the case could establish a precedent that would be applauded throughout the blogosphere. February 21, 2006 Court says cops can’t yank video: ‘Baby cam’ catches arrest on tape State police have been cuffed with a restraining order by a federal judge that temporarily bars them from threatening to prosecute a Leominster housewife over video, posted on her Web site, of a local man’s arrest. February 18, 2006 Web site showing arrest OK at least till March 2 WORCESTER— A federal judge yesterday issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Massachusetts State Police from taking action against a Leominster woman for posting on her Web site a video of an arrest conducted by state police assigned to Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte’s office. Federal Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ruled the restraining order will be in effect until March 2. The matter will be taken up again in federal court here on Feb. 28. February 16, 2006 Web site gets warning State police have threatened a local Web site operator with a felony charge for posting a videotape of an arrest conducted by troopers connected to Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte’s office. The video, posted at www.conte2006.com, shows police arresting Paul Pechonis at his Northboro home on Sept. 29 and apparently conducting a search for several minutes afterward. Letter to State Police seeking injunction
|
|
| last
updated
23-Jan-2008 11:40 AM
The Conte2006
Website is privately paid for and authorized by Text portions, photographs, graphics, and source code © 2002-2007, The Conte2006.com. All rights reserved. |
