September 3, 2006
By Tim McGuigan, Conte2006.com
I never spoke, exchanged emails or met Paul Pechonis. I never received any video, audio or other form or device from him or anyone else that the Commonwealth may consider unlawful to distribute. Furthermore, I never heard of Boehner or Bartnicki or reviewed any case law supportive or against the First Amendment, what little I know about “Free Speech,” comes directly from our Bill of Rights.
Initially, I didn’t understand why the Commonwealth took such a strong position against the now infamous Pechonis video however, upon reviewing it closer, I began to question why a Major Crime Unit, normally responsible for investigating homicides, narcotics and such, would be pursuing a subject who allegedly committed a misdemeanor for “threatening to commit a crime?”
The Commonwealth clearly understands the degree to which the Fourth Amendment was violated in this arrest, their embarrassed by the number of officers sent as a means to oppress an outspoken detractor and sadly regret the fact that their actions were inadvertently caught on tape for everyone to see.
Think about it, we’ve heard much to do about the First Amendment and the Commonwealth’s concern about information being distributed that could possibly affect an investigation but we’ve heard nothing from the Commonwealth about its concern for the way this family was treated, how this illegal search was conducted or if they intend to address the issue.
Don’t be misled by the politeness of the detectives, actions do speak louder then words and although the Supreme Court recognizes the rationale for exceptions and allows in certain instances for warrant less searches to be conducted, none of those exceptions exist here.
The search of the Pechonis home “incident to arrest” exceeded the geographical scope as defined and outline by the Supreme Court. In the case of Chimel v. California, the Supreme Court held that a search incident to lawful arrest is limited to the arrestee and the area from which he might obtain either a weapon or destroy evidence. Now consider if you will, the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Pechonis and the degree of custodial control. Do we witness any “furtive” movement or do we witness a compliant subject? Does the scope of the search exceed his reach or lunging distance? Finally, would it not have been easier to walk the subject outside, then to shout “bring it in”, and parade a herd of detectives through the door? Clearly, this unlawful search exceeded a search “incident to arrest” and the motive for the large contingent of detectives remains suspect. Certainly in Worcester County there are cases more deserving of their expertise then this one, isn’t there?
September 12, 2006
Debate between Early and Shea tonight, Is there really any question as to who leads in the race?During the past few weeks the Governor’s race has certainly heated up with each candidate taking on a last minute advertising blitz, clarifying proclamations of individual positions, all directed at persuasion of the undecided voters.
In Worcester for what many see as a very significant position, the Office of District Attorney, no media blitz, no last minute public drives and not many undecided voters.
Joseph Early Jr. has received well over a hundred thousand of dollars in contributions from Account Executives, Corrections Officers, Financial Consultants, Real Estate Developers, Insurance Agents, Physicians, a newspaper Publisher, a Landscaping owner, the retired and of course numerous local Attorneys.
Early campaign bumper stickers and lawn signs are noticeable not only in Worcester, but plaster the landscape from Blackstone, to Milford, from Westminster to New Braintree.
The Early campaign has held a fund raising golf event, fund raising dinners at Viva Bene Restaurant in Worcester. The Early campaign sporting blue Early T-shirts had a well represented contingent that marched in the Fitchburg Fourth of July parade.
September 13, 2006
Dare to prosecute hit-and-run driver
Editorial / Opinion Sentinel & Enterprise
Charles Salmond Jr. lay comatose in a hospital bed last September, his neck and back broken, his head suffering from massive trauma.
His family and friends feared he could die at any time. But Salmond, who had been hit and left for dead by the driver of a SUV while riding a bike, did not die.
Far from it: Salmond has recovered so fully he's back running road races and biking his old routes.
But he doesn't remember anything about what happened the night when a vehicle blindsided him on Oak Hill Road.
Witnesses told police a Mercedes-Benz SUV driven by an adult male caused the crash, but authorities have made no arrests in the case.
The accident fractured Salmond's L1 vertebrae, located near the base of the spine.
It also broke his neck, clavicle and at least six ribs, gashed open the back of his head and punctured one of his lungs.
The Fitchburg Police Department conducted a major probe into the crash, according to Capt. Philip Kearns, and even seized the SUV they believed caused the accident.
But that just wasn't enough for District Attorney John Conte.
The DA ruled there isn't sufficient evidence to charge anyone, and the office has closed the case, according to spokesperson Elizabeth Stammo.
Kearns spoke with restraint, but we have to imagine both he and Salmond feel a great deal of frustration about Conte's failure to prosecute a suspect -- as do we.
The police devoted ample time and resources to investigating the accident, but hit a brick wall in the form of Conte.
But then again, this is business as usual for the secretive DA.
Other top law enforcement officials take their title and responsibility seriously. They move quickly and forcefully to prosecute suspected wrongdoers, both to enact punishment and see justice is done for victims.
Sometimes this requires going with a gut feeling, betting that victory can be achieved at trial, even if the evidence isn't overwhelming.
Not Conte.
He is notorious for dragging his feet on all but the most open-and-shut cases -- worried more about his win-loss record than doing the job he was elected to do.
It's also rare for him to talk about the progress of any case. He has a healthy disdain for the press, and by extension, the public's right to know.
We hope Conte's successor will take another look at the Salmond case, and consider reopening it. Salmond deserves some closure, and whoever hit him and drove away should face the appropriate penalty.
The public also deserves a DA who's courageous enough to take a risk on prosecuting an important case like this and has a healthy appreciation for keeping the public informed.
September 13, 2006
In the Brief of Plantiff 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.
September 16, 2006
last look at the Worcester DA race explores candidates backgrounds.Worcester County District Attorney Candidate, Daniel Shea became a Massachusetts State resident May 5, 2006 when he purchased a condominium at 80 Salisbury Street, Worcester.
 |
Attorney Daniel Shea has no law office listed in Worcester County. The Shea 2006.com web site portrays a Texas law office as still in operations at 1928 West Bell Street, Houston, Texas
Photos of the 1928 West Bell address reveals the blinds to be drawn and no employee in the office as of 10:30 am on Friday, September 15, 2006.
Attorney Daniel J Shea according to the Massachusetts Board Bar of Overseers of the Supreme Judicial court was admitted to the bar on September 9, 2001. A receipt of Reprimand from other Juris was recorded on June 19, 2006.
The State Bar of Texas reports Attorney Shea accepted a public reprimand. (Attorney) Shea borrowed money from the client. He failed to fully disclose the terms of the loans to the client, the terms of which were not fair and reasonable to the client; failed to advise the client of the opportunity to seek independent counsel; and failed to obtain the client's consent in writing.
September 20, 2006
Early declares victory over
Shea
WORCESTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WORCESTER—
Joseph D. Early Jr. took an early but significant lead over Daniel
J. Shea in the race for Worcester district attorney last night,
enough for him to declare victory before a crowd of family, friends
and supporters during a post-election party.
“We feel really good. All the hard work has paid off,” Mr. Early said,
minutes after giving a victory speech at the Worcester Hibernian
Cultural Center on Temple Street.
Only a fraction of cities and towns had reported results by his
speech, but those that did each had Mr. Early winning more than 70
percent of the votes tallied by last night.
September 23, 2006
United States Court of Appeals schedules video case to be argued November 6, 2006 at 9:30am in Boston.
A calendaring Notice was issued September 20th by Kristie Trimaco Courtroom Deputy, for Richard Cushing Dovan, Clerk setting the case Mary T. Jean v the Massachusetts State Police, on schedule for argument Monday, November 6, 2006.
As of October 5, 2006 the name of the person who will be presenting the oral argument must file designation form. Attorney Eric Bradford Hermanson of the Boston law firm Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP will present argument.
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.
The entire contents of the Brief of Plaintiff- Appelle is available on this link.
September 21, 2006 Court regulars anticipate new DA
WORCESTER—
If courthouse regulars say anything about District Attorney John
J. Conte, it’s that he is consistent. Now they are bracing for the
unknown, as they anticipate a new Worcester district attorney for
the first time in 30 years.
Joseph D. Early Jr. appears destined for the position, having
trounced opponent Daniel J. Shea in Tuesday’s Democratic primary
election by a 4-1 margin. There are no Republican or independent
candidates in the general election, positioning Mr. Early to take
the post in January.
September 27, 2006
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 29, 2006
One year anniversary of Arrest Video.
Today marks the one year anniversary of the arrest of Paul Pechonis, one must wonder are we safer as a society. After all isn’t the main purpose of law enforcement, to make our society safe.
In 1999, Bonuskill@eartlink.net was chosen after Mr. Pechonis failed to qualify for a Christmas bonus at his job based on the lack of one day of employment.
As bonus rhymed with Pechonis it soon became a favored nickname by his fellow employees.
The web site was later designed as a learning experience and to show pictures of his family. The site averaged less than 25 hits a week.
The issues in question began for Mr. Pechonis in 2004 due to a threat issued by Marlborough Police Officer James Gough, to kill his son. An internal investigation agreed Officer Gough had violated Marlborough Police regulations by his actions. Mr. Pechonis however was denied knowledge of the actual discipline received by Officer Gough.
Mr. Pechonis later complained about a Judicial ruling over a credit card debt, an issue recently exposed by the Boston Globe called Debtors' Hell, as inflicting many unfair rulings.
Mr. Pechonis never knew or met any of the individuals he was accused of threatening by written words on the internet.
When Mr. Pechonis first contacted the conte2006.com web site he was fearful that the site was associated with the District Attorney. Lacking in trust he first released the video on the internet via the decoding a rhyme he had written on his site Bonuskill.com