July 9, 2007
You can both videotape and publicize police abuse - Jean v. Mass. State Police.
Mary 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.
The case moved to the First Circuit last summer with then-Attorney
General Thomas F. Reilly contending that U.S. District Judge F.
Dennis Saylor IV erred when he extended a restraining order that
bars state police from forcing Mary T. Jean to take the videotaped
arrest of Paul Pechonis of Northboro off her
www.conte2006.com Web site. Had Ms.
Jean been convicted of unlawfully posting the video, she would have
faced up to two years in prison.
In his April 2006 ruling, Judge Saylor cited the 2001 U.S. Supreme
Court ruling on Bartnicki v. Vopper upholding the right of someone
to publish information if they received it legally, even if the
person believed the original source of the information was illegal.
“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. “Jean’s
publication of the recording on her website is thus entitled to the
same First Amendment protection. Consequently, we agree with the
district court that Jean has a reasonable likelihood of success on
the merits of her suit for a permanent injunction. The district
court’s decision to grant Jean’s request for a preliminary
injunction is affirmed.”
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.
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.
Mr. Kehoe conceded on two of the three issues in granting the preliminary injunction. Mr. Kehoe did agree the information pertaining to the behavior of the State Police is of public concern. Also that Ms Jean played no part in the intercept of the information. Mr. Kehoe disagreed with the ruling of Judge Saylor based on the fact the Commonwealth's position was that the tape was unlawfully obtained because Ms Jean should have known the tape was illegal to begin with and by posting the tape on the internet site Conte2006.com, the state wiretap law was violated as the State Police had a right to private communication.
Mr. Kehoe went on to state that “Ms Jean knew who the intercept was made by and this made her more culpable, she is the way he can get away. She is the first link and without her the disclosure would never be made”.
Attorney, Eric Bradford Hermanson argued that the video tape in this case revels a State Police unit attached to Mr. Conte, conducting a warrentless and very broad search of a private citizens home. Ms Jean’s attempt to expose this police behavior and her related allegations of supervisory negligence against Mr. Conte, a prominent local official who she maintains a webs site dedicated to criticizing goes to the very heart of the First Amendment.
Attorney Hermanson further identified that the State Police appear to have little legitimate interest in prosecuting Mr. Pechonis. Although the Appellants repeatedly refer to Mr. Pechonis‘s activity as an interception there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Pechonis set out intentionally to intercept any confidential communication outside his household. To the contrary as far as the record shows, the motion activated “nanny cam” in Mr. Pechonis living room was a simple, off the shelf device solely for domestic purposes.
Attorney Hermanson concluded by declaring on the facts and authorities stated, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ms Jean was likely to succeed on the merits. The preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld.
The First Amendment issues raised by this case are of vital interest for all United States citizens who post, publish or blog on the internet as well as those who are employed in traditional media outlets.
If the government is allowed to stifle material exposing “issues of public interest” given to a publisher this would have broad and sweeping implications.
The three Judge Appeal panel must rule on the Constitutionality of the law. The Judges will issue a written decision which is expected to be released within a three months time frame.
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.
Second, September 12, 2005 a tracking records display an interaction between Tucows and the Worcester DA Conte’s office in regards to a letter received from a "Massachusetts Police Department" reporting the conte2006.com for a criminal violation of the exception O law for listing the address of District Attorney Conte’s employees for their political contributions to his campaign. The Conte2006.com web site was removed from the internet.
The site was promptly returned when the presentation of a criminal violation was quickly exposed as false when the political contributions were proven to be public records obtained from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, Commonwealth of Massachusetts web site.
The third attack on the Conte2006.com web site by District Attorney Conte was a means of censorship of an arrest video which exposed his C-Pac State Police Troopers who were captured inadvertently by a “nanny cam” conducting a search of the home of Paul Pechonis without a warrant.
February 14, 2006, a cease and desist letter was issued which stated in part, it has been brought to the attention of the Massachusetts State Police and further declares failure to remove the video may result in possible prosecution. This prosecution would then fall under the jurisdiction DA Conte allowing him a venue for criminal actions against the conte2006.com web site.
This attempt by DA Conte was so vagrantly in violation of First Amendment protection; US Federal Judge Dennis Saylor IV issued a temporary restraining order, which was later converted into a preliminary injunction.
The Preliminary Injunction was appealed by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly.
The outcome of this third maneuver towards the Conte2006.com web site does not appear reflective of the result Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte originally sought to obtain.
This video case however may insure First Amendment, Constitutional protection for all United States citizens who post, publish or blog on the internet as well as those who are employed in traditional media outlets.
September 23, 2006
Lawyers laud ruling on arrest video
By
Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
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.
In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the
lawyers said a restraining order preventing state police from forcing the
removal of the video from Mary T. Jean’s “Conte 2006” site should stand. The
first appeals court date is scheduled for Nov. 6.
Ms. Jean is being represented by John Reinstein of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Massachusetts, and Eric B. Hermanson and Sara E. Solfanelli of the
Boston law firm Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP.
“In the
present case, the district court properly concluded that the public interest in
publication of a videotape of alleged state police misconduct — and public
discussion in which Ms. Jean sought to engage, concerning Mr. (Worcester
District Attorney John J.) Conte’s supervision of that state police unit —
outweighed the relatively minimal expectation of privacy that the state police
officers may have had during their warrantless search of Mr. (Paul) Pechonis’
premises” in Northboro, the lawyers said.
“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.”
Last month, state Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly’s office contended, in a
separate filing, that U.S. District Judge R. Dennis Saylor IV erred when he
extended a restraining order that bars state police from forcing Ms. Jean to
take the videotaped arrest of Mr. Pechonis off her Web site. The attorney
general’s brief said the judge misinterpreted two important First Amendment
cases on which he based his ruling.
“On the basis of those errors, the judge erroneously found that the plaintiff
has shown that she is entitled to First Amendment protection and therefore has a
likelihood of success on the merits,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald F. Kehoe
wrote.
Mr. Kehoe said Ms. Jean knowingly obtained the illegal videotape of the arrest,
which was recorded without the arresting troopers’ knowledge, in violation of
state law.
Ms. Jean has testified that she did not know Mr. Pechonis until he gave her the
recording after he found her Web site online.
Mr. Pechonis maintains he was unaware at the time of the arrest that a camera in
his house was activated and recording the state police who appear in the video
to search his home, without presenting a warrant, before arresting him in
September 2005.
In his April ruling in favor of Ms. Jean, Judge Saylor cited a Washington, D.C.,
case in which he said the D.C. circuit judges “wrongly decided” in the case of
U.S. Rep. James A. McDermott, D-Washington, who was found to have violated
federal law when he gave reporters a recording of a 1996 telephone call that
involved then House Speaker Newt L. Gingrich, U.S. Rep. John A. Boehner, an Ohio
Republican who is now House majority leader, and others.
Judge Saylor also cited the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Bartnicki v.
Vopper upholding the right of someone to publish information if they received it
legally, even if the person believed the original source of the information was
illegal.
Mr. McDermott was ordered to pay Mr. Boehner about $700,000 in damages, most of
which covered legal costs. A Florida couple has pleaded guilty to making the
tape and providing it to Mr. McDermott, who has admitted giving it to the news
media.
The full nine-member Appeals Court has agreed to hear the Boehner case.
Ms. Jean posted the video on her Web site in January and state police ordered
her to remove it in a Feb. 14 letter. State police sent Ms. Jean a letter that
read in part, “Be advised that this secret, unauthorized audio/video recording
is in violation of M.G.L. c.272, 99 and subject to prosecution as a felony.”
Judge Saylor issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 17 allowing her to keep
the video on the Web site until April 7. That order was later extended.
Contact Richard Nangle by e-mail at
rnangle@telegram.com.
September 13, 2006
Attorney General Thomas Reilly’s Office exposed for disingenuous presentation to United States Court of Appeals in video case.
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 shown to have made 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.
The Attorney General’s further attempts to present Ms Jean as “Aiding and Abetting”. The response outlines Ms Jean’s decision to accept and publish Mr. Pechonis's Video tape-a decision Ms Jean made after concluding, in good faith, that the recording had been legally created. That it pertained to a matter of significant public importance and her ongoing criticism of Mr. Conte’s performance in office.
More to the point there was no “aiding and abetting” by Ms Jean in this case, Ms Jean did not participate in-or even know of-the recording of State police conduct by Mr. Pechonis’s motion-activated “nanny-cam.” She did not solicit the videotape from Mr. Pechonis, she had no prior dealing with Mr. Pechonis before he approached her and offered to provide her with a copy of the videotape at issue. Apart from her acceptance and publication of the tape-which Barnicki hold to be constitutionally protected activity-she die not aid in the delivery of the tape.
Ms. Jean is not an “accessory after the fact”, as Appellants essentially argue, because she did not act ‘with intent that (Mr. Pechonis) avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial or punishment.” To the contrary, Ms Jean acted with the utmost transparency publicizing the events surrounding Mr. Pechonis’s arrest, illegal search and videotape.
The response concludes that the Appelants’ proposed construction of Bartnicki make little practical sense. The Attorney General’s office argues if Pechons mailed the tape or the disk anonymously, it would be ok: but if she knows who it is, if she gets it hand to hand, it’s not ok.
No court of law has ruled that this tape illegal, however the response points out there is nothing in logic or law that suggest a third party (Ms Jean) possessor of illegally obtained information -who seeks to publish that information as part of a public discussion on topic of broad political significance – should be subjected to police intimidation and threats of criminal sanctions simply because she happens fortuitously, to receive the information face–to- face. The constitutional protections of the First Amendment should not depend on the happenstance of a donor’s anonymity.
The entire contents of the Brief of Plantiff- Appelle is available on this link.
The case is scheduled tentatively for arguments in the US Court of Appeals sometime in December.
Reilly says judge erred in tape case
Leominster woman’s tape illegal, says AG
By
Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
rnangle@telegram.com
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly’s office claims a federal court judge erred by
extending a restraining order that prevents state police from forcing a
Leominster woman to remove a videotaped arrest of a Northboro man from her Web
site.
In a brief filed last week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit,
the attorney general’s office said Judge R. Dennis Saylor IV based his ruling on
two important First Amendment cases that he misinterpreted.
“On the basis of those errors, the judge erroneously found that the plaintiff
has shown that she is entitled to First Amendment protection and therefore has a
likelihood of success on the merits,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald F. Kehoe
wrote.
Mr.
Kehoe said Mary T. Jean, who posted the video on her “Conte2006” Web site,
knowingly obtained an illegal tape in violation of state law.
Ms. Jean’s lawyers will respond to the state’s brief within a few weeks. She is
represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and two
lawyers with the Boston law firm of Choate Hall & Stewart. The filing deadline
is Sept. 11.
Ms. Jean has testified that she did not know the Northboro man, Paul Pechonis,
who made the videotape in September, until he gave her the recording after he
found her Web site online. Mr. Pechonis maintains he was unaware at the time of
the arrest that a camera in his house was activated and recording the state
police who appear to search his home before arresting him.
In his April ruling, Judge Saylor said the D.C. circuit judges “wrongly decided”
the case of U.S. Rep. James A. McDermott, a Washington Democrat, who was found
to have violated federal law when he gave reporters a recording of a telephone
call that included U.S. Rep. John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican who is now
House Majority Leader. Judge Saylor cited the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court Bartnicki
v. Vopper case upholding the right of someone to publish information if they
received it legally, even if the person believes the original source of the
information was illegal.
Mr. McDermott was ordered to pay Mr. Boehner about $700,000 in damages, most of
which covered legal costs. The recorded call, from 1996, involved then-House
Speaker Newt Gingrich and Mr. Boehner, among others, and was recorded by a third
party. Mr. McDermott’s lawyers called the D.C. circuit panel’s ruling unsound
and unworkable. A Florida couple has pleaded guilty to making the tape and
providing it to Mr. McDermott, who has admitted giving it to the news media. Mr.
McDermott’s lawyers cited Judge Saylor’s ruling in the Jean case, calling it a
“Boehner-style lawsuit.” Afterward, the full nine-member Appeals Court agreed to
hear the Boehner case. But Mr. Reilly’s office contends the Boehner case ought
to stand as is: “In Boehner, the court distinguished Bartnicki because the
disseminator seeking First Amendment protection had dealt directly with the
interceptor, had the present knowledge that the interception had been unlawful,
and participated in the interceptor’s unlawful dissemination of the tape. The
Supreme Court foreshadowed this distinction in Bartnicki,” Mr. Kehoe wrote.
“This appeal is based on the state police concerns that the audio portion of the
video was illegally recorded and obtained without their consent in violation of
state law,” Reilly spokesman Terence Burke said.
John Reinstein, legal director for the ACLU in Massachusetts, said he expects
the brief Ms. Jean’s legal team files will answer the state’s appeal.
In February, Judge Saylor issued a temporary restraining order allowing Ms. Jean
to keep the video on the Web site until April 7. She posted the video in January
and state police ordered her to remove it in a Feb. 14 letter.
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.
On May 8, 2006, the legal director of the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union for Massachusetts, Attorney John Reinstein, agreed to represent Mary T. Jean in defending her right to post the video.
This week attorney Eric Bradford Hermanson, a partner in the law firm Choate, Hall and Stewart also signed onto the case and will present the oral argument before the United State Court of Appeals. Attorney Sara Solfanelli of the same firm also signed on as legal counsel.
The First Amendment issues raised by this case are of vital interest to anyone who maintains a web site as well as to all other publishers in other mediums.
If the government is allowed to stifle material given to a publisher this would have broad and sweeping implications for exposing “issues of public interest” relating to government actions.
The video, captured on a baby monitor on Friday, September 30, 2005, shows the arrest of Paul Pechonis by the Massachusetts State Police C-Pac Unit attached to Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte. It shows State Police using unnecessary force, making misleading statements, and conducting a search without a warrant of the Pechonis home.
Sergeant Francis Leahy can be heard notifying C-Pac commander, Captain Thomas G. Greene, that the situation is “okay Tom.” Sergeant Leahy then advised Mrs. Pechonis not to worry, her husband will be returned home in about one hour. Then Sergeant Leahy calls out “come on, bring it in here”, initiating a search of the home.
In addition, Trooper Nicholas Nason states “what this is here is a misdemeanor warrant, not a felony warrant, so the chance of you being held over the weekend or anything like that is probably not gonna happen."
Once in Westboro District Court, late Friday afternoon, Worcester Assistant District Attorney Harold Johnson attempted to have Mr. Pechonis held over until Monday so a competency and responsibility hearing could be held, or he wanted bail set at $20,000. District Court Judge David P. Despotopulos denied the request to hold Mr. Pechonis and set bail for Mr. Pechonis at $5,000 cash.
On January 8, 2006, Paul Pechonis was additionally charged in Marlborough District Court with a misdemeanor, threat to commit a crime. In that case District Court Judge Thomas Sullivan set bail at $20,000. At a February 27, 2006 hearing in Middlesex Superior Court in Cambridge bail was reduced to $5,000.
In an April 5, 2006 pretrial conference, Worcester Assistant District Attorney Harold Johnson attempted to have Mr. Pechonis relinquish the original copy of the arrest video posted to www.conte2006.com as a condition of a plea arrangement. The request was rejected by legal counsel for Mr. Pechonis as being “unrealistic.”
Since US District Court Judge Saylor IV issued his Preliminary Injunction against the State Police both cases against Mr. Pechonis have been continued without a finding.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has issued a notice of briefs to be filed for Appellee or respondent by September 11, 2006, with proof of service of two copies on opposing counsel for each adverse interest.
The appeal was filed by Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General, Ronald Kehoe. According to the briefing notice, it appears that the video case may be ready for argument at the coming December, 2006 session of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Intervention back in Video case sought by former legal counsel.
New complaint field with Chief Disciplinary Counsel, State Bar of Texas in regards to conduct concerning Shea.
On May 5th, within hours of withdrawing, Attorney Daniel Shea filed a motion in US Federal Court for intervention, to be allowed back into Jean v Massachusetts State Police video case.
The motion states, "the interest may be impaired by an unfavorable disposition of the case, i.e. that an unfavorable appellate result could reverse that fee interest already accrued as a result for the applicant’s success on behalf of the plaintiffs at the injunctive stages of litigation".
This filing which contains a certificate of service describes this motion as being delivered via US First class mail to pro se party. The motion was received on Friday, May 12th.
The motion to intervene filed by Attorney Shea will be opposed in US Federal Court.
It is the plaintiff’s position that Attorney Shea used his position of representation in this case as a means to control actions in respect to his election campaign. He further acted unprofessional with verbal and physical threats.
According to Attorney Shea who was interviewed by Telegram columnist, Diane Williamson, this political strategy dispute was over a request to wear a blue suit, instead of a red sox sweatshirt.
Ms Williamson further makes reference to Attorney Shea's approval for withdrawal from the Video case yet never mentions the already filed motion to intervene.
When it became apparent to Attorney Shea that departure as campaign chairperson had occurred, threats of withdrawal from the video case began at 6:38 am Monday, May 1st.
Shea wrote: My presumption at this point is that you have discharged me from this case…...and the injunction that protects you will be dissolved, and they will come after you.
At no time during this dispute did the US District Court video case ever come into the conversation.
When this attempt of control failed, Attorney Shea began notifying legal authorities that criminal actions of violation of campaign laws were occurring. This reporting by Attorney Shea, then initiated the appearance of John Conte’s C-Pac State Troopers at the Jean home.
On Tuesday April 18, Attorney Shea used his position of legal representation as a means to attempt control of earlier actions related to his political campaign when an offer to fly Mrs. Jean home from Easter vacation to meet his computer Guru was rebuffed.
Shea wrote: remember this the next time you are in trouble with the police and school departments and need my assistance.
Attorney Shea has a history of withdrawing or being fired in cases when his actions come into question.
Court documents reveal three 2002 Massachusetts Superior Court civil suits that contained withdrawals by Attorney Shea.
After being discharged by the plaintiffs in a civil suit filed in regards to Pope Benedict, Attorney Shea filed for a restraining order and intervention motion to get back onto the Texas suit.
On November 16, 2005 United States District Judge Lee Rosenthal wrote, "His request for an ex parte restraining is order is denied Shea has met none of the requirements for intervention either permissively or of right. Shea's motion to withdraw as counsel is granted".
In an unsolicited email, a copy of a recent complaint sent to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, State Bar of Texas, concerning Attorney Shea was received May 11th.
No previous awareness nor reference to the web site conte2006 in the State Bar of Texas complaint was known.
May 12, 2006
Ruling
allowing posting of arrest appealed
ACLU to take up Jean case
May 6, 2006
Judge
allows Shea to withdraw from suit
By
Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER— Daniel J. Shea, a Democratic candidate for Worcester district
attorney, yesterday withdrew from a lawsuit in which he represented his former
campaign manager, Mary T. Jean, who faced prosecution for posting a video of a
state police arrest on her Web site.
Ronal Madnick, who heads up the Worcester County chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union, said he will approach his board of directors about taking up
what he called an important First Amendment case.
In his filing in U.S. District Court in Worcester, Mr. Shea said Ms. Jean
objected to his withdrawal and “subsequently has taken acts which indicate an
unmistakable purpose to sever the attorney-client relationship.”
Mr. Shea said he removed Ms. Jean, who lives in Leominster, from her campaign
manager post on Sunday over disagreements about strategy, and he decided he
could no longer represent her in the police video case.
Federal Judge R. Dennis Saylor IV accepted Mr. Shea’s withdrawal.
Last month, Judge Saylor extended a restraining order against state police that
prohibits them from interfering with Ms. Jean’s Web site showing the arrest of a
Northboro man in his home.
The order prevents the state police from interfering with
www.conte2006.com, on which Ms. Jean posted a copy of the arrest recording
on Jan. 29.
In recent days, Ms. Jean has used her Web site, which is critical of Worcester
District Attorney John J. Conte, to explain her differences with Mr. Shea.
Contact Richard Nangle by e-mail at
rnangle@telegram.com
Local
case cited in D.C. court
Video linked to free speech issue
A federal judge’s ruling allowing a Leominster woman to post a video of a state police arrest on her Web site has reverberated to the nation’s capital, where a major First Amendment case is playing out in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Judge rules video of Pechonis arrest can stay on Web site
By
Carolyn Kessel Stewart/ Daily News Staff
A federal judge yesterday ruled that a Leominster woman can keep a controversial
video on her Web site of state police arresting a Northborough man at his home
as they are unknowingly recorded by a "baby cam."
Mary T. Jean, a stay-at-home mother of two, said the early victory was a relief. She said it showed state police "overstepped their boundaries" by demanding she remove the video from her site, www.conte2006.com.
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted Jean a preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court in Worcester that allows her to keep the video up while police investigate her and the subject of the video, Paul Pechonis of Milk Porridge Drive in Northborough.
In the video, Pechonis, a 47-year-old subcontractor, is shown being handcuffed in front of his family. He was arrested and charged with posting death threats against Westborough District Court Judge Paul Waickowski on his Web site, www.bonuskill.com.
"I’ve been waiting for this for a long time," said Pechonis of yesterday’s court decision. Pechonis is also facing a charge of making a threat against Marlborough Police Officer James Gough. Pechonis is free on $5,000 bail as his case progresses. An attorney for state police could not be reached yesterday.
The video was taken accidentally in September 2005, Pechonis said, by a small camera set up to monitor his young daughter.
Pechonis has said it was activated by a motion detector and reveals that police did not have a warrant to search his house. He sent the video to Jean, who then posted on her site, which is a protest against District Attorney John Conte.
State police then told Jean to take the video off her site, and said they would refer the matter to the district attorney’s office for "further investigation and possible prosecution."
Jean said she believes that the recording was taken unintentionally. She could face a misdemeanor charge for "willful disclosure or use of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception."
"If (Pechonis) had intended to record it, I never would have touched it," she said. "He didn’t know he was being recorded and neither did they."
Jean said she has cooperated with police, but no charge against her has been filed. Jean said the district attorney’s office offered to drop the issue if she posted the tape without audio.
Jean said that if she did that, "We still wouldn’t have a clear understanding of what video can be played on the Internet."
Twice as many people now visit her Web site as did before the video was posted, about 800 hits per day, Jean said.
"It affects us all because there are a lot of stay-at-home moms who have Web sites and we need to have a clear understanding of what the law is," she said. "What is to be had by this not being displayed? What law is being broken? Baby cams do exist."
(Carolyn Kessel Stewart can be reached at 508-490-7475 or
ckessel@cnc.com.) State police lose in ruling on orderBy
Lee Hammel TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF,
hammel@telegram.comlJudge Saylor’s decision yesterday, to make the temporary restraining order a preliminary restraining order, comes after an evidentiary hearing in U.S. District Court in Worcester last week. The order prevents the state police from interfering with the Web site of Mary T. Jean of Leominster, www.conte2006.com
, which posted a recording of the state police arrest Jan. 29.Arrest Video wanted by ADA Harold Johnson, request refused by judge.
WORCESTER--In a stunning development yesterday in Worcester Central District Court, one of District Attorney John J. Conte's assistants told the court that it wanted Paul Pechonis of Northboro to turn over a the original video tape of what transpired at his home when police came to arrest him because of an alleged threat he made against a judge.
The video, which appears on this web site and has been viewed by thousands of people from throughout the United States and several foreign countries, shows Massachusetts State Police officers assigned to Mr. Conte entering Mr. Pechonis home and searching the premises without a search warrant.
Lawyers for Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly, a known political ally of Mr. Conte who is seeking the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, are arguing in the U.S. Federal Court that Mr. Conte has nothing to do with their request that Mary Jean remove the audio portion of the tape. The AGs office is representing state police assigned to Mr. Conte in the court action. They allege the tape was made illegally, and thus circumventing the real issue of State Police malfeasance.
Mrs. Jean, represented by lawyer Daniel J. Shea, has a hearing on Friday in the U.S. Federal Court where she is challenging the AGs office and Massachusetts State Police, who want her to remove the audio part of the video.
Mr. Conte's involvement was made known in the Worcester County courthouse yesterday when Assistant District Attorney Harold Johnson told Judge William Hadley, who was brought in from Western Massachusetts for yesterday's hearing, that "the government" wanted the original tape. This is a term commonly used in court to describe whatever prosecutor has jurisdiction. Mr. Conte has jurisdiction in the Worcester Central District and Superior Courts but not the Federal Court on the other end of Main Street.
Paul Padula, a lawyer representing Mr. Pechonis, told the judge "the tape is an unrealistic request." ADA Johnson then said he wanted Mr. Pechonis not to be able to play the tape or allow the tape to be shown on the internet.
Attorney Padula said he believed “the tape was currently being shown on the internet. So that could not be accomplished”.
ADA Johnson refused comment on why he was instructed to add the video into the case today and why John Conte may want the video.
This is where the situation took an even stranger twist.
Mrs. Jean contacted Karen Foley, a spokeswoman for Mr. Conte, and asked for a comment on why Mr. Conte would want the tape. Mrs. Jean said she would call her back later in the afternoon when she had a chance to get a comment.
At about 3 p.m., Mrs. Jean went to Mr. Conte's office and asked to speak with Ms. Foley and she indicated that she had prior conversation with her and Ms. Foley knew she intended to stop by the office.
An older gray-haired man suddenly appeared from behind a door and said, "Is there a problem here?" Mrs. Jean said there was no problem but she had asked for a comment from the District Attorney's office on why they wanted the tape. She mentioned that she had spoken with Mr. Conte's spokeswoman. Mrs. Jean asked if she could see Ms. Foley and was informed she was not in the office. Mrs. Jean asked if there was some way to reach her.
"You've got an attitude," the man said. Mrs. Jean said she was just trying to get a comment from the District Attorney's office on why they wanted that tape. He asked who she was and she identified herself. She asked who he was and he declined to identify himself. The man then said, "I'm sure you don't get along with your neighbors."
She was then told she had a "bad attitude." Mrs. Jean persisted that she had come there to get a comment on why Mr. Conte wanted the tape. This conversation continued until the man said he was going to get court officers and have her thrown out of the building.
Mrs. Jean then went into the hall, which was basically empty, and said she would be happy to have court officers present. The man then retreated back into his office and shut the door.
It is well-known in Worcester that Mr. Conte has an elaborate video camera system in his office. Mrs. Jean said later it was possible that the unidentified man was attempting to "set her up" by causing her to become agitated and out of control. She said the man at one point raised his arm as if he intended to grab or strike her, but he did not assault her.
Web site owner seeks Reilly decree
By
Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER— The lawyer for a woman ordered by state police to remove a video from
her Web site wants a federal judge to
impose sanctions against Attorney General
Thomas F. Reilly and state police Superintendent Thomas G. Robbins for filing a
misleading memo with the court.
Houston lawyer Daniel J. Shea, who represents Mary T. Jean of Leominster, said
the state was trying to mislead the judge in the case into thinking that his
client did not have legitimate reasons to believe state police violated her
First Amendment rights when they demanded that she remove a video of the arrest
of a Northboro man from her “conte2006” Web site.
At issue is the wording used by Assistant Attorney General Ronald F. Kehoe to
describe a key
section of state law in a Thursday filing with the court: “Her
disclosure of the recording on her Web site, by itself, is at most a misdemeanor
under M.G.L. c. 272 sect. 99(C)(3), for which she is not subject to arrest.
Section 99(C)(3) treats as a misdemeanor any ‘willful’ disclosure or use, of the
contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was
obtained through interception.”
Mr. Shea
said the citation as presented made it appear that no threat was made against
Ms. Jean, which, if true, would bolster a key component of the state’s argument.
Mr. Shea noted that the attorney general did not cite the sentence in its
entirety, omitting a section that reads: “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than
two years or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or both.”
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV said he will rule on Friday on whether to issue a
preliminary injunction that would allow Ms. Jean to continue to post the video
on her Web site. Ms. Jean rejected a settlement offer prior to the hearing that
would have required her to remove the audio portion.
Yesterday Ms. Jean testified that she felt threatened by Worcester District
Attorney John J. Conte when she received the state police letter. She said the
number of hits on her Web site increased by 1,000 percent in the days after she
posted the video. The state argues that Ms. Jean did not face “an imminent
threat of irreparable harm. She has not been charged with any crime and, despite
her allegation, has not been threatened with arrest.”
In February, Judge Saylor issued a temporary restraining order allowing Ms. Jean
to keep the video on the Web site until April 7. She posted the video in
January. State police ordered her to remove it in a Feb. 14 letter, but she
obtained a temporary restraining order on Feb. 17 that was later extended.
Mr. Shea argued that the state police letter was clearly a threat.
It read in part, “Be advised that this secret, unauthorized audio/video
recording is in violation of M.G.L. c.272, 99 and subject to prosecution as a
felony.”
“Unless you cease and desist, within 48 hours of receipt of this letter, from
posting this unlawful tape on the internet or any other publicly accessible
site, the Department will refer this matter to the District Attorney’s office
for further investigation and possible prosecution.”
Ms. Jean, whose Web site is critical both of Mr. Conte and the state police who
work for him, received a copy of the video from Paul Pechonis of Northboro, who
also has received a cease and desist letter from state police. Mr. Pechonis said
the video was recorded inadvertently Sept. 29 by a baby camera that is in
constant operation in his home.
Mr. Shea wants the court to rule that the state law in question is
unconstitutional as it would apply to Ms. Jean. He maintains that publication of
the video served the public interest by revealing that state police did not show
a warrant before searching Mr. Pechonis’ home and believes the case could
establish a precedent.
Ms. Jean testified that she did not make the video, which means she would face
no more than a misdemeanor charge. Mr. Shea contends that such a charge would
constitute inappropriate use of an anti-wiretapping statute directed at
organized crime.
The black-and-white video shows state police entering Mr. Pechonis’ home,
placing him in handcuffs and apparently searching the premises for several
minutes.
Mr. Pechonis, 46, of 17 Milk Porridge Circle, said he posted the letter he
received from state police on a Web site called bonuskill. He has been charged
with threatening to commit a crime (murder) against Marlboro Police Officer
James P. Gough and is alleged to have posted photos of himself carrying weapons
and the words “Death to Pig Gough” on a Web site.
In a pending case in Worcester, Mr. Pechonis is alleged to have called for the
“resignation or execution” of Westboro District Court’s presiding justice, Paul
S. Waickowski, on another Web site.
Contact Richard Nangle by e-mail at
rnangle@telegram.com
March 31, 2006
Federal Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV will issue ruling on TSO Friday, April 7, 2pm.
Judge Saylor, who began the court hearing informing both parties that he would rule on the TSO at a latter date, listed to both sides in reference to the legal positions in regard to the Bartnicki case as well as the Boehner v. McDermott case. Judge Saylor stated he had read the opinions and "still did not have his arms around it yet".
In a stunning position today, Assistant Attorney General Ronald K Kehoe, attempted to preset the cease and desist order from Massachusetts State Police, Deputy counsel Ann McCarthy as being separate from Worcester District Attorney John Conte.
AG Kehone asked Mrs. Mary Jean, "did you receive a letter from John Conte, the District Attorney?' Mrs. Jean replied "No". Mrs. Jean further explained "that when the letter reference back to have the District Attorney investigate the charges, then that investigation would be conducted by the C-Pac unit, which are the same people on the tape".
AG Kehoe later in the preceding stated "Mrs. Jean could have sent a letter to Deputy Counsel McCarty, she could have had legal counsel send a letter to Deputy Counsel, instead she made a Federal case of this issue".
AG’s offer rejectedA
Leominster woman who faces a felony charge for posting a video of a state police
arrest on her Web site has rejected a settlement offered by Attorney General
Thomas F. Reilly, setting the stage for a Friday hearing in U.S. District Court
in Worcester.
Mary T. Jean, who runs the ironically named “conte2006” Web site, said Mr.
Reilly’s office offered to settle the case if she agreed to remove the audio
from the recording.
“There was no way I would have taken that,” Ms. Jean said. “Why even go through it?” Ms. Jean said she was scheduled to give a deposition in connection with the case today.
A
federal judge last month issued a temporary restraining order allowing Ms. Jean
to keep the video on the Web site until April 7.
She posted the video in January. State police ordered her to remove it in a Feb.
14 letter, but she obtained a temporary restraining order on Feb. 17 that was
later extended.
Ms. Jean, whose Web site is critical both of Mr. Conte and the state police who
work for him, received a copy of the video from Paul Pechonis of Northboro, who
also has received a cease and desist letter from state police. Mr. Pechonis
claimed the video was recorded inadvertently Sept. 29 by a baby camera that is
in constant operation in his home.
State police cited M.G.L. c. 272 section 99 in saying that the tape was
unlawfully made and broadcast.
Ms. Jean’s lawyer, Daniel J. Shea of Houston, wants the federal court to rule
that the state law in question is unconstitutional as it would apply to Ms.
Jean. Mr. Shea said publication of the video served the public interest by
revealing that state police did not show a warrant before searching Mr. Pechonis’
home. He believes the case could establish a precedent.
Ms. Jean said she did not make the video, which means she would face no more
than a misdemeanor charge. Mr. Shea contends that such a charge would constitute
inappropriate use of an anti-wiretapping statute directed at organized crime.
The black-and-white video shows state police entering Mr. Pechonis’ home,
placing him in handcuffs and apparently searching the premises for several
minutes.
In court Feb. 17, federal Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV cited Bartnicki v. Vopper, a
2001 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, based in part on the
landmark Pentagon Papers case, “Simply put, the issue here is this: Where the
publisher of information has obtained the information in question in a manner
lawful in itself but from a source who has obtained it unlawfully, may the
government punish the ensuing publication of that information.”
It continues, “ ... privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest
in publishing matters of public importance.”
Mr. Reilly’s office did not return telephone calls for comment.
Mr. Pechonis, 46, of 17 Milk Porridge Circle, Northboro, said he posted the
letter he received from state police on a Web site called bonuskill. He has been
charged with threatening to commit a crime (murder) against Marlboro Police
Officer James P. Gough and is alleged to have posted photos of himself carrying
weapons and the words “Death to Pig Gough” on a Web site.
In a pending case in Worcester, Mr. Pechonis is alleged to have called for the
“resignation or execution” of Westboro District Court’s presiding justice, Paul
S. Waickowski, on another Web site.
Mr. Conte has refused requests for comment on the matter.
Contact Richard Nangle by e-mail at
rnangle@telegram.com
Conte2006 web site moves forward to seek permanent injunction for display of arrest video.
On Wednesday, March 29, at the office of the Attorney General, Central Massachusetts Division, One Exchange Place, Worcester, a deposition for Mary T. Jean will occur at the request of Assistant Attorney General Ronald K Kehoe.
The March 22 notice states the deponent is required to bring with her and produce all documents constituting or referring to communication of any nature between the plaintiff and Paul Pechonis.
The deposition will concern the conte2006.com web site in regards to the video released of Paul Pechocis being arrested by Worcester District Attorney John Conte’s State police C-Pac unit on September 29, 2005.
A letter was written by Ann M. McCarthy, deputy legal counsel for the Massachusetts State police, on February 14, 2006 issuing a cease and desist order that states Mrs. Jean could be charged with a felony under MASS. GEN. L. ch. 272 § 99.
The law states if Mrs. Jean conspired in the recording, then the charge would be a felony. If Mrs. Jean simply posted the video, then the charge would be a misdemeanor, if the prosecution under MASS. GEN. L. ch. 272 § 99 was legal.
Mrs. Jean filed in US District Court for a temporary restraining order on February 17 and US District Court Judge F. Dennis Sayor IV issued a ten day order.
Daniel Shea, Attorney for Mrs. Jean asserts that the Unites State Supreme Court in the Bartnicki v Vopper case 532, US 514 (2001) grants Mrs. Jean under her first amendment constitutional right the ability to publish the video without fear of prosecution.
Simply put the issue is this, where the publisher of the information has obtained the information in question in a manner lawful in itself but from a source who has obtained it unlawfully, may the government punish the ensuing publication of that information.
In answer to the question, the Supreme Court ruled that,”…privacy concerns give way when balance against the interest in publishing matter of public importance”.
At the request of Assistant Attorney General Ronald K Kehoe, representing the Massachusetts State Police, the temporary restraining order was then extended to no later than April 7, 2006.
At question is did Mrs. Jean conspire with Mr. Paul Pechonis of Northborough to record this secret video of the Massachusetts State police C-Pac unit arresting, and conducting a warrant less search of the home of Mr. Pechonis.
In the Federal court pleadings, Mrs. Jean states she was in no way involved in making the videotape involved and indeed, did not even know Mr. Pechonis at the time the videotape was made.
Mrs. Jean alleges her Fist Amendment constitutional rights will be violated if she is forced to remove the video, to which there is no redress.
On Friday March 31, 2006 both parties will return to US District Court, Worcester at 10am for a hearing before Judge Saylor.
March 1, 2006Video
case delayed
Tape shows police arrest
By Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
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.
The video has found its way onto several blog sites in recent days, one of which
(cyberjournalist.net) is located in Canada. Mary T. Jean of Leominster, who put
the video on her conte2006.com Web site, said the site registered 2,500 “hits”
on Monday, up from the usual 300.
Ms. Jean said she did not make the video, which means she would face a
misdemeanor charge. Mr. Shea said such a charge would amount to an inappropriate
use of an anti-wiretapping statute directed at organized crime. “In any event,
it appears clear that misdemeanor punishment of lawfully obtained documents that
themselves may have been unlawfully obtained is unconstitutional under the First
Amendment. Once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, matters of public
interest are fair game for publication without police intimidation.”
David Kravitz, co-founder of the Democratic-leaning political Web site
bluemassgroup.com, said the story and video seemed like a good fit for his
readership. He said the case was unique as far as he knew.
“It strikes me as a pretty important story for people like us,” he said. “People
who are interested in the Internet should be concerned.”
The black-and-white video shows state police entering the home of Paul Pechonis
of Northboro, placing him in handcuffs and apparently searching the premises for
several minutes.
“I looked at the video, it’s not exactly like Rodney King,” Mr. Kravitz said,
making reference to the infamous 1992 amateur video of Los Angeles police
arresting and beating Mr. King. The case spawned a wave of copycat videos of law
enforcement actions in the name of preventing police brutality.
“To me it’s not so much about the district attorney or state police. What’s more
interesting is the question of the state police coming after a blogger who got a
hold of this video and put it on her Web site,” he said. “I think that’s why
people are hooking into it.”
Mr. Shea said independent bloggers, unlike major media outlets, are subject to
official intimidation because in most cases they do not have the resources to
hire lawyers and take on a court case.
He said he was encouraged that federal Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s initial
reaction to the case, during a hearing on Friday, was to compare it to the
landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court Pentagon Papers ruling, which allowed the
publication of documents that had been illegally obtained but lawfully delivered
to The New York Times, showing that the U.S. military secretly expanded the war
in Vietnam.
Judge Saylor also cited Bartnicki v. Vopper, a 2001 decision in which the
Supreme Court ruled, based in part on the Pentagon Papers case, “Simply put, the
issue here is this: Where the publisher of information has obtained the
information in question in a manner lawful in itself but from a source who has
obtained it unlawfully, may the government punish the ensuing publication of
that information.”
It continues, “… privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in
publishing matters of public importance.”
Judge Saylor warned that if the court finds that Ms. Jean conspired to make the
video, she could be prosecuted under the felony provision. Ms. Jean testified,
however, that she did not know Mr. Pechonis until he offered her the video,
which he said was inadvertently made on a babycam kept in constant operation in
his home.
Ms. Jean’s Web site casts a critical eye on the activities of District Attorney
John J. Conte and the state police who work with him.
On Friday, Judge Saylor issued a temporary restraining order preventing state
police from taking action against Ms. Jean. The order will be in effect until
March 2. The matter will be taken up again in federal court in Worcester
Tuesday. Mr. Shea left open the possibility of a settlement prior to the court
date.
On Feb. 14, state police mailed a cease-and-desist letter to Ms. Jean, giving
her 48 hours to remove the video from her Web site.
Contact Richard Nangle by e-mail at
Court
says cops can’t yank video: ‘Baby cam’ catches arrest on tape
By Laurel J. Sweet, Boston Herald
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.
“I couldn’t ask for any more from the judicial system than a fair shake and I got that,” said Mary T. Jean, a stay-at-home mother of two and First Amendment crusader.
The grainy black-and-white footage of Paul Pechonis, 47, being handcuffed in front of his wife and mother for allegedly posting threats against Westboro District Court Judge Paul Waickowski in cyberspace has been on Jean’s Web site since last month. But when state police got wind of it last week, they ordered Jean to “cease and desist” its broadcast or “the Department will refer this matter to the District Attorney’s office for further investigation and possible prosecution.”
Under state law, Jean could be jailed for up to two years if tried and convicted of taking the tape public, provided she knew it was intentionally recorded without the permission of state police.
“I didn’t mean to be a social mover or shaker. I just tried to help my fellow person and this is where it got me,” said Jean, 45, the administrator of Conte2006.com, a hot-button Internet page she originally created last year to discourage Worcester District Attorney John Conte from running for re-election. He recently announced he will not.
The restraining order issued late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV prevents state police from interfering with Conte2006.com through at least March 2, but at a hearing next Tuesday, Jean’s attorney, Daniel J. Shea, will ask that it be extended indefinitely.
The state police legal department was said to be unavailable for comment yesterday.
Pechonis called Jean, whose help he sought with an unsolicited e-mail, “my angel.”
Pechonis, a subcontractor, claims he was never presented a search warrant by more than a half-dozen plainclothes officers who fanned out in his home to look for weapons. All the while, a hidden “baby-cam” set up in Pechonis’ living room for the protection of his 17-month-old daughter was rolling, allegedly activated by a motion detector.
“I had no idea it was even on,” insisted Pechonis, who could be facing felony charges for the recording.
Jean, who operates her Web site from a “converted mud room” in her home, said, “I feel it takes a lot of energy to reach out to someone like me. It’s not everyone I can support, but we do as much as we can.”
February 18, 2006 Web site showing arrest OK at least till March 2 By Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF 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.