Related: Boston Globe Pornography
Did you see who starred in it?
I'll let you be the judge:
"Judge could face impeachment after admitting sexual involvement with court worker" by Andrea Estes Globe Staff March 24, 2018
The Judicial Conduct Commission has asked the state’s highest court to take steps to permanently remove the former presiding judge of Belchertown District Court after he admitted at least eight sexual encounters with a court social worker, some of them in his courthouse office.
The commission asked the Supreme Judicial Court to publicly censure and suspend Judge Thomas Estes without pay until the legislature can decide whether to oust him, a process rarely used in state history. Under a 1972 court decision, only the legislature and governor can remove a judge.
Commission members argued, in their 214-page submission to the SJC, that Estes had brought shame on the courts and raised doubts about his objectivity, in part because he discussed court business with the court worker before or after their sexual encounters.....
Apparently, the Globe reported on this in October, and expect some sort of internal discipline.
"Brewster teacher charged with molesting children at the school was investigated in prior case" by Travis Andersen Globe Staff March 23, 2018
The Brewster elementary school teacher charged with raping and indecently assaulting two young students was suspected in 2010 of molesting a 4-year-old child at his prior job but no charges were ever filed, court records show.
Details of the 2010 matter emerged in a Brewster police report filed in the case against Noah Campbell-Halley, 36, in Orleans District Court. Campbell-Halley, of Harwich, was arraigned Thursday on three counts of indecent assault and battery of a child under 14, two counts of rape of a child, and one count of intimidation of a witness.
A not-guilty plea was entered on his behalf, and he was held on $25,000 cash bail.
Campbell-Halley allegedly assaulted the two victims, aged 6 and 7, at Stony Brook Elementary School in Brewster, where he teaches technology.
Campbell-Halley’s lawyer at arraignment said Friday that he was no longer representing him. A working number for Campbell-Halley couldn’t be located.
He has worked at Stony Brook for five years but was previously suspected of indecently assaulting a 4-year-old at his prior job at Cape Cod Children’s Place, a nonprofit in Eastham, the police report said.
Eastham police investigated that matter at the time but no charges were filed, court records show.
In a statement released Friday afternoon, Cape Cod Children’s Place said it “reported the incident and cooperated fully and openly with a police investigation that included forensic specialists.”
“It was determined that there was no evidence to support any finding of inappropriate behavior,” said the organization in its statement. “The police closed the file on that matter.”
The group said it was legally “constrained from futher discussion about Mr. Campbell-Halley’s employment history.”
In its statement, Cape Cod Children’s Place said it was “heartbroken” to learn that Campbell-Halley faces charges for allegedly sexually assaulting students at Stony Brook.
“This is devastating to our community in so many ways, and we are holding all our local families in our hearts,” read the statement.
Tom Conrad, superintendent of the Nauset Public Schools, which includes Stony Brook, said Friday in an e-mail that school officials had no information about “any issue at the Children’s Place” at the time of Campbell-Halley’s hiring.
Campbell-Halley was placed on administrative leave Monday.
Eastham police Chief Edward V. Kulhawik said Friday in an e-mail that his department had conducted a thorough investigation of the 2010 case.
“Yes, an investigation was conducted and involved an extensive inquiry into the allegations,” Kulhawik wrote. “A forensic interview was conducted by the Children’s cove [SIC] which is the investigative arm of the District attorney’s office which investigates alleged sexual abuse cases through forensic interviews. . . . In addition, DCF was also involved. After an exhaustive process it was determined that we did not meet the threshold to pursue charges against the individual. Being that there were [no] charges filed or arrests made, I cannot comment further on this.”
Brewster police Detective-Sergeant Paul Judge Jr. wrote in his report in the pending case that Campbell-Halley became distraught when Judge confronted him about the allegations on Monday morning at the Stony Brook school.
“Campbell-Halley immediately broke down in tears without saying anything,” Judge wrote, adding that the teacher repeatedly asked if he could retrieve his lunch before leaving the building. “It is to be noted, Campbell-Halley never denied any involvement in the allegations against him, nor did he ask about who the accusers were.”
Another police report filed by Brewster Officer Matthew B. Marshall said one of the alleged victims indicated that Campbell-Halley tried to silence him with threats, warning that he would “hurt his parents” if he told anyone about the assaults.
Campbell-Halley is due back in court on April 20.....
Along with Anthony Almeida.
He will soon be off to prison.
"Americans looking for love or companionship on Craigslist can no longer make a connection. The classified ads site on Friday took its personals section offline in the United States. The action comes after the US Senate on Wednesday passed an antisex trafficking bill that could hold the website and others responsible for illegal activity if it becomes law. The company says the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act seeks to subject websites to criminal and civil liability. A message on the site says any tool or service can be misused, and the company hopes it can bring them back ‘‘some day.’’ Craigslist closed by saying: ‘‘To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through Craigslist, we wish you every happiness!’’
I'll bet you have never heard of Kaganovich or Yagoda, either.
I guess that's it then.
"Mass. Legislature reveals final criminal justice package" by Joshua Miller Globe Staff March 23, 2018
Top Massachusetts lawmakers unveiled sweeping legislation Friday that aims to reduce the number of people ensnared in the criminal justice system and keep young offenders out of court.
The bill, a compromise between the Senate and House, is the culmination of a years-long effort to shift the balance away from the harsh punishments that came out of the anticrime efforts of the 1990s — measures that critics say have disproportionately affected poor and minority defendants.
It was part of the Democrats' get tough campaign and was needed at the time; now, with all the surveillance, not as much.
“The agreement that we’ve reached today is about lifting people up instead of locking them up. It’s about cutting the chains that hold people down when they’re trying to get back up on their feet. And it is about better protecting the public from drugs and guns,” said Senator William N. Brownsberger, a Belmont Democrat and coauthor of the legislation.
Really flogging those two issues to advance the agenda, aren't they?
Hey, fear is a powerful motivator.
The bill would pare the fines and fees required of people who commit crimes and give those who have served their time a clearer path back to society by strengthening laws that seal and expunge old convictions. It would also mandate the state notify people about their upcoming court dates — via text and e-mail, for example — so they don’t fall into a spiral of accumulating penalties for not showing up.
You don't think they will just delete them?
“Other bills made small dents,” said Senator Cynthia S. Creem, a Newton Democrat and one of the bill’s negotiators. “And this made a big bang.”
Could hear it all the way out to Ayer.
The legislation can’t be amended and faces an up-or-down vote in each chamber. While it is expected to pass both the Democratic-controlled House and Senate, Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, has not taken a position on it; a Baker spokeswoman said he will carefully review it.
The overall bill was praised by reform advocates, including Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz of Jamaica Plain, who called it “a massive and joyful turning point for our state.”
How's that addition coming?
Lew Finfer, a spokesperson for the Jobs Not Jails Coalition, called it “a very big step forward toward more justice for all.”
Whether it faces dramatic resistance, including from law enforcement, remains to be seen. Many of the state’s district attorneys had voiced fierce opposition to several provisions during the legislative process, including a proposal that was ultimately included to forbid parents from testifying against their minor children.
For example, under the bill, a mother who saw her 17-year-old son kill someone couldn’t testify in court against him even if she wanted to. The only exception would be when the victim is a family member and resides in the household.
House majority leader Ronald Mariano, who helped negotiate the final bill, explained a rationale for the provision.
“I really believe that there are other ways to gather evidence, and there are other ways to make convictions,” he said. “You start pitting family members against each other, no matter how dysfunctional the family, I think you’ve ruined that family forever.”
Probably already ruined, but it seems like an extreme example nevertheless.
The legislation also would remove juvenile court jurisdiction over children aged 7 through 11, so children that age would no longer face any criminal sanctions, even for murder.
I would think it would be a case by case basis, but I guess the message is do all your killing and stealing before 11, kids.
Advocates who pushed for those provisions have said they are meant to shelter young children from the trauma of going to court, and ensure kids feel safe asking a parent for help and parents don’t feel pressured to testify against their son or daughter.
In a scorching rebuke in October, several district attorneys said the juvenile court system is capable of providing younger children who are charged the help and support they need. And the prosecutors said that a near-universal prohibition on parents testifying against their children “does grave harm to victims of crime whose pursuit of justice will be stymied for want of crucial evidence.”
But on Friday, the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association declined to weigh in. Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley struck a conciliatory tone, saying in a statement, “A complete analysis of the bill will take some time, but it clearly reflects some thoughtful work and compromise.”
Several provisions the district attorneys opposed in earlier versions are not in the final compromise. And DAs are likely to cheer other aspects of Friday’s legislation.
This bill would make it easier to prosecute traffickers of fentanyl, the ultrapowerful opioid that is often mixed into heroin and plays an increasingly deadly role in Massachusetts’ overdose crisis. That’s a change DAs have long been pressing the Legislature to enact. And Baker urged lawmakers to make that change just this week.
Representative Claire D. Cronin, the House chair of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, said the bill also targets the deadly opioid carfentanil, calling it the “strongest carfentanil law in the country.” The legislation would establish it as a Class A drug and create a prison term of 3½ to 20 years for anyone convicted of trafficking.
It's used as an elephant tranquilizer.
The legislation also raises the threshold for a felony larceny conviction.
Under current law, people convicted of stealing cash or goods worth more than $250 — say, a smartphone — are felons, subject to up to five years in state prison and diminished education and job prospects once they’ve done their time.
That’s a lower monetary bar than almost every other state. The bill would raise the threshold to $1,200, a move advocates say is aimed at helping people who have made a mistake get back on their feet more quickly.
What if you steal billions and trillions, what then?
Retailers, however, railed against the change. Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, said it would incentivize theft by removing the harsher penalty.
I think they are going to do it anyway.
“This represents a huge raise for thieves and criminals,” he said. “In the end, honest consumers will pay for less deterrence for larceny.”
The package would also mandate new oversight for those in solitary confinement in state prison, including a new nine-person committee appointed by the governor that would scrutinize data about how solitary is used.
Under current law, prisoners at any state facility can be sentenced by corrections officials to up to 10 years in the state’s toughest solitary, the Departmental Disciplinary Unit in the Walpole prison, where they are housed in a 12-foot-by-7-foot cell and are entitled to five hours a week of outdoor recreation.
Legislative leaders voiced support for the package, including House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, who called it a “workable and comprehensive approach to criminal justice reform.” The bill is expected to first surface for a vote in the Senate in early April.
How disappointing is he?
“Today’s agreement is a significant step forward for social and economic justice, and toward ending the cycles of incarceration that remain far too prevalent in our Commonwealth,” said Senator Karen E. Spilka, who this week claimed enough votes to become the next Senate president.
During the months-long process of negotiation between the House and Senate, the legislation lost many of its most controversial provisions, including one to legalize sex between young teens close in age, and another to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 19, the highest in the nation. The elimination of multiple other mandatory minimum sentences, pushed strongly by reform advocates, also was not included in the final bill.
In 2015, Massachusetts had the second-lowest imprisonment rate of any state, with 179 sentenced prisoners for every 100,000 people, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Then why the push for this if it isn't even that much of a problem?
They can start over at the State Police barracks:
"Nine state troopers suspended, nine more retire amid overtime probe" by Danny McDonald Globe Staff March 24, 2018
Nine Massachusetts State Police troopers were suspended without pay and nine more retired this week in the midst of an internal affairs investigation into alleged theft of overtime pay, the agency announced on Friday.
So what does retirement mean? They are absolved of any crime?
In all, 19 troopers were scheduled to have internal duty status hearings Friday to determine their job status while the inquiry continues into discrepancies between pay for overtime shifts and actual shifts worked. The group includes members of the force that hold the rank of trooper, sergeant, and lieutenant, according to the State Police.
State Police Colonel Kerry A. Gilpin said in a statement on Friday that in order to fill the agency’s mission, “we must have the public trust.”
Too late, and once you have lost it..... you never really get it back. There will always be the memories and doubt.
“Integrity, honesty, and accountability are core values of the Massachusetts State Police,” she said in the statement.
I mean, “if they’re going to put the time and the effort in, and they can make the money that’s offered to them, why not? It’s like any other profession.”
She added, “Most importantly, those values of honesty and integrity are what our citizens rightly expect and demand.”
I'm tired of sh!t shovelers, no matter what gender.
Earlier this week, Gilpin said that she couldn’t put a dollar figure on the amount of disputed overtime, but that the number of questionable overtime shifts per trooper ranged from one to “as high as 100.”
The Globe reported this month that 245 troopers — about 12 percent of the force — made more than $200,000 last year. An audit that revealed the apparent overtime pay discrepancies focused on Troop E, a State Police division that covers the Massachusetts Turnpike.
The State Police internal affairs unit is investigating, and that probe will determine whether policies, rules, or regulations of the agency were violated. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office is also reviewing the matter, and that office would consider the findings of the internal affairs investigation in deciding whether criminal charges are warranted, said State Police spokesman David Procopio in a brief phone interview Friday night.
Needham attorney Timothy M. Burke, who represents two lieutenants who are subject to the investigation, said Friday night that his clients have never had “any disciplinary issue in their 30-plus years of service to the Commonwealth.”
“They have never been provided with any allegation of impropriety,” he said.
That's because it was a “widespread and accepted practice approved by command.”
Burke said previously the State Police had a system where “a ranked officer operating out of Weston” was “supposed to be monitoring the activities of troopers” who were in areas in Western Massachusetts such as Westfield. At worst, he said, the probe alleges that his clients “were unable to supervise troopers on details . . . in the far western portions of the state.” The State Police, he said, have changed the policy so that troopers have localized supervisors.
“All I can say is, without hesitation, the individuals I represent have fully complied with the responsibilities of performing each and every one of their overtime shifts in accordance with the department’s rules and regulations,” he said.....
This reflects badly on Baker even though it predates him.
Now I lay me down to sleep.....