Okay the letter from Counsel to the Court is another fishing expedition, claiming that it is possible for some sort of sex to occur in the general meeting room, and allegedly Darrell Jones was charged on prior occasion.So what?
The problem is, those charges were DISMISSED in this case and that's all that matters.
And another thing while I am walking this ladder of abstraction, but if Darrell Jones had engaged in some sort of sexual activity Back in the Day why wasn't it important enough to violate the CORI rules and put his business in the MF street at the previous occurrences? Easy: Because it was either bullshit back then too or in the alternative they were reaching from the past to try to put down Jones, Marinova and State Rep. Fox and the Cause of Justice. Which makes their conduct all the more reprehensible. Ha!, they think they're slick but they ain't fooling me. Not for one MF minute.
Not long ago I gave you the stonewall update proving the Governor Patrick and DOC/EOPSS are well aware of "multiple violations" of CORI and security, and noting that no punishment has been taken. This in spite of the emails from an EOPSS manager noting that punishment should be taken. This in spite of Governor Patrick's public statements to me and to others that he would "put it to bed" instead of sweeping it under the rug.
Well it sure looks like more rug sweeping to me. Here's what's pending:
6 May: Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Disclosure of Sources.
23 May: Defendant Van Sack Surreply to Motion to Compel production/identification of her scheming confidential sources.
31 May: Defendant (not sure which ones) Motion to Compel DOC to honor keeper of records subpoena. Perhaps this relates to getting the unredacted official report but I don't know..... because the file is now before the visiting Judge whose name I forget. Judge Cratsley is sitting in another jurisdiction at present.
I'm not going to predict the outcomes but I am going to give you my opinion of what ought to happen: The responsible parties (including Jessica Van Sack) need to be ho-slapped into next week and full disclosure must ensue in order to protect the public trust and confidence in government and the press. There is not Reporter Shield Law in Massachusetts, and in a case like this where the sources do not have clean hands, that's actually a Good Thing. The reason for the laws are to protect good people who have good information about real issues. These guys were dirtbags on a rant, f*** 'em.
0 comments:
Post a Comment