Hey, there! Log in / Register
Fun with subpoenas
By adamg on Mon, 08/29/2022 - 1:26pm
Frank Baker wants to subpoena BPD records about Ricardo Arroyo? Saraya Wintersmith at WGBH reports Arroyo supporter and District 6 City Councilor Kendra Lara says fair is fair and wants to subpoena records related to Baker's 1990s arrest on a marijuana-distribution charge.
The council will consider both requests at its regular meeting starting at noon on Wednesday - along with a third subpoena request, also by Lara, but related to the demolition of a house on Centre Street in West Roxbury.
The council has not seen such a flurry of subpoena demands since the days of Councilor Steve Murphy, who once threatened to drag the police commissioner out of his office to testify on police horses and vowed to have a local landlord hauled before the council in irons if that's what it took.
Separately, Council President Ed Flynn, until last week an Arroyo supporter, has removed Arroyo from his post as council vice president and from his committee chairmanships, Wintersmith reports.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
How’d that work out for Murphy?
The Walsh machine ground him to bits in the next election.
?
Steve Murphy now has one of the easiest jobs on the planet.
He is Suffolk County Registrar of Deeds.
It is an elected post.
The clerical staff does all the work.
He can hire his friends. He can set his own hours.
His only check is that he answers to the voters every four years.
As long as he can play out the clock with the little old ladies who vote, he is fine.
He makes a $138k+ a year for making sure the floor tiles don't float away in case of an anti-matter attack on the Brooke Courthouse.
Why the absolute fuck is
Why the absolute fuck is Registrar an elected post. I would bet 100$ that if I go out and ask 10 random citizens what the registrar does, I would get maybe 3 people who know. The cost of running that election is undoing any possible remote good having it as a non-appointed position posits. Although it should just be a normal, hired position, where the clerks who work there and know how it runs and do all the work can, feasibly, become the boss.
Conversely
Appointments are how you end up with absolute trash-ass sociopaths in public service like Keanna Saxon.
I want everyone accountable at the ballot box. Your neighborhood Libertarian voter here is telling you to tax him as necessary to cover the costs of legitimate elections.
What neighborhood is that?
.
Yep
Plus the cost of living in Florida is pretty low.
What are you on about?
He abused his power with the subpoena nonsense, made enemies, and they engineered his election loss.
The fact that he fell backwards into a do nothing job is not the point here. It’s totally unrelated to the subpoena issue.
"They engineered his election loss"
Nah, the voters did.
Bostonians are better than their government. Sometimes, they're also better than their electorate.
Kendra Lara? The Kendra Lara
Kendra Lara? The Kendra Lara that tweeted that all marijuana related convictions should be expunged not that many months ago?
Can anyone stick to their beliefs on anything these days?
?
It should be obvious that this has nothing to do with what he was busted for and it's just a tit-for-tat on the records request.
So what?
Is that supposed to make it any better? Does she think that sexual assault and selling pot are comparable crimes?
She’s shown again and again
She’s incredibly immature. She’s not fit for office and should spend her time focusing on her passion. Social media.
"incredibly immature" and "not fit for office"
also perfectly describe Frank Baker
"Crime" Arroyo was never charged with a crime. Frank Baker was.
There's a lesson in there somewhere....mostly about interpersonal relationships between coworkers.
But we should not be calling Arroyo a criminal.
Thanks for the nostalgia
"Does she think that sexual assault and selling pot are comparable crimes?"
I'm old enough to have played with Stretch Armstrong as a kid so you're providing quite the walk down memory lane watching you stretch your arms all the way across the room only to miss the point completely.
TLDR version?
Can someone boil down what the hell is going on in the DA's race this year?
A good DA can get their grand jury to indict a ham sandwich...but can we elect one as DA instead?
Rollins v. Cops
You got the guy who will continue Rollins' general policies as a progressive DA (Arroyo) vs. Baker's appointee (Hayden) who's more of a traditional DA and has the unofficial backing of the police.
Both sides are digging up legitimate dirt on each other, Hayden tried to kill an investigation into a dirty cop and Arroyo was investigated twice by cops for sexual assault when he was in high school, then one of the alleged victims came out to say there's nothing behind it and she endorses Arroyo.
Also
The other alleged victim has remained silent and nothing came of an investigation.
The issue is Arroyo may have lied on his bar exam about knowledge of these allegations. That could get you disbarred
BUT
the woman who endorses Arroyo says she's going to be exploring all possible legal action and thinks Kevin Hayden sent a PI, and retired Boston Police Officer, Brian T. Gill to her door. He warned her she was about to be the subject of a "political scandal" back in July.
If Hayden did in fact leak out the information of her sexual assault investigation he would face up to 1-year imprisonment and a $1000 fine.
Good points
But why completely omit the fact one has experience while the other doesn’t?
Not all experience is god experience
Hayden's most notable moments professionally, at least to the public are.... not great. So I just omitted "experience" Put it this way he's been working a long time but he's most known for negative things.
I'm sure that is totally unfair but it is the reality for most.
I'd look at his messy handling of the transit cops situation https://www.masslive.com/news/2022/08/suffolk-da-kevin-hayden-faces-call...
Then there's the fact that he lost the current addresses for 1,769 lost of Sex Offenders while Chair of the Registry board. He didn't properly categorize 396 convicted sex offenders in their system... That's like the biggest possible failure for public safety you can have in that job. Auditor Suzanne Bump said it "clearly was a failure of the organization to act on one of its most basic responsibilities"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/06/30/metro/suffolk-das-race-hayden-fac...
Character and fitness
Doesn't MA character and fitness ask about charges and convictions of felonies, not whether one has ever been investigated? Some of the headlines are using "charges," which does get used ambiguously, but the Globe story says he was "investigated," "never charged," and states he was never informed at the time:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/23/metro/suffolk-da-candidate-ricard...
Not for the bar application
At least one of the earlier Globe articles say that the bar application also asks for whether one has been investigated. His application, obtained through a public records request, shows that he said he hadn't been. Lying on the bar often leads to (temporary) debarment, which would disqualify him from being the DA.
This seems to be the part of the question that has largely disappeared from the conversation: did he, or did he not, know that he was being investigated?
If you actually read this
If you actually read this article, you would know that there are three points that appear to disprove Ricardo's claim of "not knowing."
#2 Lawyer
Known reason given, it was in the original Globe reporting.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/23/metro/suffolk-da-candidate-ricard...
Still not a known reason.
Still not a known reason. Are you accepting the “navigating academic issues” (at the O’Bryant???) as the reason he sought counsel?
Arroyo could give a partial waiver to his attorney-client privilege and that would clear this up immediately and might not necessitate dragging victims back into traumatic incidents from almost 20 years ago.
He may or may not have assaulted anyone but his claims of not ever having been told that he was investigated are, in my opinion, untrue.
Am I accepting the reason given?
I don't have to accept it or reject it. Factually, it was the reason he provided for having a lawyer working for him at the time. He could be lying about it for all I know. That doesn't change the fact that he provided a reason for having a lawyer at that time that was not related to the accusations and investigations we are discussing.
Do I think he is lying about not knowing he was under investigation? Yes, based on the facts we have been provided about these cases. I don't see a plausible explanation that refutes the facts we've been provided thus far.
Isn't "under investigation" ambiguous though?
I'm surprised this state's bar application words it in such a way. If someone is charged with something, or arrested, that's a clear yes/no, but when exactly is someone "under investigation?" Was every person who was spoken to about something investigated?
I was a court investigator for something recently in which the detective I spoke with rattled off everyone they thought could have possibly caused injuries to a nonverbal child -- literally everyone who had been in contact with the person. Their narratives listed dozens of people. They spoke vaguely in terms of "we don't really consider that person a suspect" and "spoke to them" in discussing a number of people who were never charged with anything or arrested, and spoke about others in terms of "considered as a suspect, but not enough to charge" Many of their interviews were primarily to see if the person knew anything helpful about the situation. Their records don't specify which people were "under investigation" and which ones were just "being interviewed." The attorneys for the people who sought attorneys (as one should before speaking to any law enforcement/family policing personnel, and which doesn't suggest guilt) only knew that their client was never charged with anything, not whether they had been "considered a suspect at one point" and similar language that the detectives used.
I have DCF records and police records that these individuals and their attorneys don't have and can't get, and I still can't tell you which of these people were "under investigation" because it's not a clear-cut thing like an arrest or charge where it's clearly stated. These people would need to answer "yes" to "has a cop ever talked to you?" but what would they answer about being "under investigation?"
When does a person become "under investigation" and how do they know?
I suppose in the case of
I suppose in the case of Arroyo (as one side alleges) it is when you are informed on two separate occasions that you are being investigated for sexual assault and you feel compelled to hire an attorney.
No, that doesn't work
Again, hiring an attorney does not suggest guilt, investigation, nor anything else. One should never speak to law enforcement without an attorney.
Someone could have an officer show up and say "I want to speak with you," they tell them not without an attorney, they hire an attorney, contact the officer with said attorney, and the officer asks them questions, then doesn't charge them with anything and doesn't contact them again. Has this person "been investigated?"
If he was asked questions, but was not told he was under investigation for anything, then he was correct in saying he was never informed he was under investigation.
For what it's worth, I encounter plenty of teens who have been subject to inappropriate discipline, being accused of things by the school that didn't happen, being threatened with suspension/expulsion, and so forth, and these teens enlist legal help. Greater Boston Legal Services has an amazing program specifically for this issue. It very much tracks that he could have had counsel from such a program or private counsel for school-bullshit-related reasons, cops said they wanted to talk to him about something, and the attorney would very much want to be present for that. Other youth have CRA cases, and have a court-appointed attorney. It's super normal for youth of color being screwed over in schools to have counsel, and they should.
There are standards for law enforcement (allegedly)
Remember that Michael Flynn’s “lying” to the FBI was put under a cloud when it was revealed that the agents never told him he was being investigated for anything. It was a friendly conversation until he was charged. In hindsight, he should not have pled out.
It was an interview, not a
It was an interview, not a cocktail party. put down the koolaid.
Someone doesn’t believe Arroyo, then
Or are you just being partisan?
At then end of the day, the Flynn prosecution became legally problematic when the agents decided to make the questioning more informal. My point being that if police decided to go the same route with Arroyo on the investigation, it is quite likely he didn’t know what was going on. Of course, if a lawyer was present, he totally knew.
What does informal have to do
What does informal have to do with lying? Flynn was paid by foreign governments. He lied to cover it up, because he knew it would disqualify him from his new job. That was a conscious choice. Are you saying that Flynn is too stupid to know what he was saying or who he was talking to? Is that actually partisan?
There is no allegation that Arroyo lied to the police, but that he lied to the public about what happened. I agree that question have you ever been investigated is bizarrely broad. My question is that certain people have known this and chose not to report it to the bar, when they learned that Arroyo was an attorney. They also chose not to report it to the bar when he ran for city council. It really doesn't help Hayden; it just makes law enforcement look bad.
Arroyo lied to the Board of Bar Overseers
To cover up the accusations he faced as a teen. In both cases, the gentlemen in question have asserted that they didn’t know the interview they had was part of an official investigation. If you think Arroyo was right to assert he did not know he was the subject of an investigation, logic dictates that Flynn’s assertion is equally valid, and vice versa. The difference is that in Flynn’s case, notes have been made public that shows the FBI’s interview with him was intentionally casual. Once the Arroyo papers come out, we can see if the same is true.
Casual notes?
How is this the same at all? Flynn lied to the FBI about material facts, he didn't check the wrong box on a form. Flynn and you are pretending that it is ok to lie because the FBI didn't tell him that he was a target? Are you ok with Flynn being paid by foreign governments?
I am not voting for Arroyo because he is not qualified to administrate the office. He isn't a good enough attorney and doesn't have any experience managing people. He may a liberal democrat but that doesn't make him Rollins.
The glasses you wear
Affect what you see.
Somehow, in that universe neither of us inhabit, representing a foreign government is remarkably common, and that universe is inhabited by people connected to the high levels of federal government. Dare I mention a certain Presidential son? Flynn probably should have been more forthcoming, just like Arroyo should have, which brings me back to my point- there is a case to be made for both that they didn’t know they were being investigated.
Your defense of Flynn requires him to be forgetful and stupid
Did hunter work for the US Government? Did he lie about his work? Flynn did both of those things. He was paid to work on behalf of a project to promote the prospects of Russian companies to build a series of nuclear reactors in the Middle East, and allegedly failed to disclose required details of those arrangements in security clearance applications. Right up to the presidential transition period in 2016-2017, Flynn was secretly working on a project directed by the Turkish government that included efforts to discredit a dissident Turkish cleric living in the U.S. (Fethullah Gulen). On Election Day itself, Flynn published a column criticizing Gulen and praising Turkey, without disclosing that Turkey was behind the effort (something that would later lead to his violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
Hunter took a well paid job that his employers thought might give them influence. But it was not a government job.
The good news is
The election is in 8 days.
The bad news
One of them will be the next Suffolk DA.
My election was 8 days ago
I mailed my ballot last Monday, the day before the Arroyo news.
Yet another reason
To vote in person.
Soooooooooooooo
When Dennis White was promoted to commissioner and the domestic assault allegations came out, everyone wanted an inquiry and transparency.
When stuff comes out about Arroyo, everyone wants to bury it or deflect by bringing up that it was leaked information.
Nice try
Your attempt at "whataboutism?" isn't going to work here bud. Apples to oranges comparisons are usually from the dishonest or the ignorant. A male high school kid was investigated and cleared the counterpoint example you chose was allegations, charges and convicted veteran cop threatening people with his service weapon and domestic violence. Whataboutism and dog whistles is all you have?
oh?
Was he cleared? Or did the victim no longer wish to pursue the charges and stopped talking to the investigators? Just because he was not charged, does not mean that investigators concluded that it did not happen.
You do not know how it went down. All you have is the word of someone whose claims are rather dubious. So why not get the details?
your comment has aged oh so well
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/30/metro/woman-who-accused-suffolk-d...
so um was he "investigated and cleared"? or were you just talking out of your ass?
I cannot understand rape apologists such as yourself. You are disgusting human filth.
"Everyone" is doing a lot of work here
Who specifically are you referring to?
well
if you did some reading you might know that everyone includes Lara, Mejia, Wu, and just about everyone else who has remained silent since the allegations came out.
speaking of comments that didn’t age well
…
Dennis White's allegations were previously known by many people.
He was promoted to deputy commissioner by people that read every internal report. Anyone that thought that Mayor Janey would allow that bag of tricks to be foisted on her as Commish was foolish.
This stuff about Arroyo should have been reported to the bar when it was learned. Giving it to the papers a couple of weeks before the primary is very sus.
This is the third day this header has…
…. made me laugh. Gotta say thank you for that!!