Massachusetts Democrat to child rape victims: I will destroy you
posted at 7:00 pm on June 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
On the stand, that is, in the course of defending his client. He’s obliged to scar you for life, making sure you’re psychologically “ruined” with insomnia, crippling bouts of trauma-induced vomiting, and dysfunctional relationships for your entire adulthood. The Founding Fathers would have wanted it that way, or something.
If only the Republicans would ease up on this mandatory sentencing thing, he could ease off a bit. Blame them. Exit quotation: “It’s a lot easier to call it knee-jerk when it’s not your daughter or granddaughter.” Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Draconian punishment?
Not draconian enough.
Limerick on June 24, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Remind me not to live in the state of Massachusetts.
Pent. on June 24, 2008 at 7:07 PM
In the clip he says “repeat”. 20 yrs for a repeat offender is too little? I don’t think so, Tim.
Spirit of 1776 on June 24, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Imagine, a Trial Lawyer that is a Donk. If these kids had just been aborted we wouldn’t have all these perv problems.
JonRoss on June 24, 2008 at 7:08 PM
…and the feminist response is…(crickets)
RobCon on June 24, 2008 at 7:09 PM
No wonder people hate lawyers.
flipflop on June 24, 2008 at 7:10 PM
…and the national MSM response is…(crickets)
RobCon on June 24, 2008 at 7:10 PM
No words can describe my feelings right now.
Maybe Disgust. But even that seems to weak.
upinak on June 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM
…and the DNC response is outrage…wait…he’s a fellow Democrat…(crickets).
RobCon on June 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM
So the rapist ruins the kids life, and the attorney gets to ruin the kids life…they both get a shot at him, they both want to rape him.
I think that guy was getting himself off while giving that little speech…
Here is news for you Mr. Attorney, you don’t have to take that case.
right2bright on June 24, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Obviously he’s doing this for the children. He is a Dem.
Harpazo on June 24, 2008 at 7:16 PM
What a frickin’ DOU#HE!!!! Get him the HELL out of the decision-making halls of Congress. ^@$^#%^&%^$*^$%^#%^@#
MsUnderestimated on June 24, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I’m thinking a law degree should automatically disqualify one from running for office.
Exhibit B: I just found out from an elected official that law schools are encouraging their graduates to run for office the minute they pass the bar exam. This is to get name recognition and help their careers. In my county, we have a bunch of newly minted PaulBots who are doing this exact thing.
RushBaby on June 24, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I think what this Massachusetts Democrat is saying is that sometimes the accused is innocent. If you are going to put someone behind bars for 20 years, its a good idea to make sure they are actually guilty of the crime.
I don’t know what the psychological condition is with most people that makes them automatically assume those ACCUSED of such crimes are ALWAYS guilty, but that seems to be the case.
We just saw over 400 children taken from their parents in Texas on false charges. Thank goodness the courts in Texas did not yield to the idea that no EVIDENCE is required for those ACCUSED of such crimes.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 7:20 PM
This poor sick ass country is out of control and speeding down a very steep slope.
rplat on June 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Reason 1,456,786,344 why I hate liberals.
saltydogg14 on June 24, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Speaking as a lawyer and a resident of the People’s Democratic Republic of Massachusetts, I’m profoundly embarrassed on behalf of the voters who send half wits like this to Beacon Hill over, and over, and over….
Just remember…99% of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name.
RedMindBlueState on June 24, 2008 at 7:22 PM
You nasty, judgmental, neo-conservative warmongers just don’t get; he’s doing it all For The Children™.
Travis Bickle on June 24, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Mandatory 20 years is draconian punishment for repeat raping of young children? I say give first offenders the death penalty, then you don’t have to worry about repeat offenders!
dominigan on June 24, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Maxx, what part of sentencing guidelines eliminates that whole “trial” aspect?
Techie on June 24, 2008 at 7:25 PM
A defense lawyer does not have to do everything in his power to get his client off, unless they believe their client is innocent. If they don’t believe their client is innocent, then they are only required to make sure that the prosecution dots every “i” and crosses every “t”. Their purpose is to make sure that the defendant gets a fair trial and due process. Allowing the client a shot at these two things is all a defense lawyer has to do. Too many attorneys take the view that they must “zealously defend” their client, which means that they do everything possible to get their client off. This comes from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and is one of the main reasons that lawyers have such a bad reputation. Zealous representation only means what I said before: they must force the prosecution to dot every “i” and cross every “t” so that there is not a possibility of a modern day witch hunt. That is what our system is designed to do.
Troy Rasmussen on June 24, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Watching him and knowing he’s an American politician makes me want to vomit.
Hog Wild on June 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Maybe some prison love might change this guy’s outlook.
O’Reilly’s head is gonna explode tonight.
Sammy316 on June 24, 2008 at 7:29 PM
I think you missed his point completely. He’s talking about intentionally destroying every child who has the audacity to take the stand. Not simply a child he believes to be lying. We are talking about intentional child abuse here of children who have already suffered great harm. He’s talking about making sure the legal process isn’t part of the healing and closure process for the victim but a mechanism to make sure the damage is permanent. Now, if lawyers consider that a remotely acceptable practice then we better start rethinking who we let practice law.
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 7:31 PM
How’d Romney EVER got elected for Governor Mass. I’ll never know.
Obviously there are plenty of UNHINGED folks in that odd state.
omnipotent on June 24, 2008 at 7:35 PM
We certainly have our share of twisted politicians here in Massachusetts.
imshocked on June 24, 2008 at 7:35 PM
I’d leave the state but then there would be nobody left to vote against them.
imshocked on June 24, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Sick.
Claypigeon on June 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM
This tool seems to think that the prosecutor and the judge are going to sit mutely by and allow him to demean and degrade a child victim in a rape case. Maybe that’s the way things are done in Massachusetts, but that wouldn’t happen in most states. And I know there are a lot of kooks in Massachusetts, but I have a hard time believing that even a Mass. jury would take kindly to such tactics from a defense attorney. This guy sounds like a pretty lousy lawyer.
AZCoyote on June 24, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Just like in the movie “Scanners”.
omnipotent on June 24, 2008 at 7:39 PM
MA is a complicated place. It’s like Fallujah before the surge. A small minority holds the majority hostage and the majority fights only occasionally usually through a
process we have called the Initiative Petition where we can put binding laws directly on the ballot. Prior to Deval Patrick we had 16 straight years of Republican Governors… Too many people here owe their livelihood to a Dem politician. That and outright fraud keeps the Dems in power.
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 7:41 PM
My lifelong Democrat parents back in Massachusetts are feeling like the party is going too far left for them. Things like this sure isn’t going to bring them back.
Greenhorn on June 24, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Thanks for the 411.
I’ve visited Boston and the folks seemed very friendly and down-to-earth. I must not have been there during a full moon, I guess.
omnipotent on June 24, 2008 at 7:43 PM
There’s a special place in Hell for pedophiles, pedophile/murderers… and lawyers like Fagan.
But before he makes it to Hell, he’d be a great Democrat Senator or Congressman…
newton on June 24, 2008 at 7:46 PM
It doesn’t eliminate any trial aspects. But I think such mandatory sentences have the potential to do more harm than good. In the case of John Couey who raped and killed that little girl, he deserves nothing less than the death sentence.
But I wonder how many people are scared away from volunteer work with children because of the potential of false allegations combined with a mandatory a twenty year sentence.
As a society I don’t think its a good idea to make parents or people in general afraid to be around children. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe our courts are so far out of control that these types of laws are needed. But in a perfect world, each case would be decided on its merits.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 7:47 PM
State House District Office
Room 163 26 Dean Street
State House Taunton, MA 02780
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2040 508-824-7000
Facsimile: 508-823-9892
E-Mail: Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us
JeffreyLloyd on June 24, 2008 at 7:51 PM
You dont defend an innocent man by abusing a child. If that is the only tactic this lawyer can think of then his law degree is a sham.
William Amos on June 24, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Must take a brave man to verbally beat up on children for money. I know: Let’s let him write our laws.
Socratease on June 24, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Q: What’s the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead trial lawyer in the road?
A: The dead skunk has skid marks in front of it.
jaime on June 24, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Each case is.
This is about sentencing for the crime.
Answer me this: When is repeat child rape not worthy of a 20 year sentence?
Don’t talk to me about evidence. The trial was fair, the evidence was seen, the perp was found guilty.
Now, tell me, when, having determined the guilt of the accused and having found him guilty of child rape for a second time should he be let out in less than 20 years?
apollyonbob on June 24, 2008 at 7:54 PM
What a despicable, worthless piece of dog excrement. He would be advised not to come to Northern California. Not even the Secret Service could be successful in protecting him.
JustPlainBill on June 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 7:31 PM
You might be right. But I have a problem with young children on the stand in the first place. Think of it this way. Suppose you were falsely accused of this sort of crime. Wouldn’t you want this guy as your lawyer?
If they are going to put children on the stand against you, which I don’t think should be allowed, isn’t it asking just a little too much of the accused to allow a coached child to bear false witness against you and send you to jail for twenty years?
Please don’t say that children are not coached in such situations, we only have to remember the McMartin preschool trial to know it happens.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 8:04 PM
I’m against mandatory sentencing for certain crimes but this guy’s argument is awful.
lexhamfox on June 24, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I know what it is like to live everyday of my life with the results of the harm that was done to me so many years ago when I was a little boy. This pitiful excuse for a representative, attorney, and human being could not possibly destroy me on or off a witness stand. That was done many years ago by those who harmed me. The only reason I have been successful in overcoming it is by the mercy of Jesus Christ.
Larry L. Sharp on June 24, 2008 at 8:14 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 8:20 PM
apollyonbob on June 24, 2008 at 7:54 PM
See, this is why it’s so difficult to object to the potential harm these types of laws could cause. Because people get so emotional and even fail to pay attention to what is being said.
Didn’t I say above that John Couey who raped and killed that little girl, should get the death sentence? Well, that’s exactly what I said, go read it again.
Now read what I said above to TheBigOldDog and Techie to answer the rest of your post.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 8:20 PM
In a moral society, this man would have been caned and then physically removed from the chamber. Mass need to do some serious soul searching about politicians like Fagan.
MCPO Airdale on June 24, 2008 at 8:26 PM
100% true. These people are sick. Didn’t Hillary try this in her trial lawyer days?
Vigilante on June 24, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Who the hell is this frigging moron and how the hell did they elect him to the position he is in right now in the first place? I think Shakespeare had this guy squarely pegged when he said “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” I have never heard of this guy in my life, and right now, I would love to take a swing at him! He’s an idiot!!!!
pilamaye on June 24, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Massachusetts accents are AWESOME!
Btw, that reporter chick was hot… Why has Fox News not snagged her from her local gig yet?
RightWinged on June 24, 2008 at 8:29 PM
You are a trusting soul BigOldDog. There are always overzealous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves and care not one wit what the facts are of the case so they can climb another rung of the ladder. Think Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong.
Overzealous prosecutors was the problem in the McMartin case too. And an overzealous Texas Child Protective Services in the recent case involving the Ladder Day Saints Church.
All I’m saying is, twenty years is a long time and for the judge’s hands to be tied to that kind of sentence, no matter what the evidence shows, or does not show, could be more damaging to justice than whatever good it serves.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Gotta love that fake, overblown east coast accent.
LtE126 on June 24, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Isn’t this why we have laws that protect kids and limit what can be asked on the stand and how? This guy is talking about breaking one law to justify voting against another.
Gwillie on June 24, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Nothing fake about the accent Dude. That’s the way people from Boston speak.
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 8:43 PM
They exist. It happens. It’s rare. That’s why the cases become such big issues. In MA, we’re lucky if they even prosecute the obvious cases…
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Ummm… No. Bonus Janet Reno involvement.
Which is not to defend this schmuck in Mass, either.
Karl on June 24, 2008 at 8:52 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 8:45 PM
I understand your point. I’m just a little hesitant about these types of laws. And of course John Couey was a repeat offender BUT unless I missed something, this law they are trying to pass applies for first time offenders. At least that’s how I understood the article concerning the law they want to pass.
And since you mentioned MA, it made me think of another overzealous prosecutor case involving a child. Do you remember the English nanny case with the alleged “shaken baby syndrome?” That would have been another emotional travesty of justice if the prosecutor would have prevailed.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Jenny, you know I’d never hurt you. If it weren’t for this war and that lying SOB Johnson.
lorien1973 on June 24, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Give me a break. This guy is not against Jessica’s law because it’ll force him to defend his client more than it would without the 20 year sentence. He’s required to defend each client with equal vigor.
No, he’s against Jessica’s law because a mandatory 20 year minimum sentence will cause many rapists to plea bargain down to 10 years, reducing this guy’s billable hour fees.
That’s the bottom line. He’s using an extreme example, but he’s lying.
Sydney Carton on June 24, 2008 at 9:01 PM
I’m ambivalent. I think it could lead to unintended consequences like some perv thinking he might as well have no witnesses since he’s facing 20 years mandatory anyway. However, Judges here in MA have been derelict in their duty allowing multiple offenders to walk to re-offend. O’Reilly’s made a career out of documenting these cases just in MA.
I remember the case. I remember she was found guilty and the Judge basically found a way to let her out…
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Isn’t this why we have laws that protect kids and limit what can be asked on the stand and how? This guy is talking about breaking one law to justify voting against another.
Good point. This guy can’t ask those kind of questions to kids without a judge’s approval. If he really tried to ruin a child witness’s life, he would be held in contempt of court.
Sydney Carton on June 24, 2008 at 9:03 PM
There is a lot to like about MA and that is why I stay and vote against them. As far as this guy goes, I don’t know the details so I refuse to judge the book by it’s cover. I’ve also been a on the jury of a rape case and know the deal and the defence pretty much ripped the victim and her case apart.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Now I know why,when the libs had a sexual
predator in the White House,and with the
likes of this clown,nobody on the left gives
a rats !ss!!
And you would think,during an election cycle
this would be bad advertizing for the Democratic
party,but oh,nooooooooooooooooooo,apparently,this
must be a resume’builder!,is certainly didn’t affect
Bill Clinton!
canopfor on June 24, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Holy shizzle!
Imagine how this would have played if a GOPer had said this.
madmonkphotog on June 24, 2008 at 9:06 PM
In no code of professional responsibility or case law is there a requirement that a defense attorney do everything in his power to get his client off. The requirement is to represent the client to the best of your professional abilities and within the confines of the law. Browbeat a kid on the stand and more likely than not the jury will convict your client. 99% of criminal trial attys have no problems with not being a dick in court and effectively representing their clients.
Blake on June 24, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Yikes… you are correct sir, I had forgot that fact. Nevertheless, I think the evidence against her amounted to almost nothing.
And you are right about a rash of cases where judges let people go where it seemed there was good evidence against them. So I don’t know what’s right, its hard to know what’s best these days, everything is so screwed up.
Maxx on June 24, 2008 at 9:12 PM
I didn’t hear much of one. People say I have a hardcore Boston accent. Even my wife makes fun of it and she, like me has lived her whole life in MA.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Can massivetwoshits secede from the union? Please?
liquidflorian on June 24, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Contact Info!
liquidflorian on June 24, 2008 at 9:21 PM
iirc, she basically admitted it and her attorney rolled the dice by refusing to allow the jury to consider involuntary manslaughter. He gambled they wouldn’t find her guilty of 2nd degree murder and lost the bet.
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Holy shizzle!
Imagine how this would of played if a GOPer had said this.
madmonkphotog on June 24,2008 at 9:06PM.
madmonkphotog:If it were a GOPer,as an example,Republicans
would of had this guy resign,PERIOD!
And CNN,would have Obama coverage,75% of air
time,then if it were a GOPer,CNN would have
20% airtime!
And CNN,would give John McCain the other 5 %
of airtime,between 2 and 5 am coverage!
canopfor on June 24, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Methinks Fagan just doesn’t want a mandatory sentence when certain of his “hobbies” come to light.
Mrs. Happy Housewife on June 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Yep, he got that Pepperidge farm guy off.
TheSitRep on June 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Well, I guess I won’t have to worry about my children needing to take the stand if something ever happened to them: the sex offender would have no reason to fear a courtroom or a cold jail cell. He’d be dead or wishing he were.
I’d imagine that this sort of crime would decrease tenfold if society would govern itself rather than waiting for the government (e.g. police, courts, etc.) to solve this problem for them.
And 20 yrs is draconian?! It should be a death sentence. He gives himself too much credit: it’s not the defense attorney who will traumatize a child for life, but rather the evil son of a…
Send_Me on June 24, 2008 at 9:34 PM
They go the extra mile to get the attention (therefore, the money)of other potential clients…build a reputation for winning cases.
surrounded on June 24, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Beacon Hill is loaded with a-holes like this clown. It’s a menagerie of dolts who were never very bright, but had enough connections to get elected to the State House. I love Massachusetts (the place), but as far as politics go, it’s a sewer.
D2Boston on June 24, 2008 at 9:51 PM
I find the attitude of some here disturbing. So what if the defense lawyer is over zealous with the defense. Are we saying that just to be accused even if you are a prior offender is enough to jail you? No trial or maybe a mockery of a trial and off to jail because you are in fact guilty by default? I was on the jury in a rape trial. The victim basically accused the guy of rape to cover her crime but I guess that doesn’t matter because after all in this case the guy had a prior. I guess we are just despicable people because we found him not guilty. How about those scum bag lacrosse players a couple of years ago? They should be rotting in jail for what they did to that poor girl. We should be ashamed that we let these offenders go and on such a flimsy reason like the accuser is lying. In both cases it was those scumbag defense lawyers the prevented true justice from taking place. I do fear for our society but not from guys like him. I fear the ones that seek “justice” base solely on the accusation.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 10:01 PM
How about this then? The FIRST time you molest a child, you go to jail FOREVER! There really is no excuse for getting tough the second or third time a monster harms a child! Do it the FIRST time!
Gatordoug on June 24, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Define child. The girl in the trial I was part of was 16. Is she a child? On the other hand if it is proven you molested a 5 year old then you shouldn’t go to jail. You should be brought outback the court house and shot.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Read more. Write less.
TheBigOldDog on June 24, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I wonder what criteria he would suggest to apply for a trial defense lawyer’s actions if someone were to cut his own pair off? I’m sure there is a long line growing by the minute.
wepeople on June 24, 2008 at 10:17 PM
First thought, molesting children is pretty damn draconian.
As far as I am concerned, very bad things should happen to those that molest children.
An expedient fair trial and a public hanging should be a deterrent.
20 years of living at taxpayer expense is entirely too generous.
Since Ma is a Socialist state, child molesters get no real penalty. I am happy that I do not live there. We do things different in Montana.
old trooper on June 24, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I live in Massachusetts and this is a classic example of why we are ready to bolt.
Not surprising when our governor was pen pals with a convicted rapist and wrote letters to the parole board on his behalf. He also donated $5000 to his defense fund for DNA testing - which proved his guilt.
loppyd on June 24, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Insulting. Why didn’t you just say STFU because you are talking out your butt. Because that is exactly what your comment translates to. You no longer have my permission to read any of my comments.
I will voluntarily ignore yours.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 10:33 PM
+1 >:D
Yep!
Chakra Hammer on June 24, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Sentencing comes after a trial, and only when people are found guilty. A mandatory minimum sentencing doesn’t affect presumption of innocence. That’s a seperate fight, and an important one I will admit. I certainly find it hard to keep my blood from boiling when I hear about such crimes.
joewm315 on June 24, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Just remember…99% of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name.
RedMindBlueState on June 24, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Damn, that’s an accurate assessment of the situation…
Keemo on June 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Remind me never to enter the state of Massachusetts.
sinsing on June 24, 2008 at 10:45 PM
I know how it works but the way I read the topic is that this lawyer is a scum bag because he will defend his client and most likely be nasty to the accuser. Many of the thread comments lead me to believe that many here feel it is wrong or at the very least improper to defend someone accused of such a crime especially if it involves upsetting the alleged victim. As far as mandatory sentencing goes in my opinion it’s nothing more than a half ass attempt to force judges from being to lenient. In many cases I think a criminal should be freed from his earthly existence. Child molestation is one of those crimes that should warrant death. I for one do not believe that to punish criminals and protect society is just as criminal as what the criminal does but I feel far to many people think that it is.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 10:56 PM
When would you like to be reminded? By the way, it looks like you forgot to send me your bank account numbers and that rather large sum of money? You did ask me to remind you so I’m reminding you. You really shouldn’t be so forgetful you know.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Mandatory sentencing doesn’t force a lawyer to attack a witness more aggresively. Rep. Fagan, above, is trying to paint the debate as “if you vote for this law, you’re going to make me hurt these children!” It’s the same old card politicians always try to play (”for the children”), but in this case it’s so twisted and off-topic that it makes Fagan look like an ass, which he apparently didn’t realize.
I don’t think you really agree with Fagan, but your last few posts might give one that impression.
joewm315 on June 24, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Three words… capital child molestation. Welcome to Florida, Louisiana and Montana. Enjoy your stay.
bigbeas on June 24, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Fagan is doing nothing more than playing politics during a debate. He is in essence being a politician and yes it makes him look like an ass by pulling out the “do it for the children” card. None of that really changes the impression I get from many of the comments which are pretty much along the lines that it is improper for a defense lawyer to attack the accuser especially if the defendant has a prior and the accuser is a child. Derogatory comments about MA and its people help to reinforce that impression. I get the impression that far too many are willing to employ frontier justice based on the accusation alone because it involved children. The problem is that children lie or are prompted to lie by adults. Maybe I’m influenced because I was on a jury and the “child” did in fact lie about being raped. It was so very apparent that she and her witnesses had been coached and it fell completely apart because the defense lawyer badgered them. I also know a person falsely accused of rape because the girl whom I also knew wanted to retain her honor and again it fell to pieces what she was badgered by the defense.
jmarcure on June 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Oh.My.Heavens.
This maggot spends time with children.
Jaibones on June 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM
The funny thing is, he’s the chair of the House Committee on Ethics.
Rrrrrrriiiight….
john1schn on June 25, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Speaking of them, I wonder how the Founders’ generation dealt with this ilk. Nah, I wasn’t wondering, but I notice the paranoia some have about it, heh.
Feedie on June 25, 2008 at 12:52 AM
As far as the judges in MA go, you have to look up Judge Maria Lopez. She’s been known to release child molesters while dressing down prosecuters (it’s on video somewhere)
striper1 on June 25, 2008 at 3:16 AM
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/1805007/detail.html
striper1 on June 25, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »