The Freedom Bulletin

Last week in the Boston Globe, I read a short but sweet letter about Catherine Greig, loyal companion to James “Whitey” Bulger. Because the Globe decided to charge money to access their website, I cannot link you to it, but I think it’s worth re-posting:

“Let Catherine Greig go. She followed James “Whitey” Bulger, and stayed with him come hell or high water. She didn’t abandon him. Who are we to judge a woman’s heart? She was faithful, so if she’s being prosecuted in order to make an example of her, she is an example – an example of good old-fashioned dedication to the man you love, and a role model for brave women who choose a man and see in him what others don’t and stand by him to the end.”

Jean Pepper, Dover, N.H.

I love this letter, and I agree with the idea behind it. Yes, Bulger has a lot of haters, to say the least, which is understandable given his reputation and the crimes he is accused of committing. And Greig does as well because of her association with Bulger and the assistance she provided him while on the lam. In fact, subsequent letters appeared in the Globe, expressing “dismay” at Greig’s “subservient attitude” and saying that David Kaczynski, the brother of “Unabomber” Theodore Kaczynski who turned him in to the FBI, is a better role model.

It is obvious why people consider it virtuous to turn a suspect in to police, even when the suspect is your brother or your longtime significant other. But as a person who is drawn to underdogs, to unpopular views, and to people that most of society likes to hate on, I also see virtue in what Greig did. Loyalty is one of the highest virtues, and loyalty, to me, means staying true to yourself, true to your principles, your words, and what you believe in, and true to your friends, relatives, romantic partners, and whoever you have chosen to support. Many people define faithfulness in a romantic relationship as – to put it bluntly – having sex with only one person. And far too many women live up to this definition, while constantly nagging their husbands, complaining about them to friends, and throwing them under the bus if they fail to live up to society’s sexist expectations of holidays that they should remember, household tasks they should perform, things they should pay for, and gifts that they should buy. It is this attitude that is not only subservient, but actually disloyal. True loyalty and true faithfulness mean that you love someone for who they are, no matter what society thinks. Just like another couple that I admire, Anne Sinclair and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, this also seems to be true of Greig and Bulger.

In a way, Greig did stand up for what is right. There are plenty of people, including the U.S. Department of Justice, working to punish Bulger for his (alleged) deeds. Greig showed courage by helping and standing up for a man whom she must see some good in, even when the rest of the world feels exactly the opposite. There is nothing subservient about that.

The case of Neil Entwistle, the British man convicted in 2008 of the murders of his wife, Rachel, and 9-month-old daughter, Lillian, is heading to the Supreme Judicial Court. Entwistle and his appellate lawyer, Stephen Paul Maidman, are arguing that much of the evidence in the case should be thrown out and a new trial granted because police illegally searched his home twice, without a warrant, after family members and friends became concerned that they couldn’t get in touch with the Entwistles. Prosecutors argue that the police were justified in entering the home because of their function as community caretakers.

According to the Associated Press,

Police are allowed to enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis” to believe there may be someone inside who is injured or in immediate danger, said Suffolk University Law School professor Christopher Dearborn. Dearborn said he believes Entwistle has made a strong argument that police did not have enough evidence in this case to believe an emergency existed.

“The set of facts here may have given rise to concerns, but it also seems equally susceptible to innocuous explanations” as to what had happened to the Entwistles, Dearborn said.

“There is a very compelling argument that this was an illegal search,” he said.

Arguments are scheduled for April 6.

I don’t know what happened on February 26, when neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Probably the only person who knows exactly what happened is Zimmerman himself. Whether Zimmerman acted out of fear for his life (and therefore in self-defense) or out of racism has been widely debated. Zimmerman claims that Martin punched him, and various witnesses have said that they saw him with a bloody nose and lying on his back on the ground. On the other hand, because Martin was black (and Zimmerman part white and part hispanic), numerous people and organizations assume that Martin was shot because he was black. If Zimmerman decided that Martin looked suspicious because of his race, pursued him, and provoked a confrontation, then that would not only be racist of him, but would likely be murder. But if Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he acted in self-defense and did nothing wrong.

It’s always great to debate the facts known about a case and form opinions about what happened. But the New Black Panther Party went too far when they handed out flyers that read, “Child killer of Trayvon Martin wanted dead or alive.” And Minister Mikhail Muhummud, a regional director of that organization, went too far by saying that Zimmerman “should be afraid for his life.” It is wrong to call for someone’s death when you don’t know all the facts about a case.

It’s also wrong to demonize “Stand Your Ground” laws such as the one passed by the Florida legislature in 2005, giving people the right to use deadly force if they reasonably believe that their safety is threatened, whether they are in their homes or in public places where they have a right to be.

The Martin family’s lawyer criticized this law, saying, ”You can’t go pick a fight with somebody and then say, ‘Oh, self-defense.’” But that’s not what the law allows. CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said, ”If you’re the first aggressor, if you are pursuing, you cannot avail yourself of this self-defense claim.” Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley said, “Nothing in Stand Your Ground’ authorizes (you) to pursue and confront.” And Governor Jeb Bush added, ”Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”

Stand Your Ground laws give people the right to defend themselves with deadly force when someone aggresses against them, instead of having a duty to retreat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you aggress against someone, you forfeit your rights, and no one should ever be punished for defending themselves against an aggressor.

Whatever happened to Trayvon Martin, whether George Zimmerman is at fault or not, is undoubtedly tragic, but it is not the fault of Stand Your Ground laws and is not a reason to chip away at the right to self-defense.

On Friday, a jury in New Jersey convicted Dharun Ravi of several counts of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, and witness and evidence tampering for spying on his college roommate, Tyler Clementi. The case would be nowhere near as highly-publicized as it is, and likely would never have become a criminal case at all, if it weren’t for Clementi’s suicide shortly after the spying, in September 2010. Because Clementi was gay and Ravi had spied on him kissing another guy, his death became symbolic to many gay rights and anti-bullying advocates who demanded (rightly) that something be done to fight back against bullying and harassment. Was Ravi’s conviction – which could result in deportation and/or jail time – the right way to fight back? In some respects, yes; in other respects, no.

Ravi faced 13 main charges and was convicted on all of them. Two invasion of privacy charges were for using a webcam to spy on Clementi and his guest engaging in intimate contact without their consent, two more invasion of privacy charges were for making it possible for others to view the webcam feed, and four attempted invasion of privacy charges involved trying to do the same on a different occasion. Seven additional counts involved deleting tweets and text messages, lying to police, and trying to influence others in what they told police, in order to impede the investigation.

On top of all these charges, the invasion of privacy charges carried various counts of bias intimidation, alleging that either Ravi’s goal was to intimidate Clementi because of his sexual orientation, or that he knew Clementi would be intimidated because of his sexual orientation, or that Clementi ended up being intimidated and reasonably believed that he had been targeted because of his sexual orientation. The jury convicted Ravi of at least one of these bias intimidation counts for each invasion of privacy charge, for a total of 24 convictions on 35 total charges.

See a breakdown of all the charges here.

First of all, I agree with the prosecutor’s and the jury’s harsh response to Ravi’s actions to the extent that it is important to treat mental and emotional harm as seriously as physical harm. Legal systems tend to treat things as a violation of a person’s rights only if they physically hurt the person or cause them to lose property or money. But harassment, humiliation, exclusion, and insults can be every bit as harmful as theft, vandalism, or assault, and perpetrating them against innocent people is equally horrible. Bullying violates the rights of its victims, and the legal system should act accordingly.

In Ravi’s specific case, I think it is completely appropriate for him to be punished for watching Clementi (above) and his guest kissing without their permission, and especially for inviting others to do the same. The details of the case are not as clear cut as many initially believed (including myself when I first blogged about it). Ravi’s defense team suggested that he was worried about theft because Clementi’s male friend was a few years older and looked “creepy.” And as Ian Parker at the New Yorker pointed out, no video was actually posted on the Internet, and there was no sex shown on the webcam, just kissing. But the evidence showed that Ravi intended to watch, and invite others to watch, Clementi and his male friend hooking up. He texted about a “viewing party with a bottle of Bacardi and beer,” tweeted, ”anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me,” and made sure the camera was pointing at Clementi’s bed. Ravi’s actions were simply wrong. People have a right to live free from secret surveillance, especially in their own rooms.

The one thing that I disagree with about this verdict is that it treats the crimes against Clementi as especially bad because he was gay. The basic principle behind hate crimes, of which the bias intimidation charges are an example, is that it is especially wrong to commit crimes against a person if you are motivated by hatred of them based upon a certain group that they belong to, such as their religion, race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. First of all, the phrase “hate crime” is a bit of a misnomer because it equates “hate” with prejudice against a group. But it is certainly possible to hate a person for reasons other than their membership in a historically-disadvantaged group. And if directed at a person who does not deserve it, this is every bit as horrible as group prejudice. For example, I was bullied in middle school because I preferred to wear dresses and skirts instead of jeans, was shy and quiet, didn’t listen to “cool” music, didn’t use the latest slang, and was interested in “geeky” things like history and books. As far as I know, I was not the victim of any crimes currently on the books, but had I been, this would not meet the criteria for a hate crime, and so the perpetrators would not face an enhanced sentence. The fact that I was targeted because of who I am as an individual, as opposed to a group that I belong to, does not make the bullying any less hurtful, the motivations behind it any less heinous, or the bullies any less deserving of punishment.

The bottom line is that bullying innocent people and violating their privacy should be treated harshly by the legal system, no matter what the victim’s religion, race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation.

As expected, Catherine Greig pleaded guilty in federal court to charges of conspiracy to harbor a fugitive, identity fraud, and conspiracy to commit identity fraud. She admitted to helping her boyfriend and longtime companion, James “Whitey” Bulger, evade capture for 16 years by running errands, paying bills, picking up medications, and obtaining medical services using fake identification.

Her sentencing hearing is scheduled for June 12, during which, because there is no plea deal, prosecutors and Greig’s defense team will duke it out over how many years in jail she should receive. This could range from 33 months to as high as 15 years if she has to serve the sentences for the three charges consecutively. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock said today that she could be called upon to testify at Bulger’s trial in November, and she may lose her Quincy, MA home if it turns out to have been purchased with illegally-obtained money.

According to news reports, at today’s hearing, Greig broke into tears after she was asked about the long-ago suicide of a family member, and she simply replied, “That’s what happened,” when asked to confirm the details about her and Bulger’s life on the lam.

Relatives of Bulger’s alleged victims have criticized the decision to allow Greig to plead guilty, saying that she is getting off easy, and that she should have faced additional charges for (allegedly) helping Bulger to hide over $800,000 cash and 30 guns in their Santa Monica, CA, apartment.

Sources: Boston Herald, Boston.com

From the Boston Herald: Greig’s change of plea, statement of facts, and superseding indictment

In related news, yesterday, prosecutors filed court documents giving details of the discovery process with defense lawyers. Among the items of evidence mentioned: a possible Bulger autobiography manuscript, entitled, “My Life in the Irish Mafia Wars,” found in the apartment of Bulger’s other girlfriend, Theresa Stanley.

Here is the latest news in a couple of trials that the Freedom Bulletin has been following:

Catherine Greig, girlfriend of reputed South Boston mob boss James “Whitey” Bulger, may plead guilty. Captured in California with Bulger after 16 years on the lam, she is facing trial on May 7 of one charge of conspiracy to harbor a fugitive. Relatives of Bulger’s alleged victims say that they are scheduled to meet with the U.S. Attorney’s Office tomorrow to discuss the possible plea. However, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, even if she pleads guilty, Greig is still unlikely to testify against Bulger. Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said that she would never do this, at least as long as he is representing her, and federal prosecutors would be unable to force her to do so because it would violate her Fifth Amendment rights. In any case, there does not seem to be a plea deal in place. Greig faces up to 5 years in prison on the conspiracy charge, but federal sentencing guidelines suggest 33 to 41 months, and her lawyer will likely ask for a lesser sentence. Last year, prosecutors mentioned the possibility of filing additional charges against Greig, but they haven’t yet done so. More details will certainly come out on Wednesday, when she is scheduled to be in court for a pretrial hearing.

Bill St. Croix, whose sister was allegedly killed by Bulger, said, ”I imagine she’s old school…and is going to keep her mouth shut and take one for the team. I don’t think she would cooperate against Jimmy unless Jimmy and her had discussed this prior.”

Thomas Mortimer, the Winchester, MA man accused of murdering his wife, two children, and mother-in-law, was in court last week as lawyers argued about whether his medical and psychiatric records should be turned over to prosecutors. According to the Winchester Star, his defense team did notify the court on February 3 that he may plan to use an insanity defense. (Defense attorney Denise Regan filed, but then withdrew, a motion to impound this notice, hence the press only just found out about it.) The records that prosecutors are trying to access include notes taken by a social worker who Mortimer and his wife, Laura, went to, as well as records from Bridgewater State Hospital, where Mortimer spent 30 days after his arrest.

3/12 update: It’s official: Greig is pleading guilty. According to the Boston Globe, she filed a document today agreeing to plead guilty to conspiracy to harbor a fugitive, identity fraud, and conspiracy to commit identity fraud. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison, which a judge could order her to serve either concurrently or consecutively. (She could, of course, get less time.) There is no plea deal, meaning that there is no agreement between Greig’s defense team and the U.S. Attorney’s Office about her sentence. Federal prosecutors have not said what sentence they will seek, but according to relatives of Bulger’s alleged victims, who met with them today, Greig will not have to testify against her boyfriend, and she will not have to forfeit her Quincy home. She admitted today in a signed statement, ”I engaged in conduct that was intended to help Bulger avoid detection from law enforcement and to provide him with support and assistance during his flight from law enforcement.” She also admitted obtaining false drivers’ licenses and Social Security cards and using these to pick up medicines and receive medical and dental services for herself and Bulger. But she denied ever using these fake identities to defraud anyone of money or property.

On Friday, Ryan Harris, the author of the book Hacking the Cable Modem: What Cable Companies Don’t Want You to Know, was convicted of seven counts of wire fraud in Boston’s federal court. The government argued that by providing information about how to modify cable modems, and by selling modified modems, he was part of a scheme to deprive  Internet service providers of revenue.

His defense team argued that the information and modems he provided, although they can be used to gain free Internet service or bypass bandwidth limits, also have many legal uses. As the Globe‘s Milton Valencia explained, the case focused on the question of whether Harris should be held responsible for what others chose to do with the information and products he provided. Apparently, the jury’s answer was yes.

Harris faces up to 20 years in jail and a $250,000 fine for each count.

While I agree with the government that it’s not good to gain Internet access for free while others have to pay for it, or to get more bandwidth than you paid for, it would be unjust for ISPs to filter what type of content their customers are allowed to view, so I see no problems with using technology to get around those types of limits. In any case, I believe that only the individuals who actually did the hacking or modifying of modems should be held accountable. It should not be considered illegal to merely provide information or products that can be used for illegal purposes, as this could apply to nearly any product, service, or information. What people choose to do with the information they receive or products they buy is up to them.