Shanley Media P.S.

Dear Friend of Justice,

Jim D'Entremont suggested that I supplement my rant with specific examples of the media coverage.

Particularly annoying was the coverage by WBUR, which began with the outrage of victim advocates that Shanley was exercising his rights. Then Monica Brady-Myerov juxtaposed a sound bite of Robert Shaw calling repressed memory theory "junk science," making the statement appear unsupported, with an uncritical summary of the ADA's claim that repressed memory is widely recognized as real by distinguished scientific professionals.

The Boston Globe also began with victims outrage. Then they quote Shaw calling repressed memory "junk science" and immediately follow that with Mitchell Garabedian and Robert Costello, who says he was abused by another priest.

The Boston Herald story was entirely about victims advocates and their outrage.

Suprisingly good was an article by Keri Roche in the Waltham Daily News Tribune. Waltham is a town of about 60,000 west of Boston. I was surprised that they even bothered to send a reporter to cover the story. When I first looked at the Shanley articles I'd received from my google alert, I confess I skipped over the Waltham article. I read it just now and it caught me by surprise.

Roche's story was devoid of sensationalism. There were no quotes from outraged victims. Instead she reported on what was actually said in the courtroom. She disposed of the "junk science" sound bite and instead discussed Shaw's arguments.

Her reporting on the DA's case was equally fair and accurate.

Roche was also the only journalist to report that there were issues other than repressed memory.

The Boston Globe could learn a lot about journalism from Keri Roche.

-Bob

The Depressingly Predictable Media

Dear Friend of Justice,

The media on the Shanley hearing was as inaccurate and as unfair as I feared it would be. I'm not sure why those reporters even bothered to sit in that courtroom, given that the proceedings went above their heads and that they had drawn their conclusions beforehand.

Reporters now just ignore anything inconsistent with their assumptions. What they ignore doesn't make the six o'clock news. And if it doesn't make the news, it doesn't exist.

The overriding assumption is that accusers must never be doubted. Accusers are victims and victims are Holy. To doubt a sainted victim is to commit heresy. And heretics don't have a lot of career opportunities.

The rush to judgment of accused Catholic priests was additionally complicated by a lot of pent-up homophobia and anti-Catholicism. Paul Shanley never had a chance. He was tried and convicted by the Boston Globe in January of 2002. Since then, his guilt -- and that of other accused priests -- has never been doubted by the Globe or most other media.

But it is as absurd to believe that all accused priests are guilty as it would be to assume that they are all innocent.

Because Shanley's guilt is assumed by the media, and because the only evidence against him was the repressed memories of a highly disturbed young man, the press now considers the theory of repressed memory validated. In other words, Shanley is guilty because of repressed memory and repressed memory is proved by Shanley's guilt. A perfectly circular argument.

The press refused to address the fact that there is no support for repressed memory within the scientific community. What did they do instead?

Some of them interviewed Mitchell Garabedian, an ambulance chaser who has earned millions of dollars, mainly from the Catholic Church, through civil suits based on repressed memory. Is Garabedian their idea of an objective observer?

Other members on the press instead concentrated on the outrage, expressed by victim-survivors, that Shanley was exercising rights given to him by the U.S. Constitution. Now I think it is newsworthy when any group asserts that the Constitution should only apply to people they happen to like. But since so many members of the press themselves endorse this notion, it's not surprising that they took no note of it.

There was a time when I was naive enough to trust the press. But during the early 90s I became an anti-censorship activist. I soon learned that what I directly observed bore almost no resemblance to what was reported in newspapers and on television. Since then I have observed the failure of the press in many areas. They certainly failed big time from the beginning in their coverage of the Shanley case.

The press, of course, does OK when it operates with an open mind. The recent coverage of the Baran case by the Berkshire Eagle, for example, has been very good. Their coverage of the case back in 1985, however, was quite a different matter. Baran's guilt then was considered as obvious by the press as is Shanley's guilt now. Then and now, conflicting information was just ignored.

In my opinion, media unfairness is independent of ideology. For example, much has been made of the inaccuracies and unfairness of Fox News. But are the people who rely on Fox any worse than those Massachusetts "liberals" who get all of their information from the Boston Globe and NPR?

Citizens make decisions based on the information available to them. And most citizens get their information from the mainstream media. Without a fair and hard-working press, democracy cannot function.

Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect that if given a choice he would prefer newspapers without government to government without newspapers.

What would Jefferson think if he knew the sorry state into which this nation's media has fallen?

-Bob Chatelle

Shanley Hearing Report

Dear Friend of Justice,

There may be worse ways of spending a beautiful spring afternoon than sitting in a Massachusetts court room, but they don’t readily come to mind.

On May 29^th, I and about 35 others attended the hearing on the new-trial motion of Paul Shanley. About half of that number were supporters of Paul. Of the rest, many were from the media. I only recognized a handful of people from the victim-survivor cult.

Shanley was represented by an excellent lawyer – Robert Shaw of Cambridge. The Middlesex DA’s office was represented by Loretta Lillios and Bethany Stevens. The one who did most of the talking was Ms. Lillios.

Perhaps I should say the mumbling, as I was barely able to understand anything that either of them said. While Mr. Shaw spoke from a miked podium at the back of the courtroom, Ms. Lillios and Ms. Stevens stood directly in front of the judge and spoke in weak monotones.

In the new-trial motion, Shaw raises four issues:

1. That Shanley’s lawyer, Frank Mondano, had failed Shanley by not demonstrating that the theory of repressed memory is not accepted by the scientific community.
2. That the Court’s statute-of-limitations instruction to the jury was erroneous.
3. That the Court had failed to follow mandated procedures during jury selection and that Mondano had failed to object to the same.
4. That a court officer had secretly and inappropriately intervened to influence a key prosecution witness.

I will not give a detailed account of the hearing, which lasted for over two hours. And I will confine myself to an account of a discussion of the first issue, which I believe is the one of most interest to us.

Shaw said that the evidence on which Shanley was convicted was “the thinnest of thin.” He said that justice was not done and that the court needs to answer questions about the validity of repressed memory.

According to the allegations, every Sunday morning Shanley would remove up to three children from a class of 12, take them to various spots in the church, and sexually abuse them. Yet not one teacher had testified that he or she had seen Shanley remove a child from a class. One child had testified that when in second grade, Shanley had abused him during confession. Yet children do not go to confession at such a young age.

The allegations arose when a childhood friend of Paul Busa told Busa that he (the friend) had recovered memories of being abused by Shanley 20 years prior. Busa soon recovered identical memories and joined his friend in pursuing a lawsuit. Busa’s “memories” were images in his mind that occurred in the wake of massive media exposure. At the time, Busa even made statements that he didn’t know if these images were memories or not.

Shaw stated, “Repressed memory is not generally accepted in the scientific community. Shaw said that the court had to consider three questions.

1. Who is the proper scientific community?
2. What is valid scientific methodology?
3. Was information at the trial accurately and fairly presented?

Shaw stated that he had presented a lengthy and detailed affidavit from Dr. Harrison Pope, an internationally respected memory scientist. He contrasted Dr. Pope with the prosecution’s “expert,” Dr. Daniel Brown. Shaw pointed out that the professionals that Brown relied upon included people who had been indicted and had lost their professional licenses. They included people who subscribed to unsupported theories about brainwashing by the CIA, Satanic cults, and the Ku Klux Klan. (See this speech by Dr. Corydon Hammond, co-author with Brown of Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law.)

Dr. Brown, first of all, misidentified that relevant scientific community. He stated that this community included social workers, hypnotherapists, and clinicians. None of these people are scientists.

In discussing methodology, Brown mentioned scholarship, clinical observation, and constructing meaning from observation. This is not scientific method.

Shaw stated that the prosecution’s other witness, Dr. Chu, had conducted retrospective studies in which people were asked if they had ever remembered things that they once had forgotten. Such “studies” are scientifically worthless. [Also, forgetting is very different from “repressing.]

When Shaw expressed the opinion that the theory of repressed memory was “junk science,” Judge Neel asked if it wasn’t the case that Dr. Elizabeth Loftus believes that it does exist but is very rare. Shaw disputed this. I am sure that he was right. As a scientist, Dr. Loftus would never state that the nonexistence of repressed memory has been proven. She may have said something like, “If it exists, it is very rare.”

Paul Busa claimed that he has been abused and had instantly forgotten the abuse many times over. The only way the jury could make sense of such statements was to subscribe to a belief in repressed memory. The prosecution’s entire case against Shanley rests on belief in repressed memory, yet Shanley’s trial attorney, Frank Mondano, did not challenge the theory at trial. Mondano only called one witness – Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. But Loftus could not effectively respond to Dr. Chu because Loftus was not a clinician. [Note: I attended the trial. Mondano didn’t have a clue about what to ask Loftus. After prosecutor Lynn Rooney did a cross-examination that was mainly an attack on Dr. Loftus’s character, Mondano did not even bother to do a redirect.]

Shaw pointed out that the past thirty years of memory research should have been used in the Shanley case to discredit the theory of repressed memory. Yet because Mondano did not challenge it, the court relied on unreliable information to make erroneous decisions.

As I said, it was very difficult to hear and understand the DA’s response. But she seemed to try to make the following points:

1. That the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has given its full blessing to repressed memory in the case of Commonwealth v. Frangipane.
2. That “The DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] accepts dissociative amnesia [repressed memory] and that should be enough.”
3. That Shaw had “unjustly maligned” Dr. Brown’s book, which is an award-winning leading textbook.
4. That Paul Busa’s abuse had been corroborated because he was able to describe a number of rooms in the church and also because his teachers [not Shanley] had often sent him out of the room for misbehavior.
5. That Frank Mondanao may have decided not to challenge the theory of repressed memory for “tactical” reasons.

The Frangipane decision is not a good decision. That should surprise no one – the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not a good court.

Shaw had addressed the Frangipane issue in his written response to the Commonwealth. I will quote from that document.

In an effort to characterize the Defendant’s claims as having no merit, the
Commonwealth relies on several erroneous assertions concerning the Frangipane case. Commonwealth v. Frangipane, 433 Mass. 527 (2001). In Frangipane the issue of “repressed memory” was not subjected to any Lanigan hearing, and therefore no competing expert evidence was admitted and considered by any Court for a determination about general acceptance, standardization, or any other factor inherent in a proper Lanigan/Daubert evaluation. This is important context for the issues now before this Court, and perhaps explains why the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion in Frangipane ultimately retained language indicating that the Court’s holding did not reach the question of whether there was general acceptance of “repressed memory,” or whether a Lanigan hearing was required. Commonwealth v. Frangipane, supra, supra, at 537 (“We need not reach the defendant’s additional argument that the judge erred in failing to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine the reliability of the Commonwealth’s proffered expert opinion testimony on the subject of dissociative memory loss and recovered memory”).

What occurred in Frangipane is the Supreme Judicial Court modified a small portion of its opinion in response to an amicus brief filed by the Leadership Council in coordination with a petition for rehearing. See Exhibit 1, Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief, ¶ 2, stating that the Leadership Council is “filing an amicus brief in the context of a rehearing petition”). That amicus brief, as was true of the petition for rehearing, received no opposing response before the SJC, and did not accurately represent the science -- a fact the Defendant has demonstrated at bar through his filings to date, and is capable of demonstrating with specific, point by point reference to the content of the amicus brief if necessary. Not only is the Frangipane case of little guidance for this reason, but it is highly questionable as a reliable guide where the Supreme Judicial Court did, as the Commonwealth points out, cite to Dr. Harrison Pope and others, those cites providing part of the basis for dicta initially shooting down the Commonwealth’s suggestion that no Lanigan hearing was required. Commonwealth v. Frangipane, supra, at 536 n.13. Indeed, the after-the-fact change in dicta left language intact indicating that “repressed memory” is “highly controversial” -- a label which defies any notion of general acceptance. In the absence of any Lanigan hearing below, it is impossible to say that a multi-factored Lanigan/Daubert analysis by the Supreme Judicial Court determined “repressed memory” evidence should be admitted despite the absence of general acceptance in the scientific community.

In stark contrast to the materials submitted in support of the Frangipane case, the Defendant has produced for this Court affidavits from perhaps the most competent experts in the world. These experts, seven (7) years after Frangipane was decided by the Supreme Judicial Court and approximately 11 years after the case was litigated in the trial court, have demonstrated the state of the science, that “repressed memory” is not generally accepted and, indeed, there are not even scientifically valid error rates from which the invalid studies relied upon by Dr. Daniel Brown could be used to assert a theory of “non-overlapping” “methodological shortcomings” (C.Mem. 16). World renowned scientists such as Dr. Pope, whose scientific competence dwarfs that of Dr. Brown, cannot simply be pushed aside in disregard as the Commonwealth suggests, as if his representations concerning scientific validity and acceptance in the scientific community are the clamoring of a “vocal minority” (Dr. Brown’s self-serving term). Dr. Pope’s affidavit along with the other materials now before this Court demonstrate that Dr. Brown misrepresented the science to this Court, a fact now becoming evident in other areas of the country. See Exhibit 2, Federal Court’s Order vacating a 1.75 million dollar judgment after Dr. Brown’s testimony was challenged post-verdict on grounds of misrepresenting the science to the Federal Court; Exhibit 3, Order of the Marion Superior Court dated Dec. 31, 2007 at ¶ 4, striking, among others, multiple portions of Dr. Brown’s supplemental affidavit pursuant to claims that his affidavit suffered from “flawed reasoning and definitional deception,” and thereafter granting summary judgment for defendant. See also, e.g., FMSF, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2008), Daniel Brown, Ph.D., Accused of Misrepresentation: Nebraska Jury Award of $1.75 Million Vacated in Doe v. Vella, U.S. Dist. Ct. D. Neb., No. 8:04-cv-00269; The Free Republic, Expert Witness Testimony May Have Torpedoes 1.7 Million Award, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1955209/posts (“Court papers suggest a $1.75 million jury award in a sexual abuse lawsuit was vacated by a judge because of questions raised about a key witness’ credibility”); The Sioux City Journal, Lincoln Nebraska (AP) (2008), Judge tosses $1.75 million judgment for priest's daughter.

Points 4 and 5 of the DA’s argument are absurd on their face.

As for the inclusion of dissociative amnesia [repressed memory] by the DSM-IV, I am led to paraphrase Hamlet: There are more things dreamt of in the DSM-IV, Horatio, than are in heaven and earth.

The DSM-IV is not a scientific document. It is essentially a dictionary of alleged “mental disorders” published by the American Psychiatric Association. If a significant number of psychiatrists believe in the existence of a disorder, it will be listed in the DSM-IV. And a significant number of psychiatrists, unfortunately, believe in dissociative amnesia [repressed memory].

Psychiatrists are clinicians, not scientists. The relationship of psychiatry to science is more complex than that of other branches of medicine. For example, psychiatrists treat a number of conditions that have well-established physiological bases: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc. Psychiatrists also treat patients suffering the after affects of trauma. In these cases, the relevant sciences are not physiology and biochemistry but experimental psychology. Psychiatrists themselves do not do science in the course of treating people. The psychiatrist’s office is not a scientific laboratory.

The heart of the problem is that lawyers, judges, therapists, and journalists in particular and the American public in general do not like science and do not understand science. In this regard, in my opinion, those calling themselves liberals are worse than self-acknowledged conservatives. Liberal-arts majors take only the math and science courses forced upon them and revel in their hatred of these cold and heartless fields of study.

What I find cold and heartless is allowing the lives of innocent people to be destroyed by junk science in the courtroom.

Science is not well-taught, especially in our failing public-school systems. And citizens are not educated in science by the media because journalists have no better understanding than their readers.

The attorneys who work in the Middlesex DA’s office may sincerely believe that the DSM-IV has a scientific basis and that Dr. Daniel Brown is a generally respected scientist. If so, that is very frightening.

Dr. Brown’s book is junk. It has no merit. It is disgraceful that it has won awards. It is disgraceful that it is being used anywhere as a textbook. As a textbook it can only perpetuate dangerous misinformation.

Dr. Richard McNally is Director of Clinical Training at Harvard University. Although clinically trained, he has also distinguished himself as a scientist. McNally was so appalled by Dr. Brown’s book, that he was led to research and write his own book to refute it. If you want a glimpse of real science, I highly recommend Remembering Trauma by Dr, Richard McNally. It leaves Brown’s book in tatters.

I attended the trial of Paul Shanley. Some of you may be interested in reading my remarks from that time.

Read more about the Shanley case.

-Bob Chatelle

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Science

Dear Friend of Justice,

This afternoon my partner Jim D'Entremont and I will be attending the hearing on the new-trial motion of Paul Shanley (http://www.ncrj.org/Shanley/Index.html). This case, as most of you know, hinges on the junk-science "theory of repressed memory." (Usually referred to as "recovered memory," but that usage is somewhat misleading. Every time we remember anything we can be said to "recover" a memory.)

In an article in today's Boston Globe, Middlese DA Gerry Leone is quoted as saying, "The concept of recovered memory by victims of abuse has been accepted by both the scientific and legal communities..."

That statement, of course, is a lie. But it is a lie that few Globe readers will question. Had Mr. Leone said, "The concept of astrology has been accepted by both the scientific and legal communities..," his statement would probably have raised a few eyebrows. Yet there is no more evidence for repressed memory than there is for astrology.

Repressed memory has, unfortunately, been accepted by a great many prosecutors. But that is because it enables them to win cases they would otherwise lose. Scientific validity is seldom a matter of concern to such people.

But support for the theory of repressed memory in the scientific community is almost nonexistent. The "scientists" who support this theory are, for the most part, crackpots.

Consider, for example, Dr. Corydon Hammond, one of the principal authors of Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law. This is an award-winning book published by Harvard University. It is perhaps the bible of the repressed-memory cult. I'm sure Mr. Leone would not hesitate in saying that Dr. Hammond is a leading scientist who "accepts" (and promotes) the theory of repressed memory.

One wonders what Mr. Leone would say if he were to read this speech by Dr. Hammond (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzex11z4/greenbaum2.html)

Many of you have already read this speech. But I suggest you take a little time to read it again.

I think any reasonable person reading the Greenbaum speech would conclude that Dr. Hammond is not playing with a full deck.

Unfortunately, neither are a great many Massachusetts prosecutors, journalists, and politicians.

The battle against ignorance and bigotry is indeed difficult. But to abandon it is to abandon our humanity.

-Bob Chatelle

Birthday Reminder P.S.

From Lonna Manning:

Thanks for the reminder Bob, and for all you do. Could you perhaps also tell people that

Nancy Smith also has a wish list at Amazon com. If you enter "Nancy Smith" and then enter "Marysville" you can get to it. It has books on painting and music that she likes.

Thanks, Lona

Birthday Reminders

Dear Friend of Justice,

I know that many of you like to send birthday cards to innocent people in prison. We have two birthdays coming up in the next week:

Nancy Smith (http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/smith&allen.htm)
#W034304
c/o Ohio Reformatory for Women
1479 Collins Ave.
Marysville, OH 43040
(May 26th)

Joseph Allen (http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/smith&allen.htm)
A 293486
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 788
Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788
(May 29th)

May 26th is also Bernard Baran's (http://www.freebaran.org/) birthday.

I hope some of you will take a minute to brighten the day of a victim of our broken-down criminal-justice system.

-Bob Chatelle

Why Senator Kennedy's Serious Illness Scares the hell out of me.

Two words: Martha Coakley.

When John Kerry was running for President four years ago, Coakley made it clear that if he were elected, her black conical hat would be in the ring for Kerry's Senate seat.

And now Kennedy may be forced to give up his.

Coakley seems to think that her deficiencies of ethics and morals are compensated for by her ambition.

I want to beg even the atheists and Republicans among you to pray for Kennedy's complete recovery.

-Bob Chatelle

A Plea From Carol Hopkins

When I first got into the justice-advocacy business, one of the first people I encountered was Carol Hopkins. Recently, Carol sent me the following email and asked me to post it to this blog:

Dear Friends of Justice,

As most of you know I retired 10 years ago from the "injustice business." I have only come out of seclusion a few times on very special cases. Fortunately, in each of those cases the unjustly accused and convicted had a quick release. This time I am writing about a case that desperately needs your help. It is in the process of reversal; the court has "found good cause to reverse" Dr. Dubria's donviction. The case is in the process of being briefed prior to ordering an evidentiary hearing. I have absolutely NO doubt the case will be overturned but time is of the essence.

Dr. Sam Dubria's mother and father are in their late 80's. Lourdes Dubria has recently undergone chemotherapy for breast cancer. His father, Pat Dubria, has been nearly blinded by a stroke several months ago. Despite their age and fraility, they are still working full-time to pay the attorneys working for their son's freedom. Dr. Sam needs to come home and be with these wonderful people in the last days of their lives.

While Mr. and Mrs. Dubria have been working in what should have been the retired years they enjoyed their grandchildren, the San Diego District Attorney's office has hidden, and perhaps destroyed, files, delayed and continued at every opportunity. The original DA on the case is now a sitting Superior Court judge. He has filed a declaration claiming t he provided Brady evidence to the defense at the time of trial that was, in fact, never provided, never bate-stamped, and not in the district attorney's own case file. There is no element of this case that is not tainted. It is only attorneys Tracy and Thor Emblem's persistence, perseverance, and obsessive attention to science and detail that has resulted in the current order.

For full details on this case, please go to http://www.free-drsamdubria.com/.

There is a petition to sign on the website. Please take the time to do so. It would be helpful if you forwarded the information on to those in your address book who you think would be interested and take the time to sign.

If you would like to be kept informed about this case, please write back and I will put you on the Sam Dubria information board.

If you would like to help in some way, please let me know. We particularly need help in the San Diego area reaching out to the media, clubs and organizations to inform them about the case. It is my hope that District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis will drop the case and let Dr. Sam go free before, or soon after, the July 16 hearing but we need to be prepared to apply political pressure if she does not. Continuing to hold an innocent man is a political decision; we will need a political solution.

A thumbnail sketch of the case follows.

Seventeen years ago, a young Filipino-American, Dr., Sam Dubria, was convicted of murder with special enhancements for rape. He was sentenced to life without parole.

The facts of the case are that Dr. Dubria and his long time friend, only recently a romantic friend, Jennifer Klapper were vacationing at a hotel in Carlsbad. They had spent several nights before with the Dubria family in Glendale. Dr. Dubria had just finished his residency in gerentology and this was a celebratory trip.

Jennifer had a long medical history of health problems with multiple trips to the hospital for arhythmia, severe headaches, nausea, dizziness. She was approximately 25% below recommended body weight at the time of her death. Those records were received by the Deputy District Attorney during the trial but never provided to the defense. Instead, Deputy DA Casserly argued in closing that Jennifer was a perfectly healthy young woman knowing that she had this history. These medical records were only discovered within the past two years by Tracy Emblem, the same appellate attorney who did the Ken Marsh case.

The Deputy DA's theory of the case was that Dr. Dubria chloroformed Jennifer, raped her, she died and he then tried to cover it up. There is no evidence for any of the above. There is evidence that there could have been some contamination in the Medical Examiner's lab. There is also evidence that the Medical Examiner changed her testimony to fit the DA's theory of the crime. At the time of autopsy she explained the abrasions on Jennifer's face as the usual result of paramedic intervention. At trial she testified that the abrasions were as a result of her attempts to ward off a rape.

There is much more on the website. This is a far story than any CSI could imagine.

Carol Hopkins
61-840-5154

The Triumph of Greed

Dear Friend of Justice,

I am posting this for a number of reasons. First of all, I have a pressing need to get a few things off my chest. Second, we need to ask for help. And third, I think the post is relevant to the concerns of this group.

The building where Jim and I have lived for twelve years is in process of being sold. To find out about the buyer, check out these links:

http://local.yahoo.com/details?id=25783461

http://boston.citysearch.com/review/4743088

http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3715334649

Our building used to be a limited-equity housing co-op. We were able to buy a share here for perhaps 10 percent (or less) of what it would have cost to buy a comparable condominium. Our monthly carrying charges were low. But the value of our share would only increase by a few hundred dollars per year. And we could only sell that share back to the co-op. The intent was to keep out speculators and preserve affordable housing here indefinitely.

Unfortunately, the speculators were not kept out. Ultimately, they destroyed the co-op.

Geese that lay golden eggs have a very short life expectancy.

Because our housing costs were so low, Jim and I were able to work less than full time and devote a great deal of time to our criminal-justice work. Had we not moved here, for example, we could never have done our work for Bernard Baran.

The trouble began not too long after we moved in. Some of us had legitimate concerns about the condition of the building. We wanted to identify necessary repairs and do them. So we hired an excellent engineering company who did a good study. They told us what we should do immediately, what we should do in a few years, and what we should do eventually.

Unfortunately, we didn't have sufficient reserves to pay for all of this. One way or another, carrying charges would have had to go up a bit.

At this point one of our members sold us the Brooklyn Bridge. She had "found" an architect who would do his own study and also the necessary work. The total fee would be less than our reserves. Carrying charges would not go up a penny.

So our Board bought the Brooklyn Bridge and persuaded the membership to go along. The member was hired to "manage" the project.

It was never disclosed that the architect was the member's former business partner. Nor was any of their less-than-stellar joint resume ever shared.

The project was a debacle. Our lives were disrupted by the "repairs" for almost a year. The money finally ran out. The building was in worse shape than when the "repairs" began.

The Board hired an engineering firm to evaluate the work. Their scathing report was kept secret until it was finally leaked years later.

The Board, by the way, is a three-member body that meets in private and doesn't publish minutes of meetings. But it later became known that the Board declined to take legal action against the member and her partner because they didn't want to sue a member. In my opinion, it would have been more appropriate to press criminal charges.

The social fabric of this co-op was destroyed by this fiasco. But things were relatively quiet for a few years. Tense, but quiet. And then some members decided that we should go condo.

The membership as a whole wasn't interested. But there was a consensus that we should again look into the building's problems -- which still existed -- and create a plan to address them.

The person responsible for the previous repair fiasco soon allied herself with the condo people. I will just refer to this faction as the Greed Party. Their initial objective, it appeared, was to tear-down the building and build luxury condos.

The Greed Party first tried to convince the membership that the building was in horrible shape, that it was dangerous, and that our lives were in danger if we continued to live here. A consensus was reached that we should hire experts to look at the building and advise us of our options.

Since the Greed Party wanted teardown/rebuild to be one of the examined options, we hired an architectural firm, not an engineering firm. The architects found many problems, including code violations. And we discovered that if we tried to fix the code violations, we would trigger a threshold that would require us also to make the building handicapped accessible. Among other things, we would have to install an elevator. Repairing the building was proving to be an expensive option.

Once the study was done and the Board had been informed of the code violations, the Board was forced to act. And if they did not act, the Greed Party could call in building inspectors. The Greed Party could now use blackmail to get its way.

The Greed Party began pushing the idea of selling the building. "We are sitting on a gold mine," one of them was overheard saying at a local restaurant.

Having convinced most of the membership that the building was in such sorry shape as to be worthless, it now set about convincing the same people that they were sitting on an extremely valuable piece of property. Throughout the rest of the process, the Greed Party kept making both of these contradictory arguments, depending on their immediate goal.

There were some of us who felt the building could be saved with help. My neighborhood has an excellent non-profit Community Development Corporation that was interested in preserving 46 units of affordable housing in this neighborhood. They also had access to several million dollars of "inclusionary funds" (funds escrowed by developers to subsidize affordable housing) that they wanted to invest to save the building. The CDC, not surprisingly, was anathema to the Greed Party.

The Board decided to hire a "development consultant." Many of us wanted the CDC to be at least considered for the position. The Greed Party lobbied against the Board even sending the CDC a request for proposal (RFP). Finally, the RFP was sent and the CDC came in with by far the best proposal. But the Board hired instead a huge real-estate firm. Their $40,000 report turned out to be nothing but a set of not terribly helpful PowerPoint slides.

And so it went. The full story would take tens of thousands of words. Some of it is quite incredible. But I will spare you the gory details.

In the end, those of who cared about affordable housing and the principles of a limited-equity co-op were crushed by those who cared only about selling to the highest bidder -- regardless of who that turned out to be. The welfare and future of the neighborhood did not even appear on their radar screen.

One might think, at least, that the new owner will have to fix the building's problems -- at least the code violations. I am positive that this will not occur. Nothing of the building's problems was disclosed to prospective buyers. (This is quite legal.) Buildings are often sold "as is." In these cases, the buyer usually stipulates a due-diligence period so that he or she can bring in experts to examine the building and adjust (or withdraw) the offer depending on their findings.

But the purchaser of this building waived due diligence. He doesn't want to know about the building's problems. If he knew, he would be obligated to fix them.

Does the Greed Party in fact believe that this building is dangerous? If so, it doesn't bother them in the least that future tenants might be risking their lives by living here.

That's not their problem.

If Jim and I were in a better financial position, we would just use the money we get from the sale to further our work. But we can't afford to do that. We have no assets and we have little income. Without my social security, we couldn't get by at all. The money we will receive is dirty money. It is worse than tainted. But if we don't accept it we would end up living in a shelter.

When it comes to real estate and managing money, we are babes in the woods. We haven't worried about money management because we had no money to manage. And we never thought we might be in a position where buying a place to live was an option.

That is why we need help. And we don't even know where to begin looking for help.

Much as I hate Massachusetts, I think we have to stay here. Most of the prisoners that I am closest to are in Massachusetts. If I moved away, I could never visit or attend their court hearings. And our social network is here. We are just too old to start anew in a new place.

So if you have any advice -- or know someone who might -- please let us know.

The next few months will be months of upheaval. And the whole process of finding a place and moving will consume a lot of time and energy.

But my hope is that eventually the dust will settle and I can again turn my attention back to innocent people in prison who have suffered far more than I can even imagine.

In many ways, the members of the Greed Party remind me of those corrupt prosecutors who have done so much to destroy our criminal-justice system. If self-interest is truly the only thing that matters, then these people are behaving reasonably. They further their careers by winning cases. So what if this comes at the expense of innocent people too poor and powerless to defend themselves? Winning isn't the main thing. It is the only thing.

David Capeless and the members of the Greed party would get along very well. They have so much in common.

And they have no comprehension of people like us. People who have values other than "rational" self-interest.

But self-interest is not rational. If unchecked, it destroys communities. And when our communities are destroyed, so are we all.

-Bob Chatelle

Bee Will No Longer Visit His Mother

DA David Capeless scored a major victory in his ceaseless battle against justice.

Bernard Baran's mother has asked Bee not to visit her anymore.

Bertha explained to Bee that she has worked all of her life to make her home a safe place for her children. But she realizes that her home is not safe for Bee. Every time he goes there, the harassment gets worse.

She has been having nightmares since the police descended upon her last Friday.

I hope David Capeless is proud of himself.

-Bob Chatelle

Another Massachusetts Outrage - Police Descend on Bernard Baran's Mother

Dear Friend of Justice,

The Pittsfield police gave Bee's mother a nice Mother's Day present -- they descended en masse, lights flashing, on her home at around eleven last night (Friday).

They pounded on her door, demanding Bee, claiming that they had a warrant for his arrest.

When they conceded to Bee's brother that they in fact had no warrant, they were denied admission.

Judge Locke had issued Bee a court order giving him permission to visit his mother from yesterday through Monday morning.

No one bothered to tell the people who do the GPS monitoring or the Pittsfield Police.

One of the most amazing things about Massachusetts government is its gross incompetence -- gross incompetence that extends to the highest levels.

John Swomley is working to get this mess straightened out.

But the state has accomplished its purpose. It has ruined Mother's Day for one of the finest women it has ever been my privilege to know.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. Almost every time Bee gets permission to visit, the state does something outrageous. Bee and his family are the victims of the worst case of injustice I have thus far encountered. When will enough be enough?

May God damn the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!

-Bob Chatelle

Bob Halsey Has Moved

Dear Friend of Justice,

I know that some of you write to Bob Halsey (See http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/halsey.htm)

Bob recently wrote to me to tell me that he has been moved. His new address is:

Robert C. Halsey
W-55045
Bridgewater State Hospital
20 Administration Road
Bridgewater MA 02324

At this time I don't know the reason for the move. Robert is elderly and in poor health. I know that letters and cards are always appreciated.

-Bob