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

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

Fight Fiercely Hahvud

Dear Friend of Justice,

2008 is a reunion year for me. Until recently, I had been thinking about it as my 35th reunion. But I subsequently realized that it will be my 45th. (And I once was quite good at math.)

I generally don't attend these reunions. But this year I did submit a class report. The text follows:

I last submitted a Class Report ten years ago. I also sent a copy of that report, as an introduction, to Bernard Baran, an inmate of a Massachusetts prison. I had been urged to contact Baran by a friend who was convinced that Baran was innocent. For some reason, she thought I might be able to do something to help him. Why she thought that, I didn't know—I was not a lawyer or a person of influence. I was a computer programmer. (She later explained that she prodded me because she knew I was persistent. Stubborn may be a better word.)

Little did I then know that Baran and others like him were going to be my principal occupation for the next ten years. Currently, Baran is out of prison (under severe restrictions) because a judge granted him a new trial. The DA, however, has appealed the decision and the Appeals Court had a hearing in February. (For more information, see my blog (bobchatelle.blogspot.com) or the Web site of the Bernard Baran Justice Committee (www.freebaran.org).)

I could never have done the work for Baran and others without the constant help and support of Jim D'Entremont, my partner for the past thirty-eight years.

Through my work for Baran, I became concerned about others rotting in prison for crimes that they did not commit and the fact that there are really no organizations to help the overwhelming majority of them. The Innocence Project, of course, does wonderful work. But DNA is present in only a tiny percentage of cases.

So I founded another organization: The National Center for Reason and Justice (www.ncrj.org).

During these past ten years, I have become increasingly appalled by what I've learned about the American criminal justice system. It doesn't work. And if you have little money and lack connections—if you are one of the "people who don't count"—it really doesn't work. The "people who count"—the wealthy and powerful—can hire the legal help they need to free them, even if they are guilty. The poor and powerless too often end up with lawyers who become their worst enemies. Justice—like education, health care, decent housing, freedom—is now a luxury, out of the reach of most Americans.

Once a conviction occurs, it is nearly impossible to get it overturned. We live under a government incapable of admitting error and that chooses instead to compound it. By relentless repetition, they believe that lies can be transformed into truth. But without a working criminal justice system, none of us can claim to be free. Even the people who count. Even the ones who went to Harvard -- whose motto, I believe, is still veritas..

On a more personal note, I must confess that I am one of those many unfortunates who just don't do well under capitalism. My current economic situation is very challenging. I had been deriving most of my income as a programmer from one client. And I made the mistake of outliving him. His widow took over the company on his death and she severely curtailed my contract.

I have spent several months looking for work. But I have an unconventional resume and my age works against me. I have applied everywhere I could think of, including temporary agencies and all five of the Starbucks in my neighborhood. In short, I am unemployable.

But I do receive a modest stipend from the National Center for Reason and Justice. And I have started to collect social security. So I hope to continue to scrape by.

Jim and I will also be losing our home. For the past years, we have been living in a co-op. But the membership has decided to sell the building. Currently, we have no idea where we will end up. But we certainly can't afford to stay in Boston.

I have now been living free of drugs and alcohol for over a quarter of a century. I have not forgotten the empty, useless life I lived when I was a slave to booze. Working with our society's victims is often extremely painful. But I prefer the pain to the spiritual pain suffered by all drinking alcoholics. Anything I may have accomplished, I could not have accomplished without my sobriety. I am extremely grateful.

Most citizens now live in fear. And our government works for the privileged few who own it. One person can do so little to change a corrupt and powerful system. I sometimes wonder if the struggle is worth the pain..

But I recently attended the memorial service for a friend, the novelist Ivan Gold. (A fellow recovering alcoholic.) During the eulogies, someone recalled that Ivan had once said, "If you die still trying to do what you believe is right, you've won."

On that assumption, I will continue the struggle.

-Bob Chatelle, '63

Another Reason I'm Glad I Left the People's Republik

Dear Friend of Justice,

It's now almost twelve years since Jim and I were run out of Cambridge, Massachusetts. I have no desire to live there again, even if I won megabucks and could afford to do so. But I do return once every three months to have my teeth cleaned.

I arrived today in Harvard Square very early for my appointment. The sky was clear and the temperature was in the low 70s. It was a perfect spring day. I decided to stroll down Kennedy (formerly Boylston) Street to the river. But when I reached Memorial Drive, my enjoyment of the day was seriously marred. I discovered that that intersection has been renamed Scott Harshbarger Square.

The renaming, of course, had been done by God's Chosen Few: the Cambridge City Council. Jim and I had lived in Cambridge a long time and I remember some past political achievements. With particular fondness, I remember the time that the city hired people to comb through its citizens' trash, so that it might identify and punish recycling miscreants.

I am not surprised that God's Chosen Few anointed Harshbarger: he has the reputation of being a great "liberal" -- whatever the hell that means. But for me he just personifies the current moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party. (Note: I am not a Republican.)

Most of you reading this will have no problem remembering Scott Harshbarger. If you need your memory refreshed, here is a link to the text of a flyer I distributed many years ago before a Harshbarger speech: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzex11z4/hflyer.html.

To find out more about the Fells Acres (Amirault) case, follow this link: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzex11z4/amirault.html.

The influence of the Amirault persecution was felt not only in Massachusetts but also across the nation for many years thereafter. Many witch hunters, to this day, consider it a "model" prosecution, an example to be emulated.

Now I am fallibly human and make mistakes all of the time. I have never hesitated to forgive those who admit their mistakes. But Harshbarger has never apologized to any of his direct and indirect victims: the Amiraults, Bernard Baran, the Souzas, many others. The extent of the damage he did and the amount of needless suffering that he caused is anyone's guess. But he has never admitted the slightest mistake. To this day, he persists in his Spitzeresque arrogance and hubris.

I cannot say whether Harshbarger is evil or merely stupid. And the fact that he went to Harvard rules out neither alternative.

Since he asks for no forgiveness, I shall give him none. But neither will I honor him. To honor him is to say that it is admirable to trample upon justice in pursuit of political ambition.

By choosing to honor him, God's Chosen Few succeed only in bringing dishonor upon themselves.

-Bob Chatelle

The Baran Jury Failed Us All

The Berkshire County District Attorney’s office has now put most of its eggs in one basket. They are asking the Court to determine whether the testimony of the alleged victims – the only actual “evidence” in this case – is convincing. If it is convincing, they argue, Baran should be freed. If it is not convincing, then he should be sent back to prison.

You read that right. Bizarre as it sounds, this is the argument that they are really making. A rational person would note that the argument was illogical. But legal logic is very different from ordinary logic. Our legal system exists not in the real world, but in Wonderland.

The DA is saying that the videotapes would not have made a difference because the children’s performance in the courtroom was as bad as it was on the videotapes.

First of all, this is not true. When you see the tapes, it is much easier to understand how the testimony was manufactured. You see much that was not obvious in the courtroom.

But the fact does remain: the child testimony was not convincing. (You can read all of it here.)

If the judges really want to salvage this dreadful conviction, they could claim that the in-court testimony was no more convincing than what was on the tapes. They could then conclude that the tapes wouldn’t have helped Baran, and overturn Judge Fecteau’s thoughtful and compassionate decision.

Juries are given the sole power to ascertain facts. If a jury says the sky is red, then the law says it must be red. It doesn’t matter how many experts you bring in to prove that it is blue. The jury has spoken. The sky is red.

The myth, of course, is that juries weigh evidence and give careful consideration to their decisions. And this sometimes happens. There are good juries. They contain good jurors.

But very often juries do not contain good jurors. Juries base their decisions not on the evidence but upon their emotions. They don’t follow their heads. They follow their “hearts.”

Most of the pain and suffering in the world is caused by good people who follow their “hearts.”

My partner Jim and I attended the trial of Paul Shanley. No credible evidence was presented against him. The only evidence was the recovered "repressed memory” of an obviously disturbed individual who had received a large financial settlement for his claims. But the jury followed their “hearts” and convicted Paul Shanley.

I remember a conversation I once had with Bertha, Baran’s mother. I told her that having read the testimony of the children, it was hard for me to fathom how the jury could have convicted. She said something like: “It didn’t matter what they said. I don’t even think they heard what they said. It was how they looked. They were so cute and all dressed up in their Sunday best. Some jurors were crying before they said a word.”

In the words of one juror:

“Waves of hysteria were sweeping the United States over possible abuse of young children in day care facilities. Like so many others, I was horrified. This was my first time as a juror in an actual trial. I am certain that all of the jurors were prejudiced, just as I was, by the climate at that point and also by the appearance of this young man with his weak look which might well have pegged him as a homosexual. I sat in the jury box and wept as tiny children, almost babies, took the stand and told tales, led on by the prosecutor. I was appalled by this, by the prosecutor holding up naked dolls, pointing to genitals and asking these babies to identify what had happened to them … It didn't occur to me until later that to get children of that age to tell stories, consistent stories, true or false, they must have been repeatedly prepped – by psychologists, parents, prosecutors, all people with some stake in the process and in the outcome. These tiny children were being asked to serve the needs of adults – for money, for vengeance, for justification, for career rewards, and so on and so forth. I think the jurors made their relatively hasty decision to find Baran guilty on the basis of his unpromising background, on the basis of what they had been reading in the newspapers, and definitely on the lack of a real defense by his publicly appointed defense attorney.”

So this juror followed the "heart" and said, “The sky is red.” This juror now knows the sky is blue. But the DA could care less.

I don’t think I would be comfortable with a system in which jurors all came from the upper tiers of society. I agree that it is important that there be no discrimination based on socio-economic class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. But I wish there was some discrimination based on intelligence. And by intelligence, I mean the ability to think critically, to weigh evidence, to put personal prejudice aside. In short, by intelligence I mean the ability to serve well on a jury.

Fortunately for Baran, the Courts can decide that the testimony against him was appallingly weak and still grant him his freedom. The judges will learn a great deal from those videotapes that they could not learn from the trial testimony alone. Attorney Jamie Sultan, during the Amirault appeal, said that the juries in those cases only saw the last act of a three-act play. The videotapes supply the missing first two acts. They show how the testimony – admittedly weak and incredible – was manufactured.

When they entire record is examined, the judges will know that Baran is innocent. But appellate courts make no rulings on guilt or innocence. They could claim that the tapes, in their subjective judgment, were no different from the trial testimony which was “validated” by the jury. This might “save” the conviction. They might even get away with it. But we must hope that they will not follow this course.

Judges are human beings. Many of them have consciences. I hope Baran’s three judges have consciences. I hope they will not send an innocent man, a man who has already served almost 22 painful years, back to prison for no good reason other than to “save” a worthless and immoral conviction.

Should they do this, they will prove that Dickens’ Mr. Bumble had it right – “the law is a ass – a idiot.”

-Bob Chatelle