The Moscow Murders and More
The Karen Read Trial: The Letters Revealing The Conversation Between The Feds And Prosecutors (5/6/24)
With accusations that Karen Read is being framed coming hot and heavy from her supporters and her legal team, the prosecution has been adamant that everything is on the up and up and that their investigation has been completely by the book.
While we won't know for certain what the truth is or what the jury believes is the truth for weeks, one thing that is certain is this: A federal invesigation was underway. In this episode, we get a look at the letters between the federal government and the prosecutors office.
(commercial at 10:38)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Letters Between Feds, Norfolk DA Released in Karen Read Case | PDF (scribd.com)0
- Duration:
- 17m
- Broadcast on:
- 06 May 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
- Hi, I'm Dalvet Quince. One way to help manage type two diabetes is to regularly exercise. My exercise program can help get you into a routine that works for you. Keep in mind, managing butt sugar also takes the right. - Diet, hi, I'm celebrity chef Franklin Becker. Ever since I was diagnosed with type two diabetes, I've adapted my cooking style without sacrificing flavor. If you wanna learn more tips about diet and exercise, visit mytype2transformation.com. - Hello, it is Ryan, and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chumbacassino.com. I looked over the person sitting next to me, and you know what they were doing? They were also playing Chumba Casino. Go incidents? I think not. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino's home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere, even at 30,000 feet. So sign up now at chumbacassino.com to claim you're a free welcome bonus. That's chumbacassino.com and live the Chumbalife. No purchase necessary. D.W. reviewed by loss in terms of conditions 18 plus. - What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. The Karen Reed case is filled with all sorts of allegations, all sorts of finger pointing, and all sorts of he said, she said. Well, the FBI certainly took an interest in what was going on with the Karen Reed case, and their interest came after they were prompted by the defense that things might not be on the up and up. So in this episode, we're gonna take a look at some of the back and forth between the district attorney's office in Norfolk, and there can plant to the OPR's office about this investigation. So let's just get right to it. May 18th, 2023. Office of Professional Responsibility, U.S. Department of Justice. Dear Sir or Madam, I write the formally request that an ongoing investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts be examined by the Office of Professional Responsibility, and should the investigation continue that it be transferred to another office without history of conflict, bias, and abuse of prosecutorial discretion as outlined below. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office has undertaken an extensive investigation into the facts and circumstances of the death of John O'Keefe in Canton, Massachusetts on January 29th, 2022. The facts and evidence gathered, including more than 40 individual testifying before the Norfolk County Grand Jury led to the second degree murder indictment of Karen Reed. Reed was the operator of the vehicle that the evidence demonstrates, struck her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. O'Keefe was then left to die in the snow on the side of Fairview Road, Canton, during the evening of January 29th, 2022. The case has been systematically making its way through Norfolk Superior Court with ongoing discoveries still active and open, including motions under advisement and motions not yet heard. The defendant through counsel has been raising issues of a third party culprit and complaints of witness and police misconduct as they attempt to confuse by offering not different interpretations of Commonwealth statements, evidence and positions, but inventing them out of whole cloth. No actual, substantiated evidence supporting police misconduct or any federal violations have been identified by the defendant, the district attorney's office or the mass superior court during the ongoing discovery process, see Exhibit A, defendant's filings and Commonwealth's response. Approximately three weeks ago, multiple state witnesses who have been brought before the state grand jury notified the Norfolk district attorney's office that they were contacted by the FBI and subsequently received subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury. Shortly after those notifications to the Norfolk district attorney's office, Joshua Levy, first assistant in the Boston office of the United States attorney's office, contacted Norfolk first assistant district attorney, Lynn Beeland to suggest that they were conducting an investigation that may involve a number of witnesses in the Commonwealth versus Reed murder case. At that time, attorney Beeland expressed some concerns about both the jurisdiction and the timing of any actions being taken by the United States attorney's office as they could and prudently impact the ongoing murder prosecution of Karen Reed. Based on the collective experience of several of my colleagues, Massachusetts district attorneys and former federal prosecutor, it appears to be unprecedented for the federal government to step into the middle of an ongoing state murder, prosecution prompted only by inflammatory and ethically dubious defense strategy. In the conversation with the first assistant, Norfolk district attorney, Lynn Beeland, assistant United States attorney Joshua Levy, declined to identify what jurisdiction the federal government had in this murder case. In what appears to be a highly unusual and possibly abusive exercise of power, attorney Levy indicated that the US attorney's office was still proceeding ahead with an investigation that would involve individuals who were active participants in events and/or witnesses in the state case. Attorney Beeland reminded a USA Joshua Levy that any statements and/or testimony taken in such an investigation that pertain to any of the witnesses in the ongoing state murder trial may create an ongoing obligation for state prosecutors to provide defense with access to all information and statements gathered or recorded as a result of the federal investigation. The United States attorney's office offered the opinion that you can't turn over information that you don't have. This position leaves state authorities potentially unable to meet the constitutional mandate expressed in Brady versus Maryland and corresponding mass state rules. Since that call concluded, we have confirmed that witnesses have testified before the grand jury, rule six of the federal rules of criminal procedure, allows that under certain compelling circumstances, information may be provided to all counsel, including those not before the federal grand jury. Recent court filings and statements by defense counsel in the Reed matter suggests that defense attorneys were the source of the initial complaint and allegations prompting this action by the US attorney's office. Reed's defense counsel's recent court filings raised out of thin air and apparently purposeful misstatement of fact, unsupported claims of a cover-up by elite investigators and witnesses, including municipal, state, and federal law enforcement. As shown in attached documents, many or all of these unsupported allegations can be vetted and reviewed by the judges of the Massachusetts Superior Court during the discovery and motion sessions or available appellate review. I am unaware and strongly doubt any prosecutor or state police misconduct in Commonwealth versus Karen Reed. The only allegations to that effect have been unsupported, news claims or defense filings that had not even been answered at the time, a USA levy confirmed the existence of a federal grand jury. It raises questions why the apparatus of the DOJ would intervene even as such issues are still being assessed by a justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court without some additional impetus on the part of the United States attorney's office. Without dismissing the important role of the DOJ in investigating allegations of police misconduct and federal violations, we bring to your attention what appears to be additional concerns concerning motive, conflict, or appearance of conflict and potential bias by the office of the United States Attorney for Massachusetts, which might explain these unprecedented proceedings. I predicate the following information with the fact that it's been the policy of the Norfolk District Attorney's Office during my 12-year tenure as District Attorney to maintain a close working relationship with the United States Attorney for Massachusetts. Notable in that relationship was the cooperation of the Norfolk District Attorney's Office and the prosecution of a 35-year-old murder case that was committed in Sharon, Massachusetts, which involved the Whitey-Bolger gang in United States versus Flemi. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office had statutory jurisdiction to pursue the case, but in the interest of cooperation acceded to the request of the United States Attorney at the time to allow federal prosecutors to proceed with the case. As a result of that agreement, the Norfolk District Attorney's Office and Mass State Police assigned to the Norfolk District Attorney's Office were closely with the Attorney's Office on the case. During this period, AUSA, Dustin Chow, without nexus to that prosecution, asked a Mass State Police Detective involved in the matter if he had any kind of damaging information on the District Attorney, first assistant, or Norfolk District Attorney's Office. This two-a-sponty question was not without context, Laura G. Chow, Dustin's wife, had been an employee of the Norfolk District Attorney's Office prior to the case mentioned above. Not long into her tenure, it became apparent to her supervisors that she required more seasoning and legal experience if she was to succeed in a superior court role. She was offered the chance to gain more trial experience in the District Court without any loss of compensation. Instead, she resigned and filed an ethics violation complaint with the Mass Board of Bar overseers against the first assistant in the Norfolk District Attorney's Office. The complaint before the board was summarily dismissed in short order. Laura G. Chow was instead cited for a violation of her ethical obligation to provide accurate address information for her practice long after separation. She was misrepresenting her address as the Norfolk's DA's Office. I began composing this letter well before the May 17th, 2023 publication of the DOJ Office of the Inspector General Report, which has apparently prompted the resignation of the current United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. My attention is drawn to several portions of section two, particularly as they pertain to the weaponization of the US Attorney's Office for personal, political, and retributive purposes. Page 46. Hayden will regret the day he did this to you. Watch page 66. We asked Rollins whether her disclosure was retribution for the wrong she believed Hayden had committed. Page 69. Additionally, we determined the days after Hayden prevailed in the September 6 primary election. Rollins sought to damage Hayden's reputation. Page 70. The evidence demonstrated she used her position as US Attorney in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to create the impression publicly that DOJ was or would be investigating Hayden for public corruption. These DOJ findings and questions reinforce my belief that the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts must be removed from whatever investigation is being conducted into the read matter. I believe that a reasonable person could conclude that the same type of tactics are being employed against the Norfolk District Attorney's Office in the read investigation. The outgoing United States Attorney has made no secret of her personal animosity toward me, included repeated crude, outlandish, personal, and professional attacks against me in the media during her time as Suffolk District Attorney. With Lucky Landslots, you can get Lucky just about anywhere. Daily Beloved, we're gathered here today. Has anyone seen the bride and groom? Sorry, sorry, we're here. We were getting Lucky in the limo when we lost track of time. No, Lucky Lane Casino, with cash prizes that add up quicker than a guest registry. In that case, I pronounce you Lucky. For free at Luckylandslots.com. Daily bonuses are waiting. No purchase necessary, Boyd, we're prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply. See website for details. Hello, it is Ryan, and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chumbacassino.com. I looked over the person sitting next to me, and you know what they were doing? They were also playing Chumba Casino. Go incidents? I think not. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino's home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere, even at 30,000 feet. So sign up now at chumbacassino.com to claim your free welcome bonus. It's chumbacassino.com and live the Chumbalife. No purchase necessary, D.W., we're prohibited by law. See terms and conditions, 18 plus. The head of public corruptions unit has raised the specter of personal retaliation for his wife's departure from the Norfolk District Attorney's Office. The public has the right to a US Attorney's Office that is fair and unbiased as it executes its responsibilities. Weaponizing the United States Attorney's Office to conduct an unprecedented intervention into an open state murder case appears to raise the same concerns outlined in the DOJ's report. I submit that the pattern of using the USAO for personal purposes established in report 23-071, coupled with the obvious conflict of a USA chow, make it impossible to conclude that a fair evaluation of the unprecedented read intervention can be conducted by any party within the mass office. It is impossible to determine how far the tentacles of bias have spread out from the chief of the relevant unit and the titular head of the office. I formally request that an impartial federal official unaffiliated with the US Attorney's Office for Massachusetts review and investigate the steps and actions that are being taken by current members of the mass office, exploring this apparent bias and whether it predispose them to abuse their prosecutorial discretion in this matter. In the unlikely case, that an impartial review finds that a DOJ investigation into the care and read matter is appropriate even before the issues at hand have been vetted by the Norfolk Superior Court judge during the case, I request that the investigation be reassigned from parties with clearly stated and documented bias against members of the Norfolk District Attorney's Office to attorneys entirely outside the office of the United States Attorney for Massachusetts. Sincerely, Michael Morrissey District Attorney for the Norfolk District. Now here is the response from the OPR. Dear Mr. Morrissey, the office of professional responsibility received your May 18th, 2023 letter, requesting that OPR investigate the decision by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Mass to subpoena individuals who were witnesses in your pending state prosecution, Commonwealth v. Reed, to testify before the grand jury in an ongoing federal investigation. You stated that the USAO's investigation is possibly an abusive exercise of power and likely based only on Karen Reed's claims of witness and police misconduct. In addition to an investigation of the USAO's investigative decision, you requested that OPR transfer the USAO's pending investigation to another office without a history of conflict, bias and abuse of prosecutorial discretion. OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department of Justice attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel that are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR. However, it is the policy of this office to refrain from investigating such issues or allegations if an active investigation is ongoing or litigation is pending. With regard to your request that another office be assigned to the pending grand jury investigation, a matter outside of OPR's jurisdiction, OPR forwarded your complaint to the executive office of the United States attorneys for whatever action it deems appropriate. Further inquiry regarding this issue may be directed to EO USA General Counsel, J. Maclin. Thank you for advising OPR of your concerns and this was signed by Jeffrey Ragsdale. All right, so very interesting. And it's very interesting to get a look for ourselves at what these letters contain and the back and forth between the office of Norfolk and the United States government. And it also provides us a little bit more context about that investigation that's looking into the Norfolk office and what went down with their investigation into Karen Reed. So it's gonna be very interesting to continue following along with the trial and to see where it all ends up because as of now, I think things are up in the air. And I think that her team, Karen Reed's team is doing a good job of sowing seeds of reasonable doubt. And just keep in mind that that's all that they have to do. This isn't about Karen Reed proving that she's innocent. This is about Karen Reed getting one or two of those jurors to believe her narrative. And that is the end goal for her team. And so far, I think they're doing a pretty good job. So we'll see where it all ends up and we're gonna continue following along each day as the state of Massachusetts continues to try and make its case against Karen Reed. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.