if the allegations are true?
A Chelsea, Massachusetts court clerk, James Burke, gets off easy with a guilty plea to civil rights violations after he offered a reduced sentences including no jail time to female in exchange for a "blow job". The FBI affidavit against James Burke is strangely silent about the names and possible criminal actions of the Judge and "them", likely the prosecution.
Burke said he “had the judges back” meaning he had influence with the U.S. District Judge. The Judge's name was not mentioned in the Crowley affidavit.
Burke promised he could guarantee no jail time for the accused prostitute if she would perform oral sex with him. Information in the affidavit also indicated this was not Burke’s first time to receive oral sex from the victim, and that he had coerced oral sex from other victims.
The affidavit is at this link: http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/misc/burkecomplaintaffidavit.pdf
The Cowley affidavit says three years earlier Burke had made the same offer. The document states:
“While in lock-up at Chelsea District Court, one of the clerks that the CW knew as “Jim Burke asked her if she was a “working girl” and told her that he would help her out if she helped him out.The Cowlery document further states:
“Burke took the CW out of the cell and into another room. The CW gave Burke oral sex and he touched and sucked her breast”
“In their December 8, 2008 conversation, Burke told the CW that there was another room downstairs and that he had been with “someone else down there” and that it was “just hookin’ up.” Burke said that the individual “opened their mouth and I fuckin’ wanted to fuckin’ cut their head off.” The CW understood this to mean that the other person had told someone about her encounter with Burke.”
During the same conversation, Burke asked if he was being set up. He said he “got burned before”. Did Burke make a veiled threat?
“The CW asked Burke again if she was going to jail Burke replied “nope.” Burke told the CW that he talked to “them” and “that’s what they told me unless their boss says no...”Since judges don't have bosses in the traditional sense, and district attorneys do, the word "them" likely is the prosecution. Many plea bargains are made with the understanding no jail will be imposed. The judge has final say, but usually goes along with the D.A.
If a court clerk has enough weight with a Judge to influence jail or no jail decisions, then the court appears corrupt from the bottom to the top.
"The corruption of justice destroys every concept of equal protection"Did Burke recieve special treatment in the charging decision? Why wasn't there a sex crime in the charge, or a charge relating to improper influence, or practicing law without a license, or something? Because Burke was not convicted of a sex crime he will not have to register as a sexual offender. Agent Crowley has her reasons. She indicates in her affidavit she has undisclosed information, a hint more is to come.
18 usc 242 generally is applie to prison inmates when they are forced into unjust actions by jailers, like sexual intercourse. Unless there is a certain degree of violence it is not considered a sex crime. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html
The big story here is untold. Why arn't we hearing about charges against the Judge and "them", whoever "them" is. If I were the Judge and "them" I would start exercising my right to silence. If I were Burke, I would initiate a conversation for no prison in exchange for tesimony against the Judge and "them". Did the same judge and prosecution team who granted Burke the favor agree to the plea bargain?
Why should the Judge and "them" be held accountable? It is doubtful the court knew about Burke's sexual exploits. However, they were acomplices in his comission of a crime. When Burke made a special request on behalf of a prostitute the light should have come on.
There are multiple reasons why judges and prosecutors are not supposed to do favors for court clerks. For example, how can we ask law enforcement, inluding the FBI, to put their lives on the line when the charge is going to be thrown out so the court clerk can get a blow job? It sounds rediculous but if we treat all prostitutes the same then each should be afforded the chance to avoid jail if they let court staff have oral sex or 'eat them out'. If that is the case, shouldn't the same standard apply to male prostitutes?
Oral sex, "eating out", court cleks influencing judges for sex, 'blow jobs' in the house of justice, corruption in the legal system, equal treatment for all, mandatory sentences, loss of respect for the adminstration of justice, justice for sale or trade, the old boy's network, loss of confidence in the legal system, these are issues to be considered when courts act as the Crowley affidavit alledges.
The due process of the law requires us to presume all persons are innocent until proven guilty. There are no pending charges that I know of against the Judge or the Prosecution. I have written this as a point of view, and not as fact.