Alex Constantine - October 22, 2010
Hey, Jeff Perry, Why Did You Lie On Your Mass. Bar Application?
posted by Richard S | Sept. 28, 2010
I, the applicant, certify that each of the foregoing answers is true, complete and candid and that I have not altered the wording of any question.
I further certify that I have answered ALL questions and have attached typed rider pages for any affirmative responses to questions nine through twelve (9-12).
Dated this 29th day of March , 2007
Signed: Jeffrey Davis Perry
- Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry, application for admission to Massachusetts Bar, March 29, 2007.
Mass. GOP Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry
Okay, everybody, let's assume for the sake of argument that State Rep. Jeff Perry was as deaf and blind as he claims on that night in 1991 when he didn't hear Scott Flanagan's 14 year old victim screaming and crying as Flanagan sexually molested her just a few yards away from where Perry was standing. I mean we know Flanagan did it because he pled guilty.
We also know that Perry was right there because he was the supervising officer in charge at the scene, as he has admitted. In fact, his initial statement when the girl's mother tried to complain was that he was there and "nothing happened," but for the sake of argument we'll accept his more recent claim that he just didn't see or hear the girl screaming and crying just a few yards away.
Let's assume, too, that Perry was also as clueless as he claims when Flanagan got him to lie to his second victim's parents on New Year's Eve 1992, telling them that their 16-year old daughter voluntarily "pulled down her pants for us" and could go to jail for five years if a trace of an oregano type substance "we found" on the girl's shirt, which neither Perry nor Flanagan had in fact actually collected as evidence, should turn out to be marijuana.
Let's also assume that Perry actually believed that going to the girl's parents and lying for Flanagan was "good police work" as he says, because despite the cranberry bog incident with the 14 year old in 1991, and a pat frisk incident involving Flanagan and a female motorist that was reported to the Captain in 1992 by another officer, Perry actually believed, like he claims, there was no reason to doubt Flanagan's story about the 16 year old just pulling down her pants on a cold winter night for an adult male policeman in a dark alley.
Right. Like I said, we're assuming here that Perry was actually clueless as opposed to, say, morally corrupt like the convicted child molester Flanagan that he "unwittingly" abetted. So, okay, the GOP's hot "Young Gun" in the 10th Congressional District is deaf, blind and clueless, was an incompetent cop, but was not morally corrupt. That's the Republicans' party line, right? I mean, what else could they be saying -it's o.k. for a police sergeant to cover up for a junior officer's sexual assaults on teenage girls as long as he's a Republican? Well, actually, knowing what we know about post-Reagan Republicans. . . .
Now, all that all happened 18 years ago, like the red shirted Perverts for Perry say, so what's the big deal, huh? Okay, but then Mr. Perry still has to answer this one question:
Mr. Perry, sir, why did you lie about your role in those incidents from the remote past when you made out your application for admission to the Massachusetts Bar just three years ago in 2007?
The application form made it clear that Perry had to give answers to every question that were "true, complete and candid," but his statements about his role in the Flanagan incidents were not entirely true, complete or candid -far from it. And that was just three years ago, not eighteen years ago.
Perry told the Bar Examiners that the civil complaints filed against him, Flanagan, the Chief and the Town of Wareham simply alleged that:
the Wareham Police Department, including myself as a supervisor failed to properly supervise Officer Flanagan and a civil rights "1983" claim. . . .
That's a direct quote from his certified statement to the Bar Examiners, but while it was true as far as it went, it was neither complete nor candid.
The 16-year-old victim's Complaint did say that Perry, the Chief and the Town failed to properly supervise Flanagan, but also said much more about Perry, specifically, as follows:
39. Defendant Perry was present on May 22, 1991, when Flanagan conducted the improper strip search of (the 14-year-old victim) and thus was aware of Flanagan's propensity to violate citizens' constitutional rights in this way. . . .
41. Following the strip search of (the 16 -year-old victim), Perry participated with Flanagan in efforts to cover it up. Officer Flanagan and Sergeant Perry went to the (victim's) home the night of the incident. . . .
42. Sergeant Perry told plaintiff's parents that earlier that (sic) their daughter was found to have an oregano-like substance on her shirt and that when she was confronted by the police officer she dropped her pants. . . .
Complaint, U.S. District Court, D.Mass., No. 94-11446-DPW.
Similarly, the 14-year-old victim's complaint makes the same general allegation about failing to supervise, but also said much, much more about Perry's role, as follows:
1. . . . Sergeant Perry was one of the police officers who watched Officer Flanagan strip-search the plaintiff. . . .
13. Defendant Flanagan then ordered (the girl) to unbutton her pants. She again protested the search and repeated her request to have a female police officer conduct the search.
14. Defendant Flanagan told her to shut up and submit to a search or he would arrest he.
15. Plaintiff complied with Flanagan's order and unbuttoned her pants and unzipped the fly. Flanagan then put his hand insider her underpants along her body.
16. Then defendant Flanagan ordered (the girl) to pull up her shirt. . . . Flanagan ordered her to lift her bra until her breasts were exposed. He then ordered her to turn around in a circle.
17. This search was conducted in the glare of headlights and spotlights from the police cars. (The girl's) naked boy was spotlighted in full view of her friends and the other police officers who observed the performance of this strip search. . . .
18. By the end of the search, (the girl) was screaming and crying. Defendant Flanagan told one of her friends, "If you don't shut her up, were going to have to arrest her."
19. Defendants Perry, Kearney and Doe were present and observed the strip search of the plaintiff but did nothing to protect her.
Complaint, U.S. District Court, D.Mass., No. 94-11019-EFH.
So why, Mr. Perry, did you leave out all those specific allegations about you when you told the Bar Examiners about the civil complaints filed against you for violating those two young girls' civil rights? You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that simply telling the Bar Examiners that you were only charged with failing to supervise Flanagan was anywhere near complete or candid, do you? But, if you were so blameless in those two incidents, why didn't you tell the complete and candid truth about what you were actually charged with?
Could it be because, if you did tell the complete truth about what you were charged with civilly, the Bar Examiners might have had taken a closer look at your character, huh? Is that why you just glossed over the allegations against you with the half-truth that you were charged only with failing to supervise Flanagan? You think?
Perry didn't just stop with the misleading half-truth about the civil charges against him, however. No, he then had to embellish the story with blatant lies about the "good police work" he did in one of those incidents. Here's what he told the Bar Examiners about the New Years Eve incident:
Related to an incident that occurred in 1992 . . . while I was serving as a Wareham Police Sergeant, (the victim) was arrested for being in possession of marijuana by Officer Scott Flanagan of the Wareham Police Department. The suspect was sixteen years of age. I was Officer Flanagan's shift supervisor (Sergeant on duty) at the time of the arrest.
The complaint made by (the victim) and her parents against Officer Flanagan was that he conducted am (sic) improper search and which was sexually motivated and that Officer Flanagan threatened (the victim). As Officer Flanagan's supervisor I conducted the initial investigation, interview of the parents and notified my supervisor as to the allegations.
The kindest thing that can be said about that nice little story is: Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
First of all, the 16-year-old girl was not "arrested" for anything, much less possession of marijuana as Perry told the Bar Examiners. That would have triggered an actual investigation, which is the last thing either Flanagan or Perry wanted.
Second, that nice little story is contradicted by the sworn testimony of the victim's parents. The 16-year-old girl's parents both testified that after the incident Perry and Flanagan went to their home after Flanagan told the girl to go to a friend's house, but Perry clearly did not "interview" them about Flanagan's sexual molestation of their daughter in response to any "complaint made by (the victim)" as he told the Bar Examiners.
Perry, who did all the talking, told the parents that their daughter "pulled down her pants for us." That was neither an "interview" nor an "investigation." It was, rather, a cover-up -a blatant and clumsy attempt to intimidate the parents from reporting Flanagan by threatening that the girl could go to jail for five years for possession of an alleged trace amount of marijuana. That's how both the parents perceived Perry's visit to their home, and it is clearly what Perry intended as shown by his conduct the next morning.
The parents also testified that after they had spoken with their daughter about what Flanagan did to her, they went to the Wareham police station the next morning and tried to file a report. And who was still on duty at the front desk? None other than Sergeant Jeff Perry who had tried to intimidate them the night before. They were turned away.
Perry's nice little story to the Bar Examiners was also contradicted by Captain Paul Cardalino's sworn testimony. Perry claims that "I . . . notified my supervisor as to the allegations" of Flanagan's misconduct. That was an outright lie. The Captain testified that he first heard about the allegations from a Bourne police officer who the girl's parents called after they were turned away by Perry at the Wareham police station. They had to get a cop from a neighboring town to get their complaint past Sergeant Perry to his supervisor.
Then, as the Captain testified, he called Flanagan to inquire about the incident, which is when the actual investigation into the girl's complaint began -by the Captain and not by Perry. After hearing Flanagan tell his story about the girl pulling her pants down for him, the Captain ordered both Flanagan and Perry to file written reports, and Perry's written report again corroborated Flanagan's story, as he had done the night before when he went with Flanagan to the girl's home.
So, Mr. Perry, I have to ask you again -why did you lie to the Bar Examiners about the role you played in covering up for Scott Flanagan? I mean, sure, you were deaf and blind in 1991 when his 14-year-old victim was crying and screaming in the glare of your cruiser's headlights, and you were clueless on New Year's Eve 1992 when you went to the 16-year-old girl's home and lied to her parents to protect Flanagan, okay, whatever -that was a long time ago, so why did you lie to the Bar Examiners about all that just three years ago?
By the same token, why didn't you testify under oath back in 1994 about the nice little story you told the Bar Examiners just three years ago -you know, about how you got the girl's complaint and then conducted the "initial investigation" and reported it to your supervisor? I mean, that would surely have cleared both you and the Town of liability for Flanagan's sexual abuse of those young girls if the jury believed you, wouldn't it?
Oh, yeah, that's a damned big if -huh? Plus, you'd have to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, subjecting yourself to close cross-examination by a skilled trial lawyer and be subject to criminal charges of perjury if you lied about those things, wouldn't you? But, if you told the truth to the Bar Examiners three years ago, why should you have been worried back in '94 that the jury might not believe you, or whatever questions Attorney Friedman might ask you on cross examination or that you could be charged with perjury for telling that same nice little story under oath?
You were being sued for big bucks, and the Town eventually had to pay $50,000 in one case on a jury verdict and an undisclosed settlement in the other based on the complaints that you covered up for Flanagan, so why didn't you testify under oath back then about the story you told to the Bar Examiners? Inquiring minds want to know, because not everyone is as mindless as your Perverts for Perry.
So, from where I'm sitting, it looks a lot like you didn't want to give the Bar Examiners a complete and candid account of your role in Flanagan's two indecent assaults on teenage girls while he was under your supervision, as you were required to do. It looks like you wanted them to believe instead that you were simply negligent for failing to supervise Flanagan, which is how you characterized the civil charges against you in federal court. It looks like you lied because you were afraid that if you didn't make that stuff up about reporting Flanagan to your supervisor and conducting an "investigation" into his young victim's complaint, the Bar Examiners might just think that you had actually tried to cover up for Flanagan's sexual predations on young teenage girls.
Am I wrong about all this? If so, please explain in detail exactly why you just didn't tell the complete and candid truth to the Bar Examiners about what you were charged with in the civil cases and why you lied to them about what you did on New Year's Eve 1992. Plus, please explain why you didn't testify under oath in the civil cases back in 1994 about how you investigated the girl's complaint and reported it to your supervisor.
After all, the 16-year-old girl's parents and Captain Cardalino testified under oath about what you did and didn't do back then, and it flatly contradicts what you told the Bar Examiners. So why should anyone other than your hopelessly brain-addled Perverts for Perry believe a word you say about anything?