FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: Hot Facts For A Cold Case Murder
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The DAO response is dated August 21, 2015, more than 8 months ago. There is no challenge to documents provided to the Superintendent of Records and DAO.

The DAO affirms they received the order. I have received no detailed explanation for the exemptions (d) deliberative process and (f) investigatory. The deliberative process means what authorities conjectured about the case. An active investigation would have standing to withhold information that might alert an offender.

There is no ongoing investigation.

The DAO attempts to misuse the law to shield authorities.

"We intend to comply, but..."

The DAO stated their intent to comply. Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words. However, the DAO is on record they will comply with the order from the Superintendent.

"Based on her substantial research and considerable knowledge of the case, Ms. Carson may elect to narrow her request"

The DAO affirms I have extensive knowledge of this case. In an earnest effort to resolve a homicide; I am a witness coming forward with verifiable and credible documents.

"In view of her familiarity in the case, it is almost certain she is not in need of many records..."

That is an admission from the DAO. They know that I know what has happened here. The DAO does not want the public to know the true facts in this case. The system is as dysfunctional now as it was during the investigation. It impacts numerous cases. The DAO goes on to suggest it is wasted effort to index the files. I think the tax payers would benefit knowing the deception going on by their public servants. The audacity to suggest bringing order to their files to properly address unresolved homicides in their jurisdiction serves no purpose should make everyone shudder at our legal system.

This is a cover up, past and present.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8121

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Frankly, Whitey was scum. But the question is:
why was he hung like raw meat to be murdered?

We have a plausible motivation detailed below and if indeed
Whitely was prepared to shine light on the John Connolly era
then that was nitroglycerine to a lot of well placed people.

One thing for sure.
Somebody wanted him shut up real quick.


Is This The Reason Whitey Bulger Got Whacked In Jail?

by Tyler Durden - Wed, 10/31/2018 - 05:44

Reports that Boston crime boss James "Whitey" Bulger had been murdered hours after being transferred to a federal maximum security prison in West Virginia shocked the public on Tuesday, and immediately raised questions about the circumstances surrounding his death.

How was the inmate, who was reportedly in ill-health, murdered so quickly after arriving in the new prison? And how was it that guards weren't monitoring such a high-profile inmate, particularly since it came out in his 2013 trial that he worked with the FBI for years ratting out rival mobsters to help consolidate his power in the Boston underworld?

While the federal government hasn't released any more details about Bulger's death, the Daily Mail and TMZ have managed to dig up some information that, if accurate, could indicate a motive for what may have been a killing tacitly sanctioned by senior law enforcement officials.

According to the Mail:

    Law enforcement sources tell DailyMail.com that Whitey had been talking about outing people in the top echelon of the controversial FBI informant program.

    The sources said he hadn't even been processed at the West Virginia facility when he was killed. But someone who knew he was being transferred put the word out - the killer or killers had to know he was coming.

The suspicious circumstances of Bulger's death would suggest that there's more to the story than a routine killing. For one, Bulger was seemingly arbitrarily transferred to the Hazelton facility in West Virginia, which had been the site of three other inmate killings over the past year. When he arrived, Bulger was mixed in with the general population, leaving him vulnerable.

As for the eyes, we've been doing some research -- back in the days of Murder Inc., (the 1940s gangsters, not the rappers) mobsters would gouge out the eyes of witnesses who talked to cops.

According to the Mail, Bulger's death might have something to do with US Rep. Stephen Lynch, who is from Bulger's old neighborhood of Southie, and who recently introduced the Confidential Informant Accountability Act. It's possible, according to the Mail, that Bulger was preparing to open up to a member of Lynch's staff about abuses with the FBI's confidential informant program.

The Massachusetts Democrat last year introduced the Confidential Informant Accountability Act - which calls for congressional oversight into the selection and use of confidential informants. It's possible that Bulger was set to open up to someone on Lynch's team with claims of abuses in the program.

Bulger's lawyer, for one, blasted the Bureau of Prisons in a statement, accusing it of unilaterally converting Bulger's life sentence into the death penalty.

In a statement, Bulger's lawyer J.W. Carney Jr blasted the prison system over the mobster's death.

'He was sentenced to life in prison, but as a result of decisions by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, that sentence has been changed to the death penalty,' the statement read.

If these rumors prove true, they will leave many observers to ponder the possibility that the federal government was somehow involved in Bulger's death.

Mafia Hitman Is Primary Suspect In Jailhouse Murder Of Whitey Bulger

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Fintan,

The headlines caught my attention Tuesday. There is no question in my mind there are a lot of people who lived on the edge wondering if Bulger would unload.

The Center for Public Integrity grades Massachusetts with an "F" for transparency. I know that first hand. Although I have not posted for some time, I have been very active in Joan's case and made progress. The DAO is presently in violation of the MA Public Records Law and defying an order from the Superintendent of Records. There is zero question they are shielding malfeasance.

I found no connection with Bulger to Joan's case except for common names in the ranks of the authorities. Bulger is not the only one authorities shielded.

I will add an update of the status of Joan's case over the weekend. There's a lot to share.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It has been a while since I have updated here. I have been very busy working on Joan's case and making progress.

It took the DAO more than a year to respond to an order to provide an index of their records. The response was so minimal it was almost laughable. However, I have extensive knowledge of Joan's case and was able to glean information from what they provided.

The files held by the DAO were grossly deficient in vital records. One glaring deficiency were the court records affirming the boat, the alleged crime scene, did not exist when Joan disappeared. I scheduled a meeting with the DAO and we met on May 1, 2017. I met with two individuals, the first ADA John Dawley and ADA David O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan is in charge of records. Dawley is the number 2 man in the office under the DA and makes the determination what to pursue. Trying to work with them has been very difficult.

ADA Dawley stated he knows Tim Burke and does not want to focus on him. That is a conflict of interest and bias that obstructs justice in Joan's case. Dawley also advised me not to probe so deeply. That's a red flag if ever there was one.

I have been going back and forth with the DAO for records, properly submitting and appealing FOIA's. The office has provided a handful of documents.

Based on a police report the DAO had in their possession, I can now provide a profile of the offender in Joan's case.

Joan was seen leaving Logan Airport. She asked a Town Taxi cabbie to take her to Cambridge. The driver, Fenton Moore gave a very good description of Joan and had her luggage loaded in the trunk of his cab.

Joan announced a man was with her. He did not travel with her, he appeared in the cab line.

Based on the police report taken from an eyewitness, it is reasonable to conclude Joan knew her assailant. The assailant also appeared to know where and when Joan would be there.

Moore also provided the description of the man with Joan. Police compiled the composite that has been posted here.

District Attorneys Office IMAGE COMPOSITE:

Middle-aged white male
Under 6'
Approximately 160 lbs
Man was described with a beard
Man wore glasses

Note: Authorities had this information in December 1981. That is confirmed in source documents. Leonard Paradiso was 6'2" and over 200 lbs. I have compared the composite to Andrew Palombo. Palombo was 6'4" and over 200 lbs. The man seen with Joan was not either of these men. However, source documents support that Palombo had some concerning involvement.

The eyewitness provided further information about the assailant. The man had a heavy suitcase; he was traveling.

The man exchanged words with the cabbie over the heavy suitcase, insight into the man's demeanor.

The man said to Joan, "We don't want to take this cab." This suggests to me, the man represented an authority figure to Joan.

Joan's suitcase was removed from the Town Taxi. Joan and the man got into a blue car behind the taxi and left Logan.

This is where Joan disappeared. Authorities should have been looking for two individuals, the man seen with Joan and the driver of the blue car. Since we now know what happened to Joan, manuevering her to another vehicle indicates premeditation. Joan was the intended victim. Instead of pursuing this lead, the lead was suppressed. This was a cover up.

Within a few weeks, a friend of involved officer Carmen Tamarro, Palombo's superior at F Barracks at Logan, placed a call to the Saugus PD implicating Paradiso for both Joan's disappearance and the 1979 Marie Iannuzzi murder. The woman was identified by Tim Burke as Patty Bono during the Iannuzzi pretrial hearing. Bono and Saugus PD Chief Peters confirmed the call.

Bottom line. Joan knew her assailant. He knew where and when she would be arriving at Logan. He was traveling. The assailant represented an authority figure to Joan. The assailant manuevered her to a waiting car in the taxi line that Moore could not identify.

The list of individuals that fit all this criteria is very small.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just received correspondence from the current custodian on Friday. It seems they have a very hard time dealing with the documents that expose malfeasance during Joan's investigation. They are ducking the obvious with insulting and demeaning responses.

Folks, this was a cover up at the time and continues to be covered up by current officials shielding misconduct of colleagues.

Documents currently under appeal center on problems and discrepancies in Joan's investigation. Through source documents, I can identify individuals who brought forward information that could only be known to the offender or parties complicit in the crime. Each piece of information I have been able to recover has really narrowed the list.

A document obtained recently identified a phone call on July 13, 1983. It was pretty stunning. The caller was ADA Paul Leary. He was Tim Burke's superior in Suffolk County and the #2 man in that office. It would be highly unusual for Leary to have gotten involved in the matter discussed, it was out of his jurisdiction and what would seem a minor case for Leary to expend his time. What he was expending was influence. Who he called was what caught my attention. I am not going to disclose it now, but suffice it to say there was a lot going on to get predetermined outcomes. Keep watching. I will disclose who he called at the appropriate time. I was blown away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8121

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Various connections FYI
....for starters.



This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

April 5, 1990, Page 00020

In a bitterly contested move, prosecutors investigating the Charles Stuart murder case are trying to force Mr. Stuart's lawyer, to whom they believe he confessed killing his wife, to testify before a grand jury.

Both the lawyer, John Dawley, and members of Mr. Stuart's family have objected to his disclosing what Mr. Stuart told him. The conversation took place a day before Mr. Stuart fell to his death from a bridge over Boston Harbor on Jan. 4, an apparent suicide.

Paul K. Leary, the First Assistant District Attorney for Suffolk County, said Mr. Stuart's talk with Mr. Dawley ''could be the crucial evidence'' in the case. ''It's baffling to us why the Stuart family doesn't want this to be told, unless they are protecting somebody,'' Mr. Leary said in an interview today. Prosecutors from the District Attorney's office are to present a motion in Suffolk County Superior Court on Thursday arguing that the confidentiality of talks between a lawyer and his client, a principle that has so far protected Mr. Stuart's conversation with Mr. Dawley, lapsed with his death.

'Cornerstone of System'

But Mr. Dawley said he believed deeply that the lawyer-client privilege extended beyond death and that he had ''an obligation as a lawyer to maintain the confidence of a client.''

''It's the cornerstone of our system,'' he said.

Mr. Dawley said he could not comment on whether Mr. Stuart confessed to him on Jan. 3, as investigators believe. But he said that ''after 7 P.M. on Jan. 3 we no longer represented Charles Stuart.'' The investigators believe that Mr. Dawley was so stunned by Mr. Stuart's disclosure that he withdrew as Mr. Stuart's lawyer and suggested other lawyers instead.

In a case that transfixed Boston and much of the nation, Mr. Stuart originally contended that a black man had fatally shot his pregnant wife, Carol, and wounded him in the abdomen soon after the couple left a childbirth class at a Boston hospital Oct. 24. The couple's premature baby son, Christopher, was delivered by Caesarian section and died 17 days later.

Mr. Stuart's story unraveled after his younger brother, Matthew, told the police on Jan. 3 that he had gone to the scene of the shooting by prearrangement with Charles Stuart and picked up Carol Stuart's purse, which contained the murder weapon. Matthew Stuart said that he had believed he was taking part only in an insurance scam and that he had not seen Mrs. Stuart's body in the couple's car, where the shootings occurred.

Body in Mystic River

After learning that his brother was going to the police, Charles Stuart reportedly confessed to Mr. Dawley, who was the brother of a boyhood friend, Paul Dawley. Early the next morning Mr. Stuart's body was found in the Mystic River.

Mr. Stuart's apparent suicide led to a backlash against the police and the District Attorney's office, because they had carried out vast searches in black neighborhoods for the killer; identified William Bennett, a black man, as the chief suspect in the shooting, and presented evidence implicating Mr. Bennett to a grand jury.

Investigators say Matthew Stuart has now been notified that he is a target of the grand jury, though it is unclear what the charge against him might be. Matthew Stuart appeared before the grand jury last Friday, but friends said he had asserted his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

Adding to the complexity of the dispute over Charles Stuart's talk with Mr. Dawley, lawyers for both Matthew Stuart and the Stuarts' mother, Dorothy Stuart, have objected to the prosecutors' efforts to make Mr. Dawley divulge the nature of it.

Mr. Leary, the Assistant District Attorney, said his office believed that Dorothy Stuart, as the administrator of Charles Stuart's estate, could waive the lawyer-client privilege of confidentiality.

'Public Will Be Enraged'

''Our whole theory had been that the Stuart family wanted to get to the bottom of this,'' Mr. Leary said. ''But if they won't waive the privilege and become a roadblock, the public will be enraged.''

Richard Clayman, a lawyer who is representing Mrs. Stuart as well as several of Charles Stuart's brothers and sisters, said: ''We're not trying to hide anything. The family is not trying to obstruct the investigation.

''But we believe there is a question of law, that the privilege survives beyond death.''

Another lawyer familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said a further concern was that the family members do not know what Charles Stuart actually said to Mr. Dawley and that if Matthew Stuart were to be indicted for complicity in the crime, his defense attorneys would not be able to cross-examine a dead man.

''The one thing we now know is that Charles Stuart was capable of saying anything to anybody and making them believe it, so why should we believe what he said to Dawley?'' the lawyer asked.

In another development in the case, Mr. Dawley's younger brother, Paul, testified to the grand jury last week, and a person familiar with his testimony said Paul Stuart told the jury he had done legal research for Charles Stuart on whether he could unplug life support systems for Mr. Stuart's infant son.

A version of this article appears in print on April 5, 1990, on Page A00020 of the National edition with the headline: DISPUTE EMERGES IN BOSTON MURDER.


Ret. Judge Paul K. Leary to Receive First NBTA Lifetime Achievement Award
July 20, 2017
A graduate of Suffolk University Law School, Leary has devoted the past 40+ years to fighting for justice. From 1956-1969, he worked as an employee of the Boston Municipal Court, becoming an assistant clerk magistrate in 1964. He served as first assistant clerk magistrate for the Suffolk County Superior Court for criminal business from 1969-1979. Since that time until his retirement, Leary worked in the Boston Municipal Court system. Additionally, he has served as an adjunct faculty member in Suffolk Law School since 1975 and a lecturer at New England School of Law since 1986. Leary also served as vice president and as a member of the executive committee of the National District Attorneys Association.


Judge Paul Dawley named chief justice of the District Courts
Posted Aug 23, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Brockton District Court Judge Paul C. Dawley of Scituate has been named chief justice of the District Courts for a five-year term.

Dawley has been on the bench since 2001. As regional administrator for Region 2 since 2004, Dawley has been responsible for nine district courts in Norfolk, Plymouth and Bristol counties. Dawley began working in the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office in 1990 and later became the deputy first assistant district attorney supervising 40 lawyers responsible for the investigation of murder and other major felonies. He teaches criminal law at Stonehill College in Easton. A native of Revere, Dawley is a graduate of Tufts University and Suffolk University Law School.

March 30, 2011
Essex First Assistant District Attorney John T. Dawley Named Prosecutor Of The Year

The award was presented to Dawley by Essex District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett. "Jack is one of the most respected first assistants in the state," said District Attorney Blodgett. "This office relies upon him for his sage advice, guidance and expertise."

Among the most notable cases Dawley has prosecuted was that of Mafia Underboss Carmen "The Cheeseman" DiNunzio, who is now serving a six-year prison term concurrent with a federal sentence, for extortion, promoting an illegal gaming operation and conspiring to violate state gaming laws.

Essex Assistant District Attorney
David O'Sullivan

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Fintan,

You have them all lined up. You have some heavy hitters who have touched Joan's case in different ways. It seems to be a rerun of the officials who had connections to Bulger. Then the dominoes started to fall.

Is there any question why I have hit such serious obstruction? They are all trying to cover their respective derrieres!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


Can you find an image of Steven D Broce? He was involved in Joan's case. At the time he was a SA in the Boston office of the FBI. He is now in CA. In 2013, Broce was the subject identified by a whistleblower. The whistleblower is the one who suffered the consequences. Broce played an integral part in falsely pinning Joan's loss on Paradiso.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8121

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

August 30, 1980
FBI Special Agent Steven D. Broce was sent to the Balahoe Motel in South Lake Tahoe to investigate a report that a couple of men with a white van had stayed there the night before the bomb was placed in Harvey's. The owners of the motel, Gerald and Nancy De Minico, provided to the FBI the registration card on which Nancy had written down the license plate number of the white Dodge van.

No pic as yet Eve, but that's what SA Broce was doing in 1980,
when involved in the infamous Harvey's Casino bomb case.

But in 2008 LtCol. John C. Parkinson of the FBI Special Operations Group
ground team blew the whistle on Broce and FBI agent, Andrew Marshall.

As you say Eve, it was the whistle blower who paid the price, not the perps
he identified. I've reproduced the best full report on the affair because it
shows the character of this pivotal FBI agent. It's by the old FireDogLake
team who are now Shadowproof.com:


by Kevin Gosztola KEVIN GOSZTOLA

An FBI whistleblower alleges he was retaliated against and fired because he reported two pilots serving in the FBI had allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct in addition to a “clear pattern of fraud, waste and abuse over a period of years,” which “cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars” while also “damaging the reputation of the FBI and Justice Department.”

LtCol. John C. Parkinson, who served as a special agent in the FBI as part of a Special Operations Group ground team until he was terminated in October 2010, contends an undercover facility for FBI operations was compromised in 2006 because pilots, Special Agents Steven Broce and Andrew Marshall, allegedly engaged in sexual acts with women, who were brought back to the facility. They also allegedly participated in activities costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars over a period of years. However, supervisors in the FBI apparently looked the other way and did nothing to punish the two pilots.

Parkinson and other colleagues sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the Justice Department on September 27, 2008. They asked the OIG to investigate Broce and Marshall, who were assigned to the FBI’s Sacramento Division at the time. They informed the OIG that Broce would regularly use “the symbols of his position as an FBI agent, specifically, his gun, badge and official identification” to solicit sex from prostitutes. Broce even, “on at least two occasions,” allegedly left these items behind in brothels.

Since Broce had unrestricted access to an FBI hangar, plane and aviation fuel, Broce used a plane to fly to Reno, Nevada, one night for “the sole purpose of engaging prostitutes in acts of illicit sex.” According to Parkinson, he spent “thousands of tax dollars to fund his prurient interests in prostitution.” Broce also apparently violated FBI and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations by flying alone from California to Nevada, especially because he had “failed multiple check rides and has vision and hearing impairments.”

Marshall was accused of “destroying government property by smashing a hole in the drywall and ripping the security camera cable out of the ceiling, effectively disabling the camera.” This was done to allow for unmonitored access to office space and made it possible for Marshall to view internet pornography on government and personal computers during work hours without being watched.

The OIG initially seemed to be investigating Parkinson’s whistleblower claims, but when targets of the investigation made counter-allegations, the OIG shifted to investigating Parkinson until he was terminated. The OIG did not disclose to Parkinson that he was under investigation until May 2010.

Parkinson is now bringing claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which hears appeals involving the violation of civil service employee rights. (Normally, the MSPB would not have jurisdiction over FBI agents, but he can bring his case before the MSPB because he is what is called preference eligible veteran because he has served in the US Marine Corps Reserve.)

Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, who is litigating Parkinson’s case before the MSPB this week, said, “This is what happens to intelligence professionals who go through the proper channels. Parkinson did everything by the book. He went to the Inspector General and yet he still ended up fired.

In 2006, according to a court filing shown to Firedoglake, the ground team apparently found that Broce and Marshall had left the undercover facility’s door unlocked. The lights had not been turned off. Evidence of sexual acts, including stains and hair, was left on furniture in the facility. The facility was compromised and it was believed that the pilots’ sexual acts were responsible.

The ground team had to find a new warehouse that could be used as an undercover facility for operations. Parkinson recommended that the new site be bifurcated so that the pilots could not access the ground team’s side and the ground team could not access the pilots’ side. He was in charge of much of the coordination that was necessary to complete a build-out of the new facility. It was finished in 2007.

The misconduct did not cease and Parkinson and other colleagues in the ground team met with Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Gregory Cox in February 2008. They expressed concerns that Broce and Marshall were allegedly engaged in misconduct that included massive time and attendance fraud. They also accused Broce of misusing an FBI aircraft to “solicit prostitutes in Nevada” and accused Marshall of “viewing pornography on FBI computers” and destroying an FBI security camera at the undercover facility. But, despite the fact that Cox had an obligation to report the misconduct to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), he took no action to punish Broce or Marshall. He apparently later denied hearing anything about Broce and Marshall’s alleged misconduct at the meeting.

Supervisory Special Agent Leticia Lucero informed Parkinson in spring 2008 that the pilots were going to be given access to the ground team’s side of the undercover facility. Parkinson also learned Cox and Lucero were planning to have him reassigned.

According to Radack, Parkinson grew concerned Marshall and Broce would “defile the furniture by engaging in sexual activity or masturbating on it,” while watching pornography on the television. This was because this is what had happened at the prior undercover facility. So, Parkinson arranged for furniture to be moved to another warehouse where it would be kept safe from being stained by any sexual acts.

In August 2008, Parkinson was involuntarily reassigned off of the squad and Cox and Lucero issued an “adverse performance appraisal” against him. He then took his concerns about retaliation in the workplace to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office, which forwarded his claims of retaliation to the Justice Department’s OIG.

Cox, Lucero and Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Drew Parenti were all named as subjects of a whistleblower reprisal investigation. Yet, when OIG investigators sat down to talk with Cox, Lucero and Parenti they made counter-allegations that were filed with OPR, which accused Parkinson of misusing “$77,000 in government funds.”

The accusation related to the furniture he had relocated. Couches, side chairs, a conference table with six matching chairs, had been moved to prevent Broce and Marshall from defiling the furniture during illicit sexual acts. However, a few of the chairs were bought with FBI funds. He had thought they were the warehouse owner’s and could be moved. Yet, the FBI claimed they had rights to the furniture under a lease agreement and alleged Parkinson had stolen chairs.

The claims were made after supervisors were subject to an investigation that they retaliated against Parkinson. Prior to the retaliation investigation, there were no allegations that Parkinson had misused funds.

David Loftus, an OIG investigator, met with Parkinson throughout 2009 and early 2010. Parkinson believed this was all related to his whistleblower complaint. Later, Parkinson told Loftus he was concerned that Cox, Lucero and Parenti were engaged in a retaliation investigation against him for filing a whistleblower reprisal complaint and for also reporting that Broce and Marshall had engaged in misconduct.

According to a court filing, an FBI ground team apparently found Broce and Marshall left the undercover facility’s door unlocked. The lights were not turned off. Evidence of sexual acts, including stains and hair, was left on furniture in the facility. The facility was compromised as a result of the sex acts.

The ground team had to find a new warehouse that could be used as an undercover facility for operations. Parkinson recommended that the new site be bifurcated so that the pilots could not access the ground team’s side and the ground team could not access the pilots’ side. He was in charge of much of the coordination that was necessary to complete a build-out of the new facility. It was finished in 2007.

The misconduct did not cease and Parkinson and other colleagues in the ground team met with Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Gregory Cox in February 2008. The agents informed Cox of the sex trips, which were taking place with FBI aircraft, but Cox declined to report the alledged misconduct to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsiiblity (OPR). Cox even denied that he had ever been informed about Broce and Marshall’s sex trips.

A letter sent to the Justice Department’s OIG by Parkinson contains even more lurid details.

When Broce worked for the FBI division in Boston, he “left his handgun in a brothel and did not regain control of his handgun for approximately 24 hours.” Worse, the special agent “had to pay extortion money to the prostitute in the amount of $500.00 in order to regain possession of his handgun.” About twenty years later, Broce left his FBI identification in a brothel in Reno, Nevada.

Broce also allegedly abused access to vehicles procured with U.S. taxpayer money but which were not registered to the United States government to continue a “pattern of engaging prostitutes during government work hours, often during evening shifts,” which he was “known for being especially eager to work.”

In Lodi, California, when Broce was stopped by local law enforcement, a police officer noticed he had a local prostitute with him in a government vehicle. Broce informed the officer he was an FBI agent. The officer did not let Broce leave and notified his sergeant that he had stopped an agent. The FBI “handled the matter” and no police report was filed.

Broce traveled over forty miles from Sacramento for a “second prostitute for the evening in violation of California state criminal law.” The FBI pilot was “never charged, nor was his access to a variety of government vehicles with false plates ever curtailed by the FBI,” Parkinson and other colleagues reported.

The other special agent, Marshall, allegedly exploited his position in the FBI to “intimidate members of the public.” When he gained control of the Rocklin, California, Boy Scout Troop, he took out a restraining order against two scout moms, “who refused to be intimidated by the fact that he was an FBI agent.” He took over the troop as a Scout Master “to advance his son to Eagle Scout.”

Parkinson and other colleagues alleged Marshall had “anger management problems compounded by habitual alcohol use,” which the FBI ignored.

The letter also accused Marshall of abusing his access to the FBI’s airplane hangar for years by utilizing it as his own personal storage facility, where he would keep “his recreation vehicle, camping trailer, bicycles, furniture and household goods.” They took up substantial space and Parkinson and other colleagues estimated the storage cost taxpayers approximately $25,000 a year.

Both defrauded the government by clocking in to make it appear they were working and would then go home.

“The seemingly unchecked activities of Mr. Broce and Mr. Marshall could not withstand public scrutiny at a time when our nation’s economy has left many Americans struggling to pay their monthly payments on their cars, much less for the fuel to operate them,” Parkinson and the other colleagues concluded. “The taxpayers have little tolerance for government employees like Mr. Broce and Mr. Marshall, who are each being paid over $120,000 per year, only to spend a great deal of their time defrauding the American public. This fact, compounded by the hypocrisy of using their positions as federal law enforcement officers to violate the laws they are sworn to uphold, can only diminish public confidence in the FBI and US Department of Justice.”

It is not clear how much of a problem the FBI has with agents soliciting prostitutes with FBI resources or how many agents bring prostitutes back to undercover facilities to have sex that could put the security of the facilities at risk.

However, previously, in September 2012, Sen. Grassley sought answers from then-FBI director Robert Mueller about taxpayer dollars being spent on prostitutes for an FBI agent and several “cooperating witnesses” in the Philippines. Many of the prostitutes were believed to have been minors. No charges were filed against the agent.

When asked to comment on the nature of Parkinson’s termination or the allegations Parkinson had made against the two FBI pilots, Paul Bresson of the FBI National Press Office responded, “As you might imagine, we neither comment on nor even confirm the existence of OPR investigations involving our employees. We take this position out of respect for the rights of all parties potentially involved and the fairness of the process.”

Firedoglake tried to contact multiple individuals in the FBI, who were involved in the decision to terminate Parkinson. Nobody answered and in at least one case, where a message was left, the executive forwarded the message to the FBI National Press Office so the office could be prepared to give an answer if the executive was contacted again. And, when the FBI Sacramento Division’s Public Affairs Office was asked to comment, the public affairs official forwarded the query to the FBI National Press Office.

In conclusion, Radack argued this case shows how cozy the relationship between management officials and the OIG can be. People who go to the Inspector General are supposed to be safe, but often they become a target of any investigation that ensues. She noted that this is what had happened to Thomas Drake, who sought to expose fraud, waste, abuse and illegality through proper channels when he was working for the National Security Agency and wound up the target of a leak investigation.

Also, one “would think that having FBI aircraft commandeered to go pick up prostitutes would be something cut and dry,” that it would not be controversial to hold individuals accountable, but short of being internally taken to task for their behavior, neither of the pilots were fired. The person fired was Parkinson, who reported the alleged sexual misconduct being committed with FBI money and resources.


Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the Steve Broce pieces. I hope a photo surfaces. His hands are dirty in Joan's case.

Do any of you remember the ad where a small domino is tapped setting off a chain reaction? The dominos get larger as they continue to fall. At the end a very large domino is toppled. It's easy to pick up the first domino and grasp it. The last domino was too big to even budge without force.

That's where I am in Joan's case. Through source documents, I can trace back to the first domino that started the forces that derailed Joan's investigation. It caused everyone to look at the chips fall instead of seeing the obvious; the offender avoided detection by distraction.

The suppressed lead was the correct path to resolve Joan's case. The method of distraction is well-documented through source records and the names Tim Burke and Andrew Palombo are attached to them. The key to unravelling it was found in documents that were hidden by authorities. Fortunately, those documents were recovered and verified by Tim Burke's published account. He's not very smart.

Another clue was what I consider a slip. Eleanor Webster was quoted in an article. Her comment affirmed my own recollection at the time. Right now, I am trying to budge the oversized domino that continues to obstruct justice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joan was just arriving at Logan Airport at this time, 37 years ago tonight. Within the hour, the man in the composite posted above joined Joan in the taxi line and maneuvered her from the Town Taxi she had engaged to a blue car. This is the man responsible for Joan's loss.

Remember Joan. Please say a prayer for her and the other victims impacted by this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8121

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And it still feels like it was last Saturday.

I suppose that's because now we can see that night in the light
of subsequent discoveries which illuminate the events so brightly.

Paradiso's claims to the murder were once a lurid cover for truth.
Now they're a glaring red flag, signalling secrets long covered-up.

And a whole bunch of people in law enforcement or entrusted to
prosecute are having their actions exposed as but a smokescreen.

With time, the truth is growing - not diminishing!

Keep shining that light. Wink

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
Page 43 of 47

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.