Federal Horror Show Starring Fred Wyshak
May 1, 2015 Uncategorizedmtc9393
Robert Fitzpatrick the ex-FBI agent who worked in Boston as the assistant agent in charge was wrongfully indicted on April 28,2015 by a Boston federal grand jury in an indictment signed by Fred Wyshak . If ever an action showed meanness, pettiness, and abuse of prosecutorial power for one's personal ends this is it. Coincidentally it became public yesterday on the same day I wrote about the injudicious use of power by Boston U.S. attorney Carmen Ortez providing a further example of an office that is out of control.
The indictment was returned on April 28,2015. Fitzpatrick did not have the courtesy of being treated with dignity for he was unnecessarily arrested and brought before the court in handcuffs. He had served 21 years as an FBI agent. Treating him like that is a small indication of the malice Wyshak can demonstrate to people he does not like something akin to what Vladimir Putin does. This has nothing to do with justice or performing the work of a prosecutor, it is a naked brutal act of unrestrained power to hurt a good man who has done nothing wrong except testify to what he believed to be the truth.
Fitzpatrick is charged with perjury and for each charge of perjury he is also accused of obstruction of justice. This again is one of the novel tricks by Wyshak by stretching one criminal act into a different one for the purpose of increasing the sentence; he usually does this by invoking the racketeering statute but unable to find others in league with Fitzpatrick he was only able to turn the perjury into an obstruction of justice.
The indictment by the grand jurors who are little more than rubber stamps for the federals set out the background by talking about Fitzpatrick's time as an agent (1965 – 1986); his time in Boston (late 1980 to May 1986) Whitey Bulger's years as an informant (1975 to 1990). The first indication that Wyshak has gone over the edge is when he describes Whitey saying he operated an organized crime group "known by various names including "the Winter Hill Gang" and "South Boston"."
No one ever testified South Boston was an organized crime group. There was no organized crime group "South Boston" except in Wyshak's erratic mind. South Boston is a section of the city. Whitey was from South Boston, most of the others in the gang were not. This is another attempt by Wyshak to demean and slander the people who live in South Boston. It continues his inexplicable obsession with it; when asked where former FBI agent Connolly went wrong he said he was too close to South Boston.
The specific acts of perjury that are charged are that Fitzpatrick said he was sent as assistant agent in charge to the Boston FBI office by an assistant director of the FBI with special instruction to clean up a problem there. The indictment alleges he received no such instruction and his transfer was routine. This is hardly material to the issues at trial and will require a "he said, she said" type of dispute. Every witness in the history of time could be indicted for such especially in divorce actions.
The next act is his statement that Whitey denied to him that he was an informant. The indictment alleges Whitey never made that denial to Fitzpatrick. This is a one-on-one conversation between Whitey and Fitzpatrick; how can it be proven. Perhaps, Wyshak will squeeze some witness like John Morris or Jim Ring, two former FBI agents who to save themselves have proven willing to go along with Wyshak's view of the world to say Fitzpatrick told them something different. Wyshak is good with the hearsay evidence from cooperating witnesses but in truth there is no way he can prove this unless he is now going to make a deal with Whitey to get Fitzpatrick.
But even if Whitey testified against Fitzpatrick after being given one of Wyshak's deals whether Whitey was an informant or not has no material bearing on the issues in the case. Defense counsel for Whitey threw a monkey into the case by alleging Whitey was not an informant and Wyshak fell for it and has been chasing it ever since. To be perjury a matter must be material to the charges and Whitey's status though it consumed many trial dates was not something the jury had to consider.
The next act of perjury charged is he testified he gave a report recommending Whitey be closed out to SAC Sarhatt and he continued to recommend to others he be closed out. Here again none of this is material to the charges against Whitey; here again it is a "he said/ she said." The usual Wyshak cooperating witnesses will come in and deny this. Keep in mind this is a side issue to the murders, guns, extortions, and other charges against Whitey.
The next act is that Fitzpatrick denied he was reduced in grade "because of charges related to an investigation into a shooting incident." The indictment alleges he was demoted due to false reports he filed in the investigating incident and not because of retaliation against him. This is pure nonsense. Here's why. To be perjury a person must believe he is lying; Fitzpatrick believes he was retaliated against by the FBI (there's little doubt that is the case). Even if the FBI can show he filed a false report that does not make it perjury; proving a fact is X does not make a witness testifying it is Y a perjury if the witness believes it is Y.
The next two acts, one where Fitzpatrick said he arrested Gerry Angiulo (he was in charge of the arresting team while Ed Quinn the case agent made the actual arrest) and that he found the rifle used to kill Martin Luther King (it was found by others but he took custody of it for the FBI) at best are a bit of hyperbole that have nothing to do with the material evidence in the case but are just background evidence. it's like indicting a person who said he grew up in Savin Hill when he actually came from Fields Corner; or one who said he won a Purple Heart in Vietnam when he really didn't.
Such an indictment is not only petty it is plainly wrong especially considering the actions of Fitzpatrick are almost two years old, had no adverse impact on anything, and his testimony is the same as what he wrote in a book prior to the trial. When Fitzpatrick was testifying he said his book was a "memoir." It is how he remembers things. If his memory does not comport with the facts but he believes his memory is true then his testimony is not perjury. This is elementary. Any first year prosecutor knows that.
This indictment show the horror of prosecutorial power that is unrestrained. Fitzpatrick grew up under hard circumstances, pulled himself together, went to college, served in the Army, and accomplished his life-long dream of becoming an FBI agent where he served 21 years rising to the position of assistant agent in charge of a major office.
Fitzpatrick is in his seventies. This is a crushing burden on a guy of that age not only financially but mentally. Everyone (especially FBI agents if any have courage) should be outraged at this action. It is so out of line I'd hope the new Attorney General Loretta Lynch spots it and puts an end to the horror since Boston's Ortez seems incapable of controlling Wyshak.
The big question is what is Wyshak's motive aside from pure revenge for this action. By the way, Fitzpatrick and I have had our differences which are spelled out in earlier communications on this blog between us. I might view things differently than he does but I have never doubted he believes what he has asserted. The little I know about the man is that he is a fighter and he will not be cowed by Wyshak's indictment. I wish him the best in this unwarranted assault upon him in his late years and will write him offering my encouragement.
In a way, though, I welcome the indictment. It pulls away the curtain Wyshak hides behind. It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the true character of Wyshak as a petty, vindictive and vain man incapable of understanding the concept of fairness or justice. He and those like him have been in power way too long.
I hope to explore this more next week because this action is so far out of the norm it must be explored.
← Carmen Ortiz's Big Error: Cooperating with the Boston Globe	Understanding Robert Fitzpatrick: The Billy Bulger Story →
28 thoughts on "Federal Horror Show Starring Fred Wyshak"
Shelby T Mitchell says:
Wyshak I heard is a bully and a pri*ck. Had not seen the movie Black Mass yet. But still he was portrayed as a jerk by the great underrated actor Corey Stoll. Despite wanting to get the bad guys off the streets, heard he has also been doing so to win at all costs. He may be a great lawyer, but as a human being, well not so much.
Fred Wyshak is a liar, perjurer, and fraud who accuses everyone who disagrees with Wyshak's well documented BS of being crazy. Fitzpatrick is the link to implicating the senior DOJ people for the murders that Wyshak has been covering up.
I can also confirm that I have government documents and audio tapes identifying certain Boston newspaper reporters whom are government informants for Wyshak, Kelly, and the USAO who collaborate with their DOJ propaganda and smear campaigns. I'm not looking sully anyone's reputation but Boston deserves better. Wyshak and DOJ used the same reporters articles in a FTCA statute of limitations scam to screw the Bulger-Flemmi-DOJ victims families of over $300 Million of civil wrongful death claims.
Wyshak and his DOJ lackeys should be disbarred from practicing law and held criminally accountable.
douglas kinan says:
Bruce:
The system of "gaming" and legal jujitsu ensures that neither you nor anyone else will ever get real evidence into a court of law.
Too bad for us all.
dougkinan@yahoo.com
Doubting Thomas says:
Patty, you make such a great point with that piece of factual information!!!! What a great point!! This is incredible that Fitz may go to prison before Pat Nee, it is unreal?!!? Wyshak refused to call another major problem witness, Stippo Rakes would have swiss cheesed the whole Wyshak garbage selective cherry picking prosecution.
Agreed Dan.. Something fundamentally evil when the serial killers are largely free, the former special agents of the FBI face what amounts to life sentences for bad judgement, and a stand up gal who simply loved a bum gets the toughest a&ab sentence in history. It grits.
Jim:
Good points.
I also suspect after Jim Bulger wins his appeal he will do what he must to save Cathy. time will tell.
DanC says:
I can see Bulger now, using his motorized wheelchair to run over one of his still numerous enemies … The lengthy prison sentence given to Cathy really was a crime. She's a stand-up gal who didn't murder, extort, or rat out anybody …
Agree on Cathy but the rumor in Southie I heard a year ago was that she was cooperating but that turned out to be unfounded. It shows how rumors are so destructive.
How did Whitey get his wheelchair motorized. Wyshak better not find out about that. By the way, I'm writing to Whitey to see if he'll meet with me. Neither he or I are going to be around forever and using his name in my blog seems to require I meet the man once, if he'll agree.
Jean E. Allan says:
I do hope he will meet with you. I many ways he must believe you have reported on his case fairly…if he wants to talk be sure to ask for a complete list of his aliases…thanks
Good luck on your request, Matt. Bon voyage, if he agrees to see you.
He can't win. No one wants a repeat show. Cathy is on her own. He can't help her; she can still help him though with her silence. I was thinking if she had good counsel she could agree to cooperate in exchange for a reduction in her sentence once the statute of limitations ran but then again Wyshak has never let that stop him from indicting a person.
The most flagrant perjury in the Whitey trial came out of Wyshak's own mouth on June 11, 2013. Here it is as a tweet from reporter Adam Reilly:
@reillyadam: Wyshak: "Pat Nee is not a witness in this case. He has nothing to do with this case…. It's a non sequitur." #bulger
This statement was subsequently proven false many times over by Wyshak's own direct evidence from numerous DOJ witness.
It was a material matter of the highest relevance. Pat Nee was a percipient witness to, and coconspirator with, Whitey in the majority of charges at issue in the trial.
Wyshak's perjury here also obstructs justice by making a percipient witness unavailable to the fact finder.
Another bit of government sponsored perjury at the Whitey trial came from pot smuggler William David Lindholm. He testified Whitey shot a silenced revolver by his head and then made Lindholm play Russian Roullette with it. The media ate up this dramatic story. Big Problem with the story, it's physically impossible to silence a revolver. Moreover, it's impossible to play Russian Roulette with the only types of guns that can be silenced (semi-autos). A guy who's had a gun shot his head and then played Roullete with it would never ever mistake the type of gun they used.
This is not a small point of perjury, it was relevant to a charge of extortion against Whitey. The perjurer was an immunized government witness who had been handsomely rewarded by Wyshak for the testimony. Furthermore, Lindholm's perjury is obvious to anyone in law enforcement who has any familiarity with guns. It is by no means an obscure fact. Lindholm was debriefed before trial by the Wyshak team, which included DEA Agent Daniel Doherty, Trooper Johnson, Wyshak and Kelly, among others.
Despite knowing that Lindholm was lying, Wyshak put him on the witness stand. The media described Lindholm's talk tale as "riveting", "horrifying" and "Ex-Drug Dealer Has Jurors on Edge of Seats."
Wyshak must have sensed the jurors' reaction because on Agust 5, 2013, he recounted Lindholm's false story directly to the jurors in closing argument, knowing it to be false.
Maybe Lindholm was just exaggerating, but what's good for the goose… He and Wyshak's entire team should be indicted for perjury and obstruction.
Patty:
Good comment as usual. Forget Nee, everyone who testified for Wyshak told lies that would pale in comparison to those told by Fitzpatrick. Up until the eve of the John Connolly trial Morris never mentioned he got money from other informants; Weeks flunked a lie detector test, etc.
As for the cops you mention and Wyshak himself, they became best friends with the gangsters who they used as witnesses. It seemed to me they forgot they wore badges and guys like Flemmi and Martorano were the worst criminal around the area. I'll never forget them laughing it up when Martorano was playing the clown for them; nor seeing Wyshak and Flemmi laughing about Halloran being called baloon head as if they were close buddies.
The Fitzpatrick indictment for whatever reason brings back all the memories of the perjuries committed by others especially Weeks's and Salemme's which got him under the statute of limitations.
I see Kevin Cullen has a column in the Globe in which he quotes an unidentified federal prosecutor. "We couldn't let this go," he said. "This guy was an ASAC (assistant special agent in charge). He was ASAC during eight of the [Bulger] murders."
I assume the prosecutor is Fred Wyshak. Be that as it may, am I wrong in saying that the feds have let a hell of a lot go? Connolly was prosecuted, true. Morris was given a sweetheart deal that enabled him to keep his pension and launch a career as a "wine advisor." That's it, right? Given Bulger's decades-long, bullet- and blood-stained reign of terror, that's not exactly a huge catch. No SACs, no higher ups in Washington, no field agents, either. (Fitzpatrick, remember, would be sitting at home collecting his pension if he hadn't showed up to testify for Bulger.)
So you couldn't let it go? Please.
My understanding is that DoJ screwed Fitzpatrick so he got no pension.
I thought that too but in reading his book again I see he doesn't mention it which I think he would have done had it happened.
I saw that quote. It's more of Cullen putting out the federal line so that he can use the feds as his source. Why did he give the guy anonymity?
It probably is Wyshak but that answer makes no sense in light of the other actions which you point out occurred during that time. Since when is a guy to be indicted because others under him did not do their job. What kind of justice is that when the evidence shows that of all the people Fitzpatrick tried to do something to save Halloran.
Agree, Fitzpatrick if he kept his mouth shut would be safe at home; but even with that, he really did not commit perjury because even if the matters were material I have little doubt that what he testified to is what he believed.
I suspect Jim Bulger is going to soon win his appeal.
Matt's observations are on point. This case against Fitzpatrick is pure witness intimidation and extortion under the color of law of a guy who tried to do the right thing for the victims families in their civil suits against the DoJ and not necessarily help Whitey. In doing so Fitzpatrick implicated several senior US Attorney and DoJ officials whom were complicit in the murders, extortions and cover-ups. These serious conflicts require the prompt recusal of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Moreover, Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly are the two most prolific serial perjurers and obstructers of justice in the history of Massachusetts and this "Indictment" is Wyshak, Kelly and Carmen Ortiz giving Massachusetts the "middle finger".
nc says:
While a retired DA and a retired cop were arguing that Connolly should have testified at his trial others were trying to explain the risks in that strategy. Had Connolly testified his perjury indictment would have had hundreds of counts irrespective of what his testimony was. The Fitzpatrick charges show how vile and petty the DOJ are. It is designed to have a chilling effect on any who dare to have a different view. If you don't mouth the party line you will be harmed. 2. You are right about the testimony being non material. But what gnaws at the prosecutor is that Fitzpatrick said Morris was the leak not Connolly. Could the judges or Congress correct this injustice? Or are they just as useless as they appear?
I too hope that former FBI agent Fitzpatrick does defend the charges against him fully. Shortly after he published his book, an emissary of mine met with him and questioned him with respect to aliases used by James Bulger. At that time former FBI agent was reluctant to talk. But, we do believe that if he knows whether John Iuele was one of those aliases, this is the time to speak up. It will surely bolster his defense.
Jean:
I'm told he is not in good health and this is certainly some pressure he did not need. Time will tell what happens but it seems the federals are intent on pressuring him to keep him quiet. Why would anyone indict a 75-year-old guy for something as trivial as this?
If what you write is true that the pressure is on to keep Mr. Fitzpatrick quiet, you are implying that the federals believe he has more to say…I agree…one then would think that in that case carrots would work better than sticks…someone not in good health has nothing left to lose, but to tell all..Just saying..
What surprises me is how much Wyshak has marginalized the staff of the Boston Regional Office of Inspector General to go along with this sham prosecution. However, I understand that IG Mike Horowitz himself does have credibility.
Walter Kirby says:
BTW Matt, how is John C making out in Fl?
Walter:
He is doing as well as a guy who has been wrongfully incarcerated can do. The Florida Appeals court is reviewing the judgment of its colleagues that he is being wrongfully held. It has been 3 months since it heard the appeal and it should have rendered a decision by now. Unfortunately judges don't have to act by any clock so he could be kept locked up for several more months or years. There is great pressure on Florida from the federal side to keep him locked up as there was to try him in the first place. Like Fitzgerald he served the FBI well but it turned on him.
Telling the truth and refusing to participate in public corruption is not popular within the FBI and the DOJ, so this may be a case of whistleblower retaliation, who knows?
Fitzpatrick claims he turned in a report which supports many of his claims regarding closing out Bulger as an informant.
If Fitzpatrick kept a copy of that report and it corroborates critical elements of his claims, it's his "ace-in-the hole", and U.S. Attorney Ortiz won't be looking too good.
If Fitzpatrick cannot corroborate his claims with actual documentation, I think he's in for tough times. As I learned from my federal experience: "If it ain't [contemporaneously] documented [and reported], it didn't happen."
"Selective prosecution" and "prosecutorial misconduct" may be at play here and, perhaps, we are about to find some of that out?
Petraeus' lies to the FBI were far more egregious and he walked with probation and a fine. Under a one standard rule, Petraeus' penalty would be an automatic five years in federal prison. How lying was negotiated off the table in his case is inexplicable.
As I see it, a strong ethical culture, a strict code of conduct and one standard are not promoted and followed by the FBI and DOJ leadership and has been missing for quite some time – a leadership flaw that makes us all collateral damage.
"Equal justice under the law," "no one is above the law," "if you see something, say something," and that all elusive, plain language "rule of law," to be meaningful, must be more than lip service.
The FBI and the DOJ talk the best justice in the world. The reality is much different.