Intimidating witness massachusetts coworker dating boss
Paul Muckle was convicted in the Boston Municipal Court Department (BMC) of intimidating a person furthering a court proceeding, see G. On the parties' cross appeals, the Appeals Court reversed the dismissal of the intimidation charge and affirmed the convictions. Julianne Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. His posttrial motion to vacate the intimidation conviction was allowed, and that charge was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in the BMC. The underlying facts of the case are fully set forth in the Appeals Court's opinion and need not be repeated here. The Hearing Officer found that the Division of Insurance had not proven that Ms. Burgos commenced in June 2010 but were dismissed on September 30, 2010.In the Hearing Officer’s opinion this evidence did not satisfy the Division’s legal burden to prove that Ms.The Hearing Officer noted that at the hearing and in her brief, Ms. The Hearing Officer, however, would have none of that argument. Burgos could not contradict what she had admitted under oath in the Charlestown District Court, ruling: …[B]asic respect for the integrity and finality of Ms.Burgos tried to disavow the admissions she made under oath in the Charlestown District Court stating that: I believe that in accessing the records of Safety Insurance, I was acting as my own agent in reviewing a claim MY CAR had been involved in. Burgos’ guilty pleas …demands that they be conclusive on the issue of the facts of her actions of using her manager’s position to obtain information that was used in an [sic] criminal conspiracy with Mr.
Hearing Officer Farrington ended her Decision stating, “The Charlestown criminal charges against Ms.Question 1 of the Background Information section of this application asked Ms. Burgos answered “No.” The Division’s Complaint asserted that Ms.Burgos’ failure to report the Iowa state court criminal charges on this application constituted ground to revoke her produce license. She found that the documentary evidence presented by the Division of Insurance only showed that the crime charges against Ms.Burgos were very serious: witness intimidation and conspiracy to commit the criminal offense of intimidation of a witness…The seriousness of Ms.Burgos’ violation of makes license revocation and the maximum civil penalty appropriate.” Additionally, Hearing Officer Farrington decided, “The facts that Ms.