Re: Release Conditions Violation

1 message

Karen Hurvitz <hurvitzlaw@comcast.net> Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:34 PM

To: "Covington, Andrew (DAA)" <andrew.covington@state.ma.us>
Cc: Ilya Feoktistov <ii.feoktistov@gmail.com>

Hi Andy,

I just read your email and I am stunned. When we discussed his conditions of release, I told you that I thought that it was
unfair and frankly unconstitutional that Mr. Shenker be prohibited from using his social media accounts, since even the
Supreme Court has acknowledged that social media has become the new marketplace of ideas, the new speaker's
corner, or park. We specifically agreed that the only conditions of his release would be NO CONTACT with Peller. And we
reported that we had reached that agreement with Judge Walsh, who approved it.

I am attaching the order which reflects these new conditions of release.

If you reviewed this document, which I am assuming is in the court jacket, you know very well that the conditions of
release no longer include social media posts about Ms. Peller. Even when they did, two separate judges denied your
motions to revoke bail, based on Mr. Shenker’s protected speech on social media . It seems to me that you and the
Northampton PD are aiding Ms. Peller in trying absolutely everything possible to put Mr. Shenker in jail because of his
political speech, which amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of Mr. Shenker's clear First Amendment rights every
time he makes a social media post. Each time you fail and try again, Northampton PD’s future ability to claim absolute or
qualified immunity from a civil rights lawsuit by Mr. Shenker becomes less and less likely.

I am especially surprised that you would propose to do this in light of the very weak nature of the case. I cross-examined
Ms. Peller about the post that forms the basis of this case on Tuesday, and she testified, under oath, that she did not read
what he had written and did not listen to the entire post, and that, presumably, was why she did not understand that he
was threatening only to SUE her and nothing more. She testified that she did not see the screenshot that very clearly says
"LAWYERS ACTIVATED." This screenshot, and in fact the entire transcript of the post is attached to my Motion to
Dismiss.

I expect that you will now review the conditions of release and change your course of action.

Moreover, I cannot be in court on Monday and am leaving for a 10 day vacation on Wednesday.

Sincerely,

Karen Hurvitz

LAW OFFICE OF KAREN D. HURVITZ

HURVITZLAW@COMCAST.NET
(617) 513-3365

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, SUBJECT TO PRIVILEGE AND
EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER LAW. THEY ARE FOR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT ONLY; DELIVERY OF THIS MESSAGE TO
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT DOES NOT WAIVE THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT PLEASE NOTIFY ME AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.