U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 7 of 10: What It’s All About

2015 08 21_3000So let’s look at what is really going on. The state police were never involved in a “hate crime” investigation. There was nothing to investigate on that end. You have to look at how and why the so-called victim came in contact with the state police. He thought there was something wrong with Flaherty offering him money not to testify against Feinberg the 65-year-old guy. Whether he figured he was being set up by Flaherty or there was some other sinister reason for Flaherty’s offer is not known. To protect himself not knowing what was going on he reached out to the state cops.

Then he began working in cooperation with the state police.  Assuming there was a call to the U.S.attorney’s office on the 23rd of December by the state police, a highly unusual procedure, it had to be solely because the state police believed Flaherty was involved in some type of attempt to bribe a witness. Again they were not interested in nor investigating any hate crime. Why if they have no interest do the federal prosecutors?

U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 6 of 10: When The Boston U.S. Attorney Comes In the Door Justice Flies Out the Window

2015 08 21_3000Tim Flaherty whose background I set out in Part 1 of this series is one of the better defense lawyers in the state. He has tried some hard cases and has achieved good success. He is a busy lawyer who has given each client he represented the type of advocacy one deserved. He is ethically sound, has never been in trouble, and an otherwise outstanding member of the Massachusetts Bar.

That is what makes the federal case brought against him by Fred Wyshak and the attorneys in his unit so inexplicable, They are going after a good lawyer, a good guy, a father of a 5-year-old kid and trying to strip him of his livelihood and probably put him in prison over what for all appearances is a nonsense if not fabricated matter. Why, I ask, are they so intent on doing this in such a shabby way.

Shabby? Yes, let me point out the ways.

The case ostensibly arises because two days before Christmas a state cop calls Wyshak’s unit and tells them of the case they are investigating which is one of an attorney [Flaherty] who is trying to buy off a witness. They are not investigating anything to do with the civil rights case.


Woman cryingYes, the politically correct Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has given us another one of those decisions that we have to laugh at because if we didn’t we’d cry thinking that we have entrusted those judges with the power to make the law in this state.

What’s great about the MA SJC is that the judges rarely dissent. They all seem to walk in lockstep bizarre as that seems. Did you ever wonder why? I can only suggest they are cut out of the same cloth. It is a pity that we have no high court judges who view the world from other than those similarly tinted rose-colored glasses.

The latest case making our children less safe is John Doe v. City of Lynn where all seven judges agreed. Now here is what made me laugh to avoid crying. The judge who wrote the opinion, Justice Geraldine S. Hines, stated:Except for the incarceration of persons under the criminal law and the civil commitment of mentally ill or dangerous persons, the days are long since past when whole communities of persons, such Native Americans and Japanese-Americans may be lawfully banished from our midst.”

U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 5 of 10: Making Whitey Bulger’s Day

2015 08 21_3000The commonality between the Whitey Bulger case and the Tim Flaherty case is the presence of Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Fred Wyshak chief of the PCU in the Boston U.S. attorney office. He’s also the prosecutor who was behind the John Connolly case, As far as I can tell he has done nothing but prosecute cases over the last 37 years; he has been a prosecutor in the Boston U.S. Attorney’s office since 1989.

You may recall that Whitey Bulger told the judge who handled his trial that he did not believe he received a fair trial. His trial and appellate attorney Hank Brennan argued that he was deprived of his right to testify because his defense was considered an improbability. No one yelled louder about Whitey’s defense being implausible than Wyshak.

Whitey as best I can make out was planning to offer as a defense that he had immunity from prosecution because of a deal he made with a federal prosecutor. As best I can surmise this federal prosecutor met with Whitey and told him in exchange for something he asked him to do for him he would give Whitey immunity, or, in other words he would make Whitey into a federal agent who cannot be charged with any criminal acts committed by him while acting as an agent.

U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 4 of 10: The Phony Civil Rights Case

2015 08 21_3000The Department of Justice has a guide  about prosecuting hate crimes under 18 U.S. C. sec. 249. It notes it has “three significant subsections.” The first “Subsection (a)(1) criminalizes violent acts (and attempts to commit violent acts undertaken with a dangerous weapon) when those acts occur because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.”; the next: “Subsection (a)(2) criminalizes acts of violence (and attempts to commit violent acts undertaken with a dangerous weapon) when motivated by the actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person”; and the final one relates to the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the U.S. (my emphasis)

The final paragraph reads: “The statute criminalizes only violent acts resulting in bodily injury or attempts to inflict bodily injury, through the use of fire, firearms, explosive and incendiary devices, or other dangerous weapons. The statute does not criminalize threats of violence. Threats to inflict physical injury may be prosecutable under other hate crimes statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 3631 or 18 U.S.C. § 245.”    (my emphasis)

U.S. v. Flaherty – Part 3 of 10: The Wyshak Affidavit Problem

2015 08 21_3000It got curiouser and curiouser sitting in the federal courtroom last Wednesday listening to the request by Tim Flaherty’s counsel, Martin Weinberg, for more discovery. As Weinberg made his argument the magistrate, Donald L. Cabell, questioned him closely about his assertions. Each point made by the magistrate was answered convincingly by Weinberg even to the point when the magistrate raised a point that he suggested rebutted Weinberg’s argument. Weinberg without hesitating pointed out that what the magistrate just suggested completely supported what he had been saying.

If Weinberg presented his position in a clear, concise, calm and compelling manner for twenty-five minutes, the prosecutor, a middle age man in a dark suit with a big dark mustache, spoke for less than five minutes. At the one point during this time Magistrate Cabell raised a question. The prosecutor said to him in reply as if shutting down any further discussion that Mr. Wyshak had filed an affidavit relative to that issue.

United States v. Flaherty. Part 2 of 10: In A Nut Shell

2015 08 21_3000Behind the scenes: It appears that after Attorney Flaherty called the victim in an attempt to settle the suit the victim went to the police. I assume he alleged that Flaherty was trying to bribe him from going forward with the case. He ended up on December 22, 2014, dealing with the state police who were assigned to the unit of state police in the district attorney’s office in Middlesex County. It is common for each district attorney’s office to have a state police unit assigned to it. In my day they were called CPAC units. They were mainly used to investigate homicides, do organize crime and some drug cases, and appropriate other tasks in conjunction with the state prosecutors with whom they work on a daily basis.

After the incident occurred as noted the old man was placed under arrest. He was charged with assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (the victim alleged when he had his wrist he pulled away thus using the car in the assault), impersonating a police officer (the victim said he told him he was a Cambridge cop), assault and battery with intent to intimidate (Massachusetts hate crime statute) and several motor vehicle offenses.