United States v. Flaherty – Part 1 of 10: In A Nut Shell

2015 08 21_3000The best way to understand this case is to identify the players and the incidents which caused Timothy Flaherty to be sitting in the federal district court last Wednesday as a defendant listening to motions being argued. I set it out from the beginning to the present time.

The defendant: Tim Flaherty is around 50 years old, has been practicing law for twenty-five years in the hardest part of the law which is the trial of criminal cases. He started as an assistant district attorney where he worked for several years and then became a defense lawyer. He has a reputation as a clean, well-liked, hard-working, highly effective defense attorney who is not afraid of taking on the most difficult criminal cases. There is no pubic record of discipline against him and it goes without saying he has no criminal record. He is facing one count in federal district court in Boston of interfering with a witness. That charge exposes him to a potential penalty of 20 years in prison.This is the same type of penalty Mafia gangsters face when charged with racketeering.  If convicted he will lose his license to practice law. It is the federal prosecutors intent that his lose what has been his livelihood. Surely, you think, this is a grave matter.

The incident: The alleged victim who has been described as a 28 year-old man in good shape was driving down Massachusetts Avenue. He took a turn onto a side street. Right after him a car being driven by a 65-year-old man who shows that his life had been pretty much dedicated to the avoidance of gyms or exercise tracks turned onto the street behind him. The victim stopped his car, put it into reverse, and was intending to back out onto Massachusetts Avenue to go back the way he had come. With that he backed into the old man’s car. The old man may or may not have beeped his horn.

Keep in mind there are no independent witnesses to what occurs although some of the actions of the two vehicles involved is recorded on video tape. This shows the whole incident lasted around a half a minute. The victim then became the aggressor. He gets out of his vehicle and goes back to confront the old man who is sitting in his car. He goes up to the passenger side, leans in through the open window and words are exchanged between them.

Now here comes the hate crime.

It is not the 28-year-old guy who got out of the car and brought about the incident who will be charged with the hate crime but the old man in the car. The victim said while he was leaning in the car the old guy grabbed his wrist and called him a “f . . . ing Muslim and a terrorist.” Then he drove away holding his wrist. There were no injuries.

Obviously there was no plan by the old guy to do this if he did. He tells a different story of the encounter. It boils down to a “he said the other guy said” type of incident without any lasting consequence.  It involves some words between two strangers and if you believe it a grabbing of the wrist of a 28-year-old man by an old guy. Not the type of encounter that old guys are usually interested in starting.

The immediate aftermath: The police arrive at the scene.

The old guy is no angel so he takes off. He’s got a few open Coors bottles of beer in the car being described as “cool to the touch” which he does not want discovered. He has prior arrests. He’s also has just gotten off probation for a prior incident of having too much to drink and interfering with a flight to Las Vegas. There are one or two other incidents that happened fifteen or more years earlier  involving using a racial epithets.

The Cambridge police give chase. He is quickly stopped and arrested.

He contacts Flaherty. He hires him as his attorney. He wants to see if the case can be settled prior to trial. Flaherty calls the victim to see if he is willing to enter into what is called “an accord and satisfaction.”

That is a common procedure used in Massachusetts where a victim of an assault can receive some compensation in exchange for not going forward with the case. Flaherty had a couple of conversations with the victim. The victim agreed to settle the case for $2,500. The day before last Christmas Flaherty met with the victim and gave him the money. The victim was asked to sign the accord and satisfaction. He refused. Flaherty had no concern since he would tell the court at some point of their discussions and ask to have the case dismissed.

How then does the case end up in federal court? I explain tomorrow.

 

5 thoughts on “United States v. Flaherty – Part 1 of 10: In A Nut Shell

  1. Matt:

    I am not an attorney and do not know anything about this case.

    However, based on my direct knowledge regarding some of the unlawful conduct out of the Boston United States Attorney’s office, my answer to this and all of your future columns on Flaherty regarding possible prosecutorial misconduct, legal manipulations, legal discretion and unethical and unlawful retaliatory conduct is as follows:

    During my employment as a federal government complaints and investigations specialist, in a Title VII, non-selection case assigned to me, the complainant was unlawfully retaliated against, framed and fired for a violation she did not commit. I know because the overwhelming evidence along with her supervisor’s admission to me that she did not commit the violation was enough for me not to join in to harm a defenseless, sickly elderly woman who needed her job.

    During the processing of her complaint, certain chain-of-command members actually took great pleasure in tormenting this innocent person because she would call me and report the harassment actions against her, as they occurred. In turn, I would contact management and ask that the harassment stop. My calls were met with denials and in one case, laughter.

    When I presented that evidence to the ethics attorney and asked that the agency not waste money on proceeding to harm an innocent person, his response, “I tried being an ethics attorney with Navy. I had to leave.” Although it was his lawful obligation to stop the retaliatory frame up, he would not officially intervene.

    Despite repeated requests to the deputy chief counsel, he took the same position.

    During a bus ride (I think it was a swearing in ceremony?), I had the opportunity to sit next to the chief counsel, and made an attempt to persuade him to intervene. He just smiled. I then asked, how he could stand by knowing that this person was innocent? His response: “We, (the Legal Directorate) can do anything we want. It’s called gaming. We can deny, we can delay…dismiss. We can manipulate the system any way we want.”

    Did I have any idea of what “gaming” was? Of course not. I thought the chief counsel was insane to put his job and law license on the line.

    Did I know or believe, at that time, that the U.S. Attorney’s office and the federal court would go along with the retaliatory frame up? Of course not.

    Did I know then that concealing exculpatory evidence was a tactic that is “legally” permissible if all parties went along with a frame up? Of course not.

    Did I know or believe that a federal judge or any judge would participate in a frame up by ignoring a string of conduct that was illegal? Of course not.

    Did I know then that her case would never see a jury trial and a forced settlement, with that old standard tactic of “no admission of wrongdoing” was the order of the day, to be used over and over again in various complaints, especially promotion fixing? Of course not.

    My opposition to her heinous and violent frame up and other criminal activity, of which I conscientiously and lawfully refused to participate, and reported, was met with retaliatory and severe consequences.

    So began the same treatment toward me. Unfortunately, according to the statistics and the “process”, there really are no attorneys with the courage to take on such a case and see it through to a trial.

    Based on my direct knowledge, real justice in America is “Dead On Arrival.” There is no such thing as “equal justice under the law” or full application of the “rule of law.”

    We are no longer a government “of, by and for the people.” It is now, “of, by and for the government.”

    Based on my direct knowledge, selective prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct is allowed by every level of the judiciary, under the “right” circumstances.

    Unless the top law enforcement official speaks out about such matters, I would guess that Flaherty is in for big trouble.

    To the lawyers standing by in silence, this could also happen to you. Silence is not the answer.

    Requests for clarification are welcome.

    dougkinan@yahoo.com
    Sworn & Commissioned Officer, Massachusetts Trial Court (Retired)
    Member, Board of Directors, Boston State Hospital Project
    Community & Good Government Advocate

  2. Elbows Wychulis will file a Amicus Curse on behalf of Flaherty.
    Note the revised agenda for Wednesday night tele conference
    Starts at 8 pm

    Revised Draft Agenda for 8/26/15 Teleconference

    8pm (ET)/5pm (PT) Teleconference # 1-218-895-6835 Access code: 9112001#

    Greetings all,

    I’m excited to report that thanks to a last-minute effort by Larry Zanino we’ll be joined on our teleconference this Wednesday evening by attorney John Remington (Jack) Graham, who will give us a brief overview of and update on the “Boston Bombing” legal case in which he is acting as counsel, assisting Maret Tsarnaeva, Russian aunt of the accused, in showing that the FBI’s own evidence, concealed by the court, counsel for both sides and the major media, shows decisively that the accused is not guilty! Most in the Truth community have come to regard that Boston event as a false flag operation, and even those who haven’t recognize the miscarriage of justice represented by the prosecution of this case thus far. After Jack’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions (which many of us are likely to have, as mainstream media reporting of this trial has been skewed and spotty, to say the least!). Jack Graham, of course, is no stranger to the 9/11 truth movement — he provided invaluable assistance to AE911Truth’s earlier appeal to the Manhattan D.A. to launch a grand jury investigation of 9/11. We hope you’ll join us to help welcome our distinguished guest!

    And speaking of false flag operations, we are Charlie Hebdo — NOT! says Kevin Barrett, fresh off his book tour for his latest tome We are Not Charlie Hebdo. Kevin will join us Wednesday night to offer an overview of the Hebdo operation, helping to expand our awareness of the ubiquity of Deep State operations in current events. Why does the book cover pictured at right read “banned in Canada?” Presumably he’ll explain that too!

    In other news

    Boing Boing
    FBi kept files on Ray Bradbury: “Definitely slanted against the United States”

    By Cory Doctorow at 6:16 am Mon, Aug 24, 2015

    https://boingboing.net/2015/08/24/fbi-kept-files-on-ray-bradbury.html

    Michael from Muckrock writes, “The FBI followed Ray Bradbury’s career very closely, in part because an informant warned them that his writing was not enjoyable fantasy, but rather tantamount to psychological warfare.”

    “The general aim of these science fiction writers is to frighten the people into a state of paralysis or psychological incompetence

  3. This just in from whisper stream

    Florida court rejects John Connolly’s pleas
    Boston Herald-16 hours ago
    A copy of a motion for rehearing on his 2008 murder conviction written by former FBI agent John Connolly from prison to Judge Richard J. Suarez.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *