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.

The state police took the case believing that Flaherty was doing something wrong in offering the settlement. (It is not known if they knew of the law about accord and satisfaction.) They assumed Flaherty was trying to bribe or intimidate the victim. They were not investigating anything to do with the “hate crime” incident.

They worked with the victim over the next two days having him call Flaherty about the payment Flaherty offered to make. It is not known whether these calls were recorded or not. The meeting took place as mentioned.

Here’s how it becomes a federal investigation,

The federal investigation:

 An affidavit in the matter was filed by Fred M. Wyshak, Jr., in which he says:

“I am currently the Chief of the Public Corruption and Special Prosecutions Unit (“PCU”) . . .  and have acted in that capacity since approximately January 2014. . . . this unit investigates and prosecutes . . . violations of a private citizen’s civil rights.

  1. On December 23, 2014, PCU received information regarding a civil rights and witness tampering case involving an individual named Ralph Feinberg . . . , and Tim Flaherty, who was attempting to pay off the victim to drop the state case against Feinberg. This matter was accepted for investigation at that time for potential violations of any federal civil rights or witness tampering laws.
  2. [T]he . . . case management system indicates that an investigation of Feinberg and Flaherty was officially opened on December 24, 2014.”

It is stated in a prosecutor filing that “On the afternoon of December 23, 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts (“USAO”) was contacted by Sgt. Paul Bulman of the Massachusetts Sate Police (“State Police”) and notified of a civil rights case that was pending in Middlesex County”

You my wonder why the state police assigned to a state prosecutor’s office would go outside that office and contact federal prosecutors rather than dealing with the prosecutors who they work with on a daily basis. I will discuss that later. You may also wonder why the federal prosecutors without any input from the state prosecutors who were handling the case or any input from its own investigators in the FBI would decide to commence a duplicate civil rights case with one already pending in state court. I will also discuss that later.

In part 1 and 2 have given you what appears to be the background of the case. Based on my experience there are some things that deserves to be looked at closer. They are things that happened that are way out of line with what I would expect. I will begin by telling of my experience in court listening to the hearing on the motions for discovery.

6 thoughts on “United States v. Flaherty. Part 2 of 10: In A Nut Shell

  1. Last call for news service….

    We brought Darruba Bin Wahad to speak at Bates College
    on two different occasions.

    We also brought his friend filmmaker
    Roz Payne. See. http://www.newsreel.us


    Also see

    Eyewitness to beating of Dhoruba bin Wahad says mutual combat not attack

    August 25, 2015
    Atlanta activist Scapegoat Jones provides eyewitness details of the attack on Dhoruba bin Wahad by the New Black Panther Party
    Scapegoat Jones
    Atlanta black activist Scapegoat Jones has provided new eyewitness details on the beating of COINTELPRO warrior Dhoruba bin Wahad by members of the New Black Panther Party. Jones claims Dhoruba called Malik Zulu Shabazz a “nigger” when he challenged Shabazz at the stage where Shabazz was speaking.. Jones released a video statement on Aug. 23 with his account of the recent Power Belongs to the People Conference.

    Scapegoat Jones
    Dhoruba served nineteen years in prison before his release after he obtained COINTELPRO documents that show the Federal Bureau of Investigation withheld exculpatory evidence. Dhoruba was convicted for the 1971 attempted murder of two New York policemen in a drive-by shooting. After his release from prison, Dhrouba sued the FBI and won $400,000 for the clandestine action against him.

    Operation COINTELPRO was an illegal counterintelligence program from 1956 to 1971, conducted by the FBI against domestic political activists. The Black Panthers were the subject of the most lethal ferocity of the program with leaders targeted for harm or imprisonment by FBI agents.

    According to Jones, who witnessed the Atlanta “brawl” at the stage from his seat in the audience on Aug. 8, Dhoruba and half a dozen men stormed into the conference in progress and took up a defensive posture at the side of the stage. Rather than waiting for the question and answer session, Dhoruba verbally challenged Shabazz. Jones said after Shabazz ordered his group to expel Dhoruba things got “crazy” and a fight broke out. Jones claims that one member of Dhoruba’s group pulled out a baton and began hitting New Black Panthers. By then chairs were in the air and Dhrouba’s group retreated leaving Dhrouba unconscious and with his jaw broken in three places.

    Jones called the entire epidsode embarrassing. Jones said that Drouba came with disrespect and was treated with disrespect. Jones also said that Dhoruba was behind a plan called “Operation Shutdown” and seemed determined to disrupt the New Black Panthers.

    Dhoruba, who required six hours of surgery to repair his jaw, maintains he and his group were attacked and only tried to defend themselves from the New Black Panthers. Dhoruba claims Shabazz and his followers are a hate group, heavily infiltrated by the FBI, and a modern-day COINTELPRO to divide the black power movement.

    The hotel ballroom beating

    1. MS:

      COINTELPRO did not begin in 1956 nor end in 1971 – perhaps there is some paperwork to pretend that is the case – there were operations similar to COININTELPRO back in 1919 when J.Edgar, even before he became director of the Bureau of Investigation was using black agents and informants to spread dissent among the black press. Why would it change after 1971 rather than going deep underground. Remember after the Whitey/Flemmi embarrassment the FBI was supposedly not going to use those types anymore; then we discover that it is still doing it but we are not supposed to know it.

    2. In my view, there should be no statute of limitations on concealing exculpatory evidence to wrongly convict a suspect who would have been found to be not guilty if the evidence surfaced, as required, at the appropriate time.


      1. Doug:

        There is no statute of limitations on it. The only bar is that it must be brought before the court within a certain time of its discovery. Then you get into the issue of when it should be discovered. Then it becomes up to a judge to decide what that point is. Even if you get by that you get the situation where in the Connolly case where Salemme lied to critical matters the appeal judges said they were not critical. So even without a statute the courts can help those it likes and punish those it dislikes.

  2. Your sentence… You my wonder. Needs fixing.

    Flaherty might want to file a FOIA request with the FBI and Mass State Stasi
    and see what files they kept on him prior to this indictment

    In other news

    AUGUST 25, 2015
    It is Time We Discussed Abolishing the Police

    See link for full perm and wash


    “If I was an anarchist or even a regular protester,” explained the president of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild Ron Smith, “I would probably not want to be infiltrated by the police… Just like the dope dealer on Third and Pike doesn’t want to get busted. That’s the price of doing business. It’s the whole package.” This startling bit of honesty from the Seattle police regarding their imperative to infiltrate and spy on social justice protests came as Ansel Herz, a reporter for the local newspaper The Stranger, questioned Smith regarding undercover cops at a Black Lives Matter protest last December.

    For those involved in Left protest movements this is hardly news. I remember my early days in the antiwar movement at Texas Tech University. During the first rallies protesting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 local police with their crew-cuts, wraparound shades, and shirts tucked into Wrangler jeans would “blend effortlessly” into the crowd of college students. Campus police even intruded into a graduate student’s office—much to his surprise—in order to peruse our flyers and posters that were stored there. A year later an investigation by Salon revealed that police had infiltrated antiwar groups in Boulder, Fresno, Grand Rapids, and Albuquerque. A federal prosecutor even demanded Drake University turn over all of its records regarding an antiwar conference held there by the National Lawyers Guild.

    Ahead of the Republican National Convention in 2008 Minnesota police in conjunction with the FBI raided the homes of antiwar activists “seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets” according to reports. One of the many police officers who infiltrated antiwar groups prior to the convention would later brag of how protesters “were herded like sheep at the hands of the riot cops.” Ultimately he determined that the “strategy, tactic, and deployments were well planned and extremely effective in controlling [protesters].”

    Detective Wojciech Braszczok was one of many undercover cops infiltrating the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York, a fact that came to light after his unrelated arrest following the release of a video of him violently assaulting a motorist. Braszczok’s participation in the movement went beyond monitoring protests as he insinuated himself deep into the personal lives of Occupy members even attending birthday parties—all the while collecting “intelligence” for the NYPD. Other undercovers in the Occupy movement worked as agent provocateurs “being paid to go to these protests and put us in situations where we’d be arrested and not be able to leave” as Occupy member

Comments are closed.