Mayor Marty Walsh’s Lack of Sleep: The Fourth Shoe

There’s the story of Sid Gold who lived in the first floor of a three-decker who’d stay up to watch the 11:00 p.m nightly news and the first half hour or so of Johnny Carson. The husband and wife in the apartment above him worked the 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.  shift and he would hear them arrive home as he watched Johnny and listen as they tramped their way to their abode above him.  He’d go to bed a little after midnight but never could go to sleep until his upstairs neighbors were in bed. They had a nasty habit of taking off their heavy work shoes and dropping them on the floor making a loud thud which if he had fallen asleep would wake him and then he’d be up for all hours. He’d wait and then would come, thud, and a thud, and a thud, and the final fourth thud. He would then fall off into a deep slumber unafraid of being woken until the alarm went off.

Now poor Mayor Marty is caught up in Sid’s situation. He will not be able to rest until he’s heard the fourth thud. The first one was the editorial talking about the officious words in the Teamster Local 25 indictment raising the sham problem of someone calling the two restaurants advising them they may be subject to Teamster Local 25 picketing; the second thud was the news stories making much ado about it. I noted we only heard two and were waiting for the third which would be an article about it by a columnist and the fourth an indictment by Boston U.S. attorney Carmen Ortiz whose minions, to use words from the Local 25 indictment, walk in “lock step” with the Globe.

Sure enough the much maligned Globe columnist Shirely Leujng dropped the third boot on Wednesday.  It is a must read in learning how to make something out of nothing.

Shirley agrees with me that: “Neither the demonstration nor the act of tipping off the businesses is illegal . . . .”

Yet she goes on to tell us that because the Boston U.S. attorney Carmen Ortiz put it in the indictment it must mean something. (It means something because we’ve seen in the past  Ortiz and the Globe working in tandem with the one-two-three-four step.)

Shirley implicates Marty who “wouldn’t get on the phone with me” and notes “his actions are saying a lot, as City Hall has lawyered up.”  She says the message Marty is sending is that he: “understands these are serious allegations.”  She notes: “Mayor Tom Menino was in office for two decades . . . [and he] was never implicated in any wrongdoing.” She implies that Marty has been when she has already conceded nothing that has been alleged is wrong. You see her slippery writing telling us he did nothing wrong but then suggesting he did.

She then tells us it is not good that Marty’s administration “is popping up in a federal case” — which is really a stretch but goes on to say she has “no inside information . . . where Ortiz’s investigation is heading.”  Does she know of an investigation? Apparently because she tells us: “The feds are looking over [Marty’s] shoulder”  She says business leaders, investors, and “potential challengers are watching and waiting to see where this investigation goes.” 

Remember there has been nothing illegal that has been done. You then have to ask why would there be any investigation? Seriously, think of that. The Boston U.S. Attorney Ortiz is investigating a legal act. Or is she merely following her office’s tradition that: “where there is no crime sow one.”

As you know Marty hired a former federal prosecutor named Kelly to look into the matter. I said that was a big mistake. I will explain tomorrow how Leung’s article makes that clear to me. Patty who from time to time posts salient comments here disagrees.  He said Marty was smart to do it.

He noted, as I have, that this has all the feeling of a four thud performance by the Globe and Ortiz who was its Bostonian of the Year. He suggests the only way to stop the fourth thud which is the indictment is to hire one of the federal prosecutors who used to be the head of one of Ortiz’s units who can talk to his friends in the office and who normally are able to get good results.  Maybe Patty is right that Kelly’s influence will stop Ortiz from bringing an indictment against a person who has not committed any crime.

Patty proceeds on the assumption that in Ortiz’s office no matter how innocent you are they can always come up with some crime to charge you with. Am I the only one who finds it odd that if you have not committed a crime you still need to hire a connected lawyer to keep yourself from being indicted? It’s a strange world us Bostonians live in where our rights are trampled on and the media is silent.

We have heard the third shoe drop. We’re told an investigation is ongoing. It’ll be a long time before Marty gets a good night sleep because he also has seen this act unfold before.