Bob La Trémouille reports.
2. Detailed communication.
Not surprisingly, my op ed concerning William Walsh has received an anonymous response which got printed and which impugns my integrity.
You will recall that a significant part of the op ed was omitted. I attempted to at least get my final praise for Walsh printed. There have been no elaborations in response to my request.
2. Detailed communication.
I have just, on November 11, 2010, sent the following to the Editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.
In the Chronicle of November 11, 2010, you published an unsigned statement calling me a liar and stating that nobody in William Walsh’s office other than Walsh was convicted of crimes in association with Walsh’s jailing.
This anonymous statement very clearly communicated that there were no ethical problems in the Walsh Law Office other than with Walsh. My recollection is that there were at least two other convictions, both lawyers. I in now way ascribed the deficiencies of these people to every member of the Walsh law office at the time.
The following is taken from a judicial opinion concerning Walsh. I am providing documentation of one conviction because that is adequate to refute the claim of no convictions and no other ethical problems.
I am directly copying and pasting. I have omitted irrelevant procedural words in the beginning of the opinion and the opinion before paragraph 34 and after paragraph 37.
Please note that Schwartz is described as a senior attorney in the Walsh office, one of several codefendants with Walsh, who pleaded guilty and testified against Walsh. According to the judge’s findings, another co-defendant who plead guilty testified as to directions from Walsh which rather clearly describes directions to members of his office.
United States of America, Appellee, v. William H. Walsh, Defendant, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 75 F.3d 1
Heard Oct. 3, 1995.Decided Jan. 23, 1996
Opinion of BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.
Walsh's brief raises two further issues, both unrelated to juror X. The first claim relates to the government's admitted failure to turn over certain documents in a timely fashion. The documents related to Frances Schwartz, a senior attorney working for Walsh who was assigned to the three development projects involved in this case. Schwartz was indicted with Walsh and was one of the co-defendants who pled guilty to the conspiracy count and testified against Walsh at trial.
On direct examination, Schwartz gave damaging testimony against Walsh. In addition to identifying a number of documents and describing the operations of Walsh's office, Schwartz testified to discussions and correspondence with Walsh that--as recounted and interpreted by Schwartz--confirmed Walsh's knowing participation in and direction of the fraud. Schwartz' testimony was thus quite damaging, although another co-defendant who pled guilty also testified that Walsh knowingly directed the concealment of the secondary financing.
Early in her cross-examination, Schwartz mentioned that she had "daytimers" or calendars that she had used to refresh her recollection. Later, on re-cross, she mentioned that she had allowed the government to review the daytimers and make copies of them. The defense immediately objected that it had never received the daytimers. The government said that these daytimers should have been disclosed earlier but had been overlooked when other materials from Schwartz had been made available to Walsh's counsel. Copies of the daytimers were provided to the defendant later that day.
Following a timely motion by Walsh to dismiss the case because of this delay, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Walsh's strategy would not have been substantially different if the daytimers had been disclosed earlier. The court instructed the jury that the government had failed in its discovery obligation, and it allowed Walsh to recall Schwartz to continue her examination, using the daytimers to try to establish inconsistencies between Schwartz' prior testimony and the daytimers. Walsh now complains that this was inadequate.
Now, please, you omitted the end of my OpEd, which very strongly watered down my problems with Walsh and said that, as a member of the Cambridge government, I commend Walsh and condemn the current incumbents. As a public person, Walsh’s ethics were impeccable.
My position is that I am deeply familiar with the shortcomings of William Walsh in his private life, but as far as public life goes, I prefer Walsh by a wide margin to the current city council.
Would you please correct your omission in some manner.
I sent the following not long later as a second communication.
The quote I just gave you came from: http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/75/1/475186/.