Friday, November 19, 2010

Monteiro Brief at the Appeals Court

Bob reports.

I just checked the docket again.

The does not show a filing yet of the Monteiro appellate brief. It was due 11/16/10. There is a notation at the bottom of the page, “As of 11/18/2010 02:02."

I anticipate that the brief has been filed and is in processing. This is a large document. This delay in posting, however, makes me feel better with regard to my prior reports of documents being filed. I had wondered how I had missed various postings for several days. A paper filed by Cambridge on 11/16/10 is posted, but I anticipate the brief simply is being processed, and the brief would be a lot larger than the Cambridge paper.

Walsh and the Cambridge City Council, last post?

1. Introduction.
2. Letter completing op ed, etc.

1. Introduction.

On October 21, 2010, I posted a proposed Cambridge Chronicle on this blog at Included in that posting was a link to an on line posting by the Chronicle.

Oddly, the following week, the op ed was partially printed by the Chronicle (and the omission reported here). It was cut because of lack of space.

The following week, a nasty anonymous response was printed by the Chronicle.

Yesterday, November 18, the Chronicle printed almost all of the following on page 15, the op ed page.

The beginning responds to Anonymous. The end attempts to summarize. The final word was not printed, although there did seem to be room for it.

2. Letter completing op ed, etc.

Cambridge Chronicle

I have provided you the Walsh appeal decision which confirms facts quoted by you in my op ed.

An anonymous writer seems to think there is some sort of great ethics involved in the Walsh Law Firm having a bunch of employees who were convicted of crime and who kept out of actually being jailed by testifying against their boss. Anonymous has interesting ethics.

The following final third was omitted by you from the op ed you printed over my name:

“Walsh had his right to take his full appeals on matters which had nothing to do with Cambridge city government.

“In the Monteiro case, the City Council is implementing Walsh’s private mentality in the public sphere. Walsh played games with mortgages in a corrupt system in which a wink and a nod were part of the culture. Walsh was never as venal as the finding of the Monteiro judge against the Cambridge City Manager.

“The Malvina Monteiro matter shows the reason why state ethics laws which require the expulsion from office without pension for criminal venality in office should be expanded by the judge with city council initiative to the situation where the Cambridge City Manager has been found, in office, to have destroyed the life of a black, Cape Verdian city employee because she exercised her rights under civil rights law.

“The Monteiro case is not a matter when the Cambridge City Council is sitting back and watching while a miscreant defends himself for outside behavior. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is spending millions defending the miscreant in spite of a brilliant and persuasive opinion by the judge in the case. The Monteiro case is a matter in which the Cambridge City Council is failing to exercise its duty to protect our employees and our government from behavior which a persuasive judicial opinion has called ‘reprehensible.’

“So I praise Bill Walsh for his commendable public service to the City of Cambridge.

“I condemn the current Cambridge City Council which continues in office a city manager persuasively demonstrated as ‘reprehensible’ by judge and jury for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro.”

My op ed was an integrated whole.

I have very strong knowledge of Walsh’s personal problems.

In spite of that knowledge, I have greater respect for Walsh as a public servant than I do for the current city council. Period.