Fired High School Coach Sues Massachusetts School In Free Speech Lawsuit

There have been a variety of reported conflicts in school districts over curriculum changes and materials addressing racism, including the recent controversy in New York where white families were asked to chose between such “white identities” as “white supremacist” and “white traitor.” Such controversies make for poor lawsuits since they reflect policy, curricula, or programmatic choices of a given district. It becomes a legal matter when a district punishes parents for objecting to such material. That is part of the allegations raised in a recently filed lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch. It is representing fired high school football coach Dave Flynn who alleges that he was terminated by the Dedham High School after raising objections as a parent over the course material in his daughter’s World Geography and Ancient History class. While I have not seen the school’s answer, the lawsuit highlights troubling allegations over how the district handled the matter and allegedly retaliated against Flynn.

By all accounts, Flynn was a popular coach who reportedly turned around a losing football program and had good relations with the students. (There were protests after he was fired). He is also a parent with two daughters at the school and became concerned after reviewing the material for the course. Here is what the complaint states:

20. During the first week of school, Plaintiff and his wife observed that the instruction their daughter was receiving in “World Geography and Ancient History I” was unrelated to the ancient history and world geography subjects described on the Dedham Public Schools website. Instead, the instruction concerned issues of race, gender, stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, and politics, among others. In one assignment, Plaintiff’s daughter was asked to consider various “risk factors” and “mitigating factors” that two people identified as “white” and the other identified as “black” – purportedly might use to assess each other on a city street. Included among the various factors were skin color, gender, age, physical appearance, and attire. “Black,” “aggressive body language” and “wrong neighborhood” were among the “risk factors” purportedly assessed by the person identified as “white.” “White” and “Police officer” were among the “risk factors” purportedly assessed by the person identified as “black.”

21. Plaintiff and his wife also observed that the instruction materials included a cartoon version of their daughter’s teacher -a “Memoji” – wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt, which Plaintiff and his wife reasonably interpreted as the teacher expressing support for the Black Lives Matter movement during class time.

Flynn states that he raised his concerns with the school and was later fired. The school sent out a note to families with children in the football program on January 20th that stated “We met with Mr. Flynn today because he has expressed significant philosophical differences with the direction, goals and values of this school district” and, as a result, it decided that there was a need for “different leadership for the program at this time.”

However, Flynn says that he objected to the material as a parent and that his record shows no animus or discrimination or obstruction to school policies. Indeed, he was thinking of pulling his children from the school and ultimately did so. The lawsuit highlights the role of the Superintendent Michael Welch. Ironically, when Welch became the Superintendent he stated that attracting people to teaching was a priority. Flynn made such a choice and met with Welch to voice his concerns about the content of a class impacting his children. Again, this is from the complaint:

26. On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff and his wife met with Superintendent Welch, at Superintendent Welch’s invitation, to discuss the concerns raised in the October 14, 2020 email.

27. After the meeting, Plaintiff and his wife still did not feel that their concerns were adequately addressed, and, on October 23, 2020, Plaintiff sent an email to Dedham School Committee Vice-Chairperson White and committee members Bilafer and Briggs, the same three school committee members to whom he had forwarded the October 14, 2020 email. The email summarized Plaintiffs concerns and Superintendent Welch’s response. Plaintiff concluded by stating: The Superintendent has had the opportunity to make sure the Dedham teachers conduct themselves as professionals and to teach the courses objectively and without biased opinions. He chose not to. I believe that the real men and women in the world are the ones who have the ability to compromise, especially in extremely controversial situations. Compromise allows people to experience life as a team. This is where unity brings individual pride together and relationships begin to strengthen. I believe all relationships are based on compromise. The Superintendent was not willing to compromise. I explained to him that if the teacher teaches the course objectively and removes the BLM logo from the class, people will soon get over the fact that the class was purposely created without notifying parents and without having a visible course curriculum, syllabus and learning objective. Apparently, it does not mean much to him that the Dedham Public School System is losing two wonderful students.

28. Plaintiff also forwarded his October 23, 2020 email to approximately twenty other concerned parents. On information and belief, Vice-Chairperson White and committee members Bilafer and Briggs knew other parents had received Plaintiffs email. 29. On October 30, 2020, Plaintiff and his wife removed their children from Dedham Public Schools. At that time, they believed the issue was behind them.

It was not “behind them” obviously. Flynn was then fired.

We have to see the other side to this controversy from the school district but on its face it raises troubling questions on both the judgment of the school district as well as its respect for free speech.  The complaint advances to claims based on retaliation for exercising the right to protected petitions and protected speech. This will be an interesting lawsuit to watch.

260 thoughts on “Fired High School Coach Sues Massachusetts School In Free Speech Lawsuit”

  1. Firing people who have the audacity to voice a contrasting opinion is what progressive scum bags like “Fish Turds,” “Elvis Is In the Building” and “Commit To Manipulating Dishonesty” call “inclusiveness.”

    1. It is so obvious that the coach was fired, not because of anything to do with football, but rather he and his wife saw no correlation between what the course was supposed to be teaching, as opposed to it being biased and teaching nothing related to World Geography or Ancient History! BLM has nothing to do with either subject.

  2. Well, his best case is reverse racism and discrimination against his daughter based on her race thereby creating a hostile learning environment for his child. He needs a jury here and a big ad damnum. You defeat corruption by publicly exposing it, not by griping about it. Kudos, Coach.

    1. I agree with your position on this. However, your referring to it as “reverse discrimination” makes it sound as it is different than “discrimination.” There are those that would use that to strengthen their own agenda.

      Bottom line, discrimination is discrimination. I had to make my case with a very high level official many years ago during a diversity/cultural awareness session in DC. I asked a question regarding the emphasis and celebration of every ethnic demographic except white males. The official seemed to get excited at the opportunity to point out my lack of understanding (never mind the fact that my heritage includes 21 different countries from Russia to the Middle East, Western Africa, Western Europe, Cuba, South America…you get the idea). I didn’t tell her that but she made two comments that made my point. First, she said “Well every day is white mans day.” Her second, she asked me, “So what you are saying is that this is reverse discrimination?” In this large forum is simply said, “No. Discrimination is discrimination.” I then went on to explain that her whole platform implied that because you believe white people are the oppressors, you now have to make it a point to celebrate every other demographic, except the white male. In essence you are fostering and even spreading discrimination, whether it actually exists or not. The vast majority of the audience concurred with my assessment and she was left without ammunition to argue.

      Sorry for the diatribe. I’m just overwhelmingly disappointed that a few have convinced many that there is systemic racism, when in reality it is intended to divide and give power to the very people who are the worst offenders.

    2. “Reverse racism” is a supremely racist term because it falsely and absurdly presumes that racism is something typically done by whites.

  3. Sal said: “Meanwhile Silverman, you will surely continue to needle our host rudely.”

    First, I don’t flatter myself to think Turley wastes his time reading the comments to his blog. I will continue to point out to unsuspecting newcomers that which they may not know, that is, Turley is prejudiced in favor of Fox News (I venture to guess that he earns more money from News Corp as a contributor than as a professor at GW Law School).

    Second, the fact that he does not post for all to see that he is an employee of Fox News is deceptive since his readers will not be able to contextualize his commentary. His blog readers should know that he is an advocate for Fox News, and not what they would otherwise have a right to be expect from this blog, namely, objective and impartial legal analysis.

    Third, it is manifestly hypocritical not to hold Fox News opinion hosts to the same standard of honesty and civility that Turley demands of MSNBC and CNN. He lacks moral standing to point his finger at anyone until he criticizes the opinion hosts of Fox News for their far worse conduct. He does not even criticize the lies told by NewsMax and OAN! Rather, all his indignation and criticism is conveniently directed at Fox’s cable competitors.

    I agree that revealing the truth can be rude to those who wish to conceal it.

    1. “……it is manifestly hypocritical not to hold Fox News opinion hosts to the same standard of honesty and civility that Turley demands of MSNBC and CNN. He lacks moral standing to point his finger at anyone until he criticizes the opinion hosts of Fox News for their far worse conduct…..”

      +10 Jeffery

      1. Jeffery is a troll if you ask me, AnonJF. Sets around on conservative sites and pontificates about how bad Fox News is and Professor Turley when it seems obvious he just doesn’t agree with them. You must be in the same boat with that rousing +10. Maybe you should ask him what the “far worse” really is. Do they tell people to go out and get in leftists faces at restaurants and gas stations, make their lives miserable. Did they just end a bunch of American jobs or what pray tell could they possibly have done worse then rigging an election? I mean “c’mon man”. What could be worse than a communist coup which is underway as we speak? Obviously you guys don’t know much about living with communism I’ll bet.

      1. I doubt it. Does that make a difference in a supposedly fair analysis of whatever he accuses them of?

        1. Yes.

          It’s an easy way to smear someone as partisan. And, it keeps them from having to hear either a non-partisan person or, worse, hearing someone from their own “team” criticize what their doing.

          1. Prairie. 2+2=4. If you think Turley only writes critical columns on CNN and MSNBC several times a week and none ever on Fox News – on which he appears and with one of their more incendiary hosts and is therefore a willing participant – because his objective analysis of of their programming content and style leads him there, you’re not nearly as smart as I thought you were. Surely you don;t mean that.

            1. AnonJF,
              “If you think Turley only writes critical columns on CNN and MSNBC several times a week and none ever on Fox News”

              You’re right, that’s not what I think.

        1. I don’t have a TV, so I have no idea. Glad to hear he is invited on to multiple media outlets.

    2. What lies? How about specifics? I’m so tired of liberals claiming “lies” without actual backup!

      1. You beat me to it. It’s guilt by association. It’s an intellectually lazy means of attempting to discredit JT, when his legal analysis remains anchored in the law. They fail to recognize it is their arguments that are flawed, not his.

    3. Silverman says: “Second, the fact that he does not post for all to see that he is an employee of Fox News is deceptive since his readers will not be able to contextualize his commentary.”

      This is your reason for him to say it. He need not say it. It is his blog. You are free to say it as you often do. I suppose it may be true. I could care less as could most other people. It is you who obsesses over Fox news, a characteristic fixation of some people.

      As for “contextualizing” that is something the likes of YOU do, not the average reader. The average reader is not immersed in such postmodernist fancies.

      Martin Heidegger suggested that dasein, existence if you will, includes both concealment, and “un-concealment” by which he liked to use the term “Alethia,” a Greek word which also translates as truth. My what a debt the language of postmodernists owes to the eminent professor. (Martin H.). Are you a student of his work? I am

      Sal Sar

    4. It doesn’t matter who his employer is.The fact remains they weren’t teaching history,they were teaching race theory and doing so makes for an hostile environment for his daughters.By the stupid crap you wrote you probably are one of the teachers at Dedham Racist High School are you ablack gay transgender mad because no one understand that you can’t figure out what you are!

    5. Mr. Silberman,
      You are off topic. How would you respond to the coach’s situation if your children were supposed to be taught Geography and World History but were receiving a single-sided opinion on a program apparently unrelated to the classes offered. If you were a commentator for CNN and you thought Mr. Limbaugh did a good job representing his point of view, would your boss keep you on?

    6. Silberman, your comment is idiotic and malignant. Where’s your contextualization of YOUR comment? Do you know how insultingly stupid your failure to provide that context is? Of course, you do.

      Do you know what logic is? Do you know what the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem is? Presumably, you do, yet that’s the stupid basis of your stupid comment.

    7. This is absurd. First, I doubt he makes more money from Fox. Second, he is a liberal Democrat who did not vote for Trump either time. That makes Mr. Turley more credible than most lawyers on cable bc he is able to separate his personal and professional politics. Then again, there is always Toobin (CNN or MSNBC, can’t remember which). What a peach.

    8. Can you stay on topic, please ? Your personal contempt for Fox News, NewsMax, OAN, and Turley, and purported un-named “opinion hosts” and their ” lies” have nothing to do with the news story about the terminated Dedham, MA, H.S. coach’s right to question or criticize his daughter’s cirruliculum; or the grounds for an unlawful termination suit against the school system.

  4. When my kids were home from school we always took advantage as a family to be together.

    I guess some jerks on this blog would rather abuse their children in a vanity play to show how great they are.

    “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) responded to allegations that he flew to Cancun, Mexico, in the midst of record cold temperatures and snowfall in Texas—which has been besieged by power outages over the past several days.

    Cruz appeared to confirm that he went to Cancun, saying that

    “with school canceled for the week,

    our girls asked to take a trip with friends. Wanting to be a good dad, I flew down with them last night and am flying back this afternoon.”

    1. Heidi Cruz was already with the kids. It was inappropriate for Ted Cruz to go with them when the people of his state were dealing with an emergency affecting millions. He was originally planning to stay til Saturday, when his return flight was booked for. He changed it and flew back today because of the criticism. The Heidi Cruz text messages to neighbors that were shared with the New York Times also indicate that Ted Cruz may be fibbing about the family going because their daughters asked. They also left their dog in a freezing house instead of arranging for its care.

      He’d do more for his kids by teaching them to help their neighbors in need and to properly care for their dog.

      1. I don’t know who you are or where you get your information from. All too frequently information of this nature is being spun and people are happy to use such information to push their view forward whether their information is correct or not.

        That is the modus operandi of Anonymous the Stupid and for all I know you can be pretending not to be him. I will accept you as an individual who is posting under a new alias.

        Why do you believe it is bad for a father to be with his children when there is nothing he can add to what is already being done? This is political virtue signaling and a bad habit among those that push political parties rather than principles.

        1. I don’t know who you are or where you get your information from either.

          Your assumption — that there is nothing he can add to what is already being done — is baseless. There are earlier comments pointing out ways he could help.

          He could easily be with his children in Texas helping people and teaching his children the value of that. He could also teach them not to leave their dog Snowflake in a cold house.

          1. there is nothing he can add to what is already being done — is baseless. “

            If you make such a definitive statement, you must have a lot of things in mind. What extraordinary thing should he have done at the moments he was with his children that he couldn’t do where he was. Remember, we all can do things every minute of the day so this has to be special.

            “He could easily be with his children in Texas helping people and teaching his children the value of that.”

            Take note of the use of the word “that”. That use tells us your comment is baseless. If the comment wasn’t baseless you would have provided something specific instead of the word “that”. One can easily conclude that your argument is baseless and any later replacement for the word “that ” will be artificial.

            ” He could also teach them not to leave their dog Snowflake in a cold house.”

            How do you know the house was cold? How do you know no one is looking after the dog? It seems the storyline has been expanded to suit a political purpose. In other words, try as hard as you can but at least recognize that your response was more of a political hit job than anything serious. It’s not based on solid knowledge or hard work.

            1. Part 2 of 6:

              Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a Rep. in NY, but she set up a donation system for a half dozen Texas charities helping seniors, the hungry, and the homeless in Texas, and she reached out to her supporters to donate, raising over $1M yesterday (I see that donations have now exceeded $2M and she’s added additional charities as recipients of the funds). Cruz could have done the same with his own supporters, but he didn’t.

              1. On the other hand AOC, when not virtue signaling takes cabs etc. where ever she goes instead of using mass transit that exists right next door. Then she bills the taxpayer. She plays her game so NYC loses needed jobs and instead of setting up a huge center Amazon leaves. Of course she pushes her green new deal and all sorts of destructive energy policies. But for that type of policy people in Texas might not be in so much trouble.

                She also doesn’t know her history, economics and a whole host of other things. She should be spending some of her time getting educated.

                Flashy appeals to some people, but when that flash doesn’t extend into solid economic and foreign policy the nation is in trouble so I think your example represents a lack of thought on your part.

                1. She raised over $2M to help people in need in Texas. Cruz could have and did not. You’ve got nothing but excuses.

                  1. She raised other people’s money Anonymous the Stupid. That is a good thing and a better thing would be for her to resign her position and do fund raising for the needy on a permanent basis. I promise you to keep Ted Cruz in politics so he can create good policy and prevent more people from freezing to death.

            2. Part 3 of 6:

              O’Rourke and Sen. Cornyn both posted a lot of information about local resources for those in need of food, shelter, etc., to their Twitter accounts. Cruz could have done that, but he didn’t. Compare Sen. Cruz’s tweets in the last few days with Sen. Cornyn’s and O’Rourke’s.

              All Senators have constituent services staff. Cruz could have encouraged needy Texans to contact his staff for help. He didn’t.

            3. Part 4 of 6:

              Cruz could have helped drive people in his county to a warming center, but he didn’t.

              Cruz could have brought food and drinking water to people, but he didn’t.

              Cruz could have publicly leveraged his significant connections to help to people in need, but he didn’t.

              Some of these are things he’d need to be in Texas for, others aren’t. He didn’t do any of them.

              “What extraordinary thing should he have done”

              Nothing extraordinary. He should have done the same ordinary things to help people that many other people in Texas and elsewhere are doing to help. Why do you demand something extraordinary?

            4. Part 5 of 6:

              “Take note of the use of the word “that”. That use tells us your comment is baseless.”

              You should learn how pronouns work instead of making ignorant proclamations. Let me know if you need a link to an English reference that will explain to you how to figure out what antecedent a pronoun refers to.
              “He could easily be with his children in Texas helping people and teaching his children the value of that.” = “He could easily be with his children in Texas helping people and teaching his children the value of helping people.”

              1. Your reliance on virtue-signaling instead of solid policy sounds good until one understands what virtue-signaling is. In the end, your arguments are baseless and your grammar lesson not necessary. It’s a cover-up for lack of a better answer.

                (The “that” you questioned in my sentence structure was a noun referring to the word “that” used by you instead of providing something with substance.)

                You advocated many things using your advocacy like a shotgun splattering ill-conceived ideas all over the wall hoping something would stick. I will take one. Cruz could deliver food and drinking water.

                Well Ms. Trochilidae, are you carrying water or driving people to a warming center? I guess not. How do I know? Because you are here writing parts 1-6 on virtue-signaling.

                What you are talking about is charity. Is Ted Cruz charitable? I don’t know. Was Obama charitable? No. But in neither case are we asking for them to be charitable rather we are asking for them to be leaders. Your eye is on the wrong target.

                Is it important to be with one’s children when they are off from school? You are saying no and Ted Cruz should be driving people around rather than being with his kids. That is your choice and your right. As a working father when the kids were out of school I would take every chance I could to be with them. I guess to some family is not that important.

                  1. No Anonymous the Stupid, I brought up my children with tenderness and a love of knowledge and all living creatures. I taught them not to be like you and showed them how to escape the he-l you must live in.

                    1. Allan, you clearly don’t love all living creatures, so you are not capable of teaching your children to love all living creatures.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid how would you know how I feel toward family and living creatures. You don’t know. However, every day you respond on this blog so we do know you are Stupid.

                    3. Allan, if you don’t understand that people are living creatures, then perhaps you failed biology. You demonstrate daily that you’re happy to treat people like sh*t. You model that for your children.

                    4. Anonymous the Stupid, you are the chosen one to be treated like he deserves. No one else gets the same. Why is that? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.

                    5. Yet again, Allan, you demonstrate that you do not love all living creatures. Thus, you are incapable of teaching your children to love all living creatures.

                1. S. Meyer, what you are not getting which everyone else is telling you is that Ted Cruz being a senator OF TEXAS could have made an effort to help his constituents by raising awareness of how others could help. Instead he chose to go on vacation to get away from the problems in Texas.

                  AOC who has absolutely no obligation to help at all made an effort to help people that Ted Cruz didn’t really care about. He wanted his vacation.

                  AOC raises $2 million. Ted Cruz out a case of water in his trunk and “helped take out wet carpet in someone’s home. Which do you think did the most help? Ted belatedly “helping” after trying to leave the mess in Texas or a liberal raisiny $2 million so his own constituents wouldn’t be left out in the cold or without water or food?

                  Ted didn’t care, he was taking care of himself only because he had the benefit of a nice taxpayer funded salary. His constituents were freezing and without water? Obviously Ted can raise money. He does it all the time for his own campaign. He certainly deserves the criticism he’s getting. Because he’s an idiot.

                  1. He certainly deserves the criticism he’s getting. Because he’s an idiot.

                    Cruz acknowledged he made an error in judgment, but he certainly is not an idiot. AOC chose to do the opposite, but compared to Cruz, she is an idiot. Ultimately, it will be the constituents of the State of Texas that will have to decide on the fate of Sen. Ted Cruz.

                    1. Between Cruz and AOC are stupid, Cruz is definitely less intelligent. He is also less moral and has weaker principles.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, you are known to be Stupid. Cruz is considered quite brilliant, but being as Stupid as you are you think AOC is smarter. She is smarter than you but that is not saying much.

                    3. 🤔 Oh gosh, I don’t know. Perhaps after 290 comments, many unrelated to the post, I thought it would be good to get back on topic. You could of course just continue to ignore it.

                  2. “S. Meyer, what you are not getting which everyone else is telling you”

                    What you are not getting is that you want to see virtue signaling, not sound policy. That is the height of ignorance.

                    Cruz made a political mistake not to use virtue signaling. He partially rectified it by delivering water. I have a company that delivers big bottles of water all the time but those carrying the bottles don’t know anything about policy.

                    You would make a good water deliverer, but not a good policy maker.

                    1. One thing is certain, if Cruz and others find themselves being attacked over something like this, then they are perceived to be a threat to their power.

            5. Part 6 of 6:

              “How do you know the house was cold?”

              Because Heidi Cruz texted some of her friends and neighbors about her “freezing” house, inviting them to join the Cruzes in Cancun after the neighborhood’s utilities went out, and a couple of the recipients shared the texts with the Times, and the dog was photographed inside the dark house, looking out a glass-paned door, while Cruzes were away.

              “your response was more of a political hit job than anything serious. It’s not based on solid knowledge or hard work.”

              You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

              1. Now we get to part 6 of a wasted effort that might have been better spent with the children if you have any. I combined parts 3-5 together to save bandwidth where too much has been wasted here and in the news on this newest crazed effort to slime the greatest number of people that think differently than you.

                “Because Heidi Cruz texted some of her friends and neighbors about her “freezing” house, inviting them to join the Cruzes in Cancun”

                You still don’t know that her house lost electricity or was too cold. You are providing a second-hand statement that has to be interpreted.

                However, in NYC people were locked in their homes due to Covid. Do you know what many of those fine Democrats did? They left the city and asked their neighbors to join them in the Hamptons or elsewhere. Did they bother to see if the elderly were OK and deliver them food and water like you were suggesting? No.

                “You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.”

                Obviously, I do know what I am talking about and you are creating an argument of emptiness and foolishness. You should be on AOC’s team as you seem to identify so much with her lackluster policies and reliance on virtue-signaling.

            6. Well, I broke my comment up into 6 parts because it wasn’t posting, and now the 1 section of the 6 keeps failing to post, so at least that tells me what the problem is, though I still don’t know why.

              I’ll try an alternative part 1 of 6:

              “you must have a lot of things in mind.”

              I already told you that multiple actions Cruz could have taken were posted earlier in the discussion, so why didn’t you already familiarize yourself with them?

              Here’s part of what Beto did, mobilizing his own system along with making calls. Cruz could have done the same, but he didn’t:

              1. Was annoyed at having so many comments dropped and forgot to include my info before hitting Post. At least most of my argument is now up.

                1. Your Part 1 came out as anonymous. You probably forgot to enter any address or name. I just am letting you know how it appeared in my email in case you are having other problems

              2. “1 section of the 6 keeps failing to post, so at least that tells me what the problem is, though I still don’t know why.”

                Maybe the failures were trying to tell you something. Nothing more need be said now since you need to deliver food and water to a needy person. That is great as we all have our parts to do. Say goodbye. I thank you for your generosity and I promise you I will do my part as well.

  5. Howard Root’s letter to his prosecutors. It appears one never gets justice from the DOJ.

    Dear Bud, Christina and Tim:

    I thought I would remind you of our upcoming anniversary. On February 26, it will have been five years since the day the jury returned its unanimous “not guilty” verdict on all 10 counts of your misguided criminal prosecution of me and Vascular Solutions. Forgive me if I don’t send you a present.

    Calling it “misguided” is as generous as I can be – others have called it much worse. You might have heard that, right after the verdict, one of the jurors contacted me to give me her view of your prosecution. “What the federal government did to you, your company and your employees is nothing short of criminal,” she emailed. When I called to thank her, she said she wanted me to get back to business and for you three to be fired. As damning as that is, it’s even worse when you remember that the only testimony she heard was from your witnesses, since we never called any of ours to testify at trial.

    Then, a few months after the verdict, I heard from your never-testifying but frequently­ in-court expert witness, Dr. Robert E. Lee. When I asked Dr. Lee what he thought about your case, he told me that he didn’t have anything bad to say about Vascular Solutions, our medical devices or our FDA clearances. It was then I finally realized why you never called Dr. Lee to testify, but now I’m disgusted you failed to disclose his exonerating expert opinion as required by law, and instead decided to carry on with your misguided prosecution.

    You also might have heard that our trial judge, Royce Lamberth, discussed our case a few years ago at the FDLI Annual Conference. In his remarks, Judge Lamberth commented on the same issue that our lawyers at King & Spalding explained to you in multiple letters and conversations before trial — that you were pursuing a prosecution for off-label promotion of an arguably on-label use. As explained by Judge Lamberth:

    [I]t was very difficult for the government to get a guilty conviction after their primary witness and a high level FDA employee — along with many others, I should add — testified that the device’s previously approved indication could be interpreted to include perforator veins.

    After getting those reactions, I was optimistic that someone from DOJ would eventually investigate your misconduct to prevent what almost happened to Vascular Solution from happening to others. It’s sickening to realize how few Americans could withstand your type of assaults, grossly incompetent as they were, merely because they can’t afford to spend the $25 million I spent to stop your destruction of my business and me.

    As you know, I didn’t just sit back and wait for DOJ to start investigating your misconduct. Instead, I had my King & Spalding lawyers, all former federal prosecutors, request an OPR and OIG investigation. But after a lengthy wait with no request for additional evidence, I learned that an investigation of prosecutorial misconduct by an office staffed by career prosecutors will almost always result in summary dismissal, which it did here.

    I then approached Sens. Grassley and Lee and asked them to send a letter to DOJ requesting a specific investigation of your unauthorized disclosure of confidential grand jury testimony and your abusive threats to witnesses. But it seems that even high-ranking Senators requesting a misconduct investigation are entitled to no more than a cursory rejection from DOJ.

    As you’re also probably aware (but almost certainly haven’t read), I wrote and published the book Cardiac Arrest describing your misguided prosecution. So far, my book has sold over 10,000 copies in all formats, and I’ve given over 100 talks to groups on our case. Because of this publicity, you can rest assured that your failures in the courtroom will live forever in the minds of many, and your failed prosecution will follow you forever on Google and Amazon.

    One thing you might be surprised to hear is the most-asked asked question I receive after giving my talk. That question is, “why would DOJ prosecutors act this way?” My answer is to explain the motivations of many career prosecutors (an arrogant greed for winning rather than the attainment of justice) and the lack of effective DOJ supervision. More than one former prosecutor approached me after my talk to say that I had that answer exactly right, but they could never say that in public for fear of retaliation from their former colleagues.

    I have to give you credit for accomplishing at least one of your goals. After experiencing your abuse, and even after winning a complete exoneration, I returned to Minnesota with no desire to continue to run my medical device company. As soon as I got back, I knew that I needed to get out, because I realized that if I continued, this could happen again. So in 2016 I hired an investment banker and sold Vascular Solutions for $1 billion, and then I retired from medical device development at the age of 56.

    What happened next was as predictable as cold is to a Minnesota winter. The large medical device company that paid the highest price to buy Vascular Solutions (as a public company CEO, I had to maximize shareholder value) slashed our R&D projects, eliminated our apprentice program and moved manufacturing jobs to Mexico in order to increase short-term profit. Not a single new medical device has been developed since I left the company four years ago (we launched between five and 10 each year when I was CEO), and many of our employees have lost their jobs while opportunities for new college graduates to enter the medical device world have been eliminated. Congratulations, your mothers must be very proud of your accomplishment.

    After selling Vascular Solutions, for financial reasons I didn’t need to find a new job, but I’ve stayed busy with a business/hobby of starting and now selling an electric boat company. I’ve also spent time advising criminal defendants to help them navigate their pathway through the criminal injustice system. I’ve enjoyed this advisory role so much that I’m now in the process of re-activating my law license so I can work more closely with defendants on a pro bono basis to defeat malicious prosecutions like yours.

    Alas, I doubt I’ll ever see Bud in the courtroom again, now that he’s become an immigration judge. But I’m pleased that Bud’s legendary abusive rants will be limited to immigration cases now, and, since he’s the judge and not one of the lawyers, he won’t be able to ditch his work to others and slither to the back of the courtroom as the case implodes, just as he did in our case to the point he was hard to spot in the gallery during your closing arguments.

    I might encounter Christina in the courtroom once again, now that she’s been promoted to Criminal Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Texas. While her outstanding work ethic justifies her promotion, her lack of ethics by personally attacking my sales reps for making money in a FOR-PROFIT medical device company while living in a huge house paid for by a husband who was making even more money as a physician in a FOR-PROFIT medical practice should have disqualified her from any unsupervised position in justice.

    Last, but certainly not least, I see that Tim is still working as a Trial Attorney in the Consumer Protection Division of DOJ. I sincerely hope that in the last five years Tim has gotten the professional help he needs. I’m no psychiatrist, but based on what everyone in the courtroom saw as he delivered his “bamboozled” closing rebuttal (now immortalized in my book), Tim was crying out for an intervention. I can’t comprehend how Tim could continue to work in a criminal prosecution role without receiving frequent and deep professional counseling.

    Finally, I want to make one request. Now that five years has passed and all of the misconduct investigations have been swept away, there’s no remaining obstacle to a public discussion of went wrong with your prosecution. While I haven’t checked, I’m relatively certain the organizers of the National Institute on Health Care Fraud would still feature our case for a deep dive at their next annual meeting, especially since they rarely get a case where the defendant wins a complete exoneration. I’ll pay my way to the conference and will give you (or y’all for the Texans) a full release to say whatever you want about me, I know my lawyers will attend, so all that’s needed is for you to say yes and for DOJ to finally stop blackballing me from presenting at any conference attended by a DOJ employee. After five years, don’t you think it’s finally time to tell your side?

    I look forward to a reply from at least one of you.

    Happy anniversary,


    Story at:

    1. Only a Senator who’s an a-hole would take a vacation in the middle of an emergency in they state..

      1. What was Cruz expected to do, meals on wheels, fix power lines, deice wind turbines, run the state legislature, shovel sidewalks, fire the grid operators? He’s a U.S. Senator and they’ve been doing a lot of business in a virtual environment. Given they’ve had a lot of power outages, perhaps being at home in the dark without a means to communicate would have not been the best idea.

        1. Yep, it would be impossible for him to help in the ways that many other people are helping, and it’s also impossible for him to use his power to leverage help. He’s totally powerless. He clearly cannot drive anyone to a warming center, he can’t bring food and drinking water to people, he can’t work by phone to connect needy persons with neighbors able to help, he can’t provide information to people via his Twitter account (like Sen. Cornyn is doing), he can’t leverage his connections to help get more food and drinking water to people in need, and on and on. Are you seriously trying to suggest that a Senator is powerless to help people in an emergency??

          1. Are you seriously trying to suggest that a Senator is powerless to help people in an emergency??

            Nope. His constituents will have to weigh what he has done for the state and the nation with this one event. I believe he’s built up enough capital in that regard to overcome this latest attempt to discredit him.

      2. About 3% of Texas residents are currently without power, < 1% in the five counties around Houston, where Cruz actually lives.

        1. Senators represent the entire state, Art, not just the county they live in. Texas has over 29 million people, so 3% is over 870,000 people, and over 2 million were without power at some time during the emergency. At least 3 dozen people have died of weather-related causes (some froze to death, some died from carbon monoxide poisoning when they tried to stay warm in their cars, …).

          1. I’ll ask you again. He’s a U.S. Senator. What exactly was Cruz expected to do for the state that the state and local governments weren’t already doing? Biden issued a Federal Emergency Declaration for Texas. And here is the responsive action by Gov. Abbott:

            Resources deployed:

            Texas Department of Transportation: Winter weather roadway preparation equipment and response crews as well as road condition monitoring.
            Texas Highway Patrol, Texas Department of Public Safety: Courtesy patrols to assist stranded motorists along major travel corridors.
            Texas Military Department: Winter weather equipment and personnel to support Amarillo, Wichita Falls, Abilene, Fort Worth, and Waco to assist in stranded motorist operations.
            Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Four wheel drive vehicles and personnel to assist with stranded motorists along major travel corridors.
            Texas A&M Forest Service: Motor graders and personnel to assist with snow/ice clearance and saw crews to assist with removal of downed trees.
            Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service, Texas Task Force 1: Search and rescue equipment and teams.
            Public Utility Commission of Texas: Monitoring and reporting of power outages and monitoring of any issues impacting the power generation capability in the state.
            Texas Animal Health Commission: Response equipment and personnel to address livestock concerns due to frigid temperatures.

          2. At least 3 dozen people have died of weather-related causes (some froze to death, some died from carbon monoxide poisoning when they tried to stay warm in their cars, …).

            About 130 people die in greater Houston on a typical day, for all the reasons people die.

            1. The deaths from weather-related causes are in addition to all of the typical deaths, Art. You understand that, right?

              1. Up here in snow-heavy flyover, people die every day from the usual wintertime stuff.

                Wake up folks, life is not safe, and it surely ends in death. We need not try and ban all risks and joy from life, it simply won’t work

                Sal Sar

              2. Anonymous the Stupid, keep clapping for the Emmy Cuomo got for killing seniors. That is more your style.

          3. Anonymous the Stupid, Senators are senators for the entire year. Right now I don’t see much he can do. Maybe you prefer him to shovel snow? Maybe in Cancun he will develop some ideas to restart the pipeline that Biden stopped benefiting everyone but Americans. You are too Stupid.

      3. Meanwhile, someone has shared Heidi Cruz’s text messages to friends and neighbors (inviting them to join them in Cancun at a hotel that costs $309/night) with the NYT, and those messages suggest that Ted was lying when he said that they went at the request of his daughters.

        Teddy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.

        1. “Teddy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.”

          Wow, Anonymous the Stupid has hit the bottom of the bottle.

      4. Anonymous the Stupid, you are the ” a-hole” you are talking about. Right now there is very little he can do. You are Stupid enough to believe he should be on vacation when he is needed.

  6. When teaching Geography we must explore the racism found on the polar icecaps. When studying ancient Egypt we must reveal the racism employed in the building of the pyramids. We must make expose the racism found under the rock at the end of your driveway. Leave no stone unturned. Unwavering diligence is required. Listen to me! I demand that you listen to me little children! Don’t make me force you! NOTHING LESS THAN AN “A” WILL BE ACCEPTABLE IN THIS CLASS!!!!

  7. Normal people have to get off the couch and get on local school boards so this insanity can be stopped. The superintendent and everyone who in the school who supports this crap needs to be shown the door. Meanwhile, vote NO on every school bond issue until sanity returns.

    1. I actually do, and it makes no difference where I am. Alas, nobody runs against the already-entrenched members. Not a soul. People simply don’t care until it threatens their Facebook or their booze, at least here. I live in a mid-size city, and most people are glad to be rid of their kids be it for college or state funded daycare. In all seriousness: if we tied education reform to booze availability 95% of the people would be out there raising their voices.

      1. Per capita liquor consumption in this country has since 1970 bounced around 2.34 gallons per person per year. There is no secular trend in that datum.

Comments are closed.