To the Editor:

First, I was hoping that this issue not get to a personal level, but it's a bit disconcerting that Ms. O'Flaherty is now presenting a different story than many of her television interviews. However, it serves no purpose to respond to the emotional diatribe in her letter to the editor in the April 13, Dorchester Reporter. Unfortunately, Ms. O'Flaherty is a victim of her own decisions over the last five years.

For those of your readership who have not read the Superior Court Decision of January 3, 2002, let me quote several passages by Judge Sanders which contradict many of the claims of the O'Flaherty family.

On page 5 of this seventeen page decision, Judge Sanders writes,

"On February 22, 2002 this court (Locke, J. {the judge}) denied the request for an injunction. In so doing, he concluded that there was substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail on the merits…but concluded that there was no irreparable harm…and made special note of the defendants {the O'Flahertys} concession that, in the event that the Decision was struck down, they would bear the expense of removing the house and thus proceeded with the construction at their own peril."

Continuing on page 5

"Of even more importance, however, the Court stated that the filing of the summary judgment motion…would "permit speedy review and possibly judgment to the issue" in a relatively short time…For the next several months, nothing happened. The O'Flahertys took full advantage of this delay by pressing ahead with the construction of the house."

On page 15, "The defendants argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, that a lot is narrow does not make it unique. Thus the courts have consistently held in a long line of decisions…is not a special circumstance…to justify a variance."

"Second, the defendants argument that they will suffer substantial hardship without a variance is not persuasive since any hardship is of their own making." {my emphasis}.

Judge Sanders in her Conclusion states, " that the defendants motion is denied and the plaintiffs Motion of Summary Judgment must be ALLOWED." The judge goes on to write, "It is further ORDERED that the Board deny the variance at issue and take all necessary action against the O'Flahertys to enforce the provisions of the Code, including an order that they remove any nonconforming structures." {my emphasis}. On January 14, 2005 the Appellate Court upheld the Superior Court decision.

For my neighbors and interested parties, please visit our web site that contains the entire decision and other unexpurgated pearls of interest, including the Appeals Decision which upheld Judge Sanders. The address is melvilleavenuedispute.com

Evidently, Ms. O'Flaherty does not want to resolve this issue, which arose due to her disrespect of her neighbors and the legal system. Judge Sanders' view of the dispute gives us the most reliable view of the facts and the law, and ought give Ms. O'Flaherty pause to the rewriting of history.

Bob Casper, unnamed plaintiff

Melville Ave.