From the Bangor Daily News:
New allegations that late artist Robert Indiana sexually abused teenagers in the 1980s came to light during a Waldoboro man’s sentencing for Social Security fraud.
Wayne Flaherty, 53, claims the unreported income he received from 2000 through 2018 outside of his Social Security checks came as “hush money” from Indiana, the Portland Press Herald reported.
Flaherty pled guilty in January and was sentenced to three years of probation with 240 hours of community service and ordered to pay the Social Security Administration $141,214 on May 20.
Flaherty’s lawyer, David Beneman, said in his sentencing memo that the more than $846,000 Flaherty received during that period was intended to keep him quiet about alleged sexual abuse that started when Flaherty was a teenager in the 1980s, the paper reported. ...
So, when I read the excerpt I was a little mystified since it would not seem that those payments would have any effect on Social Security Disability benefits except as the article goes on, there is a reference to him receiving SSI which, of course, would be a problem.
ReplyDeleteI really wish reporters would do a better job of noting the difference between the two and even explaining why this money in this case was a problem because the person was getting SSI and that if it had been SSD benefits or just SS retirement benefits, ,there would have been no problem at all.
"Hush money for sexual abuse revictimizes disabled SSI man!" Have you heard of "extenuating circumstances?" I really don't understand the government's handling of this case. Seems devoid of all humanity. Why he was awarded SSI is not explained in the 2 articles, but it is likely the abuse by Indiana was a major factor in him getting SSI in the first place. The government's aim here seem to be to make "an example" out of the victim... What he did was wrong, what the government did was worse.
ReplyDeleteThere is a far more comprehensive story on the case at this link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.centralmaine.com/2021/06/03/allegations-of-abuse-by-robert-indiana-resurface-in-court-case/
Sorry Tim, but I don't agree with your take. The system gave him a sweetheart plea deal in a criminal case that, had it involved any other person, would have resulted in a significant period of imprisonment on top of a long probationary period and the restitution order.
I'm sorry for the abuse he suffered, but it was Flaherty's choice to hide that income in order to keep getting welfare. And, the article doesn't address exactly how Flaherty managed to get Indiana to start paying him. In general, child rapists aren't the kind of people who just start voluntarily paying money to someone out of the goodness of their hearts...
What happened was awful but if there are no consequences for actions, then what’s the answer? I’m by no means dismissing the abuse. What I’m asking is what should the government do in a situation like this?
ReplyDeleteReally, unless it's exempted by law like Nazi reparation's, this "hush money" was income and is an issue in determining eligibility for SSI. It's really pretty simple. Whether it is a trust fund from the man's biological father (had he been born on the "wrong side of the sheets" thing) or winning the lottery with a monthly payout or hush money from a lawyer, the reason why the money is provided isn't really relevant if not excluded by law. Sorry to say but a sad story doesn't become a shield from consequences, although it could mitigate.
ReplyDelete