By Frank Parlato
PART 2: The Flynn Doctrine
Ryan Flynn Speaks: Two Accusations, Double Standard
On December 15, I published a story about former Erie County District Attorney John Flynn and two cases involving him. In it, I described how Flynn prosecuted political consultant, former Erie County Democratic Chairman and longtime adversary Steve Pigeon in 2021 on uncorroborated allegations of child sexual abuse, justifying the prosecution with a phrase that required no proof and permitted no dissent: “I stand with the child.”
The story also described how Flynn’s younger cousin, Ryan Flynn, accused him of sexually abusing him when Ryan was about ten years old during visits to his father’s home in South Buffalo. Ryan later filed a police report with the Buffalo Police.
Six months after making the report, Ryan Flynn was arrested on allegations that he had posted an anonymous online threat against Flynn’s wife from an account called “JohnFlynn@NeedMoreHaters1.” He has now spent more than two months in the Erie County Holding Center without bail.
The Framework
In prosecuting Steve Pigeon, John Flynn articulated a doctrine with two parts.
First, belief preceded evidence. “I believe the child” was not a finding, but an assumption.
Second, denial was irrelevant. “I had no need to talk to him,” Flynn said. “I know what he’s going to say — he’s going to deny it, of course.”
Behind Bars: Ryan Flynn Speaks
Under the standard John Flynn articulated in the prosecution of Steve Pigeon, Ryan’s allegation would begin from a presumption of credibility.
“He molested me at my father’s house,” Ryan said during a call from the Erie County Holding Center, where he remains without bail. “The first time he laid his body weight across my legs and then took my private parts out of my pants and started touching me.
“The other time he tried to come into the room and get me to touch him and take his pants off, and I rolled over back onto the other side and said I did not want to do it. And then he threatened me and said he would kill me or ruin my life if I ever told anyone about it.”
“I didn’t see my dad for eight years after that, until I was 20 or 21 years old,” Ryan said.
On April 13, 2025, Ryan said he filed a formal report with the Buffalo Police Department’s A District, the district covering his father’s home in South Buffalo.
“It’s on record there,” Ryan said.
Ryan Arrested
Ryan was arrested in October 2025 on charges tied to an anonymous social media account on X that prosecutors allege he controlled. He was charged with criminal contempt in the first degree, a Class E felony, and aggravated harassment in the second degree, a Class A misdemeanor. The complaint states the case rests on a screenshot.
Tonawanda Police Detective Robert Kubus’s sworn complaint, filed October 16, 2025, cites the following evidence: “supporting deposition of Debra Flynn, copy of order of protection issued September 18th, 2025, and a printout of screenshot from Twitter/x account ‘JohnFlynn@needmorehaters1.’”
The supporting deposition consists of two questions and two answers.
Q: What happened?
A: Ryan Flynn made a social media post threatening to kill me.
Q: Are you fearful?
A: Yes, I am fearful of being harmed. There is a valid protection order.
The criminal complaint lists Detective Kubus as the complainant and cites Deborah Flynn’s supporting deposition as his source. The deposition does not state when she saw the post, how she located it, or why she believes Ryan posted it.
Detective Kubus affirmed the complaint under penalty of perjury on October 16, 2025.
The Post Itself
According to the criminal complaint, the post was allegedly made on October 15, 2025, at 10:30 PM.
“If you kidnap and violate my rights and bring me to ecmc or jail illegally to the day I get out I’m going to murder John Flynn’s wife for Framing me for crimes and mental health to cover up corruption just kidding “Without a hearing the day I get out I’ll murder John Flynn’s wife.”
The Attribution Problem
Five days later, on October 21, Ryan was arrested and taken into custody.
The criminal complaint provides no forensic evidence connecting Ryan to the post. There is no IP address, no device record, and no metadata. The case rests on a screenshot.
The post itself refers to being “brought to ECMC or jail illegally” and to being “framed for crimes and mental health.”
Questions About the Screenshot
The screenshot used in the complaint is cropped. It shows no account biography and no other posts for context. The only visible timestamp reads “3 minutes ago,” without identifying a date or reference time.
Ryan Flynn said, “They don’t have any forensic evidence or metadata showing a timestamp when they got it … it’s cropped out from other tweets … it’s cropped out from other posts. There’s no other post.”
The aggravated harassment complaint refers to “his Twitter/X account,” asserting ownership without providing any evidence that the account belonged to Ryan.
The Order of Protection
Issued on September 18, 2025, by Judge J. Mark Gruber, the order prohibits Ryan from contacting or communicating with John Flynn and his wife, Deborah, from approaching their home or workplace, and from harassing or threatening them. The order remains in effect through March 19, 2026.
The order was issued in connection with Case 25040221, charging Ryan under Penal Law § 240.50, false report — incident did not occur, a Class A misdemeanor.
According to Ryan, the charge arose from a call he made to police reporting that John Flynn was using excessive amounts of cocaine and was suicidal. Ryan said he made the call after being told by John Flynn’s son that Flynn was dangerous to himself and possibly others.
The Legal Standard
Under First Amendment law, a “true threat” is defined as a serious expression of intent to commit violence, not political hyperbole, venting, or conditional statements.
In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must show the speaker had subjective awareness that their words would be perceived as threatening. The ruling clarified that objectively alarming language alone is insufficient.
A Double Standard
Supporters of John Flynn have told me that Ryan is erratic and mentally disturbed and therefore not credible.
Flynn applied a different standard to similar behavior in the Pigeon case. There, Flynn maintained that the accuser’s mental instability was the result of Pigeon’s alleged abuse.
Under that same standard, if Ryan’s behavior is erratic, it would be considered relevant to — not disqualifying of — his allegation.
A central issue in the Pigeon case was that the accuser had a documented history of erratic behavior and behavioral difficulties that predated the single incident she alleged against Pigeon.
The accuser in the Pigeon case experienced a markedly different response. From the moment she reported her allegation, she was publicly supported by John Flynn and treated as credible. She was described as brave and heroic, and prior behavioral issues were set aside. Teachers, therapists, and Flynn himself responded with sympathy and support.
Contradictions in her account and details that could not be reconciled were treated as consequences of the single incident she alleged.
One accuser was believed and supported. The other remains jailed without bail.
Part 3 will examine how John Flynn disregarded evidence that undermined his prosecution of Steve Pigeon, even as he threatened Pigeon’s defense attorney and offered a plea that reduced the case from a potential life sentence to eight months in jail with no probation.
That record will then be compared with the evidence that Ryan Flynn states he is prepared to present upon his release.
