There is yet another casualty of the caustic Commonwealth casino fight: Boston’s integrity in the eyes of our great nation.

The United States of America has claimed, under penalty of perjury, that the city of Boston is spreading — nay, spewing — rumors through the city’s “vicious’’ civil lawsuit against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

The statements were made in court filing for a federal case against three men who are charged with fraud in connection with the planned Everett casino owned by casino tycoon Steve Wynn’s Wynn Resorts. The defense filed a motion to disclose any evidence that two former Massachusetts State Police troopers were given access to files concerning the investigation into the defendants, and then gave the information gleaned from those files to Wynn. This accusation came from subpoenas issued by Boston as part of its civil suit.

Advertisement

In a colorfully worded response, assistant United States attorney Kristina E. Barclay, who is the prosecutor on the case, made the United States’ annoyance with Boston quite clear.

The United States of America believes that Boston is a rumor-mongerer via a false-claim-filled lawsuit:

The defendants seized on a rumor spewed and spun by the City of Boston in a vicious civil lawsuit …

Plus:

Despite having been told by Flaherty that the City of Boston’s allegations were false, the defendants parroted the baseless allegations …

And:

… there is simply no truth to the rumor and innuendo upon which the motion is entirely premised …

There were also strong suggestions that the defendants in the case made sure Boston knew of the grand jury transcripts released as part of the defendants’ motion, which were then incorporated into Boston’s civil lawsuit and disseminated to the media with remarkable haste:

The government further notes that the only real effect of the defendants’ frivolous motion was to publicly disclose the grand jury transcripts … which materials made their way to the City of Boston and the media within hours of the filing of the motion.

Say it again:

… a more cynical critic might suggest that it was posed merely to facilitate the public disclosure of grand jury materials produced pursuant to the protective order. Notably, those materials made their way into the record in the City of Boston’s civil lawsuit within 24 hours, and were thereafter released to the media by the city’s attorneys.

But Boston will not take the nation’s legally binding opinion lying down, and has said as much.

“The City of Boston sharply disagrees with the Assistant US Attorney’s characterization regarding the merits of this case,’’ said Mayor Walsh spokesperson Bonnie McGilpin in a statement. “The City maintains that the Gaming Commission has not followed the law in its awarding of the Region A license and it is the City’s responsibility to fight to protect the rights of Boston’s public and the neighborhood of Charlestown.’’

The United States attorney’s office did not respond to request for comment.