>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
His proposal sought to separate the long-held combined roles of chairman and CEO, positions Buffett had dominated for decades. Flaherty highlighted the reputational risk posed by Buffett’s tens of billions in donations to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—funds that have been tied to Critical Race Theory programs and gender ideology curricula.¹
Then Flaherty delivered what few dared to say aloud:
“We know how much Bill Gates cares about children,” Flaherty stated. *”He met and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein many times after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.”*²
Immediately, Buffett’s microphone operator cut the audio. Security guards swarmed Flaherty while an Omaha police officer placed him in handcuffs. This credentialed shareholder was exercising his legal rights—but Buffett allegedly ordered the removal personally. The reason? Flaherty mentioned Gates’ documented meetings with a convicted sex offender that contributed to the end of Gates’ 27-year marriage.³
Prosecutors eventually dropped the trespassing charges, but the message was clear: Buffett would not tolerate uncomfortable truths.
Conservative Judge Gives Buffett a Free Pass
In May 2024, the National Legal and Policy Center sued Buffett, Berkshire, and the security team for assault, battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and breach of promise after Flaherty’s staffer James Tovar was physically blocked from following him.
By October 2024, U.S. District Judge Brian Buescher ruled entirely in Buffett’s favor. The court accepted Berkshire’s claim that Flaherty became a trespasser the moment he refused to leave, effectively wiping out every legal claim—even though Flaherty held statutory rights under federal securities law and was explicitly invited to speak.⁴
This historic moment marked the first time a shareholder was arrested during a lawfully scheduled presentation at a public company’s annual meeting. Yet Buffett faced zero consequences.
Legal Fight Moves to Appeals Court
The National Legal and Policy Center refused to back down. In November 2025, they filed their opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the lower court’s interpretation of Omaha trespass laws.⁵
Flaherty wasn’t a random protester. He had statutory rights under SEC Rule 14a-8 and Delaware law to attend, present, and vote on his shareholder proposal. That made him a “special invitee,” legally protected from being branded a trespasser merely because a billionaire disliked hearing certain facts.
Paul Kamenar, NLPC’s counsel, stated bluntly: “Berkshire Hathaway and Mr. Buffett must be held accountable for this outrageous display of strong-arm tactics to silence a shareholder.”
This case could determine whether CEOs of billion-dollar corporations can weaponize police power to arrest shareholders over speech executives find embarrassing.
The Epstein-Gates Connection is Well-Documented
The Gates-Epstein relationship has been reported by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and congressional investigations for years. Newly released documents from Congress in November 2024 show Epstein pursued Gates as recently as 2017. Texts reveal an adviser telling Epstein that Gates “wants to talk to you but his wife won’t let him” and *”he loves you.”*⁶ Melinda Gates was aware, ultimately ending their marriage.
Flaherty attempted to warn shareholders of these facts before Buffett had him dragged away.
The Stakes for Corporate America
Sixteen of the seventeen judges on the 8th Circuit were appointed by Republican presidents.⁷ This conservative-leaning panel offers the best chance for shareholders to push back against executive overreach.
A reversal could reshape corporate America, ensuring billion-dollar CEOs cannot weaponize trespass laws to silence discussions of documented misconduct. Activist investors are watching closely, knowing the outcome could determine whether CEOs can arrest shareholders who question ESG policies, radical donations, or relationships with controversial figures like Epstein.
Buffett cultivated an image of folksy openness and transparency—but this case exposed the truth: he’s willing to use police power to protect his reputation and shield allies from scrutiny. The Eighth Circuit now holds the power to decide if corporate America will allow handcuffs to replace accountability.
