Appeal@BeckVsDOE.wellrock.net

Under construction: Last Updated 20031227

Beck vs DOE: WebPage Index

Table of Contents:

Beck vs DOE: WebPage Index

[WebPage] Application of Plaintiffs-Appellants to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for direct appellate review

1. Per Massachusetts Rule of Appellate Procedure 11, David L. Higgs and Rodney W. Young, plaintiffs-appellants in the above named action, respectfully apply to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for direct appellate review of the dismissal by Plymouth Superior Court of their defamation suit.

2. Beck et al. vs. DOE et al. is on appeal from a decision and order of summary judgment signed on February 25, 2002 by Plymouth Superior Court Justice Richard J. Chin, dismissing all charges against the eight defendants.....

3. The plaintiffs’ appeal focuses upon the following issues:

   a. The Court’s falsification of the record in Beck v. DOE in thirteen instances, defeating plaintiffs’ arguments of malicious defamation and rationalizing its decision and order of summary judgment on behalf of the defendants. Three of the fabrications alleged are presented in this application:

      (1) In its decision the Court deliberately misquotes an official report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to justify the Court’s opinion that certain statements of the defendants, alleged slanderous in the Complaint, were made without malice, and therefore had not legally defamed “... the plaintiffs [judged] to be public figures for the purpose of this defamation action.” [p. 35]

      (2) Similarly the Court falsifies an internal report prepared by trustees of the Defendant South Shore Charter School, to justify the Court’s opinion that certain written statements of a defendant, alleged libelous in the Complaint, were made without malice, and therefore had not legally defamed “... the plaintiffs [as] public figures ....” [Continue] (pdf)

[WebPage] The Appeal of the Summary Judgment

On November 25, 2003, the plaintiffs in Beck vs DOE filed their appeal of the Summary Judgment Decision of Judge Richard J. Chin, Justice of the Superior Court, Regional Administrative, with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court. The Office of Clerk of the Appeals Court has assigned plaintiffs appeal Case No. A.C.-03-P-1532 The Summary Judgment Appeal page will be un-dated by the plaintiffs as their appeal of the summary judgment decision goes forwards [continue].

[WebPage] An Appeal Held Hostage, In Opposition to Brahmans (also called the "SUPER BRIEF by the plaintiffs)

The page "An Appeal Held Hostage, In Opposition to Brahmans" is written in the format style of an Appeal Court Brief (with attached reference documents) and has been given the name "Super Brief" by the plaintiffs. The "Super Brief" contains a super set of the arguments the plaintiffs plan to include in their appeal brief. The plaintiffs, in their brief, will argue Judge Richard J. Chin, Justice of the Superior Court, Regional Administrative, committed numerous errors of law along with numerous indefensible distortions and blatant falsifications of the record which he then used to rationalize the dismissal of charges against the defendants in his summary judgment decision.

An indictment of ...

A Charter School***A Charter-school Bureaucracy***A Superior Court

"There should be no more worrisome modern-day saga then that of three citizens blowing the whistle, eventually as loud as they could, on fiscal fraud ongoing at on small public charter school - possibly topping $1 million by a state audit - afterward to be defamed in retaliation by education tycoons abetted by juridic sycophants.

Armed robbers might face the music, but disarming robber barons in industry and government dance away with $millions from stockholder and tax payers-with impunity-confident their wearisome and expensive processes will exhaust all with temerity to challenge white-collar malfeasance on high...." [Continue].

[WebPage] Milestones

Sept. 1995       South Shore Charter School opens.
Sept. 1996       Headmaster/CEO and Defendant Timothy Anderson eliminates curriculum.
Oct. 1996       Anderson survives motion by School Trustee calling for his immediate removal.
Jan. 1997       Anderson purges faculty and staff. One-third of student body withdraws.
Feb. 1997       Plaintiff Roberta Beck defiantly eradicates CEO’s unsupported tuition claims.
July 1997       Beck and Plaintiff Rod Young publicly testify to Anderson’s fiscal fraud.
July 1997       Inspector General charges School with violations of General Law.
Aug. 1997       Plaintiff David Higgs files first of plaintiffs’ three complaints alleging fraud.
Oct. 1997       Young and Higgs give evidence of unwarranted tuition claims to State Auditor.
Nov. 1997       Anderson defames Higgs, Young, and others in school newsletter.
Dec. 1997       State audit of School’s initial 2-1/2 years operation commences.
Mar. 1998       Department of Education conducts its second site visit to School.
May 1998       School and DOE begin concerted campaign to defame Beck, Higgs, and Young.
                                                                               [Continue]

[WebPage] The Plaintiffs, Defendants, Attorneys, Judges and Courts

This page identifies the three plaintiffs, the defendants, the defendants attorneys, judges and other individuals and government agencies involve with the Beck vs DOE law suit.

Complaints filed by plaintiffs with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, Office of the Bar Counsel: Board of Bar Overseers and Federal Bureau of Investigation

Federal Bureau of Investigation

(12/02/03) Letter (pdf) to Kenneth W. Kaiser, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation

"My co-complainant David Higgs and I wish to express our thanks for the professional service given us by Agent Russell on November 25, 2003. We left your office satisfied that our issue had been fully grasped. We understand our matter has been referred to your Public Corruption Unit.

We are encouraged by a statement on the Bureau’s website, that “[t]he FBI’s highly sensitive public corruption investigations focus on all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and include allegations of judicial ... corruption.”

We are alleging shocking, self-evident fraud by a state Superior Court Judge – and/or by members of his staff – to cover-up wrongdoing in the high-profile, politically charged state Charter School Program. Several defendants in our civil action “Beck v. DOE” are also high-profile, to include a senior vice-president of the Boston Globe and current Commissioner of Education...."

Commission on Judicial Conduct

[ General Laws c. 211C, and the Commission Rules]

(10/10/03) Complaint (pdf) filed with the [Massachusetts] Commission on Judicial Conduct against Richard J. Chin, Justice of the Superior Court, Regional Administrative Justice by Plaintiff Higgs and Young.

[complaint summary] "Regional Administrative Justice Chin signed a decision and order of summary judgment incorporating nine indefensible distortions of the record. These blatant falsifications rationalize the Court's dismissal of charges against defendants..........The Court's reliance upon undisclosed, ex parte sources is strongly indicated."

(11/10/03) Letter (pdf) from Jill Pearson, Executive Director, Commission On Judicial Conduct

"We have received your complaint against Judge Richard J. Chin. A careful reading of your complaint shows that you are asking us to do precisely what the Commission on Judicial Conduct is not allowed to do: review a judge's decision for error......As your complaint does not fall within our jurisdiction, we can neither docket nor investigate it."

(11/25/03) Letter (pdf) to Jim Pearson, Executive Director, Commission On Judicial Conduct

"Thank you for your informative letter dated November 10 regarding our complaint of October 14, 2003 alleging judicial misconduct of Judge Richard J. Chin. Naturally we were disappointed with your determination, but can understand your reservations about our allegations as presented.

According to your letter, our complaint was neither investigated nor docketed by your Commission. We herewith submit a revision which we believe answers the exceptions you noted.

We acknowledge, as you accurately noted, that our suggestion of ex parte communication by the judge and/or his staff was conjecture. We had not meant to imply that we possessed hard evidence of that impropriety, but rather to recommend to your investigator(s) a probable explanation for the various, blatant distortions of the record occurring in the Judge’s decision and order of summary judgment."

(11/25/03) Revised Complaint (pdf) filed with the [Massachusetts] Commission on Judicial Conduct against Richard J. Chin, Justice of the Superior Court, Regional Administrative Justice by Plaintiff Higgs and Young.

"Specific Facts:

Thirteen distortions of the record appearing in the decision and order are expounded in the attached

Super Brief [pp. vi-vii]. One manifestly deliberate alteration is illustrated below. Remarkably the Court extensively misquotes and thereby reverses a report entitled “case closures” issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By this final determination – obtained through a freedom-of-information request – the Bureau established conclusively that there had been no illegal access to a school’s computer system, and accordingly, in cooperation with the US Attorney, proceeded with case closure.

However, the Court’s painstaking misquotation indicates that “file sharing from a remote access” indeed had been “allowed,” and that I, David Higgs, was the suspect “remote” intruder. Moreover, with critical sentences in the FBI report omitted, the school’s case, undergoing closure, is made to appear open – indefinitely – and an investigation into illegal computer access, ongoing.

The Court’s clearly fraudulent substitutions, insertions, and omissions are illustrated below in red....."

(12/02/03)Letter (pdf) to Jill Pearson, Executive Director, Commission on Judicial Conduct

"...We are confident that our complaint, revised November 25, complies with your Commission’s format, and that our charges of ethical misconduct by Judge Chin are now properly before your body. Nonetheless, we are counseled to acknowledge an alternate, legal basis for our allegations. 1 Since receiving your November 10 letter rejecting our grievance of October 14, we have filed a preliminary criminal complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Office..."

(12/24/03)Letter (pdf) from Jill Pearson, Executive Director, Commission On Judicial Conduct...."Your complaint has been screened and will be looked into..."

"Re: Complaint Number 2003-119
Dear Mr. Higgs:
This will acknowledge receipt of your complaint against Judge Richard J. Chin. Your complaint has been screened and w i l l be looked into...."

Office of the Bar Counsel: Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court

[Office of the Bar Counsel publish rules]

(10/07/03) Complaint filed by plaintiffs Higgs and Young with the Office of Bar Counsel against Attorney Mark W. Batten containing the allegation of Rule 34 of Civil Procedure violation.

Summary of allegations made in the complaint

1. Attorney Batten denied the existence of the so-called ‘Pollets Report’ requested in discovery, in violation of Rule 34 of Civil Procedure.
2. Attorney Batten devised or condoned ex parte materials provided to the Court.

(10/30/03) Letter (pdf) from Daniel C. Crane, Bar Counsel to plaintiffs Higgs and Young

"Your request for investigation of the conduct of Attorney Mark W. Batten has been assigned to me for review....The court is, in the first instance, a more appropriate forum for resolution....Accordingly...closed without disciplinary action"

Plaintiffs Notes:
Board of Bar Overseers Notice of rights for an independent review
RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL

"A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;"

(11/05/03) Letter to Board of Bar Overseers, Chair M. Ellen Carpenter, from plaintiffs Higgs and Young requesting a "judgment as to the merits...." (pdf)

By this writing we wish to express appreciation for the timeliness of response to our joint complaint1 dated October 7, 2003 alleging unethical conduct by Mark W. Batten, Esq., BBO #566211. Yet, we must convey our dismay over the questionable justification given by Bar Counsel Daniel C. Crane for his decision on behalf of the BBO to close the file “without disciplinary action.”

We do therefore wish to exercise our right “to have this decision reviewed by a member of the Board,” and hereby request a “judgment as to the merits of this matter,” which, according to the Bar Counsel were not considered.

A majority of the reference documents in "An Appeal Held Hostage" are Protable Document Format (PDF) files. If you don't have a PDF reader installed and integrated with you web browser, then you can get the Abode Reader (free: for viewing and printing PDF files) directly from the Acrobat web site [http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html].

The Beck vs. DOE web site contains over 250 Megs of HTML files and PDF reference documents. The Plaintiffs in Beck vs. DOE can supply a copy of the Beck vs. DOE web site on a CD for off line viewing. Please e-mail Appeal@BeckVsDOE.wellrock.net to request a copy of the Beck vs. DOE web site.

For additional information about the Beck vs DOE law suit, please e-mail Appeal.BeckVsDOE@wellrock.net

WebMaster@wellrock.net