What is FRAUD?
Fraud is a purposeful perversion or twisting of the truth, or a false misrepresentation of a matter of fact. When someone commits fraud, he is undertaking a dishonest act, which is to his advantage.
Fraud can be committed not only by fact, but by concealing what should have been disclosed, by words, conduct and by misleading or false allegations, all of which are meant to deceive someone else.
Events that happened all contained in official documents within the city and state archives in 1960/1961.
City of Worcester submitted fraudulent documents in 1960 to take 60 acres of protected public park land that was not available.
Non-disclosure (concealment) of protective Acts and restrictions in the deeds
False Park Commissioner claim
It appeared that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) and Attorney General (AG) approved the documents with no review or validation performed, overlooking/not discovering the fraudulent information or non-disclosed protections.
Act 1960 chapter 121, 1961 Decree, Bill in Equity
The approval only gave 20 acres of the protected public park land to the city - no record of what caused this change has been located yet.
Further research found the SJC didn’t approve the 1961 Decree as the city claims - there are NO signed copies of that decree in any archives.
Lawsuit Documents
Superior Court Documents (2185CV00263)
Defendant (City) Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Opposition to Dismissal
Defendant (City) Reply to Plaintiff
Appellate Court Documents (2021-P-0907)
Audio of Appellate Court Hearing
Supreme Judicial Court Document
FAR Application - document to request the SJC further review the compliant. The SJC declined (refused to review) and did not provide any detailed statement.
Court Rulings
Superior Court - Denied, Res judicata and claim preclusion bar taxpayer claims. Stated taxpayers were fully heard in 1960 and Attorney General adequately represented the taxpayer interest. He did not address fraudulent or non-disclosed documents. The judge based his ruling on false claims provided in the city briefs - ignored the missing legal documents.
Appellate Court - Judgement Affirmed. 1961 Decree was approved by Supreme Judicial Court. Appellate court declines to address the merits of the challenges to that statue.
Supreme Judicial Court - Declined to review.
FACTS.
Click the links to view documents.
School Committee Minutes
Sept 1959 - School committee voted to request City Manager to use all possible means to have the State Legislature at it’s present sitting, take action on Newton Hill site for Senior High School
City of Worcester Records / Session Laws / State Library of Massachusetts
April 13, 1882 - Act 1882 Chapter 154 authorizing towns and cities to lay out Public Parks within their limits.
May 1, 1885 - Act 1885 Chapter 163 relating to Public parks and Shade Trees in the City of Worcester. Approved & Adopted.
November 4, 1884 - Worcester Acceptance Acknowledgement. Worcester voters approved and adopted Act 1882 Chapter 154.
June, 1888 - Parks Commissioners acquire Newton Hill under the protections and via use of Public Park Loan authorized by Act of 1882.
Registry of Deeds
All 5 deeds have a specific use requirement documented - ‘take in fee, for the purpose and use of a Public Park’. No other use of land would be legally permitted - these statements were not disclosed in 1960 nor were they reviewed by the Attorney General. Check out the deeds - look for the yellow highlighted phrases.
Nathan Johnson Deed, Chauncey Harrington Deed, William S. Lincoln Deed, John Wetherill Deed #1, John Wetherill Deed #2
Supreme Judicial Court Archive
Bill in Equity Document (equity suit) - List of statements made in 1960 by city and approved by Attorney General.
Attorney General Assistance Requested (Voice of the People?)
November 15, 2019 - requested assistance with the issue to Seth Schofield, Office of Attorney General.
April-June 2020 - submitted multiple requests for assistance with the issue.
May 10, 2021 - 2nd request for assistance with the issue to Seth Schofield, Office of Attorney General.
October 4, 2021 - 3rd formal request via attorney for assistance with the issue to Seth Schofield.
Other Documents
These are the 2 documents the city cited in the lawsuit that allowed them to take the 20 acres: (both containing fraudulent statements)
These are 4 documents sent to the city to ask them to not approve the loan and to provide proof of land status:
Sept. 8, 2020 - Email to city council on Loan Vote
October 5, 2020 - Inquiry sent to the city
October 8, 2020 - Response from the city (invalid - this document does not address 20 acres but all 60 acres - not the instrument used for official transfer of land)
December 10, 2020 - Demand letter sent to the city
This document was the offer from the city to withdraw the lawsuit.
April 28, 2021 - Offer to protect the land in perpetuity - which the Act 1882 Chapter 154 (Public Trust) already provided when it was voted in by the residents in 1884.
1961 Decree - the yellow highlights, confirmation via public record
No Supreme Judicial Court Judge ever signed this document - it was NEVER approved. No copies of signed document in the registry, Worcester records, SJC Admin or National Archives.
No evidence of any open court hearing was held on this Equity bill.
There was no judge with the last name of Spalding - how does an official document get recorded and filed with no signature and false claims.
FRAUDULENT.
Act 1960 Chapter 121 - 1961 Decree (1960)
Bill in Equity Document - Act 1882 and use requirements listed in deeds were not disclosed to SJC or Attorney General nor were they documented.
Item #9 - William Richardson listed as Parks Commissioner - he was never a Parks Commissioner. Public Record request confirmed. He lived in an apartment on Main Street and worked as a cutter in a tailoring shop. He spent time every day in Elm Park or on Newton Hill. Newspaper Article
No mention of 1882 Acts or restrictions listed in deeds referenced. This document was approved by the Attorney General - information was not validated or he would have found the false Parks Commissioner claim and if he read the deeds would have found the specific use clauses - which should have prevented the request from being approved.
Doherty High School Project Documents (2019)
Title Opinion submitted August 29, 2019 by city solicitor for 2019 Doherty HS Project - lists acquisitions made for park purposes under authority c. 263 of the acts of 1884 - this was an expired act. This document was submitted as part of the MSBA application - false information. City omitted/didn’t disclose Act 1882 Chapter 154 or Act 1885 Chapter 163 - refused to acknowledge them.
Newton Hill Questions submitted December 5, 2019 by city solicitor - admitted Act 1885 Chapter 163 act expired and states city was aware of specials acts, legislature might have amended the act but the Acts and Resolves archives are not searchable. - false statement.
Acts and Resolves are searchable, as well as 1882 document is also listed within numerous city records. No reference to correct documents made - non-disclosure.
Page 3 lists the G.L. C 40, transfer requirements that were legally required - land no longer necessary and vote of city council - these are the transactions that were never completed. The city claims these actions were addressed by the 1961 Decree which transferred the land to the school department - false statement.
‘DO IT RIGHT DOHERTY’
The proposed Doherty rebuild:
Is at a tremendous financial cost to the city taxpayers
will consist of a $325+ million-dollar school loan
construct a facility that does not provide the required student amenities
destroy protected public parkland, cutting over 1000 trees
substantially increase traffic on Highland and adjacent streets
affect the overall quality of life of residents in the surrounding neighborhood
The taxpayers, students, and community of Worcester deserve better!
The City of Worcester refused to evaluate and consider other sites that did meet requirements for the new construction. Locations rejected include the Saint Peter Marion Property and the vacant land on Park Avenue, despite multiple requests for re-consideration by city taxpayers. The alternate sites identified were eliminated as “It will impact the schedule”.
The new Doherty Memorial High school should be built on non-public park land with an adequate parcel of land which meets the requirements for the project. They did have options!
