Judge Young again plays favorites with Influential lawyers and colleagues, who benefited from the distribution of stolen funds

May 11, 2008

By Margret Koch Chalupowski MD PHD (View author info)

The Story behind Federal Civil RICO Claim number 06-11936-WGY

In September 2004, using fraudulently procured court orders, an influential lawyer of Beverly Massachusetts instructed several financial institutions to liquidate and give him over $500,000 from bank accounts belonging to three private individuals.

When the owners of the funds complained to the courts and law enforcement authorities about the theft, the lawyer procured yet another court order which forbids his victims to undertake any attempts to recover their money.

The victims, determined to recover their money despite the existence of the bizarre order obstructing their access to courts, asked the U.S. District Court in Boston to allow them to pursue a civil RICO claim against the influential lawyer and a dozen of his equally influential colleagues, all of whom benefited from or participated in the distribution of the stolen funds.

The civil RICO claim assigned to Judge Douglas P. Woodlock seemed to be going forward until Judge William G. Young took over the case and promptly dismissed it in violation of law and rules of civil procedure on January 8, 2007.

Nine months later, Judge Young (apparently mindful of the fact that he is notorious for being regularly overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) changed his mind and reinstated the case only to dismiss it again in January 2008, again in violation of law and rules of civil procedure.

On May 4, 2008, FOX25 aired a piece entitled Are Judges Playing Favorites? about Judge Young's oddly discrepant rulings in two criminal cases, one of which involved a lawyer-defendant Morris Golding, who stole over $18,000,000 from his victims, yet was ostentatiously favored by Judge Young's ruling.

While Judge Young's favorite pastime on the federal bench appears to be playing favorites to his fellow lawyers, the influential lawyer of Beverly Massachusetts and a dozen of his influential colleagues, who already spent the entire $500,000 stolen in 2004, are now trying to put their hands on another half-a-million dollars still belonging to their victims.

Why not? After all, the federal Judge William G. Young himself said it was OK, and all they stole so far may be a mere million bucks - a far cry from the 18 million pocketed by Mr. Golding.

While one million dollars may seem like much less than eighteen million dollars, the stakes in the current RICO case are much higher.

First, in the current case we have not one lawyer-defendant, but sixteen, three of whom are state court judges, which makes the whole group practically untouchable.

Second, the pool of the intended beneficiaries of Judge Young's generous favor includes, apart from the sixteen defendants, all the courts and law enforcement authorities which had chosen to do nothing when alerted by the victims about the theft of their assets.

The group of the clandestine intended beneficiaries of Judge Young's favor who have found it undesirable to upset the perfect scheme executed by the sixteen defendants, consist of officers of several state courts (including the Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), various local, state, and federal law enforcement authorities, and other entities charged with holding lawyers and judges accountable for their actions.

Most recently, the Massachusetts Board of Bar of Overseers, apparently persuaded by Judge Young's ruling, refused to investigate the victims' complaint documenting the fact that the influential lawyer of Beverly, Massachusetts received the sum of $516,000 but never accounted for its distribution, thus violating all applicable rules of professional conduct.

The BBO's reluctance to investigate the matter should not be surprising. After all, the BBO rules tell lawyers how to handle other people's money. There is nothing in the rules telling lawyers how to handle stolen money. This must be the reason that the BBO decided that there was nothing for the BBO to investigate.

And, incidentally, if somebody complains, they can always say, well, Judge Young said it was OK.

Background story: JUDICIAL CORRUPTION: LYNCHED BY COURT ORDER - How to steal millions of dollars by turning public courtrooms into a private playground - February 22, 2008 - By Mac Kock Lebel

NOTES: Chester Chalupowski is the editor of Massachusetts Homeowners News - AHRC News Services