About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view Mahariffic's profile
    Posted March 1, 2013 by
    Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

    More from Mahariffic

    Corruption Alleged in Massachusetts' Top Courts

    Aliana Brodmann E. von Richthofen. who has been fighting official corruption and workplace retaliation in Massachusetts, finally has seen the light cast on a deep, dark pattern of injustice, retaliation and judicial favoritism that has left many like her perfectly defenseless.
    After Alliana's fight with Dana Farber Cancer Institute, which she alleged retaliated and blacklisted her, started a website, http://www.stopemployerbullying.org.
    Recently, the Washington, DC, Watchdog, completed an investigative story that is exposing insidious corruption and abuses in the very institutions charged with guaranteeing citizens civil liberties and due process.

    The first report broke early this morning and likely will lead to others.

    By Kevin Mooney | Watchdog.org

    BOSTON, Mass. If the allegations are true, it means that Massachusetts residents, who are not politically connected, can be subjected unequal, unfair treatment within their state’s judiciary system.

    Someone inside the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is suppressing and manipulating evidence. That someone is most likely a court clerk and that someone is operating in collusion with other court clerks, and possibly the current and former chief justices, to avoid issuing a definitive ruling that would clarify the legal distinction between “employment discrimination” and “employment retaliation.”
    These are the allegations listed in a complaint former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in February 2012 on behalf of Aliana Brodmann E. von Richthofen, a resident of Wellesley, Mass. and the public interest. The complaint names former Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, sitting Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Senior Clerk Susan Mellen, Assistant Clerk Jane Lewis and Clerk David Labadini.

    While the opposing parties remain sharply divided over the merits of von Richthofen’s legal challenge, there is no disputing the fact that certain court documents went missing and that her case was mishandled at the clerical level. Francis Moran, the top attorney for former Chief Justice Marshall, concedes this point in written correspondence with von Richthofen.

    There’s a long history here that reaches back to a complaint von Richthofen filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in 2001 against her former employer Dana Farber Cancer Institute. That history can be reviewed at StopEmployerBullying.org.) The case eventually found its way into the state court system where von Richthofen is convinced the proper legal standard was not followed. By this she means that the trial judge for the Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass. incorrectly informed the jury that it needed proof of employment discrimination. However, von Richthofen claims she only needed to demonstrate employment retaliation, which is easier to prove.

    What happened next is a complicated, bizarre story. But one that von Richthofen is eager to tell as the details are very suggestive of judicial favoritism, corruption and fraud.

    In March 2010, after taking notice of missing entries and other irregularities on the Internet docket of her “Application for Further Appellate Review,” and after requesting to see the physical file of her appeal, von Richthofen was informed that her “the entire case file” had gone “inexplicably missing” at the Supreme Judicial Court, according to the complaint.
    Here’s where the civil rights and conspiracy allegations come into play.
    When some of the missing documents were later retrieved and made available to von Richthofen, it became evident that they had been changed and altered from their original format. For example, a motion that had been marked as “urgent” and hand delivered to the court clerk’s office on Oct. 28, 2009 (and had been stamped with that date on her copy) was instead marked Nov. 5 2009 when it was reproduced. That’s a problem because the motion in question needed to reach the justices in time for their deliberation on the day of Oct. 28, 2009. The next day the court denied von Richtonfen’s request to reconsider her appeal.
    Unlike the court clerks, von Richthofen has kept meticulous records that detail the underlying facts of her case. Of particular importance are the facsimiles, certified mail and hand delivered statements that record the exact date and time she submitted the very documents that had gone “inexplicably missing.”
    Kevin Mooney is Watchdog.org reporter in Washington D.C. He can be reached at Kmooney@watchdog.org and on Twitter @KevinMooneyDC
    - See more at
    Add your Story Add your Story