Pinnacle at Central Wharf (Harbor Garage) | 70 East India Row | Waterfront | Downtown

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,990
Reaction score
234
They can appeal out of the SJC? To where? SCOTUS? What justification could they use to turn this into a federal case?
The decision last October on various motions to dismiss was by a judge in Superior Court, and it would be this judge who would preside at trial. Posters who are MA lawyers can probably find the case on the court calendar and its status.

Neither Hook nor Rams Head (Chiofaro) can settle the remaining complaint by CLF. The issue is between CLF and the state. The city is not a party, so it is out of the picture.

If there is a trial at the Superior Court level, and either the CLF or the state are unhappy with the outcome, an appeal would be made to the Massachusetts Appeal Court. As I understand it, the Appeals Court is the second highest appeals court in Massachusetts, the highest being the Supreme Judicial Court.

There is no Federal issue, so no SCOTUS.

From the decision of the Superior Court with respect to CLF's complaints, reformatted and excerpted:

CLF Plaintiffs filed this action solely against the State Defendants. The CLF Complaint contains six claims:
Count I, which seeks a "Declaratory Judgment, [per] G.L. c.231, $$ 1 & 2," concerning "the legality of the [Department's] delegation of its statutory obligation to determine proper public purposes and other [Chapter 91] requirements to the Secretary and his municipal harbor planning process"; [The $$ is a pdf formatting copy error]

Count II, which seeks a "Declaratory Judgment Re: Illegal Rulemaking, [per] G.L. c. 30A";

Count III, which seeks a "Declaratory Judgment re Illegal MHP Approval Process";

Count IV, which is styled "Environmental Damage, G.L. c.214, $ 7A"; [The $ is a pdf formatting copy error]

Count V, which seeks an order of "Mandamus, [per] G.L. c.249, $ 5," directing the Commissioner "to execute his responsibilities and duties under [Chapter 91]";

and Count VI, which seeks an order of "Mandamus, [per] G.L. c. 249, $ 5," directing the Secretary "to comply with the Massachusetts APA [Administrative Procedures Act] when engaging in rulemaking as part of his MHP approval process."

[The judge in the Superior court tossed five of the six CLF counts.]

....the Court concludes that Count I of the CLF Complaint states a viable claim against the State Defendants and is not appropriate for dismissal at this time.

...For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Downtown MHP Declaratory Judgment Claims [II, III, IV] do not assert a plausible claim and must be dismissed

...As previously noted, mandamus simply is not available for such purposes. See Boston Med. Ctr. Corp, 463
Mass. at470. All of Plaintiffs' mandamus claims [V, VI] necessarily fail as a result.
 

Rover

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
851
Reaction score
203
CLF's recent track record is not good. Much like the south boston power plant site, you can buy off NIMBY'S with free parking spaces which is what I suspect this is really all about.
 

Johnnyrocket891

Active Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
134
Reaction score
60
(b) Chiofaro has never owned the Harbor Garage. The court's decision states that RHDC, i.e., Prudential, has owned the garage since 2007.
This comment. Most land, developments or corporations usually fall under trusts, LLC or partnership agreements. The actual owner would never own anything. Its all in trusts to protect individuals from liability.
You will never know who actually owns the properties or business's even if Chiofaro does or doesn't have a stake in the end. You will never know.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,990
Reaction score
234
This comment. Most land, developments or corporations usually fall under trusts, LLC or partnership agreements. The actual owner would never own anything. Its all in trusts to protect individuals from liability.
You will never know who actually owns the properties or business's even if Chiofaro does or doesn't have a stake in the end. You will never know.
So as not to confuse people with your observations.

Assuming that Rams Head is a trust, a trust is a legal entity. If it was not a legal entity, it could not be a 'defendant' to the claim brought by the HT residents, regarding the parking spaces.

The 'actual owner' (of a property) is the trust, which acts on behalf on the investors in a particular trust. The administrators of the trust (e.g., Prudential) manage on behalf of the investors. The individual investors who 'own' a share of the trust do not administer or manage it. I think it unlikely that Chiofaro, as the designated agent of Rams Head, would also have a financial stake in the trust.

The investors are not members of an anonymous, secret society. These inventors have to pay taxes on income they receive from the trust. If the trust is publicly traded, all investors owning a significant share of the trust are publicly identified all the time. Investors generally are not individually liable for illegal, unlawful actions committed by the trust, unless investors directly participated in the illegal or unlawful scheme.
 

Johnnyrocket891

Active Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
134
Reaction score
60
So as not to confuse people with your observations.

Assuming that Rams Head is a trust, a trust is a legal entity. If it was not a legal entity, it could not be a 'defendant' to the claim brought by the HT residents, regarding the parking spaces.

The 'actual owner' (of a property) is the trust, which acts on behalf on the investors in a particular trust. The administrators of the trust (e.g., Prudential) manage on behalf of the investors. The individual investors who 'own' a share of the trust do not administer or manage it. I think it unlikely that Chiofaro, as the designated agent of Rams Head, would also have a financial stake in the trust.

The investors are not members of an anonymous, secret society. These inventors have to pay taxes on income they receive from the trust. If the trust is publicly traded, all investors owning a significant share of the trust are publicly identified all the time. Investors generally are not individually liable for illegal, unlawful actions committed by the trust, unless investors directly participated in the illegal or unlawful scheme.
Every business structure is different and most business's today are structured in LLC, Trusts, Partnerships and corporations based on tax and liability issues. My point is you don't know or either does anybody else.
 
Last edited:

George_Apley

Not a Brahmin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
4,746
Reaction score
1,172
The decision last October on various motions to dismiss was by a judge in Superior Court, and it would be this judge who would preside at trial. Posters who are MA lawyers can probably find the case on the court calendar and its status.

Neither Hook nor Rams Head (Chiofaro) can settle the remaining complaint by CLF. The issue is between CLF and the state. The city is not a party, so it is out of the picture.

If there is a trial at the Superior Court level, and either the CLF or the state are unhappy with the outcome, an appeal would be made to the Massachusetts Appeal Court. As I understand it, the Appeals Court is the second highest appeals court in Massachusetts, the highest being the Supreme Judicial Court.

There is no Federal issue, so no SCOTUS.
Yes. That's what I thought. I was confused by this in Vivanna's post:

"Even if they lose at Superior court CLF can appeal and if they lose the appeal they can go to the Supreme Court, lose, and appeal there too."

To appeal out of the SJC (which is what I assume Vivanna meant by "the Supreme Court") would mean making it a Federal case and bouncing from SJC to SCOTUS.

Thanks for providing the excerpt from the decision btw.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,990
Reaction score
234
I tried searching a docket calendar for this case [Conservation Law Foundation v. Beaton], and was unsuccessful. But I have no experience in searching this calendar.

The CLF claim still apparently being litigated is this:
The CLF Plaintiffs also allege that the entire MHP regulatory framework under the MHP Regulations and the Waterways Regulations is legally flawed. They claim that the Legislature expressly gave the Department exclusive authority over the licensing process for developments on tidelands under Chapter 9I, and that the Department has unlawfully delegated that authority to the Secretary by virtue of 310 Code Mass. Regs. $ 9.34(2Xb).
The "Department" is the Department of Environmental Protection
The "Secretary" is the head of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. He approved the Municipal Harbor Plan that covers Hook and the Pinnacle.

The CLF claims that under Massachusetts law, the Secretary had no authority to approve this MHP. The state's response will presumably be that this delegation was lawful. And that's what will be argued at trial.
 
Last edited:

Vivanna

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
83
Reaction score
69
Yes. That's what I thought. I was confused by this in Vivanna's post:

"Even if they lose at Superior court CLF can appeal and if they lose the appeal they can go to the Supreme Court, lose, and appeal there too."

To appeal out of the SJC (which is what I assume Vivanna meant by "the Supreme Court") would mean making it a Federal case and bouncing from SJC to SCOTUS.

Thanks for providing the excerpt from the decision btw.
George, I should have made it clearer:

"Even if they lose at Superior court CLF can appeal and if they lose the appeal they can go to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, lose, and appeal there too." Obviously this is not a Federal issue, but CLF can drag it out for 4-5 years.
 

Rover

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
851
Reaction score
203
George, I should have made it clearer:

"Even if they lose at Superior court CLF can appeal and if they lose the appeal they can go to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, lose, and appeal there too." Obviously this is not a Federal issue, but CLF can drag it out for 4-5 years.
If the CLF thinks they're going to prevail in pro business federal court, including the SCOTUS, they're more clueless than I thought. A 4 year delay isn't a problem here because the garage is a moneymaker so there's no incentive for the developer to cut a deal.

Regarding johnnrockets' point, I think he's right. Stellar continues to imply that Don is broke and has a fractional stake in all of this with no evidence. I ask this: if prudential owned the garage and could turf Chiofaro at any point, why haven't they? Especially when Menino was mayor? Hire Samuels or one of the other favored developers and call it a day.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,990
Reaction score
234
If the CLF thinks they're going to prevail in pro business federal court, including the SCOTUS, they're more clueless than I thought. A 4 year delay isn't a problem here because the garage is a moneymaker so there's no incentive for the developer to cut a deal.

Regarding johnnrockets' point, I think he's right. Stellar continues to imply that Don is broke and has a fractional stake in all of this with no evidence. I ask this: if prudential owned the garage and could turf Chiofaro at any point, why haven't they? Especially when Menino was mayor? Hire Samuels or one of the other favored developers and call it a day.
REPEATING, this lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for Suffolk County (civil division) a state court. Appeals from decisions of the Superior Court are made to the Massachusetts Appeals Court., a state court. Appeals from a decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court are made to the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest state court in Massachusetts. In this particular case, there is NO Federal issue (controversy) so there is no appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court.

With respect to Rams Head, Rams Head is listed as the owner in the court filings and the Superior Court decision in this case (a decision on whether to dismiss counts before a trial). Further, in the court's decision, Rams Head is described as the purchaser of the garage in December 2007. In looking at incorporations in the state of Delaware, Rams Head was incorporated in December 2007. (The address for Rams Head is identical to the address for Prudential Real Estate.)

If Chiofaro held even a limited ownership stake in the garage, he must be brought in as a party to the cases filed by the HT residents and CLF. The reason for including him as a party is that if the cases were adversely decided, this could materially affect the value of his ownership stake. Chiofaro was not brought in as a party, therefore he is not a co-owner of the garage.

The Pinnacle PNF filed with the city lists Rams Head as the owner; there is no reference to any ownership by Don Chiofaro. Chiofaro is listed as the agent for Rams Head.

With respect to Prudential and Chiofaro, Prudential bailed him out of bankruptcy of IP. Chiofaro was driven into bankruptcy by Tishman Speyer,

'Tishman Speyer is a "bunch of pirates" said Chiofaro.


After being bailed out by Prudential, Chiofaro's ownership stake in IP was supposedly reduced to a small fraction.

You, Rifleman, and Johnnyrocket are free to continue believing that Chiofaro owns the garage. You are also free to believe in the tooth fairy.
 

TallIsGood

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
403
Reaction score
20
REPEATING, this lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for Suffolk County (civil division) a state court. Appeals from decisions of the Superior Court are made to the Massachusetts Appeals Court., a state court. Appeals from a decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court are made to the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest state court in Massachusetts. In this particular case, there is NO Federal issue (controversy) so there is no appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court.

With respect to Rams Head, Rams Head is listed as the owner in the court filings and the Superior Court decision in this case (a decision on whether to dismiss counts before a trial). Further, in the court's decision, Rams Head is described as the purchaser of the garage in December 2007. In looking at incorporations in the state of Delaware, Rams Head was incorporated in December 2007. (The address for Rams Head is identical to the address for Prudential Real Estate.)

If Chiofaro held even a limited ownership stake in the garage, he must be brought in as a party to the cases filed by the HT residents and CLF. The reason for including him as a party is that if the cases were adversely decided, this could materially affect the value of his ownership stake. Chiofaro was not brought in as a party, therefore he is not a co-owner of the garage.

The Pinnacle PNF filed with the city lists Rams Head as the owner; there is no reference to any ownership by Don Chiofaro. Chiofaro is listed as the agent for Rams Head.

With respect to Prudential and Chiofaro, Prudential bailed him out of bankruptcy of IP. Chiofaro was driven into bankruptcy by Tishman Speyer,

'Tishman Speyer is a "bunch of pirates" said Chiofaro.


After being bailed out by Prudential, Chiofaro's ownership stake in IP was supposedly reduced to a small fraction.

You, Rifleman, and Johnnyrocket are free to continue believing that Chiofaro owns the garage. You are also free to believe in the tooth fairy.
Chifaro may hold an ownership interest in Rams Head and likely has a management position. Ownership is usually indirect.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,990
Reaction score
234
Chifaro may hold an ownership interest in Rams Head and likely has a management position. Ownership is usually indirect.
Highly unlikely he would have both, or that Prudential's lawyers would allow him to hold both. The problem is the great potential, in situations such as this, for 'self-dealing' which is a criminal offense, and which can also give rise to civil lawsuits by other investors in the trust.
 

Johnnyrocket891

Active Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
134
Reaction score
60
You, Rifleman, and Johnnyrocket are free to continue believing that Chiofaro owns the garage. You are also free to believe in the tooth fairy.
I just said nobody knows who actually owns the garage. These groups are crying global climate change, race inequality and rising seas to prevent the development.
What's next the Aquarium Executives, NIMBYS, and CLF, will deem Harbor Garage as a Historical monument?
These groups basically will do anything to stop the development. It doesn't matter what the developer proposes.

This is why the developer should consider to counter sue these groups.
Its not like anybody is going to stick up for the 100K salary Aquarium executives who allow their beloved mammals to swim in a fiberglass case for the overall public as the Aquarium employees reap a whopping $12.00 -15.00 dollars an hour. It's amazing that the CEO of the Aquarium has all this energy to fight this development but cannot fund raise to build a better vision for the Aquarium toilet bowl.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
445
Something tells me that those people don't care if the garage ever gets developed.

The real problem is the Aquarium executive branch they have fiduciary duty to the public taxpayers to do what is best for the city of Boston. The developer has come up with a valid solution for the site. The Aquarium executives are being dishonest with their conclusions and using stalling tactics like climate change and other insane issues to continue to stall the project.
That is truly disingenuous and shows that the executives are using powers that have been entrusted in them from the public without offering other solutions to work with the developer.

Anything that is presented for this site the Aquarium executive branch will not comply it doesn't matter if its a 100ft or 700ft.

I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes through this process but the Aquarium executive team is boxing themselves in to be sued. There is no way anybody can justify that the garage is a better option than the developer proposal without offering other alternatives or ideas for the site..
Let's face it. The "environmentalist" Vicki Spruill wants to keep a hulking garage for her Aquarium to maintain its market of gas guzzling suburbanites to burn rubber and fossil fuels to Central Wharf along the Harbor. This is strictly for the Aquarium's financial interests.

In other words, she is not an environmentalist at all but a fossil fuel supporting liar.
 

Rover

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
851
Reaction score
203
REPEATING, this lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for Suffolk County (civil division) a state court. Appeals from decisions of the Superior Court are made to the Massachusetts Appeals Court., a state court. Appeals from a decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court are made to the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest state court in Massachusetts. In this particular case, there is NO Federal issue (controversy) so there is no appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court.

With respect to Rams Head, Rams Head is listed as the owner in the court filings and the Superior Court decision in this case (a decision on whether to dismiss counts before a trial). Further, in the court's decision, Rams Head is described as the purchaser of the garage in December 2007. In looking at incorporations in the state of Delaware, Rams Head was incorporated in December 2007. (The address for Rams Head is identical to the address for Prudential Real Estate.)

If Chiofaro held even a limited ownership stake in the garage, he must be brought in as a party to the cases filed by the HT residents and CLF. The reason for including him as a party is that if the cases were adversely decided, this could materially affect the value of his ownership stake. Chiofaro was not brought in as a party, therefore he is not a co-owner of the garage.

The Pinnacle PNF filed with the city lists Rams Head as the owner; there is no reference to any ownership by Don Chiofaro. Chiofaro is listed as the agent for Rams Head.


You, Rifleman, and Johnnyrocket are free to continue believing that Chiofaro owns the garage. You are also free to believe in the tooth fairy.
Why would he be brought in separately in the lawsuit if it's an LLC that he's a part of? Also, I'll ask again. If he has no stake in the property, why is he being hired as the developer? Especially when Menino was mayor, wouldn't Don be the last person Pru would want running the project? If he has no stake, according to you, why is he even involved?
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,990
Reaction score
234
Why would he be brought in separately in the lawsuit if it's an LLC that he's a part of? Also, I'll ask again. If he has no stake in the property, why is he being hired as the developer? Especially when Menino was mayor, wouldn't Don be the last person Pru would want running the project? If he has no stake, according to you, why is he even involved?
Q. Why would he be brought in separately in the lawsuit if it's an LLC that he's a part of?
A. There is no indication that he is part of the LLC. He is the designated agent for the LLC. I will not get into the details of agency law, suffice to say this: agency law refers to the relationship between a person, or "agent," that acts on behalf of another person, company, or government, usually called the "master" or "principal." Rams Head is the principal, and Chiofaro, as the agent, acts on behalf of Rams Head.. The PNF describes this relationship, explicitly.

Q. Why is he being hired as the developer?
Presumably because Chiofaro and Prudential have a relatively long-standing business relationship with respect to IP, with Prudential owning most of IP, Chiofaro owning a small part of IP, and managing IP for Prudential. Prudential presumably sees economic value in IP else Prudential would not have bailed him out of bankruptcy, and Tishman Speyer would have acquired ownership.

Neither Prudential as owner, or Chiofaro as agent, were in any rush to develop the Harbor Garage. The HT residents parking space easement does not expire until February 2022. That date is 14+ years from the date of purchase of the garage.

Q. If he has no stake, according to you, why is he even involved?
Chiofaro is being well paid to serve as the agent for Rams Head Development Co. LLC He is also being paid to manage and operate the garage.
_______________________________
IIRC, Rifleman posted more than once on this forum promoting the idea of the city using eminent domain to take the parking space easements from the HT residents. I reference that because I've excerpted below sections from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to eminent domain, and the need to identify and find all owners of a property(ies) to be seized.

3) Parties. When the action commences, the plaintiff [a government] need join as defendants only those persons who have or claim an interest in the property and whose names are then known. But before any hearing on compensation, the plaintiff must add as defendants all those persons who have or claim an interest and whose names have become known or can be found by a reasonably diligent search of the records, considering both the property's character and value and the interests to be acquired. All others may be made defendants under the designation “Unknown Owners.”

(4) Procedure. Notice must be served on all defendants as provided in Rule 71.1(d), whether they were named as defendants when the action commenced or were added later. A defendant may answer as provided in Rule 71.1(e). The court, meanwhile, may order any distribution of a deposit that the facts warrant.

Each notice must name the court, the title of the action, and the defendant to whom it is directed. It must describe the property sufficiently to identify it, but need not describe any property other than that to be taken from the named defendant. The notice must also state:

(i) that the action is to condemn property;
(ii) the interest to be taken;
(iii) the authority for the taking;
(iv) the uses for which the property is to be taken;
(v) that the defendant may serve an answer on the plaintiff's attorney within 21 days after being served with the notice;
(vi) that the failure to so serve an answer constitutes consent to the taking and to the court's authority to proceed with the action and fix the compensation; and
(vii) that a defendant who does not serve an answer may file a notice of appearance.
My bolding.
 

TallIsGood

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
403
Reaction score
20
Highly unlikely he would have both, or that Prudential's lawyers would allow him to hold both. The problem is the great potential, in situations such as this, for 'self-dealing' which is a criminal offense, and which can also give rise to civil lawsuits by other investors in the trust.
Are you a lawyer? I’ve been a corporate lawyer for over 20 years and practice at one of the major firms.
 

Johnnyrocket891

Active Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
134
Reaction score
60
Q. Why would he be brought in separately in the lawsuit if it's an LLC that he's a part of?
A. There is no indication that he is part of the LLC. He is the designated agent for the LLC. I will not get into the details of agency law, suffice to say this: agency law refers to the relationship between a person, or "agent," that acts on behalf of another person, company, or government, usually called the "master" or "principal." Rams Head is the principal, and Chiofaro, as the agent, acts on behalf of Rams Head.. The PNF describes this relationship, explicitly.

Q. Why is he being hired as the developer?
Presumably because Chiofaro and Prudential have a relatively long-standing business relationship with respect to IP, with Prudential owning most of IP, Chiofaro owning a small part of IP, and managing IP for Prudential. Prudential presumably sees economic value in IP else Prudential would not have bailed him out of bankruptcy, and Tishman Speyer would have acquired ownership.

Neither Prudential as owner, or Chiofaro as agent, were in any rush to develop the Harbor Garage. The HT residents parking space easement does not expire until February 2022. That date is 14+ years from the date of purchase of the garage.

Q. If he has no stake, according to you, why is he even involved?
Chiofaro is being well paid to serve as the agent for Rams Head Development Co. LLC He is also being paid to manage and operate the garage.
_______________________________
IIRC, Rifleman posted more than once on this forum promoting the idea of the city using eminent domain to take the parking space easements from the HT residents. I reference that because I've excerpted below sections from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to eminent domain, and the need to identify and find all owners of a property(ies) to be seized.


My bolding.

This is an architectural board to talk about amazing structures, designs, and the aesthetics to the city.
Who cares who owns the garage.

The groups that represent protecting the waterfront are disingenuous to the public along with using their political powers to manipulate that the garage is a better option than the developer's proposal.
The developer has proposed a very positive outcome versus keeping the garage intact.
 

Vivanna

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
83
Reaction score
69
The decision last October on various motions to dismiss was by a judge in Superior Court, and it would be this judge who would preside at trial. Posters who are MA lawyers can probably find the case on the court calendar and its status.

Neither Hook nor Rams Head (Chiofaro) can settle the remaining complaint by CLF. The issue is between CLF and the state. The city is not a party, so it is out of the picture.

If there is a trial at the Superior Court level, and either the CLF or the state are unhappy with the outcome, an appeal would be made to the Massachusetts Appeal Court. As I understand it, the Appeals Court is the second highest appeals court in Massachusetts, the highest being the Supreme Judicial Court.

There is no Federal issue, so no SCOTUS.

From the decision of the Superior Court with respect to CLF's complaints, reformatted and excerpted:
"Neither Hook nor Rams Head (Chiofaro) can settle the remaining complaint by CLF."

If Hook and / or Don come up with the cash, CLF will drop this case like a hot potato, let's not forget who they are.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
4,990
Reaction score
234
Are you a lawyer? I’ve been a corporate lawyer for over 20 years and practice at one of the major firms.
Most of my lawyering is writing Federal laws, including laws with criminal and civil penalties. One of which was in play with respect to Cronin's project, but not in play for Pinnacle because of the magenta zone.
 

Top