Judge rules on hearing in waste district embezzlement case

Mar 6, 2019

BROCKTON — Judge Robert Cosgrove of the Plymouth Superior Court dismissed several charges in an ongoing civil embezzlement suit against Ray E. Pickles, former long-time executive director of the Carver Marion Wareham Refuse Disposal District, his wife and the former Carver health agent.

Lawyers for retired health agent Robert Tinkham Jr. and Diane Bondi-Pickles argued at a Jan. 14  hearing for increased access to the waste disposal district’s financial documents and to reduce, eliminate or clarify the charges against their clients.

The Waste Disposal District was formed to allow Carver Marion and Wareham to negotiate jointly with the SEMASS waste-to-energy facility in Rochester. It is funded, in part, by money from the three towns.

After the towns received assessments from the district in 2017 for the first time in two years, officials dug deeper into district finances and discovered a variety of financial irregularities. As a result they  forced Pickles out of his position of 45 years in January 2018.

In June 2018, the district filed a civil embezzlement suit against Pickles, Biondi-Pickles and Tinkham, accusing them of embezzling $838,458.22.

Tinkham’s lawyer John Fink had argued in January that his client filed a notice of intent to dismiss the district’s original June filing but did not file an answer before the district filed a second amended complaint, making it difficult for Tinkham to respond.

The amended filing asked for triple damages should they be found responsible, and that the defendants cover the court costs and a trial by jury.

“The District seeks to recoup those funds for the benefit of the District’s taxpayers who ultimately bear the burden of the defendants’ misconduct,” the district wrote in court documents.

Cosgrove ruled in February that a count against Robert Tinkham Jr. and Diane Bondi-Pickles that tried to use a “private right” to accuse the two of violating procurement laws does not stand. He also ruled that the count against Bondi-Pickles for a financial duty to the Waste Disposal District be dropped.

Tinkham and Bondi-Pickles must still defend against counts of conspiracy, fraud, improperly possessing money,  improper use of power, and violating a consumer protection law. Tinkham must also defend against a claim that he did not fulfill his financial duty to the Waste District

At the Jan. 14 hearing, Fink moved to dismiss five of the claims against his client in the district’s August complaint.

Pickles, Bondi-Pickles and Moss Hollow Management, the consulting company that the Pickles formed to contract with the waste district for Pickles’ management services, all responded to the original complaint before the waste district filed its amended complaint.

But Fink argued that because Tinkham did not it would give his client two complaints to argue against, which is confusing. Tinkham now legally has to respond to both the original and amended complaint.

In his decision, Cosgrove upheld the amended complaint that the District had filed as valid, with the exception of the three counts he dismissed.

William Harrington, who represented Bondi-Pickles, claimed on Jan. 14 that his client should not be in the case because she is only Pickles’ wife.

Cosgrove pointed out at the heading that Bondi-Pickles’ name was on the account to which the allegedly embezzled funds were distributed.

Harrington responded that involvement in a joint account is not adequate basis for her inclusion in the case – and that the only count directly against Bondi-Pickles is for a fraud committed in 2001, for which the statute of limitations has expired.

The attorneys for the waste disposal district argued that because Bondi-Pickles is listed as the president of Moss Hollow, she was involved.

Cosgrove ruled that Bondi-Pickles does not have a financial obligation to protect the waste District, but that multiple counts against her should still be upheld.

Lawyers for the defendants had also argued in January that accessing the Waste District documents was too complicated and burdensome. Cosgrove made no ruling on whether the lawyers for Tinkham and Bondi-Pickles should have increased access to documents.

The January hearing did not address the counts against Pickles. All of the counts against him still stand. The next step in the process allows for amended and supplemental pleadings on the case.