<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Investigations &#8211; Brookfield Examiner</title>
	<atom:link href="https://brookfieldexaminer.com/category/investigations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com</link>
	<description>Shining a Spotlight on Brookfield, Every Story, Every Day</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:16:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Pastor Coates Drops Fraud Claims Against Orchard Developer and Two Former Dunbar Clients</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/10/20/pastor-coates-drops-fraud-claims-against-orchard-developer-and-two-former-dunbar-clients/</link>
					<comments>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/10/20/pastor-coates-drops-fraud-claims-against-orchard-developer-and-two-former-dunbar-clients/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=2225</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Pastor Coates Drops Fraud Claims Against&#160; Orchard Developer and Two Former Dunbar Clients Dismissals with prejudice remove three defendants from multimillion-dollar lending lawsuit involving late Massachusetts attorney Ronald Dunbar Jr. By Christopher Kelleher&#160; October 20, 2026 7:15 P.M.&#160; KENT COUNTY, R.I. — Pastor Delman Coates has voluntarily dismissed all claims against a Rhode Island real-estate [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="2225" class="elementor elementor-2225">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-52b291d e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="52b291d" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-3e247f3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="3e247f3" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h1><b>Pastor Coates Drops Fraud Claims Against<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>Orchard Developer and Two Former Dunbar Clients</b></h1>
<p><i>Dismissals with prejudice remove three defendants from multimillion-dollar lending lawsuit involving late Massachusetts attorney Ronald Dunbar Jr.</i></p>
<p><b>By Christopher Kelleher<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></b></p>
<p><b>October 20, 2026 7:15 P.M.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></b></p>
<p><b>KENT COUNTY, R.I.</b> — Pastor Delman Coates has voluntarily dismissed all claims against a Rhode Island real-estate development company and two former personal-injury clients of the late Massachusetts attorney Ronald W. Dunbar Jr., reversing course in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit alleging an elaborate lending fraud.</p>
<p>The dismissals, filed September 24 and 25 in Rhode Island Superior Court, remove Five Five Plus LLC, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler from the litigation.</p>
<p><b>All three dismissals were filed with prejudice</b>, meaning Coates generally cannot bring the same claims against those defendants again.</p>
<p>The development marks a significant change in a case in which Coates originally alleged that Dunbar, his law firm, a real-estate development company and several personal-injury clients participated in a fraudulent lending arrangement involving millions of dollars.</p>
<p>The dismissal notices do not explain why Coates withdrew the claims. They also do not establish whether any of the defendants received money from the disputed transactions.</p>
<p>But they leave a central question unanswered: <b>If the people identified as borrowers never received the loan proceeds, where did the money go?</b></p>
<h3><b>From Alleged Co-Conspirators to Dismissed Defendants</b></h3>
<p>Coates filed his verified complaint in August 2026, alleging that Dunbar arranged at least $2.85 million in loans between December 2024 and April 2025.</p>
<p>According to the complaint, Dunbar proposed the loans, prepared the agreements, personally guaranteed obligations and serviced the transactions through his law firm&#8217;s client trust account.</p>
<p>The lawsuit accused Dunbar of operating a lending fraud and alleged that money had been advanced against both anticipated personal-injury recoveries and a condominium development in West Warwick, Rhode Island.</p>
<p>The original complaint went further than accusing Dunbar alone.</p>
<p>It asserted civil conspiracy allegations against the defendants, including Five Five Plus and several of Dunbar&#8217;s personal-injury clients.</p>
<p>Coates alleged that participants had combined to obtain money through false representations and improperly retain or divert proceeds.</p>
<p>Those allegations carried serious implications for people who maintained that they had never received the funds Coates was attempting to recover.</p>
<p>Now, less than two months after filing the lawsuit, Coates has withdrawn those claims against three defendants.</p>
<p>The September 24 notice dismisses Five Five Plus LLC.</p>
<p>A second notice, submitted September 25, dismisses Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler.</p>
<p>Both documents expressly state that the dismissals are with prejudice and that each party is responsible for its own attorneys&#8217; fees and costs.</p>
<p>The notices do not dismiss the claims against the remaining defendants.</p>
<h3><b>The Orchard Developer Denied Receiving the Money</b></h3>
<p>Five Five Plus LLC owns The Orchard, a condominium development in West Warwick that became central to several loan agreements arranged by Dunbar.</p>
<p>David Fromm, who says he controls the company, previously told <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> that Dunbar had no authority to borrow money on its behalf or pledge its development as collateral.</p>
<p>Fromm also denied that either he or Five Five Plus received the loan proceeds.</p>
<p>Coates&#8217;s complaint described construction loans purportedly secured by buildings at The Orchard.</p>
<p>But it also alleged that promised mortgages and other security documents were never delivered or recorded.</p>
<p>The absence of those instruments raised questions about whether the loans were actually secured by the property as represented.</p>
<p>Fromm maintained that the transactions were conducted without his authorization.</p>
<p>With Coates&#8217;s claims against Five Five Plus now dismissed with prejudice, the company is no longer a defendant in that Rhode Island action.</p>
<p>The filing does not explain what information prompted the dismissal.</p>
<h3><b>Personal-Injury Clients Caught in the Lending Dispute</b></h3>
<p>The same lawsuit also involved loans purportedly secured by settlements or anticipated recoveries in personal-injury cases handled by Dunbar.</p>
<p>According to the original complaint, the attorney arranged financing against those recoveries, with repayment expected from settlement proceeds.</p>
<p>Some of the former clients disputed having authorized the financing or received the money.</p>
<p>The complaint itself alleged that Dunbar had misrepresented the status of certain settlements and expected payments.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, Coates initially pursued claims against several individuals whose personal-injury cases had been used in the financing arrangements.</p>
<p>Two of those individuals, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler, have now been dismissed with prejudice.</p>
<p>The dismissals do not establish precisely what happened to the loan proceeds, whether the agreements were authentic or whether the individuals received any money.</p>
<p>Those questions remain relevant to the broader investigation into Dunbar&#8217;s financial dealings.</p>
<h3><b>A Verified Complaint — Not Just an Allegation</b></h3>
<p>The decision to dismiss these defendants raises another important question: Why were they accused of participating in the alleged fraud in the first place?</p>
<p>Coates did not simply file an ordinary civil complaint. He filed a <b>verified complaint</b>, a legal pleading in which the allegations are accompanied by a formal verification, generally made under oath or penalty of perjury.</p>
<p>That distinction matters.</p>
<p>While an ordinary civil complaint contains allegations that must eventually be proven, a verified complaint adds a formal assertion of their truth, subject to the precise language and qualifications of the verification.</p>
<p>Coates&#8217;s lawsuit accused Dunbar of orchestrating a multimillion-dollar lending fraud. But it did not stop with Dunbar.</p>
<p>The complaint also alleged that Five Five Plus and several of Dunbar&#8217;s personal-injury clients participated in wrongdoing, including civil conspiracy and the improper retention or diversion of funds.</p>
<p>These were serious accusations.</p>
<p>The defendants were not merely identified as people connected to Dunbar&#8217;s financial dealings. They were named as participants in the alleged misconduct and faced potential financial liability.</p>
<p>Yet less than two months after filing the verified complaint, Coates voluntarily dismissed all claims against Five Five Plus, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler — <b>with prejudice</b>.</p>
<p>The dismissals do not establish that the original allegations were knowingly false. Nor do they establish that Coates lacked a reasonable basis for bringing the claims.</p>
<p>But they raise legitimate questions about what was verified before the lawsuit was filed.</p>
<p>Did Coates or his attorneys obtain bank records showing that the defendants actually received the money?</p>
<p>Did they independently confirm that the purported borrowers had signed the agreements?</p>
<p>Did they verify that Dunbar had authority to borrow against The Orchard?</p>
<p>Or were the allegations based substantially on documents and representations supplied by the very attorney Coates accused of deceiving him?</p>
<p>The dismissal filings provide no answers.</p>
<p>A verified complaint carries legal significance precisely because its factual assertions are formally affirmed, subject to the terms of the verification, rather than presented solely as an attorney&#8217;s unsworn allegations.</p>
<p>When serious accusations made in such a pleading are subsequently withdrawn against multiple defendants, the circumstances warrant scrutiny.</p>
<p><b>What evidence originally justified accusing these individuals and the development company of participating in fraud — and what changed?</b></p>
<h3><b>The Unanswered Question: Where Did the Money Go?</b></h3>
<p>Coates&#8217;s original complaint alleges that Dunbar arranged millions of dollars in financing, much of it involving the attorney&#8217;s law firm and client trust account.</p>
<p>It further alleges that Dunbar repeatedly misrepresented the status of payments and transactions.</p>
<p>The litigation has raised questions about whether funds intended for specific borrowers or investments ever reached their purported recipients.</p>
<p>As <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> previously reported, limited records from Dunbar&#8217;s client trust account showed repeated withdrawals during the period examined.</p>
<p>The existence of withdrawals does not itself establish wrongdoing. A complete accounting would be needed to determine where the funds went, who received them and whether the transfers were authorized.</p>
<p>That financial trail remains central to understanding the allegations.</p>
<p>The removal of Five Five Plus, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler from Coates&#8217;s lawsuit narrows the litigation.</p>
<p>It does not answer what happened to the money Coates says he advanced.</p>
<p>And it leaves a question that extends beyond this single lawsuit:</p>
<p><b>How many of the people identified in Dunbar&#8217;s financial arrangements were actual borrowers — and how many were unaware that their names, cases or property were being used to obtain money?</b></p>
<p><b>Editor&#8217;s Disclosure:</b> The editor of <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> was previously represented by Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. in unrelated civil litigation and has been involved in litigation concerning that representation. Those matters do not involve the loans or real-estate transactions described in this article.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/10/20/pastor-coates-drops-fraud-claims-against-orchard-developer-and-two-former-dunbar-clients/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Woman Sues Brookfield Property Owner for Negligence After Falling Tree Limb Allegedly Causes Broken Nose, Lost Teeth</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/10/12/woman-sues-brookfield-property-owner-for-negligence-after-falling-tree-limb-allegedly-causes-broken-nose-lost-teeth/</link>
					<comments>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/10/12/woman-sues-brookfield-property-owner-for-negligence-after-falling-tree-limb-allegedly-causes-broken-nose-lost-teeth/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 15:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Interest Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=2215</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Woman Sues Brookfield Property Owner for  Negligence After Falling Tree Limb Allegedly Causes Broken Nose, Lost Teeth Claudia Cenedella alleges John Holdcraft ignored warnings about a dangerous tree limb. Separate court filings raise questions about conflicting residential-address statements. By Christopher Kelleher &#124; The Brookfield Examiner October 12, 2026  11:15 A.M.  BROOKFIELD, Mass. — A woman [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="2215" class="elementor elementor-2215">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-bb0bfb4 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="bb0bfb4" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-f9cd053 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="f9cd053" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h1><b>Woman Sues Brookfield Property Owner for<span class="Apple-converted-space">  </span>Negligence After Falling Tree Limb Allegedly Causes Broken Nose, Lost Teeth</b></h1><p><i>Claudia Cenedella alleges John Holdcraft ignored warnings about a dangerous tree limb. Separate court filings raise questions about conflicting residential-address statements.</i></p><p><b>By Christopher Kelleher | The Brookfield Examiner</b></p><p><b>October 12, 2026<span class="Apple-converted-space">  </span>11:15 A.M.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></p><p><b>BROOKFIELD, Mass.</b> — A woman who alleges she suffered a concussion, broken nose, lost teeth and serious facial lacerations after being struck by a falling tree limb at a Brookfield property has filed a negligence lawsuit against property owner John D. Holdcraft in Worcester Superior Court.</p><p>The lawsuit, filed June 22, 2026, by Claudia Cenedella, alleges that Holdcraft knew about a dangerous, damaged tree limb hanging over the driveway at 106 Lake Road but failed to remove it despite receiving advance warning.</p><p>According to the complaint, Cenedella was living at the property as a tenant-at-will with Holdcraft&#8217;s knowledge and consent.</p><p>On or about March 10, 2025, Cenedella was walking in the driveway when the damaged limb allegedly broke free, struck her directly in the face and knocked her to the ground.</p><p>The complaint describes injuries including a concussion, fractured nose, loss of teeth and serious facial lacerations. Cenedella also alleges continuing pain and suffering, medical expenses, anticipated future medical costs and lost wages.</p><p>The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and demands a jury trial.</p><p>The allegations have not been established by a court.</p><h3><b>WARNINGS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT</b></h3><p>The central allegation in Cenedella&#8217;s lawsuit is not simply that a tree limb fell, but that Holdcraft allegedly knew about the danger before the accident and failed to correct it.</p><p>According to the complaint, the property was surrounded by large pine trees, including one located adjacent to the driveway.</p><p>Before March 10, 2025, a large limb on that tree had reportedly sustained damage and was left hanging in a dangerous position over the driveway.</p><p>Cenedella alleges that she notified Holdcraft of the hazardous condition and requested that the limb be removed.</p><p>Despite that warning, the complaint alleges, Holdcraft failed or refused to take corrective action.</p><p>According to the lawsuit Over the following weeks and months, the damaged limb deteriorated further. Heavy winds caused it to shift farther into the driveway, increasing the danger to people using the property and eventually the limb broke free and struck Cenedella in the face.</p><p>The complaint alleges that Holdcraft, as the property&#8217;s owner and manager, exercised control over its maintenance and was responsible for addressing hazardous conditions on the grounds.</p><p>Cenedella contends that his failure to remove, secure or otherwise address the damaged limb constituted negligence.</p><p>The lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount of damages. Instead, Cenedella seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other recoverable damages.</p><p>She is represented by attorneys Korey S. Kajko and Jessie R. Webber of Sweeney Merrigan Law LLP.</p><h3><b>ADDRESS DISCREPANCY EMERGES IN COURT FILINGS</b></h3><p>A separate issue emerged during the proceedings when Holdcraft requested additional time to respond to Cenedella&#8217;s lawsuit, raising questions about the address where legal documents had been served.</p><p>Court records show that Holdcraft filed a handwritten motion on August 19, 2026, stating that he had received the legal documents at 43 Allen Road in Sturbridge but asserting:</p><h3><b>&#8220;I do not live there.&#8221;</b></h3><p>Holdcraft identified an address in Brookfield as his residence and questioned why the constable had delivered the documents to Sturbridge.</p><p>On September 4, Superior Court Judge Gillian Feiner granted Holdcraft an additional 30 days to file his answer. The court&#8217;s endorsement did not specify that the address dispute was the basis for granting the extension.</p><p>However, a review of another lawsuit reveals a conflicting residential-address statement.</p><p><b>On June 22, 2026 — the same day Cenedella filed her negligence lawsuit — Holdcraft filed a separate civil complaint against two defendants arising from a motor vehicle collision.</b></p><p>In the first paragraph of that complaint, filed through his attorney, Holdcraft identified his residence as follows:</p><p><b>&#8220;The plaintiff is an individual residing at 43 Allen Road, Sturbridge, Worcester County, Massachusetts.&#8221;</b></p><p>The two court filings therefore contain differing statements about whether Holdcraft resided at the Sturbridge address.</p><p>The reason for the discrepancy remains unresolved.</p><p>Meanwhile, Cenedella&#8217;s negligence allegations have not been established by a court. Whether Holdcraft bears legal responsibility for her alleged injuries remains to be determined.</p><p><b>Editor&#8217;s Disclosure:</b> <i>Brookfield Examiner</i> editor Christopher Kelleher is the plaintiff in a separate, pending civil lawsuit against John D. Holdcraft. That lawsuit is not the subject of this report.</p><p><b>Editor&#8217;s Note:</b> This report is based on civil complaints, docket entries and a handwritten motion filed in Worcester Superior Court. Allegations in pending civil lawsuits have not been established as fact. Holdcraft&#8217;s response to the negligence allegations and differing address statements had not been obtained for this report.</p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/10/12/woman-sues-brookfield-property-owner-for-negligence-after-falling-tree-limb-allegedly-causes-broken-nose-lost-teeth/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>PROFITING FROM PAIN? PASTOR COATES&#8217; 10%-A-MONTH INJURY LOANS</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/09/14/profiting-from-pain-pastor-coates-10-a-month-injury-loans/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 14:29:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=2165</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[PROFITING FROM PAIN? PASTOR COATES’ 10%-A-MONTH INJURY LOANS The senior pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church says attorney Ronald Dunbar defrauded him. Court records show three purported loans involving four personal-injury clients were arranged through the same lawyer in just 22 days. Two separate deals sought the exact same amount—$250,000—and promised the lender $50,000 returns [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="2165" class="elementor elementor-2165">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-803afe3 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="803afe3" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-96284d6 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="96284d6" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h1><b>PROFITING FROM PAIN? PASTOR COATES’ 10%-A-MONTH INJURY LOANS</b></h1>
<p><i>The senior pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church says attorney Ronald Dunbar defrauded him. Court records show three purported loans involving four personal-injury clients were arranged through the same lawyer in just 22 days. Two separate deals sought the exact same amount—$250,000—and promised the lender $50,000 returns within about two months.</i></p>
<p><b>By Christopher Kelleher | The Brookfield Examiner</b></p>
<p><b>September 14, 2026<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp; </span>10:30 A.M.<span class="Apple-converted-space">&nbsp;</span></b></p>
<p>Pastor Delman Coates says Massachusetts attorney Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. defrauded him of millions of dollars through a series of loans and investments before Dunbar died in July.</p>
<p>But court records filed by Coates reveal another group now caught in the fallout: Dunbar’s personal-injury clients.</p>
<p>Four of them—Joseph Riley, Jennifer Riley, Jeffry Pike and Brian Tischler—are defendants in Coates’s Rhode Island lawsuit. They deny receiving Coates’s money or signing the loan agreements bearing their names.</p>
<p>The disputed agreements were tied to anticipated personal-injury settlements and carried returns of 10 percent per month. In an email filed with the court, Dunbar told Coates that Pike had suffered a traumatic brain injury.</p>
<p>Coates’s complaint accuses all the injured clients of conversion and civil conspiracy. It alleges, on information and belief, that they joined Dunbar and others in a scheme to obtain Coates’s money and divert settlement proceeds.</p>
<p>Those allegations have not been adjudicated. The publicly filed records reviewed by the Examiner do not identify communications showing that the injured clients agreed to participate in a scheme, and they do not publicly trace Coates’s money into their hands.</p>
<p>Coates’s own complaint also alleges that Dunbar lied about settlements and deposits that may never have occurred.</p>
<h2><b>“2 MORE PERSONAL INJURY DEALS”</b></h2>
<p>One of the central records in the case is a March 20, 2025 email from Dunbar to Coates with the subject line “2 more personal injury deals.”</p>
<p>Dunbar first described an automobile-accident claim involving Joseph and Jennifer Riley. He said the couple had suffered “extensive injuries with long hospitalization,” valued their claim at more than $650,000 and proposed a $250,000 loan against their anticipated settlement.</p>
<p>He then described Jeffry Pike.</p>
<p>“Jeffry was on the bicycle and sustained a traumatic brain injury,” Dunbar wrote.</p>
<p>Dunbar valued Pike’s claim at no less than $800,000—and “likely more”—and proposed a second loan.</p>
<p>The amount was exactly the same: $250,000.</p>
<p>According to Dunbar, both transactions would last 60 days and carry the same return.</p>
<p><b>“They would both be 60 day deals at the 10% per month that we have been doing on the personal injury claims,”</b> Dunbar wrote.</p>
<p>The wording indicated that the proposed loans were not the first such transactions between Dunbar and Coates. When Coates forwarded the email to his attorneys in August 2026, he wrote that “on every agreement, those that were fulfilled and those that were not, he represented 10-12% per month, as the fee that would be paid.”</p>
<p>The agreements Dunbar subsequently prepared called for each $250,000 advance to become $300,000 in approximately two months—a $50,000 return on each transaction.</p>
<p>The Riley settlement was scheduled for mediation May 13, according to the records, with Coates to receive $300,000 by May 19. Pike’s mediation was scheduled for May 19, with Coates to receive another $300,000 by May 20.</p>
<p>The two purported borrowers were different. Their reported injuries were different. Their anticipated settlements were different.</p>
<p>But the amount each supposedly needed was identical: <b>$250,000.</b></p>
<p>The repayment due to Coates was also identical: <b>$300,000.</b></p>
<p>The Riley and Pike transactions followed another personal-injury loan described in Coates’s verified complaint.</p>
<p>On February 26, 2025, Coates purportedly advanced $150,000 against a personal-injury claim belonging to Dunbar client Nicolette Tenaglia. Dunbar valued the claim at between $350,000 and $400,000.</p>
<p>The agreement required repayment of $172,500 by April 12—approximately six weeks later. Coates’s complaint says that loan was repaid.</p>
<p>Twenty-two days after the Tenaglia transaction, Dunbar offered Coates the Riley and Pike deals.</p>
<p>That means that within 22 days, Dunbar presented three personal-injury loans involving four clients:</p>
<ul>
<li>$150,000 purportedly advanced to Tenaglia;</li>
<li>$250,000 purportedly advanced jointly to Joseph and Jennifer Riley; and</li>
<li>another $250,000 purportedly advanced to Pike.</li>
</ul>
<p>Together, the three transactions called for Coates to advance $650,000 and receive $772,500—a total return of $122,500 above principal.</p>
<p>The concentration went beyond the number of transactions.</p>
<p>According to Dunbar’s paperwork, four personal-injury clients of the same lawyer required extraordinarily expensive bridge financing within a single 22-day period. All four were represented as being only weeks away from mediation or anticipated repayment, yet none of the purported borrowers chose to wait.</p>
<p>Tenaglia supposedly needed $150,000 approximately six weeks before Coates was scheduled to receive $172,500. Twenty-two days later, the Rileys and Pike supposedly needed two separate loans of exactly $250,000 each—despite having different injuries, different cases and different anticipated settlement values.</p>
<p>Both $250,000 transactions carried the same 60-day term, the same 10-percent monthly return and nearly consecutive repayment dates. Each required repayment of $300,000, meaning each purported borrower would surrender $50,000 from an anticipated personal-injury recovery in exchange for receiving $250,000 approximately two months early.</p>
<p>A fourth purported personal-injury loan, involving Dunbar client Brian Tischler, followed. Coates says Dunbar retained the original agreement, and the publicly filed materials do not disclose its date or original principal.</p>
<p>Coates’s lawsuit also says he still does not know the full amount of his alleged losses because he continues to examine his wire-transfer history and other financial records. The complaint says Coates received approximately $70,000 in interest or fees from earlier transactions arranged through Dunbar before the relationship collapsed.</p>
<p>The completed Tenaglia loan accounts for $22,500 of that amount: Coates advanced $150,000 and received $172,500. If the reported $70,000 came from these Dunbar-arranged transactions, Coates’s own figures indicate that at least one additional transaction must have been completed and produced approximately $47,500—or that several other transactions together produced that amount.</p>
<p>The publicly filed materials do not identify the full history of those earlier successful deals or establish whether the additional transaction or transactions involved other personal-injury clients.</p>
<p>The known sequence therefore includes four injured clients and three loans within 22 days, a fifth injured client connected to a later loan and at least one additional completed transaction that has not been fully identified.</p>
<p>The clustering is especially notable because personal-injury representation was not among the practice areas advertised on Dunbar Law PC’s website.</p>
<p>The firm’s published <a href="https://www.dunbarlawpc.com/areas-of-practice">Areas of Practice</a> identify commercial litigation, construction litigation, real-estate litigation, securities litigation, insurance defense, bankruptcy-court litigation and work with emerging businesses. They do not list plaintiff-side personal-injury litigation.</p>
<p>Dunbar’s <a href="https://www.dunbarlawpc.com/ronald-w-dunbar-jr">professional biography</a> similarly describes his work as complex civil litigation, commercial and construction disputes, regulatory investigations and insurance defense. It does not identify personal-injury plaintiffs as a focus of his practice.</p>
<p>A law firm’s website does not necessarily list every type of case handled by its attorneys. But the omission adds another question to the compressed sequence: How did four personal-injury clients of a lawyer who did not advertise personal-injury representation all become connected to high-interest loans from the same private lender within 22 days?</p>
<p>How did two separate purported borrowers independently arrive at the exact same $250,000 need? Why did each purported borrower accept a 10-percent monthly charge when mediation or anticipated repayment was reportedly only weeks away? And did the demand for these loans originate with the injured clients—or with the one person who controlled the information about every client, every case and every anticipated settlement: Ronald Dunbar?</p>
<h2><b>$250,000 IN. $300,000 OUT.</b></h2>
<p>The purported Pike agreement states that Coates advanced $250,000 on March 20, secured by Pike’s personal-injury claim. It required Dunbar Law to pay Coates $300,000 on May 20, regardless of whether Pike’s case had settled by its scheduled mediation date.</p>
<p>Pike’s settlement check was not supposed to go directly to him. The agreement directed that it be made payable to Dunbar Law, deposited into the firm’s client-funds account and used to wire the $300,000 repayment to Coates.</p>
<p>The purported Riley agreement used substantially the same structure: a $250,000 advance against the Rileys’ claim followed by a $300,000 repayment about 60 days later.</p>
<p>In each transaction, Coates stood to receive $50,000 above his principal in approximately two months.</p>
<p>Ten percent per month equals 120 percent annually on a simple, noncompounded basis.</p>
<p>Rhode Island law generally prohibits interest exceeding the greater of 21 percent annually or a statutory alternative rate. In <i>NV One, LLC v. Potomac Realty Capital, LLC</i>, the Rhode Island Supreme Court described the state’s approach to usury as strict and held that contracts violating the statute are void.</p>
<p>Coates’s attorneys have acknowledged the issue.</p>
<p>In a memorandum seeking prejudgment attachment, they wrote that they anticipated a usury defense because instruments drafted by Dunbar “carry charges exceeding the 21% cap of § 6-26-2.” Coates’s complaint calculates effective annual rates of approximately 120 to 146 percent and asks the court to determine whether the instruments are “usurious and void.”</p>
<p>As alternative relief, Coates seeks the return of principal and any additional amount the court determines may lawfully be recovered.</p>
<p>That claim depends on a disputed fact: whether the injured clients ever received his money.</p>
<h2><b>CLIENTS DENY RECEIVING MONEY</b></h2>
<p>The injured defendants say they did not enter the transactions, did not receive Coates’s money and did not sign the agreements.</p>
<p>Those denials have not been adjudicated. But Coates’s own allegations describe uncertainty about what happened to the funds.</p>
<p>His complaint says Dunbar represented that the Riley, Pike and Tischler cases had settled and that settlement money would be deposited. It also alleges that those representations were false and that “no such settlements or deposits had occurred”—or, alternatively, that settlement funds existed and were diverted.</p>
<p>If the settlements or deposits did not exist, the case turns to the original transfers: where Coates sent the money, who controlled the receiving accounts and whether any funds can be traced to the people named as borrowers.</p>
<p>The publicly filed materials reviewed by the Examiner do not answer those questions.</p>
<p>They also do not establish whether Coates communicated directly with the purported borrowers before advancing the money, whether their signatures were independently authenticated or whether they received independent legal advice concerning agreements Dunbar prepared while serving as their attorney.</p>
<h2><b>COATES SUES THE INJURED CLIENTS</b></h2>
<p>Coates’s conversion count names Joseph Riley, Jennifer Riley, Pike and Tischler alongside Dunbar Law and Five Five Plus. It alleges that, to the extent the defendants received settlement proceeds belonging to Coates, they wrongfully retained, disbursed or diverted them.</p>
<p>The complaint seeks the value of the allegedly converted funds, punitive damages, interest and costs.</p>
<p>Count XIII accuses all defendants of civil conspiracy. Coates alleges “on information and belief” that Dunbar, his firm, Five Five Plus and the individual defendants “combined and agreed” to obtain his money through false pretenses, create “facially unlawful instruments,” divert settlement proceeds and lull him with false representations.</p>
<p>His Rhode Island RICO count, by contrast, is directed against Five Five Plus and Dunbar Law—not the individual personal-injury defendants.</p>
<p>The conspiracy claim requires proof that the injured clients knowingly agreed to participate. The public filings reviewed by the Examiner do not identify when or how any of them allegedly entered such an agreement.</p>
<p>The purported transactions used the real names and actual case information of Dunbar’s clients. That creates two competing possibilities now before the court: that the clients participated in the transactions, as Coates alleges, or that Dunbar used information he possessed as their attorney to make the proposed loans appear legitimate, as the clients contend.</p>
<p>The evidence needed to distinguish those possibilities is straightforward: authenticated signatures, communications with the purported borrowers and bank records tracing Coates’s funds.</p>
<h2><b>MONEY TRAIL WILL DECIDE</b></h2>
<p>Coates alleges that Dunbar gained his trust through earlier transactions that were completed as promised. He also alleges that Dunbar later deceived him about settlements, deposits and payments.</p>
<p>The personal-injury clients say Dunbar deceived Coates about them as well.</p>
<p>For now, the public record establishes that three purported personal-injury loans involving four Dunbar clients were arranged within 22 days; that two separate proposed loans were for the exact same $250,000 amount; that both promised Coates $300,000 within approximately 60 days; and that Dunbar’s website did not advertise plaintiff-side personal-injury litigation as part of his practice.</p>
<p>It also establishes that Coates has sued the injured clients and accused them of joining Dunbar’s alleged conspiracy.</p>
<p>What the public filings do not yet establish is whether the clients received the money.</p>
<p>That money trail—not the agreements Dunbar allegedly prepared—may determine whether the injured defendants were participants in the transactions or additional victims of the lawyer Coates says defrauded him.</p>
<p><i>Disclosure: Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. previously represented Brookfield Examiner editor Christopher Kelleher in an unrelated civil lawsuit. That litigation did not involve loans, lending or any financial transaction</i></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pastor Preached Against Usury. Now His 144% Interest Loans Are at the Center of a Multimillion-Dollar Lawsuit </title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/09/09/pastor-preached-against-usury-now-his-144-interest-loans-are-at-the-center-of-a-multimillion-dollar-lawsuit/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 15:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=2150</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Pastor Preached Against Usury. Now His 144% Interest Loans Are at the Center of a Multimillion-Dollar Lawsuit By Christopher Kelleher September 9, 2026 · 11:00 a.m. CLINTON, Md. — Pastor Delman Coates has spent years preaching about the morality of money. He has condemned usury. He has criticized financial systems that leave people trapped in [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="2150" class="elementor elementor-2150">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-04c44fb e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="04c44fb" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-838b2ea elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="838b2ea" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h1><b>Pastor Preached Against Usury. Now His 144% Interest Loans Are at the Center of a Multimillion-Dollar Lawsuit</b></h1>
<p><b><i>By Christopher Kelleher</i></b></p>
<p>September 9, 2026 · 11:00 a.m.</p>
<p><b>CLINTON, Md. —</b> Pastor Delman Coates has spent years preaching about the morality of money.</p>
<p>He has condemned usury. He has criticized financial systems that leave people trapped in “debt and bondage.” He has invoked Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers and called upon people of faith to reclaim Christianity’s historic resistance to exploitative lending.</p>
<p>He has even criticized a modern religious culture that, in his words, legitimizes “getting wealth at any cost.”</p>
<p>But court records now provide a striking look at Coates’s own activities as a private lender.</p>
<p>According to loan agreements, emails and other documents attached to a lawsuit Coates filed in Rhode Island, money was advanced by Coates at rates of <b>10 percent per month and 12 percent per month</b>. That is the simple equivalent of <b>120 percent and 144 percent a year</b>.</p>
<p>One agreement imposed a <b>$56,250 charge</b> to extend a $624,960 obligation by just three weeks.</p>
<p>That is approximately 9 percent for 21 additional days—the simple annualized equivalent of roughly <b>156 percent</b>.</p>
<p>Court exhibits also appear to show additional interest being calculated against balances that already reflected prior interest or extension charges—effectively resulting in interest being charged on interest.</p>
<p>And some of the money was advanced not against conventional real-estate mortgages or extensive loan underwriting, but against anticipated proceeds from personal-injury claims being handled by the late Massachusetts attorney Ronald W. Dunbar Jr.</p>
<p>Dunbar described some of those transactions in an email as <b>“60 day deals at the 10% per month.”</b></p>
<p>Now Dunbar is dead.</p>
<p>Coates says he was defrauded.</p>
<p>And some of Dunbar’s former clients—people who say they too were victims of Dunbar—find themselves defendants in litigation seeking to hold them responsible for what Coates alleges Dunbar did.</p>
<p>For those former clients, the fallout from Dunbar’s financial dealings did not end with his death.</p>
<p>It followed them into court.</p>
<h2><b>A Lawyer Accused of Betraying His Clients</b></h2>
<p>As <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> previously reported, former clients and others who dealt with Dunbar have accused the late attorney of financial misconduct involving substantial sums of money.</p>
<p>Since our original investigation, additional people have come forward describing losses they attribute to Dunbar.</p>
<p>The emerging picture is complicated. Dunbar was not merely practicing law. Documents show him arranging and participating in private financial transactions involving client claims, anticipated settlement proceeds and a Rhode Island real-estate development.</p>
<p>Precisely where all of the money ultimately went remains unclear.</p>
<p>Dunbar died in July 2026, leaving behind former clients, lenders, lawsuits and unanswered questions.</p>
<p>One of the people seeking answers—and money—is Coates.</p>
<p>His Rhode Island lawsuit portrays him as a victim of a fraudulent lending scheme.</p>
<p>In a statement provided to <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> through his attorney, Coates said he was himself a victim of Dunbar, whom he trusted as his lawyer.</p>
<p>“Dr. Coates was defrauded by the attorney he trusted, Ron Dunbar,” his attorney said.</p>
<p>Coates’s attorney said Dunbar structured and prepared the transactions while simultaneously acting as borrower, guarantor and counsel to borrowers, and that Dunbar never advised Coates to obtain independent counsel or provided written disclosure of those conflicting roles.</p>
<p>“That trust, the trust a client places in his own attorney, is what made this fraud possible,” the statement said.</p>
<p>But Coates is not the only person who says Dunbar deceived him. Some of the very people now facing claims in Coates’s lawsuit say they were Dunbar’s victims as well.</p>
<h2><b>10 Percent a Month Against Personal-Injury Claims</b></h2>
<p>Some of the earliest transactions described in the records involved personal-injury cases being handled by Dunbar.</p>
<p>In an email discussing the financing, Dunbar described the arrangements plainly:</p>
<p><b>“60 day deals at the 10% per month.”</b></p>
<p>In one documented transaction, <b>$250,000 was advanced with $300,000 due approximately 60 days later.</b></p>
<p>The security was not a traditional piece of commercial real estate. It was the anticipated recovery from a client’s personal-injury claim.</p>
<p>Under the agreement, settlement checks were to be made payable to Dunbar Law, deposited into the firm’s client-funds account and used to repay the financing. The agreement also carried guarantees from Dunbar and Dunbar Law.</p>
<p>The records identify multiple Dunbar clients whose anticipated personal-injury recoveries became connected to the financing, including Jeffry Pike, Joseph and Jennifer Riley, and Thomas Tischler.</p>
<p>Tischler’s case is particularly significant because Coates’s complaint alleges that Dunbar later represented that the matter had settled and that money was due to Coates from the recovery.</p>
<p>By September 2025, an email included with Coates’s exhibits listed <b>$2,772.89 per day in interest</b> associated with Tischler, alongside daily interest amounts for Pike and Riley.</p>
<p>Coates alleges those representations were false or, alternatively, that settlement proceeds were received and not delivered to him.</p>
<p>But Tischler and the other former clients now occupy a very different position in the litigation.</p>
<p>They were Dunbar’s clients. They say they were victims of the lawyer they hired to represent them. And they are now among the people Coates is attempting to hold responsible for money he says Dunbar failed to repay.</p>
<p>That makes the personal-injury financing about more than an extraordinary rate of return. Money was being advanced at 10 percent per month against anticipated recoveries belonging to injured clients of Dunbar—clients who would later find themselves caught in litigation arising from Dunbar’s financial dealings.</p>
<h2><b>Then Came Five Five—and The Orchard</b></h2>
<p>The financial relationship did not begin with Five Five Plus LLC.</p>
<p>According to Coates’s own complaint, Coates had been advancing money through Dunbar before the transactions involving Five Five and The Orchard, a multimillion-dollar condominium development in West Warwick, Rhode Island.</p>
<p>David Fromm says he owns Five Five Plus LLC, the company behind The Orchard, and that Dunbar had no authority to borrow money on the company’s behalf or pledge its development as security.</p>
<p>Fromm also says neither he nor Five Five ever received the loan proceeds.</p>
<p>To Fromm, the lending terms make the transactions even harder to explain.</p>
<p><b>“These interest rates are ridiculous,” Fromm told <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i>. “I have real loans from real lenders on this development at a fraction of these rates. I could have gotten money cheaper from organized crime than what the pastor was charging Mr. Dunbar. I never authorized this.”</b></p>
<p>Fromm points to Coates’s own complaint, which describes a lending relationship with Dunbar that existed before Five Five entered the picture.</p>
<p>“According to the pastor’s own lawsuit, he was lending Dunbar money before Five Five ever entered the picture,” Fromm said. “Then suddenly my company and my development are being used to supposedly secure these loans.”</p>
<p>Fromm also questions where the money went.</p>
<p>He says money purportedly advanced for Five Five was wired across state lines to Dunbar rather than deposited into a Five Five account.</p>
<p><b>“If this was really a loan to Five Five, why wasn’t the money wired to Five Five?” Fromm said. “Why was it going to Dunbar? I never received a dime.”</b></p>
<p>Those circumstances raise basic questions about the transactions.</p>
<p>If hundreds of thousands of dollars were being lent against a multimillion-dollar real-estate development, who verified who owned it? Who verified Dunbar’s authority? Why wasn’t the money sent to the purported borrower? And what due diligence was performed before the money changed hands?</p>
<p>Fromm says a deed search, municipal records or a phone call could have established the ownership of The Orchard. He also questions why the transactions lacked the type of underwriting and recorded security he says accompanies his conventional development loans.</p>
<p>Those questions have led Fromm to make a far more serious allegation.</p>
<p><b>“I have no reason not to suspect that Coates and Dunbar may have devised this scheme to steal my property,” Fromm said.</b></p>
<p>Coates flatly denies that allegation.</p>
<p><b>“On Mr. Fromm’s accusation that this was a scheme to take his development: that is false, and Dr. Coates welcomes any review of it,”</b> his attorney told <i>The Examiner</i>.</p>
<p>Coates’s attorney said Coates never met Fromm and never had any dealings with him. He said the purpose of Coates’s lawsuit is to determine whether any of the defendants actually received money Coates advanced through Dunbar.</p>
<p>“If they did not, then they, along with Dr. Coates, were deceived by the same man,” the statement said.</p>
<p>Fromm says he has nevertheless reported his allegations to law enforcement and wants investigators to examine the movement of money across state lines and determine whether state or federal laws were violated.</p>
<p>For Fromm, the dispute now puts him alongside other people who say Dunbar victimized them.</p>
<p><b>“I am a victim,” Fromm said. “I never authorized this. I never received this money. And now I’m fighting the pastor’s lawsuit along with other Dunbar clients who say they were victims, too.”</b></p>
<p>Fromm says the central issue is no longer merely whether Dunbar owed Coates money. It is how Dunbar’s private financial relationship with Coates ultimately produced claims against a development Fromm says Dunbar had no right to pledge.</p>
<h2><b>Fromm Says He Plans a Counterclaim</b></h2>
<p>Fromm says he does not intend to limit his role in the litigation to defending against Coates’s allegations.</p>
<p>He plans to pursue a counterclaim against the pastor, arguing that the lawsuit itself has damaged his property interests and placed both his livelihood and the development in jeopardy.</p>
<p><b>“This lawsuit has tainted my deed and put my livelihood—and the livelihoods of people who depend on this development—in peril,” Fromm told <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i>. “The pastor shotgunned this lawsuit against people who were Dunbar’s clients and victims without first determining whether we had anything to do with Dunbar’s alleged bad acts.”</b></p>
<p>Fromm says the consequences are real: a multimillion-dollar development is now entangled in litigation over financial transactions he maintains he never authorized.</p>
<p>“We were Dunbar’s clients. We trusted him. If Dunbar was committing fraud, follow the money and hold the people who actually participated responsible,” Fromm said. “Don’t turn his victims into his co-conspirators.”</p>
<h2><b>Another Real-Estate Deal, Another Allegation of Fraud</b></h2>
<p>Dunbar’s dealings involving The Orchard were not the only real-estate transaction to produce allegations of fraud.</p>
<p>In a separate verified lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts, former client Kevin Greene alleges he entrusted <b>$350,000</b> to Dunbar for a proposed real-estate transaction involving property in Newport, Rhode Island.</p>
<p>According to Greene’s complaint, Dunbar provided him with a purportedly executed agreement bearing the signature of a representative of the company involved in the proposed purchase.</p>
<p>After Dunbar’s death, Greene says he contacted that representative, Molly Kirby, who told him <b>she had not signed the document</b>, that the property was already under agreement with another party and that Dunbar had no involvement in the transaction.</p>
<p>Greene’s lawsuit alleges the document was “not genuine” and that Dunbar used it to induce him to transfer the $350,000 into Dunbar Law’s account.</p>
<h2><b>A Glimpse Inside Dunbar’s Client Trust Account</b></h2>
<p>A separate dispute involving two more former Dunbar clients provides a rare glimpse into the movement of money through Dunbar Law’s client trust account during the final month of Dunbar’s life.</p>
<p>Charles Grant’s attorney says Grant wired <b>$215,000</b> into the account on July 6, 2026, solely to complete a real-estate transaction. Grant never authorized Dunbar to use the money for personal expenses, operating expenses or payments to unrelated third parties, his attorney alleges.</p>
<p>A <i>Brookfield Examiner</i> review of the account’s redacted July bank statement confirms two incoming wires associated with Grant—one for <b>$148,000</b> and another for <b>$67,000</b>.</p>
<p>The account began July with <b>$278,500</b>. During the month, it received four deposits or credits totaling <b>$266,000</b>, while recording <b>62 withdrawals or debits totaling $481,900</b>, plus a <b>$9,600 check</b>. It ended the month with <b>$53,000</b>.</p>
<p>The balance stood at <b>$397,805.54</b> at the close of July 6, the day Grant’s money arrived. By July 20, it had fallen to <b>$92,000</b>. Four days later, it stood at <b>$28,000</b>.</p>
<p>The statement also shows two wires from the trust account to High Pace Construction LLC: <b>$40,000 on July 20</b> and <b>$20,000 on July 27</b>.</p>
<p>Grant’s attorney alleges that the $60,000 came from Grant’s entrusted funds and was transferred without his knowledge or authorization. An August 31 demand letter seeks the return of the money and threatens legal action.</p>
<p>High Pace says it, too, was a Dunbar client and maintains that the money represented legitimate payment for construction work it had already performed on Dunbar’s home.</p>
<p>The dispute leaves two former Dunbar clients, both claiming to be victims, fighting over money Dunbar controlled. Grant says his money was diverted. High Pace says it was legitimately paid for completed work and should not be forced to bear the loss.</p>
<p>The same fundamental conflict is now unfolding on a much larger scale in Coates’s Rhode Island lawsuit: people who say Dunbar victimized them are being forced to defend their money and property against claims brought by another person who says Dunbar victimized him.</p>
<h2><b>Dunbar’s Former Clients Say They Were Victims Too</b></h2>
<p>Coates did not simply seek recovery from Dunbar’s estate.</p>
<p>His lawsuit names Five Five Plus and others and asserts sweeping claims that include civil conspiracy and civil RICO.</p>
<p>Among the people swept into the litigation are former Dunbar clients connected to the personal-injury claims involved in the financing.</p>
<p>Some of those former clients deny knowing about Dunbar’s broader financial dealings, deny authorizing participation in a fraudulent scheme and say they consider themselves victims of the lawyer they had trusted to represent them.</p>
<p>They now face another burden: defending themselves against Pastor Coates’s lawsuit.</p>
<p><b>The result is an extraordinary collision: the pastor who says Dunbar defrauded him is pursuing people who say the same lawyer defrauded them.</b></p>
<p>Coates’s attorney says the lawsuit is intended to determine whether those defendants actually received any of the money Coates advanced.</p>
<p>If they did, Coates is seeking to recover the money he says Dunbar took from him. But if they did not, Coates’s position is that they may have been deceived by Dunbar as well.</p>
<p><b>“If they did not, then they, along with Dr. Coates, were deceived by the same man,”</b> his attorney said.</p>
<p>The former clients say they entrusted their legal matters to Dunbar. They now find themselves accused of participating in conspiracy and racketeering arising from financial transactions they say they knew nothing about and that were orchestrated by the attorney they hired to represent them.</p>
<p><b>If their accounts are true, Dunbar’s death didn’t end their ordeal. It simply changed who was coming after their money and their assets.</b></p>
<h2><b>The Pastor and the Money Changers</b></h2>
<p>Coates says Dunbar defrauded him of millions.</p>
<p>Fromm says Dunbar used his company and development without authority. Former personal-injury clients caught in Coates’s lawsuit say they were Dunbar’s victims, too.</p>
<p>The courts will ultimately determine who bears legal responsibility for the financial wreckage Dunbar left behind.</p>
<p>But Coates faces a different question—one created not by his lawsuit, but by his own words.</p>
<p>For years, he publicly condemned usury and warned about financial systems that leave people in “debt and bondage.”</p>
<p>Now his own court filings document his role as a lender in transactions carrying extraordinary interest and involving the anticipated recoveries of injured clients.</p>
<p>Coates says there is no contradiction.</p>
<p>“Since Dr. Coates has never received and is not asking for any of the interest or fees you have reported, then there is no conflict between his preaching and this litigation,” his attorney told <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i>. “Dr. Coates is merely asking the court for the return of his money. Nothing more.”</p>
<p>But Coates’s own verified complaint adds another dimension to that explanation.</p>
<p>The complaint states that before the unpaid transactions now at issue, Coates and Dunbar completed “several loans of the same design.” According to the complaint, Dunbar proposed the transactions, set the rates and fees, drafted the documents and “repaid each loan in full.”</p>
<p>Those successful transactions, Coates alleges, induced him to trust Dunbar with the much larger advances that followed.</p>
<p>The complaint also states that Coates received a <b>$70,000 interest payment</b> relating to an earlier, satisfied transaction known as Weston.</p>
<p>In a follow-up response, Coates’s attorney acknowledged that Coates received principal, interest and fees from the earlier transactions Dunbar completed.</p>
<p>“On the earlier loans that Dunbar completed, Dr. Coates was repaid with the fees Dunbar himself had proposed and computed,” his attorney said.</p>
<p>According to his attorney, Coates advanced <b>$2.85 million in principal</b> through the unpaid transactions at the center of the lawsuit. He has been repaid $400,000 and has recovered nothing else, leaving <b>$2.45 million in principal allegedly unpaid</b>.</p>
<p>Coates’s attorney also addressed the complaint’s reference to <b>$4,442,877.18</b> as the amount Dunbar had calculated was owed.</p>
<p>Counsel said the figure is included as Dunbar’s own written admission and not as a request that the court enforce the interest rates and fees contained in the loan documents.</p>
<p>The complaint, counsel said, pleads alternative forms of relief: the return of the principal Coates advanced or a declaration that the loan documents Dunbar prepared are unlawful and void.</p>
<p>“Dr. Coates is not asking any court to enforce the rates Dunbar wrote,” his attorney said.</p>
<p>Coates maintains that Dunbar designed the transactions, priced the loans, prepared the documents and used the successful repayment of earlier loans to gain his confidence before obtaining millions of dollars that were not repaid.</p>
<p>His lawsuit alleges precisely that.</p>
<p>But Coates was not new to these transactions when the unpaid loans were made.</p>
<p>Before advancing the $2.85 million now at issue, he had participated in several earlier loans of what his own complaint calls “the same design.” Those loans were completed, and Coates was repaid with the interest and fees Dunbar had proposed, including the $70,000 Weston interest payment.</p>
<p>The successful repayment of those earlier loans may help explain why Coates trusted Dunbar. It also establishes that the unpaid transactions were not an isolated encounter. They followed a course of high-interest lending from which Coates had previously received the promised returns.</p>
<p>The court filings reviewed by <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> do not identify any objection by Coates to the stated rates or fees while Dunbar was performing the earlier transactions and paying the promised returns.</p>
<p>The legality of the agreements is now before the court after the later transactions collapsed and millions of dollars went unpaid.</p>
<p>Coates may have been defrauded by Dunbar.</p>
<p>But his alleged victimization does not erase his repeated participation as a lender in transactions carrying extraordinary rates. One does not erase the other.</p>
<p>And the loan documents remain central to the case because they establish the terms under which the money was advanced—and Rhode Island law could determine whether those agreements are enforceable at all.</p>
<h2><b>Rhode Island’s Hard Line Against Usury</b></h2>
<p>The court will not decide Coates’s lawsuit based on biblical teachings about usury. It will decide the case under Rhode Island law—and Rhode Island law imposes strict and potentially devastating consequences on lenders who charge unlawful interest.</p>
<p>Rhode Island generally prohibits lenders from charging interest exceeding the greater of 21 percent annually or an alternate rate calculated under state law. In each of the Rhode Island Supreme Court cases examined by <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i>, the applicable ceiling was 21 percent.</p>
<p>Rhode Island General Laws § 6-26-4 declares that every contract made in violation of the state’s interest-rate limit—along with any mortgage, pledge, deposit or assignment given as security for that contract—“shall be usurious and void.”</p>
<p>The statute also provides that a borrower who has already made payments of principal or interest under a usurious contract may recover those payments from the lender.</p>
<p>The Rhode Island Supreme Court has made clear that this is not a flexible standard.</p>
<p>In the 2014 case <i>NV One, LLC v. Potomac Realty Capital, LLC</i>, the court described Rhode Island’s civil usury law as an “inflexible, hardline approach to usury that is tantamount to strict liability.”</p>
<p>“Contracts in violation of § 6-26-2 are usurious and void, and the borrower is entitled to recover any amount paid on the loan,” the court wrote. “The lender’s subjective intent to comply with the usury laws is immaterial.”</p>
<p>The court affirmed a Superior Court order voiding the promissory note, mortgage and liens securing the loan.</p>
<p>It also rejected the lender’s attempt to rely upon a usury-savings clause—contractual language purporting to reduce any excessive interest to the highest rate permitted by law.</p>
<p>Enforcing such clauses, the Supreme Court warned, would “entirely obviate any responsibility on the part of the lender to abide by the usury statute, and would, in essence, swallow the rule.”</p>
<p>The message from Rhode Island’s highest court is unmistakable: responsibility rests with the lender.</p>
<p>A claimed intention to comply with the law does not save a usurious transaction. Calling interest a fee does not change its legal character. And contractual language promising compliance cannot rescue a loan that violates the statute.</p>
<h2><b>A Strikingly Similar Rhode Island Loan</b></h2>
<p>The Supreme Court applied those principles again that same year in <i>LaBonte v. New England Development R.I., LLC</i>.</p>
<p>The similarities between the transaction in <i>LaBonte</i> and the transactions documented in Coates’s own lawsuit are difficult to ignore.</p>
<p>In <i>LaBonte</i>, a lender advanced $275,000 under an agreement requiring the borrower to repay $325,000 after 30 days, plus one month of additional interest calculated on the $325,000.</p>
<p>The lender characterized the $50,000 difference as a “commercial loan commitment fee.”</p>
<p>The Supreme Court looked beyond that label.</p>
<p>It concluded that the purported commitment fee was part of the interest charged on the loan. Every calculation considered by the court substantially exceeded Rhode Island’s 21-percent limit.</p>
<p>The court affirmed the determination that the loan agreement was usurious and void. It also reaffirmed that a usury-savings clause could not rescue the transaction.</p>
<p>The court acknowledged that Rhode Island’s Legislature had adopted what it called “a rather draconian manner of dealing with the problem of usury.”</p>
<p>Then it invoked an ancient legal maxim:</p>
<p>“The law is hard but it is the law.”</p>
<p>The documents attached to Coates’s complaint describe a comparable structure on an even larger scale.</p>
<p>According to those records, short-term advances carried interest of 10 and 12 percent per month. Balances increased rapidly, and one agreement imposed a $56,250 charge merely to extend a $624,960 obligation for 21 days.</p>
<p>Whether that extension charge or any other fee will be counted as interest is ultimately a legal determination for the Rhode Island court.</p>
<p>But <i>LaBonte</i> establishes that attaching the word “fee” to a charge does not automatically place it beyond Rhode Island’s usury law. Courts examine what the charge actually represents.</p>
<h2><b>Rhode Island Voided Loans at Far Lower Rates</b></h2>
<p>Rhode Island’s hard-line approach was reaffirmed in the 2021 case <i>Commerce Park Realty, LLC v. HR2-A Corp.</i></p>
<p>That case involved multimillion-dollar commercial loans carrying effective annual interest rates of 26 and 34 percent.</p>
<p>Although Rhode Island law provides a potential exception for certain commercial loans exceeding $1 million, that exception requires the borrower first to obtain a repayment analysis performed by a certified public accountant licensed in Rhode Island.</p>
<p>The borrowers in <i>Commerce Park Realty</i> signed certifications claiming that the required analyses existed. But the lenders could not produce the analyses or identify the accountant who supposedly performed them.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court held that the lender bears the burden of ensuring compliance with Rhode Island’s usury law. Because the statutory requirements had not been satisfied, the court affirmed the judgment declaring the loans usurious, null and void.</p>
<p>The court also rejected the lenders’ attempt to recover the older debt that had been refinanced through the unlawful loans. The new loan agreements had extinguished the earlier obligations, the court held, and the void loans could not be enforced.</p>
<p>The comparison to the transactions described in Coates’s lawsuit is stark.</p>
<p>Rhode Island voided multimillion-dollar commercial loans carrying effective annual rates of 26 and 34 percent.</p>
<p>Coates’s own court filings document agreements calling for interest of 10 and 12 percent per month—the simple equivalent of 120 and 144 percent annually—along with a 21-day extension charge equivalent to approximately 156 percent annually.</p>
<h2><b>What Rhode Island Law Could Mean for Coates</b></h2>
<p>Coates’s attorney says Coates is not asking the court to enforce those rates. He says Coates seeks the return of the principal he entrusted to Dunbar and, alternatively, a declaration that the documents Dunbar prepared are unlawful and void.</p>
<p>That position does not eliminate the usury issue. It places the validity of the loan documents—and the legal basis upon which Coates may recover his money—directly before the court.</p>
<p>The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that a lender’s lack of intent to violate the usury law does not, by itself, make an otherwise unlawful loan enforceable.</p>
<p>“The lender’s subjective intent to comply with the usury laws is immaterial,” the court held in <i>NV One</i>.</p>
<p>Rhode Island law contains limited exceptions, including one permitting certain commercial loans exceeding $1 million when specific statutory safeguards are satisfied. Whether any exception applies to Coates’s transactions—and whether the multiple advances should be considered separately or together—will be for the court to determine.</p>
<p>No court has yet decided whether the Coates loan agreements are usurious.</p>
<p>If the court determines that the transactions violated Rhode Island’s interest-rate law and that no exception applies, however, Coates could be prohibited from enforcing the loan agreements themselves.</p>
<p>Whether he could nevertheless recover some or all of the unpaid principal through an independent fraud, restitution or other claim would present a separate legal question.</p>
<h2><b>Could Earlier Payments Be Recovered?</b></h2>
<p>Rhode Island’s usury law could also place payments from the earlier, completed transactions at issue.</p>
<p>Coates’s attorney acknowledges that Dunbar repaid those loans with the fees Dunbar proposed and calculated, including the $70,000 Weston interest payment identified in the complaint.</p>
<p>Under Rhode Island General Laws § 6-26-4, a named borrower who made payments on a usurious loan may bring an affirmative claim against the lender to recover amounts already paid—including both principal and interest.</p>
<p>The Rhode Island Supreme Court has emphasized that this right belongs specifically to the named borrower who made the payment, either directly or indirectly.</p>
<p>Whether Dunbar’s estate could pursue such a claim would depend upon the language of each loan agreement, who was identified as the borrower and who actually made the payments.</p>
<p>If Dunbar Law or another entity was the borrower and payor, any recovery claim might belong to that entity rather than Dunbar’s personal estate. If Dunbar was merely a guarantor and not a named borrower, his estate might not qualify to recover under the statute.</p>
<p>No such claim by Dunbar’s estate has been identified.</p>
<p>But if Dunbar was the named borrower, if he made the payments and if the earlier loans are ultimately determined to have been usurious, his estate could potentially seek the return of money Coates already received—not merely oppose enforcement of the unpaid agreements now before the court.</p>
<p>Coates’s attorney says he wants only the return of the money his client advanced.</p>
<p>Rhode Island law may determine whether—and through what legal claim—he can get it back.</p>
<p>It may also determine whether money Coates received from the earlier transactions must be returned.</p>
<p><b>Disclosure:</b> <i>Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. previously represented The Brookfield Examiner editor Christopher Kelleher in an unrelated civil lawsuit. That litigation did not involve loans, lending or any of the financial transactions discussed in this article.</i></p>
<p><i>Original photo: Oregon Department of Transportation, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Graphic altered and adapted by The Brookfield Examiner.</i></p>
<p><!-- /wp:heading --></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘CROOKED LAWYER’: MILLIONS MISSING, FAKE REAL-ESTATE DEALS — AND PREMIUM CELTICS TICKETS FOR THE GOVERNOR</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/09/03/crooked-lawyer-millions-missing-fake-real-estate-deals-and-premium-celtics-tickets-for-the-governor/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 17:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=2081</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[‘CROOKED LAWYER’: MILLIONS MISSING, FAKE REAL-ESTATE DEALS — AND PREMIUM CELTICS TICKETS FOR THE GOVERNOR Former clients describe millions of dollars flowing into the control of attorney Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. through alleged bogus property deals, high-interest loans, supposed settlements and client funds — while one longtime client says he was even asked to pull [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="2081" class="elementor elementor-2081">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-748fad84 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="748fad84" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-5275dd03 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="5275dd03" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h1><b>‘CROOKED LAWYER’: MILLIONS MISSING, FAKE REAL-ESTATE DEALS — AND PREMIUM CELTICS TICKETS FOR THE GOVERNOR</b></h1>
<p><b>Former clients describe millions of dollars flowing into the control of attorney Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. through alleged bogus property deals, high-interest loans, supposed settlements and client funds — while one longtime client says he was even asked to pull favors for premium NBA Finals tickets for an outing with Rhode Island’s governor. Now, after Dunbar’s death, one question hangs over it all: Where did the money go?</b></p>
<p><b><i>By Christopher Kelleher</i></b></p>
<p><span style="font-style: inherit; text-align: var(--text-align);">When Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. died in July, the Massachusetts attorney left behind more than unfinished cases and clients suddenly without a lawyer.</span></p>
<p>He left behind a financial maze.</p>
<p>In the weeks since Dunbar’s death, former clients, lenders and business associates have begun comparing records, examining court files and contacting people Dunbar claimed were involved in transactions. What has emerged is a growing collection of allegations involving millions of dollars and multiple ways in which money allegedly flowed into Dunbar’s control.</p>
<p>There are real-estate transactions former clients now say never existed. There are allegations that the same property was pitched to multiple investors. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars placed into Dunbar’s attorney trust account as supposed “proof of funds.” There are settlement proceeds clients say they never received. There is money clients say they gave Dunbar specifically to pay judgments or negotiated debts — only to discover the other side allegedly never got paid.</p>
<p>There are enormous short-term loans carrying interest rates as high as 10 and 12 percent per month. There are loans secured by anticipated proceeds belonging to Dunbar’s personal-injury clients.</p>
<p>And now there are bank records showing <b>$215,000 deposited by one Dunbar client into the firm&#8217;s IOLTA account — followed weeks later by $60,000 being wired from that account to a contractor who says Dunbar owed the money for construction work performed on Dunbar&#8217;s own house.</b></p>
<p>The numbers keep getting bigger.</p>
<p><i>The Brookfield Examiner’s</i> examination of lawsuits, financial records and accounts from former clients has now identified <b>approximately $10 million connected to claimed losses and disputed financial transactions surrounding Dunbar.</b></p>
<p>It is money coming from seemingly every direction.</p>
<p>And increasingly, the people trying to reconstruct Dunbar’s financial affairs are asking the same question:</p>
<p><b>Where did it all go?</b></p>
<h2><b>A Lawyer His Client Trusted</b></h2>
<p>Christopher Tenaglia, president of High Pace Construction, says Dunbar wasn’t simply a lawyer he hired for a single transaction.</p>
<p>He trusted him for more than a decade.</p>
<p>That relationship is critical to understanding what happened next. Tenaglia says that when Dunbar described a real-estate transaction, he believed there was a transaction. When Dunbar told him hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to be placed into his IOLTA account, he put the money there. When Dunbar told him a legal matter had been resolved, Tenaglia believed it had been resolved.</p>
<p>Dunbar was his lawyer.</p>
<p>Only after Dunbar died did Tenaglia begin checking those representations for himself.</p>
<p>What he says he discovered has caused him to question nearly everything.</p>
<h2><b>$326,430 for a Property Dunbar Didn’t Own</b></h2>
<p>One of the most striking allegations involves 28 Pelham Street in Newport, Rhode Island.</p>
<p>Tenaglia says Dunbar presented him with what appeared to be an extraordinary real-estate opportunity. According to Tenaglia, Dunbar represented that the property could be purchased for approximately $2 million and that IYRS School of Technology would ultimately acquire it. High Pace Construction would then receive substantial construction work associated with the property.</p>
<p>It wasn’t presented as some vague possibility. Messages provided to <i>The Examiner</i> show Dunbar discussing people involved in the transaction, approvals, signatures, a purchase-and-sale agreement and an eventual closing.</p>
<p>Dunbar already held <b>$26,430</b> belonging to Tenaglia. Tenaglia says Dunbar told him another <b>$300,000</b> had to be placed into his IOLTA account as proof of funds.</p>
<p>Tenaglia wired $180,000 on March 25, 2026, and another $120,000 the following day.</p>
<p>Dunbar then sent Tenaglia an image of his IOLTA account showing the funds.</p>
<p><b>Total: $326,430.</b></p>
<p>Tenaglia waited for the deal to close.</p>
<p>It never did.</p>
<p>After Dunbar’s death, Tenaglia began contacting people supposedly connected to the transaction and says he discovered that the elaborate deal his lawyer had spent months describing apparently didn’t exist.</p>
<p>“There was a wildly made up story with details that made it sound like there was a real deal but using real peoples names,” Tenaglia told <i>The Examiner</i>.</p>
<h2><b>The Same Property — Again and Again</b></h2>
<p>Tenaglia apparently wasn’t the only person being presented with a transaction involving 28 Pelham Street.</p>
<p>GoLocalProv has reported identifying three alleged victims connected with purported Dunbar transactions involving the property, with alleged losses exceeding $1 million.</p>
<p>Molly Kirby told GoLocal that Dunbar Law’s actual relationship with the building was that <b>the firm rented a single office there</b>. She said neither Dunbar nor Dunbar Law was involved in the property’s eventual sale.</p>
<p>Tenaglia says another alleged victim contacted him after Dunbar’s death with what he described as the same purported purchase-and-sale agreement involving the same property, similar deposit terms and another arrangement involving money being placed into Dunbar’s IOLTA account.</p>
<p>The allegations go far beyond a real-estate deal that simply fell apart.</p>
<p><b>Multiple people say they were presented with purported transactions involving the same property — a property Dunbar didn’t own and apparently had no authority to sell.</b></p>
<h2 style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal;" data-start="754" data-end="813"><span role="text">Another Client. Another $350,000. The Same Property.</span></h2>
<p style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal;" data-start="815" data-end="970">A verified lawsuit filed by another former Dunbar client describes an eerily similar allegation involving&nbsp;<strong data-start="921" data-end="970">the same Newport property — 28 Pelham Street.</strong></p>
<p style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal;" data-start="972" data-end="1122">Kevin Greene alleges in Suffolk Superior Court that he entrusted&nbsp;<strong data-start="1037" data-end="1049">$350,000</strong>&nbsp;to Dunbar for a proposed real-estate transaction involving the property.</p>
<p style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal;" data-start="1124" data-end="1332">According to Greene&#8217;s verified complaint, Dunbar provided him with a purportedly executed agreement bearing the signature of&nbsp;<span data-start="1249" data-end="1264">Molly</span><strong data-start="1249" data-end="1264"> </strong><span data-start="1249" data-end="1264">Kirby</span>, a representative of the company involved in the proposed purchase.</p>
<p style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal;" data-start="1334" data-end="1587">After Dunbar&#8217;s death, Greene says he contacted Kirby directly. According to the complaint, Kirby told him&nbsp;<strong data-start="1440" data-end="1587">she had not signed the document, the property was already under agreement with another party, and Dunbar had no involvement in the transaction.</strong></p>
<p style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal;" data-start="1589" data-end="1738">Greene&#8217;s lawsuit alleges the document was&nbsp;<strong data-start="1631" data-end="1648">“not genuine”</strong>&nbsp;and that Dunbar used it to induce him to transfer&nbsp;<strong data-start="1699" data-end="1711">$350,000</strong>&nbsp;into Dunbar Law&#8217;s account.</p>
<p style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal;" data-start="1740" data-end="1822">The similarities between Greene&#8217;s allegations and Tenaglia&#8217;s account are striking<span style="font-style: inherit; text-align: var(--text-align); color: #404040;">: a trusted attorney, a supposedly lucrative property transaction, documents making the deal appear legitimate and hundreds of thousands of dollars transferred into Dunbar’s control.</span></p>
<h2><b>Then Came Another $300,000</b></h2>
<p>Tenaglia says 28 Pelham wasn’t the only purported real-estate transaction Dunbar brought him.</p>
<p>There was another involving property in Somerville.</p>
<p>Again, Dunbar needed money.</p>
<p>This time, <b>$300,000</b>.</p>
<p>Tenaglia initially demonstrated that he had the funds available in his own account. According to messages provided to <i>The Examiner</i>, Dunbar told him that wasn’t sufficient.</p>
<p>“I have to show her proof of funds in my trust account so she&#8217;ll take it off the market and only deal with me for the next few weeks,” Dunbar wrote.</p>
<p>Dunbar sent wire instructions, and Tenaglia transferred the money.</p>
<p>Tenaglia now says that deal wasn’t real either.</p>
<p>This time he aggressively demanded his money back, and Dunbar ultimately returned the approximately $300,000 through two wire transfers, Tenaglia says.</p>
<p>But the transaction raises another question in a story increasingly filled with them: Why did $300,000 need to leave the client’s bank account and enter his attorney’s trust account for a real-estate transaction Tenaglia says didn’t exist?</p>
<h2><b>$370,000 for a Deal Tenaglia Says Didn’t Exist</b></h2>
<p>Real estate wasn’t the only reason Tenaglia says Dunbar wanted large amounts of money under his control.</p>
<p>In another pending legal matter, Tenaglia says Dunbar represented that approximately <b>$370,000</b> was needed in his IOLTA account in connection with a purported arrangement to resolve the case.</p>
<p>Tenaglia believed his attorney.</p>
<p>A contemporaneous text message documents exactly what Tenaglia understood Dunbar had represented. When Tenaglia later demanded approximately $372,000 back, he wrote:</p>
<p>“Per our conversation, I fully understand the implications of returning the $372,000 to my account and the deal with Lindsey to get the case dismissed will be off. I need all of my money back on Monday.”</p>
<p>Dunbar responded that he needed to reconcile the account because money had also been wired back to Tenaglia’s father.</p>
<p>Tenaglia subsequently retained another attorney. According to Tenaglia, that attorney contacted opposing counsel and learned <b>there was no such deal and opposing counsel had not heard from Dunbar in months.</b></p>
<p>It is another allegation with the same basic architecture: Dunbar allegedly represented that something was happening, a substantial amount of client money had to be placed under his control to make it happen, and Tenaglia says he later learned the arrangement his attorney described didn’t exist.</p>
<h2><b>Then Arthur Started Looking for His Money</b></h2>
<p>Christopher Tenaglia isn’t the only member of his family now trying to determine what happened to money entrusted to Dunbar.</p>
<p>His father, Arthur Tenaglia, says his own dealings with Dunbar involve hundreds of thousands of dollars from several separate matters — money he says he was entitled to receive or money he gave Dunbar for specific purposes that apparently never reached its intended destination.</p>
<p>One involved a <b>$1.1 million real-estate transaction</b>.</p>
<p>Arthur Tenaglia says Dunbar handled the closing and that after the transaction was completed, Tenaglia was supposed to receive approximately <b>$239,000 in net proceeds</b>.</p>
<p>The closing happened.</p>
<p>Arthur says the $239,000 never arrived.</p>
<p>Then there was a loan Dunbar was supposedly negotiating on Arthur’s behalf. According to Arthur, Dunbar told him the lender had agreed to resolve the outstanding obligation for <b>$129,000</b>.</p>
<p>Arthur says he wired the $129,000 into Dunbar’s IOLTA account so his attorney could pay the negotiated amount and resolve the debt.</p>
<p>Now Arthur says he is fighting the matter in court, with the lender threatening to call the note and foreclose on the property.</p>
<p>Arthur’s position is simple: <b>he already paid the money.</b></p>
<p>According to Arthur, attorneys representing the lender say they hadn’t spoken with Dunbar in months.</p>
<p>Arthur says the $129,000 he gave Dunbar to resolve the debt never reached the lender.</p>
<h2><b>A $47,000 Settlement — and Arthur Says He Got Nothing</b></h2>
<p>There was more.</p>
<p>Arthur says Dunbar represented him in a case involving damage to a driveway at a property in Hull Ma.</p>
<p>According to Arthur, the insurance company settled the claim for approximately <b>$47,000</b> and issued a check.</p>
<p>Arthur says he hasn’t seen a penny of it.</p>
<p>He describes two additional cases that he says produced approximately <b>$186,000 in combined settlements</b>.</p>
<p>Again, Arthur says the money never reached him.</p>
<p>Add those amounts together — $239,000 in real-estate proceeds, $129,000 Arthur says he gave Dunbar to satisfy a loan, $47,000 from the Hull matter and approximately $186,000 from two other settlements — and Arthur is questioning approximately <b>$601,000</b> across those matters alone.</p>
<p>These aren’t all allegations that Dunbar simply failed to win a case or obtain a result his client wanted.</p>
<p>Arthur says <b>the real-estate closing actually happened. The insurance company actually settled the Hull claim. The other cases actually settled. And he actually wired $129,000 to Dunbar to satisfy what his lawyer told him was a negotiated obligation.</b></p>
<p>His question now is what happened to the money.</p>
<h2><b>‘We Already Paid This’</b></h2>
<p>Arthur isn’t the only former Dunbar client describing that problem.</p>
<p>A Rhode Island client who asked not to be identified because of continuing litigation told <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> that Dunbar represented that an outstanding claim could be settled for approximately <b>$220,000</b>.</p>
<p>The client says Dunbar told them what was needed to resolve the case.</p>
<p>They provided the money.</p>
<p>They believed their obligation had been paid.</p>
<p>Now, after Dunbar’s death, the client says they have discovered that <b>the $220,000 was never paid to the other side.</b></p>
<p>The client says the situation has left them facing the same obligation they believed they had already paid Dunbar to resolve.</p>
<p>Their frustration is obvious: they don’t have another $220,000 sitting around to pay the obligation a second time.</p>
<p>From their perspective, they already paid it.</p>
<p>They gave the money to their lawyer.</p>
<p>The other side says it never got there.</p>
<h2><b>‘How Many Times Do I Have to Pay the Same Judgment?’</b></h2>
<p>Another former Dunbar client, who also asked not to be identified because of continuing litigation, described an even smaller version of the same alleged pattern.</p>
<p>The client says Dunbar told him that he had lost a case and would need approximately <b>$20,000</b> to satisfy the judgment.</p>
<p>The client says he provided the money to Dunbar.</p>
<p>He believed the judgment had been paid.</p>
<p>Now, he says, he is being hauled back into court because the other side says the judgment remains outstanding.</p>
<p>The client says he has proof showing that he gave the approximately $20,000 to Dunbar specifically to satisfy that obligation.</p>
<p>“How many times do I have to pay a judgment?” the client told <i>The Examiner</i>. “I already paid it. I gave the money to my lawyer. I have proof that I gave it to him, and now I&#8217;m being brought into court because the other side says they never got paid.”</p>
<p>The client put his view of what happened even more directly:</p>
<p><b>“My lawyer just took the money and ran.”</b></p>
<h2><b>This Reporter Watched Another Fight Over Missing Money</b></h2>
<p>And <i>The Examiner</i> has witnessed a version of the problem firsthand.</p>
<p>This reporter was at Worcester Superior Court for an unrelated matter when another case involving Dunbar Law was called.</p>
<p>An attorney on the opposing side was seeking sanctions against Dunbar Law and complaining to the judge that a judgment exceeding <b>$50,000</b> had been entered but remained unpaid.</p>
<p>The attorney told the court that payment had been requested and that attempts to obtain an explanation for why the judgment remained unpaid had produced no meaningful answers.</p>
<p>Jaffar Shiek appeared for Dunbar Law.</p>
<p>During the hearing, the judge suggested that the attorneys go into the hallway and talk in an effort to resolve the dispute.</p>
<p>They did.</p>
<p>The case was later called a second time.</p>
<p>The opposing attorney returned to the courtroom visibly frustrated and told the judge, in substance, that the conversation had only made him more frustrated than before. He said he still had no real answer about why the judgment had not been paid and continued pressing the court for sanctions.</p>
<p>The attorney complained about the time he had been forced to spend preparing the sanctions request and coming to court simply to obtain payment of a judgment that had already been entered.</p>
<p>The judge took the matter under advisement.</p>
<p>The amount involved was smaller than many of the transactions now surrounding Dunbar.</p>
<p>But that is precisely the point.</p>
<p>The questions about money aren’t limited to $300,000 real-estate deposits or multimillion-dollar loans.</p>
<p>Sometimes it is $220,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes $129,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes $50,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes $47,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes $20,000.</p>
<p><b>Different amounts. Different cases. The same question: Where is the money?</b></p>
<h2><b>$215,000 Came In. Then $60,000 Went to High Pace</b></h2>
<p>Then came something different: the bank records themselves.</p>
<p>An August 31 demand letter from an attorney representing former Dunbar client <b>Charles Grant</b> says Grant wired <b>$215,000 into Dunbar Law’s IOLTA account on July 6, 2026</b>, strictly for the limited purpose of completing a real-estate transaction.</p>
<p>The bank records accompanying the demand letter document two incoming wires that day: <b>$148,000 and $67,000.</b></p>
<p>Together: exactly <b>$215,000.</b></p>
<p>Then money left the account.</p>
<p>On <b>July 20</b>, Dunbar Law’s IOLTA wired <b>$40,000 to High Pace Construction</b>.</p>
<p>On <b>July 27</b>, another <b>$20,000</b> was wired from the same account to High Pace.</p>
<p>Total: <b>$60,000.</b></p>
<p>Grant’s attorney alleges those transfers are traceable to Grant’s entrusted funds and were made without his knowledge or authorization. The attorney says Grant never authorized his money to be used for operating expenses, personal expenses or payments to unrelated third parties.</p>
<p>But Christopher Tenaglia says he knew nothing about Charles Grant or the source of the money.</p>
<p>Tenaglia says Dunbar owed High Pace <b>$60,000 </b>for construction work the company had performed on Dunbar’s own house.</p>
<p>As far as Tenaglia was concerned, Dunbar was simply paying his construction bill.</p>
<p>Now Grant&#8217;s attorney is demanding the money back.</p>
<p>The demand letter instructs High Pace to preserve records concerning the payments, refrain from disposing of the $60,000 or identifiable proceeds, and return the entire amount by 5 p.m. September 8. The letter threatens litigation seeking restitution, unjust enrichment, conversion, tracing and other remedies if the money isn&#8217;t returned.</p>
<p><b>In perhaps the clearest illustration yet of the financial wreckage Dunbar left behind, two men who both say they were victimized by the same lawyer are now being pitted against each other over the same $60,000.</b></p>
<p>It is a pattern <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> has encountered before.</p>
<p>In the multimillion-dollar Rhode Island litigation surrounding Dunbar, people who say they were themselves Dunbar&#8217;s victims have nevertheless found themselves named in litigation and fighting over money, collateral and financial obligations arising from transactions Dunbar arranged.</p>
<p><b>Now it is happening again.</b></p>
<p>Grant&#8217;s attorney says the $60,000 belonged to Grant.</p>
<p>Tenaglia says High Pace legitimately earned the $60,000 for construction work performed on Dunbar&#8217;s house and had no knowledge that the payments allegedly involved another client&#8217;s entrusted funds.</p>
<p>If Grant&#8217;s attorney&#8217;s tracing allegation is correct, the obvious question becomes:</p>
<p><b>Was money entrusted to Dunbar by one client for a real-estate transaction being used to pay Dunbar&#8217;s own personal construction bill?</b></p>
<p>And now the contractor who says it performed legitimate work, was owed the money and accepted payment from its customer is being told to give the $60,000 back.</p>
<p>Two alleged victims. One $60,000 pot of money. And the lawyer both trusted is no longer here to explain what he did with it.</p>
<p>The timing of the second payment is striking for another reason.</p>
<p><b>The $20,000 was wired on July 27.</b></p>
<p>Dunbar died the following day.</p>
<h2><b>Loans Against His Own Clients</b></h2>
<p>Then there were Dunbar’s personal-injury clients.</p>
<p>Rhode Island litigation describes loans involving anticipated proceeds from personal-injury cases being handled by Dunbar.</p>
<p>The transactions eventually pulled Dunbar’s own clients into litigation after his death.</p>
<p>The lenders contend their money was secured by anticipated proceeds from those cases. The clients say they were Dunbar’s victims too.</p>
<p>People who hired Dunbar to represent them were suddenly entangled in multimillion-dollar litigation arising from financial transactions arranged by <b>their own lawyer</b>.</p>
<h2><b>$4.4 Million — and Interest as High as 144 Percent</b></h2>
<p>The scale becomes even larger in Rhode Island litigation involving Dunbar, Pastor Delman Coates and Five Five Plus LLC, the company connected with The Orchard development in West Warwick.</p>
<p>The litigation involves approximately <b>$4.4 million in claimed obligations</b> connected with Dunbar and the transactions at issue.</p>
<p>And the terms documented in those records are staggering.</p>
<p>Some loans carried interest of <b>10 percent per month</b>.</p>
<p>Others carried <b>12 percent per month — 144 percent on a simple annual basis.</b></p>
<p>These weren’t necessarily loans designed to sit on the books for years.</p>
<p>In an email contained in the records, Dunbar himself described some transactions as:</p>
<p><b>“60 day deals at the 10% per month.”</b></p>
<p>Sixty days.</p>
<p>The documents paint a picture of enormous amounts of money being borrowed at extraordinary rates with extremely short repayment windows.</p>
<p>At the same time, former clients now say hundreds of thousands of dollars were flowing into Dunbar’s control through real-estate transactions, settlement payments and purported legal arrangements they later discovered weren’t what Dunbar had represented them to be.</p>
<h2><b>Big Money. Small Money. Same Question.</b></h2>
<p>By now, the allegations surrounding Dunbar span almost every size and type of transaction.</p>
<p>There are six-figure real-estate deposits. Settlement proceeds. Money supposedly needed to pay judgments. Funds allegedly required to negotiate down debts. Personal-injury proceeds pledged as collateral. High-interest loans involving millions of dollars.</p>
<p>And now there is a former client&#8217;s attorney alleging that money entrusted to Dunbar for one client&#8217;s real-estate transaction was transferred to a contractor who says Dunbar was paying a bill for work performed on Dunbar&#8217;s own house.</p>
<p>Sometimes the amount was $350,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes $220,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes $129,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes $47,000.</p>
<p>Sometimes approximately $20,000.</p>
<p>But former clients and opposing attorneys keep describing variations of the same problem:</p>
<p><b>Money was supposed to go somewhere. It didn’t get there. And now everybody wants to know what Dunbar did with it.</b></p>
<h2><b>While the Money Moved, Clients Say Their Cases Suffered</b></h2>
<p>Another complaint is emerging from Dunbar’s former clients: while enormous amounts of money were moving through his financial dealings, they say the legal practice they were paying him to operate was falling apart.</p>
<p>Former clients have described emails that went unanswered, work pushed until the last minute, repeated requests for additional time, missed obligations and cases they say weren’t receiving the attention they expected from their attorney.</p>
<p>One former client, who asked not to be identified because he remains involved in active litigation previously handled by Dunbar, said he repeatedly found himself researching his own case and questioning why his attorney wasn’t pursuing issues he believed were important.</p>
<p>“How can Ron be my attorney and really be advocating for my case? He doesn&#8217;t respond to my emails. Everything is last minute. We&#8217;re always asking for more time, and he&#8217;s not doing anything,” the former client said. “I would use AI to look stuff up and I&#8217;m asking him, ‘Ron, why didn&#8217;t we do this? What the heck, man?’”</p>
<p>After Dunbar’s death, the former client says he began discovering the consequences.</p>
<p>“We&#8217;re missing obligations. We&#8217;re missing deadlines. And now I have this horribly written complaint and I have a real case that is now just total garbage,” the client said.</p>
<p>His conclusion about what had consumed Dunbar’s attention was even harsher.</p>
<p><b>“He was too busy running his scams. He wasn&#8217;t practicing law. He was running a scam empire.”</b></p>
<p>Malpractice claims are now among the claims emerging from former Dunbar clients as they examine the legal and financial affairs he left behind.</p>
<h2><b>And Somehow, There Were Premium Celtics Tickets</b></h2>
<p>Against millions of dollars, alleged bogus transactions and lawsuits, what happened with a pair of basketball tickets might initially sound insignificant.</p>
<p>It isn’t.</p>
<p>Tenaglia says Dunbar asked him to obtain difficult-to-get premium Celtics Boardroom tickets for Game 2 of the 2024 NBA Finals between the Boston Celtics and Dallas Mavericks at TD Garden on June 9, 2024.</p>
<p>Dunbar told him the tickets were for an outing with Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee, Tenaglia says.</p>
<p>Tenaglia says he had to use personal connections and call in favors to secure them for his attorney.</p>
<p>He did.</p>
<p>The surviving messages establish that Dunbar attended the game.</p>
<p>During the game, Tenaglia texted asking how it was going. Dunbar replied that it was “awesome” and “loud.”</p>
<p>Then Tenaglia asked:</p>
<p><b>“U get seats? U with the big G?”</b></p>
<p>Dunbar responded:</p>
<p><b>“i did! and i am not allowed to confirm or deny! ”</b></p>
<p>Tenaglia says “the big G” referred to McKee, whom Dunbar had told him he planned to take to the game.</p>
<p>Dunbar later sent Tenaglia a photograph from inside TD Garden.</p>
<p><i>The Examiner</i> has been unable to find independent evidence establishing that McKee attended the June 9 game with Dunbar. The newspaper contacted the governor’s office seeking to determine whether McKee attended the game, planned to attend with Dunbar or knew about the proposed outing.</p>
<p><b>No response was received before publication.</b></p>
<p>For Tenaglia, the episode has become one more representation from his longtime attorney that he is now going back and checking.</p>
<p>Dunbar said he needed premium NBA Finals tickets for an outing with Rhode Island’s governor.</p>
<p>Tenaglia trusted his lawyer.</p>
<p>So he pulled the favors and got them.</p>
<h2><b>$10 Million — Where Did It Go?</b></h2>
<p>And that brings everything back to the money.</p>
<p><i>The Brookfield Examiner’s</i> examination of court records, financial documents and accounts from former clients has now identified <b>approximately $10 million connected to the growing collection of claimed losses and disputed transactions surrounding Ronald Dunbar.</b></p>
<p>There was money for purported real-estate deals. Money deposited as proof of funds. Settlement proceeds. Money supposedly provided to pay judgments. Money intended to satisfy negotiated debts. Money borrowed against anticipated personal-injury proceeds. Money borrowed against other assets. Money obtained through extraordinarily expensive short-term loans.</p>
<p>And now there are bank records documenting $215,000 entering Dunbar&#8217;s IOLTA from one client, followed by $60,000 leaving that account for a contractor who says Dunbar owed the money for work on his house — transfers the first client&#8217;s attorney alleges involved his client&#8217;s money.</p>
<p><b>Money kept coming in.</b></p>
<p>But where was it going?</p>
<p>That is the question former clients are increasingly unable to answer.</p>
<p>People who knew Dunbar have not described a man living an obviously extravagant multimillion-dollar lifestyle. There was no outward display of wealth that readily explains the enormous sums now appearing in lawsuits, bank records and claims.</p>
<p>Instead, even as enormous amounts of money were moving through Dunbar’s financial affairs, the records show him borrowing still more.</p>
<p>And some of that borrowing came at astonishing rates.</p>
<p>Dunbar himself described certain transactions as <b>“60 day deals at the 10% per month.”</b> Other documented loans carried interest of <b>12 percent per month — 144 percent on a simple annual basis.</b></p>
<p>Huge interest.</p>
<p>Huge principal.</p>
<p>Very short due dates.</p>
<p>Then Dunbar died.</p>
<h2><b>The Closing Was the Next Day</b></h2>
<p>The timing of Dunbar’s death has now added another dimension to the mystery surrounding his financial affairs.</p>
<p>Tenaglia’s contemporaneous messages show Dunbar continuing to represent that the purported 28 Pelham Street transaction was finally approaching its closing.</p>
<p>After months of explanations and assurances, Dunbar gave his client a date:</p>
<p><b>“closing is on the 29th.”</b></p>
<p>Dunbar died <b>July 28, 2026</b>.</p>
<p>The purported closing was the next day.</p>
<p>Tenaglia had <b>$326,430</b> tied to a transaction his attorney had been telling him was about to close. After Dunbar died and Tenaglia began contacting the people supposedly involved, he says he discovered there was no transaction waiting to close.</p>
<p>And now that timing has collided with the unanswered question surrounding millions of dollars and Dunbar’s extraordinary short-term borrowing.</p>
<p>Together, those circumstances are <b>fueling an extraordinary conspiracy theory among some of Dunbar’s former clients: that Ronald Dunbar faked his death and disappeared.</b></p>
<p>The theory is being fueled by three things.</p>
<p>The first is the <b>money</b>. Approximately $10 million has now surfaced across the claimed losses and disputed transactions examined by <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i>, while former clients continue asking where all of that money ultimately went.</p>
<p>The second is the <b>borrowing</b>. Dunbar was taking enormously expensive short-term loans, including transactions he himself described as 60-day deals at 10 percent interest per month and other documented loans carrying interest rates as high as 12 percent per month.</p>
<p>Those loans had due dates.</p>
<p>And the third is the <b>timing</b>.</p>
<p>Tenaglia had $326,430 tied to a purported real-estate transaction that Dunbar told him was finally going to close July 29.</p>
<p>Dunbar died July 28.</p>
<p><b>One day.</b></p>
<p>Those circumstances have become impossible to separate from the rumor now circulating among some of the same former clients who say they discovered after Dunbar’s death that real-estate transactions weren’t real, cases hadn’t been resolved, purported agreements weren’t genuine, settlement proceeds hadn&#8217;t reached them and money they gave their attorney to pay other people apparently never got there.</p>
<p>One former client summed up the sentiment this way:</p>
<p><b>“Ron was a con man. Faking his death? I wouldn&#8217;t put it outside his wheelhouse.”</b></p>
<p>Maybe the timing is coincidence. Maybe the short-term borrowing has another explanation. Maybe the money trail will eventually provide answers.</p>
<p>But right now, the conspiracy theory is being fed by a financial mystery that continues to grow with almost every former client who comes forward.</p>
<p>A purported real-estate transaction involving more than $326,000.</p>
<p>Another alleged bogus transaction involving $350,000.</p>
<p>Another $300,000 transferred into Dunbar’s trust account.</p>
<p>Approximately $370,000 tied to a supposed legal arrangement Tenaglia says didn’t exist.</p>
<p>Arthur Tenaglia questioning approximately $601,000 from a closing, a loan payoff and settlements.</p>
<p>A Rhode Island client saying $220,000 intended to settle a claim never reached the other side.</p>
<p>Another client saying approximately $20,000 intended to satisfy a judgment never got there.</p>
<p>An attorney standing in Worcester Superior Court demanding answers about another unpaid judgment exceeding $50,000.</p>
<p>A $215,000 client deposit into Dunbar Law&#8217;s IOLTA, followed by $60,000 in payments to a contractor who says Dunbar owed the money for construction work on Dunbar&#8217;s own house.</p>
<p>Personal-injury proceeds pledged in loans.</p>
<p>Approximately $4.4 million in obligations at the center of the Rhode Island litigation.</p>
<p>And short-term borrowing carrying interest rates reaching <b>144 percent on a simple annual basis</b>.</p>
<p>All told, <i>The Brookfield Examiner’s</i> examination has now reached approximately <b>$10 million</b>.</p>
<p>And the question that keeps getting louder isn’t a conspiracy theory at all.</p>
<h2><b>&nbsp;Where did all the money go?</b></h2>
<p><b>Disclosure:</b> Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. previously represented <i>The Brookfield Examiner</i> editor Christopher Kelleher in unrelated civil litigation. That litigation did not involve the loans or real-estate transactions discussed in this article.</p>
<p><!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --></p>
<p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ATTORNEY WHO FILED TWO LAWSUITS AGAINST BROOKFIELD ACCUSED IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR LENDING SCHEME</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/08/20/attorney-who-filed-two-lawsuits-against-brookfield-accused-in-multimillion-dollar-lending-scheme/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 04:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=2066</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[ATTORNEY WHO FILED TWO LAWSUITS AGAINST BROOKFIELD ACCUSED IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR LENDING SCHEME Rhode Island court records describe millions advanced on scant paperwork, promised mortgages that were never recorded and financing charges exceeding 150 percent on a simple annualized basis; some of Dunbar’s former clients say they were victims, not conspirators By Christopher Kelleher&#160; KENT COUNTY [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<h1 class="wp-block-heading">ATTORNEY WHO FILED TWO LAWSUITS AGAINST BROOKFIELD ACCUSED IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR LENDING SCHEME</h1>



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">Rhode Island court records describe millions advanced on scant paperwork, promised mortgages that were never recorded and financing charges exceeding 150 percent on a simple annualized basis; some of Dunbar’s former clients say they were victims, not conspirators</h4>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>By Christopher Kelleher&nbsp;</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>KENT COUNTY RI —&nbsp;</strong>Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. was no stranger to Brookfield. The Rhode Island attorney filed two lawsuits against the Town of Brookfield on behalf of clients and represented residents in other litigation, putting his name on some of the community&#8217;s most contentious legal disputes.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But when Dunbar died on July 28, he left behind another set of legal problems — this time involving his own financial dealings. A verified complaint filed in Kent County Superior Court accuses Dunbar and others of participating in a multimillion-dollar lending fraud involving short-term construction loans, anticipated personal-injury recoveries, personal guarantees and money moving through Dunbar Law PC&#8217;s client trust account.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The lender, Delman Coates, says he advanced <strong>at least $2.85 million</strong> through transactions proposed, structured and documented by Dunbar between December 2024 and April 2025. The allegations have not been proven in court. Dunbar died before the lawsuit was filed and cannot respond to them.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the transactions described in the court record were extraordinary. A <strong>$900,000 construction advance was supposed to become $1.116 million roughly two months later</strong>. Another <strong>$450,000 was supposed to become $558,000</strong> in approximately the same period. When one $624,960 obligation was extended for only three weeks, the additional charge was <strong>$56,250</strong> — approximately 9 percent in 21 days, or about <strong>156 percent on a simple annualized basis</strong>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And despite millions purportedly being advanced for construction at <strong>The Orchard</strong>, a West Warwick condominium development belonging to a Dunbar client, Coates now alleges that the basic protections supposedly securing his money were never put in place: <strong>no promissory note was delivered, no mortgage securing Coates&#8217;s interest was recorded, and no financing statement was filed.</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The lending nevertheless continued.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now Coates is suing not only Dunbar&#8217;s law firm and the company associated with The Orchard, but several of <strong>Dunbar&#8217;s own former clients</strong>, accusing the defendants in one count of civil conspiracy. Some of those clients say they knew nothing about any broader lending scheme and regard themselves as victims of the attorney they trusted. They dispute Coates&#8217;s portrayal of them as participants and say they intend to seek review of Dunbar&#8217;s conduct by law-enforcement authorities, including the Attorney General.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The result is an unusual legal collision: <strong>A lender who says Dunbar victimized him is now suing people who say Dunbar victimized them, too.</strong></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Millions advanced on remarkably thin paperwork</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At the center of the largest transactions was The Orchard condominium development in West Warwick. The development did not belong to Dunbar; it belonged to a client entity he represented. Yet Dunbar allegedly arranged three construction advances totaling <strong>$1.8 million</strong> purportedly for the development.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The first came on Dec. 18, 2024, when Coates advanced <strong>$900,000</strong>, with <strong>$1.116 million due approximately two months later</strong>. For a real-estate transaction approaching $1 million, the paperwork was notably spare: the agreement ran only two pages, with much of the second page devoted to signatures.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agreement said Coates&#8217;s money would be secured by identified buildings at The Orchard. According to Coates&#8217;s complaint, that security was never put in place. Dunbar allegedly failed to deliver or record the promissory note, mortgage and financing statement that were supposed to protect Coates&#8217;s interest.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The complaint alleges that Dunbar nevertheless knew how conventional secured real-estate financing worked. Coates says Dunbar had previously handled institutional mortgage transactions involving the same development that included promissory notes, recorded mortgages and financing statements — protections Coates alleges were absent from his own loans.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The lending continued. On Feb. 26, 2025, Coates advanced another <strong>$450,000</strong> for construction, with <strong>$558,000 due approximately two months later</strong>. Another <strong>$450,000 construction advance</strong> followed in April, bringing the three alleged construction advances to <strong>$1.8 million</strong>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Coates describes those funds as construction money for The Orchard. But where the money actually went after it was advanced could become an important issue in the litigation. The court has made no factual finding that the full $1.8 million entered the development company&#8217;s accounts or was actually spent constructing condominium units.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">$56,250 for 21 more days</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As obligations reached maturity, the price of additional time could be enormous. One agreement stated that <strong>$624,960</strong> was due March 19, 2025. The payment deadline was extended to April 9 — just 21 additional days — for a charge of <strong>$56,250</strong>, approximately <strong>9 percent of the outstanding obligation for a three-week extension</strong>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agreement described the calculation directly: <strong>“That represents 12% per month but adjusted for a 3 week extension.”</strong> Annualizing the actual three-week charge on a simple, noncompounded basis produces a rate of approximately <strong>156 percent per year</strong>. The agreement&#8217;s stated 12-percent monthly rate would equal <strong>144 percent over 12 months on a simple basis</strong>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <em>Brookfield Examiner</em> is not characterizing the financing as unlawful. The applicability of lending and usury laws can depend upon the nature and structure of a particular commercial transaction. But whatever its ultimate legal status, <strong>the cost of the financing described in the documents was exceptional.</strong></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The Loans Kept Coming</strong></h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The defaults did not stop the lending.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Coates&#8217;s complaint, however, the relationship between Coates and Dunbar <strong>did not begin with the Orchard or with the personal-injury clients who are now defendants in the lawsuit.</strong> Coates alleges that he had made loans through Dunbar before the transactions at issue in the case and that those earlier dealings helped establish a relationship of trust between the two men.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That history provides important context for what followed. According to Coates&#8217;s own account, <strong>Dunbar and Coates already had an established lending relationship before some of the clients now accused of participating in the alleged scheme became involved in the transactions described in the complaint.</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As the later short-term obligations reached maturity without being paid, an unusual pattern emerged: extensions would follow, yet additional loans continued to be issued.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Rather than the flow of new money stopping when existing obligations went unpaid, <strong>the loans kept coming.</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Coates alleges that Dunbar had gained his trust and repeatedly represented that repayment was forthcoming. But even as obligations arranged by Dunbar remained outstanding, Coates continued advancing additional money through new transactions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That pattern continued until the lending relationship ultimately unraveled.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The lending reaches Dunbar’s personal-injury clients</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The financing eventually extended beyond condominium construction and into another part of Dunbar’s practice: <strong>his personal-injury clients.</strong> In March 2025, Dunbar described two proposed transactions to Coates in an email as <strong>“60 day deals at the 10% per month that we have been doing on the personal injury claims.”</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One transaction involved a <strong>$250,000 advance with $300,000 due approximately 60 days later</strong>. Another called for the same terms: <strong>$250,000 advanced and $300,000 repaid</strong>. An earlier personal-injury-related transaction involved <strong>$150,000 with $172,500 due</strong>, an obligation the complaint says was ultimately satisfied.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The agreements purported to use anticipated recoveries from Dunbar’s clients’ personal-injury cases as sources of repayment. According to Coates’s complaint, settlement recoveries in several matters were supposed to be routed through <strong>Dunbar Law PC’s IOLTA client trust account</strong>. Coates alleges that proceeds received through that account should have been preserved and delivered in accordance with the loan arrangements; alternatively, he alleges that some representations about settlements and checks may themselves have been false. Those allegations have not been adjudicated.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The court filings show how Dunbar’s lending arrangements allegedly became intertwined with his legal practice: <strong>property belonging to one client was identified in construction financing, while anticipated recoveries belonging to personal-injury clients were identified as sources of repayment in other loans.</strong></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">From clients to alleged conspirators</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the most consequential aspects of Coates&#8217;s lawsuit may ultimately be the identities of some of the people he sued: <strong>Dunbar&#8217;s former clients.</strong> In a civil-conspiracy count, Coates alleges that the defendants combined with Dunbar and others to obtain advances through false pretenses, structure unsecured transactions, divert proceeds and prevent Coates from protecting himself. The claim seeks to hold the defendants responsible for an alleged common scheme.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is an allegation some former clients sharply dispute. Some say they had <strong>no knowledge of Dunbar&#8217;s broader financial dealings</strong>, never agreed to participate in a scheme and believe Dunbar used their legal matters in transactions they did not understand or authorize. They say they consider themselves victims and are preparing complaints asking government authorities, including the Attorney General, to examine Dunbar&#8217;s conduct. Those assertions have not been adjudicated either.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The competing accounts create a fundamental dispute at the heart of the case: <strong>Were Dunbar&#8217;s clients participants in his alleged scheme — or were their cases and assets being used as part of a scheme without their knowledge?</strong></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Public records raise questions about the lending</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Coates&#8217;s complaint portrays him as relying heavily on Dunbar when making the loans. But the allegations also raise questions about the due diligence behind advances totaling millions of dollars.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Coates says Dunbar represented The Orchard as a <strong>139-unit condominium development</strong> and made representations concerning how many units had been constructed and sold. His lawyers say a later examination of public records produced a different picture: the condominium declaration permitted no more than 108 units, municipal approval was for 107, and substantially fewer units had formally been declared when the lending began.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Coates says he relied on Dunbar&#8217;s representations. But the records his attorneys later examined were public, as were land records identifying ownership of the property. And according to Coates&#8217;s own lawsuit, <strong>no mortgage securing his construction advances was ever recorded.</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite those circumstances, Coates says he ultimately advanced <strong>at least $2.85 million</strong> through the Dunbar-arranged transactions — and even that figure was incomplete when the complaint was filed because he was still reconstructing additional advances from his wire history.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">$6.6 million in condominium sales</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While Coates says his loans remained largely unpaid, The Orchard continued selling units. His court filings identify approximately <strong>$6.6 million in condominium sales</strong>, while Coates alleges that, apart from three later payments totaling $400,000, those sales did not satisfy what he says he was owed.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By the time Coates sought emergency court intervention, his attorneys said <strong>49 of 53 units had been sold</strong>, leaving four units along with remaining land and development rights. That diminishing pool of property prompted Coates to ask the Superior Court to preserve what remained.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">An $8.575 million buyer from across the country</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As Coates pressed Dunbar for repayment, another purported solution emerged. According to the complaint, Dunbar provided Coates with a purchase-and-sale agreement showing <strong>White Lark Enterprises LLC</strong>, a Washington company, agreeing to purchase The Orchard for <strong>$8.575 million</strong>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The proposed buyer was based in Port Townsend, Washington, roughly 3,000 miles from the Rhode Island development. Publicly available business records reviewed by the <em>Examiner</em> identify White Lark Enterprises as being associated with the <strong>coin-operated laundry and dry-cleaning business</strong> in Port Townsend. Other publicly available records reviewed by the <em>Examiner</em> indicate that a company by that name received a federal Paycheck Protection Program loan of approximately <strong>$40,000</strong> during the pandemic.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those records do not establish White Lark&#8217;s net worth, access to financing, investors or ability to acquire an $8.575 million property. But they present a notable contrast with the transaction Dunbar allegedly showed Coates: a Washington company publicly associated with a coin-operated laundry business purportedly preparing to purchase an entire Rhode Island condominium development for more than <strong>$8.5 million</strong>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to Coates, the sale never closed. His attorneys say they subsequently found no recorded deed or other instrument showing that the transaction had been completed. The complaint also alleges that the purchase-and-sale agreement was electronically signed by <strong>John DiMaggio as White Lark&#8217;s manager</strong>, while Washington Secretary of State records examined by Coates&#8217;s attorneys allegedly did not identify DiMaggio among the company&#8217;s registered agents or officers.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Coates alleges Dunbar nevertheless continued representing into 2026 that the closing was forthcoming and would provide the money necessary to repay him.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Dunbar’s alleged accounting: $4,442,877.18</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By November 2025, according to the complaint, Dunbar himself prepared an accounting of amounts due across several transactions. The total was <strong>$4,442,877.18</strong>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Coates says he subsequently received three payments totaling $400,000 and claims approximately <strong>$4.04 million remained outstanding</strong> under that accounting. The figure encompasses multiple transactions and is not simply the $1.8 million in principal Coates says he advanced for Orchard construction.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The complaint further alleges that in April 2026, after Coates indicated that he might hire an attorney, Dunbar said that if litigation were filed he would assert no defense to the amount owed and agree to immediate judgment. According to Coates, the promised payment did not occur. Dunbar died several months later.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">‘Bernie Madoff of Rhode Island’</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Coates litigation may represent only one part of the scrutiny now surrounding Dunbar&#8217;s financial affairs. A New York attorney examining other Dunbar-related transactions has characterized the late lawyer as the <strong>“Bernie Madoff of Rhode Island.”</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That characterization belongs to the attorney, not the court. No court has found that Dunbar operated a Ponzi scheme, and the Rhode Island litigation remains pending. What the filed court documents describe is already substantial: millions of dollars in short-term financing, extraordinary returns, personal guarantees, purported real-estate security that the lender says was never recorded, personal-injury recoveries and money intended to move through a lawyer&#8217;s client trust account.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Court delays hearing as Coates seeks more time</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The dispute was scheduled to return to court on <strong>Aug. 20</strong>, when a judge was expected to consider Coates&#8217;s emergency requests for a preliminary injunction and prejudgment attachment involving the remaining Orchard property. According to the parties, <strong>Coates requested approximately two additional weeks because he was unable to travel from Kentucky to Rhode Island for the hearing</strong>, and the matter was continued until Sept. 2.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The delay also changed the temporary restrictions on the property. Following an Aug. 19 in-chambers telephone conference, Rhode Island Superior Court Associate Justice Richard Licht ordered the <strong>Aug. 11 temporary restraining order dissolved effective at 4 p.m. Aug. 20</strong>. In its place, the court imposed a narrower temporary restriction through Sept. 2.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Under the new order, the Orchard defendant must provide Coates at least <strong>72 hours&#8217; written notice</strong> before selling, conveying, transferring, contracting to sell, or placing a new mortgage or other encumbrance on the property. If Coates seeks court intervention during that period, the proposed transaction cannot proceed until the court rules on his request.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Importantly, Licht&#8217;s order was entered <strong>“without findings of fact”</strong> and expressly preserved the defendant&#8217;s claims and defenses. The court therefore has not determined that Coates is entitled to attach the Orchard property or that his underlying allegations are true.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The rescheduled hearing on Coates&#8217;s motions is set for <strong>Sept. 2 at 9:30 a.m. in Kent County Superior Court.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>TWO WEST BROOKFIELD PHYSICIANS INDICTED ON DRUG PRESCRIBING AND MEDICAID FRAUD CHARGES</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/05/26/two-west-brookfield-physicians-indicted-on-drug-prescribing-and-medicaid-fraud-charges/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 22:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=2007</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[WEST BROOKFIELD — Two physicians associated with West Brookfield Family Practice have been indicted by a Worcester County Grand Jury on allegations of illegally prescribing controlled substances and committing Medicaid fraud, according to an announcement released Tuesday by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office. Dr. Jeffrey J. Jones and Dr. James C. Wilson III were each [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">WEST BROOKFIELD — Two physicians associated with West Brookfield Family Practice have been indicted by a Worcester County Grand Jury on allegations of illegally prescribing controlled substances and committing Medicaid fraud, according to an announcement released Tuesday by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dr. Jeffrey J. Jones and Dr. James C. Wilson III were each indicted on eight counts of Illegal Prescribing of Controlled Substances and one count of Medicaid False Claims. Their shared medical practice, West Brookfield Family Practice, was also indicted on allegations that it submitted false claims to MassHealth for office visits tied to what prosecutors describe as unlawful prescriptions.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">According to the Attorney General’s Office, the physicians allegedly prescribed combinations of opioids, stimulants, and benzodiazepines without a legitimate medical purpose, including to patients with documented histories of substance use disorder and overdose events.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Prosecutors allege the physicians repeatedly failed to follow accepted safeguards used in controlled substance prescribing, including maintaining pain management agreements, conducting pill counts, and documenting checks of the state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP).</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Attorney General’s Office further alleges that some patients continued receiving prescriptions despite signs of misuse or diversion, including early refill requests, failed drug screenings, overdose incidents, or positive tests for illicit substances. Investigators also allege that some patients were prescribed multiple controlled substances simultaneously over extended periods, including times when patients reportedly had not been seen in the office for months.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Prosecutors allege the prescriptions caused pharmacies to submit false claims to MassHealth for controlled substances issued without a legitimate medical purpose.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration suspended both physicians’ authority to prescribe controlled substances on May 6, 2026, according to the AGO.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office described the case as part of the Commonwealth’s broader effort to combat the opioid crisis and hold medical providers accountable for improper prescribing practices.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The investigation involved the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Division in collaboration with the Drug Enforcement Administration, Massachusetts State Police, and MassHealth.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As with all criminal cases, the charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Questions Raised After Charlton Coalition Health Agent Denies Food Truck Permit Tied to Neighboring Farm</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/05/06/questions-raised-after-charlton-coalition-health-agent-denies-food-truck-permit-tied-to-neighboring-farm/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 21:02:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Food and Dining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=1947</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[FOOD TRUCK OWNER QUESTIONS PERMIT DENIAL LINKED TO NEIGHBOR DISPUTE Questions Raised After Charlton Coalition Health Agent Denies Food Truck Permit Tied to Neighboring Farm By Christopher Kelleher A dispute involving a first-year local food truck business is raising questions about permitting standards, conflict-of-interest concerns, and the role of a regional health inspector who allegedly [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="1947" class="elementor elementor-1947">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-b2c7155 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="b2c7155" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-50d798b elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="50d798b" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<div>
<h2>FOOD TRUCK OWNER QUESTIONS PERMIT DENIAL LINKED TO NEIGHBOR DISPUTE</h2>
<h4>Questions Raised After Charlton Coalition Health Agent Denies Food Truck Permit Tied to Neighboring Farm</h4>
<p><i>By Christopher Kelleher</i></p>
<p>A dispute involving a first-year local food truck business is raising questions about permitting standards, conflict-of-interest concerns, and the role of a regional health inspector who allegedly previously complained about the same property tied to the application.</p>
<p>Smashing Patties owner Nathaniel Lundstrom told the Brookfield Examiner that he applied for a mobile food permit to operate in East Brookfield while using Wildberry Acres Farm as part of his commissary and base-of-operation arrangement.</p>
<p>According to emails reviewed by the Examiner, Lundstrom was asked to provide additional documentation during the permitting process, including information related to water sourcing, wastewater disposal, inspections, and fire permitting.</p>
<p>Lundstrom stated that he complied with those requests, including obtaining a fire department permit related to the trailer’s hood suppression and ventilation system. He also stated that he paid the required $120.00 application fee to East Brookfield as part of the permitting process.</p>
<p>Despite that, Lundstrom said he ultimately received a brief email from regional health inspector Molly Tuller stating only:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>“You are not eligible for permitting in East Brookfield.”</b></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The email did not identify any specific regulation, code provision, or deficiency explaining why the application was denied.</p>
<p>The denial is drawing attention because Lundstrom says he has already received permits or approvals from neighboring communities including Brookfield, Brimfield, Southbridge, and is finalizing permitting in West Brookfield.</p>
<p>The Brookfield Examiner has previously reported on Brookfield’s strict permitting environment involving food operations and local businesses. As a result, Lundstrom’s approval in Brookfield is raising additional questions about the basis for East Brookfield’s determination that he was “not eligible” for permitting.&nbsp;</p>
<p>According to Lundstrom, the permitting process became more difficult after regional health inspector Molly Tuller learned that Wildberry Acres Farm would be used as the commissary location.</p>
<p>Lundstrom alleges that Tuller — the same official responsible for reviewing and determining the fate of his application — repeatedly encouraged him to find a different commissary or base of operation elsewhere, despite already obtaining approval from Brookfield to use the property.</p>
<p>Lundstrom stated that alternative locations in Worcester and Brookfield were suggested by Tuller during the process.</p>
<p>The matter is further complicated by emails reviewed by the Examiner showing that Molly Tuller had previously raised complaints involving Wildberry Acres Farm as a neighboring resident before later participating in permit decisions tied to the same property.</p>
<p>In an April 2 email, Brookfield Town Administrator Bob Ayers wrote that he had received a call from Tuller “concerned about her neighbor making food without a permit.”</p>
<p>Former Brookfield Board of Health Chair Christina Predella confirmed to the Brookfield Examiner that Molly Tuller had previously raised concerns with Brookfield officials regarding Wildberry Acres Farm in her capacity as a private citizen and neighboring resident.</p>
<p>Predella stated that she personally spoke with Tuller for approximately 20 to 30 minutes regarding the matter and explained that Brookfield had reviewed the operation under the town’s Right-to-Farm protections and determined the farm was operating compliantly.</p>
<p>According to Predella, she encouraged Tuller to attempt to resolve any remaining concerns directly with her neighbors, describing the owners of Wildberry Acres as “nice people.”</p>
<p>However, Wildberry Acres owner Lea Moreau later told the Brookfield Examiner that Tuller never ultimately reached out or attempted to discuss the concerns directly with the farm.</p>
<p>Predella previously wrote in an email reviewed by the Examiner that after discussions regarding the matter, Tuller “did not feel the need to move forward with any formal Board of Health discussion.”</p>
<p>Moreau further alleges that Tuller privately complained about the farm’s kitchen operations, driveway activity, lighting, and food-related use of the property. Moreau argues the situation now presents a conflict-of-interest concern because the same official later participated in permit decisions involving the property.</p>
<p>Lundstrom says the delayed appeal timeline is now impacting his business directly. According to emails reviewed by the Examiner, he was informed he could appeal the determination to the East Brookfield Board of Health at its next meeting scheduled for June 1.</p>
<p>However, Lundstrom stated that several planned East Brookfield events will occur before that date, forcing him to cancel appearances during what would have been his first operating season.</p>
<p>“This is my first year in business,” Lundstrom told the Examiner. “I’m just trying to sell burgers. I’m not looking for a fight.”</p>
<p>Lundstrom also stated that he had originally planned to pursue permitting in Sturbridge, but ultimately decided against it after learning that the same regional coalition oversees permitting there as well.</p>
<p>“I just don’t want to go through the same fight again,” he said.</p>
<p>When contacted by the Brookfield Examiner for comment regarding the denial, the permitting process, and questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest, Molly Tuller stated that she had “no comment.” When asked whether she wished to provide any clarification or response whatsoever regarding the matter, Tuller again stated “no,” and the call abruptly ended.</p>
<p>The Brookfield Examiner also contacted the Charlton Coalition for Public Health seeking clarification regarding the permitting process, conflict-of-interest policies, and the basis for the determination that Lundstrom was “not eligible” for permitting in East Brookfield. A response was not received prior to publication.</p>
</div>
<p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tree project fallout raises questions about Brookfield’s procurement process</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/05/05/tree-project-fallout-raises-questions-about-brookfields-procurement-process/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 21:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Local Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Safety]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=1933</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Tree project fallout raises questions about Brookfield’s procurement process By Christopher Kelleher BROOKFIELD, MA —&#160;A Brookfield tree removal project that was put out to competitive bid—and later cited as part of the town’s Tree Warden’s resignation—has raised questions about whether the town’s procurement process was effectively undermined after work was performed outside that process. The [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="1933" class="elementor elementor-1933">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-3615426 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="3615426" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-4327c91 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="4327c91" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<div>
<h1><b>Tree project fallout raises questions about Brookfield’s procurement process</b></h1>
<p><b>By Christopher Kelleher</b></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold; caret-color: #404040; font-size: 1rem;">BROOKFIELD, MA —&nbsp;</span>A Brookfield tree removal project that was put out to competitive bid—and later cited as part of the town’s Tree Warden’s resignation—has raised questions about whether the town’s procurement process was effectively undermined after work was performed outside that process.</p>
<p>The project involved the removal of 15 hazardous trees at multiple locations across town, including municipal properties and roadside areas. Bid documents show that contractors were required to visit each site, assess conditions, and submit sealed bids along with supporting documentation such as insurance certifications, safety training credentials, and work qualifications.</p>
<p>The tree list itself identified specific locations throughout Brookfield—including Main Street, the Brookfield Cemetery, Rice Corner Road, Gay Road, and areas near the town water tower—requiring bidders to evaluate conditions across a wide geographic scope.</p>
<p>Six companies submitted bids, including Chaffee Tree Service, owned by the son of Select Board member Richard Chaffee. The company submitted a bid of $19,050, while Rusty’s Tree Service appeared to be the lowest bidder at $16,565.</p>
<h4>Board delays decision—but work proceeds anyway</h4>
<p>At an initial Select Board meeting, officials did not award the contract, indicating that the matter would be reviewed at a subsequent session.</p>
<p>Before that follow-up discussion occurred, however, <b>two of the trees included in the bid were cut down</b>.</p>
<p>During a later public meeting, Select Board member Richard Chaffee said he had performed the work himself, explaining that he went onto town property with a chainsaw and hoist, removed the trees, and cleaned up the site.</p>
<p>He also said his actions were intended to “save the town money.”</p>
<p><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Rakkas, display; font-size: 1.46667rem; font-style: inherit;">Safety questions raised</span></p>
<p>During the discussion, Select Board member Beth Coughlin said that town employees are typically required to work in pairs when operating chainsaws, citing standard safety practices.</p>
<p>Board members also raised questions about potential liability if work is performed outside normal procedures—particularly if an incident were to occur when a person is working alone.</p>
<h4>Impact on a completed bidding process</h4>
<p>By the time the trees were removed, contractors had already visited multiple sites, evaluated hazardous trees, prepared documentation and certifications, and submitted sealed bids in good faith.</p>
<p>Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B, municipalities are required to conduct procurement in a manner that promotes full and fair competition.</p>
<p>Public procurement processes are designed not only to protect taxpayers, but also to ensure that businesses competing for municipal work are treated fairly.</p>
<p>When part of a project is performed after bids are submitted and opened—but before a contract is awarded, the scope of work changes, submitted pricing may no longer reflect the project, and the competitive process can be disrupted.</p>
<p>During the meeting, the situation was described as having effectively “sabotaged” the contract, referring to the impact of removing part of the work after bids had already been completed.</p>
<h4>Conflict and contradiction raised</h4>
<p data-start="354" data-end="466">The issue is further complicated by the presence of Select Board member Richard Chaffee’s son among the bidders.</p>
<p data-start="468" data-end="585">During the meeting, Chaffee acknowledged that his son had submitted a bid and was not the successful bidder, stating:</p>
<blockquote data-start="587" data-end="749">
<p data-start="589" data-end="749">“It’s also true that my son lost the bid, but it’s also true that I want the tree work to go to the individual that Mr. Tucker [the Tree Warden] wants to hire.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p data-start="751" data-end="915">However, his decision to perform part of the work himself—after bids had been opened—raised questions about whether those actions aligned with that stated position.</p>
<p data-start="917" data-end="1152">Chaffee went on to describe the contract as having become “functionally… sabotage to a certain extent” and a “defective RFP,” attributing that assessment to the involvement of National Grid, which he said would remove part of the work.</p>
<p data-start="1154" data-end="1354">He also stated that he had spoken with National Grid regarding the removal of two trees. Public records reviewed by the Brookfield Examiner, however, do not reflect an agreement authorizing that work.</p>
<h4>Water department concerns</h4>
<p>The incident also reportedly extended onto water department property, raising concerns about potential impacts to municipal infrastructure.</p>
<p>While no damage has been publicly confirmed, the involvement of multiple municipal properties—including infrastructure-related land—adds another layer of concern regarding how the work was performed and whether appropriate coordination occurred.</p>
<h4>Connection to Tree Warden resignation</h4>
<p>The handling of the project is not occurring in isolation. It overlaps directly with the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Brookfield’s Tree Warden, Denis Tucker.</p>
<p>In his February 2025 resignation letter, Tucker stated that his decision was driven by what he described as “ongoing disregard for legal and safety protocols surrounding tree work, specifically due to the actions of Selectman Chaffee.”</p>
<p>He warned that essential safety principles were being ignored, writing that such conditions were “putting both employees and the public at unnecessary risk.”</p>
<p>Tucker also raised concerns about the use of untrained personnel for hazardous work and what he described as a shift away from established arboricultural standards in favor of convenience and perceived efficiency.</p>
<p>The bidding process described in this case—including work performed outside that process, the use of non-contracted labor, and questions raised about safety practices—occurred during the same timeframe and involved the same subject matter outlined in Tucker’s resignation.</p>
<h4>A question of trust—and cost</h4>
<p>Beyond the immediate project, the situation raises a broader question for Brookfield: whether contractors will continue to bid on town work.</p>
<p>Preparing a bid for a project of this scale typically requires site visits, risk assessment, documentation and certification, and a significant investment of time and labor. If that work can be rendered moot after submission, some contractors may choose not to participate in future bids.</p>
<p>When participation declines, competition can decrease and costs can rise. Public procurement laws are designed to prevent that outcome by promoting a fair and predictable process intended to deliver the best value for taxpayers.</p>
<h4>Unanswered questions</h4>
<p data-start="322" data-end="503">Several questions remain unresolved, including why the work was performed before the board completed its review and how the decision to proceed outside the bidding process was made.</p>
<p data-start="505" data-end="587">During the meeting, board members indicated that the work had not been authorized.</p>
<p data-start="589" data-end="768">It also remains unclear how removing part of the project may affect the submitted bids, and what steps, if any, the town will take to ensure future bidding processes are followed.</p>
<h4>A broader implication</h4>
<p>At its core, the issue is not just about two trees.</p>
<p>It is about whether Brookfield’s bidding process—designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and value for taxpayers—can be relied upon by the businesses asked to participate in it.</p>
<p>For contractors weighing whether to bid again, the answer may come next time Brookfield puts work out to market.</p>
<p><i>Richard Chaffee did not respond to several requests for comment.</i></p>
</div>
<p><h4><span data-start="212" data-end="229">Editor’s Note</span></h4>This article is the second in a multi-part series examining the circumstances surrounding the Tree Warden’s resignation, the town’s handling of public tree removal, and the impact on Brookfield’s bidding process. Additional coverage will follow.</p>
<p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>BROOKFIELD WITHOUT TREE WARDEN AFTER RESIGNATION CITING SAFETY FAILURES AND “HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT”</title>
		<link>https://brookfieldexaminer.com/2026/05/01/brookfield-without-tree-warden-after-resignation-citing-safety-failures-and-hostile-work-environment/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Kelleher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 16:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Local Government]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://brookfieldexaminer.com/?p=1872</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[BROOKFIELD WITHOUT TREE WARDEN AFTER RESIGNATION CITING SAFETY FAILURES AND “HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT” By Christopher Kelleher BROOKFIELD, MA — The Town of Brookfield currently does not have a Tree Warden, a position required under Massachusetts law to oversee the care and removal of public shade trees. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 87, municipalities are required [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="1872" class="elementor elementor-1872">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-1e8ce88 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent" data-id="1e8ce88" data-element_type="container" data-e-type="container">
					<div class="e-con-inner">
				<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-86efa76 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="86efa76" data-element_type="widget" data-e-type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
									<h1><b>BROOKFIELD WITHOUT TREE WARDEN AFTER RESIGNATION CITING SAFETY FAILURES AND “HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT”</b></h1>
<p><b>By Christopher Kelleher</b></p>
<p><b>BROOKFIELD, MA —</b> The Town of Brookfield currently does not have a Tree Warden, a position required under Massachusetts law to oversee the care and removal of public shade trees.</p>
<p>Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 87, municipalities are required to appoint a Tree Warden responsible for managing public trees and ensuring proper procedures are followed. As of publication, the Town has not publicly identified a replacement.</p>
<p>The vacancy follows the resignation of Tree Warden Denis Tucker, who stepped down in February 2025 citing serious concerns about safety and working conditions.</p>
<h4><b>RESIGNATION DIRECTLY NAMES SELECT BOARD MEMBER</b></h4>
<p>In his resignation letter, Tucker explicitly attributes his decision to the actions of Select Board member Richard Chaffee:</p>
<p><i>“This decision comes as a result of the ongoing disregard for legal and safety protocols surrounding tree work, specifically due to the actions of Selectman Chaffee.”</i></p>
<p>Tucker further warned that critical safeguards were being ignored:</p>
<p><i>“These essential principles are being ignored, putting both employees and the public at unnecessary risk.”</i></p>
<h4><b>SAFETY CONCERNS AND TRAINING ISSUES</b></h4>
<p>The resignation letter outlines multiple safety concerns, including the use of untrained personnel for hazardous work.</p>
<p>Tucker wrote that he had requested proper training for workers handling dangerous equipment, but:</p>
<p><i>“Selectman Chaffee instructed the Highway Department that this individual did not need training… this employee worked for weeks without the legally mandated instruction.”</i></p>
<p>He described the situation in stark terms:</p>
<p><i>“Ignoring these risks is reckless and unacceptable.”</i></p>
<h4><b>DEPARTURE FROM PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS</b></h4>
<p>Tucker also criticized what he described as a shift away from established arboricultural practices:</p>
<p><i>“Selectman Chaffee has repeatedly advocated for tree removals based on convenience and perceived efficiency rather than adhering to industry best management practices.”</i></p>
<p>He emphasized that proper tree risk assessment requires qualified professionals and structured evaluation methods—not expediency.</p>
<h4><b>TOXIC WORK ENVIRONMENT” AND RESIGNATION</b></h4>
<p>According to his resignation letter , Tucker described broader workplace issues beyond safety concerns.</p>
<p><i>“Selectman Chaffee’s leadership style has created a toxic work environment. His micromanagement, bullying, and misogynistic behavior… have fostered dysfunction and resentment.”</i></p>
<p>He further stated:</p>
<p><i>“His behavior has already led to multiple resignations, and I refuse to be complicit in an organization that enables such conduct.”</i></p>
<p>Tucker ultimately concluded:</p>
<p><i>“I can no longer, in good conscience, support tree removals under Selectman Chaffee’s misguided directives.”</i></p>
<h4><b>A QUALIFIED OFFICIAL LOST</b></h4>
<p>Tucker noted that he brought more than 20 years of experience, along with professional credentials and arboricultural training, to the role.</p>
<p>During public meetings, he demonstrated detailed knowledge of both the technical and legal requirements governing tree work, often answering questions in real time and citing applicable standards directly.</p>
<p>His departure represents the loss of an experienced and knowledgeable official in a role that requires both expertise and adherence to state law.</p>
<h4><b>REQUIRED ROLE NOW VACANT</b></h4>
<p>The Tree Warden position is not optional.</p>
<p>Under Chapter 87, the role is responsible for:</p>
<ul>
<li>Overseeing public shade trees</li>
<li>Approving removals</li>
<li>Ensuring compliance with legal and safety requirements</li>
</ul>
<p>With the position now vacant, it remains unclear who is currently performing those duties.</p>
<h4><b>THE BIGGER ISSUE</b></h4>
<p>The resignation, and the language used in the letter, raises broader concerns about governance, safety, and oversight in Brookfield.</p>
<p>When a required municipal official steps down citing disregard for legal protocols, unsafe working conditions, and a hostile work environment, the impact extends beyond a single department.</p>
<p>It raises questions about how decisions are being made—and who is responsible for ensuring they are carried out safely and in accordance with the law.</p>
<h4><b><i>Editor’s Note</i></b></h4>
<p><i>This is the first in a multi-part series examining the circumstances surrounding the Tree Warden’s resignation, the town’s handling of public tree removal, and the impact on Brookfield’s bidding process.</i></p>
<p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p>								</div>
				</div>
					</div>
				</div>
				</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
