Monday, March 7, 2016

Gaffney's Retaliation



Disclaimer: this document is not to be construed as legal advice. This document is copy of my Answer (defense) against Michael Gaffney's Complaint (suit) that I defamed him . Curiously Mr. Gaffney has not served his Complaint. I had to go to the Court and get a copy.



                                    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                                                                                                                                                     WORCESTER,          SS                                                           
SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                      16-0288 B
                                                          
********************************                                                                                                                                      
Michael Gaffney, Plaintiff                      
                                                                     
                             Vs.                                   
                                                                     
Gordon T. Davis                                              *                                                                                                       
Defendant                                                  
                           Vs.                                      
InCity Times                                                 
Rosalie Tirella                                            
Defendants                                                                                                                                                                                                                
********************************


DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ ANSWER

Now come the Pro Se Defendant’s, Gordon T. Davis (Mr. Davis), answer to the Plaintiff’s complaint. It is as follows:
           
1.     The allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint pertain to the identification of the Plaintiff to which Mr. Davis is not required to answer.

2.     The allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint pertain to the identification of co defendants to which Mr. Davis is not required to answer.

3.     Admitted.

4.     Mr. Davis is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truthfulness of the allegation in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5.     Denied.

6.     Denied.

7.     Denied.

8.     Denied. Mr. Davis did not write or publish the referenced item found in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9.     Denied. Mr. Davis did not write or publish the referenced item found in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10.                         Denied. Mr. Davis did not write or publish any tags whatsoever as referenced in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11.                         Denied. The published materials are not defamatory to Plaintiff.

12.                        Denied. Mr. Davis made no third party statement as to the truthfulness of the article he wrote.

13.                        Denied.

14.                          Paragraph 14 of the Complaint is demands for damages and consequently  Mr. Davis is not required to respond.  To the extent that paragraph 14 of the Complaint is construed to contain allegations of wrongful conduct by  Mr. Davis, those allegations are denied.

     Further answering,  Mr. Davis asserts the following defenses:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars this Complaint.
                                                Alternate Second Affirmative Defense
        The plaintiff’s reputation is already so tarnished that the      
        speech could not have harmed it further.





                                Alternate Third Affirmative Defense

     The plaintiff’s suit is frivolous and done in retaliation for a suit       
     filed by Mr. Davis against Plaintiff’s business associates Aiden
     Kearney and Turtleboy Sports.

                              Alternate Fourth Affirmative Defense

     The Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous as it was intended as a distraction from the political accusations Plaintiff was facing for posting offensive and false facebook posts.

                                Jury Claim

     Mr. Davis requests a jury trial as to all claims in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,


-----------------------                                         ------------
Gordon T. Davis                                            Date
Pro Se Plaintiff


Cc: InCity Times
       Ms. Rosalie Tirrella



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the Answers to Complaint was served to the Plaintiff, Michael Gaffney, on March 8, 2016 by means of first class mail sent to Plaintiff’s address of 1 Bancroft Tower Road Worcester MA 01609.                                                              



----------------------------------------                                       ------------------                                                                                                                                                    Gordon T. Davis                                                                 Date

No comments:

Post a Comment