Is Mr. Gaffney's Affidavit An Attempt to Deceive the Court?

An Intentional Deception or Just Sloppiness?

NOT LEGAL ADVICE


In July 2016 Mr. Gaffney filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint. In accordance with Rule 9a, Mr. Gaffney is required to provide a copy of his Motion to Amend to the Defendant. He did provide a copy to me. I made Mr. Gaffney aware of the missing document by email on June 4, 2016

Even though I made him aware of the missing document, Mr. Gaffney never responded to the email nor did he send a copy of the missing document. Instead Mr. Gaffney provided the Court an Affidavit stating he never recieved my Opposition Memo.

He did not tell the Court he never sent a copy of his Motion to Amend to me. This could be construed to be a deception of the Court. I made the Court aware of the issue in my Opposition Memo which was sent separately from Mr. Gaffney's filing. See below.

Mr. Gaffney actions are evidence of either deception or sloppiness. This evidence can be used to show to a Jury the quality of Mr. Gaffney's work as a lawyer.  This can be used in the determination of whether Mr. Gaffney's suit for one million dollars is frivolous.

*********************************************************************************

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            COMMONWEALTH OF MASACHUSETTS

                                                 WORCESTER,          SS                                                    SUPERIOR COURT                                                         16-0288 B

                                                          

********************************                                                                                                                                      

Michael Gaffney, Plaintiff                      

                                                                  

                             Vs.                                 

                                                                  

Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                             InCity Times                                          

Rosalie Tirella                                       

Defendants                                                                                                                                                                                                            

********************************

                                                                

DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ OPOSITION MEMO TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPLAINT

Now comes the Defendant Gordon T. Davis and he respectfully requests that this honorable court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his complaint. The Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 9a and 9c.

Background

1.     The Plaintiff failed to provide a copy of his Motion to Amend his Complaint in a timely manner. He filed his Motion without the Defendant’s Opposition Memo, a violation of Rule 9a.

2.     The Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the missing copy of the Motion to Amend by email on July 2, 2016. (Exhibit 1).

3.     The Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendant’s email notification. The Plaintiff did not seek a Rule 9c conference to resolve the issue of the missing copy of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. As noted this is a violation of Rule 9c.

4.     The Plaintiff has written a deceptive Rule 9a Affidavit implying that the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff’s Motion. (Exhibit 2).

Argument

     The Plaintiff has failed to comply with Court Rules for the filing of a Motion to Amend his Complaint. The Defendant was not provided an opportunity to write an Opposition Memo.

     The Plaintiff wrote a deceptive Rule 9a Affidavit implying that the Defendant made no response to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. The Defendant asks the Court to make note of this deception and possible attempt to unfairly take advantage of a Pro Se Defendant.

When notified of the missing document the Plaintiff made no attempt to resolve the issue as required by Rule 9c. The Plaintiff has not filed a Rule 9c Certificate.

Conclusion

Defendant Mr. Davis respectfully ask the Court to deny the Plaintiff’s Motion as it is not in compliance with Court Rules.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon T. Davis

Pro Se Defendant

Deposing Turtleboy About Mr. Gaffney

                                               

DEPOSING TURTLEBOY SPORTS AND AIDEN KEARNEY

This is not legal advice

Mr. Gaffney has refused to answer questions in discovery. Although there is a motion before the Court to compel him to answer, there are other ways to get the informaiton.

One of the ways is to subpeone witnesses. In this case Turtleboy Sports and Aiden Kearney are witnesses. For Turtleboy Sport there is a Duces Tecum  which compels it to provide relavent documents.  At the deposition I can ask questions about the documents.

For Mr. Kearney there will be a depostion by oral examination about his conversations with Mr. Gaffney. At some later point I will depose Mr. Gaffney and compare testimonies of the two.

Mr. Gaffney has sworn under oath that his wife was affected by the alleged defamation. This has openned the door for her deposition and taking of her medical records.

A copy of the Notice of Depostion to Turtleboy Sports is seen below.

========================================================================

                                        COMMONWEALTH OF MASACHUSETTS

                                                                                               WORCESTER,          SS                                                     SUPERIOR CIVIL COURT                                                                                 C.A. 16-0288 B

                                                           

********************************                                                                                                                                     

Michael T. Gaffney,

 Plaintiff                                                                                     

                             Vs.                                   *                                                                 

Gordon T. Davis,

and                                                              *                                                                                                    

InCity Times                                                            

Rosalie Tirella                                            *

Defendants                                                 *   

******************************** 

                        NOTICE OF TAKING OF DEPOSITION (DUCES TECUM)

To            Turtleboy Digital Marketing LLC.

                 c/o Aiden Kearney

     116 Brookline St.

     Worcester MA 01603

Please take notice that at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 2016 the Defendant, Gordon T. Davis, will take the Deposition of the Keeper of the Records of Turtleboy Digital Marketing LLC (hereafter referred to as “Turtleboy”) in pursuit to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedures. The Deposition will be taken at the office of Real Time Court Reporting, Hammond St. Worcester MA.

The Deposition will be taken before a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or by some other officer authorized by law to administer oath.

The exam will continue until completed.

The Deponent is required to bring the following records.

1.   All correspondence between Turtleboy and the Plaintiff, Michael T. Gaffney (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Gaffney”). Please include invoices and receipts.

2.   All correspondence between any Massachusetts agency and Turtleboy regarding Mr. Gaffney.

3.   A copy of the article dated December 9, 2015, “Mosaic Mafia Family Structure”

4.   A copy of any and all publications regarding the people whom Turtleboy claimed was in the Mosaic Mafia Family. The time period for these publications are from December 10, 2015 through present.

5.   The names of the authors and photographers each publication found in Item 4 above.

6.   A copy of Turtleboy’s incorporation documents.

7.   The names of the present officers of Turtleboy.

You are invited to attend and cross-exam.

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                            Gordon T. Davis

                                                            

Cc: Robert Scott, Esq.

       Office of Hector Pinero

       807 Main St.

       Worcester MA 01610

                        CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Gordon T. Davis Pro Se Defendant, hereby certified that I have this day served the foregoing Notice of Taking Deposition by mailing it via first class prepaid postage to the following:

Turtleboy Digital Marketing LLC

c/o Aiden Kearney

116 Brookline St.

Worcester MA 01603

Margaret M. Melican, Esq.

2 Foster St.

Worcester MA 01608

------------------------------                             -----------------------------------

 Gordon T. Davis                                     Date

A Perry Mason, Mr. Gaffney Is Not,

Mr. Gaffney Is Not Perry Mason

One of Mr. Gaffney complaints is that I caused him one million dollars in damages, including harm to his business as a lawyer. A defense to such a claim is that Mr. Gaffney does not now and is unlikely in the future to be a one million dollar man.

The evidence for this are the court documents written by Mr. Gaffney.  There are conceptual errors of the meaning of the law, errors in the interpretation of the Court rules, documents have the wrong dates, words are misused, and there are some grammatical and typographical mistakes.

Of course to be fair, I also make errors and mistake. However I am visually disabled and I am not a lawyer.

This evidence will be presented to the Court and to the jury as a defense against Mr. Gaffney’s complaint.

The first error Mr. Gaffney made was in the misinterpretation of Rule 33a.  The rule clearly states that Interrogatories are allowed to be served against the Plaintiff at the beginning of the action. Mr. Gaffney argued the Interrogatories could only be served after the service of the Complaint.

“(1) In General. Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may, without leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party”

The second mistake made by Mr. Gaffney was in his request for documents. He mistakenly asked for documents related to an “accident” when he meant “incident. Mr. Gaffney wrote:

            “Copies of any and all statements regarding the alleged accident;…”

Of course in a defamation suit there are no relevant “accidents”.

For want of a better word Mr. Gaffney’s carelessness continued when he wrote his opposition to my codefendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant’s Motion is dated in July 2016. Mr. Gaffney response Opposition Memo is dated incredibly in April 2016. A possible explanation is that Mr. Gaffney plagiarized his Opposition Memo and forgot to change the date.

In the same document Mr. Gaffney asks the Court to “Dismiss” the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The  State Courts do not “dismiss” motions. The Courts “deny” motions.  Such a misuse of the wording of Court procedures could make a person wonder how many Opposition Memos Mr. Gaffney has written.

Everyone can make minor mistakes. However there is a curious mistake that Mr. Gaffney has made that might call into question his ability as a lawyer. That mistake is found in his so called Amendment to the Complaint. He has asked the Court to add to the Complaint, the allegation that the Defendants were “angry” about Mosaic.

Mr. Gaffney should know, being a licensed attorney, that state of mind is not actionable.  Being “angry” might be evidence as motive, but it is certainly not anything that caused him any harm. A case can not be amended based on new evidence. It can be amended based on new or newly known actions.

Given the above evidence of the quality of his practice, a jury will likely see that Mr. Gaffney is not Perry Mason.

Complaint to Board of Overseers Against Mr. Gaffney

Mr. Gaffney conduct before and after his filing of the case may rise to the level of professional misconduct. In this letter I am making a complaint to the Board of Overseers for lawyers practicing in Massachusetts.

=======================================================================

Attorney and Consumer Assistance Program                                                                     Office of the Bar Counsel                                                                                                                            99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 

Re: Michael T. Gaffney, BBO #651957

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to complain about Michael T. Gaffney. Esquire. His BBO number is seen above.

Mr. Gaffney has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. He has engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. He has engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.

Mr. Gaffney has continually engaged in intimidating and overly aggressive litigation tactics His tactics are those of a bully and rule breaker.

Because Mr. Gaffney is a lawyers holding public office, he assumes legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. His misconduct could suggest an inability to perform his responsibilities as a lawyer.

Background

I am a writer. I wrote about the efforts by Mr. Gaffney to close down a community center in a Black neighborhood. A blogger, Turtleboy, supported what I consider Mr. Gaffney’s racist efforts.  Turtleboy libeled me by calling me “mentally unbalance” and I sued him on February 12, 2016. A week late Mr. Gaffney sued me in retaliation..

Misconduct by Mr. Gaffney

1.     On February 19, 2016 Mr. Gaffney misused the Court system and sued me for libel based on my opposing his efforts to close a Black community center, Mosaic. (Exhibit1)

2.     This is misconduct as Mr. Gaffney’s Complaint is frivolous and intended as retaliation. Mr. Gaffney published that he was supporting Turtleboy against me. This is evidence of his retaliation. (Exhibit 2)

3.     In June 2016 Mr. Gaffney told my employer that I should be fired from my job. My continued employment is not relevant to the claims found in Mr. Gaffney’s Complaint; it is not related to any relief that is sought by him. His attempt to have me terminated is evidence of his retaliation and bullying. (Exhibit 3)

4.     Mr. Gaffney claimed that his business, mental health, and political capital were harmed. He claims one million dollars in damages. (Exhibit 1)

5.     When served with Interrogatories, Mr. Gaffney dishonestly objected to the questions about his business, income, mental health, and political capital. The pretext for his objections is that such questions would not produce any evidence that could be used in the Defendant’s defense. (Exhibit 4)

Mr. Gaffney being a lawyer knew that his statements were dishonest as the very basis of his claims are income, mental anguish, and political capital. These deceitful statements are intended to be prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Conclusion

     There is sufficient evidence for the Board of Overseers to investigate Mr. Gaffney’s actions as dishonest and prejudicial to the administration of Justice. His actions are retaliatory and those of a bully trying to stifle political discussion. He has conducted himself in a manner that adversely reflects on his profession.

   I respectfully ask that Mr. Gaffney be investigated for this misconduct.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                                                                                                               

Cc: Michael T. Gaffney, Esq.