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.