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