WHAT ARE TURTLEBOY AND MR. GAFFNEY HIDING?
They were both concerned about my deposing Turtleboy on August 10, 2016. Mr. Gaffney called it a "witch hunt". Ms. Melican said she would seek an emergency protective order from the Court. Please see below.
In response I sent them an email summarizing my recollections of the respective telephone conversations. Please see below.
It is ironic that Mr. Gaffney calls this Court proceding a "witch hunt" after he hounded Black run Mosaic Cultural Center into closing. It is also ironic that Ms. Melican is seeking a protective order for Turtleboy who makes a living shaming and ridiculing and harassing private people.
I wonder what it is that they do not want the Court to know.
_______________________________________________________________________________
========================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gaffney <michaelgaffneylaw@gmail.com>
To: Gordon Davis <standards2100@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation on August 2, 2016
From: Michael Gaffney <michaelgaffneylaw@gmail.com>
To: Gordon Davis <standards2100@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation on August 2, 2016
I disagree with your
summary.
Thank you.
Michael Gaffney
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at
11:47 AM, <standards2100@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Gaffney:
This email is a summary
of our telephone conversation on August 2, 2016.
1. You asked me to
clarify my objection to an Answer to one of your Interrogatories. In my Answer
I objected to the vagueness of the question. It is my understandng that you
will send me a written description of what information you are seeking about my
objection regarding vagueness.
2. You said that my
seeking informatin about the case through a deposition of Turtleboy was a
"witch hunt". You indicated that you would seek relief from the
Court.
3. I indicated that your
Motion to Amend was not in compliance with Rule 9A and 9 C.
Regards,
Gordon T. Davis
Pro Se Plaintiff
--
Attorney Michael T.
Gaffney, MBA, CPCU
Vice Chair, Worcester
City Council
Chair, Worcester
Republican City Committee
416 Belmont Street,
Suite 102
Worcester, MA 01604
508-770-1007
Voted "2016 Best
City Councilor" by Worcester Magazine readers
=====================================================================
Original Message-----
From: margaretmelicanm <margaretmelicanm@aol.com>
To: standards2100 <standards2100@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 11:59 am
Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation on August 2, 2016
From: margaretmelicanm <margaretmelicanm@aol.com>
To: standards2100 <standards2100@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 11:59 am
Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation on August 2, 2016
With all due respect, there was much more to
this conversation. You refused to give any detail whatsoever to the
inquiry of my clients, which is entirely irrelevant to the Gaffney case.
Margaret M. Melican,
Attorney
2 Foster Street
Worcester, Massachusetts
01608
Telephone:
(508)831-7671
-----Original Message-----
From: standards2100 <standards2100@aol.com>
To: standards2100 <standards2100@aol.com>; michaelgaffneylaw <michaelgaffneylaw@gmail.com>; margaretmelicanm <margaretmelicanm@aol.com>; robin <robin@pineirolegal.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 11:54 am
Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation on August 2, 2016
From: standards2100 <standards2100@aol.com>
To: standards2100 <standards2100@aol.com>; michaelgaffneylaw <michaelgaffneylaw@gmail.com>; margaretmelicanm <margaretmelicanm@aol.com>; robin <robin@pineirolegal.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2016 11:54 am
Subject: Re: Telephone Conversation on August 2, 2016
Dear Ms. Melican:
This email is a summary
of our telephone conversation on August 2, 2016.
1. You asked me to postpone the Deposition of
Turtle boy until after the hearing on the Defendant Tirells's Motion to Dismiss.
I did not agree with this request.
2. You asked me what questions I would ask Turtleboy.
I indicated that the area of questioning was found in the Notices.
3. You indicated that you would seek an emergency
protective order.
Regards,
Gordon T. Davis
Pro Se Plaintiff
No comments:
Post a Comment