Seeing What Sticks to the Wall

Not legal advice

Seeing What Sticks to the Wall

Turtleboy

I am not a lawyer; my practice is in the regulatory agencies. I made an error in serving Turtleboy a subpoena. Although anyone over the age of 18 years can serve the subpoena, a party to the complaint can not serve the subpoena.  The second subpoena commanding Turtleboy to appear for a deposition was served by the Sheriff to Turtleboy’s new location in Holden.  The deposition is scheduled for November 2, 2016.  The subpoena is seen below as Exhibit 1.

Mr.  Gaffney

The Judge allowed Mr. Gaffney to amend his complaint. The amended complaint is qualitatively a different complaint than Mr. Gaffney’s first complaint filed in February 2016. There seems a sense of desperation by Mr. Gaffney. He seemingly is throwing everything into the amended complaint in the hope of something sticking.

First Mr. Gaffney has resorted to name calling. In his Amended Complaint I am called a “race divider”. Of course the name calling is not relevant to the case. This wrongful characterization could be intended by Mr. Gaffney to prejudice the Judge. The other possibility is that Mr. Gaffney has thin skin and is seeking retaliation.

Second my letter to the Board of Overseer was claimed to be defamatory. As Mr. Gaffney knows a complaint to the Board of Overseers is protected speech and therefore immaterial to the case.

Mr. Gaffney thirdly is upset that I intend to depose his wife. He has sworn under oath that his wife was negatively affected by the alleged defamation.

A fourth issue raised by Mr. Gaffney was my pointing out errors he made in his documents and thinking. Because Mr. Gaffney claims a million dollar in damages the accuracy of his work is material evidence whether his sit is frivolous.

In response to the Amended Complaint I have sent to the Court a new set of Answers corresponding to the items in Mr. Gaffney’s Amended Complaint. (Exhibit 2)

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

EXHIBIT 1

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Subpoena (Duces Tecum)

Worcester ss.

Worcester Superior Civil Court

Civil Action No. 16-0288 B

To: the Keeper of the Records:

 Turtleboy Digital Marketing LLC (Turtleboy)

You are hereby commanded, in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to appear for Deposition and Duces Tecum on the 2^nd day of November, in the year 2016, at 10 o’clock am, and from day to day thereafter, until the action hereinafter named is heard by said Court, to give evidence (deposition) of what you know relating to an action then and there to be heard and tried between

Michael T. Gaffney, Plaintiff, and

Gordon T. Davis et al, Defendants,

Docket number 16-0288 B,

 You are further required to bring with you

all of the following documents in their media, including paper and electronic.

 The Deponent is required to bring the following records.

1.   ALL correspondences between Turtleboy and the Plaintiff, Michael T. Gaffney (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Gaffney”). Please include invoices, receipts, and contracts as well any and all materials written by Mr. Gaffney and published or appearing in your publication.

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, published materials or comments regarding the people whom Turtleboy claimed was in the Mosaic Mafia Family. The time period for these publications are from December 10, 2014 through present.

5.   The IP addresses of each and all commenter on the published materials found in item 4 above.

6.   The names of the authors and photographers for each publication and each published article relating to the people referenced in Item 4 above.

7.   A copy of Turtleboy’s incorporation documents.

8.    The names of all officers of Turtleboy from the time of its incorporation to present.

The questioning of the documents and your giving evidence shall take place at Real Time Court Reporting located at 9 Hammond St, Worcester MA 01610.

Hereof fail not, as your failure to appear as required will subject you to such pains and penalties as the law provides.

Dated at Worcester, the September 20, in the year 2016.

____________________________________

Gordon T. Davis, Pro Se Defendant

___________________                                                                                       Notary Public

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

EXHIBIT2

Worcester Superior Court

225 Main Street

Worcester, MA 01608

Re:  Gaffney vs. InCity Times et al, Docket 16-0288 B

Request for Leave to Reply to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Date September 29, 2016

Dear Honorable Judge Tucker:

Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A (3), Defendant, Gordon T. Davis respectfully requests leave of this Court to file Answers to the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint dated September 9, 2016. The Amendments to the Complaint are substantial and makes the Complaint qualitatively and materially different than the Complaint filed with Court in February 2016.

This reply is necessary as Plaintiff has served the Defendant with the Amended Complaint without the opportunity to either Answer or seek Dismissal or Oppose.

Defendant could not have anticipated the Amendments would substantially and qualitative change the Complaint filed in February 2016...

Therefore Defendant requests leave to properly Answer the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

The Defendant Gordon T. Davis’ Answers to the Amended Complaint is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Gordon T. Davis

Pro Se Plaintiff

Cc: Michael T. Gaffney, Esq.

       Robert Scott, Esq.                                                                                                            

MR. GAFFNEY’S ERRORS CONTINUE

MR. GAFFNEY’S ERRORS CONTINUE

Mr. Gaffney’s string of legal errors continues. He has misinterpreted or misheard or attempted to deceive the Defendant Davis when he stated that he would not provide Answers to Interrogatories because Judge Tucker delayed the Discovery process. The events proved Mr. Gaffney in error.

As reported in an earlier blog, the Court on August 6, 2016 ordered Mr. Gaffney to answer my Interrogatories regarding his income and his relationship to Turtleboy.  On August 10, 2016 Mr. Gaffney refused to provide a date by which he would answer the Interrogatories. In response I filed a Motion with the Court on August 11, 2016 to compel Mr. Gaffney to provide a definite date on which he would provide his Answers.  (Exhibit 1 below)

As a rule the Answers are due within 30 days of the Court Order.  On September 6, 2016 I telephone Mr. Gaffney that his 30 days allowed by Court rules to answer the Interrogatories had passed and the Answers were past due. He was now in contempt of Court. (Exhibit 2).

Incredibly Mr. Gaffney responded that the Judge did not want him to answer the questions until after the ruling on Defendant Tirella’s Motion to Dismiss.

I attended the Hearing on Defendant Tirella’s Motion. The Judge said that he would clarified the issue of the Turtleboy Deposition. He did not say that he wanted to delay the Discovery process for Mr. Gaffney.

 

On September 14, 2016 the Judge contradicted Mr. Gaffney and ordered to answer the Interrogatories on or before October 7, 2016.

The Judge has not ruled on the Motion to Dismiss by Ms. Tirella at this time.

TURTLE BOY

In other developments on September 13, 2016 the Judge ruled that Turtleboy would not get a protective order and there would be no restriction on the deposition of Turtleboy.

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

Exhibit 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      COMMONWEALTH OF MASACHUSETTS

                                                                                                                                                                     WORCESTER,          SS                                                          

SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                      16-0288 B

                                                          

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

Michael Gaffney, Plaintiff                      *

                                                                     * 

                             Vs.                                   * 

                                                                     *

Gordon T. Davis                                       *                                                                                            InCity Times                                                *

DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ MOTION TO COMPLE PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE A DATE CERTAIN OR ESTIMATED DATE FOR HIS ANSWER TO COURT SELECTED INTERROGATORIES

The Pro Se Defendant Gordon T. Davis respectfully requests this Court to compel the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney to provide a date certain in compliance with the Court Order by Judge Tucker re-answering the allowed Interrogatories

Background

1.    Judge Tucker on July 28, 2016 has ordered the Plaintiff to answer the allowed Interrogatories (Exhibit 1)

2.   On August 10, 2016 the Defendant Gordon T. Davis met in person with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff refused to provide any date for the Answers to the Court ordered found in Exhibit 1.

3.   At the same meeting when asking for a date certain from the Plaintiff, the Defendant was called a “petulant child”. This was witnessed by the Defendant’s wife and another witness.

4.   The Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney continued his inappropriate behavior by ridiculing and shaming the Pro Se Plaintiff by continuously saying “Do you know what you are doing?”

Argument

5.   The Plaintiff was served with Interrogatories on My 4, 2016. He had over 90 days to prepare his Answers.

6.   The Plaintiff has refused to provide a date certain or even an estimate for his provision of Answers.

The refusal to provide a certain date is adversely affecting the Defendant’s ability to conduct discovery and the preparation of his defense.

The Plaintiff being an officer of the Court should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the Court rules and orders.

7.   The Plaintiff as a Court officer has conducted himself in an inappropriate manner by name calling and ridiculing the Pro Se Defendant.

Conclusion and Relief

The Pro Se Defendant, Gordon T. Davis, respectfully asks the Court to order the Plaintiff to provide the Court ordered Answers.

The Pro Se Defendant, Gordon T. Davis, also requests that the Court caution the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney (who is an attorney) about appropriate behavior in a Court proceeding.

 Respectfully submitted

Gordon T. Davis

Pro Se Plaintiff

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

Exhibit 2

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gaffney <michaelgaffneylaw@gmail.com>
To: Gordon Davis <standards2100@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 11:20 am
Subject: Re: 9C Conference Regarding Court Compelled Answers to Interrogatories.

As you are aware, Judge Tucker was pretty clear in court on August 25, 2016 when he advised the he would review the discovery motions after a determination on the Motion to Dismiss as the determination on the Motion to Dismiss would be dispositive.  In fact, he has scheduled a Hearing on the Protective Order after the due date for the Amended Complaint.

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 7:37 PM, <standards2100@aol.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Gaffney:

The Court ordered Answers to my Interrogatories are passed due. By your admission in your Opposition Memo to Motion to Compel a Date Certain for your Answers the Answers were due on September 2, 2016. You are now in contempt of Court.

 In accordance with Rule 9C I telephoned you on September 3, 2016 to discuss your failure to provide Answers in a timely manner and a manner ordered by Court. Please return my call with about your Answers. I am considering contempt of Courts sanctions. 

 The Answers are due forthwith. 

Regards, 

Gordon T. Davis

Pro Se Defendant

Calling Mr. Gaffney a Black Panther

Calling Mr. Gaffney a Black Panther

This update is not legal advice

Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

On August 25, 2016 Judge Taylor held a hearing regarding Ms. Tirella’s Motion to Dismiss. A Motion to Dismiss is different than a Motion for Summary Judgement in that it asks the Court to make a determination regarding whether the Complaint meets the prima facie requirements or substance of a defamation case. A Motion for Summary Judgement asks the Court to determine the case based on the evidence presented.

Although the Defendant Ms. Tirella made a Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Davis did not.  He chose instead to go through the Discovery proceedings and seek Summary Judgement or a trial afterwards. Even if Ms. Tirella’s case is dismissed. the Judge should continue the Gaffney vs. Davis part of the case.

Defendant Tirella’s attorneys argued that not one of the articles in InCity Times is defamatory.  Mr. Gaffney argued that no single article was defamation, but the articles had to be viewed together as a group.

The Judge asked Mr. Gaffney in an attempt to clarify his position ”… was it defamatory for Hillary Clinton to call Donald Trump a racist?”. The Judge then asked Mr. Gaffney was it defamation for someone to call him a White Supremacist or a Black Panther. Mr. Gaffney said that no one would call him a Black Panther.

Errors in Mr. Gaffney’s Motion to Amend

The Judge has not made a ruling yet. In a notice, subsequent to the Dismissal Hearing, from the Court Clerk the Judge said that Mr. Gaffney had errored in his Motion to Amend the Complaint. The error is that Mr. Gaffney did not include the draft of the Amendment or wrote the Amendment incorrectly.

In August 2016  I complained to the Court that Mr. Gaffney did not send me a copy of his Amendment and therefore I could not effectively oppose it. It appears that Mr. Gaffney did not send a copy of the Amendment to the Court as well.

The Judge said that he would not rule on Ms. Tirella’s Motion to Dismiss until Mr. Gaffney sent a copy of his Amendment. The Court gave Mr. Gaffney 10 days to comply.

Mr. Gaffney Contempt of Court

Even though the Court ordered Mr. Gaffney to answer my Interrogatories, he has again failed to do so, He is now in contempt of Court. I will ask the Court for sanctions.

Turtleboy Desposition

As for Turtleboy, there is a hearing on his Protective Order on September 13, 2016. The Judge will rule on whether I can depose Turtleboy and if there are restrictions on the questions I can ask. 

My Complaint to Board of Overseers About Ms. Melican

 My Complaint to Board of Overseers About Ms. Melican  

                           

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

Re: Margaret M. Melican, BBO #342100

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to complain about Margaret M. Melican. Esquire. Her BBO number is seen above.

Ms. Melican has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. She has engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. She has engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.

Because Ms. Melican is a lawyer and a former judge, she assumes legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. Her misconduct could suggest an inability to perform her 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.  Mr. Gaffney is now suing me for defamation.

I attempted to depose the blogger Turtleboy in order to obtain evidence for my defense. Ms. Melican, Turtleboy’s counsel, moved for protective orders.

Misconduct by Ms. Melican

1.     On August 3, 2016 Ms. Melican sent to the Court an Emergency Motion for a Protective Order to prevent the deposing of her client Turtleboy. The Deposition  was scheduled for August 10, 2016. Her Emergency Motion did not have my Opposition Memo.  (Exhibit 1)

2.      I sent my Opposition Memo to the Emergency Motion to the Court by hand on August 8, 2016.  (Exhibit 2)

3.     The Court never ruled on the Emergency Motion for a Protective Order and the Deponent did not appear on August 10, 2016 at the still scheduled Deposition. (Exhibit 3)

4.     On August 11, 2016 I sent to Ms. Melican an email saying that some proceedings took place without the Deponent at the scheduled Deposition. (Exhibit4)

5.     On August 16, 2016 Ms. Melican filed a second Motion for Protective Order for Turtleboy.  (Exhibit 5)

6.     Incredibly Ms. Melican did NOT send a copy of the second Motion for a Protective Order to me. Ms. Melican sent her second Motion for a Protective Order directly to the Court without allowing the Defendant to see and write an Opposition Memo.

7.      The list of Rule 9A documents for the second Motion for Protective Oder filed by Ms. Melican does not have within it  my Opposition Memo. (Exhibit 6)

8.     The list of Rule 9A documents does contain a listing of a Certificate of 9A Compliance. A copy of this Certificate was never sent to the Defendant. Ms. Melian’s Certificate of 9A Compliance is false as she never allowed the Defendant an opportunity to write an Opposition Memo. The Certificate is a form of perjury.

9.     The evidence for this perjury is not only the omission of any mention of the Defendant’s Opposition Memo in the Rule 9A List of Documents, but also in the timeline of Ms. Melican Motion.   

The date of Ms. Melican inquiry regarding the scheduled deposition was August 10, 2016. (Exhibit 4). Even if she had written the Motion for second Protective Order on August 10, 2016, Ms. Melican filed her Motion for Protection on August 16, 2016. The date of filing is less than 10 days per Court Rules she must allow the Defendant to write a Memorandum of Opposition.

10.  The Certificate of 9C Compliance also listed in the List of 9A documents is also is false and a form of perjury. Ms. Melican never talked with me in person or by telephone about her second Motion for Protective Order.

She never talked with me by phone or in person about when I would provide a Memorandum of Opposition to her second Motion for Protective Order that she filed with the Court on August 16, 2016.

Conclusion

     There is sufficient evidence for the Board of Overseers to investigate Ms. Melican’s actions as dishonest and prejudicial to the administration of Justice. Her actions are perjurious and designed to give her an unfair and unlawful advantage.

     Ms. Melican is a former judge and presently a lawyer and she knows Opposition Memos get lost in the judicial process unless they accompany the associated Motions. Court Rule 9A was designed to prevent this unfair advantage.

     There is evidence that Ms. Melican intentionally attempted to gain this unfair and unlawful advantage of having the presiding judge see her Motion without seeing the Opposition Motion of the pro se Defendant.

   I respectfully ask that Ms. Melican be investigated for this misconduct.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                         508                                                                                            Stan

Cc: Margaret M. Melican, Esq.