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
No comments:
Post a Comment