Not Legal
Advice
MR. GAFFNEY CAUGHT IN A TRAP OF HIS OWN MAKING
Mr. Gaffney has sent his Motion to Dismiss his own lawsuit.
He is in a hurry to end his lawsuit due to the Court Order that he provide to
the Defendant critical information including his tax returns, his relationship
to Turtleboy, and an admission whether he wrote the offense email against City
Councillor Rivera.
I get an opportunity to write an Opposition Memo. This Memo
is found below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 DISMISS HIS LAWSUIT.
Now comes the Defendant Gordon T. Davis and he respectfully requests that
this honorable court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss his own Lawsuit.
Background
1. The Plaintiff Gaffney has moved to have the Court dismiss his own case
based on the following reasons.
a. Defendant Tirella has retracted a “false and libelous “statement of fact.
b. Defendant Davis has allegedly wrote the “false and libelous” statement of
fact.
c. Defendant’s Davis’ alleged “ false and libelous” statement of fact has
been repudiated by the Publisher
d. Plaintiff and Defendant Tirella will file a Stipulation with the Court.
Argument
2. Defendant Tirella does not have
sufficient information to make a determination of either the truthfulness of
the Defendant Davis’ statement or whether it legally meets the standards of
Defamation of a Public Official.
The Plaintiff Gaffney does not offer any evidence of the truthfulness of
Defendant Davis’ statement nor does he present any evidence of defamation in
his Motion.
There is evidence found in the Worcester Telegram article that Defendant
Tirella was bullied and threatened with bankruptcy into making her retraction.
(Exhibit 1)
3. Defendant has denied in his pleadings that he did not write anything untrue
or defamatory regarding the Plaintiff.
The Defendant requests that the Court allow Defendant Davis the
opportunity to defend himself against the frivolous charges by Defendant
Gaffney.
4. Defendant Davis has filed a Motion
for the Award of Sanctions for a Frivolous Lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Gaffney.
Defendant Davis asks the Court to delay any ruling on this instant Motion
to Dismiss until a time after a Hearing on Defendant Davis’ Motion for Award of
Sanctions is heard and ruled upon.
5. The Plaintiff Gaffney is now in Contempt of Court for failing to provide
Answers to Interrogatories by October 7, 2016 as ordered by Judge Tucker.
Defendant Davis is writing a Motion for a Hearing to Dismiss regarding this
Contempt of Court by noncompliance with Court Order.
This is evidence that the Defendant Gaffney is rushing to Dismiss his own
Lawsuit to avoid complying with Judge Tucker’s Order to provide Answers.
6. Defendant Davis was not included in anyway in the writing of a retraction
or a Stipulation. This should have been the minimum requirement for any
Dismissal of the Lawsuit.
Conclusion
For the reasons seen above, the Court should deny the Motion for
Dismissal of Plaintiff own Lawsuit against Defendant Davis. The basis given for
the Motion for Dismissal is unfounded and untrue.
The minimum standard for the Dismissal of the Plaintiff Lawsuit (stipulation
by Defendant) has not been met.
There is evidence that the Plaintiff is in Contempt of Court and is
seeking to undue this Contempt by withdrawing his case.
The is evidence found in Defendant’s Motion for Award of Sanctions that
the Plaintiff case is Frivolous and filed in Bad Faith. The Court should hear
the Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions before Allowing Plaintiff Motion to
Dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon T. Davis
Pro Se Defendant
No comments:
Post a Comment