Wednesday, July 20, 2016

A Perry Mason, Mr. Gaffney Is Not,



Mr. Gaffney Is Not Perry Mason

One of Mr. Gaffney complaints is that I caused him one million dollars in damages, including harm to his business as a lawyer. A defense to such a claim is that Mr. Gaffney does not now and is unlikely in the future to be a one million dollar man.

The evidence for this are the court documents written by Mr. Gaffney.  There are conceptual errors of the meaning of the law, errors in the interpretation of the Court rules, documents have the wrong dates, words are misused, and there are some grammatical and typographical mistakes.

Of course to be fair, I also make errors and mistake. However I am visually disabled and I am not a lawyer.

This evidence will be presented to the Court and to the jury as a defense against Mr. Gaffney’s complaint.

The first error Mr. Gaffney made was in the misinterpretation of Rule 33a.  The rule clearly states that Interrogatories are allowed to be served against the Plaintiff at the beginning of the action. Mr. Gaffney argued the Interrogatories could only be served after the service of the Complaint.

(1) In General. Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may, without leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party

The second mistake made by Mr. Gaffney was in his request for documents. He mistakenly asked for documents related to an “accident” when he meant “incident. Mr. Gaffney wrote:

            “Copies of any and all statements regarding the alleged accident;…”

Of course in a defamation suit there are no relevant “accidents”.

For want of a better word Mr. Gaffney’s carelessness continued when he wrote his opposition to my codefendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant’s Motion is dated in July 2016. Mr. Gaffney response Opposition Memo is dated incredibly in April 2016. A possible explanation is that Mr. Gaffney plagiarized his Opposition Memo and forgot to change the date.

In the same document Mr. Gaffney asks the Court to “Dismiss” the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The  State Courts do not “dismiss” motions. The Courts “deny” motions.  Such a misuse of the wording of Court procedures could make a person wonder how many Opposition Memos Mr. Gaffney has written.

Everyone can make minor mistakes. However there is a curious mistake that Mr. Gaffney has made that might call into question his ability as a lawyer. That mistake is found in his so called Amendment to the Complaint. He has asked the Court to add to the Complaint, the allegation that the Defendants were “angry” about Mosaic.

Mr. Gaffney should know, being a licensed attorney, that state of mind is not actionable.  Being “angry” might be evidence as motive, but it is certainly not anything that caused him any harm. A case can not be amended based on new evidence. It can be amended based on new or newly known actions.


Given the above evidence of the quality of his practice, a jury will likely see that Mr. Gaffney is not Perry Mason.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Complaint to Board of Overseers Against Mr. Gaffney



Mr. Gaffney conduct before and after his filing of the case may rise to the level of professional misconduct. In this letter I am making a complaint to the Board of Overseers for lawyers practicing in Massachusetts.

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

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

Re: Michael T. Gaffney, BBO #651957

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to complain about Michael T. Gaffney. Esquire. His BBO number is seen above.

Mr. Gaffney has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. He has engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. He has engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.

Mr. Gaffney has continually engaged in intimidating and overly aggressive litigation tactics His tactics are those of a bully and rule breaker.

Because Mr. Gaffney is a lawyers holding public office, he assumes legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. His misconduct could suggest an inability to perform his 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.  Turtleboy libeled me by calling me “mentally unbalance” and I sued him on February 12, 2016. A week late Mr. Gaffney sued me in retaliation..

Misconduct by Mr. Gaffney
1.     On February 19, 2016 Mr. Gaffney misused the Court system and sued me for libel based on my opposing his efforts to close a Black community center, Mosaic. (Exhibit1)

2.     This is misconduct as Mr. Gaffney’s Complaint is frivolous and intended as retaliation. Mr. Gaffney published that he was supporting Turtleboy against me. This is evidence of his retaliation. (Exhibit 2)

3.     In June 2016 Mr. Gaffney told my employer that I should be fired from my job. My continued employment is not relevant to the claims found in Mr. Gaffney’s Complaint; it is not related to any relief that is sought by him. His attempt to have me terminated is evidence of his retaliation and bullying. (Exhibit 3)


4.     Mr. Gaffney claimed that his business, mental health, and political capital were harmed. He claims one million dollars in damages. (Exhibit 1)

5.     When served with Interrogatories, Mr. Gaffney dishonestly objected to the questions about his business, income, mental health, and political capital. The pretext for his objections is that such questions would not produce any evidence that could be used in the Defendant’s defense. (Exhibit 4)

Mr. Gaffney being a lawyer knew that his statements were dishonest as the very basis of his claims are income, mental anguish, and political capital. These deceitful statements are intended to be prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Conclusion

     There is sufficient evidence for the Board of Overseers to investigate Mr. Gaffney’s actions as dishonest and prejudicial to the administration of Justice. His actions are retaliatory and those of a bully trying to stifle political discussion. He has conducted himself in a manner that adversely reflects on his profession.

   I respectfully ask that Mr. Gaffney be investigated for this misconduct.
Respectfully submitted,

Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                                                                                                               

Cc: Michael T. Gaffney, Esq.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Mr. Gaffney's Case Unravelling




========================================================================
Not Legal Advice

Because Mr. Gaffney has refused to answer the Interrogatories, a Motion to Compel Answers is being sent to the Court. The Motion explains how the Interrogatories are relevant to the case. See below.

Although Mr. Gaffney has claimed damage to his business, he has not provided any evidence of any daamage. He claims that he suffered mental anguish, but he has not answered any question about his medical or mental health. Mr. Gaffney claims that his " political capital" was damaged, yet he has not answered the question about what is political capital.

If Mr. Gaffney can not or will not provide evidence of damage or harm, then his case falls apart and could be determined to be frivolous.
========================================================================

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS


WORCESTER, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
           C. A. NO. 2016-00288 B


_______________________
MICHAEL T. GAFFNEY
Plaintiff,
V.
INCITY TIMES
ROSALIE TIRELLA
GORDON T. DAVIS
Defendants.
_______________________


DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ REQUEST FOR MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE CRITICAL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES.

Defendant Gordon T. Davis (Davis) respectfully requests the Court to compel

Plaintiff Michael T. Gaffney (Gaffney) to answer critical interrogatories in the

Defamation lawsuit (Exhibit 1)

On May 4, 2016 the Defendant served the Plaintiff with two sets of Interrogatories.

(Exhibit 2).

Those Interrogatories included the following which were not answered by the

Plaintiff.



INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Please identify each and all persons who has knowledge of any fact relating in any manner of the events, transactions or occurrences that are described in the Complaint and in any pleading setting forth a claim or defense or counterclaim in this action, and for each such person state:
a.      Name, address and telephone number
b.    Describe to the best of your knowledge the subject matter and facts about which they have knowledge and in what capacity or circumstance they acquired such knowledge;
c.      State whether or not you or any of your agents, attorneys, servants or employees know of the existence of, have taken or have in your or their possession a statement (as defined in Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) made by or taken from such a person concerning this action or its subject matter; and
d.    Indicate whether or not you intend to call the person as a witness at trial.
The Plaintiff has failed to provide an answer regarding who has knowledge of the event. The Plaintiff references several documents in his response to Interrogatory No. 16. He does not indicated from whom he obtained these documents nor the names of witnesses with knowledge of the facts.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Please describe the nature and date of all illnesses, accidents or injuries from which you have suffered up to and including the present date.

Please include any treatment for Mental Anguish and any other mental illness or condition
The Plaintiff is claiming “mental anguish” as harm done to him. The Plaintiff has failed to answer questions about his health, mental health or condition, nor pain and suffering. The Defendant is entitled to this information as material facts in his defense.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Please state the identity of any and all clients who engaged you as an “attorney” in the past five years, including in your answer the address of any such person, the date any such person hired you as an “attorney”, the purpose of your legal counsel and the forum in which you practiced in the interest of any such person.
     The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
For any legal counsel described in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5, please state (a) whether you had a fee agreement with your legal counsel client, (b) the date of any such fee agreement, (c) the amount of any fee received from any such advocacy client and (d) the amount due from each such legal counsel client.
The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any loss or harm.
          INTERROGATORY NO. 7
For any legal counsel client described in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5, please state whether any legal counsel client terminated your employment or engagement based upon statements made by the Defendants.
     The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any loss or harm.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8
If your claim is that you have been denied employment or engagement as an attorney by any person based solely upon statements allegedly made by either one or all Defendants, please state:  (a) the name of any such potential client for advocacy service, (b) the date or dates on which you believe you would have served as an attorney for any such potential client, (c) the amount of income you could reasonably have expected to have received from any such potential client.
     The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any loss or harm


INTERROGATORY NO.  9
If your services as an “attorney” have ever been terminated or declined for reasons other than statements made by the Defendants, please state (a) the date or dates on which you have been so terminated or declined for service as an advocate, (b) the exact reason for your having been terminated, (c) the name and address of any client who has terminated your services, and (d) the amount of income lost by any such termination.
The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any loss or harm.


INTERROGATORY NO. 10
If you referred legal counsel clients to attorneys, please state:  (a) the name and address of any attorney to whom you have referred advocacy clients, (b) the date or dates on which you have referred advocacy clients to each such attorney, (c) whether you have a referral agreement with any such attorney whereby you continue to render advocacy services after referral and (d) the amounts paid to you by any client or attorney after referral to an attorney.
      The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any loss or harm.


INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Please identify in detail all losses and damages claimed in your complaint, including in your answer the exact nature of any such loss or damage, date or dates any such loss or damage was incurred, the amounts of any such loss or damage and the method by which any such valuation of damages was calculated.
     The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any loss or harm.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12
Please describe your complete employment history, stating as to each job:  (a) the dates of your employment, (b) the name and address of your employer, (c) your job title, (d) your hourly, weekly or monthly rate of compensation and actual earnings received and (e) your reason for separation from this employment.
     The Plaintiff is claiming his business has been harmed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not provided information about his business and the likelihood that the Plaintiff’s business could generate one million dollars in income. This information is needed in order for the Defendant to compare year to year income and services. This would be material facts in whether the Defendant caused any loss of business. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any loss or harm.
          INTERROGATORY NO. 14
Please state the name, current address of each person who was a witness to or has any knowledge of any occurrence, event, fact, circumstance or discoverable matter upon which your claim is based or founded, specifying each occurrence, event, fact, circumstance or discoverable matter each such person was a witness to or had knowledge.
     The Plaintiff has failed to provide an answer who has knowledge
of the events. The Plaintiff references several documents in his response to Interrogatory No. 16. He does not indicated how he obtained these documents nor the names of witnesses with knowledge of the facts.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17
Please describe your relationship(s) with Turtleboy Sports or any of its employees, whether it was business, quid pro quo, or any other.
    The answer to this question is related to two of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses. The Second Affirmative Defense is that the Plaintiff reputation was so tarnished that the Defendant could not have tarnished it further. The Third Affirmative Defense is that the Plaintiff filed this instant frivolous lawsuit as a mean to retaliate against the Defendant for Davis’s legal actions against Turtleboy Sports and Aiden Kearney.
          INTERROGATORY NO. 18
 Did you in any manner correspond with Turtle Boy Sports or any its employees before filing your instant Complaint?
     The answer to this question is related to two of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses. The Second Affirmative Defense is that the Plaintiff reputation was so tarnished that the Defendant could not have tarnished it further. The Third Affirmative Defense is that the Plaintiff filed this instant frivolous lawsuit as a mean to retaliate against the Defendant for Davis’s legal actions against Turtleboy Sports and Aiden Kearney.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19
Please describe any and all investigations by Massachusetts Ethic Commission and/or OCPF into any of your professional practices.  Please include the accusations/charges and findings.
     This answer is related to the Defendant’s Second Affirmation Defense which is that the Plaintiff’s reputation was so tarnished that the Defendant could not have tarnished it more.
          INTERROGATORY NO. 20
 Did Turtleboy Sports or Aiden Kearney provided informational to you regarding Mosaic Cultural Center located 41 Piedmont St. Worcester MA? If so what was the information it provided to you?
     The answer to this question is related to two of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses. The Second Affirmative Defense is that the Plaintiff reputation was so tarnished that the Defendant could not have tarnished it further. The Third Affirmative Defense is that the Plaintiff filed this instant frivolous lawsuit as a mean to retaliate against the Defendant for Davis’s legal actions against Turtleboy Sports and Aiden Kearney.
          INTERROGATORY NO. 21
Have you or any of your friend, acquaintances, family, coworkers, campaign staff used racial or other pejoratives? If please provide the names of those people including the actual pejoratives such as “nigger”, “spic”, faggot, “bitch”.  Please provide the name and relationship to you of each person using the pejorative and the pejorative used.
     This answer is related to the Defendant’s Second Affirmation Defense which is that the Plaintiff’s reputation was so tarnished that the Defendant could not have tarnished it more.
         

INTERROGATORY N. 22
 Please provide a legal definition or financial definition of “political capital”.
     Gaffney claims that he was harmed by his loss of “political capital”. The plaintiff failed to provide a legal or any definition for the term. This answer is critical in order for the Defendant to rebut and evaluate the claim. There has been no evidence what “political capital” is, how it is evaluated, or whether the Plaintiff loss any due to the action of the Defendant.

                   INTERROGATORY NO. 26
26. Please indicate everyone and all people who attended any and all of your fundraising events for any and all of your candidacies for City Council of Worcester MA.    
 The event that the Plaintiff claims is libelous took place at a Plaintiff fundraiser. A witness or the actual perpetrator of the alleged event is likely amount the campaign donors or guest. This answer is critical in the determination of the truth of the claim.

27.  Please provide everyone and all people who contributed anything to your campaigns for City Councillor. Please include contributors of money and in kind contributions.
     The event that the Plaintiff claims is libelous took place at a Plaintiff fundraiser. A witness or the actual perpetrator of the alleged event is likely amount the campaign donors or guests. This answer is critical in the determination of the truth of the claim.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28
28.Please refer to Worcester Magazine stories attached to instant Questions. Did you author any of the social media posts with your name appearing in the reference Worcester Magazine stories?
The answer is related to the Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense. The Plaintiff reputation is so tarnished that it could not have been further tarnished by Defendant’s actions.


RELIEF SOUGHT
The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to compel the Plaintiff to answer the Defendant’s Interrogatories and to cooperate in a good faith and professional manner during Discovery.  The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for one million dollars. The Plaintiff should provide the answers, documents and evidence to support his claims. The Defendant is deserving of the evidence to be found in Discovery to defend himself from what could be a ruinous matter .
Respectfully Submitted
By the Pro Se Defendant

                                               
Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                                                                  

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Request for Admissions from Mr. Gaffney




Not legal advice

In preparation for a Motion to Compel Mr. Gaffney to answer the Interrogatories, I am sending him a Requestion for Admission. Unlike Interrogatories which require a judge's order to compel, Request for Admissions is automatically considered by the Court to be admitted or true, should the party being asked for admissions not respond in 30 days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
                                                                                          Worcester Superior Court SS
                                                                                          C.A. 16-0288-B
**********************
Michael T. Gaffney
Plaintiff
vs.
Gordon T. Davis
Rosalie Tirella
InCity Times
Defendants
*********************
                            
DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS FROM PLAINTIFF, MICHAEL GAFFNEY
1.      In Count 14 of your Complaint you claimed injury due to pain and mental anguish.
2.     You did not provide any information about the nature or date of any pain or mental anguish in your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 4 .
“Please describe the nature and date of all illnesses, accidents or injuries from which you have suffered up to and including the present date.

Please include any treatment for Mental Anguish and any other mental illness or condition.”
3.     In Count 14 of your Complaint you claimed that you have been injured in your business.
4.     In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 1 you state that you are an attorney.
5.     In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 5, you did not provide any information about the clients who engaged your services as an attorney.
“Please state the identity of any and all clients who engaged you as an “attorney” in the past five years, including in your answer the address of any such person, the date any such person hired you as an “attorney”, the purpose of your legal counsel and the forum in which you practiced in the interest of any such person.”
6.     In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 7 you provided no information about any client who terminated your employment due solely to statements made by Defendant.
7.     In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 8 you did not provide any information about any potential client who denied you employment based solely on the statements of the Defendant.
8.     In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 9, you did not provide any information about clients who terminated your employment or about potential clients who declined your employment based on reasons other than statements solely made by the Defendant.
9.     In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 11 you did not identify any detailed or particular losses or damages.
10.                         In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 11 you claimed that the Defendant is “clearly attempt to discover my clients and donors for the purpose of harassing them.”
11.                         In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 12 you did not provide any information regarding your rate of compensation or your actual earnings.
12.                         You have read the Defendant’s Answers to your Complaint.
13.                         You have read the Defendant’s Third Affirmative Defense.  
14.                         In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 17 you provided no information about your relationship to Turtleboy Sports or any of its employees.
15.                         In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 18 you provided no information about any communication between you and Turtleboy Sports or any of its employees regarding this instant case.
16.                        You have read Defendant’s Alternate Second Affirmative Defense.
17.                        In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 19 you do not deny that you were investigated by the Massachusetts Ethics Commission and by OCPE regarding your professional practice.
18.                         In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 20 you do not deny that Turtleboy Sports and/or Aiden Kearney provided you with information about MOSAIC Cultural Center.
19.                        In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 21 you do not deny that you and your friends used the terms “nigger, spic, faggot, bitch”.
20.                         In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 22 the Black Law Dictionary definition was for the term ‘capital.’
21.                         In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 22 you provided no definition for the term “political capital”.
22.                        In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 23 you did not once use the term “political capital”.
23.                         In your Complaint you claimed injury and damages of one million dollars.
24.                         In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 24 you failed to detail or provide a particular calculation of your injuries and damages that would add up to one million dollars.
25.                         In your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 24 you stated regarding the Defendant “and his failed case against Turtleboy Sports.”
26.                         In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no.26 you did not provide any information about the people who have attended your fundraisers.
27.                         In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 27 you provided no information about the people who donated to your candidacies.
28.                        You have read Defendant’s Alternate Fourth Affirmative Defense.
29.                        In response to Defendant’s Interrogatory no. 28 you did not deny you wrote the offensive social media posts about City Councillor Sarai Rivera as seen in Worcester Magazine.



____________________
Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                                 Pro Se Defendant                                                                                                               











                                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Gordon T. Davis, pro se Defendant hereby certify I have served the Plaintiff Michael T. Gaffney a copy of the Defendant Gordon T. Davis’ Request for Plaintiff’s Admission on June 15, 2016 by first class mail sent to
Michael T. Gaffney, Esq.
416 Belmont St.  Suite 102
Worcester MA 01604

_________________
Gordon T. Davis

Dated: June 15, 2016

Friday, June 10, 2016

Mr. Gaffney Again Refuses to Answer Questions.


 This is not legal advice

Mr. Gaffney has once again refused to answer my Discovery Interrogatories. He has responded with Objections. As he must know as he is an attorney, Objection only preserves his rights to Appeal, but does not excuse his refusal to answer the Questions. The only excuses for not answering are privilege and work product.

In order to file a Motion to Compel answers there is a requirement for a 9c conference.

Below is the correspondence sent to Mr. Gaffney.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr. Gaffmeu:

I recieved your responses to my Interrogatories. Unfortunately you did not answer the Questions as is rquired by Court rules. As you must know as an attonrney you are required to answer the Questions. You can state objections to preserve your rights to later appeal. The objections do not excuse your refusal  to answer the Questions and it might be contempt of Court. 

The only possible excuses you have for not answering the Questions are privillege and work product. You made not such claim in your responses to the Questions.

I called you today, June 10, 2016 to initiate a 9c conference on the matter in the hope of resolving or narrowing the issues. Please call me back as soon as can. I will try calling agian on Monday June 13, 2016.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Regards, 

Goprdon T. Davis
Pro Se Defendant


Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Final Request for Answers



There is no legal advice here.

 Mr. Gaffney had agreed to provide his Answers during week of June 4, 2016. He has not provided his Answers to my Interrogatories. Because  he has missed the agreed upon date, the Court  Rule 33. applies. I have to write and serve a Final Request for Answers before moving for Compulsion of Production of Answers.

 Below is the Final Request.
======================================================================
                    
                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                                                                     Worcester Superior Court SS
                                                                                     Docket No. 16-0288-B

Michael T. Gaffney
Plaintiff
vs.
Gordon T. Davis
Rosalie Tirella
InCity Times
Defendants

                             FINAL REQUEST FOR ANSWERS UNDER RULE 33(A)

Now comes the pro se Defendant, Gordon T. Davis, and say that on March 19, 2016 and May 4, 2016 interrogatories were served to the Plaintiff Michael T.  Gaffney and provisions of Rule 33 (a) of this Court relative thereto have been complied with, and that the party interrogated has failed to serve or file timely answers thereto within forty-five days or such other period prescribed rule, or order of the Court appearing of record.   
    
Wherefore, the Defendant makes this final request, pursuant to Rule 33(a) (3), that plaintiff serve Defendant with answers to interrogatories within the forty days from the date of this final notice.




Sincerely,

Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                              Pro Se Defendant                                                                                                            
June 8, 2016


                                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Gordon T. Davis, pro se Defendant hereby certify I have served the Plaintiff Michael T. Gaffney a copy of the Final Request for Answers on June 8, 2016 by first class mail sent to

Michael T. Gaffney, Esq.
416 Belmont St.  Suite 102
Worcester MA 01604
Dated: June 8, 2016


_________________