I will concede that it is as you stated "your court", that you have all the power and I have none-- and therefore that I have limited rights to defend myself against the court's characterizations of myself, and the evidence and argument I have provided. Regardless of my opinion that there was provocation for the "remarks" you characterized as beyond the accords of "common human decency", I retract any statements you found offensive and apologize for the lack of discipline (acquiescence to your authority) that enabled me to perceive any sense of equal rights.

Regarding your final order of July 25th, I request reconsideration on numerous grounds that individually and collectively constitute reversible error and by unavoidable inference constitute a violation of my constitutional right to redress of grievances and due and equal process.

Your order of July 25th formalizes your decision that all plaintiff claims relevant to this litigation have been disposed of to the satisfaction of the law. I would argue that any such decision manifests "frailties" catastrophic to justice in this case. Conceding for the moment, and only for the purposes of this argument, that the facts justified the judicial finding that the defendants have proven, even accepting "as true all the evidence which supports the position of the party defending against the motion and according him the benefit of all legitimate inferences which can be deduced therefrom" that "reasonable minds could[not] differ" on the narrow issue of plaintiff's "legal" disability. The fact remains that the issue of "disability" is not material to all issues in plaintiff's claims.

In the oral portion of plaintiff's motion for case management, in plaintiff's filed, yet unfiled, motion to amend complaint, in plaintiff's rebuttal to defendant's statement of facts included with their motion for summary judgment, and in plaintiff's answer to defendants' summary judgment brief, plaintiff provides notice that his claims include the claim that many actions by the Borough of Mendham constituted violation of the federal 1983 civil-rights statute as well. This claim is in no way dependent on any finding of "legal disability" and any fact found regarding plaintiff's disability circumstances is not material to this claim. Although not specifically referenced by statute in plaintiff's original complaint the interest of justice, permits the court the latitude to appropriately amend the plaintiff's complaint if the interest of justice requires it. I would simply argue that the interest of justice does require it, and inclusion creates no harm to fairness.

Other claims not dependent on any finding of legal disability, are the claimed OPRA violations themselves. They have not been addressed by the GRC or this court. The Court's final ruling/decision makes no required provision that they will be addressed by the court.

While it is plaintiff's hope that newly secured and provided evidence will satisfy deficiencies your Honor perceives to exist in the evidence and argument provided by the plaintiff regarding plaintiff's disability, the underlying conflicting interpretations of the law that substantially caused the imperfect process that could describe the processing of defendants' summary judgment motion likely still remain. For the record I prepared my evidence and argument to satisfy an understanding of summary judgment consistent with these mandatory provisions of the law.

"the court must accept as true all the evidence which supports the position of the party defending against the motion and must accord him [or her] the benefit of all legitimate inferences which can be deduced therefrom, and if reasonable minds could differ, the motion must be denied."

"[T]he court must look at the evidence and inferences which may reasonably be deduced therefrom in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and if reasonable minds could differ as to whether any negligence had been shown, the motion should be denied.

" It is critical that a trial court ruling on a summary judgment motion not "shut a deserving litigant from his [or her] trial...At the same time, we stress that it is just as important that the court not "allow harassment of an equally deserving suitor for immediate relief by a long and worthless trial."

I would contend that even after extensive reworking by the courts there remains language in the statutes that is subject to reasonably divergent interpretation. It is my inclination and desire to satisfy "this" court's interpretation.... I do in fact wish to avoid the antagonism inherent in defending my own interpretation and do so only as a last resort to save my litigation from what I perceive as improper disposal. Unfortunately in preparing my papers in answer to defendants' motion I had no expectation or insight, making it known to me that this court's interpretation would be so diametrically opposed to my own.

Other factors that have widened the gap in expectations, is the fact of my disability, the fact that this is rather complex litigation not commonly attempted without professional counsel, the fact that I have very limited resources to invest in this litigation, and the fact that I have a very principled personal aversion to wasting anyone's time or resources to comply with demands of style or formality over necessary substance. In that vein it is my belief that if this litigation is allowed to proceed as I believe the law requires, and justice demands, that it will conclude in a fair pretrial settlement. With that in mind, I have recognized that some substantial inconvenience can be averted if evidence and argument is only compiled and solicited as required to satisfy the demands of a particular phase in the process. The fact that I have not required Borough personnel to answer interrogatories, is in part, in deference to my perception that the testimony solicited may be unnecessary to the just settlement of this litigation, and therefore would constitute little more than a waste of time and inconvenience for the defendants. The documentary evidence, in the form of recorded statements, provides substantially complete evidence of the crimes alleged and does not need the augmentation of further solicited testimony beyond what is in the record to be reasonably perceived as conclusive proof, especially for the limited purpose of defeating a summary judgment motion.

Regarding the specific "frailties" referenced by your honor in the oral argument on the motion for summary judgment.

As previously implied, it was my, I think fair interpretation of the law, that it was defendants burden not to merely state, that I have not yet proven, but to prove, that I could not prove. It seems apparent, that Your honor does not believe the defendant bears the burden to prove that the "basis of the plaintiff's claim was inherently implausible" but rather that plaintiff must demonstrate something more than reasonable plausibility. This difference in the standards obviously implies a difference in what constitutes adequate evidence supporting plaintiff's claims. In some cases, the simple solution is to provide enough evidence to meet a higher burden, but this "simple solution" in many circumstances is not necessarily simple.

In the case of my disability, the conveniently available evidence, is my testimony as to the fact I am receiving disability payments from Social Security, for a disability that is mine, and that the standards applied by the Social Security Administration parallel those of the legal definition, and include a requirement of permanent disability demonstrated by expert opinion. Other conveniently available evidence included award documentation from 1984 and 2004. To bolster the credibility of the plaintiffs testimony an offer of complete access to the files held by the Social Security Administration in the plaintiffs name was also offered. In a light most favorable to the plaintiff, including reasonable inferences plaintiff believed, and believes, this evidence establishes plausibility. Obviously, as the courts characterization of the evidence as "no evidence" would indicate, this court substantially disagrees. This disagreement certainly would have been of no relevant importance if the plaintiff had "simply" provided more evidence. Unfortunately, more evidence lies behind a threshold of substantially more inconvenience. My immobility denies me the option of perusing at its location my extensive social security file for particularly pertinent evidence. To accomplish any perusal I am required to request the entire file be copied and sent to me. This request would involve a few complications-- the first being that it is against social security policy to send a beneficiary some "sensitive" information that may be in the file. There are also internal records not available to a beneficiary that includes some substantial portion of the "findings" made relative to the case evidence provided. Another complication the court seems particularly insensitive to is created by the very nature of most "neurological or psychiatric disorders" these disorders are not diagnosed by X-rays or some other obvious physical test, they are discerned through observation and expert analysis of behavior and circumstances. A seizure disorder for example, can have no physically discernible manifestation other than than the episodes of seizure it causes-- in such a case, witness testimony regarding observations would be extremely relevant to diagnosis, and any determination of disability.

In summation on this point, forcing the engagement of this next threshold of very personal and valuminous evidence involves complications that may even include putting the determination of the Social Security Administration and in turn the credibility of that federal agency, on trial. and perhaps will necessitate the creation of new evidence. It seems to me a fair expectation that it would be the moving party that would be required to provide the cause and evidence to justify the necessity of engaging in this heightened level of inquisition --previous to an actual trial that may or may not be necessary for the just resolution of this litigation. The probability that the Social Security Administration's determinations are credible-- The probability that their definition of disability is consistent with the legal definition-- and the probability that the witness testimony and evidence provided by the plaintiff is credible and reliable, Have not in any way been impeached or degraded by any evidence provided by the moving party. It was plaintiff's reasonable belief, and it continues to be his belief, that such just cause should have been and should be required... Regardless, the plaintiff will provide to the best of his practical ability whatever further evidence is required to satisfy the court's perception of deficiency, as expressed by the court.

Another catastrophic "frailty" in the processing of the summary judgment motion that in my opinion constitutes reversible error, are the numerous statements by the court summarizing the claims and evidence that were woefully inaccurate. Missidentification by the court of the true facts in the case is an obvious impediment to the interest of justice. It is my own personal opinion that some responsibility for this confusion may lie with the Court's expectation that numerous events, taking place over a four year period, in a sometimes highly technical context, can be adequately understood in a three and one half hour examination of the evidence and moving papers, and a 45 minute oral argument. Regardless of whether this constitutes the required "searching review" I will concede that the expectation of the plaintiff, that the defendant had the burden of proof, and the fact that the defendant provided almost no evidence or argument providing an alternative explanation for any of the events the plaintiff claims to be discriminatory or a violation of his First Amendment rights -- created a kind of ""perfect storm" that left the individual material disputes insulated from obvious view and in some disarray in the motion papers.

In the courts introduction to the summary judgment oral argument, the court states:

[Judge] - ... it appears that Mr. Mosher... on a voluntary unpaid basis set up website for the Borough of Mendham and for reasons having to do apparently with aum... a similar website that Mr. Mosher also set up... and some language which was... transmitted into the website the Borough of Mendham declined to continue with Mr. Mosher's services and got someone else to a... act as web master for the Borough.... and i i i can't tell Mr. Mosher what the timing was but.

The first paragraph of Mr. Mosher's complaint states:

It is plaintiff's claim that the Borough of Mendham, from February through June of 2001, did through deliberate deception steel some four months of WebMaster Services from the plaintiff. plaintiff also claims that the Borough of Mendham has committed repeated violations of the Open Public Records Act and has repeatedly violated plaintiff's Common Law civil right to fair access to public information held by the Borough of Mendham. More substantially, plaintiff claims, and believes the facts will prove, that these illegal acts were committed as deliberate acts of hostility and discrimination in violation of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, and in violation of defendants Common Law civil rights.

Almost contiguous with the court's introduction of the case, the court inquires:

[Judge] - Mr. Mosher my point is you were not employed by the town or paid by the town to do anything.

[GM] - yea, likewise, the town also wasn't paid by me.

[Judge] - Right.. ok so.. and and the town at some point decided not to avail itself of your services anymore.

[GM] - right, they... I was publicly fired three times by the mayor, and the Borough administrator two months after that was making explicit references to me that I was doing an excellent job and there was no problem.

[Judge] - well I missed that... those representations in your papers..... but.. it seems.. we we we have some... well then the second part of this has to do with your request umum for...um Township information... for Borough information.... correct

[GM] - it's a discrimination case..

Later:

[Judge] - .. there are other frailties with your application.... with your complaint... one of which is that you failed to show that you are an an employee.... So..the..a...

[GM] - I am not an employee

[Judge] - right

[GM] - I have explicitly stated that

[Judge] - under OPRA it seems to me that the Open Public Records Act is something that you were using as A proof that discrimination... so that's not really a cause of action in and of itself

[GM] - NO I'm not...

[Judge] - the remedy, if it is a cause of action, the remedy is production of the records not monetary damages... but I can understand how you would get that confused...

[GM] - no I don't have that confused.. you have misscharacterized my complaint entirely I have explicitly stated that the OPRA ...

[Judge] - there are a a other problems particullly with regard to the McDonnell Douglas analysis in that there hasn't really been a showing that you were performing your job expectations your job requirements up to the expectations of your employer...

[GM] - one month before I was fired from the Borough administrator stating that I've gotten numerous wonderful remarks about the website, you're doing a wonderful job thank you very much....

[Judge] - and possibly that was before, the particular phrases, ...

[GM] - NO it was one month before I was fired.

[Judge] - I'm quoting them from your papers by the way...

[GM] - one month before I was fired

[Judge] - crap of the Internet... unquote... poly prissy pants quote unquote and Fn jackasses... a term by which which I belive you you referred to the mayor... or the Borough administrator I don't know which...

[GM] - that's not true

[Judge] - but apparently the town ...the Borough determined that this type of language was not appropriate for the Borough website.

The mischaracterization of the claims and evidence the court perpetrates in its exchange can only be described as egregious. It hasn't even been a claim of the defendant that I ever called the mayor or Borough administrator any derogatory names prior to my dismissal. How the court arrived at this conclusion escapes my understanding, it is personally offensive, and is at minimum, a disturbing mistake that inpunes my character , and leaves me little reason to believe justice can be done under whatever circumstance caused this "error" to be made.

Regarding the courts contention that there "hasn't really been a showing that you were performing your job expectations your job requirements up to the expectations of your employer..." I would first reiterate, that this is a summary judgment motion and that it is defendants obligation to decisively demonstrate any such unperformed expectations. The evidence decisively does not permit any such demonstration or conclusion by the court. I provide this chronology of events with citation to the evidence proving a theory of underperformed job expectations to be preposterous.

6/1999: - plaintiff solicits the cooperation of the Mayor of the Borough of Mendham in creating a town website. A meeting is held that the plaintiffs home. The plaintiff is informed that the Borough has no budget for website. Agreement is reached that the plaintiff will take on all responsibilities of Website infrastructure and management ( including the reformatting of documents for Web publication) and the Borough [mayor] will provide raw document content.

10/1999 -1/2000 In the effort to get websites the plaintiff is providing for free (including mendhamnj.org) fairly indexed by search engines (yohoo.com, go.com, altavista.com etc) the plaintiff joins a volunteer Internet directory Project called "goguides" that is part of the then Disney owned company go.com ( go.com was itself created after the Disney acquisition of one of the earliest search engines "infoseek.com") - soon after joining this project the plaintiff realizes that the project is basically being run by a caball of Internet spammers whos interest is more location promotion -- than map making. On a goguides message board plaintiff begins posting a commentary relevant to his concern that the directory Project is not serving the public interest. the expression of these honest opinions, provokes unanticipated hostility, and in a desperate effort to shut me up and prevent their being an examination of policies members of the community research my identity and began attacking any part of my personal life they can reach through the Internet. Parity websites maligning individuals that have accepted my free offer of Web site creation (visitingdental.com) were created out of illegally copied content and hosted on go.com network servers. My personal address and phone number was posted on the goguides message board in blatant violation of common Web etiquette. Even though I hadn't broken any guidelines there is an effort to have me expelled from the project. In response I document what I can and publish the information in a subdirectory of the Web hosting space I was paying for http://www.mendhamnj.org/gostinks ( the visiting dental website was Hosted in the directory http://www.mendhamnj.org/vda and now resides at http://www.inmendham.com/vda )

During this period of time the mayor is very satisfied with the growth of the Borough site. Unfortunately, I am becoming already frustrated with the scant amount of content the town is providing.

"...Looking good. I like the additions and look forward to seeing more."
"...We are getting good reviews. The site is growing nicely."
"...Thanks for the effort. All comments so far have been very positive."
"...Thanks again for the continued great work."

1/2000
The Internet terrorists, who are part of the leadership of the goguides community hatch a scheme to attack me through the Borough website. They begin posting pornography on a message board I have provided as part of my "gostinks" website. Bruce Stone also posts the direct threat to "make my life hell" and "to my life shit". I delete the pages of pornography but leave the threats as evidence.

1/6/2000
The terrorists send the mayor insincere e-mail's contrived to incite a false concern that I have made inappropriate content available on the official town website.

These e-mail's do insite in the mayor reasonable concern, and provoke a telephone conversation between myself and the mayor regarding the issue. I explained to the mayor the circumstances of these e-mails an attempt to educate him regarding the technical realities. I make the explicit point that no Borough resident has any exposure to this content unless deliberately directed their (as the mayor was). The mayor seems very unsympathetic and reluctant, to accept my explanation or assurances. He in effect orders me, to remove the word "shit". I than explained that exposing the true character of these people is a vital part of my First-Amendment-right-protected commentary. I also explain to the mayor, as he is not paying for the hosting space the Borough site is only part of, he really has no say in what other content is Hosted on that space. The discussion ends merely "satisfactorily" with the agreement that the Borough of Mendham will provide me with the $230 necessary to purchase independent hosting space for the Borough website. I secure a second hosting account under the primary domain name DoNotGo.com and move all non Borough related content posted on the other web space to this account.

Of special note: The mayor makes this admission in his e-mail correspondence with the Internet terrorist Bruce Stone. [mayor] I am not a web expert, I do not know how you would even find that page. It does not seem to be anything that is visible. Please assist me in determining how to find pages like this.

After the issue is resolved, in a subsequent conversation the mayor informs me that the Borough administrator is now integrated into his job, and that all correspondence regarding the website should be conveyed through him.

I believe this is the last direct correspondence I had with the mayor.

For the next YEAR things remain pretty much as they were, I make what improvements to the website I can without much Borough assistance. ..and at least once a month I make an effort to persuade Borough personnel to send me more information.

In November of 2000 I send a couple of e-mail's to the Borough administrator regarding payment for Web hosting

Ralph,
I made a mistake in my last e-mail regarding the cost of site housing-- the amount is $227.88. The housing company made the "mistake" of billing me early (Nov 14) for the new year (14 months) So the site is paid up through 4/01/02. I have no need to be immediately reimbursed, therefore payment to me can be made whenever it is most convenient. Best Regards,
Gary

In December of 2000 I received these comments from the Borough administrator.
Hi Gary,
I have not been to the web sit lately and took a look at it the other day. I love the Concentration game! Everything looks great.......
Thanks for all of your work on the site. I have received a number of very positive comments and I think it looks great.

In February and March of 2001 the minutes of council meetings record these statements by the mayor.

February 20, 2001

MAYOR'S ITEMS

Technical Assistance - Mayor Kraft suggested that the newsletter be used to find a volunteer who would be willing to manage our web site. The site is already established but needs someone to update it on a regular basis. Any help with our GIS would also be useful. Mr. Blakeslee will notify the current Webmaster.

March 19, 2001

Web Page - Mayor Kraft again asked that the volunteer who has organized our Web page be advised that we are looking for someone new to manage it in-house.

At this time I was not receiving copies of the minutes, and had no idea the statements had been made. note A full-year has passed (14 months) since any controversy regarding any of my web activities independent of the Borough website.

Two days after the Mayor's last public comment regarding my "in-house" replacement the Borough administrator sends this e-mail and attached advert to be posted on the Website bulletin board.

3/21/01

from ralph townfire.txt
Hi Gary:

Here is some information to add to the web site. We are trying to get a volunteer to help us in the office to organize information and updates to the web site. They can then forwarded the information to you.

....... VOLUNTEER NEEDED
The Borough is looking for a volunteer to help us with our computer technology. We have established a beautiful web site that now needs some maintaining. The volunteer would be responsible for collecting and assembling information that would be forwarded to the Borough's volunteer web master. Assistance is also needed with working with the Borough's Geographic Information System. If you are able to donate a few hours of your time each month please call the Borough Clerk, Denise Fuchs at 54

Around the first of April I received the monthly edition of the Mendham Messenger by regular postal mail. The first page advert. now reads. "

Technology Volunteer Wanted:
The Borough is looking for a volunteer to help us with our computer technology. The Borough has established a beautiful Web site that now needs some maintaining. If you are able to donate a few hours of your time each month to update the site, please phone the Borough clerk ... The Borough it is also setting up a geographic information system (GIS) and welcomes anyone who is interested in helping with this project.

Being confused and yes irritated-- considering that the "The Borough" hadn't contributed more than 10 hours' work to the "beautiful website"... established by me-- I called the borough administrator to find out what the heck was going on. He assured me that it was just sloppy verbiage, and that there was no intention to replace me, and that the town did appreciate my substantial contribution. I reluctantly accepted this explanation, but was not feeling very good about any of this.

For the next couple of months, things reverted to the normal "make a promise, break a promise" routine regarding the Borough providing content for the website.

On or about June 12th 2001 (Some 18 months since any controversy regarding any of my web activities independent of the Borough website). I received a call from the Borough administrator requesting I provide him with the file uploading (FTP) account name, and password protocols. I questioned what possible need the administrator would have for this information, as the hand scripted website was not conducive to amateur editing, the Borough never provided any pre-formatted (html) information, and I could upload anything, at any time upon request. Borough administrator stated that it was the town's intention to update the website "in-house". I inquired what my role would be under such a new arrangement. The administrator answered, that in all practicality I would'nt have a role. I informed the Borough administrator that I thought this an incredibly shabby way to treat someone who spent two years creating a "beautiful website"-- with virtually no assistance from a take all the credit partner. I informed the administrator that I had not yet been paid (a request made 8 months ago) for the hosting space and I would not provide him the uploading protocol information. I informed him that 95% percent of the content was created solely by me, and that he could only have what the town owned which was the name mendhamnj.org. So ended the conversation and my tenure as Borough Web Master.

Soon after I purchased the domain name inmendham.com and [re]modeled it as a unofficial website for the Borough [people] of Mendham.

As I am apparently precluded by the rules of court room decorum from expressing a complete opinion regarding the courts summation of the evidence. I will simply state, that the courts summation of the evidence was very very inaccurate... and I will state for the record that my client was offended by the false accusations and requests the minimum of modification or retraction. The evidence conclusively proves an illegal conversion perpetrated through willful and malicious deception. The defendants have provided no evidence whatsoever mitigating against this obvious truth. ....and yet, this court hasn't obligated them to answer a single question.

It must be noted that the illegal "taking of services" or conversion is a claim itself, and is primarily included in this filing as evidence of an "evil state of mind" and is intended to provide a proper light under which to view other actions of Borough personnel. The court's summary disposal of this issue with the case in whole was improper and contrary to the interest of justice as the issue of the illegal conversion does not hinge on the existence of any "unproven" disability.

The court has made it quite clear that it possesses no interest in hearing elaboration on my sincerely held opinion that in the processing of this case I have not received "the due, fair and equal process" the Constitution mandates. I do not believe that any remarks I have made justify the threat of a contempt citation (and the more substantial implicit threat, to disregard my disability circumstances and force a court appearance that would no doubt impose substantial harm to my psychiatric stability).

The Court's perception that I have violated the accords of "common human decency" is not a perception I see any justification for. I believe this substantial difference of perception creates an untenable obstacle to the processing of this case. If I must measure my words-- against a standard of inappropriate, or a standard of contemptuous, that I cannot reconcile as logical or reasonable in the context of "argument"-- I do not believe I will have the freedom to "say what needs to be said" in defending my appeal for civil justice against the "system's" opposition to it. As a result, I believe it is in the interest of all parties involved, and justice, that this case be moved to another court venue.

If this court wishes to retain jurisdiction, and decides the same, I request a clear outline of this court definition of "contemptuous conduct". If no such definition can be practically provided-- that would help me prevent any spontaneous sloppiness in rhetoric that would make me subject to a contempt citation-- I request that further oral argument, regarding the motion for summary judgment, be necessarily suspended. It is not my preference, to sacrifice my right to verbally defend my case, but the simple truth is, I will not risk my health by being made subject to the threat of arrest for expressing my honest, sincerely held, opinions.

Contrary to the court's opinion, I do not believe that the papers I have filed in this case are "incomprehensible". I believe they provide rational, persuasive, legal argument defending the continued prosecution of my well substantiated claims. My disagreement with the court's perception will likely have to be tested in other courts so I provide the following documents, to more complete, the documentary record.

I composed this reply brief previous to oral argument regarding the motion for summary judgment.

I composed this document to provide an illustration of how "I believe" the law required the motion for summary judgment to be processed in this case.