Enclosed are an original and three copies of a proposed Order to compel the production of records in the above matter. During plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, Mr. Mosher consented to the defense being provided with those documents retained by the Social Security Administration regarding his disability.

If the form of Order meets with your approval, and no objection is received from Mr. Mosher. would you kindly sign same, forwarding a conformed copy to my attention in the business reply envelope enclosed.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and courtesies in this regard. Respectfully,
METHFESSEL & WERBEL, ESQS.
Tracy B. Bussel

Dear Judge Wilson,

Regarding defendants' request for an order to compel production of records. I do not oppose the request, but I would like, for the record, to make certain clarifications. Although you have only found their to be a "presumption of disability", in reconsidering ADA law I think a more substantial truth has been proven, that negates the need for any further investigation regarding the circumstances of my disability.

An individual is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if he or she can prove s/he suffers from:

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

I believe I have demonstrated that during the relevant time period I was "regarded" by the Social Security Administration to be disabled, and therefore entitled to coverage under the ADA. Although I believe the facts in my Social Security records will only further verify that truth, the truth is itself now beyond "contest". Even if defendants were to uncover evidence of the nonexistence of a disability in my very personal Social Security file ( an obviously unlikely circumstance) such evidence would have no relevance to the issue of coverage at the time the events occurred. It is not an alterable fact that I was "regarded" as disabled and the issue should be appropriately closed.

Defendant's investigation of my very personal Social Security records should have taken place before the filing of their summary judgment motion. This late date, and in practical fact now legally futile, effort to perhaps undo an unalterable historical fact, is in my opinion nothing more than a fishing expedition for character evidence. As implied, I know there to be no fish (although I haven't seen the entire record) so I will not formally object to their request--but, I do expect I will receive equal latitude if I am inclined at some point in the proceedings to go fishing myself. As the Borough administrator has been shown by evidence to have a propensity for dishonesty, I hope the defendants and the court will similarly respect my wish to "go fish" in his tax records for further corroborating evidence of bad character.

Although defendants have stated a "happiness" to engage in mediation, this "pointless to the implied purpose" discovery request indicates a desire to continue to fight with facts that, as a practical matter, must be accepted if mediation is to have much of a chance to succeed.

In a separate matter still left unresolved, I made this request of the court in my papers in support of my motion for reconsideration:

Regarding the OPRA claims, and the transition of jurisdiction to this court from the GRC. It seems to me appropriate that the specific claims be adjudicated in a separate summary judgment hearing. As I did not request the change in jurisdiction, I claim it inappropriate that I be charged a $30 motion fee for the claims resolution others receive from the GRC at no charge.

As the original claims and evidence was prepared to comply with informal GRC process rules-- substantially different then those of this court. I do expect some modification to the original filing with the GRC to be required. I request from the court some insight as to the scheduling and process for the inclusion/resolution of the claims originally filed with the GRC.

As implied, I believe there remains some important legal interpretations/determinations to be made regarding what the OPRA does, or does not, provide.

Thank you for your consideration,