LEGAL ARGUMENT Regarding Point I Defendant counsel makes a blatantly false assertion that no "proof" [or evidence] of plaintiff's disability has been provided. The evidence provided in the form of an essential declaration (award letter) by the Social Security Administration of the existence of a disability provides very credible, and substantially complete, proof of disability for the purposes of this litigation. I will assume your honor is fully aware of the strict standards applied by the Social Security Administration as regards to the finding of a disability, and I have a good-faith hope that there is no need to waste time arguing the credibility of the findings of that federal agency. Beyond the false title assertion, defendant counsel misrepresents the meaning of the case law cited. This litigation does not involve a claim of liability regarding the cause of a disability, it involves an accusation of discrimination based on disability. None of the case law cited by the defendant involves a court decision regarding what "proof of disability" a state or municipal agency can require a disabled person to provide before they will be provided "an accommodation" to help approximate equal access to a government service. It should be noted, at no time did any Borough employee comprehensibly or explicitly request of defendant evidence of disability. Defendant counsel's accusation that my 25 years of disability (as acknowledged by the Social Security Administration) does not give me standing to file a claim under the ADA or the NJLAD is preposterous on its face, and I find it personally offensive. The state of mind of Borough employees is the material fact to be tried here. Unless it is defense counsel's claim that Borough employees had a legitimate reason to consider my claim of disability suspect, and, in turn, some legitimate reason not to ask me to provide credible evidence of my disability to remove those suspicions, this "argument" that Borough employees are exempt from liability because I have not, after the fact, satisfied defendant counsel's "arbitrary" standard of proof is not only vacant legal argument, it is, in my opinion, a disgraceful legal tactic that insults the very laws against discrimination cited in this case. Note Regarding Reeves v Johnson Controls The plaintiff in that case had not been declared by Social Security to be disabled, was only temporarily disabled, and there was no evidence presented that the disability affected job performance. Regarding Point II As the argument provided contains a substantial regurgitation of the argument made in Point I, I would reiterate my Point I counter argument, and add the following argument specific to new allegations made. In Section (a) defendant attorney claims that "plaintiff was not handicapped as required under the LAD". In defending this accusation, defendant attorney argues that "plaintiff must prove" disability by providing "expert medical evidence." I would simply argue that such "expert medical evidence" is a required component of a disability finding by the Social Security Administration, and that there is, in this case, no legitimate reason to doubt the integrity of the findings of the Social Security Administration. Even if this court were to find that some technical requirement regarding proof has not yet been satisfied, the fact remains this is a "summary judgment motion" and the degrading accusations of defendant counsel must be substantiated with evidence demonstrating that, even under the "best light," it would be unreasonable to "infer" from the facts provided (proof of social security disability) that plaintiff would likely be able to provide conclusive proof of disability at trial if satisfying this nuisance (harassing) technicality were to be required. Plaintiff claims that defendant counsel has not met the burden of proof under summary judgment statutes. For the record, I have professed before this court (oral argument regarding motion [denied] for case management) a willingness to provide authorization to any interested party to secure or peruse all documents contained in my Social Security file. Regarding the assertions made in Section (b) "... plaintiff was not an employee for purposes of the LAD." Plaintiff has made no claim that he was an employee and, in fact, makes the positive assertion that he was not. Defendant Exhibit B (Mosher Dep. pg. 20) Contrary to what is implied by defendant counsel, New Jersey LAD is not confined to claims of employee discrimination. Furthermore, I have made no accusation or claim that my web services "contract" with the town was secretly and unilaterally terminated as an act of discrimination specific to my disability. My claim is that I was denied "[the] advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation" (equal access to public information) by reason of malicious discrimination.... and that the circumstances of my dismissal as "volunteer" provides "probative evidence" regarding defendant's state of mind relative to that discrimination. From NJ LAD 10:5-4 Obtaining employment, accommodations and privileges without discrimination; civil right. All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment, and to obtain all the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation, publicly assisted housing accommodation, and other real property without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, disability, nationality, sex or source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to all persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. Section B is therefore both legally incorrect and irrelevant argument. Regarding Section (c) "plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages under the LAD" Defendant counsel has provided no evidence mitigating against plaintiff's claim that the Mayor and Borough Administrator perpetrated a deliberate deception. By a reasonable standard the conduct could be construed as malicious and intentional wrongdoing. Defendant counsel has been provided substantial discovery materials that provide proof of the deception and evidence corroborating the claim that Borough officials have committed repeated acts deliberately intended to deprive the plaintiff of a full realization of his constitutional and equal rights. Contrary to the requirements of the "summary judgment" technique, these claims have not been proven unreasonable or without foundation by defendant counsel, and plaintiff's just legal right under NJ LAD to seek punitive damages from a jury should not be suspended, or in any way violated, by this court. "The Legislature further finds that because of discrimination, people suffer personal hardships, and the State suffers a grievous harm. The personal hardships include: economic loss; time loss; physical and emotional stress; and in some cases severe emotional trauma, illness, homelessness or other irreparable harm resulting from the strain of employment controversies; relocation, search and moving difficulties; anxiety caused by lack of information, uncertainty, and resultant planning difficulty; career, education, family and social disruption; and adjustment problems, which particularly impact on those protected by this act. Such harms have, under the common law, given rise to legal remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages. The Legislature intends that such damages be available to all persons protected by this act and that this act shall be liberally construed in combination with other protections available under the laws of this State." Regarding Point III: "even if... he has failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination." I will again remind the Court that this is a summary judgment motion and the burden on defendant counsel is to decisively demonstrate that the evidence can't support a reasonable claim of discrimination. The 4 part test cited on page 23 is of obvious limited relevance as it was clearly constructed to deal with a case of employment (hiring) discrimination. Both the ADA and NJ LAD make clear reference to the circumstance of "accessibility" to services, and it is within that realm that my claims of discrimination lie. At the bottom of page 23 defendant counsel "submits" that plaintiff has not proven he is disabled. Viewed under the "best light" as required by court rules, the evidence clearly provides room for the "reasonable" conclusion that receiving Social Security Disability payments is substantial evidence of the existence of a disability. On page 24 defendant counsel mischaracterizes the evidence to imply an act of wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff. There are technical issues that can make accurate understanding difficult, but the absolute fact is: at no time was any resident of Mendham New Jersey in any danger of accidently stumbling across any of the profanity or derogatory comments reference. (exhibit F page 14) In response to an e-mail sent by one of the terrorists, who was in fact the person who originally posted the obscenity referenced, the mayor states; "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". Combine that admission with the fact that my services were not terminated until more than a year later, and defendant counsel’s argument that "plaintiff was replaced because of his [this event] actions" has no credibility. Point III should be disregarded as inaccurate and irrelevant argument. Regarding Point IV: plaintiff suffered no damages...   From: LEE V. ALSTON BER-L-7360-01 (2003) ...The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. ...[Summary judgment] is designed to provide a prompt, businesslike and inexpensive method of disposing of any cause which a discriminating search of the merits in the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits submitted on the motion clearly shows not to present any genuine issue of material fact requiring disposition at trial ...so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law The argument defendant counsel provides certainly does not satisfy the requirements of a summary judgment dismissal. The referenced exhibit H correspondence is a chronology of dozens of simple document requests that are met with tediously combative technical resistance and cannot be argued away with a few swipes of artfully applied "cover-up" whitewash. On page 26 defendant counsel states "plaintiff ultimately received all his request." This silly mis-characterization of the evidence defies credible justification. Plaintiff states in his original complaint, "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 [plaintiff’s] Common Law civil rights". The claim of the plaintiff does not hinge on the strict legality of each singular act of "obstruction" committed by Borough officials. The claim is, that taken collectively, these individual actions provide strong circumstantial evidence of deliberate intent--and even conspiracy. Obedience to the law demands that the defendant provide an equally reasonable alternative explanation, not only for every claim of obstruction and every act of dishonesty and attempted oppression, but the defendant must also explain away what the evidence collectively and "circumstantially" proves. I would argue, that defendant’s Point 4 argument does not put the slightest dent in that obligation. For example: The evidence clearly proves that the plaintiff was deceived (not informed of) regarding his official dismissal as Borough Web Master. Defendant has provided no evidence that would explain the cause of this deception or mitigate against the substantial evidence that it was calculated and willful. Within the exhibit H chronology there is an exchange regarding access to computer files held by the Borough of Mendham (Police Department Logs). Explicit questions are asked by the plaintiff regarding the existence of such records and Borough personnel reply with the calculated and repeated evasion "not available". The defendant has not satisfied its obligation, not only to prove the strict legality of this evasion, but its insignificance as evidence of suspiciously unequal, unfair, and therefore discriminatory behavior. Defendants' argument references the dispute over access to copies of tape recordings of council meetings. Absent from defendant counsel's "explanation" of the events is reference to the known fact that Borough personnel attempted to impose a two-week waiting period for production of the tapes--coincidentally, council meetings are approximately scheduled every 2 weeks. Also not referenced was the known fact that the Borough Council attempted to establish a $25 fee for production of the cassette tape copy--a fee that would likely be law today, if plaintiff didn't file a ADA complaint. Where in defendants' argument is the obvious appearance of a deliberate act of obstruction mitigated by any "reasonable alternative explanation" for this intentional and hostile action by the council.