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. Within the exhibit H chronology is reference to a Borough Ordinance that provided a document fee exemption to nonprofit organizations. Defendant Counsel has not fulfilled its obligation to defend the "legal rationale" - must be 501(c)3 tax-exempt - used to deny plaintiff access to this benefit. Defendant counsel also has not provided any alternative explanation for the "suspicious" circumstance of this ordinance being abolished shortly after the plaintiff's application. Defendants' argument references the dispute involving the PDF document format. It is plaintiff's opinion that the law explicitly states that the plaintiff has a right to require a custodian to produce a document copy in the “media” requested. Defendants' argument provides no explanation of the borough's legal authority to deny plaintiff this right. Defendant counsel also does not provide any evidence mitigating against the claim that the plaintiff is the only person who has been singled out by the Borough to receive documents of the poor quality the plaintiff has been provided. The argument that the defendant counsel has offered regarding the borough's need to preserve "accuracy" becomes ludicrous when one examines the destruction to basic legibility imposed when a poor quality image file is locked in the bloated PDF format. Within the defendant exhibit G there is a transcription of a conversation between plaintiff and the Borough administrator. Quoting a portion of that conversation: [GM]..because I'm entitled to anything you're gonna give a media correspondent. [RB] I don't think that's true... I don't.. you know what I don't think that's true... I don't think that under the law... [GM] As a resident of the town of Mendham I think it is true. [RB]..well then.. you know what Gary get a lawyer. [GM] That's exactly right [RB] Get a lawyer [GM] I'll.. I'll do what I have to do. [RB] Get a lawyer... but you know what, you're not... you're not.. I don't think a court would say that you rise to the same level as the Daily Record or the.. or the ..Tribune or a.. or the Star-Ledger, or even the Observer. The Observer Tribune We have here irrefutable evidence of unequal treatment. Defendant counsel has provided nothing either explaining the justification for the unequal treatment or providing an alternative reasonable explanation persuasive enough to render a claim of "bigotry" an "unreasonable" interpretation. Clearly justice demands that the potential implications of what is stated in this conversation be examined completely and judged "at trial" by an impartial jury. ..... [RB] You know what Gary you can come in and look at the tax records [GM] Oh we.. a.. a all right I'll file.. you want me to file a lawsuit... you know my disability circumstances here and that's a totally inappropriate thing to say to me. [RB] No No because frankly I don't have the time. I just don't have the time. ... ..... [RB] Gary go right ahead and get lawyer. Do whatever you want to do..but...you know if you..I..Any other person if they wanted a list of the town properties it's right in the tax collectors, tax assessor, book. You could go right in and take a look at it [GM] But that's not what I'm required to do by law. By law I am required to request the information, if it cost you money to copy then that's OK, you send me a bill.. I pay it ..and I get a copy of it. Otherwise if it doesn't cost you any inconvenience you are obligated to provide me the information. [RB] Well also says you have to fill out a form to get the information .... .... [RB] that's right and I'm telling you if you want the information, if you want the information, on the list of all the properties the Borough owns you can come in and take a look at the tax... [GM] Ok... I'm telling you I'm a disabled person, and I'm asking, I'm requesting, that the town of Mendham Borough under the disabilities act.. Americans with disabilities Act.. to make not an unreasonable effor--an effort I will pay for-- to copy the pertinent information and send it to me. [RB] Put it in writing... put it in writing [rph03.htm]... [RB] even the form... just let me interrupt.... even the form thing it's kind of... I mean you know... I don't know... I don't know how productive it's gonna be, but it's.... the practical thing to do is come in and take a look at stuff [GM] I know.. Ralph, we have been over this 6000 times, [ I know] ... I got.. you know...look, I know you don't think it's much... but this has been a tremendous deficit to my life, in the sense that I haven't been out for 20 YEARS, since I was 20 years old, I don't know what you think... that, that is no impact ... but it has been a tremendous sacrifice and compromise in terms of my life style...[ahum ] ...I know you diminish it... as some kind of.. just a... I'm out here playing some kind of game or something, or I'm some kind of freeloader.... but regardless, the fact of the matter is the federal government has declared me disabled, and I think at least you ought to acknowledge that fact when you talk to me, and not play a game here [RB] I am not playing any... [GM] I don't go out Ralph, you haven't seen me on the street, you haven't seen me at Kings.. you haven't seen me anywhere, ever in this town...Ok... so let's not play a game... [RB] I'm not playing any game... [GM] well look how many times do I have to tell you. I -DON'T -GO -OUT! [RB] and and and my response to you on that is... that it makes it difficult for us to give you service. ..... [RB] my point is this.. that the whole thing would be moot,.. if if [GM] well if I ask for salary information... [RB] if you came in and... [GM] yeah, I don't understand how coming in changes anything... if I come in and ask for salary information... you say to me we don't have salary information... we don't have a piece of paper with a listing of the salary information... what you have to do is.. Cross reference I'll give you a copy of.. for $17 I'll let you copy the policeman contract, so you can find out ... what a rank 1 or rank 2 police officer makes, [right] and then you can cross reference to the names on another piece of paper that tells you what rank police officers are--- last name only of course and so you can cross reference and create your own product out of that.. based on last names at least you'll have a last name reference salary information.. [RB] and again.. and again if you would come in and take a look at it... [GM] Ralph [RB] let me just make my point here... because it's a valid point ... [GM] come in, is the keyword... you are missing the point Ralph.. [RB] no.. well look... I tell you what... I'm not going to argue with you because you're not going to listen to me... [GM] well,,, "come in" is a nonstarter, you used the word coming in Ralph... it's a nonstarter... where have I been in the last 25 years... you tell me where I've "come in" to.. what business, what place... I have come in to in the last 25 years and I will let you use those words to me... until then [RB] all right look, you complain to me that we charge you $17 for something... Plaintiff will testify, that the "example" conversations in defendant exhibit G were in fact typical of almost every conversation between the plaintiff and the Borough administrator. The badgering of the plaintiff to become instantaneously cured of his disability and "come in" to the office would be a "hanging offense" [figure of speech] if perpetrated against some other class of disabled persons. If Ralph Blakeslee routinely told blind people to just “get a pair of glasses” before he would accommodate their request for information the nation would be appalled. If he told a quadriplegic to “just get out of that stupid chair and walk over to my desk,” before he would provide services, he wouldn't be employed or employable by any manifestation of "the people's" government. But because he humiliated "just" a silly mentally [psychologically] crippled person, only a "crazy" person could think he should have to account for that. Obviously I am being sarcastic.... but frankly, the very fact that I have to aggressively defend my right to impose accountability through a fair trial, is just more insult to the injury, and I'm finding it difficult not to react with hostility. Other circumstantially relevant material facts known to defendant counsel, yet not addressed in their motion: · The statements by councilmembers during public council meetings attacking the plaintiff and the website inmendham.com by implication. · The Council "plan" to establish a fee for e-mail communication. (defendant exhibit C, employment interrogatories, LAD claims, question No. 2) · The illegal [ I claim., and told the Borough so] fee ordinance recently passed by the council, that actually charges a citizen more for a poor quality digital copy of a document than for a postage paid mailed "hard-copy". Point IV should be disregarded as woefully inadequate argument.   Regarding Point V. I would claim that the recent decision of the GRC imposing jurisdiction on this court [this legal action] negates the argument made by defendant counsel and it should be disregarded.   Regarding Point VI Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for conversion. Again defendant counsel shows no respect for the truth in the argument it has provided this court. Defendant counsel is fully aware [Defendant Exhibit B (Mosher Dep. pg. 50-55)] that the plaintiff claims that it was not until 2002 that he became aware of the "conversion". Furthermore deception perpetrated by the defendants obviously mitigates against any statute of limitations regarding the conversion. Regardless of how one defines the original "relationship" between the Borough and the plaintiff--as a contract between similarly interested parties or between a "volunteer" and a government "employer"-- there is no legal technicality that renders deliberate deception and, in turn, the unauthorized "taking" of services immune to prosecution and subsequent liability. Defendant counsel's point VI argument should therefore be disregarded as not applicable to the circumstances of this case.   Regarding Point VII ie. Defendant counsel's argument in support of without-trial dismissal of plaintiff's claims with the "prejudice" of denying redress of the relevant issues in any affiliated New Jersey court venue. Based on personal experience with the New Jersey "justice" system, I have substantial contempt for the "summary judgment technique" as abused by the "tyrants" of the New Jersey Judiciary [including the New Jersey Supreme Court] who have violated my constitutional rights using this "technique" in the past. If this court, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, "believes" [is to declare] plaintiff’s claims to be "groundless" or "frivolous" [a definition the law requires] then I would request the minimum courtesy that you say so explicitly and spare me [and a federal appeals court] the pretense of silly, convoluted, circumstantially irrelevant, "cover-up" legal jargon defending your obviously bigoted or irrational decision. The fact that professional counsel [ie defendant counsel] believes there to be hope or purpose in filing a superficially supported motion for summary judgment that is completely unresponsive to either the true details or volume of the evidence speaks loudly to the low standard of justice abused judicial discretion is creating in New Jersey court rooms. Defendant counsel motion has no "intellectual integrity," and it is, in fact, "groundless and frivolous" on EVERY point. Unfortunately, politically-appointed authority, empowered by the "undue" process of the "summary judgment technique," has made it all too clear, that if the bias is right, all you need do is ask, and you shall receive... with all due prejudice! I apologize for any violation of required decorum my comments may represent. Frankly, I'm not getting paid to have a "professional temperament" and offering the "courtesy" of presuming a New Jersey Judge to have a deep respect for the truth and justice has never, in my experience, been rewarded with the Due-Equal-Process the Constitution professes to guarantee or any judicial bureaucrat has been "sworn" to provide. Other relevant issues not addressed in defendants' motion for summary judgment: Defendant counsel has been made aware or "put on notice" (during the argument regarding my motion for case management and in my filed but "unfiled" [deficient: did not include the $30 fee] motion to amend my complaint) that my claims also include protection under U.S. title 42 Section 1983 legislation. Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia   As defendant counsel has made no argument referencing this legislation, I wish to state for the record that I have not intentionally or willfully surrendered any right to secure any justice this or any other legislation would provide. I would also state for the record that I do not think a summary judgment motion is a proper forum to essentially argue what law or penalties the jury would be "instructed" to consider. It is my opinion that if a judge is to properly avoid being a "finder of fact," then the "summary" determination should be limited to the question: Based on the evidence is there any "rational" or logically discernible reason, to believe that laws of the United States or of the State of New Jersey have been violated? I submit that I have met that burden of proof, and consistent with my constitutional rights, request a fair civilian opportunity to prosecute my case for justice. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, I request that the court deny summary judgment, dismissing the motion with the due prejudice of an admonishment--warning defendant counsel against filing routinely accepted, yet none-the-less, frivolous and unsupported papers intended to do nothing more than to subvert justice.

InMendham.com HomePage