plaintiff reply to gaita v chesley trial management statement oif defendants (5)

8/3/2019 Plaintiff Reply to Gaita v Chesley Trial Management Statement Oif Defendants (5)

1/11

NO. CV 09 5008537 S : SUPERIOR COURT

DANIEL GAITA : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFDANBURY

VS. : AT DANBURY

GARY CHESLEY, ET AL : DECEMBER 1, 2011

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS AMENDED TRIAL MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS

1.REPLY TO DEFENDANTS Statement of the Case

The Plaintiff hereby argues he, at no time prior to the alleged defamatory email,

had ever been a political candidate as alleged by the defense in the defendants

November 22, 2011 Trial Management Statement of Defendants.

State Election Enforcement Commission records show the Plaintiff had never

been a political candidate for any elected office until October 2009, nearly two months

following the submission of the Defendants email.

2. Reply to defendants claim that:

That the videotape is exactly or at least substantially what the allegedly

defamatory email said it was.


2/11

2

Plaintiff contends that the alleged defamatory email claims the plaintiff violated the

military code of conduct, the law, and used hate speech. However, during depositions of

the defendants neither of the defendants could identify where hate speech was used,

nor could they explain where they came to the determination that the video violated the

military code of conduct.


That the defendants had a black letter law absolute privilege under the

common law of defamation (see affidavit of Mark Dwells, filed this date).

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Chesley intentionally labeled the email a Campaign

Promotion and Political Campagne Video wrongfully and intentionally. This

misrepresentation was verified during Defendants depositions where each testified that

the Plaintiffs video never:

1. Stated anything about an upcoming election

2. Named a political candidate

3. Told the viewers who to vote for

4. Made mention of local politics or local election related information.


3/11

3

Therefore, the alleged defamatory email Subject line, which was Dan Gaita

Campaigned Promotion was purposely deceptive and done so to give the Defense

Expert Witness Lt. Commander Dwells the impression that the Plaintiffs video was in

conjunction with a political campaign. Which, as the defendants deposition testimony

clearly demonstrates was not at all the case.


That the only person who keeps drawing attention to the email is Dan

Gaita.

Plaintiff argues that testimony obtained during defendant depositions and discovery

demonstrates clearly that the alleged defamatory email was distributed to the entire

Board of Education and was done so by Defendant Dr. Chesley. This is not in dispute.

Furthermore additional submissions of the alleged defamatory email to the general

public was confirmed again during discovery whereby former Defendant William Hillman

stated that he received the same information submitted in the alleged defamatory email

by Defendant Dr. Chesley the same day the Board of Education members had received

their copy.


4/11

4


That the plaintiff was and remains a public figure and a vortex public

figure, giving the defendants a first amendment right to express opinions

about him.

Plaintiff contends the First Amendment does not protect the defendants when the

plaintiff has been wrongfully accused of a crime, and where the plaintiff can

demonstrate malice. (New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.,1964)


That the email was lawful under the fair comment doctrine in the context

of a political campaign.

Again, the plaintiff asserts the uncontested fact that he was never a candidate for

political office at any time prior to the submission of the alleged defamatory email.


That there was no malice as the law defines it, notwithstanding

plaintiffs contention that the defendants were his (political) opponents;


5/11

5

based on a decade of plaintiff accusing defendants of fraud,

mismanaging the Bethel Education budget and being liars. Plaintiff

continues to assert such allegations publically, by any media methods

available to him.

Plaintiff again asserts that at no time did politics, or political campaigns play any part in

this action. Furthermore the plaintiff continues to allege that the submitted, marked and

listed evidence will demonstrate a clear malicious attempt to destroy the plaintiffs

credibility and reputation.


The truth (complete defense) is that the plaintiff took a Marine recruiting

video, depicting Marine exercises on the deck of an aircraft carrier,

inserted an ominous rap style tune in the background, referring to

defendants as liars (e.g. LIAR on the forehead of undersigned Matthew

Knickerbocker) and presenting the Marines as coming back to clean up

politics.


6/11

6

The plaintiff argues that the content of the alleged email, which accuses the plaintiff of

violating the Military Code of Conduct, and using hate speech, relies upon the

Defendants assumptions that:

1. The plaintiff was a political candidate. This assumption is false and not in dispute

2. That the video mentioned in the alleged defamatory email is a campaign promotion,

which is also false and not in dispute.

3. That the Marine Corps came to the determination that the video was a violation of the

Military Code of Conduct, which is also false, and not in dispute.

Therefore truth as a Defense does not apply.

Furthermore, the plaintiff obtained the video from an online, free, and legal video

sharing website. The video the plaintiff used was never labeled a Marine Recruiting

Video but was available for download, at no charge, and with no determination of

owner or usage limitations. Furthermore, the plaintiff contends that his use of the video

is protected under Fair Use.


7/11

7

Additionally, the use of the word Liar in the video was followed by two definitions of

lie and liar according to Websters dictionary. The segment of the video whereby

Defendant Knickerbocker has the word liar over his head was in coordination with a

video whereby Defendant Knickerbocker was, according to Websters definition, lying

about the Bethel High School accreditation status. This was later confirmed during

defendants deposition testimony and in an earlier email exhibit whereby Mr.

Knickerbocker admitted to misstating the schools accreditation status in the video clip.

Therefore the reference to Mr. Knickerbocker as a liar was truthful and therefore

protected free speech.


After Consultation with Lt. Commander Mark Dwells, Dr. Chesley sent

the subject email to the Board of Ed., and members, Mr. Craybas and

undersigned defendant Matthew Knickerbocker asked if there was some

way to keep Plaintiff from using this Marine Corp. video, a darned good

question any sane and reasonable person would ask.

Plaintiff contends that the use of the small segments of the Marine Corps video are well

within Fair Use, that the plaintiff obtained the video not knowing it was a Marine


8/11

8

Recruiting Video, that the use of the video segment depicting Marines (with which the

plaintiff is one) took up a fraction of the videos entirety, the video was not a political

campaign video, does not make mention of the Marine Corps, does not claim the

endorsement of the Marine Corps, nor does it seek any type of personal or financial

gain for the creator (plaintiff) of the video.

Plaintiff further contends that Lt. Commander Mark Dwinells, was purposely

misinformed by Defendant Dr. Chesley that the video was a campaign promotion in

order to receive a favorable response (against the plaintiff) for his very minor use of an

alleged recruiting video. Specifically by telling the Lt. Commander that the video was a

campaign promotion.


Plaintiff per his list of witnesses, seeks, in the guise of a frivolous

defamation case, to air out the results of his self declared investigation

of the Bethel Board of Education budget presentations to the general

public and the failure of the defendants to provide accurate information

prior to multiple budget referendums throughout their professional tenure


9/11

9

and going back at least 10 years. (see plaintiffs order item 1#, page 3 of

his TMC report).

The plaintiff continues to contend that the Justice System of the United States of

America remains his last viable alternative to:

1. Obtain justice and remedy for the damage the defendants accusations have had

on his small business, his reputation and his income.

2. Demonstrate and prove malice by showing the surrounding elements via

documentary and electronic evidence, which led to the publication of the alleged

defamatory email and the plaintiffs video.

3. Establish legal precedent that the type of communication transmitted from the

Superintendent of Schools and current First Selectman is neither appropriate for

a professional of their caliber and position of responsibility nor tolerated by our

Justice System.

11. Objection to Defendants Motion

The Plaintiff hereby objects to the following defendants motion:


10/11

10

Motions in limine to preclude testimony of witnesses as to plaintiffs

contentions about the education budget of the Town of Bethel;

immateriality, irrelevance and redundancy.

Plaintiff contends that testimony from the witnesses is vital to demonstrate both,

Defendants credibility and motive toward malice.

Plaintiff, Daniel R. Gaita, Pro Se

By_________________________

Daniel R. Gaita121 Dodgingtown Rd

Bethel CT 06801(203) 994-2987


11/11

11

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been emailed and also mailedon 12/1/11 to:

Jeffrey G. SchwartzLaw Offices of Charles G. WalkerP.O. Box 2138Hartford, CT 06145-2138

(860) 277-7480

_______________________________Daniel R Gaita

plaintiff reply to gaita v chesley trial management statement oif defendants (5)

Documents