Docket No. : MRS-L-2876-03

From Defendant's Answer:

"Demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity"

Although the court has previously declared witness testimony to be irrelevant . If court wishes to reverse itself, and the defendant's wish to open this "prove your limited life" door at trial, I am quite able to parade a line of witnesses through that door who will testify to all manner of misery, hardship and "limits" imposed by what is regarded as my agoraphobic illness.

I assume the defendant's have some Catch-22-5 argument declaring this an irrelevant provision of the legislation. Clearly I have been "regarded" by the Social Security Administration to have a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities" to argue otherwise is not to just split hairs, it is to split electrons. Furthermore, this and other courts have "regarded me" to be so impaired. Similarly the mayor of the Borough of Mendham in agreeing to a service contract with me overtly stipulated to the existence of an impairment that imposed significant, but not unaccommodatable, limitations.

In the WILLIAMS case cited by the defendants, the Supreme Court implies congressional intent that some 43 million Americans would be covered under the ADA. Persons disabled enough to receive Social Security disability benefits would only constitute a SMALL minority of that number. I would further argue that this statistic itself was likely not compiled excluding anyone receiving social security disability benefits.

As far as I know the defendants have not pointed to any legal precedent in which a finding of disability by the Social Security Administration was not, in itself, adequate evidence of an individual entitlement to coverage under the ADA. If this court wishes to set such a precedent as the justification for the granting of this summary judgment motion, I would request immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.

For the record:
McAldin v. County of San Diego , 192 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 1999).

• Engaging in sexual relations is a major life activity.
• Sleeping is also a major life activity
• "Interacting with others" is a major life activity. " Recognizing interacting with others as a major life activity of course does not mean that any cantankerous person will be deemed substantially limited in a major life activity. A plaintiff must show that his 'relations with others were characterized on a regular basis by severe problems, for example, consistently high levels of hostility, social withdrawal, or failure to communicate when necessary.'"

Now the defendant wishes to split phantom particles that have no existence in the rational universe. By common understanding no psychiatric disorder can be medically diagnosed as permanent or long-term-- certainly a doctor could speculate on what might be a possible or probable prognosis, but such speculation without expertise in research and statistics, would not constitute relevant expert testimony. The fact is, it is an iron provision of a social security disability determination, that the disability be "permanent or long-term." Without rational dispute such a finding has been made I this case through broad evaluation.

The obvious fact that I do not possess daily medical reports should not need to be explained or defended... yet... again... I must refute the empty sleeve implications of another juvenile legal argument. The facts clearly demonstrate a probing reevaluation in 1999 by the Social Security Administration. The defendants have not provided one atomic particle of evidence indicating that any circumstance has changed to alter the judgment of that re-evaluation. I say for the Catch-22ed time, this is a summary judgment motion and I demand that the court obligate the defendants to provide the legally required EVIDENCE refuting what the facts on record obviously infer.

The simple truth is, like most "historical" documents, the superfluous has been lost to reasonable convenience. If I kept every piece of paper I received from bureaucracies in the last 25 years there wouldn't be much room for me to live in my home.

For the record, I swear, on a stack of Bibles as high as you like, that I have not manipulated my presentation of any evidence to deliberately shield anyone from complete context or complete understanding. It is my hope and expectation that if I am ever proven to be a practitioner of deception and insincere dishonest manipulation that I be quickly and harshly executed by the state of New Jersey. --Gary Mosher

My integrity, has not been, and will not be, empreached by any FACT presented in this process. The only evidence the defendants have provided are contrived accusations and implication that have the taint of inquisitor duplicity.

What defendant council fails to recognize is the overt, obvious placement of the "burden" on the moving party in a motion for summary judgment. Correct That!... I honestly do not believe they do not recognize the burden... I honestly believe defendant council is willfully disregarding the burden-- willfully perverting the intention of the summary judgment provisions-- and willfully disrespecting, and degrading, the American Justice System.

The simplistic accusation that the "plaintiff has not [yet] proven" must be converted BY DEMAND OF THE LAW into a substantiated claim "that plaintiff can not prove" for summary judgment to be granted. The intention of "summary judgment technique" is not shielded in ambiguity (and I will not redundantly rearticulate it) Clearly, and without any reasonable doubt the defendants have not pointed to any fact or facts that would prohibit a "reasonable jury" from finding me ADA disabled consistent with obedience to law. And likewise defendants have not provided any evidence demonstrating my claims to frivolous or felonious or without reasonable prospect of validation by a responsible jury impaneled to impose just accountability after hearing ALL the evidence. (not just the evidence a judge can absorb in 3 1/2 hours)

I submit this is tortured logic that insults the large percentage of the ADA covered 43 million disabled individuals who live lives of substantial deprivation by cause of substantial poverty.

"Picking" a giant ball of "nit", does not create evidence, specific to this issue. It does not create any probable cause to assume anything other than what the facts reasonably infer. Unless the defendants can produce some evidentiary reason to doubt the obvious this court should not entertain any further argument of such a frivolous nature.

As I have nowhere made such a claim, why would I have any obligation to prove it? The illegal deception, and in turn the illegal conversion, has been made part of this case as "character evidence" demonstrating, at minimum, a blatant disregard for common civil courtesies' and a willingness to reward hard work, honesty and generosity with abusive disrespect. As the preponderance of the evidence provided in this case demonstrates a town conspiracy to obstruct my publication of public documents, the obvious implication of the evidence indicates "my free services were no longer sought" because my desire to make public information accessible, and therefore "public", was not consistent with the borough's desire to avoid public scrutiny of the information.

Again Defendant council mischaracterizes my explicit claims. For example, a individual women is not slated for harassment because of her female genetic profile alone, it is usually some quality unique to her that is the direct cause of the harassment-- what makes the harassment deserving of extra punitive legislation is the general weeken physical and social status of women -- that imposes a limitation and vulnerability that is exploitable. In this case, it is my claim that officials of the Borough of Mendham have maliciously and deliberately attempted to exploit the limitations imposed by my disability to perpetrate a narrowing and diminishing of my constitutional right to, scrutinize, publish, and commentate upon Public Information held by the Borough of Mendham.

Like with most prosecutions there are numerous charges. The first crime is the attempted violation of constitutional liberty. A second crime is the exploitation of a disability/limitation to facilitate commission of the first crime.

The the implied premise that you cannot illegally "take" something offered for free is ludicrous. Even a common store coupon has performance demands prohibiting the abuse of a manufacturer's generosity. If my verbal contract with the mayor somehow obligates me to accept official classification as a volunteer. I made no real or willful agreement to receive no notice of contract termination or to provide services one day beyond contract termination. Especially in the circumstance where I'm to be provided no cause for termination.

Defendant council is essentially asserting that volunteers belong to some subhuman class that denies them basic civilian rights and protections-- that is I think obviously a ludicrous assertion.

As has been typically the case defendant attorney has ignored my previous testimony, and argument, on this issue. The fact of the willful and malicious deception mitigates against any statute of limitations. I did file this lawsuit within two years of having a reasonable opportunity to discover the crime-- and am therefore not time barred.

The defendant again mischaracterizes my complaint to imply that I believe, or have claimed, that there is a right to secure damages included in the OPRA legislation. I have no such belief, and I have made no such claim. I have claimed the right to damages under the ADA, NJLAD, and under Section 1983. The fact that I had filed my OPRA claims with the GRC, and not this court, confirms I have no misunderstanding of what relief can be secured through the legislation. To once again clarify, I intend to present the jury evidence of ignored, obstructed and denied document request to prove a claim of malicious intent and/or to provide relevant "past conduct" and "state of mind" evidence.

Obviously, a finding of violations of the Open Public Records Act by Borough personnel (prior to trial) would provide a evidentiary advantage to the plaintiff-- and the plaintiff would hope to have the OPRA claims resolved prior to trial. But... regardless, of any finding by any body of jurisdiction regarding OPRA claims, it is my intention to present to the jury the recorded interaction regarding document requests as evidence supporting a claim, that Borough personnel did deliberately, and maliciously, attempt to obstruct, by exploiting the limitations of my disability, my requests for public information held by the Borough of Mendham, in violation of my equal constitutional right to know and to publish, and in violation of other legislation intended to protect the disabled.

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.

The difference between an action that is merely a violation of the OPRA, and one that constitutes a violation of Section 1983, clearly lies with intent. Negligence, even gross negligence, only amounts to a finable offense under OPRA legislation-- Conversely , a malicious refusal to provide documents requested is more than a violation of the OPRA, it is a violation of constitutionally protected rights. I intend prove "malicious violation" of my right to public information. As example, a simple battery and a murder, may be committed with the same weapon, used in the same manner-- but they are not the same crime, and legislation regarding both crimes can be applied in parallel.

While it is true that my formal motion seeking to amend my complaint (though stamped "filed") was returned because I had not include the required fee (that the court rules don't explain, but instead only reference by legislative statute) -- and while it's true I could have spent another $6 in postage to resend the motion including the required fee... it is my opinion that this fee, and the discourtesy of court staff, is an abomination to my constitutional right of redress.

In simple truth I have made a reasonable request to have my claims amended to include coverage under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 ... the request creates no harm to fairness and therefore should be accepted. Furthermore, in my original complaint I did reference "common law civil-rights." As I understand the history of the 1983 statute it was composed to give literal clarity to what was already a concept respected as a Common Law Civil Right. No material issue in this litigation should hinge on this minor procedural imperfection.

from my 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 Common Law civil rights"

The evidence presented documents a plethora of document requests answered with obstruction, dishonesty, or incomplete or uselessly damaged documents. I claim that somewhere certain this record a point is reached where the "mashing of minutia" becomes obviously calculated to deliberately limit my equal right to know, and to publish.

Also presented in the evidence are examples of actions by the town council intended to limit my accessibility to public information held by the Borough of Mendham. I have briefly outlined claims relevant to this evidence in my original complaint, in my answer to the motions for summary judgment, in my deposition testimony, and in a attachment to my brief in support of my motion for reconsideration. None of these clams have received any substantive reply from the defendant. Apparently the legal strategy is to pretend they do not exist and to hope the court will embrace that pretense. I say quite emphatically, the claims do exist, and until this court requires the defendant's to provide an alternative, and at least equally reasonable, explanation for the referenced actions of the Borough administrator and the town council there is no justification whatever for this motion for summary judgment to be a granted.

From motion for reconsideration:
If the evidence could be reasonably described as "so one-sided" --the conclusion would have to be that the defendant is "guilty as charged". Not only has defendant not made any accommodation to plaintiff's disability. The evidence shows decisively that there were repeated efforts to do just the opposite, to in effect, throw banana peels on the staircase rather than provide a ramp. $25 cassette tapes, the abolishment of a fee exemption, an attempt to charge for e-mail, a fee ordinance that charges 25% more for digital files, an effort to disqualify perfectly legal and perfectly reasonable town council "redress" of a grievance, and numerous deliberate and willful deceptions...etc. hardly indicates only "de minimus" or "minimal inconveniences". They were deliberate efforts to deny me constitutionally protected liberty, that were willfully crafted to exploit circumstances and limitations imposed by my disability, in malicious violation of state and federal law.