• First 50 Posts....moved 10/12/2004 10/12 03:39pm

By Candi on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 05:10 pm:

How is the Lawsuit coming along Gary ?

By LawShroud on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:01 pm:

Actually, about as expected.... I think in about a year or two I might be actually arguing in a court something relevant to the behavior of the "liars" running the town government.

By A Link on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 08:01 am:

From: inmendham.com " Regarding your final order of July 25th, I request reconsideration on numerous grounds that individually and collectively constitute reversible error and by unavoidable inference constitute a violation of my constitutional right to redress of grievances and due and equal process. "

By Regards on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 09:35 am:

Re; Your Request It's already in the Circular File. Cordially, The Powers that Be

By ...WithMyBootsOn... on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 01:24 pm:

Unlike with the rest of the road kill, when the "powers that be" run over me with their all terrain "circular file" at least they're gonna know they hit something.

By Well ? on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 09:35 am:

Anything doing with this ? Have they Locked You Up ?

By singing fatly on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:29 pm:

The judge gave me 60 days to provide the illegally demanded proof of my disability. I've decided to use this time to consider my strategy. Obviously, this judge isn't likely to provide a fair trial-- if I get to trial. It might be in my best interest, to let her completely illegal "judgment" stand, and to take a claim to federal court demanding that the New Jersey Judiciary be suspended from applying the "summary judgment technique" as it is clear from this case, and my cigarette tax case, that the technique is being horribly abused by the jackasses of the New Jersey Judiciary. In the end, I will probably fork over another $30 for a reconsideration motion in the next two weeks. If there's another oral argument, I'll just read an all-purpose-- "I object on the grounds that you are violating my constitutional rights" statement and attempt to avoid "reasoning" with the power mad stupid fn bitch. It seems probable that she will contrive some other legally preposterous BS to shyster me out of a fair trial-- this time I will let her, and I will then take both cases to a federal court.

By Warden on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:45 am:

well .. ya might wanna practice showering without dropping the soap.

By Bozo Smiter on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:06 am:

Does Clown / Circus Music play in your head as you waste time and thought on this matter ? Your Honor, I make a motion that Somber, Serious Music play when the state/govt't side speaks - perhaps "the March of the Valkeryis" and Clown/Circus music play when "Mr" Mosher speaks.

By A Link on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 06:23 am:

http://www.inmendham.com In Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration comment:

By ClarenceDarrow Incarnate on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:27 pm:

My Reply Although I think I've covered all the bases there is no defense against a Ms. Ayatollah Bigatollah Judge just throwing the game.

By I Win....for now on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:33 am:

http://inmendham.com The oral argument on my motion for reconsideration in the case of Mosher vs. Mendham was heard 9:00am this morning. The judge did reverse herself, regarding the motion for summary judgment and now the town must face either accepting a reasonable settlement, or the ugly prospect of facing a jury trial. Considering that the judge had all but declared me a knockout victim in the previous round, complete victory in this round really was an incredible comeback. My brain keeps playing the song "We are the champions". This his been my only feel good moment in any judicial process and I'm certainly going to savor it. comment:

By $$$$$$ is all that counts on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 03:42 pm:

sooooo what did you win ? exactly ?

By Exactly A. Advantage on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 04:40 am:

The court seemed to send every signal that she thinks the defendant's (the town) should start seriously thinking about a settlement and give-up on the find a loophole strategy. As to the specifics, The court has found with prejudice that there is a presumption of disability and has denied without prejudice the motion for summary judgment. Although the court left a technical opening for further argument that could negate the possibility of going to trial-- The overall impression was that the Court is quite satisfied that there is a cause of action, and the court sees no reason to deny me my right to a trial. The court offered the option of free mediation, which I hope sends a signal to the defendant's that they really only have two options-- a ugly expensive trial they will probably lose, or settlement now which will at minimum save substantial inconvenience and legal expenses. At this moment things are looking pretty good -- but I realize it might all be illusion created just to keep up appearances. Although I don't "intend" to publicly negotiate a settlement, I will tell you what I told the judge and the town's lawyer. This lawsuit happened because the town government absolutely refused to negotiate a fair compromise regarding reasonable access to public records. Before filing this lawsuit I informed the town that they're offering me no other alternative and if they make me file a lawsuit I'm going to take the whole fore year story to court --their reply was the one sentence "do whatever you want". Without rational dispute going to court wasn't what I wanted.... it's what they asked for. When I was asked by someone what I think damages should be, I made this reply: "In frank truth, I have no "I think" amount. It's a question the jury will I suppose answer, if I can get this case to trial. The day I filed my lawsuit, I would have settled for a formal written apology, and filing costs. After having to endure the aggravation of having to defend something as preposterously obvious as my disability... and after having a f..ing stroke that might have been caused by the petty aggravation that they have caused me-- I'm probably not gonna let go for less than $10,000 in cash and some kind of "in kind" settlement. I'm thinking a lifetime least to some town owned property-- it wouldn't really cost the taxpayers anything as the land would eventually revert back to the town-- but, it would discourage future missbehavior. It's hard to put a value on constitutional rights. How much is free-speech worth? How big a crime is it for government officials to conspire to keep information relevant to government activities from public scrutiny? In my world ( the world I would create) Lying would be a three strikes and you're out crime. I really can't find any perspective from which to judge the many crimes of the Mendham Borough government. As context you should understand this is one of the richest communities in the country... an average house sells for $700,000 ... and these people allowed the poorest guy in town, living on a disability check to finance their web site. It's one of those "what's wrong with this picture" kind of scenarios. Then after two years of basically "perfect service" they fire the guy without cause or notice and even wait another four months to even let him know he has been fired. The town just spent $7000 to upgrade the system to record just the audio from town council meetings.. yet they couldn't reimburse me $230 to pay for hosting space for a website. When you hear government officials conspiring to charge for e-mail in an overt effort to keep the people ignorant of governments activities you got to know that something is really wrong in Mudvile. I would concede that my life hasn't been ruined, that I am not the victim of some horrible medical "accident".... but that's really the key point here.... this attack against the Constitution wasn't an accident, it isn't some unavoidable price of government... it's just plain Un-American evil doing, and the punishment should fit the crime... but I still can't say I know what the right Fit is." My goal here, is not to punish the taxpayers of Mendham... it's to send a message to the Ralph Blakeslee's of the world that enslavement, bigotry, and elitist control of information, are not no-risk behaviors for government officials. Maybe the appropriate punishment for abusing a disabled volunteer, would be to endure the humiliation of allowing that volunteer to earn a salary.... maybe the right atonement would be to dig up the 10 year-old job application I sent to the town. A fact that complicates this whole scenario, is the fact that the town apparently has some kind of "violate the Constitution" insurance and I have to negotiate a settlement through the added fog of the insurance companies' interests. I'm assuming there is some clause in the insurance policy that will disqualify the town for liability coverage if they are found to be guilty of a "malicious" crime... which I think a jury would find them to be. The whole idea of insurance against government officials committing crimes as part of their official duties seems a violation of due process. Why don't we allow common (previously unconvicted) criminals to buy such insurance?... we could call it the first robbery or rape free law. Hopefully the threat of increased premiums will be enough to force the town to the table. I suppose if the town won't allow there to be a win-win resolution-- I guess I could request the punitive damage of forcing the town to erect a statue of myself in front of the Phoenix House.... maybe in a statue-of-liberty pose, holding a public document in the raised arm, and a "file a lawsuit for dummies" book in the other.... or maybe I should go for the Lincoln pose with a beer holder, and a computer built into the arms of the giant chair.

By settlement on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 05:36 pm:

I think an excellent win-win settlement might be to have Ralph and the entire Council perform Swan Lake in pink tutus in the center of town every other Saturday for a year. Gary could sell admission tickets and tee shirts!! Gary gets a HUGE cash settlement and it costs the town nothing!!

By Mayor in a French Dress on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 08:09 pm:

This all might make a good plot for "reality series"... the settlement negotiations present endless possibilities... maybe they could call the shown "keys to the city" and the catch phrase could be something like "No! I'm not fired, and you're now my Fn maid".

By Judd, for the defense on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 05:38 am:

A lawyer picks up his brand new Mercedes and as he is driving to work he thinks "I'm going to park in front of the office so everyone can see it". He parks the car at the curb directly in front of the main entrance to the office. He steps out of the car and at that very instant another car comes zooming up and tears the drivers door right off the car. Well don't you know he goes off and starts screaming about no matter who he takes the car to for repair it will never be the same, his car is not going to be worth anything close to what he paid for it, the resale value is going to be nothing, and on and on. A policeman gets to the scene and witnesses the lawyer going off about the damage and responds "you lawyers are so materialistic, you have just been involved in an accident that caused some damage to your new car, has torn your left arm completely off, and all you are concerned about is the value of your car?" To which the lawyer responds "Oh my God, my Rolex!"

By Joe the Barber on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 11:44 am:

Most people go to the barbershop for a haircut, for lawyers, it's called a circumcision.

By Perry Mason on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 11:58 am:

Maybe the guy's wife who gave her legal opinion should consider a career change. I think the national hot air ballon race in New Mexico is coming up....hmmmmmm, now what do you suppose she is capable of?

By DogDays AreOver on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 05:31 pm:

Unfortunately, I think the "wife" is too busy chewing a old shoe over at Little Red Riding hood's grandmother's house to have time to go on any trips, or to read my I told you so's.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 06:42 am:

A true legal beagle!

By SweatingRalph on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:56 pm:

Hey Gary, Whatever the settlement is, don't allow them to require the terms be keep confidential and don't let them get off with the usual "no admission of wrongdoing".

By Tough Choices on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 05:06 pm:

The judge gave the town a couple of weeks to decide if they think mediation would be helpful or "potentially fruitful". I anticipate, that at the October 18th council meeting, the council will have a secret "executive session" to decide whether they wish to waste more time and money seeking the "lost loophole" or whether it's time to just get this over with. If we can't come to some arrangement and the case does go to trial it seems inevitable that there's going to be some media coverage. The judge implied she's ready to make new law regarding the rights of volunteers-- although she conceded she has "no idea how to conduct a trial accommodating the circumstance of my agoraphobia". Getting to your points regarding "public" settlement terms and admission of guilt. My first inclination was to say I'm not going to sacrifice the possibility of a settlement demanding either of these things. On reflection, I realize I have to do better than that. It's an unfortunate fact of the legal system that out of court settlements don't create a legal record or legal precedent. By not going to trial I'm losing the opportunity to create case law that might strengthen the legal rights of volunteers, the disabled, and anyone seeking to actualize their First Amendment rights. Although going to trial will no doubt create entertaining circus, I don't think it would be any fun for the performers... yet... it probably would be in the best interest of the principles I hope to serve. In this context, I see I have an obligation to make sure that other government officials learn from the mistakes of Borough officials. The lesson has to be that there is no defense in the law for bigotry, exploitation, and the compromising of constitutional rights. If we do settle, I am certainly going to push for a statement by Borough officials outlining the simple truth that they through, no less than recklessness, lost sight of some very important principles, and that it was appropriate that they were held to account for that. As for confidential settlement terms, I don't think it's in my interest to promise anything... but I can say with a high degree of confidence I won't let "confidentiality" obscure any of the significant facts.

By Jacoby & The Meyers on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 07:12 pm:

Geez Gary, how's it feel to have outwitted the high priced shysters from Methodone & Weasel or whoever that outfit was.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 07:17 pm:

Hmmmm, maybe the media outlets around here need a little tip on this story.

By DoRight OrElse on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:19 am:

Quote: Geez Gary, how's it feel to have outwitted the high priced shysters from Methodone & Weasel Threatening a judge with the prospect that you are going to kill yourself if they don't actually read your legal brief, and acknowledge the blatantly obvious, probably doesn't constitute "outwitting"... but, I guess you have to do whatever it takes. It has been a profound disappointment to me, to learn through actual experience, that the legal system is as corrupt, cheap, and tacky as the rest of American culture. The lawyers for the town haven't composed one paragraph of rational legal theory in this case. Every argument has been a defense of some silly technical disqualification that has nothing to do with the intent of the law. At the end of the oral argument, I mentioned the fact that I'm ready to go to trial, on just the documentary evidence alone (the tape recordings). Immediately, Methodone & Weasel's little shysterette, started arguing the inadmissibility of the tapes... God forbid the truth should be admissible in court. Appropriately, now that the judge has been scared into seriousness, the court made the point that she only considers such admissibility issues at trial. As all lawyers seem to be lying scum quite willing to win a dishonest victory-- it is my "observation" that may be we shouldn't allow lawyers to become judges. It seems logical that enriching yourself, by compromising the truth and the meaning of the law, should get lawyers properly disqualified from serving as judges. I would concede that there is no perfect "integrity test" that can be applied in deciding who gets to be a judge... but obviously, spending a career practicing the art of duplicity and deception should certainly be considered reliable evidence of "integrity test" failure. It seems amazing, that all these people who have been sworn to defend the Constitution, can get away with showing so little respect for it. People who make an oath to the Constitution should be held to the highest standard.... yet there really is no accountability. Judges and lawyers have engineered immunity to most laws... and we really should demand that that be changed.

By hmmm on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 11:24 am:

If the tables were turned; did you even realize that Prosecutorial Misconduct isn't even a crime ... Res Ipsa Loquitur

By Self Loquituring on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 01:05 pm:

Quote: "The thing speaks for itself" Unfortunately your sentence/question doesn't speak very good english...for itself. "Misconduct" is one of those "too ambiguous to be useful" phrases of American doublespeak. Clinton was almost impeached for the degrading "misconduct" of exploiting a sexual opportunity, and lying about it. George Bush used "suspect intelligence" to deceive America in to helping ferment civil war in the Middle East ( and eventually world war) and the residents of this town will overwhelmingly vote to endorse that behavior. The disconnect seems cavernous.... The only salvation for the human race is the invention of a 100% reliable lie-detector. Instead of spending billions on the space program that realistically has nowhere to go-- we should be diverting that money to help prevent the human race from being suffocated under miles of its own BS. Till than...Lawyers (and everyone with power) should be obligated to put something of value on the line to demonstrate integrity. This is kind of a funny excerpt from my reconsideration argument... The part that isn't so funny, is that leaders have no compunction to make any such commitment or guarantee. plaintiffs submission is incomplete. He presents portions of documents he deems relevant but fails to include them intheir entirety. 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

By Ah-nold` on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 07:27 am:

You vill loze

By NotIf TheForceIsWitMe on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:02 am:

Apparently the town didn't need a council executive session to agree to nonbinding mediation. I received this notice, that the town will be "happy to" participate. Although it's non-binding and paid for by the court there likely exists a unspoken "catch" that the court is going to be a little pissed-off at any party in the litigation, who fails to make a good-faith effort to make mediation a worthwhile expense. It's seems likely, or at least sensible, that there will be some preliminary discussions between myself and the attorneys for the town before the mediator is engaged...but who knows. I also received the formal order from the judge vacating her previous order granting summary judgment and in turn, granting my petition for reconsideration. ...not really suitable for framing, but I do like looking at it.

By Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 08:37 pm:

The bankrupcy notice from the town will follow shortly after a settlement is agreed on.

By It never ends... on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 04:25 pm:

http://inmendham.com "nothing more than a fishing expedition for character evidence" comment:

By Anonymous on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 06:21 am:

Ah yes, the wheels of justice once again mired in the muck. It's the American way anymore. Rather than be done and move on, it's nit pick every little item. What until they uncover the fact that Gary jumped ahead of someone in the lunch line in 3rd grade, or that he was pretending to be asleep during nap time in kindergarten!! It's time for the Borough Council and the illustrious Administrator to put this matter behind them and get on with the business of running of the town. Unfortunately, it takes balls to admit wrongdoing.

By hmm on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 12:43 pm:

yhea .. when IS gary going to admit wrongdoing ??

By JustSome Youthful Indiscretions on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:55 pm:

I have misplaced my VIA dossier -- what are the crimes I must admit to? Regarding the progress of the lawsuit I have received no answer from the judge regarding disposal of the OPRA issues-- I guess I'll have to bring up the subject a fourth time (or just pay another $30 to file a motion). There has also been no assignment of a mediator So I guess the case is just drifting in "holiday season" NothingHappening-atory. I received a letter from the lawyers this week requesting that I sign a release form regarding my Social Security records. Apparently, the Social Security Administration does not have to comply with a state superior court order. Seems kind of Catch-22 stupid for a judge to have the power to search my home, or have me arrested-- and yet not have the power to force a federal agency to produce some documents. I did fill out and sign the consent form but added this letter of clarification. I am providing this signed consent form under the following "for the record" conditions. 1) I believe your request to examine my Social Security files to be "archaic" to any legitimate purpose in this litigation. This examination should have appropriately taken place prior to the filing of a summary judgment motion. In the oral decision denying summary judgment the issue of disability coverage under relevant legislation (ADA NJLAD) has been established, as the fact that I was "regarded" by relevant agencies to be "so disabled" has been acknowledged, and is in truth unimpeachable and historically irreversible fact. 2) It is my expectation, that you will provide me complete copies of the materials you are provided at your expense. 3) It is my expectation that the "sensitive nature" of the materials you will be provide access to will be respected. I would claim that "respect" will require you to keep accurate and complete records of what persons you will allow to access the records and under what conditions. 4) It is my expectation that you understand the "narrow purpose" for which you are being provided this access. The purpose is to glean evidence relevant to the existence of a legally qualifying disability-- use of the information for any other purpose would constitute an abuse of my cooperation, and a violation of the legal authority you have been provided. I found a link to a profile of the "associate" lawyer that has been assigned to represent the Borough. Before viewing the page I thought of her as a ignorant little ditz. I now (after seeing a photo) think of her as a hot lawyer chick, who is just a little inexperienced and is probably a lot smarter than the bad legal arguments she has made would indicate. .....the male brain... go figure.

By ha ha rassing on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 05:36 pm:

"Memorandum in opposition" This is going to be like shooting slimy, smelly, dead shyster fish in a barrel.