1

NO. DBD-CV-09-5008537 S

DANIEL GAITA : SUPERIOR COURT

VS: : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY

GARY CHESLEY, ET AL : AT DANBURY

: OCTOBER 27 2011

OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 17-45, the Plaintiff, Daniel R. Gaita, Pro-Se,

respectfully objects to the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on the following

grounds.

(1) OBJECTION to defendants argument of “law” - The email, (EXHIBIT 2), as

attached to the defendants Motion For Summary Judgment of October 20, 2011, was

published by the defendant, referred to the plaintiff by name throughout, was transmitted

to a third person, and falsely alleges the plaintiff used “hate speech”, that the plaintiff

acted “against the law” and “against the Military Code of Conduct”, exposed the plaintiff

to hatred, ridicule and contempt and therefore the plaintiffs contends the email does

constitute defamation as a matter of law.

(2) OBJECTION to defendants’ argument of “privilege” - The plaintiff at no time prior

to the date of the Email (exhibit 2) was ever a political candidate for any office.

Secondly, the communication occurred between municipal employees, and elected

government officials via electronic communication that exists as public information

2

obtainable through the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, the plaintiff contends the

email was not privileged.

(3) OBJECTION to defendants argument re: “fair commentary and reasonable debate”

The plaintiff, at no time prior to the electronic distribution of the email (exhibit 2), was

ever a political candidate for any public office at any other time and therefore the

communication (Exhibit 1), as attached to the defendants’ Motion For Summary

Judgment referred to in the email (Exhibit 2) was neither a campaign video, nor a

commentary about a political figure, but rather an overview of the Local, State and

National leadership and monetary trends impacting the Town, State and Nations

economic and social viability as perceived by the plaintiff, a United States Marine

combat Veteran.

For the reasons set forth herein and in the accompanying memorandum of law and

evidence in support of this Objection, the Plaintiff request the Motion for Summary

Judgment be declined and this matter be allowed to continue to trial by jury.

PLAINTIFF, Daniel R. Gaita, Pro Se

By, __________________________ Daniel R. Gaita 121 Dodgingtown Rd Bethel CT 06801 (203) 994-2987

3

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed this 27th day of October, 2011, to: LAW FIRM FOR DEFENDENT Jeffrey G. Schwartz Law Offices of Charles G Walker P.O. Box 2138 Hartford, CT 06145-2138 (860) 277-7480 OTHER DEFENDENT David McDonald, ESQ. O’Donnell McDonald & Cregeen, LLC 2452 Black Rock Turnpike, Suite 2 Fairfield, CT 06825

Respectfully Submitted, Daniel R. Gaita 121 Dodgingtown RD Bethel CT 06801 (203) 994-2987 Plaintiff, Pro Se

4

NO. DBD-CV-09-5008537 S

DANIEL GAITA : SUPERIOR COURT

VS: : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY

GARY CHESLEY, ET AL : AT DANBURY

: OCTOBER 27 2011

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The lawsuit arises out of the plaintiffs three prior failed attempts (Plaintiffs

Exhibit 9) to obtain a retraction and explanation specific to the false accusations

transmitted via email on August 17th, 2009, by Defendant, Bethel School Superintendent,

Dr. Gary Chesley, that a video which the plaintiff created July 20th, 2009, (Exhibit 1) as

attached to the defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, contained “Hate Speech”

“labeled others un American liars”, “was against the law”, “was against the military code

of conduct”, “was a campaign promotion”

The plaintiff, attempted first on August 27th via email to the named defendants,

Chesley, Knickerbocker and Craybas to get “clarification on their roles, if any, specific to

the email, no reply was received. The plaintiff attempted again on October 13th, was

again ignored, and at that time decided, out of civic responsibility, to run for elected

office on the Bethel Board of Education. The plaintiff became a political candidate, for

the first time in his life, as recorded through the Town Clerk of Bethel CT on SEEC Form

5

1, October 15th, 2009. This is the first time the plaintiff has ever run for public office.

The plaintiff was never at any other time a “politician” as argued by the defense council.

The plaintiff again made a final attempt on October 21st prior to executing legal

action, to get “clarification on their roles, if any, specific to the email”, no reply was

received.

Following the three failed attempts for an explanation and retraction of the alleged

defamatory statements, the plaintiff initiated this legal action with the hope of both

clearing his name of the criminal allegations made against him and also in an attempt to

hold the named public employees and elected officials accountable for their actions.

The aforesaid video discussed in the defendants email and attached as exhibit 1 to

the defendants motion for summary judgment is not, as argued by the defense, a

“campaign promotion” or “campaign video” – The video does not identify any of the

individuals as political candidates, makes no suggestion of an election nor does it tell the

viewers who to vote for.

Furthermore, the video which is 3minutes, 10seconds in length, (3:10) includes

only a small segment lasting no more than: 26 seconds on local issues. The remainder of

the video is dedicated to State and Federal economic, legislative and social issues.

The plaintiff argues that the defendants had become angry that the plaintiff had

exposed a series of alleged misrepresentations dealing specifically with the Bethel High

School accreditation process and status; specifically that the Superintendant of School,

Defendant Chesley, and then Chairman of the Bethel Board of Education, Defendant

Knickerbocker had allegedly intentionally misinformed residents that the High School

was on “Academic Probation” in 1998 when in fact they were never on probation at any

6

time prior to 2004 as demonstrated via communication between the plaintiff and the

director of the accrediting agency. (Plaintiff Exhibit 13)

In addition to the alleged misinformation specific to the school accreditation

status, the plaintiff also discovered a series of other alleged misrepresentations made

publicly during local town meetings specific to High School Renovation funding,

educational budget needs, as well as alleged intentional misinterpretations of CT General

Statutes specific to educational cost sharing and funding at the State Level.

The plaintiff argues that the sum of evidence compiled during his personal

investigation of local budgetary spending provided a strong and compelling argument

that Defendants Chesley and Knickerbocker intentionally misrepresented information in

order to sway public support for a $30,000,000 High School Renovation and also future

education budgets.

The plaintiff argues that the defendants issued the email (exhibit 2) in order to

maliciously ruin the credibility of the information the plaintiff had brought forward.

Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that the defendant, Dr. Gary Chesley

intentionally labeled the video (exhibit 1) a “campaign promotion” in order to further

marginalize the content and obtain a favorable response from the Department of Defense

specific to the video content and any perceived association with a political campaign and

or Department of Defense coordination.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted where the

moving party has demonstrated the absence of any materiel issues of fact. The plaintiff

7

argues that the entirety of his evidence as attached hereto will clearly demonstrate that the

defendants in this action intentionally distributed the alleged defamatory email out of

malice and sought to silence the plaintiffs concerns rather than opening up the issues for a

full public and transparent debate. Therefore the plaintiff begs the court to allow a full

and fair trial of the issues and evidence to be brought forth since the action involves

individuals placed in the direct public trust of our entire public school system, tax payers

and executive offices of our municipality.

III. Undisputed Facts

Defendant, Dr. Gary Chesley was and is the Town of Bethel Superintendent of Schools

and has been for over a decade. Dr. Chesley holds a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree

and an Ed. D. He is responsible for our entire public education system in Bethel which

also includes creating and presenting the Bethel Public Schools education budget to the

Bethel Board of Education, Board of Selectman, and Board of Finance; he has the direct

authority to hire and fire educational employees. Dr. Chesley has at his disposal the

immediate capability to transmit communications to the entire public schools student,

teacher and parent population.

Dr. Chesley, in 1991, while a principal at Eaglecrest High School, CO, admitted

to an extramarital sexual affair involving a married music teacher which resulted in a

sharply divided school staff, students and community, this affair led to his resignation the

same year

Also, the same year, one of Dr. Chesleys Deans of Student, Mr. James M. Davis

was arrested for sexual assaulting one of his male students during an overnight trip after

8

giving the 15 year old student money to buy drugs. Mr Davis worked in the Parkway CO.

School District alongside Dr. Chesley.

According to an affidavit by Sgt Mike Glidden specific to the alleged sexual

assault Dr. Chesley stated he “knew that Davis at one time had had a student living with

him” and that Dr. Chesley “had spoken to Davis about the allegations (of sexual relations

with students) and instructed Davis to get psychological help with his problems.”

However, Dr. Chesley later told parents in a statement he sent home to all 1,650 students

that he had “no prior knowledge of any wrongdoing.” Dr. Chesley and Davis worked

together for nine years in the Parkway School District where similar allegations against

Davis arose. Dr. Chesley encouraged Davis to join him at the Eaglecreast School. The

actions above lead parents and student to react with “horror” according to one press

article published in the Denver Post, May 25th, 1991, Page 16A.

A civil suit was also filed along with the criminal sexual assault trial in the above

action whereby it is alleged that school administrators knew of similar allegations against

Davis in St. Louis and “failed and omitted to warn” them. Dr. Chesley was one of the

administrators with direct knowledge of Mr. Davis’s past behaviors as demonstrated in

his affidavit.

In 1992, following discovery of the prior extramarital affair and the finalized

conviction of James Davis for Sexually assaulting a 15 year-old male student at his prior

place of employment, the School Board of Belleville West High School voted to rescind

Dr. Chesley’s new employment contract. Dr. Chesley later sued the district for $68,000

but was only awarded $10,000.

9

In 1992, then Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Chesley along with his

wife was caught steeling political signs. As a result Chesley was issued a letter of censure

by Cheshire Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Ralph Wallace. The letter was placed in his

personal files (Cheshire Herald: November 7, 1996, page 1 & November 14th Page 1)

In August of 2002 State of CT officials find Dr. Chesley in violation of State

Election law when he used town funds to distribute pamphlets discussing the town

budget. He was fined $533.24 which was to be paid to the town following the ruling by

the CT State Elections Enforcement Commission. (Danbury News Times, August 23,

2002, Page 1)

As recently as October 19th, 2011 Dr. Chesley was ruled in violation of CT Gen

Statute 9-369b for using public funds and electronic equipment to transmit

communications in support of or against municipal elections and budget referendums.

(SEEC File No. 2011-079)

Defendant Chesley has an established and long history of violating public trust at

the moral, social and institutional level while the plaintiff in this case has an established

and long standing reputation as a “Model” US Marine and today as a Model Citizen

absent the criminal allegations made against him by Defendant Chesley.

III Documentary Evidence

1. In rebuttal - to the claims of the defense council documentary evidence claimed

to exist in paragraph B. whereby the defendant states “Plaintiff had sought to be on the

Democratic ticket, for Board of Education as early as calendar year 2000 (page 121).” –

Please note, the defense council incorrectly identifies what is actually stated. What I

actually said, as shown on page 121 is: “Actually, I submitted my entire curriculum,

10

letters of recommendations and credentials packet to the democratic town committee

chairperson Alice Hutchinson”

a. Furthermore, on (page 122) I make it very clear that the reason for submitting

my information was not to run for office, but rather to “ask how I could be of assistance”

It is also noted on (page 122) that the plaintiff also provided the same packet of

information to the Selectman’s office and the Town Clerks Office. Never was it the

intention of the plaintiff to run for office at those times. The argument provided by the

defense council for this paragraph does not reflect the actual wording of the deposition as

provided to the courts.

2. In rebuttal - to the claims of the defense council documentary evidence claimed

to exist in paragraph C – L, the plaintiff argues that much of his perceived “political”

activity was actually initiated as a result of Defendant Chesleys Email in an attempt to

clear his (the plaintiffs) name since the civil process could prove to be lengthy and result

in an extended period of hatred and contempt by potential customers, educational

administrators, and respected town leaders and residents that would have otherwise

believed the allegations made against the plaintiff. In short, the plaintiff argues it was the

actions of the defendants that preempted the plaintiffs escalation towards civic

involvement in his community.

3. In rebuttal - to the claims of the defense council documentary evidence claimed

to exist in paragraph M, the plaintiff argues that the :26 seconds of the video (:37 – 1:03)

11

detailing Defendant Knickerbocker and providing the definition of “Lie” and “Liar” was

essential since the interview being shown in the background did, in fact contain, multiple

lies specific to the Bethel High School Accreditation Status as well as multiple other

misrepresentations of the truth by both individuals on the video clip during that short

segment.

a. Furthermore, the major portion of the video focuses on the national economic

crisis, Unemployment, Federal Campaign Finance Contributions, Foreclosure Rates, US

Gross Domestic Product, the US Constitution, US Bill of Rights, and the US Declaration

of Independence.

b. The title of the Video – “I tired to warn you” is based on the song playing in the

background by Lincoln Park which discusses growing frustration with the lack of citizen

involvement in the oversight of our nations governing body. The plaintiff argues the

song, and the lyrics are appropriately married to the content and message of the video.

4. Plaintiff (Exhibits 5,6,7& 8) demonstrate Defendant Chesleys attempts to deny

Freedom of Information Act requests by the plaintiff specific to email communications

between town officials and Defendant Hillman specific to the plaintiff and the video

(Defense Exhibit 1)

5. Plaintiff (Exhibit 12), a letter sent to Bethel Residents between 2001 and 2002

whereby defendants Knickerbocker and Chesley address the high school as regaining

“full accreditation” However, none of Bethel schools as of that date had ever lost

accreditation. Furthermore, the final sentence demonstrates that the laudatory language

12

used in the letter was meant to persuade the readers to support the upcoming school

budget. This sentence itself represent a violation of the CT Gen Statute 9-369b for using

public funds and electronic equipment to transmit communications in support of or

against municipal elections and budget referendums. This is the same violation Dr.

Chesley was found guilty of violating on October 29th, 2011 (SEEC File No. 2011-079)

6. Plaintiff (Exhibit 16) , a letter received from the New England Association of

Schools and Colleges dated April 19, 2001 which is the letter that Dr. Chesley stated in a

meeting to the public was received in 2003. The change of date on the letter, the plaintiff

alleges led to an intentional recreation of the Bethel High School accreditation and

renovation timeline. The plaintiff further alleges that the date change also led Defendant

Chesley to avoid communicating other critical communications that demonstrated the

High School had not lost accreditation, that in fact the accreditation of the high school

had not been in jeopardy at all as demonstrated in Plaintiffs (Exhibits 17 and 18)

7. Plaintiff (Exhibit 20) shows a letter that was sent home to all Bethel residents that

clearly misrepresents and misinterprets CT-Gen Statute 10-262i. The alleged

misrepresentation of the statute is confirmed in an email correspondence (Exhibit 21)

from CT State Senator Toni Boucher and Karen Flanagan, legal council at the state board

of education.

a. Also misrepresented in the mailer (exhibit 20) is the number of school

employees laid off. The misrepresentation is confirmed in a letter (Exhibit 22)

from Bethel Board of Education Fiscal Services Director, Ms. Teri Yonski.

13

b. Additionally, the mailer (exhibit 20) misrepresents spending cuts to the Board

of Education. Education funding that year was held flat, the town of Bethel gave

the board of education the same amount of money as the year prior.

8. Plaintiff (Exhibit 19) contains a section of the Connecticut Code of Professional

Responsibility for School Administrators. Plaintiff argues that the documentary evidence

herein demonstrates that defendant Chesley violated section d(1) “The professional

school administrator, in full recognition of the public trust vested in the education

profession, shall be cognizant of the influence of school administrators upon the

community at large and, therefore, not knowingly misrepresent facts or make false

statements.”

9. Plaintiff (Exhibit 14 CD - Electronic), is a DVD of an October 16, 2003 Board of

Education presentation by Defendant Knickerbocker and Chesley to the public. Smaller

clips of the presentation are included in (Exhibit 25) During this presentation Defendant

Knickerbocker states that school enrollment is expected to increase by hundreds of

students in the coming years. However, (Exhibit 27), a letter from the State of

Connecticut, Department of Education claims school and class enrollment was expected

to decrease (which in fact it has)– not increase as argued by Defendant Knickerbocker,

then Chairman of the Board of Education.

10. Plaintiff (Exhibit 28), a series of emails between Defendant Knickerbocker and

the plaintiff whereby defendant Knickerbocker admits to using the incorrect term

14

“academic probation” following his review of several video clips, included in (exhibit 25

CD- Electronic) the plaintiff provided for him.

a. Additionally in this email defendant Knickerbocker states “Academic Warning

is a black mark on the school and could prevent some kids from getting into top

colleges.” However, as demonstrated in email correspondences in (Exhibit 29), Yale,

Princeton, nor Western CT State University Admissions agrees that school accreditation

has an impact on college admissions. The plaintiff was unable to locate any accredited

university that used an applicants school accreditation status in deciding student

admission.

11. In a review of the Deposition notes of Defendant Chesley, Page 10, line 20. When

asked by the plaintiff if the defendant knew what “hate speech” was Defendant Chesley,

a highly educated and intellectual individual whom is tasked with the responsibility of

our communities education system stated: “I think it’s speech that tries to divide, tries to

name call” The plaintiff argues this definition was the defendants attempt to minimize the

severity of the accusation that the plaintiff used hate speech in his video.

12. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 13, defendant Chesley testifies that the

video does not endorse a candidate for political office, nor does the video make any

statements about a political office, upcoming elections, or who to vote for. As a result

the plaintiff argues that defendant Chesley had known prior to submitting the email that

the video was not a political campaign promotion as defendant Chesley had originally

stated in his alleged defamatory email.

13. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 15, also demonstrated that the

representatives from the Department of Defense did not state the video was a violation of

15

the military code of conduct, and further he admits that his wording may not have been

exactly right when accusing the plaintiff of violating the law and the military code of

conduct.

14. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 17, Chesley is unable to designate any

portion of the video that labels a person an “un-American liar” as claimed in his alleged

defamatory email.

15. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 17, Defendant Chesley is unable to recall

the “concerned citizen”, as described in his email, that “brought the video to his

attention”

16. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 18, Defendant Chesley is unable to identify

where the claim that the plaintiff used a Marine Corps Recruiting Video originated, nor is

he able to identify in the video any affirmation or use of the Marine Corps Logo or other

affirmation that led him to claim the video was a Marine Recruiting video as claimed in

his email.

17. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 19, bottom, continued to page 20 top,

following questions specific to the video content and his email, defendant Chesley states:

“you need to understand, this was such a minor part of my day, that it was like so

insignificant that I didn’t like stop and make note of it.” Plaintiff argues that the Video

itself was enough that the Superintendent of Schools did in fact stop to send an email to

Commander Mark Dwinells giving the commander the impression the video was a

campaign promotion, while also stopping at a later date to send the alleged defamatory

email out to the members of the board of education accusing the plaintiff of violating the

military code of conduct, using hate speech etc.

16

18. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 33-36, Defendant Chesley confirms the

plaintiff’s earlier allegations that Bethel High School never lost accreditation but was

rather on a “warning status.”

19. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 40, states the meeting contained on Exhibit

14 was to “make sure the students at Bethel High can get into college.” Plaintiff argues,

that a schools accreditation status has no bearing on a students chances of getting into

college as confirmed in (Exhibit 29)

20. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 41-50, Defendant Chesley is unable to

explain the dating and timeline discrepancy provided during his presentation (Exhibit 14

and 25) specific to correspondence with the accrediting agency. Plaintiff argues this

confirms the allegation that the dates of the correspondences described to the pubic were

intentionally altered to provide a false timeline of events specific to the High School

accreditation status.

21. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 50, Defendant states he is familiar with the

Code of Professional Responsibility for School Administrators.

22. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 54-56, Defendant states the definition of CT

Gen Statute 10-262i, as written on the town-mailer (exhibit 20) was obtained thought the

State Department of Education. Plaintiff argues that the interpretation Dr. Chesley used in

the mailer distributed to the residents of bethel was not the interpretation provided by the

Department of Education as discovered later on Page 55 and (Exhibit 21)

23. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 56, defense council, in reply to a request by

the plaintiff to produce the communication Defendant Chesley stated exisit specific to CT

Gen Stat 10-262i, defense council states: “we’ll produce it. If we are not able to produce

17

it, then we’ll let you know that too.” Plaintiff argues that the defense council has not

produced the information requested, nor have they informed me of the status of the

request.

24. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 51, states “Mrs Yonski provides the

information herself, which by the way, for the record, has been proven to be 100%

accurate” then on page 57 when asked about the information provided in the letter

specific to actual teacher lay offs, the plaintiff states “before you stated Terry Yonski has

a 100% accuracy rating; is that correct?” (Page 58) defendant Chesley states “I don’t

think I said that”

25. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page states that he was “never a co-defendant in a

sexual assault case” Which is in direct contradiction to a civil lawsuit filed in conjunction

with a criminal action, sexual assault claim in 1991 against the Colorado school district

where defendant Chesley worked. (Page 72) Dr Chesley then confirms in cross

examination that he was a party in the sexual assault civil action and further states he

“was the one who reported him to the police” and that he “was the one who brought in

the sheriff.” And “he was the one who took his keys” – Yet in the letter Defendant

Chesley sent to the parents at the schools, he claimed to have no prior knowledge of the

deans behavior, which is in direct contradiction to the police affidavit whereby Chesley

admitted to knowing about the deans problems and told the dean to get professional help.

26. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 61, when the defendant was asked: “were

you ever found guilty of trespassing and stealing campaign signs off people’s property”

he answered no. This is a direct contradiction to a 1992 incident when, then Assistant

Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Chesley along with his wife was caught steeling political

18

signs. As a result Chesley was issued a letter of censure by Cheshire Superintendent of

Schools, Dr. Ralph Wallace. The letter was placed in his personal files (Cheshire Herald:

November 7, 1996, page 1 & November 14th Page 1)

27. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 63, Defendant Chesley states “I just think

it’s silly” when referring to this civil action.

Plaintiff argues that the documentary evidence clearly demonstrate that defendant

Chesley made multiple contradictions while under oath. Furthermore the plaintiff argues

the content of the documentary evidence provides solid and credible evidence that the

alleged defamatory email sent from defendant Chesley was done out of malice and out of

motive to protect his credibility, job security and personal legacy from the type of

scrutiny the defendant had brought to the surface in his investigation.

IV Argument

1. The Elements of Libel are Present

The plaintiff argues that the email does contain all of the elements of Libel, and

furthermore that the Defense argument claiming political motivation is unfounded since

the plaintiff at no time prior to the distribution of the email was ever a political candidate

for any elected office.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff, as acting as his own attorney due to financial constraints, is not an

attorney and begs the court an opportunity to an open and fair trial where all relevant

evidence may be brought forth so that justice may prevail.

19

The plaintiff further argues that the defense has craftily taken out of context the

plaintiff’s perceived role in “politics” to strengthen their defense and deprive the plaintiff

use of our fair legal system.

The plaintiff argues that the evidence provided herein demonstrates the

defendants had a very strong and compelling motive to engage in the malicious type of

marginalization and assassination of the plaintiffs character that occurred in the

defendants email accusations that the plaintiff acted inappropriately, “used hate speech”,

“violated the military code of conduct” “acted against the law”.

For Defendant Chesley, the plaintiff contends, it was a matter of protecting his job

security, reputation and professional legacy.

For Defendant Knickerbocker, the plaintiff contends, it was a matter of protecting

his job security, reputation and his political future during his campaign for first selectman

that led him to ask Dr. Chesley “if there was some recourse to keep the plaintiff” from

creating the videos that had been critical of he and others in positions of public trust.

On the other hand, as demonstrated in (Exhibit 34) the plaintiff in this action had

no other motive than civic responsibility. After all, the plaintiff, a decorated veteran,

served honorably in the United States Marine Corps and swore, by God, to an oath to

uphold – protect – and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against

all enemies, foreign and domestic.

What precedent would our court system establish should it decide to ignore the

investigation, claims, evidence, and arguments of one of its defenders of her liberty?

The argument by the defense, to avoid trial, if upheld would establish precedent

which tells the next generation, the plaintiffs generation, to simply sit back and ignore the

20

escalation of corruption and continual misrepresentations by your elected leaders and

paid public servants.

It would be as if the courts were telling the few remaining people that care enough

to take it as far as the plaintiff has in this case that their concerns, their reputations, their

struggles and the very future of this great Republic are invalid.

What then? – What recourse, after this court, does the plaintiff in this action have

should this matter not be given a fair trial?

Respectfully Submitted,

Plaintiff/ Pro Se.

Daniel R. Gaita 121 Dodgingtown Rd Bethel, CT 06801 (203)-994-2987

21

22

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed this 27th day of October, 2011, to: LAW FIRM FOR DEFENDENT Jeffrey G. Schwartz Law Offices of Charles G Walker P.O. Box 2138 Hartford, CT 06145-2138 (860) 277-7480 LAW FIRM FOR OTHER DEFENDENT David McDonald, ESQ. O’Donnell McDonald & Cregeen, LLC 2452 Black Rock Turnpike, Suite 2 Fairfield, CT 06825

Respectfully Submitted, Daniel R. Gaita 121 Dodgingtown RD Bethel CT 06801 (203) 994-2987 Plaintiff, Pro Se