03 December 2015

KingCast v. Quincy MGL 66 10 Public Records Summary Judgment Memo and Affidavit: On Arbitrary and Capricious FEMA Land Use Denial at James Berlo Property.

Lawsuit Summary Judgment Reply: KingCast v. Quincy KingCast v. City of Quincy MGL 66 §10 Public Records Req...

Whoopsie.... Thyng v. Quincy $420K Jury Verdict.

You all know the story. From the Memorandum:

Here is some of the Bad Faith, including contradictory and false information from Margaret LaForest, coupled with the nasty and personally disparaging emails from Attorney Timmins own keystrokes below and at Appendix C herein. [1] To quote Timmins, people are being “subjected to nonsense and…. Clatter” even as Mr. Berlo rightly questioned the ability of a public officer to work for Quincy and another municipality.  Timmins goes on in a series of other emails to state that Mr. Berlo is “Beyond the beyond, and… does not know what he is talking about.”   He then states to Jay Duca that he “will work off of your lead.”

Significantly, instead of actually researching the law that became clear after the Jeb Killion FEMA emails (App B), Timmins abdicates all overview to the same set of people who just made the city incur liability in Thyng v. City of Quincy.  Uncanny. But there’s more:  He goes on to label Mr. Berlo – who was CORRECT according to FEMA – as “a crackpot.”

[1] These issues are not dispositive of this case, however the lies, obfuscation and contempt shown against Mr. Berlo do help define the scheme and level of Bad Faith and may rightfully be reviewed by a Trier of Fact – along with cross examination on Thyng v. City of Quincy – to determine punitive damages. At some point these people must learn a lesson.

1.              The Defendants admit at para 9 of their Answer and Affirmative Defenses that this is indeed a “simple matter.”
2.              Plaintiff concurs and states that the heart of the Complaint is readily discernable at paras 13 and 17 of the Complaint that read:

13: Since that time, on or about 19 October, 2015 Defendant Timmins willfully violated the Statute, in an action that is at once clearly ultra vires and arbitrary and capricious in nature, by demonstrating his contempt for the Statute:[1]

“….Here is my response to your email, to the extent a response is warranted:

The material you want from Jay Duca will cost a total of $55.60.  A check payable to the city of Quincy should be mailed or delivered to Jay Duca, Quincy Building Department, 55 Sea Street, Quincy MA 02169; and he will then produce the requested copies.

I will not be providing any “updates” on any matters…..”
 (emphasis added in case the Court can’t smell how foul this is to start with,
see generally Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 436 Mass. 378 (2002))

17: Further, they have refused to provide Plaintiff any updates to his Public Records Request when all he wanted was updates from 1 September, 2015 to 20 October, 2015.

The facts of paras 13 and 17 are not materially in dispute: The Defendants “object” to the characterizations in para 13 but cannot dispute the material facts involved, i.e. that Defendant Timmins wrote “I will not be providing any “updates” on any matters…..” and that they refused to provide updates…. Because otherwise we would not be here, would we?  Of course not. [2]

[1] For more proof of this assertion see further his attitude in condemning Mr. Berlo in Appendix C without ever even discussing the matter with him.
[2] For some reason Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses failed to address paras 14-21 in their entirety. Matters not denied are deemed admitted, but even if they were not, the Defendant cannot deny what Attorney Timmins wrote, i.e. “no updates.”  That’s really all the Court needs to know in order to make its judgment on the law; the rest of the facts and the Thyna case all go to bad faith and punitive damages that will be assessed by the Jury as contemplated by Plaintiff’s Jury Demand attached hereto.

No comments: