NO CV 09 5008537 A NO.

CV 09 5008537 A DANIEL R GAITA DANBURY VS: GARY CHESLEY, ET AL

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : AT DANBURY : DECEMBER 1, 2011

PLAINTIFFS AMENDED TRIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT The undersigned Plaintiff respectfully files this Amended Trial Management Report in compliance with Honorable Judge William Wenzels direction given November 28,2011. Supporting electronic and documentary evidence referred to in this report has been filed with the court on November 28, 2011. 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 17 2009, by Defendant, Bethel School Superintendent, Dr. Gary Chesley, that a video which the plaintiff created July 20 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 27 2009 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 13 2009 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

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

life, as recorded through the Town Clerk of Bethel, CT on SEEC Form 1, October 15, 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 21 2009 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, 10 seconds 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 Superintendent of School, Defendant Chesley, and then Chairman of the Bethel Board of Education and 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 time prior to 2004 as

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

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 argues that the entirety of his evidence as attached hereto will clearly demonstrate that the defendants in this action

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

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, taxpayers 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 Bachelors Degree, Masters Degree and an Ed. D. He is responsible for our entire public education system in Bethel CT, 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. In 1991 Dr. Chesley, 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 Dean of Students, Mr. James M. Davis was arrested for sexually assaulting one of his male students during an overnight trip after 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 a student living with him and that Dr. Chesley had spoken to Davis about the allegations (of sexual relations with students) and

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

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 Mr. Davis worked together for nine years in the Parkway School District where similar allegations against Mr. Davis arose. Dr. Chesley encouraged Davis to join him at the Eaglecrest School. The actions above lead parents and student to react with horror according to one press article published in the Denver Post, May 25 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 Mr. Davis in St. Louis and failed and omitted to warn them. Dr. Chesley was one of the administrators with direct knowledge of Mr. Davis past behaviors as demonstrated in his affidavit. In 1992, following discovery of the prior extramarital affair and the finalized conviction of Mr. 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. Chesleys new employment contract. Dr. Chesley later sued the district for $68,000 but was only awarded $10,000. In 1992, then Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Chesley along with his wife was caught stealing political signs. As a result Dr. Chesley was issued a letter of censure by Cheshire CT Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Ralph Wallace. The letter was placed in his personal files (Cheshire Herald: November 7, 1996, page 1 & November 14 1996 Page 1) In August 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).

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

As recently as October 19 2011 Dr. Chesley was ruled in violation of CT General 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 Dr. 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 an upstanding citizen absent the criminal allegations made against him by Defendant Dr. Chesley. III Documentary Evidence 1. In rebuttal - to the claims of the defense council documentary evidence claimed to exist

in the plaintiffs deposition 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 is actually stated by the plaintiff during testimony, as shown on page 121 is: Actually, I submitted my entire curriculum, letters of recommendations and credentials packet to the Democratic Town Committee Chairperson Alice Hutchinson.

a. Furthermore, on (page 122) the plaintiff makes it very clear that the reason for submitting his 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 Selectmans office and the Town Clerks Office. Never was it the intention of the plaintiff to

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

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 Dr. 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) 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.

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

b. The title of the Video I tried to warn you is based on the song playing in the background by Linkin 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 5-8) demonstrate Defendant Dr. 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 CT residents between 2001 and 2002

whereby defendants Knickerbocker and Chesley address the high school as regaining full accreditation. However, none of Bethel CT schools as of that date had ever lost accreditation. Furthermore, the final sentence demonstrates that the laudatory language used in the letter was meant to persuade the readers to support the upcoming school budget. This sentence itself represents a violation of the CT General 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 Defendant Dr. Chesley was found guilty of on October 19th, 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 Defendant 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

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

plaintiff further alleges that the date change also led Defendant Dr. Chesley to avoid communicating other critical communications that demonstrated Bethel High School had not lost accreditation, that in fact the accreditation of Bethel 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 CT residents that

clearly misrepresents and misinterprets CT General 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. b. Additionally, the mailer (Exhibit 20) misrepresents spending cuts to the Bethel 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 Dr. 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.

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

9.

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

Education presentation by Defendant Knickerbocker and Defendant Dr.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 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 Dr. Chesley, Page 10, line 20. When

asked by the plaintiff if the defendant knew what hate speech was Defendant Dr. Chesley, a highly educated and intellectual individual whom is tasked with the responsibility of our communitys education system stated: I think its speech that tries to divide, tries to name call

10

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

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

from the Department of Defense did not state the video was a violation of 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, at the bottom and 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 didnt like stop and make note of it.

11

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

Plaintiff argues that the video itself was enough that the Superintendent of Schools did in fact stop to consult with Lt. Commander Mark Dwinnells, also sent an email to Commander Mark Dwinells giving the commander the impression the video was a campaign promotion, and again 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. Therefore the Plaintiff contends the testimony provided by Defendant Dr. Chesley was false, another lie. 18. Defendant Chesleys deposition, (Pages 33-36) Defendant Chesley confirms the plaintiffs

earlier allegations that Bethel High School never lost accreditation but was rather on a warning status. This statement by Defendant Chesley confirms the plaintiffs continued allegations that Defendant Dr. Chesley did in fact misinform voters, parents and students regarding the specifics of the Bethel High School Acretidation. 19. Defendant Chesleys deposition, Page 40, states the meeting contained on (Exhibit 14)

was to make sure the students at Bethel High could 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 public were intentionally altered to provide a false timeline of events specific to the High School accreditation status. 21. Defendant Chesleys deposition (Page 50) Defendant Dr. Chesley states he is familiar

with the Code of Professional Responsibility for School Administrators.

12

NO CV 09 5008537 A 22.

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

Defendant Chesleys deposition (Page 54-56) Defendant states the definition of CT

General Statute 10-262i, as written on the town-mailer (exhibit 20) was obtained from the State Department of Education. However, 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 exist specific to CT General Statute 10-262i, defense council states: well produce it. If we are not able to produce it, then well let you know that too. Plaintiff argues that the defense council has not produced the information requested, nor have they informed him of the status of the request. 24. Defendant Chesley deposition (Page 51) states: Mrs. Yon ski 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 Dr. Chesley states, I dont think I said that. 25. Defendant Chesleys deposition (Page 60) 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 Dr. 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

13

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

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 Dr. 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 peoples 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 stealing political signs. As a result Chesley was issued a letter of censure by Cheshire CT 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 its 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 with 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.

14

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

IV Argument 1. The Elements of Libel are Present The plaintiff argues that the alleged defamatory 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 argues that the defense has craftily taken out of context the plaintiffs 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 alleged 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

15

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

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.

In short, the plaintiff contends that it was political motive on the part of the Defendants to Defame the Plaintiff, rather than any political motive by the Plaintiff. After all, the Plaintiff was not running for elected office at that time nor any other time prior to the alleged defamatory email. Furthermore, the natural question one would ask is: Why is the Superintendent of Bethel Public Schools injecting himself into the perceived political debate that he himself asserted exists in the Plaintiffs video? What part of Defendant, Dr. Chesleys job description authorizes the type of activity that took place leading up to and including the transmission of the alleged defamatory email? Why did Defendant Dr. Chesley take part in what he called a political campaign

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?

16

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

The argument by the defense, accusing the plaintiff of political motivation, if upheld would establish precedent which tells the next generation, the plaintiffs generation, to simply sit back and ignore the 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 just consideration?

PLAINTIFF, Daniel R. Gaita, Pro Se

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

17

NO CV 09 5008537 A

Plaintiffs Amended Trial Management Report

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed this 1st day of December 2011, too: LAW FIRM FOR DEFENDENT Jeffrey G. Schwartz Law Offices of Charles G Walker P.O. Box 2138 Hartford, CT 06145-2138 (860) 277-7480

Respectfully Submitted,

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

18