17006 11TH Avenue
Shoreline, WA 98155


CASE No. 15-01392




In his Individual and Official Capacities,
1305 Hancock St.,
Quincy, MA 02169




PER MGL 66 §10

General Issues.

The Defendants have replied with an opposition Memorandum that
fails to address the meat of the matter, the heart of the issue. The
Defendants prattle on about misunderstandings about what
documents that State Actors sent to Plaintiff, but in reality there is
and was no ongoing dispute over any documents received to date.


No, the issue concerns that which is identified by Defendants’ own
Exhibit E, an email from Plaintiff in which he specifically tells
Defendants, by and through Counsel:
2. I expect an update including any and all emails that Mr. Berlo has
sent to you or any other city official since 1 September 2015…..”



Again, 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. (emphasis added)
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
As we all know, Plaintiff then went on to cite relevant law on the matter
including: Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police, 436 Mass.
378, 382-383 (2002). The statute expresses the Legislature's considered
judgment that “[t]he public has an interest in knowing whether public

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 Thyng 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.


servants are carrying out their duties in an efficient and law-abiding manner.”
Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 158 (1979). “Greater
access to information about the actions of public officers and institutions is
increasingly . . . an essential ingredient of public confidence in government.”
New Bedford Standard-Times Publ. Co. v. Clerk of Court, 377 Mass. 404, 417
Again, against that backdrop let us move on to the indicia of Bad Faith
where the laymen – in their purported expertise – lied to their counselor
about just about everything and to Mr. Berlo by not providing a relevant
email from a FEMA employee about the Velocity Zone (App B)(Appendix A
herein) and by continuing to assert that a distinguishing issue is based on
assessed value when it is in actuality MARKET VALUE. As Mr. Berlo wrote
recently in an email shared with Plaintiff:
From: James Berlo <>
Date: November 4, 2015 at 5:55:48 AM PST
To: "" <>
Cc: Christopher King <>
Subject: "Substantial Improvement"
Dear Councilor’ for you & your friends information FEMA’s 50% substantial improvement is based
on the MARKET value NOT “Assessed” value , I Paid $172,000 therefore $86,000 would be the
cost I would have to exceed and is over a third more than even Mr. Duca’s personal arbitrary
estimate ( doubling my own) I would have to be quite extravagant to reach $86,000.
Also My Neighbors did not express concern over my House being a “Blighted Property” ( maybe
only two did who both work for & have benefitted by their association with this administration) In
fact they approached me wanting to start a Petition against City Officials that have been
determined to make & keep it a “Blighted” Property.
They only complain to me about, for example a Neighbor who has built an Out-House
( Cabana)with Utilities without Zoning, Permits or Notifications , and has taken large tracts of
Public Land and filled in a Marsh (Wetland) I do not care about this but you should , But what is
so concerning is the inordinate attention My House has gotten since day one where there is and
has been others with Sea Side Property subject to harassment & abuse by City Officials that
ended in Litigation.
There seems to be a Pattern here which should concern you and warrant more attention than
trying to prevent me from Living in the House that I own entirely.
Like basic City services, why should I have to clean up the Garbage from Illegal Dumping next to
My House that went on for years?


which would include the deliberate miscalculation that Margaret LaForest and
Jay Duca and others used when calculating whether Mr. Berlo’s property was
subject to FEMA regulations. They used Appraisal Value when it is clearly
Market Value.

From the Complaint:
Defendant LaForest failed to send Mr. Berlo an email from FEMA
Director Jeb Killion to her, that explained that Mr. Berlo is not
subject to FEMA regulations because he owns his own home
outright and he is not in a velocity zone and does not meet
substantial improvement criteria. Appendix B.
Margaret LaForest knows as much and she told the general
populous that much in a letter dated but yet she told Plaintiff a
different story as once can see in movies #1 and #2 in para 18 and
at Appendix B (omitted in this Reply)……

B.The Timmins Affidavit.
Plaintiff has reviewed the Timmins Affidavit and notes that it fails to
address the fact that there are undoubtedly responses still owed. The
Affidavit swears that Plaintiff sought documents on 3 September 2015
(Timmins Aff para 3). The Affidavit states further that there was clarification
made on September 10, and that Jay Duca responded (Timmins Aff paras 45).
The Affidavit is silent as to the date of Duca’s response however, and
therein lies the crux of the matter: The Duca response, identifying which
documents response was issued by Jay Duca on or about 21 September,
2015, with Plaintiff responding to him on or about 23 September, 2015. See
Appendix B. That means that any documents or emails relating to these


matters after 21 September, 2015 never were provided to Plaintiff, despite
his repeated attempts to collect such documents, i.e. “I expect an update
including any and all emails that Mr. Berlo has sent to you or any other city
official since 1 September 2015…..”3

Moreover, it is worth noting that James Fatseas incorrectly stated he
did not have responsive documents not once but twice, one such occasion
being memorialized on 16 September 2015 in this YouTube video:
“Quincy Officials, Margaret LaForest Withheld FEMA Email from Homeowner
in Build Permit Abuse.”

3 Obviously if there are duplicative emails between 1 September and 21 September
there is no need to resubmit those. But any documents after 21 September to
October 20 must be produced, and documents missed -- such as possible responses
from the Mayor’s office as Mr. Berlo specifically requested to speak with him – must
be must be produced. Plaintiff submits that it is fairly simple indeed.


It turns out however that Mr. Fatseas was specifically copied on an email in
which he demanded to speak to the Mayor, and was denied:

Also relevant is the October 26 2015 email to Defendant Timmins in which he
clarifies what he wants and notes that Jay Duca was slow to provide the first
set of sought materials:
From: Christopher King <>
Date: October 26, 2015 at 8:07:53 AM PDT
Cc:,, Jduca@quincyma
.gov,,, jfatseas@quincyma.go
Subject: Final email on outstanding Public Information Requests
before litigation.
Dear Attorney Timmins:
I see you are apparently standing your ground on not providing any of the
sought materials since September 1, 2015. Suit yourself, pun fully intended.
I look forward to flying out there to run video when we have our first court
hearing, as well as Mr. Berlo's litigation. Stay tuned for the lawsuit you'll
have a copy of this in a day or two and then it will be filed.


Because as I told you before, I'm not here to, ummmm, play around. Just ask
the Boston Herald after I found Joanna Marinova her Counsel. Herald. lawyers
said they liked my blog. It's all in the video but below I've got it closedcaptioned for the hearing impaired.
Also, it has been a week or so since Mr. Berlo tendered his monies for the first
Public Information Request.
He still doesn't have anything from Jay Duca.


Plaintiff submits that it is and was always fairly clear where he is
coming from, and further asserts that Attorney Timmins is waking up to smell
the coffee as well, after years of the sort of deception that landed the City in
so much disfavor in Thyng:
This truly is “a simple matter.” Plaintiff asked for public documents,
principally a series of emails produced by employees who have the power to
unlawfully withhold build permits…. employees who have been highly
questioned and found liable in their individual capacities for exactly such
conduct in the Thyng case.
In return, he got dilatory responses and no documents responsive to
“any and all emails that Mr. Berlo (or Plaintiff) has sent to you or any other
city official since 1 September 2015…..” and their internal emails relative
thereto (subject to the demarcation set forth in Fn3, supra). He now demands
production of same and all fees, costs and punitive damages to be assessed
by a Competent Jury of appropriate composition.
Respectfully submitted,





On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Christopher King
Dear Mr. Duca:
I will advise you by Monday as to what documents we are ordering.
Also in addition to these documents, surely you have emails and
other correspondence and notes as Mr. Berlo, Ms. LaForest and
others emailed you and vice versa I'm sure. And I've still heard
nothing from the Mayor's office, which is problematic of course
because in the email that Mr. Fatseas did not find, Mr. Berlo clearly
demanded to speak with the Mayor.
Please advise on or before Monday.
Hi Mr. King,
We looked through our ISD file system including archives and emails
found the following documents for the
46 Terne Street Property (Breggren) and 20 Prescott Terrace
property (Berlo)
as follows:
46 Terne
15 emails
250 8.5 x 11 pages
13 large 2'x3' pages
20 Prescott
78 8.5 x 11 pages
80 emails
I estimate the cost for our lowest paid individual to prepare the
for copying (pulling files, removing staples etc) is
$19.32 x 4 hours = $77.28
328x .20 pp (small) = $65.60


105 emails (printed)x.50= $52.50
13 pp (large) x $3.00 = $39.00
Total Estimate to produce copies = $234.38
You or an attorney or designee may also choose to review the files
at our
office during regular business hours at no cost.
Please advise
Jay Duca


I the undersigned, swear that a true and accurate copy of this Reply
was served, via tracked U.S. Mail, to Defendants at:
City Solicitor’s Office
Quincy Town Hall
1305 Hancock Street
Quincy, MA 02169
with a Courtesy Copy in the name of Justice, Public Decency and
Transparency to:
Hon. Paul D. Wilson
Suffolk County Courthouse
13th Floor
Three Pemberton Square
Boston, MA 02108
and to
The World Wide Web
This 19th day of January 2016
Christopher King, J.D.