THE BALANCE OF POWER
and
ITS PATHOLOGY
by Timothy J. Muise
* * * * * * * *

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and when you combine this with
the above-the-law attitude of the Department of Correction you have the
ultimate "perfect storm" of failure and recidivism. What follows are a
couple of minor examples of how prisoners here in the Commonwealth can
work to shift that power and disrupt its evil pathology.
I do my best to file effective litigation when the gulag jackboots
get out of control; when that evil pathology becomes all too clear. I
recent had the rare opportunity to conduct "pro se" depositions where
I got to ask hours worth of questions of the superintendent, deputy
superintendent, and director of treatment here. Boy did that piss them
off and play a little role in "power shifting" here at the gulag; they
know they can't always hide out here in the woods of Shirley and that
sometimes they will be exposed. Check out the following letter from
Department of Corruption attorney David J. Rentsch which must have
pained him to author as he zealously opposed my motion to conduct the
pro se depositions.
These depositions angered Attorney Rentsch so much that he filed a
foolhearty Motion for a Protective Order through which he sought to
inhibit my legal rights in my current civil action. Thank God the Court
saw him for the true charlatan that he is. Any lawyer who would work for
the low wages and low-level experience of the DOC Legal Division was
certainly not at the top of his law class. The Court DENIED his motion
and what follows is a copy of the opposition I filed to that foolhearty
motion.
The bottom line here is that the current state of the prison system
here in the Commonwealth is that it "creates" crime. Men come in low
level offenders, are treated with such disdain and abuse that they are
too angry to change for the better - only the worse, and then are set
free onto the streets of your cities and towns. Prison/gulag staffers
do not believe we can change and feel they are here to "punish" us, not
rehabilitate us. That is not what the law calls for so I must use that
same law to hold them accountable.
Please read what follows and offer me your opinion? Help us to change
the evil pathology of power which permeates the current prison system.

FIGHT THE POWER!!!

"If you want to see the dregs of humanity and scum of the earth
go down to your local prison and watch the changing of the guard."
Samuel Clemons/Mark Twain

Timothy J. Muise, W66927
MCI ShirleyWorld
Box 1218
Shirley, MA 01464-1218

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
Department of Correction
Legal Division
70 Franklin St,. Suite 600
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1327

Tel: (617-727-3300 Ext. 1124)
www.mass.gov/doc

June 24, 2015

Timothy J. Muise (W66927)
MCI-Shirley Medium
P.O. Box 1218
Shirley, MA 01464

RE: Muise v. Ryan, et al.
SUCV2014-03452-A

Dear Mr. Muise:

Pursuant to the court's order in this case allowing you to take
depositions of Kelly Ryan, Karen DiNardo, and Christine Larkin, we
will agree to make these witnesses available on Wednesday, July 15,
2015, beginning at 9 a.m. at MCI-Shirley. The DOC will provide a tape
recorder and tapes for this purpose. Per the court order, each
deposition may last no more than two (2) hours. A notary public will
be present at the start of each deposition to administer the oath to
the witness.

Please confirm your agreement to this date and time.

Sincerely,

David J. Rentsch
Associate General Counsel

cc: Kelly Ryan, Superintendent
Karen DiNardo, Deputy Superintendent
Christine Larkin, Director of Treatment

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL DIVISION
No. 14-03452-A

TIMOTHY J. MUISE, pro se,
plaintiff,

Vs.

KELLY RYAN & KAREN DINARDO,
defendants,

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, Timothy J. Muise, acting pro se, who does
herein OPPOSE the defendant's "Motion For A Protective Order" filed on
September 4, 2015. As compelling grounds for this opposition the pro se
plaintiff offers the following;

1. Such a protective order is fully and totally unnecessary as the
Court has already agreed to extend the discovery deadline to October
15, 2015, thus affording tacit approval that further discovery may be
required.

2. Such a protective order is fully and totally unnecessary as the
defendant's clearly display that the plaintiff has only asked a total
of fifteen (15) interrogatories of each of the named defendants and
this is not overly burdensome.

3. Such a protective order is fully and totally unnecessary as the
defendant's offer that "Both the second and third sets of interrogatories
are redundant in that they contain many of the very same questions that
were asked at the depositions." (Defendant's motion page 2, No. 5), but

(1)

do not provide any transcript of those depositions supporting their
redundancy claim. They attach the plaintiff's legitimate interrogatory
questions, but fail to attach a transcript of the depositions.

4. The plaintiff sought to have the depositions transcribed at no
cost but the defendant's opposed that motion. The Court denied the motion
and the plaintiff had to secure the evidence through his third set of
interrogatories upon both named defendants. The plaintiff can only offer
that the only logical reason the defendants would oppose transcription
of the depositions is that those depositions contain evidence they do
not want revealed.

5. Such a protective order is fully and totally unnecessary as the
Honorable Court has ORDERED that a Superior Court Rule 9(C) "Discovery
Conference" be held before the Court and any outstanding discovery issues
can be resolved at that hearing/conference.

6. Such a protective order should not be granted as the defendants
have not displayed the required element of Mass.R.Civ.P., Rule 26(c)(1)
thru (7). Nowhere in this rule does it allow for a protective order for
"redundancy". nor does Rule 26 bar more than one form of discovery. It
is clear to the plaintiff that the defendants simply do want to comply
with his legitimate discovery requests as they have failed to respond
to such legitimate requests that were filed even before the depostions
that were conducted.

7. Such a protective order must not be granted as the defendants have
asked for a jury trial in this matter and in order for the plaintiff to
prove his very complicated civil rights case he must be allowed to
conduct zealous and effective discovery. The plaintiff is a pro se
prisoner litigant unskilled in the law has been placed in a position to
try his case in front of a jury. As such the plaintiff needs to conduct
such legitimate discovery efforts as he has been doing. A protective
order would be unreasonable in this matter.

8. The plaintiff has made legitimate claims of suppression of his
free speech in his original complaint. He has also alleged retaliation
for the exercise of that protected right. The defendant's request for
(2)

a protective order is just another example of how they attempt to
silence the plaintiff's voice in complaining about conditions of
confinement through the courts and other uses of protected free speech.
The defendant's overreaction to minimal discovery requests is indicative
of that attitude of suppression and denial of access to the courts. If
the plaintiff was an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union
I am certain there would be a much more extensive volley of discovery
requests in order to prevail at a jury trial. I am also certain that
the defendants, through counsel, would not seek such a protective order
against the ACLU. The plaintiff must offer that it is his prisoner
status, and the defendant's "how dare he" attitude, that compel such
unnecessary treatment. The defendant's abhor the plaintiff's exercise
of his constitutional rights and that, at its beating heart, is what
this case is about.

9. As supportive exhibits for this opposition the plaintiff offers
the following documents;

-Exhibit "A": Docket Entry Sheet, Page 1, showing extended discovery
deadline of October 15, 2015.

-Exhibit "B": Defendant's Response to the Plaintiff's Motion for
Transcription of Audio Depositions (2 pages).

-Exhibit "C-1" & "C-2": Margin Rulings ALLOWING Discovery
Conference, and

-Exhibit "D": Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order.

10. The plaintiff must stress that he has an uphill battle at a
jury trial to prove his complicated civil rights/access to the courts
case. The defendants were resistant to some questions designed to prove
the retaliations claims at the depositions. In order to prove retaliation
the plaintiff has the burden to show a "chronology of event" which show
motives to be in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional
right; in this matter at bar complaints about conditions of confinement.
As such the plaintiff puts forth the proposition that the purported need
for a protective order is merely a Trojan horse containing a scheme to

(3)

inhibit the plaintiff from obtaining evidence that will prove this
retaliation at trial before a jury. The rules of discovery are not
in place for such legally abhorant schemes, quite the contrary, the
rules of discovery are in place to allow zealous discovery in order
for a plaintiff to be able to prove his/her case as well as for a
defendant to defend theirs.

11. The defendants also make an untenable claim concerning "personal
opinion" which cannot be sustained. The defendants are being sued in
both their "personal" and "professional" capacities and any testimony
will be credited to both. They are not "laypersons" when it comes to
conditions of confinement as they are both DOC employees duty charged
to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners and any Mass. Guide
to Evidence, Section 701 (2014) interpretation must consider these
defendants non-laypersons. Justice Liacos would cringe at such an
application, that of deeming these defendants "laypersons", as the
Rules of Evidence he wisely constructed always protect constitutional
rights; even the constitutional rights of prisoners that have not been
"left at the prison gate."

WHEREFORE, in light of the compelling grounds offered herein, the
pro se plaintiff prays that the Honorable Court DENY the defendant's
Motion for a Protective Order.

Dated: September 11, 2015
Timothy J. Muise, pro se
PO Box 1218
Shirley, MA
01464-1218

(4)