Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`Matthew Power
`
`60 Humphrey Street, Apt 2
`Swampscott, Massachusetts 01907
`781-267-4773
`Pro Se
`
`MATTHEW POWER
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`CONNECTWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES,INC.,
`
`FIleEn
`iN CLER. s OFFICE
`INE os a
`2022
`-6
`DEC
`6
`AM |I: 55
`U.S, DISTR> pann
`DISTRIOT CF necaatl
`HAS,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
`OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`4.
`
`
`
`RUBBER
`BEAULIEU,
`
`STAMP CHAMP,_INC.,
`ANCHOR RUBBER STAMP
`& PRINTING CO., INC., THE
`J.P. COOKE COMPANY,and
`GOOGLE,LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY
`
`MOTION
`
`Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court that Plaintiff did not willfully violate any order of
`
`the Court. Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and as such, he is denied access to the ECF system, which
`
`immediately notifies attorneys of, inter alia, the rulings of motions of this Court. Plaintiff could
`
`not have violated the Order on Defendants’ Emergency Motion (Dkt No. 76) willfully, because
`
`due to the delay of United States Postal Service, Plaintiff was unaware that this Court had made a
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`Matthew Power
`
`60 Humphrey Street, Apt 2
`Swampscott, Massachusetts 01907
`781-267-4773
`Pro Se
`
`MATTHEW POWER
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`CONNECTWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES,INC.,
`
`FIleEn
`iN CLER. s OFFICE
`INE os a
`2022
`-6
`DEC
`6
`AM |I: 55
`U.S, DISTR> pann
`DISTRIOT CF necaatl
`HAS,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
`OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`4.
`
`
`
`RUBBER
`BEAULIEU,
`
`STAMP CHAMP,_INC.,
`ANCHOR RUBBER STAMP
`& PRINTING CO., INC., THE
`J.P. COOKE COMPANY,and
`GOOGLE,LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY
`
`MOTION
`
`Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court that Plaintiff did not willfully violate any order of
`
`the Court. Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and as such, he is denied access to the ECF system, which
`
`immediately notifies attorneys of, inter alia, the rulings of motions of this Court. Plaintiff could
`
`not have violated the Order on Defendants’ Emergency Motion (Dkt No. 76) willfully, because
`
`due to the delay of United States Postal Service, Plaintiff was unaware that this Court had made a
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`rulingatall, let alone a ruling favoring Defendants in part. Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Order in
`
`its entirety on groundsthatit is plainly unconstitutional, and that it harms both Defendants and
`
`Plaintiff, making compliance impossible without costing thousandsof dollars to each party and
`
`wasting precious court resources and time. In support of this Motion,Plaintiff states as follows:
`
`1. On November 9, 2022, Defendants Connectweb Technologies, Inc., Michael Beaulieu,
`
`Paul Beaulieu, and Rubber Stamp Champ,Inc. (collectively, the “Movants”) filed an
`
`Emergency Motion (Dkt No. 73) seeking to stop Plaintiff from, inter alia, posting
`
`allegedly defamatory statements about Defendants on his website.
`
`A hearing on the Motion was held on November17, 2022 at 3pm,just hoursafter Plaintiff
`
`had been notified by postal mail of the hearing that very day.
`
`Plaintiff anticipated that the ruling on the Emergency Motion would only prohibit
`
`communication betweenparties pertaining to this case that was not through pleadings
`
`filed with this Court, not a complete ban on communication that would affect other cases
`
`currently before other courts involving one or more of the sameparties.
`
`Before having knowledgethata ruling was issued, Plaintiff sent two emails to Ken
`
`Parker, the counsel for Connectweb Technologies, Inc., regarding subpoenas and
`
`depositions for a criminal case, in which Attorney Ken Parker would be a witness, and an
`
`upcomingcivil case, in which Ken Parker would be a defendant.
`
`In addition, on November21, 2022, Plaintiff received two notifications from the United
`
`States Postal Service saying that two letters had not been delivered and would be available
`
`the next day at the post office. Upon receiving the tracking numbers and determining the
`
`original mailing locations of eachletter, Plaintiff sent another email to Ken Parker, asking
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`if one of the letters was sent from him, and Plaintiff stated that he had to assumethat the
`
`other one- originating from Boston, MA - must have been from the Court and was the
`
`ruling of the Emergency Motion.
`
`. Despite having knowledgethat Plaintiff was unaware that a ruling had been issued and
`
`Plaintiff had not received the ruling by postal mail to read its conditions, Attorney Ken
`
`Parkerfiled a Motion (Dkt No. 77) claiming that Plaintiff was in violation of the Court’s
`
`November18 Order (Dkt No. 76); a copy of the new motion was postmarked on
`
`November 22, 2022, before Plaintiff had even received a copy ofthe ruling of the
`
`previous Motion by mail.
`
`. On November22, 2022, Plaintiff received the ruling by postal mail; Plaintiff has not
`
`attempted to communicate with the Defendants or their counsel from that date forward, in
`
`obedienceto the court order, despite issues with the overly broad wording of the ruling.
`
`. The wording of the Order on Defendants’ Emergency Motion is overly broad,
`
`inconsistent, and unconstitutional in at least two places. Prohibiting ANY communication
`
`between Plaintiff and Defendants, or between Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants,
`
`would obstruct justice and would itself be unconstitutional as due process demandsthat a
`
`defendantbe able to confront his accuser (Sixth Amendmentto the Constitution); a pro se
`
`defendant must be able to communicate effectively with witnesses, especially accusers,
`
`prior to and duringtrial and to gather evidence from document subpoenas for useat trial.
`
`Plaintiff is currently awaiting arraignment for a criminal charge that was based on a report
`
`by Attorney Ken Parker where hecast a false light over Plaintiff while at the same time
`
`providing a financial incentive to the Swampscott Police Departmentto target Plaintiff in
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`such a way to make him physically unable to attend an important hearing for this Court,
`
`which would favor Ken Parker’s client. Plaintiff must be able to depose Ken Parker as a
`
`witnessin that case, but he is currently prohibited by this ruling as it stands.
`
`Secondly, the order to “not publish ANY further personal information about the
`
`Defendants or their principals on the internet while this matter remains pending”
`
`(emphasis mine) is unconstitutional as it restricts Plaintiff's freedom of speech
`
`guaranteed to him by the First Amendmentto the Constitution; it is also overly broad, in
`
`that it restricts Plaintiff's ability to report abuses of the Defendants to the appropriate
`
`authorities and state agencies who requested that personal information about the
`
`Defendants be submitted on their respective websites on the internet. Plaintiff tacitly
`
`agreed that he would be amenable to not posting personal information about the
`
`Defendantsor their principals on his own website. Note that Defendants’ Motion was
`
`denied in part, because ordering Plaintiff to take down any information posted to his own
`
`website was unconstitutional and a violation of the same First Amendmentrights; the
`
`ruling is therefore inconsistent with itself: if it is unconstitutional to demandPlaintiff to
`
`take down the information,it is likewise unconstitutional to prevent Plaintiff from
`
`uploading that same information. Plaintiff did not waive his First Amendmentright to
`
`freedom of speech nor agree to not post any information about the Defendants on the
`
`internet in general, which would include private email messages between Plaintiff and law
`
`firms; the private email messages to those law firms are generally sent via a form on the
`
`law firms’ websites, which is submitted on the internet. Dueto this order, the Plaintiff
`
`cannot comply with the requests of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to turn
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5of9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`over information relating to the data breach affecting thousands of federal employees,
`
`including over 14,000 membersofthe United States military; the Plaintiff likewise cannot
`
`assist the FBI concerning their investigation into Connectweb Technologies,Inc.
`
`regarding criminal copyright infringement. It could not have been the intention ofthis
`
`Court to silence a key witness for the FBI andall 50 states as they pursue the Defendants
`
`for failing to notify their citizens of the data breaches of their personal and financial
`
`information, but that is the effect of the Order as it stands.
`
`10.
`
`Theruling of this Court ignores the grievances raised by Plaintiff concerning the
`
`overlapping of customers shared between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff is the owner
`
`and/or operator of approximately 150 businesses, from which he takes no income or
`
`extremely little incometotaling a few dollars per year. The companies which the Plaintiff
`
`ownscollectively have hundreds of millions of customers and hundreds of thousands of
`
`employees; there are approximately 3 million customers involvedin this suit who are the
`
`subject of the Order who mayalso be customers or employees of oneofthe Plaintiff's
`
`businesses.
`
`11.
`
`To restrict Plaintiff's ability to compete by requiring a 14-day notice before contacting
`
`any customer shared between Plaintiff and any one of the 3 million customersof the
`
`Defendants does not only ensure a monopolyto Plaintiff's competitors, butis itself
`
`unconstitutional, as it also restricts Plaintiff's free speech with neighbors, friends, local
`
`businesses, law firms, potential employers, and potential or existing clients. The wording
`
`of the ruling is as follows, “The plaintiffshall give the defendants at least 14 days
`
`advance notice before contacting any ofthe defendants’ customers...” To comply with
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 6 of 9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`this overly broad Order, the Plaintiff must contact no one for fear that he might
`
`inadvertently violate the Order, as the customers of the Defendants are 1 out of every 100
`
`people in the United States. For example, for Plaintiff to order a single cup of coffee at a
`
`coffee shop, he would have to ensure that the barista is not also a customerof any of the
`
`Defendants in this case; to ensure that, he would have to ask for all the customer records
`
`from the counsel for the Defendants, but he cannot because heis forbidden from any
`
`direct communication with Defendants or their counsel outside of a pleading filed with
`
`this Court, so he would haveto file a motion and wait weeksfor a decision; then, in the
`
`unlikely event that discovery of the customerlists would not be opposed by defense
`
`counsel, he would haveto use a third-party to ask the barista her full name and addressto
`
`verify whether she is a customer of any of the Defendants; and then once he determines
`
`that she is listed among the customers of the Defendants, he must give a 14-day notice to
`
`Defendants by filing a motion with this Court, before he could order a single cup of
`
`coffee. It could not be the intention of this Court or even the intention of the Defendants
`
`to restrict Plaintiff's free speech in such a novel and extreme wayasto limit almost any
`
`contact with any other person in the United States, but that is the chilling effect of the
`
`Orderas it stands.
`
`12.
`
`In order to comply withthis ruling as it stands, Plaintiff is ready to provideaninitial list
`
`of over 2 million of the approximately 300 million customers of his businesses and seeks
`
`this Court’s advice in how to submit a list of this size to the Court Clerk without access to
`
`the ECF system,so that this Court or the Defendants can determine which shared
`
`customers cannot be contacted by Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 7 of 9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter a further order as follows:
`
`1.) Vacate the Order dated November 18, 2022 (Dkt No. 76)in its entirety.
`
`2.) Reinstate Local Rule 7.1.
`
`3.) Grant Plaintiff equal access to the same ECF system used by otherparties to this action,
`
`in orderto file documents electronically and to receive timely notifications rulings and of
`
`documents filed by other parties until Plaintiff is appointed counsel.
`
`4.) Appoint an attorney to represent Plaintiff in this case, who specializes in copyright
`
`infringement of software, who will communicate with defense counselin Plaintiff's stead
`
`to ensure civility between parties.
`
`5.) In the event that the November 18, 2022 Order (Dkt No. 76) is not vacated in its entirety,
`
`provide guidance on the submittal of 2 million customerrecords for the Defendants to
`
`cross-reference to determine if any customers are shared to avoid an inadvertent violation
`
`of an order of this Court.
`
`6.) In the event that the November 18, 2022 Order (Dkt No. 76) is not vacated in its entirety,
`
`issue a subpoena to each town andcity in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to compel
`
`the Town Clerks to furnish the full name and address of each resident from their records
`
`to Plaintiff, in order that those recordsalso be cross-referenced with the customers of any
`
`of the Defendants to avoid an inadvertent violation of an order of this Court during
`
`Plaintiff's day-to-day interactions with citizens of this Commonwealth. Alternatively,
`
`issue a subpoena to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to furnish to Plaintiff and
`
`Defendants the same records of each resident of Massachusetts, to the same end.
`
`Alternatively, since the customers of the Defendants are less numerousthan Plaintiff's
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 8 of 9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`customers, order each Defendant namedin this action to furnish their customerrecords to
`
`Plaintiff, and to stipulate that Plaintiff may have minimum contact with each customer
`
`whoresides in this Commonwealth to determine (by their names and addresses) if
`
`Plaintiff would be in violation of the court order as it stands during Plaintiff's day-to-day
`
`interactions with citizens of this Commonwealth.
`
`7.) Any other remedy or correction to the existing order to make compliance possible while
`
`not being overly burdensomeorcostly to either Plaintiff or Defendants.
`
`DATEDthis 4" day of December, 2022.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Matthew Power
`
`Matthew Power
`60 HumphreyStreet, Apt 2
`Swampscott, Massachusetts 01907
`matthew_power@comcast.net
`781-267-4773
`
`Pro Se
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 9 of 9
`Case 1:22-cv-10030-JGD Document 79 Filed 12/08/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 5, 2022, I sent the foregoing by mail this day to the Clerk
`
`of Court to be filed with the Court’s ECF system in order that it may be served on all
`
`registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
`
`/s/Matthew Power
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(2) CERTIFICATE
`
`Pursuant to the November 18, 2022 Order (Dkt No. 76), the Court has waived Local Rule
`
`7.1’s requirementthat parties confer before filing a motion.
`
`/s/Matthew Power
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
