Preview
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
Docketed 1/10/2024 EMERGENCY FILING
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2382-cv-00831
GREGORY SAGER,
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY
MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’
RODMAN, LLP d/b/a SUBPOENA TO TURTLEBOY
RODMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, ENTERPRISES LLC
CHARLES RODMAN, and
ELISA FILMAN,
Defendants.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Gregory Sager (“Plaintiff”), on an emergency basis, and
requests that this Honorable Court quash Defendants’ Subpoena for Production of Documents
(“the subpoena”) directed at Turtleboy Enterprises, LLC (““Turtleboy”), attached hereto as Exhibit
G. As Defendants know all too well, if served, the subpoena will draw the eye of Turtleboy to
Plaintiff and will almost certainly lead to a barrage of harassment and violent threats, endangering
Plaintiff’s physical and emotional safety. Turtleboy is a publisher of incendiary extremist blogs,
with a specific intent for its followers to then harass and intimidate the blogs’ targets, to “cause or
threaten economic or emotional injury.” The principal of Turtleboy is currently under indictment
for 16 felonies related to using the blog to further his threats and intimidation. Turtleboy published
a story about Plaintiff once before, causing significant damage to all the parties in this case.
Harassment appears to be Defendants’ goal here, as there is no good-faith basis for the
subpoena: it is a fishing expedition requesting inadmissible documents (which Defendants have
not even sought from Plaintiff) which are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
This Court must not endorse Defendants’ adoption of Turtleboy’s criminal playbook.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
FACTS
This case arises from Defendants’ wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment on
December 31, 2022, as well as events during the fall of 2022 that led to that termination, and
Defendants’ actions towards Plaintiff thereafter. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's termination
stemmed from the dynamic between Plaintiff and Gabrielle Eve Freel (“Freel”) — their
administrative assistant who Plaintiff befriended in summer 2022. On June 27, 2022, before the
two became friends, an extremist blog known as “Turtleboy Daily News” published a derogatory
story about Plaintiff, disclosing Plaintiff’s private photographs and private social media content,
reposting photographs of Plaintiff’s minor students without parental consent, and revealing
information about Plaintiff’s two employers: a synagogue and Rodman LLP d/b/a Rodman
Employment Law (“the Firm”). Defendants attached this story to the subpoena as Exhibit | thereto.
The story, written by Turtleboy’s principal Aidan Kearney (“Kearney”), included Plaintiff’s
employers’ phone numbers and links to their social media pages, as well as Kearney’s command
to his followers to “contact them yourself.” Subpoena Ex. 1 at 29-30. He warned that, “Greg Sager
deserves to lose his job over this,” and threatened that Plaintiff’s employers were about to “receive
hundreds of email, phone calls, and negative Facebook reviews about Greg Sager.” Id.
Almost immediately after the story was published, the Firm began receiving dozens upon
dozens of harassing and threatening messages and phone calls. Freel, who was ordinarily
responsible for answering calls at the Firm, experienced a panic attack after fielding 10 such calls,
just on the morning of June 27, 2022, alone. She also received death threats from Turtleboy’s
followers. Plaintiff, too, was afraid to be seen in public for many weeks thereafter, out of fear of
violence by the followers. Rodman asked him to temporarily work remotely out of concern that
the followers would show up at the Firm looking for him. For days, the Firm’s door remained
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
locked at all times and no employee was permitted to be there alone. Defendants have previously
stated that Turtleboy and its followers caused significant damage to their business. Everyone who
knew about the story feared for their own safety.!
Over time, interest in the story faded, but Defendants nevertheless advised Plaintiff to
continue not engaging with any of Turtleboy’s followers, as Defendants knew that any attention
could reignite interest in the story and renew the threats and harassment. See Warning, attached
hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff readily followed this instruction and also deactivated his Facebook
account for the next six months as an added precaution.
On October 11, 2023, Kearney was arraigned in Stoughton District Court for “witness
intimidation, unlawful picketing to influence a witness, and conspiracy to intimidate a witness”
for employing same tactics he used on Plaintiff, this time against targets connected to a murder
prosecution in which he had taken an interest. Mem. & Order on Def.’s Bail Petitions, Comm. v.
Kearney, Nos. 23BP116 et al., slip op. at *4 (Norfolk Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2023), attached hereto as
Exhibit B. In that case, this Court (Krupp, J.) found that there was “more than sufficient evidence”
to support the charges against Kearney, including but not limited to the fact that he:
. demonstrated “a concerted effort, and repeated pattern of conduct designed, by defendant
to cause or threaten economic or emotional injury to [targets], or family members of
[targets], and to harass those [targets],” id. at 15;
publicly disclosed the personal phone numbers of several of his targets, e.g., id. at 6, 7, 10;
threatened one target on video: “I got really bad news for you. [My followers are]
literally everywhere. You can't, like, you guys should just stop going out in public. Like
that would be my recommendation and it's only going to get worse from here.... So
like just, just know that there will be no, life as normal is over,” id. at 5;
threatened another target on video: “You can't leave the fucking country. With like
Turtle Riders. We're gonna find you. They're gonna find you . . Your private life is
' Plaintiffs other employer — the synagogue — also received threatening and harassing phone calls and messages, but
Plaintiff is unaware of the details regarding that harassment, as that employer sought to protect Plaintiff from further
emotional distress by not revealing that information to him.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
officially over .... So you need to get used to your new normal. This your new normal,”
id. at 6n.5
bragged that he went to one target’s “kid’s lacrosse game and made a scene and got kicked
out,” id. at 7;
caused a State Trooper to change his phone number to avoid harassment by followers, id.
at 8 n.8;
led a caravan of 100-200 people to his targets’ homes and “bragged about being able to
locate [them] wherever they travel.” Id. at 10.
On December 20, 2023, Kearney was indicted by a Norfolk County grand jury on 16 felony
counts related to the same conduct. See Indictment, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Six days later,
his bail was revoked when he was arrested for intimidating and assaulting an ex-girlfriend who
was called to testify against him. Bookman, Kimberly & York, Samantha, “Blogger Known as
“‘Turtleboy’ Facing New Charges, Ordered Held Without Bail,” 7News Boston (Dec. 26, 2023)
https://whdh.com/news/blogger-known-as-turtleboy-facing-new-charges-ordered-held-without-
bail/ (attached hereto as Exhibit D).
Defendants in this case have not previously sought any discovery from Plaintiff related to
the Turtleboy incident. On January 9, 2024, they served Plaintiff with a copy of the subpoena,
which has a return date of January 30, 2024. It is unclear whether Defendants have served it upon
Turtleboy yet, or whether Turtleboy knows about it.
Plaintiff informed Defendants’ counsel, within four hours of receiving the subpoena, of
Plaintiff’s intention to file the instant emergency motion “shortly,” but Defendants’ counsel have
not responded to him. Given the risks to Plaintiff’s safety that would come with the service of the
subpoena upon Turtleboy, Plaintiff believes it would be physically dangerous for him to await a
response before seeking the Court’s intervention. Defendants have not stated whether they oppose
this emergency motion, but Plaintiff believes that they will.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c), for “good cause shown,” a Court “may make any order which
justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression.” A
subpoena may be quashed where it is “served for the purpose of annoying and harassment and not
really for the purpose of getting information.” Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d
792, 814 (9th Cir. 2003). When a party objects to the enforcement of a subpoena, “the burden is
upon the party seeking the production to show ‘good cause’ — that is, that the requested documents
are necessary to establish his claim or defense, or that denial of production would unduly prejudice
the preparation of his case or cause him hardship or injustice.” United States v. Am. Optical Co.,
39 F.R.D. 580, 583 (N.D. Cal. 1966) citing 4 Moore, Federal Practice { 34.08, at 2450 (2d ed.
1963) (emphasis added).
ARGUMENT
I Service of the Subpoena Is Intended to Endanger Plaintiff’s Safety and to Cause Him
to Be Threatened and Harassed.
a. The Subpoena Is Clearly Intended to Intimidate and Bully Plaintiff.
Defendants are obviously trying to draw Turtleboy and its followers back to Plaintiff.
Despite expending significant resources trying to avoid them in 2022, and despite claiming to be
opposed to everything Turtleboy stands for, Defendants now seem to be relying on it to make their
case, and are now taking actions they certainly know are likely to attract Turtleboy again. They
already have first-hand knowledge of the damage that Turtleboy can do when it focuses in on a
target. However, unlike in 2022, they can now hide behind the fact that Plaintiff no longer works
for them. Indeed, in 2022, when Turtleboy followers called the Firm asking for Plaintiff, Rodman
instructed Freel to tell them that Plaintiff no longer worked there, as he knew that this would satisfy
them and “make them feel like they’d won.” Defendants can use the same tactic now, only now it
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
will not be a lie. Plaintiff, however, cannot distance himself from himself. The subpoena places all
the risk on Plaintiff and none on Defendants. As demonstrated above, that risk is extremely serious.
Further, alerting Turtleboy to the docket in this case will give it access to Plaintiffs
personal phone number, email address, and home address — far more sensitive information than it
had in June 2022. The danger of an extremist blogger with an army of followers and with no
compunction about doxing its targets is as apparent as it is clear and present.
Even notwithstanding the added risk of doxing, the danger to Plaintiff from Turtleboy has
only grown since June 2022. Since then, Turtleboy’s and Kearney’s threats have become more
extreme and more violent. They have posted well over 200 stories about just a single case on
Turtleboy’s different platforms. Not only have they continued threatening violence, but Kearney
is now charged with having committed violence in relation to his threats and harassment. Further,
society at large has changed since 2022, and it is now far more dangerous to be Jewish in America.
See “ADL Reports Unprecedented Rise in Antisemitic Incidents Post-Oct. 7,” Anti-Defamation
League, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-reports-unprecedented-rise-antisemitic-
incidents-post-oct-7 (published Dec. 11, 2023) (attached hereto as Exhibit E) (337% increase in
antisemitic incidents since October 7, 2023). The June 2022 Turtleboy story made several
gratuitous mentions of Plaintiff’s Judaism. Plaintiff reasonably believes that any renewed interest
from Turtleboy’s followers will result in more overt and more extreme antisemitic threats, and
potentially actions, against him. In addition, it is not unreasonable to believe that the subpoena will
drive Turtleboy’s followers to restart their harassment of Plaintiff’s synagogue, an institution
which has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Justice requires that the Court intervene and
prevent these outcomes, which will do nothing to advance Defendants’ defenses.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
b. The Subpoena Has No Legitimate Purpose.
The subpoena’s malicious intent to harm Plaintiff is not balanced by any “good cause.”
None of the categories of documents requested in the subpoena are admissible and the subpoena
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any other admissible evidence. The
Turtleboy story, itself, is inadmissible hearsay. See Andrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1374 (10th
Cir. 2023) (newspaper articles are inadmissible hearsay). It cannot be verified, as its author (and
likely keeper of records for Turtleboy) is in police custody pending trial on his 16 felony charges.
Turtleboy is not in possession of Plaintiff’s “Facebook activity” and any versions of data that it
might have ripped from Facebook would be inadmissible on multiple grounds, including the
doctrine of completeness, hearsay, and inability to authenticate. Finally, “notes” and
“correspondence” regarding Turtleboy 2gSs «6 reporting”? are also inadmissible hearsay. If Defendants
want Plaintiff’s Facebook posts cited in the story, they already have them from the story. Alerting
Turtleboy to how Defendants intend to use those posts would do nothing to further their defenses
and would only serve to put Plaintiff in danger. This is a completely improper use of a discovery
tool.
Il. The Subpoena Seeks Irrelevant Documents, as Defendants Have Conceded that the
Turtleboy Incident Was Not a Reason for Plaintiff’s Termination.
Even if the documents requested in the subpoena were admissible — which they are not —
they are not relevant, as they are completely unrelated to any live issue in this case. In Plaintiff’s
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Rodman LLP d/b/a Rodman Employment Law, Plaintiff
asked Defendants to: “State all facts that contributed in any way to your decision to terminate
Plaintiff’s employment, including in your Answer an explanation of: (1) how those facts contributed
? This Court previously ruled that Turtleboy’s speech and conduct cannot “fairly be considered journalism,” see Ex. B
at 16 n.12.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
to that decision; and (2) when and how you learned of those facts.” Defendants’ Answer, attached
hereto as Exhibit F, did not cite the Turtleboy incident as a reason for Plaintiff’s termination. Id. at 5,
Ans. No. 6, last par. Defendants have also admitted, in their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, that, at
the time of Plaintiff’s termination, Plaintiff had “done nothing wrong,” Compl. 113, Ans. § 113, and
Plaintiff continued working for Defendants for over six months after the Turtleboy incident.
In addition to being a bad-faith attempt to physically endanger Plaintiff, the subpoena is a
fishing expedition. Defendants can do no more than speculate as to whether Turtleboy even conducted
any journalism-like activities beyond looking at Facebook posts — let alone whether it possesses any
evidence of these surmised activities. Speculation is the “essential quality of the classically frowned-
upon fishing expedition.” Comm'r of Revenue v. Boback, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 608 (1981); Lukas
v. Unidine Corp., 35 Mass. L. Rep. 209 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2018). The minute possibility of Defendants
discovering any admissible evidence as a result of the subpoena is far outweighed by the magnitude
and likelihood of harm to Plaintiff if the Court allows the subpoena to be served.
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court quash Defendants’
subpoena to Turtleboy Enterprises, LLC. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court
immediately issue a temporary Order prohibiting Defendants from serving the subpoena until the
Court rules on the instant Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
By the Plaintiff,
GREGORY SAGER
Date: January 10, 2024 /s/ Gregory Sager
Gregory Sager
Gsagerl 8@gmail.com
290 Quarry Street, Apt. 307
Quincy, MA 02169
Tel: (908) 565-4924
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
Certificate of Service
I, Gregory R. Sager, hereby certify that on this 10" day of January, 2024, I caused the
foregoing document to be served by email on counsel of record for all parties in this action.
/s/ Gregory R. Sager
Gregory R. Sager
Certificate of Compliance with Superior Court Rule 9A(d)(1)
I, Gregory Sager, hereby certify that I have made a good faith effort to contact and confer
with all parties regarding the subject of this motion.
/s/ Gregory Sager
Gregory Sager
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court- Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
Exhibit A
ea Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Di
Date: August 4, 2022
Issued to: Gregory R. Sager, Associate
By: Elisa A. Filman, Partner
Employer Statement of Incident
On June 25, 2022, you posted distasteful statements on your personal Facebook page. A
Facebook “friend” screen shot the posts and forwarded them to our firm, claiming that he
had made a bar complaint against you. Over the next 24 hours, an alt-right wing blogger who
goes by the moniker “Turtle Boy” posted an “article” about you and your statements, which
included reference to Rodman Employment Law. As a result, REL was inundated with
harassing phone calls, chats, emails, Facebook comments, and bad reviews on Google and
Facebook. The firm was forced to change its call routing to route all calls to our virtual
receptionist, take down your page from our website, deactivate our social media pages, and
engage an internet reputation company to attempt to have the bad review(s) removed. We do
not yet know the full scope of the damage to the Firm. When confronted by the partnership
to discuss your behavior, you acknowledged your conduct and the firm accepts your
explanation.
Prior Warning(s) Related to this Incident
None
Summary of Performance Expectations
You are expected to:
1 Strictly follow the firm’s social media policy, be thoughtful about what you post on
social media, and consider your audience when making any post- personal or business
related;
Recognize that social media posts are never truly private and that they last forever;
Evaluate the privacy settings on your social media accounts, and edit them as needed;
Not engage with Turtle Boy, his followers, or any other person in a way that incites
renewed interest in the incident or in similar incidents;
Not make statements on behalf of the Firm;
Accept that the Firm will not put your bio or photo back up on the website until a date
yet unknown;
Draft 3 or more blog posts on approved employment or law-related topics for
placement on the Firm’s website. One blog must be on the risks of social media in the
workplace.
Consequences of Failure to Improve Performance or Correct Behavior
| will assist you in any reasonable way to meet the Firm’s requirements. However, a failure to
bring performance up to an acceptable level and/or additional policy violations may result in
further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
RELO237- 4
DISCIPLINARY ACTION NOTICE | 2
a Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Di
Employee Statement and Acknowledgment
By signing below, | acknowledge | have been given time to review this form completely. | have
also had an opportunity to attach a written statement confirming the report or providing
additional details.
Gregory
Elisa A‘ ‘ilman
RELO238- 2
DISCIPLINARY ACTION NOTICE | 2
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court- Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
Exhibit B
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss. SUPERI COURT
Case Nos. 23BP116, 23BP117,
23BP118, 23BP119, 23BP120,
23BP123, 23BP124, 23BP125,
23BP126
COMMONWEALTH
ys.
AIDAN T. KEARNEY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
OND! EFENDANT’S BAIL PETITIONS
Defendant Aidan T. Kearney is charged by complaints in the Stoughton District Court
with witness intimidation, unlawful picketing to influence a witness, and conspiracy to intimidate
a witness. On October 11, 2023, the District Court released defendant on personal recognizance,
but ordered him to stay away from and have no contact with the named witnesses and alleged
victims. Defendant is now before this court on his petitions under G.L. c. 276, § 58, to vacate the
stay away/no contact order. He argues that, because he is a member of the media, the stay
away/no contract order is vague, overbroad, and cannot apply to him without running afoul of
the First Amendment, and that the statutes under which he is charged do not put him on fair
notice of what constitutes criminal behavior. After two hearings, and after careful review of the
parties’ numerous filings, including the parties’ post-hearing submissions,' I largely disagree for
the following reasons.
1 " Defendant’s bail petition was scheduled for hearing on October 26, 2023. At or
just prior to that hearing, defendant filed a brief entitled Petition for Review of District Court
Bail Determination (Oct. 25, 2023), with a supporting affidavit from defendant. Defendant’s
filing raised issues related to the freedom of the press which are not usually raised in a bail
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
BACKGROUND
A. Defendant's Interest in the Read Case
Defendant is a local blogger and activist, who operates a number of websites and social
media accounts under the name “Turtleboy.” Defendant refers to his followers as “Turtle Riders.”
Defendant has taken a shine to a case pending in this Court entitled Commonwealth v.
Karen Read, 2282CR00117 (“the Read case”). In the Read case, Karen Read (“Read”) faces
murder charges for the January 2022 killing outside 34 Fairview Road in Canton of her
boyfriend, John O'Keefe (“O’Keefe”), who was a Boston Police Officer. The Commonwealth
alleges that Read killed O’Keefe by hitting him with her motor vehicle before leaving the scene.
Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor (“Tpr. Proctor”) is the lead
investigator on the Read case. pr. Proctor is married to Elizabeth Proctor, who otherwise has no
role in the Read case. Witnesses in the Read case include Matthew and Jennifer McCabe
(together, the “McCabes”), who were with Read and O’Keefe on the night O’Keefe died; Brian,
Julie, Chris and Colin Alpert, who own the property at 34 Fairview Road in Canton, were with
appeal. At the hearing on October 26, 2023, I allowed the Commonwealth an opportunity to
address in writing the issues defendant raised. I scheduled the case for further hearing on
November 1, 2023. On October 31, 2023, as permitted, the Commonwealth filed its Reply and
Opposition to Defendant’s Petition for Review of District Court Bail Determination. At or just
before the hearing on November 1, 2023, defendant filed a Supplemental Memorandum in
Support of Petition for Review of District Court Bail Determination, which raised new issues,
and a Supplemental Affidavit of Aidan Kearney. Notwithstanding defendant's late supplemental
filing, the parties agreed to proceed with the hearing on November 1, 2023. At argument, I
allowed both parties to submit by close of business on November 2, 2023 recordings underlying
or relevant to the criminal complaints. I received a thumb drive from the Commonwealth, which
T have attached to the Commonwealth’s Reply and Opposition; and later received a portable hard
drive from defendant, which I have attached to defendant’s Supplemental Affidavit. After the
hearing on November 1, 2023, and without prior court approval, I also received from defendant a
Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition for Review of District Court Bail
Determination (docketed Nov. 2, 2023), and a Final Memorandum in Support of Petition for
Review of District Court Bail Determination, both of which seek to explain away or
contextualize defendant’s words and actions. ] have reviewed and considered all of these
materials.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
Read andO'Keefe on the night O’Keefe was killed, and/or were interviewed by investigators;
and Juliana Nagel, who was at 34 Fairview Road in Canton on the night O’Keefe died.
To say defendant has taken a pro-defense position on the Read case is to understate the
level of his partisanship and advocacy. See, e.g., “The Karen Read Case in Canton: The Killing
that Tore a Town Apart,” Boston Magazine (Sept. 27, 2023) (“the Boston Magazine Piece”),
available at https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/ (last viewed
Nov 8, 2023), which quotes defendant as writing or saying “Karen Read is a completely innocent
woman, wrongly charged by corrupt cops who would see her rot in prison in order to cover upa
murder of a fellow officer;” and, about the deceased’s family: “With the O’Keefes, enough of the
fucking pity party for these fucking people. .. . The only good part about John [O’Keefe] not
being alive is that he doesn’t have to be around you useless maggots for a second more. Fuck
you. Fuck your high horse. Burn in hell.”
As these quotes suggest, defendant prides himself on not being a conventional journalist.
According to the Boston Magazine Piece, defendant claims that “[t]he beauty of Turtleboy is that
[ can do things in an unconventional manner that other journalists are restricted from doing. I
love being the center of attention and being theatrical and performing. This is what I was made to
do.” In pursuit of his performative journalism and personal brand, defendant has berated
witnesses in the Read case, badgered them although they have indicated that they do not wish to
speak to him, and pressured them to change their testimony.” Defendant has been able to increase
2
Journalists generally adhere to codes of cthics that constrain their behavior. See
Code of Ethics, Society of Prof. Journalists, available athttps://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-
ethics.pdf (last viewed Nov, 8, 2023) (“Ethical journalism treats... subjects .. . and members of
the public as human beings deserving of respect. . . . Pursuit of the news is not a license for
arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”); Statement of Principles, American Society of Newspaper
Editors, available athttps://Awww.unm.edu/~pubboard/ASNE%20Statement%200f%20
Principles.pdf (last viewed Nov. 8, 2023) (“Journalists should respect the tights of people
3
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
his following substantially - based on monthly page views and viewership — with his
confrontational stories, live videos, and inflammatory blog posts about the Read case.
B Harassing Conduct and Telephone Calls
The criminal complaints against defendant in the Stoughton District Court arise out of
defendant’s actions reaching out to witnesses and their family members; organizing a caravan of
vehicles to drive by the homes of witnesses or family members; and posting veiled threats,
sarcastic and rhetorical questions, and other harassing information in the course of his
“reporting” on the Read case, These actions are reflected in reports by Massachusetts State
Police Det. Lt. Brian Tully (“Det. Lt. Tully”) submitted in support of the Stoughton District
Court complaints and borne out by the video clips supplied by the Commonwealth after the
November 1, 2023 hearing? I describe only some of the actions by defendant set out in Det, Lt.
Tully’s reports.
Defendant has posted a number of YouTube videos in which he issues veiled threats to
various witnesses in the Read case, or encourages his followers to take action with respect to
such witnesses, For example, after visiting witnesses’ homes in Canton, defendant posted a video
online (Episode 594) in which he stated:
It must frustrate him to no end — because I know Brian Albert is
waiching this right now — to watch me just emasculate his family,
time after time, and there’s nothing you can do about it. There’s
just nothing you can do and I’m just gonna keep doing it. I’m just
gonna keep, this is not my last trip to Canton. I will be back. And
more and more I think people are getting, like a year or so ago
involved in the news” and “observe the common standards of decency”). Defendant does not
appear to subscribe to these codes.
3
Defendant contends that Det. Lt. Tully takes some of his statements out of
context. To the extent possible, I have tried to confirm the accuracy of the quotations in this
decision by reviewing the actual video clips supplied by the Commonwealth.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
people didn’t want to cooperate with the Karen Read defense team
‘cause they’re like, yeah, it’s easier to keep my head down and,
you know, whatever and keep a low profile, but now, you know,
now they’re like fuck it. You know, we’ve made people realize that
you don’t have nothin’ to be afraid of.
In the same post, defendant states: “You haven’t seen the last of me. . .. These people think that
I’m fucking around, like I’m mister internet guy, like I’m going to sit here and I’m gonna write
blogs all day... . No, no, no, no. | live an hour away. I’ve got a Lexus now. .. . I°ll be there in an
hour, no problem. Get used to it.” In another video (Episode 598), defendant states:
I confronted this guy [Chris Albert] a couple weeks ago. This guy
has his head on the swivel. Everywhere now he’s turnaround like
where are they. Got bad news for you Chris. I got really bad news
for you. They’re literally everywhere. You can’t, like, you guys
should just stop going out in public. Like that would be my
recommendation and it’s only going to get worse from here. It’s
only going to, I did not direct this person to do this. I can’t stop
‘em. They’re everywhere. They don’t like you, Nobody likes you.
You guys killed someone. Like, you literally killed someone. Not
you. You didn’t do it. Ya, you raised someone who did it. And, you
know, your big bro did it. But like, and you obviously know this
and you’re helping to cover it up. But I guess you didn’t kill
anyone so you’ve got that going for you. So good job, Chris. You
just raised a killer. . |. Chris, 1 know where you guys were today.
Yall were in Agawam, weren’t you? I got pictures of you in my
cell phone. I got people sending me pictures. You guys were at
some sort of little league thing in Agawam. . . . Alberts, McCabes,
all you people were there. So like just, just know that there will be
no, life as normal is over.
Defendant traveled toCanton and went to a pizza restaurant owned by Chris Albert.
Later, according to Det. Lt, Tully, on a video posted on YouTube, defendant encouraged his
followers to order food from Chris Albert’s restaurant, but not pay for it. Det. Lt. Tully indicates
4
After defendant posted this video, Chris Albert’s restaurant had a vast increase in
the number of telephone orders not picked up or paid for.
5
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
that defendant made other trips to the same restaurant and held signs and confronted people in
and around the restaurant.*
In April 2023, defendant started writing blog posts about Tpr. Proctor’s wife, Elizabeth.
On April 17, 2023, defendant posted on Twitter a statement alleging that Colin Albert
(“Colin”) is responsible for O’Keefe’s murder and that Colin and O’Keefe had a fist fight at 34
Fairview Road. Since then, defendant has authored a number of other posts about Colin, his
alleged propensity for violence, and personal information, including where Colin will be
attending college.®
According to Det. Lt. Tully, in a video posted on May 9, 2023, defendant displayed
Elizabeth Proctor’s cell phone number, and indicated that both Tpr. Proctor and his wife are
“lowlifes,” “bullies who terrorized people for years,” and “deserve to lose their jobs over” the
Read case. Defendant publicized the identity of Elizabeth Proctor’s employer, which had no
involvement in the Read case; identified her position with that company; and posted the main
telephone number for the company. Defendant encouraged his followers to leave a review on the
company’s open Facebook page or Twitter account.’ The next day, defendant posted a live
5
Ina July 2023 blog post, which contained a video of Chris Albert being
confronted by one of defendant’s followers, defendant bragged about how the Turtle Riders were
sending him pictures wherever witnesses were out in public, including on vacations. He warned
witnesses; “You can’t leave the fucking country. With like Turtle Riders. We're gonna find you.
They’re gonna find you. . . Your private life is officially over. . .. So you need to get used to your
new normal. This your new normal.” Det. Lt. Tully also describes defendant as saying on the
same post: “I was so proud to see turtle riders unafraid, confronting evil like this in the flesh. .. .
[M]urderers, and those who cover for them, do not deserve to live a comfortable life while Karen
Read suffers and fights for justice for John O’Keefe.”
6
Since then, Colin has been the target of harassment and intimidation on social
media, and employees of the college Colin planned to attend received emails from people who
copied defendant’s allegations.
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM
Superior Court - Norfolk
Docket Number 2382CV00831
‘YouTube video during which he repeated Elizabeth’s cell phone number, called the number, and
left a message that contained the following:
Hi Elizabeth. This is Aidan Kearney calling you back from
Turtleboy. . . . [noticed that your employer took down their social
media pages within minutes of the blog I published about your
recent behavior, and I just wanted to see what, is it awkward, were
you aftaid to go in? Just tell me about your day and why ’cause I,
that’s the part I don’t understand is that you seem to be okay with
calling other peoples’ work places and interfering with their ability
to make a living for themselves, but when it happens to you, it,
maybe it’s not as fun, maybe it’s not as fun. Do you like that?
That's what I want to know. Did, did you like thal? Because you’ve
been doing that to a lot of other people, and do you think it’s fair
that it happened to you, dear? Do you regret it? That's what I, do
you regret it? And what’s your scumbag husband up fo right now?
Are you going to visit him in prison? Do you think they'll have
conjugal visits? Give me a call back when you get this, and we can
chat some more. Bye girl.
On June 6, 2023, defendant traveled to Billerica and confronted the McCabes at ayouth
sporting event. Defendant later posted videos of the interaction online. Defendant stated in a blog
post about the incident that the McCabes “do not deserve to live a normal life and pretend that
they weren’t involved in murdering a Boston Police Officer.” Defendant also bragged ina
YouTube video that he had gone to Jerinifer McCabe’s “kid’s lacrosse game and made a scene
there and got kicked out . . . because I kept calling her a cop killer.”
On June 13, 2023, defendant broadcast a YouTube video, which displaye
Preview
Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 Docketed 1/10/2024 EMERGENCY FILING COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2382-cv-00831 GREGORY SAGER, Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ RODMAN, LLP d/b/a SUBPOENA TO TURTLEBOY RODMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, ENTERPRISES LLC CHARLES RODMAN, and ELISA FILMAN, Defendants. NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Gregory Sager (“Plaintiff”), on an emergency basis, and requests that this Honorable Court quash Defendants’ Subpoena for Production of Documents (“the subpoena”) directed at Turtleboy Enterprises, LLC (““Turtleboy”), attached hereto as Exhibit G. As Defendants know all too well, if served, the subpoena will draw the eye of Turtleboy to Plaintiff and will almost certainly lead to a barrage of harassment and violent threats, endangering Plaintiff’s physical and emotional safety. Turtleboy is a publisher of incendiary extremist blogs, with a specific intent for its followers to then harass and intimidate the blogs’ targets, to “cause or threaten economic or emotional injury.” The principal of Turtleboy is currently under indictment for 16 felonies related to using the blog to further his threats and intimidation. Turtleboy published a story about Plaintiff once before, causing significant damage to all the parties in this case. Harassment appears to be Defendants’ goal here, as there is no good-faith basis for the subpoena: it is a fishing expedition requesting inadmissible documents (which Defendants have not even sought from Plaintiff) which are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Court must not endorse Defendants’ adoption of Turtleboy’s criminal playbook. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 FACTS This case arises from Defendants’ wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment on December 31, 2022, as well as events during the fall of 2022 that led to that termination, and Defendants’ actions towards Plaintiff thereafter. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's termination stemmed from the dynamic between Plaintiff and Gabrielle Eve Freel (“Freel”) — their administrative assistant who Plaintiff befriended in summer 2022. On June 27, 2022, before the two became friends, an extremist blog known as “Turtleboy Daily News” published a derogatory story about Plaintiff, disclosing Plaintiff’s private photographs and private social media content, reposting photographs of Plaintiff’s minor students without parental consent, and revealing information about Plaintiff’s two employers: a synagogue and Rodman LLP d/b/a Rodman Employment Law (“the Firm”). Defendants attached this story to the subpoena as Exhibit | thereto. The story, written by Turtleboy’s principal Aidan Kearney (“Kearney”), included Plaintiff’s employers’ phone numbers and links to their social media pages, as well as Kearney’s command to his followers to “contact them yourself.” Subpoena Ex. 1 at 29-30. He warned that, “Greg Sager deserves to lose his job over this,” and threatened that Plaintiff’s employers were about to “receive hundreds of email, phone calls, and negative Facebook reviews about Greg Sager.” Id. Almost immediately after the story was published, the Firm began receiving dozens upon dozens of harassing and threatening messages and phone calls. Freel, who was ordinarily responsible for answering calls at the Firm, experienced a panic attack after fielding 10 such calls, just on the morning of June 27, 2022, alone. She also received death threats from Turtleboy’s followers. Plaintiff, too, was afraid to be seen in public for many weeks thereafter, out of fear of violence by the followers. Rodman asked him to temporarily work remotely out of concern that the followers would show up at the Firm looking for him. For days, the Firm’s door remained Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 locked at all times and no employee was permitted to be there alone. Defendants have previously stated that Turtleboy and its followers caused significant damage to their business. Everyone who knew about the story feared for their own safety.! Over time, interest in the story faded, but Defendants nevertheless advised Plaintiff to continue not engaging with any of Turtleboy’s followers, as Defendants knew that any attention could reignite interest in the story and renew the threats and harassment. See Warning, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff readily followed this instruction and also deactivated his Facebook account for the next six months as an added precaution. On October 11, 2023, Kearney was arraigned in Stoughton District Court for “witness intimidation, unlawful picketing to influence a witness, and conspiracy to intimidate a witness” for employing same tactics he used on Plaintiff, this time against targets connected to a murder prosecution in which he had taken an interest. Mem. & Order on Def.’s Bail Petitions, Comm. v. Kearney, Nos. 23BP116 et al., slip op. at *4 (Norfolk Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2023), attached hereto as Exhibit B. In that case, this Court (Krupp, J.) found that there was “more than sufficient evidence” to support the charges against Kearney, including but not limited to the fact that he: . demonstrated “a concerted effort, and repeated pattern of conduct designed, by defendant to cause or threaten economic or emotional injury to [targets], or family members of [targets], and to harass those [targets],” id. at 15; publicly disclosed the personal phone numbers of several of his targets, e.g., id. at 6, 7, 10; threatened one target on video: “I got really bad news for you. [My followers are] literally everywhere. You can't, like, you guys should just stop going out in public. Like that would be my recommendation and it's only going to get worse from here.... So like just, just know that there will be no, life as normal is over,” id. at 5; threatened another target on video: “You can't leave the fucking country. With like Turtle Riders. We're gonna find you. They're gonna find you . . Your private life is ' Plaintiffs other employer — the synagogue — also received threatening and harassing phone calls and messages, but Plaintiff is unaware of the details regarding that harassment, as that employer sought to protect Plaintiff from further emotional distress by not revealing that information to him. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 officially over .... So you need to get used to your new normal. This your new normal,” id. at 6n.5 bragged that he went to one target’s “kid’s lacrosse game and made a scene and got kicked out,” id. at 7; caused a State Trooper to change his phone number to avoid harassment by followers, id. at 8 n.8; led a caravan of 100-200 people to his targets’ homes and “bragged about being able to locate [them] wherever they travel.” Id. at 10. On December 20, 2023, Kearney was indicted by a Norfolk County grand jury on 16 felony counts related to the same conduct. See Indictment, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Six days later, his bail was revoked when he was arrested for intimidating and assaulting an ex-girlfriend who was called to testify against him. Bookman, Kimberly & York, Samantha, “Blogger Known as “‘Turtleboy’ Facing New Charges, Ordered Held Without Bail,” 7News Boston (Dec. 26, 2023) https://whdh.com/news/blogger-known-as-turtleboy-facing-new-charges-ordered-held-without- bail/ (attached hereto as Exhibit D). Defendants in this case have not previously sought any discovery from Plaintiff related to the Turtleboy incident. On January 9, 2024, they served Plaintiff with a copy of the subpoena, which has a return date of January 30, 2024. It is unclear whether Defendants have served it upon Turtleboy yet, or whether Turtleboy knows about it. Plaintiff informed Defendants’ counsel, within four hours of receiving the subpoena, of Plaintiff’s intention to file the instant emergency motion “shortly,” but Defendants’ counsel have not responded to him. Given the risks to Plaintiff’s safety that would come with the service of the subpoena upon Turtleboy, Plaintiff believes it would be physically dangerous for him to await a response before seeking the Court’s intervention. Defendants have not stated whether they oppose this emergency motion, but Plaintiff believes that they will. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 LEGAL STANDARD Under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c), for “good cause shown,” a Court “may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression.” A subpoena may be quashed where it is “served for the purpose of annoying and harassment and not really for the purpose of getting information.” Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 814 (9th Cir. 2003). When a party objects to the enforcement of a subpoena, “the burden is upon the party seeking the production to show ‘good cause’ — that is, that the requested documents are necessary to establish his claim or defense, or that denial of production would unduly prejudice the preparation of his case or cause him hardship or injustice.” United States v. Am. Optical Co., 39 F.R.D. 580, 583 (N.D. Cal. 1966) citing 4 Moore, Federal Practice { 34.08, at 2450 (2d ed. 1963) (emphasis added). ARGUMENT I Service of the Subpoena Is Intended to Endanger Plaintiff’s Safety and to Cause Him to Be Threatened and Harassed. a. The Subpoena Is Clearly Intended to Intimidate and Bully Plaintiff. Defendants are obviously trying to draw Turtleboy and its followers back to Plaintiff. Despite expending significant resources trying to avoid them in 2022, and despite claiming to be opposed to everything Turtleboy stands for, Defendants now seem to be relying on it to make their case, and are now taking actions they certainly know are likely to attract Turtleboy again. They already have first-hand knowledge of the damage that Turtleboy can do when it focuses in on a target. However, unlike in 2022, they can now hide behind the fact that Plaintiff no longer works for them. Indeed, in 2022, when Turtleboy followers called the Firm asking for Plaintiff, Rodman instructed Freel to tell them that Plaintiff no longer worked there, as he knew that this would satisfy them and “make them feel like they’d won.” Defendants can use the same tactic now, only now it Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 will not be a lie. Plaintiff, however, cannot distance himself from himself. The subpoena places all the risk on Plaintiff and none on Defendants. As demonstrated above, that risk is extremely serious. Further, alerting Turtleboy to the docket in this case will give it access to Plaintiffs personal phone number, email address, and home address — far more sensitive information than it had in June 2022. The danger of an extremist blogger with an army of followers and with no compunction about doxing its targets is as apparent as it is clear and present. Even notwithstanding the added risk of doxing, the danger to Plaintiff from Turtleboy has only grown since June 2022. Since then, Turtleboy’s and Kearney’s threats have become more extreme and more violent. They have posted well over 200 stories about just a single case on Turtleboy’s different platforms. Not only have they continued threatening violence, but Kearney is now charged with having committed violence in relation to his threats and harassment. Further, society at large has changed since 2022, and it is now far more dangerous to be Jewish in America. See “ADL Reports Unprecedented Rise in Antisemitic Incidents Post-Oct. 7,” Anti-Defamation League, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-reports-unprecedented-rise-antisemitic- incidents-post-oct-7 (published Dec. 11, 2023) (attached hereto as Exhibit E) (337% increase in antisemitic incidents since October 7, 2023). The June 2022 Turtleboy story made several gratuitous mentions of Plaintiff’s Judaism. Plaintiff reasonably believes that any renewed interest from Turtleboy’s followers will result in more overt and more extreme antisemitic threats, and potentially actions, against him. In addition, it is not unreasonable to believe that the subpoena will drive Turtleboy’s followers to restart their harassment of Plaintiff’s synagogue, an institution which has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Justice requires that the Court intervene and prevent these outcomes, which will do nothing to advance Defendants’ defenses. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 b. The Subpoena Has No Legitimate Purpose. The subpoena’s malicious intent to harm Plaintiff is not balanced by any “good cause.” None of the categories of documents requested in the subpoena are admissible and the subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any other admissible evidence. The Turtleboy story, itself, is inadmissible hearsay. See Andrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299, 1374 (10th Cir. 2023) (newspaper articles are inadmissible hearsay). It cannot be verified, as its author (and likely keeper of records for Turtleboy) is in police custody pending trial on his 16 felony charges. Turtleboy is not in possession of Plaintiff’s “Facebook activity” and any versions of data that it might have ripped from Facebook would be inadmissible on multiple grounds, including the doctrine of completeness, hearsay, and inability to authenticate. Finally, “notes” and “correspondence” regarding Turtleboy 2gSs «6 reporting”? are also inadmissible hearsay. If Defendants want Plaintiff’s Facebook posts cited in the story, they already have them from the story. Alerting Turtleboy to how Defendants intend to use those posts would do nothing to further their defenses and would only serve to put Plaintiff in danger. This is a completely improper use of a discovery tool. Il. The Subpoena Seeks Irrelevant Documents, as Defendants Have Conceded that the Turtleboy Incident Was Not a Reason for Plaintiff’s Termination. Even if the documents requested in the subpoena were admissible — which they are not — they are not relevant, as they are completely unrelated to any live issue in this case. In Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Rodman LLP d/b/a Rodman Employment Law, Plaintiff asked Defendants to: “State all facts that contributed in any way to your decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, including in your Answer an explanation of: (1) how those facts contributed ? This Court previously ruled that Turtleboy’s speech and conduct cannot “fairly be considered journalism,” see Ex. B at 16 n.12. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 to that decision; and (2) when and how you learned of those facts.” Defendants’ Answer, attached hereto as Exhibit F, did not cite the Turtleboy incident as a reason for Plaintiff’s termination. Id. at 5, Ans. No. 6, last par. Defendants have also admitted, in their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, that, at the time of Plaintiff’s termination, Plaintiff had “done nothing wrong,” Compl. 113, Ans. § 113, and Plaintiff continued working for Defendants for over six months after the Turtleboy incident. In addition to being a bad-faith attempt to physically endanger Plaintiff, the subpoena is a fishing expedition. Defendants can do no more than speculate as to whether Turtleboy even conducted any journalism-like activities beyond looking at Facebook posts — let alone whether it possesses any evidence of these surmised activities. Speculation is the “essential quality of the classically frowned- upon fishing expedition.” Comm'r of Revenue v. Boback, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 608 (1981); Lukas v. Unidine Corp., 35 Mass. L. Rep. 209 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2018). The minute possibility of Defendants discovering any admissible evidence as a result of the subpoena is far outweighed by the magnitude and likelihood of harm to Plaintiff if the Court allows the subpoena to be served. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court quash Defendants’ subpoena to Turtleboy Enterprises, LLC. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court immediately issue a temporary Order prohibiting Defendants from serving the subpoena until the Court rules on the instant Motion. Respectfully submitted, By the Plaintiff, GREGORY SAGER Date: January 10, 2024 /s/ Gregory Sager Gregory Sager Gsagerl 8@gmail.com 290 Quarry Street, Apt. 307 Quincy, MA 02169 Tel: (908) 565-4924 Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 Certificate of Service I, Gregory R. Sager, hereby certify that on this 10" day of January, 2024, I caused the foregoing document to be served by email on counsel of record for all parties in this action. /s/ Gregory R. Sager Gregory R. Sager Certificate of Compliance with Superior Court Rule 9A(d)(1) I, Gregory Sager, hereby certify that I have made a good faith effort to contact and confer with all parties regarding the subject of this motion. /s/ Gregory Sager Gregory Sager Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court- Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 Exhibit A ea Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Di Date: August 4, 2022 Issued to: Gregory R. Sager, Associate By: Elisa A. Filman, Partner Employer Statement of Incident On June 25, 2022, you posted distasteful statements on your personal Facebook page. A Facebook “friend” screen shot the posts and forwarded them to our firm, claiming that he had made a bar complaint against you. Over the next 24 hours, an alt-right wing blogger who goes by the moniker “Turtle Boy” posted an “article” about you and your statements, which included reference to Rodman Employment Law. As a result, REL was inundated with harassing phone calls, chats, emails, Facebook comments, and bad reviews on Google and Facebook. The firm was forced to change its call routing to route all calls to our virtual receptionist, take down your page from our website, deactivate our social media pages, and engage an internet reputation company to attempt to have the bad review(s) removed. We do not yet know the full scope of the damage to the Firm. When confronted by the partnership to discuss your behavior, you acknowledged your conduct and the firm accepts your explanation. Prior Warning(s) Related to this Incident None Summary of Performance Expectations You are expected to: 1 Strictly follow the firm’s social media policy, be thoughtful about what you post on social media, and consider your audience when making any post- personal or business related; Recognize that social media posts are never truly private and that they last forever; Evaluate the privacy settings on your social media accounts, and edit them as needed; Not engage with Turtle Boy, his followers, or any other person in a way that incites renewed interest in the incident or in similar incidents; Not make statements on behalf of the Firm; Accept that the Firm will not put your bio or photo back up on the website until a date yet unknown; Draft 3 or more blog posts on approved employment or law-related topics for placement on the Firm’s website. One blog must be on the risks of social media in the workplace. Consequences of Failure to Improve Performance or Correct Behavior | will assist you in any reasonable way to meet the Firm’s requirements. However, a failure to bring performance up to an acceptable level and/or additional policy violations may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. RELO237- 4 DISCIPLINARY ACTION NOTICE | 2 a Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Di Employee Statement and Acknowledgment By signing below, | acknowledge | have been given time to review this form completely. | have also had an opportunity to attach a written statement confirming the report or providing additional details. Gregory Elisa A‘ ‘ilman RELO238- 2 DISCIPLINARY ACTION NOTICE | 2 Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court- Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 Exhibit B Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERI COURT Case Nos. 23BP116, 23BP117, 23BP118, 23BP119, 23BP120, 23BP123, 23BP124, 23BP125, 23BP126 COMMONWEALTH ys. AIDAN T. KEARNEY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OND! EFENDANT’S BAIL PETITIONS Defendant Aidan T. Kearney is charged by complaints in the Stoughton District Court with witness intimidation, unlawful picketing to influence a witness, and conspiracy to intimidate a witness. On October 11, 2023, the District Court released defendant on personal recognizance, but ordered him to stay away from and have no contact with the named witnesses and alleged victims. Defendant is now before this court on his petitions under G.L. c. 276, § 58, to vacate the stay away/no contact order. He argues that, because he is a member of the media, the stay away/no contract order is vague, overbroad, and cannot apply to him without running afoul of the First Amendment, and that the statutes under which he is charged do not put him on fair notice of what constitutes criminal behavior. After two hearings, and after careful review of the parties’ numerous filings, including the parties’ post-hearing submissions,' I largely disagree for the following reasons. 1 " Defendant’s bail petition was scheduled for hearing on October 26, 2023. At or just prior to that hearing, defendant filed a brief entitled Petition for Review of District Court Bail Determination (Oct. 25, 2023), with a supporting affidavit from defendant. Defendant’s filing raised issues related to the freedom of the press which are not usually raised in a bail Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 BACKGROUND A. Defendant's Interest in the Read Case Defendant is a local blogger and activist, who operates a number of websites and social media accounts under the name “Turtleboy.” Defendant refers to his followers as “Turtle Riders.” Defendant has taken a shine to a case pending in this Court entitled Commonwealth v. Karen Read, 2282CR00117 (“the Read case”). In the Read case, Karen Read (“Read”) faces murder charges for the January 2022 killing outside 34 Fairview Road in Canton of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe (“O’Keefe”), who was a Boston Police Officer. The Commonwealth alleges that Read killed O’Keefe by hitting him with her motor vehicle before leaving the scene. Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor (“Tpr. Proctor”) is the lead investigator on the Read case. pr. Proctor is married to Elizabeth Proctor, who otherwise has no role in the Read case. Witnesses in the Read case include Matthew and Jennifer McCabe (together, the “McCabes”), who were with Read and O’Keefe on the night O’Keefe died; Brian, Julie, Chris and Colin Alpert, who own the property at 34 Fairview Road in Canton, were with appeal. At the hearing on October 26, 2023, I allowed the Commonwealth an opportunity to address in writing the issues defendant raised. I scheduled the case for further hearing on November 1, 2023. On October 31, 2023, as permitted, the Commonwealth filed its Reply and Opposition to Defendant’s Petition for Review of District Court Bail Determination. At or just before the hearing on November 1, 2023, defendant filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition for Review of District Court Bail Determination, which raised new issues, and a Supplemental Affidavit of Aidan Kearney. Notwithstanding defendant's late supplemental filing, the parties agreed to proceed with the hearing on November 1, 2023. At argument, I allowed both parties to submit by close of business on November 2, 2023 recordings underlying or relevant to the criminal complaints. I received a thumb drive from the Commonwealth, which T have attached to the Commonwealth’s Reply and Opposition; and later received a portable hard drive from defendant, which I have attached to defendant’s Supplemental Affidavit. After the hearing on November 1, 2023, and without prior court approval, I also received from defendant a Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Petition for Review of District Court Bail Determination (docketed Nov. 2, 2023), and a Final Memorandum in Support of Petition for Review of District Court Bail Determination, both of which seek to explain away or contextualize defendant’s words and actions. ] have reviewed and considered all of these materials. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 Read andO'Keefe on the night O’Keefe was killed, and/or were interviewed by investigators; and Juliana Nagel, who was at 34 Fairview Road in Canton on the night O’Keefe died. To say defendant has taken a pro-defense position on the Read case is to understate the level of his partisanship and advocacy. See, e.g., “The Karen Read Case in Canton: The Killing that Tore a Town Apart,” Boston Magazine (Sept. 27, 2023) (“the Boston Magazine Piece”), available at https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/ (last viewed Nov 8, 2023), which quotes defendant as writing or saying “Karen Read is a completely innocent woman, wrongly charged by corrupt cops who would see her rot in prison in order to cover upa murder of a fellow officer;” and, about the deceased’s family: “With the O’Keefes, enough of the fucking pity party for these fucking people. .. . The only good part about John [O’Keefe] not being alive is that he doesn’t have to be around you useless maggots for a second more. Fuck you. Fuck your high horse. Burn in hell.” As these quotes suggest, defendant prides himself on not being a conventional journalist. According to the Boston Magazine Piece, defendant claims that “[t]he beauty of Turtleboy is that [ can do things in an unconventional manner that other journalists are restricted from doing. I love being the center of attention and being theatrical and performing. This is what I was made to do.” In pursuit of his performative journalism and personal brand, defendant has berated witnesses in the Read case, badgered them although they have indicated that they do not wish to speak to him, and pressured them to change their testimony.” Defendant has been able to increase 2 Journalists generally adhere to codes of cthics that constrain their behavior. See Code of Ethics, Society of Prof. Journalists, available athttps://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of- ethics.pdf (last viewed Nov, 8, 2023) (“Ethical journalism treats... subjects .. . and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect. . . . Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”); Statement of Principles, American Society of Newspaper Editors, available athttps://Awww.unm.edu/~pubboard/ASNE%20Statement%200f%20 Principles.pdf (last viewed Nov. 8, 2023) (“Journalists should respect the tights of people 3 Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 his following substantially - based on monthly page views and viewership — with his confrontational stories, live videos, and inflammatory blog posts about the Read case. B Harassing Conduct and Telephone Calls The criminal complaints against defendant in the Stoughton District Court arise out of defendant’s actions reaching out to witnesses and their family members; organizing a caravan of vehicles to drive by the homes of witnesses or family members; and posting veiled threats, sarcastic and rhetorical questions, and other harassing information in the course of his “reporting” on the Read case, These actions are reflected in reports by Massachusetts State Police Det. Lt. Brian Tully (“Det. Lt. Tully”) submitted in support of the Stoughton District Court complaints and borne out by the video clips supplied by the Commonwealth after the November 1, 2023 hearing? I describe only some of the actions by defendant set out in Det, Lt. Tully’s reports. Defendant has posted a number of YouTube videos in which he issues veiled threats to various witnesses in the Read case, or encourages his followers to take action with respect to such witnesses, For example, after visiting witnesses’ homes in Canton, defendant posted a video online (Episode 594) in which he stated: It must frustrate him to no end — because I know Brian Albert is waiching this right now — to watch me just emasculate his family, time after time, and there’s nothing you can do about it. There’s just nothing you can do and I’m just gonna keep doing it. I’m just gonna keep, this is not my last trip to Canton. I will be back. And more and more I think people are getting, like a year or so ago involved in the news” and “observe the common standards of decency”). Defendant does not appear to subscribe to these codes. 3 Defendant contends that Det. Lt. Tully takes some of his statements out of context. To the extent possible, I have tried to confirm the accuracy of the quotations in this decision by reviewing the actual video clips supplied by the Commonwealth. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 people didn’t want to cooperate with the Karen Read defense team ‘cause they’re like, yeah, it’s easier to keep my head down and, you know, whatever and keep a low profile, but now, you know, now they’re like fuck it. You know, we’ve made people realize that you don’t have nothin’ to be afraid of. In the same post, defendant states: “You haven’t seen the last of me. . .. These people think that I’m fucking around, like I’m mister internet guy, like I’m going to sit here and I’m gonna write blogs all day... . No, no, no, no. | live an hour away. I’ve got a Lexus now. .. . I°ll be there in an hour, no problem. Get used to it.” In another video (Episode 598), defendant states: I confronted this guy [Chris Albert] a couple weeks ago. This guy has his head on the swivel. Everywhere now he’s turnaround like where are they. Got bad news for you Chris. I got really bad news for you. They’re literally everywhere. You can’t, like, you guys should just stop going out in public. Like that would be my recommendation and it’s only going to get worse from here. It’s only going to, I did not direct this person to do this. I can’t stop ‘em. They’re everywhere. They don’t like you, Nobody likes you. You guys killed someone. Like, you literally killed someone. Not you. You didn’t do it. Ya, you raised someone who did it. And, you know, your big bro did it. But like, and you obviously know this and you’re helping to cover it up. But I guess you didn’t kill anyone so you’ve got that going for you. So good job, Chris. You just raised a killer. . |. Chris, 1 know where you guys were today. Yall were in Agawam, weren’t you? I got pictures of you in my cell phone. I got people sending me pictures. You guys were at some sort of little league thing in Agawam. . . . Alberts, McCabes, all you people were there. So like just, just know that there will be no, life as normal is over. Defendant traveled toCanton and went to a pizza restaurant owned by Chris Albert. Later, according to Det. Lt, Tully, on a video posted on YouTube, defendant encouraged his followers to order food from Chris Albert’s restaurant, but not pay for it. Det. Lt. Tully indicates 4 After defendant posted this video, Chris Albert’s restaurant had a vast increase in the number of telephone orders not picked up or paid for. 5 Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 that defendant made other trips to the same restaurant and held signs and confronted people in and around the restaurant.* In April 2023, defendant started writing blog posts about Tpr. Proctor’s wife, Elizabeth. On April 17, 2023, defendant posted on Twitter a statement alleging that Colin Albert (“Colin”) is responsible for O’Keefe’s murder and that Colin and O’Keefe had a fist fight at 34 Fairview Road. Since then, defendant has authored a number of other posts about Colin, his alleged propensity for violence, and personal information, including where Colin will be attending college.® According to Det. Lt. Tully, in a video posted on May 9, 2023, defendant displayed Elizabeth Proctor’s cell phone number, and indicated that both Tpr. Proctor and his wife are “lowlifes,” “bullies who terrorized people for years,” and “deserve to lose their jobs over” the Read case. Defendant publicized the identity of Elizabeth Proctor’s employer, which had no involvement in the Read case; identified her position with that company; and posted the main telephone number for the company. Defendant encouraged his followers to leave a review on the company’s open Facebook page or Twitter account.’ The next day, defendant posted a live 5 Ina July 2023 blog post, which contained a video of Chris Albert being confronted by one of defendant’s followers, defendant bragged about how the Turtle Riders were sending him pictures wherever witnesses were out in public, including on vacations. He warned witnesses; “You can’t leave the fucking country. With like Turtle Riders. We're gonna find you. They’re gonna find you. . . Your private life is officially over. . .. So you need to get used to your new normal. This your new normal.” Det. Lt. Tully also describes defendant as saying on the same post: “I was so proud to see turtle riders unafraid, confronting evil like this in the flesh. .. . [M]urderers, and those who cover for them, do not deserve to live a comfortable life while Karen Read suffers and fights for justice for John O’Keefe.” 6 Since then, Colin has been the target of harassment and intimidation on social media, and employees of the college Colin planned to attend received emails from people who copied defendant’s allegations. Date Filed 1/10/2024 7:58 AM Superior Court - Norfolk Docket Number 2382CV00831 ‘YouTube video during which he repeated Elizabeth’s cell phone number, called the number, and left a message that contained the following: Hi Elizabeth. This is Aidan Kearney calling you back from Turtleboy. . . . [noticed that your employer took down their social media pages within minutes of the blog I published about your recent behavior, and I just wanted to see what, is it awkward, were you aftaid to go in? Just tell me about your day and why ’cause I, that’s the part I don’t understand is that you seem to be okay with calling other peoples’ work places and interfering with their ability to make a living for themselves, but when it happens to you, it, maybe it’s not as fun, maybe it’s not as fun. Do you like that? That's what I want to know. Did, did you like thal? Because you’ve been doing that to a lot of other people, and do you think it’s fair that it happened to you, dear? Do you regret it? That's what I, do you regret it? And what’s your scumbag husband up fo right now? Are you going to visit him in prison? Do you think they'll have conjugal visits? Give me a call back when you get this, and we can chat some more. Bye girl. On June 6, 2023, defendant traveled to Billerica and confronted the McCabes at ayouth sporting event. Defendant later posted videos of the interaction online. Defendant stated in a blog post about the incident that the McCabes “do not deserve to live a normal life and pretend that they weren’t involved in murdering a Boston Police Officer.” Defendant also bragged ina YouTube video that he had gone to Jerinifer McCabe’s “kid’s lacrosse game and made a scene there and got kicked out . . . because I kept calling her a cop killer.” On June 13, 2023, defendant broadcast a YouTube video, which displaye