Contrast: Charlotte & John Smith’s Vehicle Advertising Is Not Protected Speech

February 16, 2026

I wonder why all these attorneys are fighting so hard to hide all HOA records involving the Smiths???

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY

STATE OF MISSOURI

MARK E. GAVAN                                                     )

                                                                                    )

            Plaintiff                                                           )           Case No.:  25SL-CC01233

                                                                                    )

vs.                                                                               )           Division No.:  17

                                                                                    )

JOHN E. SMITH and                                                 )

CHARLOTTE E. SMITH                                          )

                                                                                    )

            Defendants                                                      )

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH ALL SUBPOENAS

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Mark E. Gavan, pro se, and for his Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Quash, respectfully states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants move to quash all subpoenas issued by Plaintiff. Defendants argue these records are "irrelevant," yet Defendants have filed two sworn Affidavits (Exhibits 7a and 7b) making categorical factual denials and claiming business damages. By doing so, Defendants have placed their professional conduct and financial status at the "Center of this Litigation." Under Missouri Rule 56.01, Plaintiff is entitled to any information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts a direct right to these records to investigate the Abuse of Process alleged in the Amended Petition, specifically: (i) the weaponization of an Order of Protection through the deliberate omission of Plaintiff’s legally protected rights; (ii) the perversion of HOA processes for improper collateral purposes; and (iii) the retaliatory motive behind fabricated "theft" allegations.

II. ARGUMENT

A. Discovery is Essential to Prove the "Weaponization" of the Order of Protection. Plaintiff’s claim of Abuse of Process is centered on the Defendants’ willful misuse of a legal instrument for a retaliatory purpose.

1. Judicial Defiance: On multiple occasions, Judge Green informed the Defendants and the Board, on the record, that Plaintiff maintains a First Amendment right to picket and to attend HOA meetings.
2. Deliberate Omission to Law Enforcement: Despite this judicial guidance, Defendants repeatedly summoned police, citing an Order of Protection while intentionally failing to disclose the First Amendment "carve-outs" established by the Court. This omission led to the repeated false detention and arrest of the Plaintiff.
3. Motive and Intent: The subpoenaed communications are the only way to prove this was a coordinated effort to weaponize the police against a Whistleblower rather than a legitimate request for protection.
   
   

B. The Absolute Right to HOA Transparency and the Legal Impossibility of "Theft." Defendant Charlotte Smith used her Public Persona to accuse Plaintiff "on the record" of the theft and unauthorized distribution of a financial report and membership email list. These subpoenas are required to disprove these claims:

1. Lack of Access: Plaintiff had no access to the digital or physical repository where the Association’s financials or membership lists resided. Production of access logs, repository records, and communications from Community Property Management is the only way to prove Plaintiff could not have "stole" what he could not access.
2. Legal Impossibility under Governing Documents: Even if Plaintiff had obtained such records, it would not constitute "theft" or "unauthorized" distribution. Under the Autumn Lakes Governing Documents (Declaration Art. 13.4; Bylaws Art. IX), all members have a contractual right to this information. One cannot "steal" information to which they have an absolute contractual right of access.
3. Evidence of Fabrication: The production of the financial documents, repair work orders, and all internal communications is necessary to prove the Defendants knew their accusations were baseless and were made solely for the improper collateral purpose of inflicting emotional distress on a whistleblower.
   
   

C. Rule 56.01 and the "Legal Fiction" of Third-Party Privacy.

1. Waiver via Affidavit: In Exhibit 7b, John Smith swears Plaintiff "caused harm to our business." Under Rule 56.01, once a party claims financial damages, those business records (held by Coldwell Banker and MARIS MLS) are discoverable. Plaintiff is entitled to verify if the alleged "harm" was caused by Plaintiff or by the Defendants' own professional misconduct.
2. Testing the Affidavit: To quash these subpoenas would allow the Defendants to use their Affidavits as a "sword" to make self-serving claims while using the Motion to Quash as a "shield" to suppress the evidence that would prove those claims false.
   
   

III. CONCLUSION

The subpoenaed documents are the exclusive source of evidence for the motive, malice, and falsity central to this case. Quashing these subpoenas would grant the Defendants a "discovery vacuum" in which they could testify without accountability. Because these records tie directly to the Amended Petition and the Defendants' own Affidavits, and because Plaintiff has a contractual right to the HOA records, the subpoenas must stand.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court DENY Defendants’ Motion to Quash.