IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
DYLAN GOLDMAN

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALLISON EBERLY
Defendant.

Civil Action File

No.: 16CV1860-7

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE CONTESTING DEFENDANTS STATEMENT

OF MATERIAL FACTS
COMES NOW Dylan Goldman, Plaintiff in the above-styled case, and
pursuant to Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. Rule 6.5, files his separate statement of material
facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue to be tried.
1.
On January 29, 2016, defendant filed a Petition for temporary Protective
Order seeking protection from the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 1 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. Although the Defendant did file the aforementioned
TPO petition, she did so at 12:47 p.m. on January 29, 2016. However, the Plaintiff
filed this current defamation action at 11:24 a.m., one hour and twenty-three

minutes earlier. Since the TPO petition had not yet been filed at or before the time
that the present action was filed, any orders resulting therefrom cannot be
presented as a defense to the pleadings, as they did not exist until after this action
was filed.
2.
In her Petition, defendant outlined how plaintiff had placed her under
surveillance.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 2 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. HB-161, which was proposed to the Georgia General
Assembly would have amended O.C.G.A. 16-11-62 to include 16-11-62.1.
O.C.G.A. 16-11-62 outlines Georgia law regarding eavesdropping,
surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another,
but makes no mention of GPS tracking devices, or their placement, with or without
consent or knowledge of the tracked party, on the personal property of a private
party. Although the bill passed in the House, 5-2, it was never signed into law by
the Governors office. The bill was eventually killed, which is reflected within the
2010 House Conference Committee Report.
Also, the contents of the Defendants petition, which did not exist at the time
that the case was filed, should have no bearing in this action.
1

See Appendix A

3.
As a result of defendants petition, this Court entered a Family Violence Ex
Parte Protective Order.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 3 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. The Plaintiff disputes the contents of the Defendants
TPO petition and any documents resulting therefrom as false; no such document
existed at the time this complaint was filed. Also, an ex parte protective order relies
only on the allegations of one party; Given the evidence against Defendants
character in terms of untruthfulness.
4.
The Ex Parte TPO outlined defendants claims which included plaintiff
placing a GPS device on defendants car without her permission, defendant moving
in to defendants apartment complex, plaintiff entering defendants apartment
without permission, plaintiff sending defendant harass text messages and emails,
and defendant placing a large fake clown in front of defendants apartment with
knowledge that defendant suffers from Coulrophobia (fear of clowns).

Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 4 in the current action, and

challenges its admissibility. As the Ex Parte TPO did not exist at the time this
action was filed, this assertion, whether fact or fiction, is irrelevant in the current
defamation action against the Defendant. Eberly maintains that she developed
Coulrophobia while on a trip to the circus with her parents. She says that she fell
off of some metal bleachers after a clown snuck up on her and scared her so badly
she toppled backwards from the top row and fell into the crowd below. Given the
preponderance of evidence that the Defendants character is questionable at the
very least, the Plaintiff raises question as to the validity of this story, and to her
alleged phobia in general.
5.
As a result of the Ex Parte TPO, and upon this Courts finding that
probable cause exists that family violence has occurred in the past and may occur
in the future, plaintiff was enjoined from approaching within 100 yards of
defendant and was ordered to surrender his guns to the DeKalb County Sheriff
pending further court order. (Ex Parte TPO)
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 5 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. The legal system is not perfect; we see this most
often in the many case laws that have historically amended the Official Code of

Georgia, and will continue to do so as long as this system exists. But it is through
case law that the imperfections within the system are improved and/or rectified.
Before filing this action, the Plaintiffs understanding of the legal and judicial
systems was minimal, at best. In his ignorance, and per his pretrial meeting with
the liaison for the Womens Resource Center, the Plaintiff took what he believed to
be the best option available to him upon consenting without admissions. He
maintains that there was not enough probable cause that family violence has
occurred in the past or that it may occur in the future.
6.
On February 15, 2016, plaintiff and defendant agreed to a Consent Family
Violence Twelve Month Protective Order which was entered by this Court.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 6 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. Although the above statement is true, it has no
bearing in this action, as it did not exist at the time this action was filed. The
Defenses Statement of Material Facts is significantly flawed in that those
statements became facts based upon the dishonest statements made by the
Defendant while she was under oath. For instance, it is absolutely a fact that As a
result of defendants petition, this Court entered a Family Violence Ex Parte
Protective Order. However, what that statement of fact fails to state is that the

Defendants statements about the Plaintiff were egregious, boldfaced lies in order
to manipulate the legal system and inflict significant damage upon the Plaintiff.
7.
The Consent TPO states [Plaintiff] concedes that there is a factual basis for this
order and the parties consent thereto by affixing their signatures to the same.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 7 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. Although the above statement is true, it has no
bearing in this action, as it did not exist at the time this action was filed.
8.
The Consent TPO forbade plaintiff from harassing defendant. It prohibited
plaintiff from contacting defendant, surveilling defendant, molesting defendant,
and threatening defendant (among other things).
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 8 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. Plaintiff has not broken the Consent TPO in any way.
The Defendant has no grounds for making this sideways allegation, as he cannot
see what other purpose 8 serves other than a passive-aggressive tactic to infer the
Plaintiff has broken the agreement.
9.

Plaintiff agreed and was ordered to attend a family violence intervention

program.
Plaintiff disputes the relevance of 9 in the current action, and
challenges its admissibility. Plaintiff did not agree to attend a family violence
intervention program - he was required to when he consented without admissions
to the TPO of which he learned during his Pretrial meeting with the liaison from
the Womens Resource Center. He is seeking compensation for his expenses for the
classes, which is stated within the pleadings of this action.

Respectfully submitted this 11 day of May, 2016.

__________________________
Dylan Goldman, Plaintiff, Pro Se
3106 Summit Lake Drive
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 989-3868